Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Milan Announces Ambitious Scheme To Reduce Car Use After Lockdown (theguardian.com) 95

Posted by BeauHD from the new-and-improved dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Milan is to introduce one of Europe's most ambitious schemes reallocating street space from cars to cycling and walking, in response to the coronavirus crisis. The northern Italian city and surrounding Lombardy region are among Europe's most polluted, and have also been especially hard hit by the Covid-19 outbreak. Under the nationwide lockdown, motor traffic congestion has dropped by 30-75%, and air pollution with it. City officials hope to fend off a resurgence in car use as residents return to work looking to avoid busy public transport.

The city has announced that 35km (22 miles) of streets will be transformed over the summer, with a rapid, experimental citywide expansion of cycling and walking space to protect residents as Covid-19 restrictions are lifted. The Strade Aperte plan, announced on Tuesday, includes low-cost temporary cycle lanes, new and widened pavements, 30kph (20mph) speed limits, and pedestrian and cyclist priority streets. The locations include a low traffic neighborhood on the site of the former Lazzaretto, a refuge for victims of plague epidemics in the 15th and 16th centuries. Work could start on an 8km stretch of Corso Buenos Aires, one of the city's most important shopping streets, by the beginning of May -- with a new cycle lane and expanded pavements. The remainder of the work will be completed by the end of the summer, officials say.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Milan Announces Ambitious Scheme To Reduce Car Use After Lockdown More

Milan Announces Ambitious Scheme To Reduce Car Use After Lockdown

Comments Filter:

  • In downtown Portland, Oregon, the roads are so close together that too much of the tax bill is for road maintenance on roads that aren’t very useful. In practice, a high percentage of people who work downtown take light rail to get there, since the roads are such a mess.

    Salt Lake City does it a bit better. Its downtown blocks are nearly ten times the size of those in Portland, an order of magnitude difference (1/8 of a mile per side of each block). While it would be nice if Salt Lake City had bette

    • 1/8 of a mile per side of each block

      Which of course doesn't get taxed. Wasting land like that is why SLC can't afford better public transportation!

      • 1/8 of a mile per side of each block

        Which of course doesn't get taxed. Wasting land like that is why SLC can't afford better public transportation!

        I don't understand. What isn't getting taxed? If SLC has fewer roads, wouldn't that mean less untaxed land?

        And do you have numbers showing how tax revenues would be different if there were more or less land given to roads? Not to mention, how would you propose changing the spacing between roads after the city is already built?

        • If SLC has fewer roads...

          Do they? The main block size may be 1/8 mile (actually more like 800 feet) but a satellite view shows many intermediate like Pierpont and Edison which Portland doesn't have. Also a lot of alleys. Plus SLC keeps a 150 foot right of way, where Portland is 60 feet. This is what I meant by "wasted land."

          Worse, SLC has far fewer people per square mile to make up for the lost tax revenue! (1,818 people per square mile for SLC, 4,895 for Portland.)

          And do you have numbers showing how tax r

          • Huge amount of the land in SLC is owned by the LDS church and pays no property tax., In fact Utah has the highest rate of land exempt from property tax due to religious exemption in the Nation.

            Our public transit sucks not because their isn't the revenue to support it, it sucks because the Utah legislature is very very hostile towards mass transit, or anything that isn't spending on roads. We kept expanding the highways only to see induced demand bring the traffic situation back to where is started. The n

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        Public transportation isn't the goal, and shouldn't be. Easy access is the goal, and public transportation is an awkward compromise that works well enough in some areas. Simply having adequate roads built works well enough in other areas. Eventually public-owned self-driving cars will be another tool for another set of circumstances.

        It's about the right tool for the job, not trying to force one solution everywhere.

        • and I'm the only passenger how does that help pollution? I'm still driving everywhere, I'm just not paying attention to the road anymore.

          Or did you mean "public" as in the government? In that case isn't that just Public Transportation, meaning Public Transportation _is_ the solution?....

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ichijo ( 607641 )

          Public transportation isn't the goal, and shouldn't be. Easy access is the goal

          Agreed.

          Simply having adequate roads built works well enough in other areas.

          But not well enough to pay for themselves [taxfoundation.org]!

          It's about the right tool for the job, not trying to force one solution everywhere.

          Agreed, let's stop forcing people who don't drive to subsidize the roads. We'll let the market decide how people should get around from now on, not politicians who enjoy free parking at city hall at taxpayer expense!

          • Agreed, let's stop forcing people who don't drive to subsidize the roads.

            Even people who don't drive benefit from roads. They allow consumer goods to reach the stores, ambulances and fire trucks to respond to emergencies, facilitate the delivery of mail and the provision of services, and give you the option to use a bus or taxi if you do decide to one day leave the house.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Ichijo ( 607641 )

              When I buy something from the store, aren't I already paying to ship it to the store? So why should I pay for the roads again through the sales tax?

        • "Public transportation isn't the goal, and shouldn't be. " - it has to be as the roads are far too crowded in cities/towns now for individual cars, self-driving or not. Towns that are sparsely populated are a different beast, they can still cope with individual cars etc

      • Meaning you think the 10 times larger blocks are too small? Or are you talking Portland can't afford better public transportation? I know there was talk of scaling things back if they went fareless.

  • If that is there solution, there is no way it will fly.

    • If that is there solution, there is no way it will fly.

      In the short term, they're taking road space - which isn't being used due to the reduced traffic - to allow more room for pedestrians to practice distancing.

      In the long term, they're considering keeping the measures to solve a different problem: pollution.

    • Never been to an Italian city center, have you?

      Go try StreetView.

      Unless it is a small hatchback, it won't even fit some streets *at all*.

      Those cities were built for pedestrians. Not 4-ton trucks for cream cake cemeteries. :)

    • This is just dumb politicians.

      Looks roads empty, one of our big problems solved. Now just make it permanent.

      Genius at work, do not disturb.

  • Utterly retarded (Score:2, Interesting)

    by melted ( 227442 )

    Cars stop the spread of the virus by confining the people inside. Public transport, walking, and biking _increase_ the spread of airborne pathogens. NYC and London are fucked precisely because of public transport (and in particular public transport with forced airflow, like subway) direct contact.

    • Nah ... we'll approach herd immunity long before car-based cities will, and you'll palaver in fear in your cars long after our epidemics have burned out. The goal at this point should likely be controlled spread ... figure out who's vulnerable, protect them, while allowing the rest of people to develop immunity slowly.
      • If by herd immunity you mean that all the most vulnerable people will already be dead, then yes, then densely populated public transport-based cities like NYC are definitely approaching it faster. Shelter in place is only doing so much for them, since it basically means "stay in your high rise apartment where a central HVAC network means you are sharing the air with 1000 other people."

        The environmental movement needs to quickly come to grips with the fact that many of its goals (trying to get people to d
        • Most apartment buildings in NYC don't share HVAC systems between units. Why should we all live in suburban hellholes just to protect 0.1% of vulnerable people? Those 0.1% of people (the old and ill) are welcome to move to the 'burbs or rural areas if they're worried about their health. As far as walking and biking, they probably do more to improve human health in general vs the risks they pose in an unusual situation for modern times.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by melted ( 227442 )

            They share elevators, guardrails, door knobs, and so on and so forth. Touch one of those things, rub your eyes or pick your nose without thinking, and welcome to "herd immunity" or death in 2-3 weeks.

            • Death for, what, under 0.1% of healthy humans? Why should we coward out and change our entire lifestyle -- you know that about 1% of all humans kick the bucket every year?

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by melted ( 227442 )

                0.1% of US population is 320K people tho.

                • So what? 2-3 million did every year, about 1% of the population.

                  • Re: (Score:1)

                    by melted ( 227442 )

                    At least a fraction of that is _in addition_ to those already dying. Excess deaths are fairly easy to see. And it's 0.1 only if everybody is not sick at the same time, and if supplies and equipment have been ramped up, which they now are, but weren't 2-3 months ago.

                    I'm not saying it's worth destroying the economy over this. I'd in fact say it's not. But I think you can appreciate how, politicially, this would be a very hard decision to make. Thankfully at least the US is now run by a guy who's got a pair.

                    • Trump is a thief and an incompetent ... Cuomo is the one showing balls here, keeping the city closed until we have more data, not just saying "YEEHAW, let's open tomorrow!"

                    • Re: (Score:1)

                      by melted ( 227442 )

                      Cuomo literally oversees the state with one of the highest infection and death rates in the world. By any objective metric, he's a total and absolute fuckup of a governor. I don't know how you can even begin to argue otherwise.

                      Literally nobody is saying "let's open NY" tomorrow. Trump isn't saying that either. That's why there's a multi-stage plan conditioned on achieving certain milestones.

                      But Trump is also saying let's open up the states where there isn't much of a problem, which is majority of the United

              • are you prepared to be part of that 1% due to someone else's negligence?
                • 1% risk of death vs living as a social isolate in a ar-based stinking suburban hell? Yeah, I'll take that risk.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AvitarX ( 172628 )
            It's more than 0.1%.

            More than that have already died in NYC, and people are still dying.
            • Saving lives shouldn't be an excuse to change to an Earth-destroying, socially-isolated shit lifestyle. The weak and old should be protected, the rest of us should go on enjoying our lives, not isolating ourselves for eternity,
        • Oh, and fuck WFH/distance learning. Those are great as part-time solutions, but humans are really meant to interact with other humans in person. We evolved to do so. Sitting behind a fucking screen is a poor substitute for working in person or attending a seminar in person.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      Waking and biking are so-so. It's possible to maintain social distance, especially if it's not too crowded, though the idea of cyclists following any sort of rules of the road may be fantasy. Public transport is far worse, because the virus survives on surfaces for a long time, so social distancing isn't a fix.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dwywit ( 1109409 )

        This is Italy - it's a part of life to see and be seen walking along streets and shopping malls. Italians were strolling about long before mechanised transport.

    • Re:Utterly retarded (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2020 @05:27PM (#59977768)

      Cars stop the spread of the virus by confining the people inside.

      This has nothing to do with viruses other than timing. Your virus will be over this year, and Milan will still have thousands of people dying yearly from PM10 related deaths, to say nothing of the people in hospitals.

      Also NYC and London are not "fucked precisely because of public transport". They are fucked because as the virus was rapidly spreading they were sitting watching much of the rest of the world taking preventative measures with their thumbs up their assess. There are plenty of European cities which put London and NYC to shame for public transport and cycling and yet are fairing much better.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by melted ( 227442 )

        Yeah, sure. It has nothing to do with infected people packed like sardines in subway cars while their disease filled droplets are force-blown from one end of the car to another. Nothing whatsoever to do with that. Nor does it have anything to do with extremely high population density and the fact that normally you can't see the sidewalks when looking from above. Do you even believe what you're saying? Are you _that_ "gifted"?

        • Most EU rapid transit spend some time out of the tunnel and have large windows allowing sun light to flow in. Most public transport operators resist haveing the homeless making homes in their stations and on their trains. The NYC rapid transit in particular was burred underground and some lines rarely emerging from bat cave conditions into the UV light of spring. The tunnels being occupide by the homeless in abandoned corners and alcoves. Being 130+ years old the NYC subway desing was not about airfl

        • Yeah, sure. It has nothing to do with infected people packed like sardines in subway cars while their disease filled droplets are force-blown from one end of the car to another. Nothing whatsoever to do with that.

          Indeed it doesn't. Many cities have sardine packed subways and ever more dense population than London or New York. Neither even make the top 50 list, though if you dishonestly isolate Manhattan itself then you do get quite high. There are European cities in that list, both higher in terms of population density and in public transport use than both, and they are fairing far better than London or NYC. The sad thing is this even applies when you look at absolute figures ignoring the fact that the cities in que

      • Cars stop the spread of the virus by confining the people inside.

        This has nothing to do with viruses other than timing.

        The fine summary literally says "Milan is to introduce one of Europe's most ambitious schemes reallocating street space from cars to cycling and walking, in response to the coronavirus crisis."

        In response to ... so literally they are saying "get out of your car and walk around other people." Which makes no sense.

        • Sure it does ... this pandemic will eventually end, either by suppression, vaccination, or natural herd immunity. When it does, do we want a society that's healthier, more fit, and less abusive of the Earth, or do we want to go back to the same bad habits? Epidemics have happened before ... the world kept on spinning even if a small % of the population croaked.

        • When you take single sentences out of context you run the risk of looking like an idiot. Do yourself a favour and at least read a full paragraph to understand what is being talked about. If you did, and you bothered to go one sentence further on you'll realise it's directly in response to the coronavirus demonstrating what a huge impact car traffic has directly on pollution in Milan.

          Context is important to understand all languages except for mathematics.

        • In response to ... so literally they are saying "get out of your car and walk around other people." Which makes no sense.

          No. They're saying, "You've already stopped driving your car because you're staying home. While the streets are clear, we're going to rearrange things to prioritize walking and cycling over driving. When the lockdown ends, leave the car home."

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

        Cars stop the spread of the virus by confining the people inside.

        This has nothing to do with viruses other than timing. Your virus will be over this year,...

        Whoa, that's news. This virus belongs to melted? Let's kick his ass if it's his.
        BTW, nobody is projecting the virus will be over this year. We're looking at least 3 years. Maybe longer because of shutting down. Google seasonal virus 1995 and it'll pull up 1995, 1996, 1997 when we had a virus that was worse than this one. Lots of people died, there was no shut down. No mass hysteria to play politics with.

        In fact the Stanford study and others show that the infection rate is somewhere from 22 - 88 times worse

      • This has nothing to do with viruses other than timing.

        True.

        Your virus will be over this year

        Not this year, next year.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      People safe in their cars.
      From their own home to the destination.
      Now city and national politics want people walking around together?
      Hours in a shared bus, train, walking around?
      A car keeps people apart and enjoying the freedom to travel.
      Free of a gov set route and time table.
      Not having a gov demand local people, random people from EU nations and tourists walk around together to shop, work.
      Having a car is freedom, security and comfort. People all over Italy worked hard to buy a nice car. Their own
    • yes, but those cities will be stuffed by gridlock without public transport and people driving their cars into them (car share won't work either). a plan is needed to make public transport safer

  • Remember that this is how it used to be. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2020 @04:03PM (#59977490)

    The streets used to be for everyone.

    Before the campaign that blamed pedestrian deaths *on the pedestians*.

    • The streets used to be for everyone.

      Before the campaign that blamed pedestrian deaths *on the pedestians*.

      Literally, Horseshit. Streets (and the roads that existed before them, dating back to Rome and beyond) were always primarily for vehicular transport. That meant horse-drawn carts at first (thus, the horseshit). Then it meant motorized vehicles. But roads/streets have never been primarily for on-foot travel. You can walk on foot, or on horseback, across damn near any surface. Roads were specifically for smoothing the way for vehicular transport to boost commerce. Romans didn't build roads to walk on. They bu

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Literally, Horseshit. Streets (and the roads that existed before them, dating back to Rome and beyond) were always primarily for vehicular transport. That meant horse-drawn carts at first (thus, the horseshit). Then it meant motorized vehicles. But roads/streets have never been primarily for on-foot travel. You can walk on foot, or on horseback, across damn near any surface. Roads were specifically for smoothing the way for vehicular transport to boost commerce. Romans didn't build roads to walk on. They bu

      • Streets (and the roads that existed before them, dating back to Rome and beyond) were always primarily for vehicular transport.

        You have a citation for that? Here's a citation [wikipedia.org] for what you're arguing is "horseshit". The auto lobby effectively bullied people out of the streets to make way for cars.

  • Perfect timing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2020 @05:08PM (#59977708)
    With predictions of a severe recession, depression even, this would be the perfect time to start planning & implementing public works programmes & renovate & modernise public infrastructure in towns & cities. Unemployment's gonna be high & just giving people money to live on will only work for so long. Most people need a purpose in life, a chance to contribute to their society (well, maybe not Americans), & this is a chance to kill two birds with one stone: Prevent alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, civil unrest, etc., & catch up on some much needed investment in public infrastructure.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's the only way out of this. Don't make the same mistake as the UK and try to do austerity and cutting everything back, it doesn't work. Stimulate your way out.

  • It's km/h, not kph, you insensitive clod.
  • Almost the same thing is planned in Turin, where a lot of avenues have a "controviale" or side street, the idea is to put a 30 km/h speed limit and becuse mort of the controviali haven't roght of way but instead the roads intersecting them, that will slow down traffic. Except that on some avenues if one has to turn left has to thake the side road the intersection before and turn left when the main avenue has a red light. Other cities in Italy have side roads, but Turin is full of them. You are suppes to dri

  • Yes, you can force people to not use their car if you make it super hard. And you could probably get the same amount to switch if you made alternatives BETTER!?!?!

    We can see your goal by your solution. You aren't here to help. You want to force your idea on everyone else.

    • And you could probably get the same amount to switch if you made alternatives BETTER!?!?!

      I doubt it. People are deeply irrational about cars and also selfish. They don't care that their car caused pollution is killing people.

      You want to force your idea on everyone else.

      Well that's better than you: you want to force your pollution and the attendant death on everyone else.

    • And you could probably get the same amount to switch if you made alternatives BETTER!?!?!

      Clearly you've never been to Milan. The alternatives are already excellent. Their only remaining problem is that the city is too car friendly, and people make stupid decisions such as driving for 25 minutes when public transport gets them there in 27 completely ignoring the externalities of the problems they create around them. Sometimes it takes a push to realise how dumb your past practices actually were.

      Groenigen did that in the 70s. As a small experiment they divided the city into quadrants between whic

  • Transforming car-roads to pedestrian and cycle lanes increases contact with other people. Contact helps corona to spread faster.
    This is illogical, counter-productive and stupid.

    What am I missing here? Italian logic?

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close