Most cities are trying to remove the private car from streets. There are principles around induced demand [1] and traffic evaporation [2] that come into play.
The principle of induced demand is that by making it easier to drive, you encourage car use, creating more congestion. You are better off making it harder for cars to access the city centres. Where major routes prioritise modal equality where separate space is provided for walking, cycling, and driving. Only after those are catered for do you provide on street parking.
Traffic evaporation is a term to describe the way humans think about driving. Most people perceive traffic in a similar way to the way water works in rivers. If you reduce flow then you create massive tail backs. However humans do not behave that way. What happens is that if a route becomes too difficult/congested, people look at alternative routes or even change mode of travel.
Parking control (you know you can't park in that area unless you have a permit) has been used extensively in NYC to discourage car use. Conversion of parking space to cycle spaces is also key to encouraging modal shift [3]. Nottingham UK, is using the workplace parking levy to finance and built its tram system [5].
Use of filtered permeability [4] is a significant tool in still enabling access to roads for motor vehicles, but making it less direct for cars by closing off roads as a through road. Rising bollard systems can enable a city to provide efficient public bus services.
The key bit to realise is that with urban design the car is no longer considered a good form of transport, particularly as more people move into cities. It is exceptionally inefficient and requires an immense amount of space as well as storage space.
I suspect that most cities will move towards a hyper aggressive approach to keeping cars on the edge of cities using a combination of parking control, congestion charging, making available routes into the city less direct for private vehicles.
I also see technology being vital to bridge the boundary between urban and rural living. Current public transport models are based on providing regular services using peak hour vehicle requirements. Yes a 120 capacity double length bus at 8am is right, but at 9pm it could easily be an 8 seater bus.
(I really should have applied for the ycombinator future cities team ;) )
I find the exuberance around cycling from this primarily California audience fairly grating.
Cycling is great... in the handful of months the weather allows for it in northern states.
It's also frustrating that cities are looking to make driving worse, but not (generally) to build rail infrastructure to make transit better.
I was once enthusiastic about carless urban life, but after experiencing it for a while... all the things you mentioned are likely to push me out into the exurbs.
When London looked at the population growth and how it could "keep" the city moving, they needed to get 5% of the population cycling all year round. It is very much a nudge psychology.
The principle of induced demand is that by making it easier to drive, you encourage car use, creating more congestion. You are better off making it harder for cars to access the city centres. Where major routes prioritise modal equality where separate space is provided for walking, cycling, and driving. Only after those are catered for do you provide on street parking.
Traffic evaporation is a term to describe the way humans think about driving. Most people perceive traffic in a similar way to the way water works in rivers. If you reduce flow then you create massive tail backs. However humans do not behave that way. What happens is that if a route becomes too difficult/congested, people look at alternative routes or even change mode of travel.
Parking control (you know you can't park in that area unless you have a permit) has been used extensively in NYC to discourage car use. Conversion of parking space to cycle spaces is also key to encouraging modal shift [3]. Nottingham UK, is using the workplace parking levy to finance and built its tram system [5].
Use of filtered permeability [4] is a significant tool in still enabling access to roads for motor vehicles, but making it less direct for cars by closing off roads as a through road. Rising bollard systems can enable a city to provide efficient public bus services.
The key bit to realise is that with urban design the car is no longer considered a good form of transport, particularly as more people move into cities. It is exceptionally inefficient and requires an immense amount of space as well as storage space.
I suspect that most cities will move towards a hyper aggressive approach to keeping cars on the edge of cities using a combination of parking control, congestion charging, making available routes into the city less direct for private vehicles.
I also see technology being vital to bridge the boundary between urban and rural living. Current public transport models are based on providing regular services using peak hour vehicle requirements. Yes a 120 capacity double length bus at 8am is right, but at 9pm it could easily be an 8 seater bus.
(I really should have applied for the ycombinator future cities team ;) )
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearing_traffic [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share [4] http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/dictionary/filtered-permea... [5] http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/transport-parking-and-stree...