Preamble
Car Free Honor Roll - Introduction
Current Summary and Overview
Opening Statement
Discussion
Short Takes
Useful Links
Back to top
Preamble: What Should an International Prize Be Trying to Do
Like many other passionate supporters of socio-technical initiatives that advance the sustainability and social justice agenda anywhere in the world in meaningful ways, we have long been active proponents of the idea of high profile international recognition of outstanding accomplishment for these people and places. Happily to say, we are not alone in this. However, since this is an increasingly popular topic, both for discussion and in actual practice, we may do well to indicate here what we regard as being among the most important qualities that such projects and accomplishments should have in order to achieve their greatest impacts.
There are basically five "pillars" of our prize philosophy here at The Commons which we set out here in the hope that we may somehow "infect" others with these same values. In brief and in order, they touch on matters of social justice, local initiative, potential for self-replication, they way they handle time, and their potential for making good things better yet.
The first pillar of our award philosophy is a firm belief that the final crux of any such prize worth its name must be its contribution to social justice, both in the place where the concept has been successfully demonstrated but also its potential for achieving such impacts in other places where it might be replicated. It will be important to single out initiatives that have more than proportionate positive impacts on the lives of those people for whom life is clearly harder in many respects: because their incomes are very low, their days hard, their health not what it might be, their education under par, their social integration and economic opportunities not fully assured. Any project which does not make a fierce effort to ensure that these less favored elements of society are not major beneficiaries of the new arrangements is not, in our view, worthy of consideration for such a prize.
Secondly, we consider it absolutely vital that any such accomplishment be above all based on local initiative, inputs and partnerships. If the project is simply parachuted on a basically passive place and driven by external experts, finance and... values, then we cannot give it our vote.
Third, to our mind the initiatives that deserve to be singled out in this way are those which have a definite 'self-replicating" potential. By this we mean concepts or approaches which are so demonstrably superior to prevailing practices that they lend themselves to rapid replication elsewhere. This, in fact, is the real acid test of success.
To make sure that we get our precise point across hers, we would like to contrast the kinds of approaches we have in mind for such recognition from some of the others that often get media attention and large gobs of public funding. The first are those projects or approaches which attain their success as a result of "throwing dollars at the problem". By this we mean those projects which owe their accomplishments above all to a considerable and continuing flow of public funding, and which therefore cannot be thought of as "naturally self-replicating". Again, in this regard, we need perhaps to point out that no matter how admirable may be the accomplishments of such privileged enclave projects, given their special financial character they probably offer little if anything to most of the people and places on this planet who simply do not have money to throw at their problems, at least not on that scale.
The fourth pillar has to do with a mature handling of the time vector. Getting anything of value accomplished in a complex, in many ways fundamentally inertial social and human environment (that being the nature of man), requires in the final analysis not so much a quick fix or once-off solution as a process, which may be long, laborious and problematical. The advantage of a process that spins out over of time is that it gives us the possibility to learn and adapt, to learn from failure as well as success, and to "grow" organic solutions packages of many parts and with many people and groups behind them.
Finally, we would like to stress our firm belief that one of the goals of such a high profile reward should be, not only to draw the attention to the world of this great way of doing things -- but also to provide support for all those in the city or group that has won the award to stride ahead and do better yet. Success in these challenges is never easy, and the achievement is inevitably 'work in progress'. So if we can use these international awards to enco
urage and support the recipients in their quest to do better yet, than we will have make a final, very important contribution.
Introduction
The objective of this brand new cooperative international undertaking is to see if we can get together in the coming weeks to create and publicize an annual "Car Free City Honor Roll", which we can somehow with great fanfare and publicity announce on the occasion of the first World Car Free Day on 21st September 2000. And then again the next day in cooperation with the fine European Car Free Day program.
If you are interested to follow these discussions, you can do so right here via following synopsis which will be regularly updated in an attempt to report directly on the main line of the responses thus far received. On the communications side, we intend to try hard to ensure that there will be at least one place on the Web in which all messages on this topic are brought together for handy access. To this end, we have taken the lock off the barn of the @ccess Message Center site for the duration (this portion is normally limited to partners and registered visitors only), so that any and all can come in, have a look, and add their wise rejoinder, information or suggestion. Another good source is the CarFree eGroup of Joel Crawford and his team.
We ask that all comments for this topic to the lists kindly be labeled as "Car Free City Annual Honor Roll". To report to and share your ideas with the group, you can click here to send your message to the Message Center for all to read and react to.. If you prefer to make your remarks off list, you can simply click the Send E-Mail icon here and let us hear from you in private.
We intend eventually to work with the group in the weeks ahead to pull together sections of these materials and ideas to see if we can together fashion a working scheme and inputs that will allow us to get this interesting job done in a convivial and efficient manner -- and with max impacts. The results of this team work will also be posted here.
your ideas and comments here.
Current Summary and Overview
As per today, 12 July, here are the main points which we can take from the steady flow of comments and ideas coming in:
- This is a good idea. Do it!
- Careful not to let the drive for detail make this into something which is half way between undoable and unreadable (KISS, in a word).
- We do not need to try to be "exactly and scientifically right". This is poetry and not prose.
- On the other hand we do need to be clear, checkable and convincing -- and fair.
- There has to be a cogent, understandable reason for the nomination. It must grab the attention. Convince.
- Above all, we are trying to get a point across and stimulate what? .... emulation, so that the good ideas and practices will be picked up and spread as they should in this day of such effective mass education and communications.
- There seems to be some potential for a 'focus trap', i.e., letting our whole exercise be dominated about thinking or preferences for a given mode, in particular cycling or traditional public transit.
- This is not, repeat NOT, an anti-car exercise (or at least as we understand it at The Commons). It is rather about people and quality of life in our communities as in part mediated by good, clean, equitable mobility.
- Probably a good idea to distinguish the mega-cities from the rest.
- The "Badge of Shame" should be useful, fun, and instructive.
- May be a good idea to encourage specific country rankings as well (where we have the available horsepower in the group to do this right).
- The best way to make this work will be to have fun, be dead serious and get lots of people involved.
- The media end of this will need lots of attention.
- No one should say anything cruel about Canada. Eh?
More here as things come in and we figure out how to make sense of the whole lot without drowning you in detail. In the meantime, here is the growing list of cities thus far been mentioned as interesting for consideration (positive consideration that is): Zurich, Curitiba, Toronto, Portland, Helsinki, Gronigen, Graz, Venice, Bogotá, Cambridge, Fez, Vancouver, San Francisco, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Davis (CA), Madison (WI), Chichester (UK). . . The point here being really just to get the juices flowing on this for now. Likewise, you may find a few ideas of inspirations in the Useful Links section at the bottom of this page.
Original Opening Statement
From: E. Britton, EcoPlan, Paris, Sun 07/09/2000
Summary: Might we put our heads together and develop a high profile, international cooperative platform for discerning an annual International CarFree City Honor Role?
1. Mr. Potts of Oklahoma City wrote to CarFree Cities on this date as follows: "I hope to relocate in the next year or two. When I do so, I will be looking to live some place where I can consider ditching my car. Does anyone rank places according to their pedestrian and transit friendliness? If so, where are some of the best cities, towns, and neighborhoods?"
2. That's a great question Mr. Potts, and to the best of my knowledge no such regularly updated 'honor roll' exists. But am I right in this? Can anyone out there give Mr. Potts more accurate information?
3. Of course we know about many of the groups, programs, publications, associations, Web sites, and others doing more or less similar things under broader categories such as ' sustainable cities'', 'livable cities' and the like. And while none of these do exactly the job that Mr. Potts is asking for, it is useful to know a bit about them since they are among the raw materials that we can use to fashion a powerful and useful cooperative action now. Among the first that come immediately come to mind. . .
- Kid Friendly Cities annual awards at - http://www.zpg.org/kidfriendlycities/independentranking.html
- Money Magazine annually reports on Best Places to live in US" - see http://www.money.com/money/depts/real_estate/bestplaces/
- International "Making Cities Livable" conference (see http://www.livablecities.org/)
- UNDP Best Practices (See this years competition at http://www.bestpractices.org, as well as http://www.sustainabledevelopment.org)
- UN Centre for Human Settlements Global Urban Indicators Project
- The Cities21 pilot project of the ICLEI, see http://www.iclei.org/cities21/index.htm
- UN Environment Programme Grid Arendal's CEROI (Cities State of the Environment Reports on the Internet).
- And while you're at it, maybe have a look at 21st Turtle Media - at http://www.ecoplan.org/21t
4. In addition to these more general sustainability groups and programs, there are a fair number of others working on these issues of sustainable transportation, efficiency and social justice - which if you add them all up come to the need for our cities being able to offer high quality, affordable transportation to people who for one reason or another do not own or have access to private cars. Among these are half a dozen programs of The Commons (http://www.ecoplan.org) -- but there are of course many more, including not least all the groups to whom this note is addressed.
5. So what about this for an idea? Suppose we put our heads together and develop a high profile, international cooperative platform for discerning an annual International CarFree City Honor Role??? Since this is exactly the sort of thing that we do in The Commons, we would be willing top take the lead in getting this going, but the idea would be not that this would be 'our' project or initiative, but rather that it be something that we would all (or at least a fair number of us) itch in to define, refine and make happen. Let me continue with this idea, if only briefly and in attempt to see if we might have a group idea here.
6. Then, once we have the basic concept sketched out so that it is ready for inspection and provides an adequate basis for eventual cooperation and exchange, we could then set out to share this with the thousand or so other groups around the world that have mandates and interests which make them natural allies for such a cooperative endeavor. Strength in numbers!
7. CRITERIA. It will be good to have a fairly comprehensive (but not too much so) checklist that will allow the 'judges' to make objective assessments. Certainly accident statistics and air quality somehow have to be factored in, as well as provision for cycling and pedestrians (as transportation); ease of access by those with disabilities of various sorts; quality, frequency and price of public transport; etc for less conventional alternative arrangements (carsharing, cab sharing, ride sharing, pool and shuttle services); etc. Some sort of awareness of computer/telecommunications availabilities as a "distance assuager" might also be in order. And of course, and as we all know, good planning and location are at the heart of any sustainable transport concept, and so that would have to somehow be favored in - though it's likely that we would see this above all through the various access and performance indicators that would come out of the survey.
6. FIRST ROUND CANDIDATES: Perhaps as good way as any of getting a running start on this will be to look at one or two handfuls of clear candidate cities, such as Zurich, Curitiba, Toronto, Portland, Helsinki, Gronigen, Graz, Venice (yes Joel, Venice) and, why not?, exactly what they are trying to get done in Bogotá. (And I am sure that those of you participating in these lists will have other good 'city/template candidates' for this drill.) We can then explore these real world situations to develop some guides for the more general characteristics that should enter into such a topology/scale. (And I am sure that those of you participating in these lists will have other good 'city/template candidates' for this drill.) In fact, the best approach would be to see if we can get one or two people in each of these candidates cities (since that is what they are) give a hand in preparing a short synopsis which illustrates why their city is 'car free friendly'.
7 The 2000 Car Free City Honor Roll Awards can be made via high profile public announcements - perhaps at time of @World Car Free Day (September 21 2000) when we anticipate that we will already have the attention of the world press and media (as we did in Bogotá in February). We can and should also cooperative on this as well with not only all those who are participating in the European Car Free Day the next day, but also those cities and places that are organizing car-free day projects on other dates (including, one might hope, the planned Day in Chengdu in October).
8. BADGE OF SHAME AWARDS: It may also be an idea to have a look at what makes a given town or city a particularly rotten place to live in, if you happen to be without a car. And why. Without wishing to be unkind, but perhaps a scan of a couple of places like Phoenix, Memphis, Perth (sorry Peter, I know that hurts), and the like might which may look good to outsiders but where the locals know the situation is pretty rotten (one of which just might be London, but there will be others). This last suggests that in parallel with the annual CFC Honor Roll we also consider coming up with a Badge of Shame Award for 5 or 10 of the world's leading "Car Hostage" cities: places in which if you don't have a car you might as well be dead. We should be able top find a few of those, and of course if we do this right this is exactly the sort of thing that the media laps up.
9. Let me close with an observation. If you are looking for a single activity or indicator that correlates strongly with any given place's 'car free friendliness' (we really must find better terms throughout), it's my guess that it would be the availability of carsharing as a non-own-car option. Why? Well, because carsharing really can only work well where there is already 'almost' a car free environment, or at least many of the preconditions of this, meaning good public transport, good clustering of activities and nodes so that non-motorized transport is a real option for many trips, etc. That was, in fact, why at one point we were referring to carsharing as the 'missing link in the sustainable transportation system'.
Might we have a group activity here? Ideas, suggestions, feedback?
Eric Britton
Discussions
From: Derek Scrafton, [mailto:derek.scrafton@unisa.edu.au]
Just a comment on cities you can live in without a car. I have lived in a handful of locations on three continents in my life, in each case for some or all the time without owning a car - I have to tell you it makes not a jot of difference to one's lifestyle. Some combination of transit, cabs, rental cars etc. is always available to ensure your accessibility, and compared to the cost of ownership you will have money to spare to use these options as necessary.
As to your 'bad guy' list of cities, I have to tell you it is no more difficult to get around by transit in Perth than it is in Toronto. All you need you need in these cities is a current timetable,a mindset to get out and use the network and a willingness to walk a few blocks from time to time.
Incidentally, my three longest stays in life have been in West Yorkshire, Ottawa and Adelaide. In all these cases, one could live happily and comfortably without a car; the fact that people choose to otherwise does not negate that fact.
Best of luck to Mr Potts in his search for a place to live without a car - his biggest problem will be picking one from many. My choice of big cities would be San Francisco or Vancouver BC, if he wished to stay in North America.
The idea of a league table or honor roll is interesting, but choosing criteria that span the different demographic, topographic and political (subsidy) characteristics of cities needs careful research. The people at Murdoch are well qualified to take it on!
P.S. In the interest of the debate I didn't put in above my 'qualifier': that the evenings, weekends and public holidays are the times when the dedicated transit user is tested!
Transport Systems Centre, University of South Australia
Adelaide, South Australia 5000
email: derek.scrafton@unisa.edu.au
http://www.unisa.edu.au/tsc/index.html
From: Prof. Peter Newman
Monday, 10 July 2000 4:03 PM
Our book 'Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence' is a guide book for Mr Potts. It has the data and the case studies for him to make up his mind. Check it out from our website below.
Director,
Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy
Murdoch University, PERTH Western Australia
e-mail: newman@central.murdoch.edu.au
web site: http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au
From: Martin Strid [mailto:martin.strid@v...]
Sent: Monday, 10 July 2000 11:28 AM
The idea of a transport situation world top list is not a bad one. I am more hesitant about the idea of a "bottom" list. Before naming cities, we should try to figure out which criteria the candidate cities should be judged by. If the criteria could be quantified based on some sort of statistics, a "bottom list" would come automatically. We would not have to invent it, that might be done by any local newspaper comparing its own home town to our "top list" criteria.
So what are the criteria? First of all, I think it is desirable to discern two or three areas of criteria:
1. Transport facilities within the city itself, 2. Transport facilities between the city and its surrounding "Umland", so that city people feel that they can reach green areas, fishing waters etc. from their homes, as well as people outside the city being able to reach it, in person and with goods supplies, 3. Transport between the city and other cities?
Criteria should of course include not only the availability and usefulness of various modes of transport, but also prices as an aspect of equity.
I believe there has to be a classification into city sizes as well. A "heavyweight" multimillion inhabitant city has totally different preconditions for supplying its citizens with transport facilities than a "welterweight" town of 50,000 people. On the other hand, a logarithm of the population could be a "division factor" of the "top list equation" by which the candidate cities' statistics are judged.
Could we have a "brainstorm" of criteria? Eric has already begun. Remember, in the brainstorm stage you may forward bad suggestions as well as good ones. Critical analysis and reduction of the number of suggestions is the next stage.
Criteria brainstorm:
- Proportions of traffic by passenger car, minibus taxi, bicycle, bus,
- train, foot etc.
- Cost per month or kilometer for "having" (in whatever fashion) a car
- versus using a bike or public transport.
- Time necessary to get from A to B (work, home, school, shopping, church,
- sports stadium etc.?) by various modes.
- Total average number of minutes per day spent on travelling.
- Average (fossil) carbon dioxide emissions per total kilometer travelled.
- Number of deaths in traffic accidents per 100,000 population.
- Age and income distributions of traffic deaths.
- Proportion of roads (lane kilometers) and bridges (number of lanes) open
- only to cars, prohibited for bicycles and pedestrians. (As a Swedish
- national, an engineer and a part of our road administration I can but say
- that I am ashamed of the new road linking the Danish capital to Sweden. It
- is called the Sound Bridge, though forbidding bicycle traffic has to be
- considered an unsound transport policy).
- Logistics of goods distribution: average number of delivery transports per
- year to shops in the town centre.
- Average distance travelled by food products from the cultivation fields to
- the end consumers, tonne of goods x kilometres / tonne of protein in the
- food, or: kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted / kilojoule of energy in the
- consumed food.
- Quality of life index divided by traffic quantity index.
Please take over.
# :-)
Martin Strid
Swedish National Road Administration, Environment and Natural Resources
Division
Vägverket, S - 781 87 Borlänge
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 08:27:29 -0600
From: michael and Karen Dudley umdudley@c...
If you're willing to consider moving to Canada (recently acknowleged--not for the first time--to be the best place in the world to live according to the UN's set of lifestyle indicators), then there are a number of cities that provide excellent transit, and walkable mixed-use districts. Edmonton, Alberta has a pretty lame light rail system but a reliable transit system nonetheless and some very nice walkable mixed-use neighbourhoods (we lived there car-free for 8 years); Calgary, Alberta has a very efficient light rail system but is largely suburban in character (my wife and I lived there car-free [in a suburb] for almost two years); Toronto, Ontario too has an extensive light rail system and some great mixed use districts (Jane Jacobs [Death and Life of Great American Cities] lives there and loves it) but it is a huge city and very expensive--yet it was rated by Bicycling Magazine to be the best cycling city in North America, mostly owing to its very active cycling community; and Vancouver, British Columbia has an active cycling community and an extensive cycle network. (I can't vouch for other Canadian cities, having not visited them as yet).
For the past two years we have lived car-free in Winnipeg, Manitoba (site of the Pan Am games last year) and for my money it is the best city in which to live car-free that I've yet seen. We live in an area known as Corydon/Osborne Village, and it a charming turn-of the [last] century district with dozens of independent shops and restaurants and great bus service. There are several other prominent mixed-use areas in this city--you can walk pretty much to everything you need if you live near them. It's also exceedingly flat so many people cycle here too. You can even see bicycle rickshaws in this area. It also boasts one of the largest urban forests in north America--most of the streets are lined cathedral-like with elm and maple trees. There's also very little in the way of traffic jams, and nothing that you'd call a freeway by American standards. Population is close to 700,000 and the housing is the most affordable in Canada.
Hope this helps--good luck with your decision!
Cheers, Michael Dudley
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:15:40 -0700
From: "Ross or Judy" rossjudy@m...
Michael Dudley gave a cycling summary of a few Canadian cities. I have been to or lived in them all. Except for Vancouver, they are all cold . When I went car free I moved to the west coast. In my opinion, the snow free coast is the only place where cycling a lot in the winter can be comfortable, and safe. Vancouver is too big, traffic is very congested and it is Canada's most polluted city. Victoria is the largest city that does not get snow or ice. There are lots of nice smaller communities up the coast and many laided by islands, some without car ferrys. I now live in Royston, close to Cumberland and Courtenay, in the Comox valley, on rainy Vancouver island. Its the best place for me to be carfree in Canada. I imagine Europe would be better. Many places in Asia are better. Even Mexico has a better mass transit system then the U.S. and Canada. Canada probably has the worst mass transit system in the world. Per person, they burn more oil then any other country in the world .
Not proud to be Canadian,
but proud to be carfree !
Ross
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000
From: Simon Norton norton@m...
I don't think that car sharing is a suitable indicator of car-free friendliness, because it is so much in its infancy that its existence and extent will depend more on the initiative of a few individuals who have the power to promote such a scheme, rather than the suitability of the relevant neighbourhood.
Incidentally, I don't think that London is a particularly strong contender for the "badge of shame" (if London, England is meant). It's not too good, I agree, but it's not as bad as all that. Or am I considered one of the "outsiders" to whom it looks good (though I live less than 60 miles away and was born and grew up there) ?
If any roll of honour or badge of shame is implemented, there should be several different categories for different sizes of city. It is ridiculous to try to compare New York with Graz.
Returning to car sharing, I believe that we should try to move to a situation where this becomes the default mode of access to cars. One factor which would help here is that developments based on it would be far more acceptable to people nearby than car-dependent developments, because they would bring improved facilities without extra traffic and with minimal loss of green space (as they would be far more compact), so local planners could gain the plaudits of local communities by insisting that new developments had to be of this form.
Simon Norton
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000
From: Karen Sandness
I haven't surveyed the whole country, of course, but my impression is that the Sun Belt is the worst place to be car-free. Most large Eastern cities still have pretty good public transportation, including New York, Boston, and Washington.
I've lived car-free in Portland, Oregon, since 1993, and it's quite easy. I've also heard that it's possible to do so in San Francisco, but unfortunately, the rents there are astronomical.
If you prefer smaller communities, try college towns. Both Corvallis and Eugene, Oregon are very bike-friendly, although their transit systems are merely okay. (I lived car-free in Corvallis for a year, and the only disadvantage was that I couldn't leave town, because the inter-city transportation network is underdeveloped.) Davis, California, is supposed to be pretty good for bikers, too. These three cities have the advantage of mild winters, so you don't have to bike through snow drifts.
I've heard that Madison, Wisconsin is also good for car-free folks,but those winters (sub-zero temperatures for at least part of the year) are enough to give a person pause.
I suppose the ideal biking community would be flat, built on a grid pattern, with mild winters.
Another thought--maybe you could help pioneer the car-free lifestyle in Oklahoma City. I'd be surprised if a city of that size didn't have at least some closet car-haters besides yourself.
Karen Sandness
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:16:01 -0500
From: "Jim Gregory" jim@b...
This question has come up many times, so today I spent a few hours compiling data and preparing a web site. Using U.S. Census data, I've ranked the 100 Most CarFree cities, the 100 "Most Biked" cities, the 100 "Most Walked" cities, and the 100 "Most Transit-Reliant" communities. You can find the data at http://www.bikesatwork.com/information/carfree. Please note: I'm in the middle of a long process of revising our site, so not all the links on these pages work. But, you should be able to access the tables from there.
Comments and suggestions are welcome.
Joan Stein & Jim Gregory, owners, Bikes At Work Inc.
216 N. Hazel, Ames, IA 50010-5948
http://www.bikesatwork.com
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000
From: Stephen D PHosking
This sounds like an excellent idea and I wonder why I hadn't thought of it before! I live in a small city (town really) - Chichester Sussex, and live car free very easily but I don't think it would class as a world city on any list!
Anyway if I can be of any assistance in data collection on cities in my vicinity (London, Southampton, Portsmouth, Brighton to name a few) let me know!
Should be worth doing
Stephen D P Hosking
From: Car Busters [mailto:carbusters@ecn.cz]
Sent: Wednesday, 12 July 2000 12:44 AM
I would hesitate to use the term "car-free cities" when we don't mean car-free cities literally. I just got back from a two-day "visioning workshop on car-free cities in Central and Eastern Europe." It was quite disappointing for me and others who expected a workshop on car-free cities, only to find that the organisers were just trying to be provocative with the title and were actually not in favor of car-free cities at all. The workshop then proceeded with various presentations on traffic reduction and bicycle infrastructure, without getting any new ideas out and avoiding the big questions. But if we're talking about the best places to live car-free, then that would be good. Of course often it is not a matter of what city you live in, but where within that city you live...
Having said that, I would nominate Fes El Bali, Morocco, as the best place in the world (that I have visited) for car-freedom. It is both virtually car-free and motorised-transport-free. With a population of just less than 300,000, Fes El Bali dates back to the 600s AD and has been remarkably preserved despite the tourists and the passing of time. You can walk anywhere within 40 minutes, nearly all the city is only accessible by donkey or by foot (on cobbled maze-like walkways), there is no public transport or bicycles (and neither is needed). Only a single narrow road penetrates into the city (this built by a corrupt mayor over a decade ago to give buses and taxis access to the city centre). This road doesn't bisect the city, but only goes halfway through and ends in a turn-around. There is virtually nowhere to park a car if you did own one. Only about five non-Moroccans live in Fes El Bali due to the difficulty of integrating into this traditional culture, though some foreigners do live in the Fes Nouvelle Ville, the ugly post-war Fes New Town. Between the two lies the third district of town, which was the Jewish quarter in the Middle Ages, and here as well the streets are mostly filled with pedestrians and donkey carts, which make way for the ever-present stream of taxis. Most of the food sold in Fes El Bali, I am told, is grown within 20 km of the city and arrives via donkey cart. Much of it is organic, without ever being labelled as such; it's just that many farmers cannot afford pesticides. Living costs are about one-tenth of those in the Western world. But I would not want to give Fes a highly publicised award, as this would encourage Westerners to move there rather than adapting its design principles to Western cities. If they moved there in significant numbers this could lead to the city's degradation in ways that we cannot even imagine. But unless they spoke French they probably wouldn't even consider moving there. Hmmm, more thought needed here...
Of course almost anywhere outside of the so-called First World (even including some First World cities within Third World countries) is pretty ideal for car-freedom. And in Europe there are so many possibilities that it would be impossible to rate them all according to subjective criteria for an annual award.
Several people writing in on this subject mentioned that the ideal car-free city should be flat. Well, Fez is virtually car-free but certainly not flat. Neither is the Croix-Rousse neighbourhood of Lyon, France, where I lived for three years. With one of the highest population densities in Europe, the Croix-Rousse still retains the charm of its 17th to 19th-century past. Situated on the side of a steep hill, the neighbourhood's up-down streets are not streets at all, but wide staircases. The neighbourhood has a population of 35,000, and you can reach any location within a ten-minute walk, not to mention the adjacent city centre which you can also quickly reach. Many of the narrow streets are often filled with traffic, but that doesn't impede one from living car-free here. There's also, of course, trams, buses and a metro -- but bicycling is impractical for use within the district. Bicycling is also nearly impossible in both Venice and Fes, which highlights the need for us to get over our bike fetishism and address more critical factors.
Anyway, sorry to rant on, but there is also a virtually car-free island off Hyeres, near Toulon, southern France, with a population of 500 or so. But it's truly paradise. There are also a couple of car-free islands in Greece that I have not visited myself, but I'll ask a friend who has been there to write in.
You might also want to know that the Utne Reader, a U.S. magazine, has "Ten Most Livable Cities" awards that they give out each year. Their judgement criteria include something about the ability to live car-free. Their "editor at large" Jay Walljasper is quite knowledgable on transportation and urbanism. They tend to pick out places like Arcata, CA; Boulder, CO; Madison, WI; Corvallis, Eugene and Portland, OR; Burlington, VT; etc. Although in general it's a pretty new-agey namby-pamby magazine, this annual feature is one of Utne's more useful contents. I'd certainly give Utne's selections more credence than those of Money magazine.
Randy Ghent
CAR BUSTERS Magazine and Resource Centre
Kratka 26, 100 00 Praha 10, Czech Republic
carbusters@ecn.cz www.carbusters.ecn.cz
John Holtzclaw, Sierra Club,
DATE: Tue, 11 Jul 2000
This is a great idea. I have one suggested addition. Keep it up.
"* Number of deaths in traffic accidents per 100,000 population." Also deaths and serious injuries per km, by mode. So deaths per 1000 km walked, biked, on transit, etc.
Sprawl and transportation website: http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl
From: David Meiklejohn
Sent: Wed 07/12/2000
The difficult thing seems to be coming up with criteria, especially when these may not be related to usage statistics for a particular mode. For example, I'd agree that many North American and some Australian cities have good transit systems or extensive bicycle paths, but still they tend to be dominated by the car.
At the other extreme, here in Cambridge, we have limited cycle paths but 25 per cent of the population cycling to work. The way people behave isn't necessarily related to what's on the ground. I'd agree with Simon Norton - why anyone actually wants to own a car in London is beyond me.
It almost comes down to how do you measure a city's "car free culture". Perhaps in lycra sales? I'm being frivolous but when it comes to distinguishing between cities further down the list without obvious city centre restrictions, it becomes a little difficult.
David Meiklejohn
Travel for Work Adviser
Cambridge, UK
From: Jeremy Hubble [mailto:blipbert@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 12 July 2000 7:55 PM
I have lived car-free in Temple and College Station Texas, Salt Lake city Utah, Arlington Heights and Chicago Illinois, and Redwood City California. It is pretty much possible to live and work any place without a car if proper concessions are made. Temple, TX didn't have any form of public transportation or any acknowledgment of bicycles. However, the climate was warm, and being a smaller city, it was easy to get around on bicycle. College Station has a small public transit system and many miles of bicycle lanes. However, it also has bicycle-restricted roads and was a little more difficult to get around. Redwood City (a suburb of San Francisco) has been the easiest city to live in car-free. The climate is mild - almost always perfect weather for biking or walking.
Public transit is excellent. (Due to the geography of the peninsula, most development is within a few miles of the San Francisco Bay - an area served by frequent bus and train routes.) Also, bicycles can be rolled on to nearly all transit systems, including intercity amtrak trains. The most glaring defect of the area is lack of bicycle and pedestrian access to all area bridges. (the Golden Gate, Dumbarton, and Antioch bridges being exceptions).
Arlington Heights (a Chicago suburb) was perhaps the most difficult - primarily due to the weather and lack of public transportation. Parking a beater bike at a train station or a bus stop was the best way to navigate the city - and that ended up being pretty miserable during the cold winters. Chicago also suffers from cold winters, but has a very good transportation system. Salt Lake's transit system is not that great (don't try to take a bus on Sunday!) However, the wide-grid layout of the streets and bike racks on buses make it a great city to navigate by bike.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
I like the idea of a car-free city honor roll but don't expect too much. It
will be difficult to give objective criteria and car-free doesn't
necessarly mean good living quality. A slum may well be car-free. A modern
city shopping area may be car-free, but also bike-free, which won't please
everyone. Some London streets are free of private vehicles but clogged with
buses and taxis.
The best car-free city in Europe must be Venice in Italy. Except for one
piazza and some docks there are no cars anywhere. The city is crossed by
many canals which are traversed by hump-backed bridges, making vehicular
traffic of any type impossible. All transport is on foot or by boat. There
are numerous water-buses. The city is too popular: too many tourists
inflate prices and outnumber residents by a great margin.
Some Italian, German, and French cities have large car-free centers which
are very pleasant. They could easily be extended. The problem here is that
residents don't want to give up their parking privileges.
Fortunate the towns which have no cars for geographic reasons, either
because the streets are too narrow or steep or the place is on an island or
up a mountain.
The strange thing is that such places are very popular with tourists, as
indeed are parks like Disney-Land or even large shopping centers, but the
very same people who love the car-free environment here insist on
travelling to these places by car and don't strive toward the same
living-quality at home!
The number of car-free people by choice continues to decline. The best
people like us can hope for is small islands of tranquillity amoungst the
general chaos and insanity. I have often wondered if it is better to have a
homogenous population or to have segregation between different groups.
Probably segregation is bad because groups begin to hate each other, as do
countless groups all over the world. Therefore car-free zones may in the
end be counter-productive. On the other hand, I wouldn't hate cars so much
if I lived in a car-free area.
The Canton of Bern has just ruled that car-free zones are not illegal, but
the building regulations still contain compulsory parking spaces and most
towns have plans for horrible new parkings and roads which are only not
being built because of lack of money and the general slowness of burocracy.
Theo Schmidt, Switzerland
From: eric.britton@ecoplan.org
CarFree Hall of Shame - London?
I would like to pursue briefly this concept, taking an example which thus
far has gotten more than its share of static. I refer in particular to my
proposal that we consider London as a candidate for the CarFree hall of
Shame award this year. This suggestion drew a certain number of howls of
protest (but none, to my knowledge, from anyone who is faced daily with
negotiating some of the least satisfactory aspects of present arrangements
there. Most of the protestors point out things like "world class metro",
"plentiful buses". "Clack Taxis", "Cycle provision" and the like.
But are some of the sort of things that the broadcasting of a well thought
out Shame Award from a city such as London might contribute to:
1. Shock value ("If a city we all thought was so great like London is that
bad, what about xxxx".)
2. A sophisticated appreciation of the fact that such a city may be able to
have some of the components that are needed for a global and fare solution,
and still miss out... and then name the specific areas in which it is doing
badly. (And this level of detail will be important.)
3. The negative orientation and detail of the Shame Awards will be important
as a contributor in the world fight toward more sustainable transport --
since often the positive examples, take Zurich as just one such example,
immediately lead most people to mumble, "well Zurich is different", etc.,
etc.
4. Everybody knows that if you don't have a car in the Phoenix's of this
world you die, and for those who live there and who even give a moment's
thought to possibly doing things a bit differently, the smothering inertia
of the present arrangements is such that everybody... everybody gives up on
trying to do better after a while.
5. Red Ken will love it.
6. And so will the media.
Of course one has to do this sort of thing, touchy business that it is,
well -- otherwise one gets boiled in oil. But we do have plenty of
knowledgeable colleagues there who are, I would imagine, well placed and
ready to help make this case.
Or do we?
Eric Britton
From: Car Busters [mailto:carbusters@ecn.cz]
Eric and others,
I really like this Hall of Shame idea (brainstorm needed on the final name),
and especially the London part, for the reasons Eric mentions and also since
the city hosts what is supposedly the highest-fare metro system in the
world. The rail privatisation is also a big issue that is making service
suffer, although this is throughout the U.K.
Although the other Carbies aren't around right now for us to discuss it, I'm
sure we could lend to the effort our U.K. press list and some coverage in
our magazine. Should run the idea by the people at the London Cycling
Campaign; they may have more thoughts; and also, among other people, Roger
Higman, the long-time transport campaigner at FOE.
Randy Ghent
CAR BUSTERS Magazine and Resource Centre
From: Theo Schmidt
Sent: Friday, 14 July 2000
Sent: Friday, 14 July 2000
Kratka 26, 100 00 Praha 10, Czech Republic
Short Takes
captainhw@aol.com
Shaw, John [john.shaw@dot.state.wi.us]
From: Francyne Pelchar francyne@m...
Vicky Panero
Back to top
Have any others for us?
Useful Links
@ccess Home
@ccess Forum
Send
E-mail
Updated 12 July 2000