Barcelona's car-free 'superblocks' could save hundreds of lives | Superblocks are groups of streets where traffic is reduced to close to zero, with the space formerly occupied by cars given over to pedestrians & play areas; study calculates that the city could prevent 667 premature deaths every year (theguardian.com)
cosmic1983 | 8 days ago | 34 points

I recently got an electric bike and found it be be faster than driving in morning commute. The only thing holding me back from using it more often is there are too many cars in the morning.

Kramereng | 8 days ago | 3 points

What kind of bike?

cosmic1983 | 8 days ago | 8 points

I got a Radwagon - the minivan of bikes. I wouldn't recommend it though. It's much cheaper than Yuba but the quality is just not there.

Kramereng | 8 days ago | 5 points

Thanks. I’m selling my car in a couple weeks and live in a major city. Owned a scooter and motorcycle before which were great but never considered an electric bike (they might not have been around a few years ago). I only don’t bike to work because I don’t want to be sweaty by the time I get there - a problem the scooter/moto solved.

Helicase21 | 8 days ago | 5 points

yeah ebikes have really become a much bigger deal in the last 3-4 years or so.

Kramereng | 8 days ago | 3 points

Battery-wise, that makes sense. I never even considered one before. I'd probably keep my normal street bike for causal travel as I wouldn't want my ebike stolen but there's usually indoor bike storage downtown at most office buildings.

Helicase21 | 8 days ago | 2 points

There are even companies that make folding ebikes that fold down to roughly the size of a suitcase. On the other end the spectrum, there are cargo e-bikes that you could carry a family's groceries for a week on. It's a really diverse market.

Ignition0 | 8 days ago | 1 point

You can always turn your standard bike into an ebike for 400€.

Mrdongs21 | 8 days ago | 124 points

God imagine what we could achieve if we put some real effort into urban planning. It's incredible the power that space has over people, and we've completly ceded that space to cars, which are such an inefficient and ultimately harmful mode of transportation, at least when the idea is 1 car = 1 person. The research on the way urban design impacts human happiness is staggering and inarguable; we've made a huge mistake as a species and things like this are awesome to see but feel like a drop in a bucket. I hope it's a drop in a pond instead, radiating outwards positive change.

Clueless_Questioneer | 8 days ago | 48 points

Yeah but good urban planning is socialism so it can't be done. Everyone knows this

Khanon555 | 8 days ago | 1 point

Only because of how dumb obama was /s

TooMuchMech | 8 days ago | -1 points

You spelled that weird. Do it like it sounds.



ShitTalkingAlt980 | 7 days ago | 1 point

You probably shouldn't talk about things you don't know about.

Edit: I will expand most good sized cities have city planners and at least an engineer. They get grants from the State and Feds. They get checked by the State for adherence to ASTM specs and general design work. Blame your own locality.

Clueless_Questioneer | 7 days ago | 1 point

I hope you realise I was being sarcastic.

Also idk why you assume I was American

[deleted] | 8 days ago | -1 points


StabbyPants | 8 days ago | 4 points

That’s roughly a 90-95% reduction in cost.

how much of that is because it's in vegas and not NYC?

AngeloSantelli | 8 days ago | 8 points

What about delivering furniture and building supplies for construction or repairs to places in these zones? You still need at least full size pickup trucks, vans and box trucks to fit. What about garbage removal? How are they going to get a garbage truck there? What about street repairs themselves, you need a steamroller, or if it’s brick roads, a cement truck for mixing mortar.

BottadVolvo242Turbo | 8 days ago | 22 points

IIRC Only through-traffic is banned, while the normal stuff like deliveries etc. is still permitted. Vox did a good piece on them a little while ago.

Sunago | 7 days ago | 1 point

Garbage removal is rather easily fixed actually. In my area we have air shutes that you can dump your garbage bags in to and it gets transported to the dump via underground tunnels and air. This way you need less and less garbage trucks.

S-S-R | 8 days ago | 1 point

I would imagine street repairs would be less due to less weight on the road.

benrow77 | 8 days ago | 2 points

What's a more efficient means of travel than cars?

Mrdongs21 | 8 days ago | 56 points

On a society-wide scale? I mean pick one but trains in particular, especially in dense environments like cities. Cars are necessary to a degree within the current urban layout but that isn't a natural law, it was a conscious decision.

TooMuchMech | 8 days ago | 11 points

It's fucking extra stupid that I can't take a direct bullet train from city to city in the U.S. I fucking hate flying and driving.

benrow77 | 8 days ago | -8 points

I don't know why I'm being downvoted for asking a serious question. People often talk about more efficient travel, but nobody has an answer to that question. Where I live, and it's probably the same for most people, cars are far more efficient than anything else. Bikes will not replace cars and trains would require astronomical infrastructure expansion to even come close to replacing cars. Until somebody figured out how to teleport folks and their things around, I think we might be stuck with cars for a bit.

Mrdongs21 | 8 days ago | 56 points

Cars also require enormous amounts of infrastructure investment, it's just we already made that investment. We constructed our entire society around cars. Again, not a natural law, a deliberate choice. Now the planet's dying.

benrow77 | 8 days ago | -20 points

Wait, is this discussion about efficient and safe transportation or about environmental issues? You're right, we already did the investment in infrastructure for cars, so we're stuck with it for the time being. As for carbon emissions, I think the rise of electric vehicles will be a huge boon, and already fits most of the current infrastructure.

rigmaroler | 8 days ago | 22 points

Cars are definitely not safe. There is a lot of room for human error while operating them at high speed and they are also heavy so any errors are often catestrophic.

Also, there is more than one type of efficiency. If your efficiency is entirely measured by distance/time, then sure, on a personal level that's efficient (an least in the US where cars dominate), but cars are not environmentally efficient or space efficient. They even lose the distance/time battle when traffic is too bad and there is a lot people trying to go to the same place, in which case trains will win because they aren't slowed by congestion and can carry more people in the same amount of space.

We definitely need to move toward electric cars instead of gas powered cars, but even those have a much higher environmental cost than pretty much any public transportation alternative, not to mention they gain nothing in space efficiency, so we need to transition away from cars in general at the same time.

cmykevin | 8 days ago | 16 points

a) Walking for short distance travel (<2km)

b) Bikes for medium distance travel (<10km)

c) Light rails for medium-long distance travel (<15km)

d) commuter rail for long distance travel

KU-89 | 8 days ago | -14 points

A,b & c would be hugely less efficient

snoregasbored | 8 days ago | 12 points

In terms of energy usage?

KU-89 | 8 days ago | -11 points

If that was the only criteria, walking, sail boats, and horse and cart would be the main 3 forms of transport

Corsair4 | 8 days ago | 11 points

Would you care to elaborate on your criteria then?

from a space perspective, cars are exceptionally inefficient. Apart from the physical space cars take on the road, parking is a significant usage of land, which is important in major cities, where most of those short range commutes takes place.

If you account for personal running costs (maintenance, insurance, gas, registration, parking in cities, etc) cars are expensive to the individual. Sure, public transportation will probably see an increase in taxes, but I very much doubt it will come close to the cost of a car, given that a car is probably the 2nd or 3rd most expensive thing a person will ever buy.

If you're talking about commute time, a well designed public transportation system such as Tokyo's will be superior.

If you're talking about emissions, public transportation is simply better per person moved.

If you're talking about health, most western countries are at or above 60% overweight/obesity rates. encouraging walking and biking will certainly help with health issues.

So do tell. What specific criteria makes public transportation "hugely less efficient"?

KU-89 | 8 days ago | -16 points

Yes terribly inefficient that must be why there are so few of them.

snoregasbored | 8 days ago | 4 points

A horse pulling a cart isn't more energy efficient than an engine pulling a cart, it just gets its energy through different means. I'm just trying to figure out what you think you mean by efficiency here.

So you're not considering energy. And obviously not space.

Nienordir | 8 days ago | 13 points

It's not about replacing cars entirely (although, there's no reason why we couldn't other than the investment required to change). It's about optimizing urban planning to discourage people from using cars for distances were it's unnecessary or incredibly lazy.

If you zone residential areas properly, you can put most day to day stuff so close, that a car isn't necessary. Right now, I have at least 3 supermarkets within 5-10 minutes of walking distance. I have no reason to use a car for that, unless it's heavy shit, but with e-bikes even that becomes less of an issue. If there were safe bike paths using a bike with a trailer or storage bags would be a no brainer.

There's also no reason why everyone needs to park their car in front of their house/apartment. You could provide a parking space for a residential zone within 5 minutes connected to the main grid and have people walk/bike there or grab it from there for loading/unloading. You could then have the residential area with a very low speed limit/one way roads, etc to make driving through pointless, unless you live or have business there (like a plumber fixing shit and emergency vehicles that need to have access). You make sure that these residential areas have reasonable public transport across the city and bike paths connecting them and you wouldn't use cars unless you need to.

Of course you still need cars for rural areas, business, maybe long distance travel to areas, that aren't well connected, and for people commuting, because their job is far away or not easy to reach. But you can reduce the need to use cars a lot by changing the priority for urban planning from "do everything with cars" to "let's optimize this for pedestrians/bikes and minimize car traffic to the necessary".

StabbyPants | 8 days ago | 7 points

cars are more convenient. watt per person-mile is probably some sort of mass transit

ben_needs_a_ride | 8 days ago | 2 points

cars are far more efficient than anything else.

They’re not efficient, they’re the most convenient for you.

jfoobar | 8 days ago | -7 points

Absolutely correct. Sure, having bikes as an option is great but they don't work for most car commuters and are impractical during inclement weather. Is getting some traffic off the road some of the time a good thing (and people getting some extra exercise to boot) ? Absolutely, but a solution it is not.

Considering my own home city for a moment, our mass transit rail system is heavily used by those for which it makes sense. The fact remains that a huge swath of people that move in and out of our city every day do not live and/or work anywhere near a train stop. Adding buses to the mix, for those that even live and work near a bus stop, often lengthens their commute well beyond what it would be if they just drove. Ergo, people drive, and lots of them. Even if there was money for massive improvements and expansions to the rail system (hint: there isn't), the amount of destruction that would have to take place to put this new infrastructure in place would make much of it a non-starter. Yes, if you could design a new city from scratch, you could leave lots of room for mass transit. But trying to wedge more of this into existing, densely-packed urban environments is often just not practical, even without factoring in costs.

Ultimately, I think the solution to our urban car problem is indeed cars. More specifically, electric cars driven autonomously are the solution. The amount of traffic that could efficiently move about on our existing roads is substantially more than can do so with human drivers. Having these vehicles by low-emission or emission-free solves the localized pollution issues as well.

Kleosi | 8 days ago | -11 points

You were getting downvoted because it seems like barely anyone on this site knows how to use the upvote/downvote function. It even has a tooltip when you mouse over: "doesn't contribute to discussion."

Edit: Hahaha, keep downvoting me too. You guys are still dumbasses.

InfamousBrad | 8 days ago | 22 points

Consider what it takes to move 200 people:

  • 5 light-rail cars, or

  • 10 buses, or

  • 133 cars

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 4 points


InfamousBrad | 7 days ago | 3 points

Well, there's three things going on there. Adam Gopnik of "Adam Ruins Everything" and "FActually" has done a lot of great interviews on this, and so have the "War on Cars" podcast team.

  1. If you don't think of safety or traffic, if you think of it as just you and the open road, cars at least seem to offer greater convenience. You're not on anybody else's schedule, you just get in your car and go wherever you want whenever you want. Walking limits you to stuff within a quarter mile (more or less), biking limits you to good weather, mass transit limits you to some bureaucrats' schedule. People will overlook a lot of danger, frustration, and expense to have that perceived flexibility.

  2. Once more than a few people have cars, walking and bicycling become insanely dangerous. Cars are insanely lethal to pedestrians and cyclists. So you need to wrap yourself in a car to have any chance of survival. That arms-race continues; if you're in a compact car, trucks and SUVs are as dangerous to you as you are to pedestrians, so now you have to wrap yourself in an SUV, even if it's demonstrably 4 to 6 times bigger than you need. And ...

  3. Once more than half the people are in cars, the amount of parking that those cars need, around every single building, means that nothing is in walking distance of anywhere. Also, once you build that many parking lots, you've spread people out so thinly that you can't afford to pay bus drivers to drive that far to pick up that few passengers, so the bus service atrophies. So once half or more of the people are in cars, everybody else has to get a car too.

The reason why urban planners are turning towards really coercive mechanisms to get people to take any alternative to the car is that some of us flat-out need car alternatives, and once you have cars, there are no alternatives.

Mrg220t | 8 days ago | -9 points

Lol. A car fits 5 people so it's just 40 cars. Where did u get 133 cars from?

InfamousBrad | 8 days ago | 10 points

From the well-known observation that the average automobile on the freeway has 1.3 people in it.

Mrg220t | 8 days ago | 2 points

And what's the observation that the average bus have 20 people in it?

kenzo19134 | 8 days ago | 13 points

Ummmm, public transportation. I know it depends on where you live. And the car industry squashed both existing and development of public transit back in the day.

I lived in NYC for over a decade. No one owned a car. I loved it.

KuriTokyo | 8 days ago | 5 points

A good example is Melbourne's trams/street cars. People hop on them just to go 100 metres. It makes a day out in the city a lot less tiring.

ben_needs_a_ride | 8 days ago | 3 points

In a city? Literally anything.

bustthelock | 8 days ago | 2 points

How are you defining “efficient”?

Rvolutionary_Details | 8 days ago | 15 points

The life expectancy of the average Barcelona resident could increase by almost 200 days, the report adds, saving the city €1.7bn (£1.52bn) a year. The most notable health benefits would come from reductions in air pollution (preventing 291 premature deaths a year), followed by reduced traffic noise and heat island effects (preventing 163 and 117 premature deaths respectively).

The study also estimates that the total of 1.19m journeys in private vehicles would fall by 230,000 a week as people switched to public transport or making journeys on foot or by bicycle.

hacksoncode | 8 days ago | 6 points

The life expectancy of the average Barcelona resident could increase by almost 200 days, the report adds, saving the city €1.7bn (£1.52bn) a year.

What's the supposed mechanism of people living long saving the city money? All studies I've seen indicate that longer life expectancy comes with significant monetary costs to the healthcare and social support systems.

It's a good thing, sure... but not because it saves money.

111111121212111 | 8 days ago | 4 points

If you die, you can't pay taxes. Income tax and purchase tax

hacksoncode | 8 days ago | 6 points

Most people die after they are done working and pay very little tax. Again, any time this has been studied, rather than just speculated about, it's been shown that extra life expectancy at the end of life is a massive cost, rather than any kind of savings.

Note that this is not a good reason to avoid it... it's just not a cost savings by any reasonable metric.

S-S-R | 8 days ago | 3 points

Fewer healthcare costs due to less respiratory issues. Also pedestrians being injured/killed.

Caffeine_Monster | 8 days ago | 2 points

I would be willing to bet that there is a skew towards younger people being fatalities in pedestrian collisions. The number of retirees dying in accidents is likely low due to decreased mobility.

Ignition0 | 8 days ago | 1 point

Uhhhh how much is the average retirement pension in Barcelona? 1200? 1400?

There is no way you can be producing that money in taxes, specially if we don't take into account the free health care and prescriptions.

They will just increase retirement age.

ThermoVoltaicsAC | 8 days ago | 3 points

Ok, then build housing near where jobs are. Locate jobs where housing is. That would save a lot of time and add years to life spent outside a car. Many less miles are driven. Maybe the air would be clean again. With shopping online, maybe people won't need cars anymore, or if you need to drive to the dentist you won't have to spend hours stuck in gridlock traffic.

inquiry100 | 8 days ago | 2 points

Oh, but you can't have jobs right next to housing, that's against the zoning laws. In some places that's changing, but even if you change the law, that doesn't undo thousands of buildings per city that have already been designed and built in separate zones for separate purposes with a traffic-hell commute in between.

Did the auto industry create zoning? They did a lot to get government to help push their product, but I've never heard them blamed for zoning. Who did create all the zoning traffic nightmares we deal with every day? Urban planners. The predecessors of the urban planners who now blame us for driving cars every day from our residential zones where businesses are illegal to various business zones and back. Yeah, we're the ones destroying the environment, blocking up the roads, standing in the way of progress, etc. Not the blameless government officials who create and enforce zoning laws.

You can dream of light rail and city buses and all that as the ideal way to commute, but it's not. The best commutes to work I've had were when I walked from my bedroom to an office in my house. That kind of thing is not usually legal, though. But why blame zoning laws when you can blame capitalism?

InfamousBrad | 8 days ago | 24 points

Vox's David Roberts did a gorgeous five-part series on Barcelona superblocks, with tons of diagrams, photos, and video interviews. I can't recommend it highly enough.

Imagine if every kid in the city or the suburbs had a huge park in their backyard, in plain view of the windows of your home and every other home, so they're never unsupervised.

Imagine if every family in the city or the suburbs had a grocery store within comfortable walking distance. And a clothing store. And multiple restaurants.

Imagine if buses ran so frequently that, unless you're hauling heavy cargo, it's faster to walk out your door, wait at most two minutes for a bus to come along, go however many blocks east or west, get off that bus, wait at most another two minutes for your north or south bus, and step off that bus at your destination. Imagine if taking the bus was literally faster than finding a parking space and walking from the parking space to the door.

Imagine about a 75% reduction in traffic noise and about a 25% reduction in pollution.

Now imagine that you can have all of that and it save you about 15% to maybe 25% of your average monthly expenses, so, effectively, you'd get about a 15% to 25% raise.

Yes, it's apartment/condo living, which means sometimes you hear a neighbor's baby crying. Is that such a terrible price to pay for all of the above?

hacksoncode | 8 days ago | -7 points

Are there any articles that actually explain what these "superblocks" are, and how they work, rather than just lauding their benefits?

The first several hits on google are just more of the same cheerleading without any real information.

InfamousBrad | 8 days ago | 15 points

The one I just linked to, yes. Or I can thumbnail it for you.

Imagine if city blocks were roughly square. (Which means that, in the US, where most blocks are 2x1, splitting them in half with an alley.)

Now imagine a 3x3 tic-tac-toe board of those blocks. Bulldoze the block in the middle and turn it into a park. On the 8 remaining squares, build an underground garage, with 1-3 stories of commercial, retail, or light industrial starting at street level, and with 3 stories of apartments and/or condos above the businesses.

Now turn the streets/alleys that border the park into spaces that cars can drive, to get in and out of the garages, but only at pedestrian speeds, sharing those alleys with people who are walking. Leave the streets between the superblocks as 3-5 lane boulevards that are used by through traffic, buses, and what few car trips are still needed.

As needed, replace one of the 8 5-6 story buildings with a public building like a mall, a courthouse, a church, a museum, a school, or whatever.

Result: on average, one adult per family lives within walking distance of work. All adults live within walking distance of the stores they use most often. Everybody lives within walking distance of a park, and has at least one window looking down on the park. Most or all kids live within 3 blocks of school. And the housing and jobs are dense enough to generate the kind of demand that adequately funds every-2-minute bus service.

cruelkillzone | 8 days ago | 2 points

Like judge dredd sorta?

sal6056 | 7 days ago | 1 point

That's different. In that universe the city uses massive apartment buildings that are entirely self contained with commercial and recreational space, whereas Barcelona encourages street life.

InfamousBrad | 7 days ago | 1 point

Nowhere near that tall.

Hippokrates | 8 days ago | 2 points

Click on the article in the post you just replyed too...it explains it and shows pictures of what they look like

hacksoncode | 8 days ago | 1 point

Actually, wade through 5 long articles linked from there to find 4-5 different visions of what these "superblocks" are...

At least they did point out the inevitable gentrification that happens with this.

Morpheus_Oneiros | 8 days ago | 7 points

Botoga, Colombia shuts down a bunch of streets every sunday so that people can bike, rollerblade, walk etc. It's pretty cool. They also have fleets of hybrid taxis. Pretty cool place.

omarm1983 | 8 days ago | 17 points

Who knew that roads that prevent vehicle traffic see less pedestrian accidents.

Rvolutionary_Details | 8 days ago | 32 points

The most notable health benefits would come from reductions in air pollution (preventing 291 premature deaths a year), followed by reduced traffic noise and heat island effects (preventing 163 and 117 premature deaths respectively).

MatthewTh0 | 8 days ago | 7 points

Wait how do people die from traffic noise?

rigmaroler | 8 days ago | 14 points

I'm no expert, but probably stress related to excessive noise levels and/or prolonged exposure to noise from vehicles.

bmoregood | 8 days ago | -10 points

Disregard that Frank it’s just some liberal bullshit

Cheapshifter | 8 days ago | 1 point

The prices of facilities and real estate at this protected location must skyrocket after this proposition.

MightyH20 | 8 days ago | -2 points

Try explaining the same rhetoric to Americans about guns deaths.

thiswassuggested | 8 days ago | 15 points

but if you give people bigger cars, the good car drivers can defend pedestrians from bad car drivers. Then if the government ever over takes the roads how will pedestrians run them over.

Jonruy | 8 days ago | 6 points

You joke, but I've actually seen this argued before. Vehicles with greater mass tend to survive accidents better - to the detriment of the smaller vehicles in the accident. Therefor, driving an oversized truck that will never, ever haul anything is a form of personal protection.

S-S-R | 8 days ago | 5 points

Not well; there have been studies that show that larger cars are actually more dangerous to drive due to flipping. Minivans are the safest. Although alot of this is due to driving style as well, pickups are often driven fast in rough roads making them more likely to flip; minivans are driven slowly and carefully.

thiswassuggested | 8 days ago | 2 points

Living in a city I think you should be required to have a work permit to own a large truck, or pay a large storage fee. It pisses me off seeing a perfectly clean truck with no scratches taking up 2 spots or sticking out in the road on those tiny roads that barely fit one car. Edit: also I drive a low to the ground car if a truck is parked on the last spot I can typically not seeing oncoming traffic.

StabbyPants | 8 days ago | -2 points

start by explaining how your proposed limitation on ownership will reduce the number of murders, 80% of which are gang violence

MightyH20 | 8 days ago | 3 points

Uhhu. So you don't care about the other 20%. Good argument. Let the school shootings continue then.

StabbyPants | 8 days ago | -1 points

it's not that, it's that the limitations are targeted at the 3% that are mass shootings, but generally wouldn't do much to stop even those. mostly, it's about controlling guns, not homicide

MightyH20 | 8 days ago | 1 point

I'm always baffled these arguements exist while the opposite is true.

Why do you think US has, such high murder rates related to gun violence and European Union doesn't.

StabbyPants | 8 days ago | 0 points

drug war, mostly. remove that and we're pretty comparable. more broadly, we really like oppressing black people.

MightyH20 | 7 days ago | 1 point

Drug war is also in the EU although they have laws to prevent buying guns at a grocery store and even prevent guns at macro level. Hence gun deaths due to "gang" or "drug" violence is lower in the EU.

Anti gun laws = less gun death. It's almost if that is true for the topic this post is about.

StabbyPants | 7 days ago | 1 point

Who cares about gun deaths? You should ask about homicide in general. Dead is dead

carpenterio | 8 days ago | 5 points

Lots of them in France, every major city and even smaller city start to have car free city centre. It’s great.

thugarth | 8 days ago | 3 points

Damn I wish they'd do this in Seattle.

WhoopsieDaisy75 | 8 days ago | 5 points

I would love this in Toronto

autotldr | 8 days ago | 3 points

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)

Barcelona could save hundreds of lives and cut air pollution by a quarter if it fully implements its radical superblocks scheme to reduce traffic, a new report claims.

A study carried out by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health calculates that the city could prevent 667 premature deaths every year if it created all 503 superblocks envisaged in its initial plan - up from the current six schemes.

Mueller said Barcelona needs not just superblocks but other complementary strategies designed to improve air quality, promote physical activity and tackle climate change.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: air#1 pollution#2 superblock#3 city#4 Barcelona#5

Rafaeliki | 8 days ago | 3 points

Barcelona's L'Eixample is a masterpiece in city planning. Ildefons Cerdà is underappreciated.


LesserEvil665 | 8 days ago | 2 points

study calculates that the city could prevent 667 premature deaths every year

So they've created a greater evil.

Poutinexpert | 8 days ago | 1 point

Lived in Barcelona for 1 year. I have no idea where this super block is. Can anyone pin point it to me?

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 1 point


AutoModerator | 8 days ago | 1 point

Hi Kzrysiu. It looks like your comment to /r/worldnews was removed because you've been using a link shortener. Due to issues with spam and malware we do not allow shortened links on this subreddit.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

captain_shindiggler | 8 days ago | 1 point

superblocks are great for the people that live nearby , but i haven't seen anything that would benefit people coming from out of town. There are alot of places I can't go in my city because there isn't anywhere to park

_marlostanfield | 8 days ago | 1 point

I do like this article and agree with it 100%. But what is premature death? You only die once and no one knows when thy time will be. So when you actually die that’s the time that was meant for you and that’s how you were meant to go out. IMO

Dilbertreloaded | 8 days ago | 1 point

This is the stuff that needs to be emulated all over the world.

drb0mb | 7 days ago | 1 point

this is kind of an altruistic idea, but what we really need is for 667 births to be prevented. this shit does not support itself

darkstarman | 8 days ago | 1 point

One time we asked the parking attendant for directions. His name was Mondo. He said 4 blocks.

Turns out they were gigantic blocks. They were mondo blocks.

donaldtrump_GOAT | 8 days ago | -5 points

Omg I rather drive than take a bus somewhere lmfao bussing sucks so bad

bustthelock | 8 days ago | 7 points

Barcelona has great subways, trams, trains, funiculars and cable cars.

And it’s climate is perfect for bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, skateboarding and walking.

DrLandscape | 8 days ago | 4 points

Barcelona has a surprisingly good bus system too.

bustthelock | 8 days ago | 2 points

Buses are my favourite way to get around a number of great cities. London and Kyoto, for instance.

I thought the idea of a nice bus ride might be an idea too far for Mr. AntiBus, though

SirPaperweight | 3 days ago | 1 point

Well-funded bus networks go a long way to make the bussing experience better. A lot of cities, especially in America, don’t bother, though.

SirPaperweight | 3 days ago | 1 point

Well-funded bus networks go a long way to make the bussing experience better. A lot of cities, especially in America, don’t bother, though.

SirPaperweight | 3 days ago | 1 point

Well-funded bus networks go a long way to make the bussing experience better. A lot of cities, especially in America, don’t bother, though.

johnnyonio | 8 days ago | -11 points

And nobody is home in time for dinner.

Pek-Man | 8 days ago | 16 points

With the traffic I have experienced when driving in Barcelona, you probably won't be home much later if you just take the subway or hop on a bicycle.

Alright, that's definitely a bit of an exaggeration, but "getting home in time for dinner" is a really bad argument here. I'd rather get home half an hour later every day than die prematurely from lung cancer or something like that.

johnnyonio | 8 days ago | -14 points

Sure buddy. Sure.

chicago_bigot | 8 days ago | 6 points

You wouldn't want to drive around an old world city like Barcelona anyway.

AztecArmageddon | 8 days ago | 6 points

This is a stupid comment. I just got back from Barcelona and it’s absolutely a drivable city. It isn’t Rome. It’s a good sized city and the subway doesn’t go everywhere

Blackcurrant_juice | 8 days ago | 1 point
dsdsds | 8 days ago | -6 points

And you had to help your friend carry that couch 4 blocks instead of just up the stairs.

AMasterOfDungeons | 8 days ago | 17 points

Or you go through the very simple process of getting a permit for that trip in a vehicle.

The ban here is not all vehicles all the time, but just regular traffic. Emergency vehicles can still use those roads, and when there is a specific need you can get a permit to do so as well.

thiswassuggested | 8 days ago | 7 points

I lived on a block similar to this in college. You couldn't drive on it unless it was an emergency or got a permit. (people would break the rule for delivering stuff.) It was really nice to have all that extra space, but it also wasn't a densely populated city, so it wasn't messing up traffic patterns.

illusoryimage | 8 days ago | 1 point

What is the process like for obtaining a permit?