Paris Votes for 500 More Car Free Streets

4/3/2025 at 7:03:19 AM

The headline is misleading, I have one of these streets just in front of my building and there is a road lane and parking spots. They basically removed 1 lane and divided by three or four the number of parking slots, to replace them by larger sidewalk and a lot more vegetation.

I've voted for this policy to be extended to other streets, but I've to admit that the process was debatable: less than 5% of parisians have voted, and the list of streets to be remade is still to be established.

by psalaun

4/3/2025 at 6:10:36 AM

Paris is so much better without cars

by paulcn

4/3/2025 at 6:51:10 AM

Any city would be better without cars. My city has barely any public transport, the sidewalks are for cars to park and most of the people you meet on streets are immigrants or poor who can't afford a car. This is so wrong.

by Klaster_1

4/3/2025 at 9:58:10 AM

Paris is especially bad though. They have good public transport but the traffic is insane and makes the city so much worse. Partially attributed to the Parisian driving style though. Or just French people in cities. Highways in France are very chill compared to their neighbors. But in the cities it’s a fight to the death.

by asyx

4/3/2025 at 7:21:58 AM

It's yes and no. Living without cars means housing poverty. There is no way for most families to afford a spacious residence unless they drive everywhere. In Paris, people live extremely dense and housing poverty is the norm of existence (even though people who can buy a place within blvd Peripherique are by definition very rich). Most live there simply because they inherited the place, or inherited a regulated rental contract. It's normal for a person that makes money within 0.1% of French income earners, to live in a Paris apartment that in America, will be most fit for an "immigrant or poor who can't afford a car". So it's a tradeoff. You get a liveable, walkable city where you are an investment banker and live in a 700 fq. ft. apartment with the roaches, or you get to live in a 3000 sq. ft. house but everything around you is just an endless parking lot. You can't have both.

You never could. Before suburban mass transit became a thing, enabling low ~80% of Paris workers to live outside and commute every day, they had to live in Paris. They all lived in communal apartments, several unrelated people per room, in most awful conditions imaginable just because of density (see "Down and Out in Paris and London").

by anovikov

4/3/2025 at 7:43:28 AM

I wouldn't agree with this all-or-nothing view that ignores public transport. Yes, plenty of people want to live in the city, so it's dense, but if you live a bit outside, you can hop on a local train and be in the city in 30 minutes.

Also, Paris is an extreme example. There's plenty of mid-sized cities (400k to 1 million or so) in Europe and presumably elsewhere where you can live in a quiet space, maybe even have access to a garden, and hop on the tram or your bike, and be downtown in 20 minutes, without parking lots.

So, you can definitely have both. These places exist.

by Megranium

4/3/2025 at 9:13:02 AM

That's right, in a small city you can do it. Think Brno. But those small cities don't get to be truly dystopian in car-centric societies, either.

And no one is going to build public transport in them in US now - people all flock to megacities, these small places are all bleeding population, population there gets old, and tax sources are scarce.

by anovikov