Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Cars in city centres, banning of
Section H. Health, science and technology

City centres around the world have taken different approaches to dealing with the gridlock and pollution that an abundance of cars can cause. London has a congestion charge, Los Angeles and Sydney have ’carpool’ lanes and Athens restricts the days on which cars can enter the city. This debate suggests going further with an outright ban on cars in city centres. A definition should make sure to detail any exemptions the Proposition team wishes to make, such as emergency vehicles, taxis, deliveries or cars for people with disabilities, but be aware that too many exemptions could weaken the case.

Pros

[1] We must lower CO₂ emission levels to address global warming and cars are major contributors. If we were to ban cars from city centres, we would significantly reduce the overall number of journeys taken by car and we might well see lower car ownership overall. This would be good for the planet.

[2] Car emissions are worse in city centres because of their concentration. Pollution from car fumes causes serious health problems including asthma, especially for children who grow up living near busy roads. The same fumes also damage historic buildings. In some cities, the smog is so bad it is visible.

[3] In many more economically developed countries, road accidents are the single biggest cause of deaths in children and teenagers. Banning cars from city centres would slash accident rates and save lives as many schools and houses are on busy roads. Bus drivers do not drink and drive, speed, or talk on their phones while driving; it is private car drivers who cause acci- dents.With the trend for more cycling, we have also seen increased rates of cyclist fatalities that could be prevented.

[4] Traffic in many city centres is horrendous. Banning cars would get the city moving again as buses and taxis would no longer be stuck in gridlock. This would also benefit emergency vehicles.

[5] Banning cars would see an improvement in public transport as more money would be in the system. This in turn would remove the reason that many people wish to drive (that public transport is not good enough) and so would create a virtuous cycle.

[6] Shops and businesses would get a boost as pedestrian areas are pleasant and attract visitors. Al fresco dining and street entertainment would replace congested roads, and this would improve everyone’s quality of life. Many businesses are already seeing an increase in online shopping and this may increase as people find it more convenient, but there would be no net drop in sales as demand would not decrease.

[7] Banning cars would also encourage more people to walk and cycle which would lead to a public health benefit in the reduction of conditions such as obesity, heart disease and strokes.

Cons

[1] Emissions of CO₂ must be cut, but this is not the way to do it. Banning cars from city centres simply displaces the traffic to the suburbs and out of town. It possibly causes longer journeys leading to more emissions overall. CO₂ levels should be tackled at the level of industry and energy reduction.

[2] Car emissions can be cut in city centres without banning cars outright. This could be done by incentivising car pools or charging people to drive in the city. These measures encourage people to make only essential journeys and to think about fuel efficiency without removing the liberty to drive. Technology continues to clean up cars. Catalytic converters and unleaded petrol make a big difference to air quality and the future may lie with hybrid or electric cars.

[3] Road safety should be a priority and speed limits and other driving regulations should be pursued with zero tolerance to keep accidents to a minimum. Road safety education is also essential in schools. With these measures, it is not necessary to ban cars from city centres where traffic and low speed limits keep accident rates down.

[4] People can choose whether they wish to drive in traffic or find an alternative way of travelling. Bus lanes can protect buses from the worst traffic and cars make way for emergency vehicles, so this is not a problem. London operates a congestion charge to discourage car journeys, which is preferable to a ban.

[5] Public transport is not reliable. It is often an unpleasant experience where one may be squashed in a crowded carriage. People should have an alternative choice for travel. Public transport is also not appropriate for many journeys; for example, a shopping trip where you have to carry heavy bags. It is also hard for those travelling with children or those with illness or disabilities.

[6] Banning cars from city centres would have negative economic effects. Shops and businesses would be forced to close as poor access to them would drive away customers who would instead visit supermarkets and malls outside the centre. There would also be job losses in the car industry and related businesses which exist in cities, such as garages, car parks and car washes.

[7] It is not the job of the government to force people to exercise. People should be informed of the benefits and then be allowed to choose for themselves. The government can seek to influence people’s behaviour through measures such as increasing fuel duty, but freedom of choice should not be restricted.

Possible motions

This House would ban cars from city centres.

This House believes that the modern city should be car-free.

Related topics

Vegetarianism

Global warming: binding emission targets for