Cars Should Be Banned From City Centres

Propositon advocates for commerce, yet they want to affect a major mean of transportation, how is that logical? We will prove it is counter-productive.

The main objective for the PROP side is just to avoid traffic jams, with the reason for that being that, somehow (we still didn’t understand the logic behind that how, though), the fact that people lose time while in traffic makes them inefficient. Even if that was logical, the truth is that people that work in those commercial and financial districts obviously take the fact that there is certain traffic into consideration when working in those centers however the important fact is that in order to continue to be employed they have to work all of their hours and do their job effectively, otherwise they would be fired from the company, for as simplistic this is, it is logical and real unlike an assumption of inefficiency.

Secondly, the fact that there is traffic in those centers actually doesn’t affect commerce or transportation significantly because the objective of those CBDs are built that way is so that major financial institutions and corporations are all close together to facilitate commerce and so in that way it takes minutes to go from any place of that CBD to another one walking or even by car with traffic. For example, Frankfurt’s Innenstadt is just .6 square miles while the World’s largest CBD (in New York) is 7.82 and Chicago’s is the only other CBD in USA that passes the 3 square miles[[demographia.com/db-cbd2000.pdf]]. What does that mean? That traffic is not a real obstacle at CBDs.

Prop says that they believe on not giving people full liberty to use their property in order to maintain a CBD functioning yet as we have said, its function is not affected at all and we will explain in one of our arguments below how it is wrong to deny someone to use their well-earned car as a means of transport. We will also talk about how we don’t oppose public transportation however cars are needed in this system.

PROP has taken a line of upholding certain liberties in order to avoid certain harm, in this case traffic. We say that apparent harm is not really a harm but something natural of the cities but that even if it was a harm, it is not enough to withhold a liberty, and even if it was, in practical terms they will do more harm by creating a heart attack on a city whose main artery will be blocked.

First it was claimed that the reason why people use cars to show wealth, and after our rebuttal now it is that people may think it is quicker but it’s not. Well, in reality we cannot know what are the routes or thoughts of the people but we cannot generalize for either way, because sometimes the distances can be covered quicker by using a car (specially through roads that aren’t as packed or at certain hours where there is less traffic) and those people will be affected with such a bad policy like this one.

Yet, in the cases where actually public transportation could be quicker than car (because of the places where they live, routes they should take or whatever), we don’t believe the reason for people using cars is not stupidity but it may be for more factors such as comfort or security and for that they are willing to maybe take an extra hour at the traffic creating a traffic that affects someone else that also has the choice of public transportation but still prefers their cars (for whatever reason) and so, it is just plain bad to try to reduce an apparent “harm” that the people are actually willing to take and prefer to have! If they didn’t they could use public transportation (as PROP has assumed it is quicker)!

The other problem that PROP addresses is pollution but then that can be said about almost everything we do (eating meat and using computers are terrible for global warming, for example) yet the solution is not prohibiting everything but try to mitigate the damage, such as the policies of some cars not circulating certain days or using alternative energy sources.

Really? Meeting people is the problem?

Prop is basing this argument in 2 assumptions: 1st, that all people are extremely socially active as to have the necessity of talking to strangers in the streets. 2nd, that workers do not interact with others at all.

Into the first one: A clarification of prop’s priorities is needed, if they pretend to defend efficiency then why should workers be meeting new friends in the streets of Polanco instead of heading straight to work (remember that now they take longer, as they have to travel by public transport), I thought that was what Fridays and parties were for. The other thing is that fortunately most of them have it clear that they’ve got a responsibility with their jobs and thanks to this and to the typical behavior of people they don’t tend to be searching conversations anywhere, it could also be dangerous.

Second assumption. Actually CBD workers do not have their job stations at bunkers, they have colleagues and partners to whom they can talk to and relax during lunch or other moments. Also companies are conscious about the rhythm of life in cities and this is why they implement activities like picnics and balls for they employees, meaning that they don’t really have a necessity nor an incentive for increasing their friends in Facebook.

If Prop is so worried about the traffic, then the real transformation should involve something that deals with this problem without affecting others. And as evidence supports public transportation is losing devotes [[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/02/public-transit-a-bad-product-at-a-bad-price]], the real change comes along with the improvement of the existing vehicle infrastructure, taking the best out of what we have. Ideas like the development of superstreets by the NCSU [[http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/wmshummersuperstreets/]] may prove to be the answer to what this debate is looking for.
Obviously, the first step towards transformation is opposing to this motio

People should not be denied to use the means of transportation that they want, and less if it is one of their property, such as a well-earned car, or at least not for the reasons provided by the proposition.

PROP mentioned that the reason why people use cars is just to show their wealth. We don’t just say that is false (for example, in Caracas almost every car has blackened windows so the other people cannot see who is in the car) but we also say that there are many powerful reasons why anyone, and specially those that work in CBDs, would decide to use their cars as best option for transportation (yet again, not opposing public transportation).

A good reason for that is security. Someone like a CEO of a big transnational or the director of a financial institution becomes a vulnerable target when going on public transportation. It is just an absurd idea to think that those men (who may well be some of the most powerful men in the World) would decide to go in an overcrowded metro or bus instead of going with their cars, which are probably surrounded by other 4 with bodyguards. We believe these people need to go to their work in private cars because in any other case they would be an easy target for kidnappings or heavy assaults. If that’s not the case then picture them with ten bodyguards around pushing everyone to get into the metro wagon, which right now is already overcrowded in any city you can tell me, and now adding in basically almost everyone that works in CBDs. Yeah, picture the CEO of the biggest transnational you can think about getting into the bus…Now imagine the reporters and general people stalking them…OPP can’t.

People have that right over their own cars and they should use them if they want to avoid pushing and being targets for robberies and go comfortable in their cars as well. Whoever doesn’t want to have traffic should use public transportation, however if you are willing to wake up an hour earlier but listening your car’s music, go for it

One of the predominant characteristics among CBDs is their privileged geographical location within the cities in which they are located. It is a general norm that this prominent zones must be accessible for the entire city and that they need to be greatly connected in terms of its proximity with transportation centrals and governmental institutions.

This is the reason why much of the urban growth has its epicenter in Financial Districts, meaning that at the they will be the axis of the city or at least one of most transited areas of it (that’s why they are built for, isn’t it?); it is the case of Polanco in Mexico, Innenstadt in Germany, the Yuzhong District in China and of many other CBDs in the world being connected with important avenues and districts.

Because of this particular feature banning the presence of cars does not only directly impact City Centres, people who would usually transit through this channels while heading to their destinations in the terminus of the city or that were simply encouraged to cross this areas would find their most convenient route closed. As if digging an enormous hole in the middle of the city, people would now need to muddle through the peripheries of the city in order to get to where they need. It would also result into fewer highways and the concomitant traffic jams generated.

In the end this won’t only impact the schedules of all of the citizens, but it would also be reflected in the economy as the routes of the cities’ industrial transportation become slower and companies invest more time in moving their products. Contrary to what the proposition established, there is no economic incentive here and a greater affection for the lesser good.

A second problem derived from the policy concerns the labor force of the CBDs. While it is true that a “car free zone” may actually help to reduce traffic within the area, it wouldn’t ease the transportation requirements of its population.

As noted by the affirmative team residents of CBDs could take advantage of this policy, but Business Districts are not intended to serve as residential zones. In his book Commercial Structure and Commercial Blight, Brian Berry explains why land value is higher in CBDs than in any other place[1] , and given the high cost of the land the population of this areas is reduced and living there is affordable exclusively for executives and top directors.

But we most keep an eye in the rest of the labor force of the big companies, the majority, as all of these other employees come from other zones in the cities or even from different cities just for the labor journey. Forcing all of these persons to travel by public transportation from their far away residences to the Financial Districts would take a really efficient system -fast, cheap, secure, clean, and always accessible- for making the measure successful.

Truth is that there are not too many countries that can claim to have one of those. In the everyday experiences people face with crowded buses, dirty installations and a lot of irregularities that make it much more easier for them to travel by car, this with the normal amount of passengers, now if we add all of the people that are going to change their means of transportation then those anemic systems would collapse.

In order for the policy to succeed then we need to restructure not only the CBDs transport, but the whole city’s transportation system! It is of course a titanic effort that takes lots of investment and resources which would make the situation difficult to come true, the initiative would just turn into a daily headache for workers.

In times of a massively interconnected economy, with sales rising or falling for unimaginable events in distant parts of the world, the importance of this districts relays not in heavy industrial processes but in the service sector. The similarity among the firms located in CBDs reside in that almost all of the establishments there are dedicated to administrative and financial labors, not mattering if the enterprise sells cars or if it is an important telecommunication firm.

We will find executives, managing directors, officers and employees which jobs are far from being the sedentary tasks of staying in an office 8 hours a day. No, this class of workers requires jumping from meeting to meeting, they may need to travel themselves to supervise the correct fulfillment of a project in one of the enterprise’s facilities, or they’ll need to take care from an international client who has come to close a deal.

Given the conditions of their jobs they may also require to carry themselves valuable and ostentatious objects as cell phones or laptops, a change of clothes, documents and things which are difficult to be controlled by just two hands in one same moment.

Viewed from any of the perspectives it is clear that having a car is not a luxury for them, it is a requirement for their jobs and it is the reason why many companies take the initiative to provide their employees with a vehicle so that they can always be in time for their appointments, with the necessary equipment and without incidents. As simple as it sounds.

Substituting their transportation means may mean a decrease in efficiency, because no matter how good a public transport is, it will always take more time than traveling by your own in your car. Even if the delay is minimum, let’s say 20 minutes more than a car journey per trip, a person who needs to attend to 4 different meetings in a single day will require more than an hour more than if he had travelled by car. Quite an elevated price to pay.

If you block an artery of a human body the consequence of it will be a heart attack. Same applies with the main roads of a city, and that is what the Proposition tries to implement. As we have already said, through the CBDs transit many cars, not only those of the people that work there, but also people that live around and want to go to any other place, or people that cross the city. Actually there is more people that transit those streets than those that actually go to CBDs that, as we have raised, are small. And yes, we stand on our point that the traffic is not bad within CBDs because people don’t take cars to travel 200 meters (the majority of the World’s CBDs are less than a kilometer long). Does the proposition really think that people use cars when they can just arrive in one or two minutes walking? That’s not the case, the traffic is caused by everyone that transits around the city and needs to go through the center (from east to west, north to south…).

Now picture all the people that want to move within the city blocked! The only result will be total chaos of a city! The people will need to look for alternative routes (that will be even more jam packed, since they are not built to receive traffic, unlike those that pass in CBDs) and if there are none, then the government will need to build other roads (which is almost impossible) just to avoid those 600 meters that are the main artery of the city. It will just be a ridiculous policy.

Now, on the point of security, we don’t say cars are perfectly safe (so of course the Proposition can raise hundredths of hypothetical crimes committed against car drivers) however in public transportation you are exposed and vulnerable, unlike cars, where you can go unnoticed and less of a target (specially in those traffic roads without traffic lights), and in cases of high profile people, they may need bodyguard cars that ARE NOT public as the Proposition tries to say, since those services are not provided by the state.

I dare you dear proposition to take a look into one of the streets of Raffles Place or of any other ironical CBD around the world. Places conceived for maximizing efficiency. How? By using cars! That is the reason why you’ll find yourselves surrounded by traffic lights, parking lots, big avenues and gas stations that were all built for supporting the smart and efficient drivers. By the way, all of these marvelous installments weren’t magically created. Governments had to make use of taxes to give maintenance to streets. Entrepreneurs spent millions in building the parking slots in all of the skyscrapers. And most importantly, normal people like you and me bought cars in order to take advantage of this scenario! Because doing it would lead them to easier and more comfortable lives. The prohibition of cars will take away the soul-purpose of the investments of all of these groups. It’ll turn what was once a very rentable active into an obsolete and depressing passive.

Appealing to the recycling of this resources, like the transformation of big avenues into quicker effective transportation and better investment is false and wrong. Government may have the resources for doing it but it doesn’t justify the frittering of billions of dollars that those roads cost to all of the citizens [[ftp://ftp.dot.state.fl.us/LTS/CO/Estimates/CPM/summary.pdf]]. Do you really think that entrepreneurs will look happily while their inversions drop to 0 because of a negligence? Like constructing the parking slots and gas stations, remodeling them for making them again usable costs money, and a lot of it.

What about the civilians who will be forced to watch how their cars powder in their garages because they can only use them when they don’t have to work? That is certainly not what they bought them for, hours of effort going to waste. It is actually an abuse! To protect the investments of the many people who rely on the effectiveness of the usage of car, we beg you to oppose th

There are three key questions:

1,-Will this measure prevent traffic?
This was the most discussed issue since Prop defined that as the problem they tried to solve and we have clearly made the point that it won’t be the case. Prop started off the debate by saying that, obviously, traffic jams are caused by cars, however there was not major analysis on that whilst we said that actually blocking the main artery of a city will give it a heart attack, since cars need to go through the centers in order to get to other places (or through) the city and here they would need to go around, something answered, whilst we also said a better investment is to improve roads.

2.-Will it affect commerce?
Yes because traffic isn’t much of a problem within the CBDs since, as we said, they’re purposely built small so everything is close together and by walking distance so the people actually walk there, however the nature of the people working there requires them to use their cars a lot (such as for supervising projects or transporting clients) since they are active and need to be moving from place to place carrying laptops, without necessarily the public transport system being able to carry them everywhere, so in the end their policy will be the one that affects commerce. Prop’s main reason on commercial harm is that somehow for being in the traffic, people stop being efficient however Opp said that those workers take their cautions and are obliged to work their hours, regardless of the hours they lose outside work. We also said that with slower routes, the industries will suffer losses, as will the government and its road investments .

Their point of meeting friends in the subway was just pointless; we said relationships are done at the office and parties.

3.-Should the right of using cars be denied?
No, because Prop says that using cars is irrational, first by saying that people only use cars to show wealth and when we made our rebuttal saying that actually in some cities the majority of cars have darkened shields/windows they changed their minds saying that the reason was stupidity in the people thinking cars are quicker than the public transportation, and we said sometimes they are , and even in those cases where they aren’t, the truth is that they prefer to use their well-earned investment of car where they can be more comfortable even if they are willing to take more time, this is a matter of being their own choice, which Prop tried to cut on the basis that people are irrational. Most people clearly prefer traffic than public transportation.

Moreover there could be other reasons such as security, and Prop answered that cars can still be targets for crime, but we said that they could be a less vulnerable target. Then our point of high profile people fully stands on our side since Prop only answered saying they could still use security companies since they are public, something that is obviously not true. They do a direct harm here.

Opp made its point clear.