“Replacing parking” is going to cause all sorts of fun. Where will the cars go?
And please spare me the tired “transit that is safe and not full of stabby hoboes will magically sprout out of nothing overnight” nonsense.
And please spare me the tired “transit that is safe and not full of stabby hoboes will magically sprout out of nothing overnight” nonsense.
Half of some cities' downtown space is parking.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities...
Every apartment complex in my area clearly has way, way more parking that needed - at no time of day are they more than 50% occupied.
I've even seen locals blocking a successful local bank trying to build a additional building and planning way too many of those - citing concern of too much added traffic in neighborhood. Not entirely sure if thats the best approach, but thats how how respect for laws and locals looks like. At the end, bank managed just fine despite that restriction.
Why is that? Is there more than one parking space per bedroom or do people not have cars?
https://www.fastcompany.com/90645900/america-has-eight-parki...
> Parking standards were created arbitrarily, without adequate data. Zoning laws usually require one parking space per apartment, one per 300 square feet of commercial development, and one per 100 square feet for restaurants. For context, a parking space measures 160 square feet on average, plus additional area for driveways and driving lanes, so an eatery’s parking lot may be three times the size of its dining area.
Idk, don't move there if having on-site parking is a dealbreaker for you. It isn't for a lot of people. Why should they subsidize someone else's parking preferences?
OTOH, having 4/6/8 new tinyhouses worth of neighbours and the streets filled with their cars sucks for many in the neighbourhood - so you'd expect them to resist, or at least ask the question. Where will the cars go?
The "pursuit of happiness" applies to all.
Sounds like a streetside-parking regulation problem. Everyone asking questions every time someone wants to build anything is why we don’t build anymore. If we want to require parking we don’t get to complain about housing affordability.
It's no surprise that complex issues will have various factions arguing about "their happiness".
It does seem like many countries are beyond the point of further conversation and need positive impactful action regarding housing affordability. Or even just any action at all so we can tell if it is the correct action...
Get rid of free parking and you'll never be short of it again. Putting a proper price will reduce demand and increase supply.
Especially (but not solely) in areas with lack of quality public transportation (ie, doesn't double the time it takes to get somewhere)
More generally, parking is a service. All market goods & services are highly regressive, because the rich and poor pay basically the same price. Addressing inequality at the individual goods level always creates more problems than it solves. Addressing it for parking is particularly unfair, because the very poorest don't have cars.
The poor would be far better off with more welfare and a less regressive tax system so they have more money to choose what they need. Paying for "free" parking via property taxes and baked into the costs of local stores is inefficient and regressive.
You cannot escape that as transit drives down traffic and frees up parking, cars become much more enjoyable to use.
I’m not actually pitching this course of action for any specific city; I actually live in an extremely rural area and don’t have a horse in this race. Just want to make the point that mass transit investments can’t happen in a vacuum if we want to achieve the desired results.
I'm going to guess you've never had some drugged-up crazy try to stab you in a bus? After the second time it happens, you never ever consider it again. Life is too short to die like that.
One particular example that had a good breakdown: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
(If nothing else, the piles of corpses would, presumably, be noticeable and cause scheduling issues.)
> > problems first, not claim that if they give up
> > car transportation options something else will
> > materialize later
.
> I never said otherwise, but continuing to prioritize
> cars only makes everything, even car travel, worse.
.
You have JUST said otherwise! You want to deprioritize what works in favour of what does not exist while offering no path for it to exist and dodging the reality that no such path exists.
I'm really glad you were here to tell me what I actually wanted. I'm glad you were here to twist my words up so bad that I finally understand that what I really wanted is to completely get rid of cars overnight, and then sit around on our thumbs and hope that someday a magic carpet will come and carry us all off to our destinations.