3 ms·

> dismantlement of motorvehicle-related infrastructure. Whether it is turning car lanes into bike lanes, Yes, it turns out we overbuilt streets and under-built

by jrock08 11y ago

> dismantlement of motorvehicle-related infrastructure. Whether it is turning car lanes into bike lanes, Yes, it turns out we overbuilt streets and under-built bike infrastructure so now we have to reclaim some car lanes to create bike lanes instead. This is not the end of the world. > reducing available parking in new constructions Reducing the required parking in construction doesn't eliminate parking in new constructions if parking is actually important, it just allows the free market to actually price parking instead of forcing non-drivers to subsidize parking spots. > or new road taxes Are you talking about congestion pricing here? If so, you chose to drive in an area which doesn't have the throughput to handle the cars, and yes, you should have to pay a fair price to use the road. > their avowed goal seems to be to make driving more painful. No, the goal is to make biking safe and possible. Driving has too long been the default, so you look at every attempt to claw back some semblance of balance for bikers as an affront to your right to drive.

sandworm101 11y ago
The infrastructure issue isn't so simple. In my local we are in a real estate boom. There are many groups claiming that cars will not be so prominent in the near future. That view is taken onboard by zoning people when deciding on new buildings. Rather than demand sufficient parking spots and upgrades to roads and mass transit, developers are allowed pretend that a large number of residents will bike to work. That means larger condo blocks with poorer connections, harming bikes, cars and transit. There are a few "green" office blocks around here without any parking spots. So employees park on the street, annoying local business who want those spots used by customers. This is similar to the "elder housing" theory that assumes that the old people buying the condos will not commute and so do not need parking or transit services. In fact, old people go to lots of appointments, have carers that don't live with them, and are often visited by large numbers of family members. It's just a scam by developers to squeeze more condos into a given space without upgrading infrastructure. For below: Try actually running a building without parking. Repair people drive vans full of tools. 24/7 employees need to get home at 2am after the bus system has stopped. Tenant businesses need deliveries. A city isn't going to reinvent itself overnight just to accommodate some architect's vision of bike utopia. I responded to a trouble call at one of these buildings ... to great laughter, I parked my motorcycle in the lobby. Art.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  Above ground or street-level parking is literally the worst use of space possible in an urban setting.. This is fairly established by this point. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/05/22/americas-absurdis-parking-policies-visualized/ http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/05/22/americas-absurdis-park... The answer to people parking in street parking and annoying local businesses is to charge for street parking. The amount of space wasted so that cars can sit empty on expensive infrastructure in prime locations is staggering; http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-01/american-cities-waste-space-and-money-on-car-parking-say-studies http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-01/american-cit...
- jrock08 11y ago
  > The infrastructure issue isn't so simple. It's really not that complicated though > In my local we are in a real estate boom. Congrats. > There are many groups claiming that cars will not be so prominent in the near future. So say we all. > That view is taken onboard by zoning people when deciding on new buildings. Good > Rather than demand sufficient parking spots and upgrades to roads and mass transit, Define sufficient? Many municipalities have historically had rules requiring 1 parking spot per 2 bedrooms, minimum 1 per unit. This adds a strange externality which changes the types of developments that are built. Upgrading roads isn't under the purview of the developer. Upgrading mass transit is similarly under the purview of the local government, not the developer. > developers are allowed pretend that a large number of residents will bike to work. That means larger condo blocks with poorer connections, harming bikes, cars and transit. Again, this really isn't the developers fault. > There are a few "green" office blocks around here without any parking spots. So employees park on the street, annoying local business who want those spots used by customers. The local governments should start charging more for parking then. Clearly parking is under-priced if people can park their all day. > This is similar to the "elder housing" theory It's really not like that at all. The "theory" here is that people won't buy a car because owning a car will be unnecessary or too expensive. > In fact, old people go to lots of appointments, Appointments that they probably shouldn't be driving to >have carers that don't live with them, Which if scheduled correctly shouldn't require 1 parking space per resident. > are often visited by large numbers of family members. Again, this is more a scheduling problem. Every resident's family doesn't need a dedicated parking spot every day. > It's just a scam by developers to squeeze more condos into a given space without upgrading infrastructure. I'd say that drivers and car companies have been running a scam for the past 50 years. Everyone got so used to their underutilized highways and ample parking that everyone bought a car. Unfortunately, as the population grew and got more dense that's not a reasonable status quo anymore, so either, we have to figure out how to fit more cars into less space, or we have to accept that the heyday of cars cars cars is over and learn to live without them.

by jrock08 11y ago

sandworm101 11y ago

The infrastructure issue isn't so simple. In my local we are in a real estate boom. There are many groups claiming that cars will not be so prominent in the near future. That view is taken onboard by zoning people when deciding on new buildings. Rather than demand sufficient parking spots and upgrades to roads and mass transit, developers are allowed pretend that a large number of residents will bike to work. That means larger condo blocks with poorer connections, harming bikes, cars and transit. There are a few "green" office blocks around here without any parking spots. So employees park on the street, annoying local business who want those spots used by customers. This is similar to the "elder housing" theory that assumes that the old people buying the condos will not commute and so do not need parking or transit services. In fact, old people go to lots of appointments, have carers that don't live with them, and are often visited by large numbers of family members. It's just a scam by developers to squeeze more condos into a given space without upgrading infrastructure. For below: Try actually running a building without parking. Repair people drive vans full of tools. 24/7 employees need to get home at 2am after the bus system has stopped. Tenant businesses need deliveries. A city isn't going to reinvent itself overnight just to accommodate some architect's vision of bike utopia. I responded to a trouble call at one of these buildings ... to great laughter, I parked my motorcycle in the lobby. Art.

mikeyouse 11y ago
Above ground or street-level parking is literally the worst use of space possible in an urban setting.. This is fairly established by this point. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/05/22/americas-absurdis-parking-policies-visualized/ http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/05/22/americas-absurdis-park... The answer to people parking in street parking and annoying local businesses is to charge for street parking. The amount of space wasted so that cars can sit empty on expensive infrastructure in prime locations is staggering; http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-01/american-cities-waste-space-and-money-on-car-parking-say-studies http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-01/american-cit...
jrock08 11y ago
> The infrastructure issue isn't so simple. It's really not that complicated though > In my local we are in a real estate boom. Congrats. > There are many groups claiming that cars will not be so prominent in the near future. So say we all. > That view is taken onboard by zoning people when deciding on new buildings. Good > Rather than demand sufficient parking spots and upgrades to roads and mass transit, Define sufficient? Many municipalities have historically had rules requiring 1 parking spot per 2 bedrooms, minimum 1 per unit. This adds a strange externality which changes the types of developments that are built. Upgrading roads isn't under the purview of the developer. Upgrading mass transit is similarly under the purview of the local government, not the developer. > developers are allowed pretend that a large number of residents will bike to work. That means larger condo blocks with poorer connections, harming bikes, cars and transit. Again, this really isn't the developers fault. > There are a few "green" office blocks around here without any parking spots. So employees park on the street, annoying local business who want those spots used by customers. The local governments should start charging more for parking then. Clearly parking is under-priced if people can park their all day. > This is similar to the "elder housing" theory It's really not like that at all. The "theory" here is that people won't buy a car because owning a car will be unnecessary or too expensive. > In fact, old people go to lots of appointments, Appointments that they probably shouldn't be driving to >have carers that don't live with them, Which if scheduled correctly shouldn't require 1 parking space per resident. > are often visited by large numbers of family members. Again, this is more a scheduling problem. Every resident's family doesn't need a dedicated parking spot every day. > It's just a scam by developers to squeeze more condos into a given space without upgrading infrastructure. I'd say that drivers and car companies have been running a scam for the past 50 years. Everyone got so used to their underutilized highways and ample parking that everyone bought a car. Unfortunately, as the population grew and got more dense that's not a reasonable status quo anymore, so either, we have to figure out how to fit more cars into less space, or we have to accept that the heyday of cars cars cars is over and learn to live without them.