5 ms·

> WHAT WOULD A CITY look like if it suddenly needed 90 percent less parking? ...Amsterdam? > Take New York City, where there are roughly 102,000 public parkin

> WHAT WOULD A CITY look like if it suddenly needed 90 percent less parking? ...Amsterdam? > Take New York City, where there are roughly 102,000 public parking spaces below 60th Street—taking up roughly 18.4 million square feet, a space equal to about half of Central Park. > "San Francisco is going bananas for new housing, and Manhattan is always looking for space, and here we have this sitting in front of us," Samaras says. "That's what autonomous vehicles can do." You don't actually ned autonomous cars to do this. Just get rid of the parking (or, start charging market rate for it, and use the money to fund transit). There is an MTA trunk line on almost every avenue, and I'd argue that the ones without subway lines, as well as the major crosstown streets, should be turned into Portland Transit Malls. Enough with being nice to people that drive personal cars into Manhattan.

ars 11y ago
> Just get rid of the parking Might as well get rid of the people too while you are at it. You do know there are real, actual, humans that use those parking spots right? It's not like the car needs the spot. A person needs the spot. The goal of a city is to provide services for the PEOPLE. One of those services is parking, because PEOPLE need to park. > Enough with being nice to people that drive personal cars into Manhattan. Yes, definitely, kick all the people out. Who needs them, right?
- csydas 11y ago
  I think the intent behind the comment was to suggest that the parking is a need based on a superfluous want, and is intended as a criticism of cities that do have major transit systems which capitulated to the demand for car access. NYC has pretty substantial public transit presence that could and probably should be the transit answer for far more people, however, people chose cars for a variety of reasons. For some of the population, cars probably are a necessity; commuting may not always have a convenient transit option into the city and as such these people have a legitimate need. What the article, and likely the commenter, are suggesting, is that the "need" for parking is a result of a want for cars, not a need for cars, and the article is suggesting the trend is reversing. I think the commenter is suggesting is that it's time to start discouraging those who would take a car when they really don't need to, especially in high density urban populations with substantial public transit presence, and that with an alternative on the horizon, it's time for cities to start reclaiming space that was formerly given to parking. Tangential to this response, I am pretty glad to see that the article takes a more realistic look at the future with self-driving cars. I have been reading comments and articles for a long time where people envision "their" self-driving car, but I've always thought it far more practical to have fleets of these cars instead that are summoned rather than owned by an individual.
  - ars 11y ago
    Have you ever driven in NY? Anyone who drives a car there needs to, rather than wants to. So I was mocking the idea that making things harder for people who already have no choice about driving is a good idea. It's not. You want less cars? Then make the alternatives better, people will automatically drive less. To try to change things from the other end is just a way to torment your fellow man.
    - afarrell 11y ago
      This is an example of an approach to social problems I sometimes see that I'm going to call "sink or swim". It is a form of proposal framed in terms like "Well, if we do this, it will force $group to either $do_what_we_want or $something_really_unpleasant" and then assumes that everyone in the group will just choose to do what the proposer wants them to do, because the alternative is unthinkable and possible horrific. It is in fact the case that if you take your child and toss them into the middle of the pool, you do force them to either sink or swim. But that isn't the same thing as actually getting them to swim.
    - csydas 11y ago
      I find it difficult to believe that compared to cities of similar size and population density that New York citizens have a greater need for cars. The other similarly sized/populous cities all rely far more heavily on mass transit than New Yorkers appear to, many of the cities that are more populated/larger than New York also are far more mass-transit focused. (Not to say that cars/congestion issues do no exist in said cities, it's just that a greater % of the population rides instead of drives) What about New York makes it so different that driving is an absolute necessity as opposed to say, London? And what creates the need for ownership as opposed to a fleet of automated cars handling the movement around the city? I can envision how a car might be important for occasional living errands, like groceries, etc., but car ownership as a need? Could not the majority of New Yorker needs be filled by either street services like Car2Go/Zipcar or by a fleet of summonable self-driving cars?
      - ars 11y ago
- cballard 11y ago
  > Yes, definitely, kick all the people out. Who needs them, right? 3/4s of Manhattanites do not even own a car, let alone drive it in the city as their main form of transportation. Yes, enough with catering to Jersey and LI people that are for some reason unwilling to use the perfectly fine NJT, PATH, and LIRR trains. If they will not use mass transit and expect to store their personal vehicle on some of the most expensive real estate in the world for free, yes, "kick them out".
afarrell 11y ago
> "San Francisco is going bananas for new housing, and Manhattan is always looking for space, and here we have this sitting in front of us," Samaras says. "That's what autonomous vehicles can do." Wouldn't a sizable portion of the electorate in San Francisco object in the name of affordable housing to building new housing in the space left behind by unused parking?
- tempestn 11y ago
  > object in the name of affordable housing to building new housing Doesn't building more housing increase housing affordability? Why would they object?
  - afarrell 11y ago
    Comprehensive sex education and access to contraception generally decreases rates of teen pregnancy. People still object to those two things in the name of avoiding teen pregnancy.
- danielrhodes 11y ago
  No, in fact neighborhood groups generally get upset if new housing goes up without parking as it is believed the new residents will put additional pressure on public parking spots.
zifnab06 11y ago
I'll pick on Seattle, as that's where I'm currently living. To bus to my office, I have a 30 minute bus ride on one of the rapidride busses, then transfer to a king county metro bus. The second bus takes between 0 and 30 minutes to arrive, normally gets stuck in traffic on the route it takes, and arrives near my office in 10 to 30 minutes. This is assuming neither bus is full and picks people up at either stop. On the best day, I'm on a bus for 40 minutes. On the worst, 90. That's 1.5-3 hours a day dealing with a commute. Alternatively, if I drive, I leave when I want to and normally arrive in 15-20 minutes. On a good day I save an hour a day driving, and on a bad one almost 2 hours. I'm all for public transit, when it works efficiently. We currently do not have a rail system that reaches the majority of our population (its being planned though). I can't justify the additional time for my commute, because I'd always have to plan for the worst. The bright side is sound transit is working on a proposal to expand their existing light rail. I'm all for efficient, timely, and reliable public transportation. I live 4 miles from work. It shouldn't take up to 90 minutes for me to get there.
- yodsanklai 11y ago
  > I live 4 miles from work. It shouldn't take up to 90 minutes for me to get there. That should be 20-30 min by bicycle :) is that an option?
  - tempestn 11y ago
    In Seattle you're going to get pretty wet biking to work a significant percentage of the time. Depending on your job that might be an issue. (Or it might not at all. Before I worked from home I used to bike to work and shower there; it was great.) Also though, not everyone is able or wants to power their own transportation, and although I think biking is great, I this choosing not to is also perfectly reasonable and should also be respected.
    - Symbiote 11y ago
      The weather isn't that much different to Amsterdam or Copenhagen. But in both cities, buses have the exclusive use of some road space. This ensures a reliable journey time.

ars 11y ago

> Just get rid of the parking Might as well get rid of the people too while you are at it. You do know there are real, actual, humans that use those parking spots right? It's not like the car needs the spot. A person needs the spot. The goal of a city is to provide services for the PEOPLE. One of those services is parking, because PEOPLE need to park. > Enough with being nice to people that drive personal cars into Manhattan. Yes, definitely, kick all the people out. Who needs them, right?

csydas 11y ago
I think the intent behind the comment was to suggest that the parking is a need based on a superfluous want, and is intended as a criticism of cities that do have major transit systems which capitulated to the demand for car access. NYC has pretty substantial public transit presence that could and probably should be the transit answer for far more people, however, people chose cars for a variety of reasons. For some of the population, cars probably are a necessity; commuting may not always have a convenient transit option into the city and as such these people have a legitimate need. What the article, and likely the commenter, are suggesting, is that the "need" for parking is a result of a want for cars, not a need for cars, and the article is suggesting the trend is reversing. I think the commenter is suggesting is that it's time to start discouraging those who would take a car when they really don't need to, especially in high density urban populations with substantial public transit presence, and that with an alternative on the horizon, it's time for cities to start reclaiming space that was formerly given to parking. Tangential to this response, I am pretty glad to see that the article takes a more realistic look at the future with self-driving cars. I have been reading comments and articles for a long time where people envision "their" self-driving car, but I've always thought it far more practical to have fleets of these cars instead that are summoned rather than owned by an individual.
- ars 11y ago
  Have you ever driven in NY? Anyone who drives a car there needs to, rather than wants to. So I was mocking the idea that making things harder for people who already have no choice about driving is a good idea. It's not. You want less cars? Then make the alternatives better, people will automatically drive less. To try to change things from the other end is just a way to torment your fellow man.
  - afarrell 11y ago
    This is an example of an approach to social problems I sometimes see that I'm going to call "sink or swim". It is a form of proposal framed in terms like "Well, if we do this, it will force $group to either $do_what_we_want or $something_really_unpleasant" and then assumes that everyone in the group will just choose to do what the proposer wants them to do, because the alternative is unthinkable and possible horrific. It is in fact the case that if you take your child and toss them into the middle of the pool, you do force them to either sink or swim. But that isn't the same thing as actually getting them to swim.
  - csydas 11y ago
    I find it difficult to believe that compared to cities of similar size and population density that New York citizens have a greater need for cars. The other similarly sized/populous cities all rely far more heavily on mass transit than New Yorkers appear to, many of the cities that are more populated/larger than New York also are far more mass-transit focused. (Not to say that cars/congestion issues do no exist in said cities, it's just that a greater % of the population rides instead of drives) What about New York makes it so different that driving is an absolute necessity as opposed to say, London? And what creates the need for ownership as opposed to a fleet of automated cars handling the movement around the city? I can envision how a car might be important for occasional living errands, like groceries, etc., but car ownership as a need? Could not the majority of New Yorker needs be filled by either street services like Car2Go/Zipcar or by a fleet of summonable self-driving cars?
    - ars 11y ago
cballard 11y ago
> Yes, definitely, kick all the people out. Who needs them, right? 3/4s of Manhattanites do not even own a car, let alone drive it in the city as their main form of transportation. Yes, enough with catering to Jersey and LI people that are for some reason unwilling to use the perfectly fine NJT, PATH, and LIRR trains. If they will not use mass transit and expect to store their personal vehicle on some of the most expensive real estate in the world for free, yes, "kick them out".

afarrell 11y ago

> "San Francisco is going bananas for new housing, and Manhattan is always looking for space, and here we have this sitting in front of us," Samaras says. "That's what autonomous vehicles can do." Wouldn't a sizable portion of the electorate in San Francisco object in the name of affordable housing to building new housing in the space left behind by unused parking?

tempestn 11y ago
> object in the name of affordable housing to building new housing Doesn't building more housing increase housing affordability? Why would they object?
- afarrell 11y ago
  Comprehensive sex education and access to contraception generally decreases rates of teen pregnancy. People still object to those two things in the name of avoiding teen pregnancy.
danielrhodes 11y ago
No, in fact neighborhood groups generally get upset if new housing goes up without parking as it is believed the new residents will put additional pressure on public parking spots.

zifnab06 11y ago

I'll pick on Seattle, as that's where I'm currently living. To bus to my office, I have a 30 minute bus ride on one of the rapidride busses, then transfer to a king county metro bus. The second bus takes between 0 and 30 minutes to arrive, normally gets stuck in traffic on the route it takes, and arrives near my office in 10 to 30 minutes. This is assuming neither bus is full and picks people up at either stop. On the best day, I'm on a bus for 40 minutes. On the worst, 90. That's 1.5-3 hours a day dealing with a commute. Alternatively, if I drive, I leave when I want to and normally arrive in 15-20 minutes. On a good day I save an hour a day driving, and on a bad one almost 2 hours. I'm all for public transit, when it works efficiently. We currently do not have a rail system that reaches the majority of our population (its being planned though). I can't justify the additional time for my commute, because I'd always have to plan for the worst. The bright side is sound transit is working on a proposal to expand their existing light rail. I'm all for efficient, timely, and reliable public transportation. I live 4 miles from work. It shouldn't take up to 90 minutes for me to get there.

yodsanklai 11y ago
> I live 4 miles from work. It shouldn't take up to 90 minutes for me to get there. That should be 20-30 min by bicycle :) is that an option?
- tempestn 11y ago
  In Seattle you're going to get pretty wet biking to work a significant percentage of the time. Depending on your job that might be an issue. (Or it might not at all. Before I worked from home I used to bike to work and shower there; it was great.) Also though, not everyone is able or wants to power their own transportation, and although I think biking is great, I this choosing not to is also perfectly reasonable and should also be respected.
  - Symbiote 11y ago
    The weather isn't that much different to Amsterdam or Copenhagen. But in both cities, buses have the exclusive use of some road space. This ensures a reliable journey time.