3 ms·

To be honest on-street parking is even worse. It's dangerous and often less efficient in practice. I think it would be nice in some cities to have every second

by vlehto 10y ago

To be honest on-street parking is even worse. It's dangerous and often less efficient in practice. I think it would be nice in some cities to have every second north-south going street reserved for pedestrians and bicycles and every second for cars. Same for west-east going streets. Notice the pattern here? There are some very limited examples of this in Helsinki and Oulu. http://ospace.fi/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/IMG_1387.jpg http://ospace.fi/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/IMG_1387.jpg http://www.sci.fi/~idean/kuvat/hietahami/rotuar.jpg http://www.sci.fi/~idean/kuvat/hietahami/rotuar.jpg Usually pedestrians, restaurants and cyclist just love it. Car people don't mind, as it can curb down traffic in the morning. Less cross sections is often less traffic jams. But if there is on street parking, this will never happen. You simply need every possible way for traffic as all roads are decimated into part time parking lots.

jessriedel 10y ago
> It's dangerous and often less efficient in practice. Do you have a cite that says it's particularly dangerous on an absolute scale (rather than just "more dangerous")? On-street parking is almost always more efficient because the road does double-duty as an access path, whereas parking lots need empty lanes to access cars.
- vlehto 10y ago
  >Do you have a cite that says it's particularly dangerous on an absolute scale (rather than just "more dangerous")? I don't have source. Just a reasoning. Kid might run to the street from behind a parked car. Also cyclist sometimes bump into someone coming out of parked car. > On-street parking is almost always more efficient because the road does double-duty as an access path, whereas parking lots need empty lanes to access cars. Car needs about one 1,5 car lenghts behind to back away form a lot. That doubles as 1,5 car lengts for the opposite car and as access path. Theoretically on-steet parking only needs 0,5 car lenght in front and 0,5 car lenght in back. But this rarely happens as there are no marked lots. In practice the empty space between cars ranges from 0,3 to 1,4 and tends towards bigger. Because people want to park loose when there are not much cars and when the street fills it doesn't even out.

by vlehto 10y ago

jessriedel 10y ago

> It's dangerous and often less efficient in practice. Do you have a cite that says it's particularly dangerous on an absolute scale (rather than just "more dangerous")? On-street parking is almost always more efficient because the road does double-duty as an access path, whereas parking lots need empty lanes to access cars.

vlehto 10y ago
>Do you have a cite that says it's particularly dangerous on an absolute scale (rather than just "more dangerous")? I don't have source. Just a reasoning. Kid might run to the street from behind a parked car. Also cyclist sometimes bump into someone coming out of parked car. > On-street parking is almost always more efficient because the road does double-duty as an access path, whereas parking lots need empty lanes to access cars. Car needs about one 1,5 car lenghts behind to back away form a lot. That doubles as 1,5 car lengts for the opposite car and as access path. Theoretically on-steet parking only needs 0,5 car lenght in front and 0,5 car lenght in back. But this rarely happens as there are no marked lots. In practice the empty space between cars ranges from 0,3 to 1,4 and tends towards bigger. Because people want to park loose when there are not much cars and when the street fills it doesn't even out.