4 ms·

Driving and parking in New York is so incredibly difficult and expensive compared to mass transit, especially the subway. In the cities where that is the case,

Driving and parking in New York is so incredibly difficult and expensive compared to mass transit, especially the subway. In the cities where that is the case, there isn't the same class division between those who drive and those who take mass transit. In LA, it is exactly the opposite: mass transit is incredibly difficult, slow, and in some cases more expensive than driving. How can you "make people of all socioeconomic classes take transit" in that scenario?

vkou 10y ago
Tear up all the parking lots, and half the roads. Or, actually, just tear up the parking lots. You can do it by taxing under-utilized land. It's obviously never going to happen, so people will keep spending ~$3-5,000/year on vehicles, and ~$1,000-2000/year on parking, for the dubious privilege of spending up to two hours a day in traffic. On the bright side, if you live that far from work, your housing is probably cheap.
- majormajor 10y ago
  > On the bright side, if you live that far from work, your housing is probably cheap. Yeah, your house probably cost ONLY 500k-1mil!
- xienze 10y ago
  > On the bright side, if you live that far from work, your housing is probably cheap. And that's exactly why things are the way they are. Shockingly, given the choice, most people would happily trade a long commute for the ability to spread out and not pay through the nose for the privilege of being crammed on top of other people.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Only because the costs of that lifestyle are socialized - either someone else pays them, or you can't opt out. Surburban sprawl is unsustainable, but is paid for by new development, parking is free, or cheap, highways aren't tolled, costs of pollution aren't factored into your bill at the pump... When you live in the city, you still pay these costs, but you don't get to reap any of the benefits.

vkou 10y ago

Tear up all the parking lots, and half the roads. Or, actually, just tear up the parking lots. You can do it by taxing under-utilized land. It's obviously never going to happen, so people will keep spending ~$3-5,000/year on vehicles, and ~$1,000-2000/year on parking, for the dubious privilege of spending up to two hours a day in traffic. On the bright side, if you live that far from work, your housing is probably cheap.

majormajor 10y ago
> On the bright side, if you live that far from work, your housing is probably cheap. Yeah, your house probably cost ONLY 500k-1mil!
xienze 10y ago
> On the bright side, if you live that far from work, your housing is probably cheap. And that's exactly why things are the way they are. Shockingly, given the choice, most people would happily trade a long commute for the ability to spread out and not pay through the nose for the privilege of being crammed on top of other people.
- vkou 10y ago
  Only because the costs of that lifestyle are socialized - either someone else pays them, or you can't opt out. Surburban sprawl is unsustainable, but is paid for by new development, parking is free, or cheap, highways aren't tolled, costs of pollution aren't factored into your bill at the pump... When you live in the city, you still pay these costs, but you don't get to reap any of the benefits.