4 ms·

Why does everyone think that the solution to traffic problems is to first make driving even more terrible and then oh yeah maybe get around to improving or even

by wanderr 10y ago

Why does everyone think that the solution to traffic problems is to first make driving even more terrible and then oh yeah maybe get around to improving or even providing public transit? Why can't we swap the order, especially when it takes years to implement public transit improvements? Also, we need to resist the temptation to assume that low utilization of a half assed public transit solution means that nobody wants it. In my small town, we had a bus line that had almost no utilization despite going between two desirable locations; an area with tons of apartments oriented towards students and the university itself. The city was talking about killing the line but someone convinced them to try making the bus run more frequently, and continue running later into the day as a trial. The line went from having the lowest ridership to the highest. Not every improvement will be that dramatic of course, but I think often times public transit is underutilized because it's not meeting the needs of the population.

stouset 10y ago
We have tried swapping the order. There's no will for good public transit solutions when people can expect to drive everywhere because the current state of things has disproportionately favored cars.
- dbcurtis 10y ago
  True, that. So how about instead of mandating parking spaces, mandate an area set-asside for public transit right-of-way. Then allow the right-of-way area to be used for parking until the transit authority exercises it's right-of-way. At first, there will be islands of disconnected right-of-way that make no sense for build-out, and they get used for parking. Eventually, re-development fill-in will connect adjacent regions, and then the transit authority can build a reasonable sized segment.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    Your city doesn't have bus lanes or a dedicated transit street? Seattle has both. It doesn't really address the issue, though it does make service for the rush hour suburb / city commuters better. (which is really all the current public transit infrastructure in the Seattle and surrounding areas is optimized for). Nor does it address the issue of it being expensive to extend the service in a way that meaningfully empowers, E.G. those working a late shift somewhere, to get home at 2AM.
- wanderr 10y ago
  Do you have any links to case studies where this was tried and failed? Every example I've seen ends up being like my story, we did a half-assed version as a trial and it flopped so we gave up. I'm not denying the existence of times when it was given a fair shot, I'm just not aware of them and would like to be. To me it seems like a no brainer that the demand is there whether driving is terrible or not, good public transit can be better than private even if a city doesn't go out of its way to discourage driving (and don't get me wrong, if a city has good public transit options then I think it should commit and strongly discourage driving).
mjevans 10y ago
I see 'parking' as just a symptom of a larger issue. The lack of civic planning and encouragement of desirable and healthy balance within communities. Cities should be much more like the Caves of Steel (Asimov). Instead of cars on the roadways pedestrians should have bizarre (market streets), park way, and retail streets. People moving belts could also increase flow. An entirely different layer would be used for the vehicles. Electric motored transport for goods, services, and people; within a city these would likely be orchestrated via central driving servers. At the edge of the city, and likely also by ports and major civic centers, there'd be interfaces for legacy vehicles. Massive parking and warehouse structures that are well connected to the local civic infrastructure for moving goods and people.
CydeWeys 10y ago
> Why does everyone think that the solution to traffic problems is to first make driving even more terrible Parking space requirements (along with other zoning regulations) prevent cities from being built densely enough to reach the critical mass needed for great public transit. It's not an accident that our densest cities (e.g. New York) also happen to be our oldest cities, from before the advent of most of the zoning regulations. Significant swaths of New York City could not be built again the way they are now thanks to zoning laws that have since come into play! Contrast with Los Angeles, a city which was largely developed post-zoning-laws, and you can see the huge resultant different in density, and thus apocalyptic levels of traffic with few good alternatives.
- closeparen 10y ago
  One less parking space is what, 1/3rd of a tiny studio? One additional floor of height limit is 5-6 whole apartments. We can get a lot more bang for our buck with fewer negative side effects by building upwards (in places where parking is not necessary).
  - rspeer 10y ago
    Parking requirements are used by NIMBYs to prevent building upwards.
sitkack 10y ago
Road networks are at an over capacity which makes it worse for everyone and disproportionally worse for people on high occupancy transit. Look at when schools are out and parents aren't shuttling their kids around. Road networks are clear, congestion is gone and things move smoothly. Lets get to that stage by whatever means necessary.

by wanderr 10y ago

stouset 10y ago

We have tried swapping the order. There's no will for good public transit solutions when people can expect to drive everywhere because the current state of things has disproportionately favored cars.

dbcurtis 10y ago
True, that. So how about instead of mandating parking spaces, mandate an area set-asside for public transit right-of-way. Then allow the right-of-way area to be used for parking until the transit authority exercises it's right-of-way. At first, there will be islands of disconnected right-of-way that make no sense for build-out, and they get used for parking. Eventually, re-development fill-in will connect adjacent regions, and then the transit authority can build a reasonable sized segment.
- mjevans 10y ago
  Your city doesn't have bus lanes or a dedicated transit street? Seattle has both. It doesn't really address the issue, though it does make service for the rush hour suburb / city commuters better. (which is really all the current public transit infrastructure in the Seattle and surrounding areas is optimized for). Nor does it address the issue of it being expensive to extend the service in a way that meaningfully empowers, E.G. those working a late shift somewhere, to get home at 2AM.
wanderr 10y ago
Do you have any links to case studies where this was tried and failed? Every example I've seen ends up being like my story, we did a half-assed version as a trial and it flopped so we gave up. I'm not denying the existence of times when it was given a fair shot, I'm just not aware of them and would like to be. To me it seems like a no brainer that the demand is there whether driving is terrible or not, good public transit can be better than private even if a city doesn't go out of its way to discourage driving (and don't get me wrong, if a city has good public transit options then I think it should commit and strongly discourage driving).

mjevans 10y ago

I see 'parking' as just a symptom of a larger issue. The lack of civic planning and encouragement of desirable and healthy balance within communities. Cities should be much more like the Caves of Steel (Asimov). Instead of cars on the roadways pedestrians should have bizarre (market streets), park way, and retail streets. People moving belts could also increase flow. An entirely different layer would be used for the vehicles. Electric motored transport for goods, services, and people; within a city these would likely be orchestrated via central driving servers. At the edge of the city, and likely also by ports and major civic centers, there'd be interfaces for legacy vehicles. Massive parking and warehouse structures that are well connected to the local civic infrastructure for moving goods and people.

CydeWeys 10y ago

> Why does everyone think that the solution to traffic problems is to first make driving even more terrible Parking space requirements (along with other zoning regulations) prevent cities from being built densely enough to reach the critical mass needed for great public transit. It's not an accident that our densest cities (e.g. New York) also happen to be our oldest cities, from before the advent of most of the zoning regulations. Significant swaths of New York City could not be built again the way they are now thanks to zoning laws that have since come into play! Contrast with Los Angeles, a city which was largely developed post-zoning-laws, and you can see the huge resultant different in density, and thus apocalyptic levels of traffic with few good alternatives.

closeparen 10y ago
One less parking space is what, 1/3rd of a tiny studio? One additional floor of height limit is 5-6 whole apartments. We can get a lot more bang for our buck with fewer negative side effects by building upwards (in places where parking is not necessary).
- rspeer 10y ago
  Parking requirements are used by NIMBYs to prevent building upwards.

sitkack 10y ago

Road networks are at an over capacity which makes it worse for everyone and disproportionally worse for people on high occupancy transit. Look at when schools are out and parents aren't shuttling their kids around. Road networks are clear, congestion is gone and things move smoothly. Lets get to that stage by whatever means necessary.