5 ms·

>Why should the city and property owners have to subsidize cars? They shouldn't, but they need some way for people to get to them and flow people through the ci

by Buge 10y ago

>Why should the city and property owners have to subsidize cars? They shouldn't, but they need some way for people to get to them and flow people through the city, or they will cease to exist. So cities should remove all parking minimum laws, and let apartments and businesses decide how much parking to build. That's exactly what the article is saying.

taurath 10y ago
If everyone did that, the value of their property would go down unless the city picked up the tab for alternate transport. Either way the city pays
- Buge 10y ago
  Why would the value of their property go down? Apple's new headquarters has 318k ft^2 of office space and 325k ft^2 of legally required parking spaces. If Apple could flexibly choose what they wanted to do with their land, they could use their land in more useful ways, making it more valuable to them.
  - taurath 10y ago
    If people can't get there, or park there, then its less valuable to them. There's freeway capacity and bus routes to think about, and I'm 100% sure that they planned their campus alongside city planners in cupertino and santa clara county. That area of Wolfe Rd. would be totally overrun if there wasn't enough parking not only for current employees but future ones as well.
    - tetrep 10y ago
      > If people can't get there, or park there, then its less valuable to them. So the natural response to that is to force businesses to have greater value? Is this not exactly what market forces would do naturally? A business with insufficient parking would have less value than one with, and would therefore compete less effectively.
    - Buge 10y ago
      It's in Apple's interest to optimize their transportation situation. Because Apple built the absolute minimum amount of parking, it seems to indicate that Apple thinks less parking than that is necessary for optimal performance. Instead of investing money in parking, they could have spent that money on private buses, public bus passes for employees, bike parking, bike subsidies, Uber subsidies, sponsored carpools, bike paths, or nearby high density corporate housing. As for freeway capacity, if we reduce free parking, that will cause less people to drive, making the freeways more clear.
derblitzmann 10y ago
At least in Washington/Seattle, there is a gas tax which helps pay for road maintenance. But of course increases the price of gas. I'm lucky in that I can walk to work (~40 minutes), and the bus ride is roughly 5 minutes faster if I make it to the stop as it comes in.

by Buge 10y ago

taurath 10y ago

If everyone did that, the value of their property would go down unless the city picked up the tab for alternate transport. Either way the city pays

Buge 10y ago
Why would the value of their property go down? Apple's new headquarters has 318k ft^2 of office space and 325k ft^2 of legally required parking spaces. If Apple could flexibly choose what they wanted to do with their land, they could use their land in more useful ways, making it more valuable to them.
- taurath 10y ago
  If people can't get there, or park there, then its less valuable to them. There's freeway capacity and bus routes to think about, and I'm 100% sure that they planned their campus alongside city planners in cupertino and santa clara county. That area of Wolfe Rd. would be totally overrun if there wasn't enough parking not only for current employees but future ones as well.
  - tetrep 10y ago
    > If people can't get there, or park there, then its less valuable to them. So the natural response to that is to force businesses to have greater value? Is this not exactly what market forces would do naturally? A business with insufficient parking would have less value than one with, and would therefore compete less effectively.
  - Buge 10y ago
    It's in Apple's interest to optimize their transportation situation. Because Apple built the absolute minimum amount of parking, it seems to indicate that Apple thinks less parking than that is necessary for optimal performance. Instead of investing money in parking, they could have spent that money on private buses, public bus passes for employees, bike parking, bike subsidies, Uber subsidies, sponsored carpools, bike paths, or nearby high density corporate housing. As for freeway capacity, if we reduce free parking, that will cause less people to drive, making the freeways more clear.

derblitzmann 10y ago

At least in Washington/Seattle, there is a gas tax which helps pay for road maintenance. But of course increases the price of gas. I'm lucky in that I can walk to work (~40 minutes), and the bus ride is roughly 5 minutes faster if I make it to the stop as it comes in.