6 ms·
I feel like this would be putting the cart before the horse in the US. Failing to put parking in a place with poor walkability and terrible public transportatio
by chc 7y ago
I feel like this would be putting the cart before the horse in the US. Failing to put parking in a place with poor walkability and terrible public transportation doesn't seem like it would encourage much of anything.
- mktmkr 7y agoThe cars are the reason the buses are slow. 22% of LA workers travel to work without a car, which isn't great but it's not zero either. Metro LA added a dedicated bus lane on Flower and they are moving more than one bus per minute in that lane. As soon as you remove the cars everything else gets a lot better. https://twitter.com/metrolosangeles/status/1153807208229957632 https://twitter.com/metrolosangeles/status/11538072082299576...
- gowld 7y agoRemoving parking spaces puts more cars on the road -- circling for spots and parking illegally in traffic lanes. If you want faster buses, evict the cars from the bus travel lanes.
- Johnny555 7y agoIf you want faster buses, evict the cars from the bus travel lanes. That's hard to do without BRT - we have plenty of dedicated bus lanes (the right lane) around here, but they all allow cars for right-hand turns, so buses still get stuck behind a line of cars. Without BRT and center-island boarding, it's harder to reserve anything but the far-right lane since the bus needs to get there to pickup/dropoff passengers.
- SECProto 7y ago> That's hard to do without BRT - we have plenty of dedicated bus lanes (the right lane) around here, but they all allow cars for right-hand turns, so buses still get stuck behind a line of cars. Dedicated bus signalization, no right turn on red, and cars perform right turns from the second lane. Dedicated signal phase can be combined with separated bike lanes to improve safety for other road users, as well.
- mktmkr 7y agoYeah, except no. This is just one of those tropes that motorists use to force cities to subsidize them. Every study on this topic has conclusively shown that parking causes traffic. The construction of parking precedes the worsening of traffic, the amount of parking built is proportional to the amount of traffic observed, and the reverse process is also observed to correct the problem: removing parking alleviates traffic congestion. The case that parking causes traffic congestion is as strong as the case that smoking causes lung cancer.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- scarejunba 7y agoHey, do you have anything handy to support this? I can totally do my own research if it's hard for you to recall your sources. Just hoping for a quick lead or two. If you roughly remember the title of the papers or the names of authors or the regions studied, anything at all, it'll help me search faster and I'd be mega grateful.
- cosmie 7y agoConstruction of parking preceding the worsening of traffic is not the same as parking construction causing traffic congestion. Adding more servers behind a load balancer will also precede congestion on your network. Because you've increased your capacity to service additional throughput, but did not increase your network link to handle that higher throughput. So at some point, it'll start thrashing. Same with parking. You build parking in areas where you anticipate increased demand or already have unmet demand. By building parking, you increase your capacity to meet that demand. If you have unmet demand (i.e. not enough spaces for the volume of vehicles that wish to park in an area), you're limiting the economic throughput of that area. Yes, you're reducing traffic congestion in the process, but at a very real economic cost for those whom were being patronized by that now-gone traffic. Same with anticipating new demand. If you're building in an area, you want to be sure the area has enough parking capacity to absorb the intended volume of people traffic your building will have. If you're building a new skyscraper or mall or big box store, that's likely not true. So you incorporate parking into your project. Once your building (and parking) come online, you'll start attracting a higher volume of individuals to an area. Which, except for the most underutilized or mature transportation networks, will have a corresponding impact on congestion due to the greater throughput of individuals to the area. If you have mature public transportation, then your transportation network likely has the bandwidth to absorb this throughput increase with a lesser impact on congestion than if you're in an area with immature public transportation options. But mature public transportation tends to be very expensive to build and maintain. Which is only likely to happen after growing to the point of having heavy enough congestion to make such expensive and regionally disruptive changes both politically palatable and economically feasible. I do not envy urban and transportation planners.
- chc 7y agoAre they? It's always seemed to me that frequent stops, circuitous routes and long travel distances are the reason the buses are slow relative to cars. After all, cars have to deal with other cars as well. And for comparison, to the south, San Diego has much better traffic than LA, but the buses are still quite slow (e.g. I recently considered taking the bus rather than a 15-minute drive in San Diego, but it would have been over an hour by bus).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- SECProto 7y agoBuses have to stop to be useful. Any theoretical bus route will be circuituous for some subset of users. The solution to these issues is to provide bus signalization, dedicated lanes, and/or queue jumping opportunities. These changes minimally inconvenience cars while significantly speeding up buses. It makes it so that a bus route, while longer, can be time-competitive with driving (or rather, closer enough that it overcomes the inconvenience of walking to/from stops and sometimes having to wait for your bus)
- gamblor956 7y agoYou guys are both right. Removing cars from a bus lane makes the buses go faster. And having frequent stops makes buses go slower. Traveling long distances doesn't make the bus any slower; it just limits the frequency you can revisit a stop on the route without increasing the number of buses on that route.
- chc 7y agoI didn't mean long travel distances make buses go slower, I meant they amplify the disadvantages of buses, and America tends to have a lot of distance between things. If a trip would take one minute and it takes four instead, that's probably fine. If a trip would take 15 minutes and it takes an hour, that's a bigger problem, even though it's the same relative slowdown.
- 7y ago
- BubRoss 7y agoShouldn't the busses themselves end up removing cars from the road?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago>Failing to put parking in a place with poor walkability and terrible public transportation doesn't seem like it would encourage much of anything. The glass half full answer is that it incentivizes economic activity to happen elsewhere.
- bhupy 7y agoIf such a thing were to happen in the US, given the current state of infrastructure, optimistic scenario would be increased demand for UberPool / Lyft Line and carpooling in general. At least in the short term.
- mayneack 7y agoNot in DTLA. There's plenty of public transit options that exist and more being built, so it seems like the right time to stop building new buildings with tons of parking. I live in Santa Monica and most people I know making a commute between Santa Monica and DTLA are already doing so carless.
- joelx 7y agoI agree with this comment, I also live in Los Angeles and there is tons of transportation options ranging from bus to light rail to Uber to lyft. We should be pushing people to get rid of their cars instead of keeping them.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y agoIt's just lifting a requirement, for know. Presumably, there are currently cases where you have to build a parking lot even though it's the headquarters for Fundamentalist Cyclists International and situated right next to public transport. After that, it's chicken-and-egg more than cart-and-whores. With surface parking lots taking up easily half the space in many US business districts, eliminating them could double density and thereby cut average distances in half, making other modes of transportation much more feasible. Essentially, the US at one point chose cars as the dominant mode of transportation and got trapped in that decision. Anybody who has seen alternatives knows this is a tremendous burden on quality of life, yet any change will, in the short term, also hurt in different ways.
- nier 7y agoCart-and-what?
- Rebelgecko 7y agoWho else are you supposed to hire to pull your carts around?
- jessaustin 7y agoWow that is some demented autocorrect right there...
- andys627 7y agoWe've been digging the "cars first" hole for 75-100 years, so it is going to be painful for a while to get out. Less accommodation for cars is necessary for people to really consider alternatives.
- rtkwe 7y agoIt's kind of a chicken and egg problem. As long as there's requirements to provide loads of parking space there's not going to be much pressure for proper walkable and public transit accessible locations and without locations being built around these ideas there's not pressure to make them accessible by non-car traffic.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoPlaners require parking to stop on street parking causing congestion.
- adrianN 7y agoPlaces have poor walkability because parking wastes so much space.