3 ms·

> Los Angeles covers a large area so you need a car to get around. That is exactly half the problem the article is attempting to address—and the fundamental th

> Los Angeles covers a large area so you need a car to get around. That is exactly half the problem the article is attempting to address—and the fundamental thought pattern that keeps reinforcing the problem. More space dedicated to non-car traffic means easier to get around without a car. More housing units in areas currently taken up by parking means—theoretically, at least—less need to get around that large area on average if everything you need day-to-day is a short walk, cycle, bus or train ride away. > The public transportion is half there but getting better. Another point the article addresses directly—turning acres of street parking into dedicated public transport lanes. Achieve greater levels "getting better" somewhat overnight (if you imagined that it was different tomorrow). > ... it’s more dangerous because of oblivious drivers and road rage and LA streets are notorious for pot holes. Again, the article addresses this directly. So many cars on the road increases traffic, which increases driver frustration/rage, as well as distraction and obliviousness while plodding along through traffic. Turning parking into dedicated walking and cycling areas would bring a huge increase in cyclist and pedestrian safety (again, if you imagined it was different tomorrow). > I see some new apartment complexes being built with underground parking right below it which is the way to go ... The article spends considerable time arguing that this is explicitly not the way to go—parking minimums increase construction costs considerably, thus decreasing available housing units, while simultaneously increasing housing cost. Underground parking is incredibly more expensive than on-street parking, which means the already increased cost of housing with on-street parking only worsens.

lazyjones 7y ago
> More space dedicated to non-car traffic means easier to get around without a car. Not really. Car traffic shares its roads with buses, often bicycles. And the distances you need to cover don't get shorter if you remove roads or parking spaces. > More housing units in areas currently taken up by parking means—theoretically, at least—less need to get around that large area on average if everything you need day-to-day is a short walk, cycle, bus or train ride away. What assumptions does your "theory" base this claim on? That newly built houses will quickly fill with people working nearby? Perhaps they just like their small houses on the hills of LA and don't want to move to the busy center of the city.
- bobwaycott 7y ago
  My reply is a direct paraphrase of the article’s arguments. Did we read the same article in its entirety? > Car traffic shares its roads with buses, often bicycles. Not in the scenario argued for by the article. > And the distances you need to cover don't get shorter if you remove roads or parking spaces. Two things the article goes to great pains to make clear—the distances you need to cover are a direct result of horrible parking policy, and the distances become irrelevant as more space is given to denser development and increased public transport options with dedicated space. > What assumptions does your "theory" base this claim on? That newly built houses will quickly fill with people working nearby? Perhaps they just like their small houses on the hills of LA and don't want to move to the busy center of the city. All of the assumptions and data presented and explained at length in the article. That newly built housing popping up in the place of vast, sprawling parkings areas would fill with new tenants in Los Angeles does not strike me as an outlandish conclusion. Have you lived there? Yes, some people like living in the surrounding areas—but that’s somewhat forced by limited housing supply and god-awful traffic. I don’t think I’m the only person born and raised in LA who would have jumped at the chance to be right in the busy city center, especially while younger. Most of my remaining family members in the area would still do it. The rest moved away after 30+ years of being fed up with the gridlock. City centers are vibrant, awesome places. Lots of people would love to live close to work and play, and leave all the driving for when they’re ready to get out of the city.
miguelmota 7y ago
I agree with everything you said but on the last point I was thinking along the lines that if there's more underground parking, then street parking can be become dedicated bus and bicycle lanes which one would hope decreases less car usage. The infrastructure for bicycle usage sucks right now because of all the cars on the streets so moving them to dedicated structures would help. I re-read the article and you're right it addresses pretty much everything there is too discuss about parking.

lazyjones 7y ago

> More space dedicated to non-car traffic means easier to get around without a car. Not really. Car traffic shares its roads with buses, often bicycles. And the distances you need to cover don't get shorter if you remove roads or parking spaces. > More housing units in areas currently taken up by parking means—theoretically, at least—less need to get around that large area on average if everything you need day-to-day is a short walk, cycle, bus or train ride away. What assumptions does your "theory" base this claim on? That newly built houses will quickly fill with people working nearby? Perhaps they just like their small houses on the hills of LA and don't want to move to the busy center of the city.

bobwaycott 7y ago
My reply is a direct paraphrase of the article’s arguments. Did we read the same article in its entirety? > Car traffic shares its roads with buses, often bicycles. Not in the scenario argued for by the article. > And the distances you need to cover don't get shorter if you remove roads or parking spaces. Two things the article goes to great pains to make clear—the distances you need to cover are a direct result of horrible parking policy, and the distances become irrelevant as more space is given to denser development and increased public transport options with dedicated space. > What assumptions does your "theory" base this claim on? That newly built houses will quickly fill with people working nearby? Perhaps they just like their small houses on the hills of LA and don't want to move to the busy center of the city. All of the assumptions and data presented and explained at length in the article. That newly built housing popping up in the place of vast, sprawling parkings areas would fill with new tenants in Los Angeles does not strike me as an outlandish conclusion. Have you lived there? Yes, some people like living in the surrounding areas—but that’s somewhat forced by limited housing supply and god-awful traffic. I don’t think I’m the only person born and raised in LA who would have jumped at the chance to be right in the busy city center, especially while younger. Most of my remaining family members in the area would still do it. The rest moved away after 30+ years of being fed up with the gridlock. City centers are vibrant, awesome places. Lots of people would love to live close to work and play, and leave all the driving for when they’re ready to get out of the city.

miguelmota 7y ago

I agree with everything you said but on the last point I was thinking along the lines that if there's more underground parking, then street parking can be become dedicated bus and bicycle lanes which one would hope decreases less car usage. The infrastructure for bicycle usage sucks right now because of all the cars on the streets so moving them to dedicated structures would help. I re-read the article and you're right it addresses pretty much everything there is too discuss about parking.