4 ms·

Absolutely this fetish for getting rid off street parking will just lead to third world traffic jams. BTW I am a non car driver here

pkulak 7y ago
Seems like an inability to store private vehicles for free on public property would reduce cars and traffic.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  No did you not see the TG special where they tried to drive through a big African city. And do you think the fact that in third world countries there is a market for poop bags you carry in the car to shit into - might support my position.
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    How would getting rid of street parking mean third world traffic jams where people have to go to the bathroom in their cars? Are you 100% sure that street parking is the only difference between these two situations?
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  Street parking doesn't need to be free.
  - PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
    It does for people who already live there and don't have parking on their property.
- Spivak 7y ago
  It’s not ‘free’ it’s paid for by property taxes. Just because in certain areas it’s not worth it to actually enforce permits doesn’t mean the city won’t at the request of the homeowners or businesses.
  - timerol 7y ago
    Free here means free at point of use. I pay property taxes and don't own a car. You pay property taxes and do park a car. We both pay the same toward parking, therefore it makes sense to say parking is free.
- jayd16 7y ago
  Without alternatives it will simply reduce commerce in that area which, sure, will reduce traffic. When these suggestions are made HN seems to forget people still need to live the time between when this pain is enforced and if/when a solution arises.
- PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
  So you're going to go back in time and create parking where none was built?
sachdevap 7y ago
"Third world" traffic jams are what you get when you have enough population density. And for that, you don't have to go to this "third world" you speak of, look at NY.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  While I don't agree with the GP, traffic in NYC is nothing like what it is describing (i.e., significantly better than the "third world").
  - sachdevap 7y ago
    I am not making a direct comparison. I am using NYC as a case for how population density affects traffic. That does not have much to do with a place being "third world". He/She could as well make points about better infrastructure instead of disparaging places as "third world" countries. The notion of bucketing countries is derogatory, and does not add to the argument. And just to make my point further, OP's other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20810496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20810496 makes it pretty clear they have every intention to stereotype countries as "third world"
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      > I am not making a direct comparison. I am using NYC as a case for how population density affects traffic. Yes, you are. You said: > "Third world" traffic jams are what you get when you have enough population density. then proceeded to throw out NYC as a non-"third world" example. > He/She could as well make points about better infrastructure instead of disparaging places as "third world" countries. The notion of bucketing countries is derogatory, and does not add to the argument. > And just to make my point further, OP's other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20810496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20810496 makes it pretty clear they have every intention to stereotype countries as "third world" Yes, it could have, and the use of "third world" as shorthand for "lacking proper transportation infrastructure" was unnecessary and somewhat derogatory. However, your initial response doesn't address that. It just puts the cause of traffic jams as population density, then compares NYC's density (and, implicitly, traffic), to the places being referenced.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
yowlingcat 7y ago
I am not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that a lack of street parking is what causes traffic jams rather than a lack of sane traffic infrastructure or public transportation. But, it doesn't make sense from first principles, at least. Could you explain how you came to that conclusion?

pkulak 7y ago

Seems like an inability to store private vehicles for free on public property would reduce cars and traffic.

C1sc0cat 7y ago
No did you not see the TG special where they tried to drive through a big African city. And do you think the fact that in third world countries there is a market for poop bags you carry in the car to shit into - might support my position.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  How would getting rid of street parking mean third world traffic jams where people have to go to the bathroom in their cars? Are you 100% sure that street parking is the only difference between these two situations?
vonmoltke 7y ago
Street parking doesn't need to be free.
- PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
  It does for people who already live there and don't have parking on their property.
Spivak 7y ago
It’s not ‘free’ it’s paid for by property taxes. Just because in certain areas it’s not worth it to actually enforce permits doesn’t mean the city won’t at the request of the homeowners or businesses.
- timerol 7y ago
  Free here means free at point of use. I pay property taxes and don't own a car. You pay property taxes and do park a car. We both pay the same toward parking, therefore it makes sense to say parking is free.
jayd16 7y ago
Without alternatives it will simply reduce commerce in that area which, sure, will reduce traffic. When these suggestions are made HN seems to forget people still need to live the time between when this pain is enforced and if/when a solution arises.
PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
So you're going to go back in time and create parking where none was built?

sachdevap 7y ago

"Third world" traffic jams are what you get when you have enough population density. And for that, you don't have to go to this "third world" you speak of, look at NY.

vonmoltke 7y ago
While I don't agree with the GP, traffic in NYC is nothing like what it is describing (i.e., significantly better than the "third world").
- sachdevap 7y ago
  I am not making a direct comparison. I am using NYC as a case for how population density affects traffic. That does not have much to do with a place being "third world". He/She could as well make points about better infrastructure instead of disparaging places as "third world" countries. The notion of bucketing countries is derogatory, and does not add to the argument. And just to make my point further, OP's other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20810496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20810496 makes it pretty clear they have every intention to stereotype countries as "third world"
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    > I am not making a direct comparison. I am using NYC as a case for how population density affects traffic. Yes, you are. You said: > "Third world" traffic jams are what you get when you have enough population density. then proceeded to throw out NYC as a non-"third world" example. > He/She could as well make points about better infrastructure instead of disparaging places as "third world" countries. The notion of bucketing countries is derogatory, and does not add to the argument. > And just to make my point further, OP's other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20810496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20810496 makes it pretty clear they have every intention to stereotype countries as "third world" Yes, it could have, and the use of "third world" as shorthand for "lacking proper transportation infrastructure" was unnecessary and somewhat derogatory. However, your initial response doesn't address that. It just puts the cause of traffic jams as population density, then compares NYC's density (and, implicitly, traffic), to the places being referenced.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

yowlingcat 7y ago

I am not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that a lack of street parking is what causes traffic jams rather than a lack of sane traffic infrastructure or public transportation. But, it doesn't make sense from first principles, at least. Could you explain how you came to that conclusion?