5 ms·

Ugh. Has this author ever visited LA? The entire city / culture is built around using a car to get to places. This article does nothing to address that, other t

Ugh. Has this author ever visited LA? The entire city / culture is built around using a car to get to places. This article does nothing to address that, other than a few whimpy shoutouts to build more “convenient” public transit. Apparently we can get rid of all parking in Hollywood because a single red line runs through it. In order for a public transit system to be convenient you need a LOT of density. You also need speed. The two goals are fundamentally at odds with each other. That’s why a lot of people prefer cars. No one likes traffic or emissions, and cars are way more likely to kill you, but damn are cars convenient even in urban environments. Any plan like this can have all these numbers talking about how much space could be freed up but they need to address this fundamental problem, and this article failed to. Now what interesting is the rise of self driving cars. I’ve often see paid parking lots and think within 20-30 years they will be out of biz. A few large operators will emerge and park their cars overnight at some owned large lot far out of the city to recharge, maintain, etc, and there won’t be much need anymore. So that could be a path to what author is talking about, long term. Of course does nothing for parking lot owners who just hold onto the property speculating...

davidw 7y ago
It's always amazed me that humans - even those without much 'high tech' - can adapt to environments as diverse as the arctic, Kalahari desert, or jungles of Borneo, but god forbid the government stop mandating the precise number of parking spots places need, because no one would be able to adapt.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  Ok, go live in the arctic without any electricity since it's so easy then. Just because we can live in worse conditions doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for improvement, and as may come as a surprise to some people, most people like having parking available and find cars convenient.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    People like the freedom that a car currently embodies — if you have good alternatives, the physical object is unimportant. I’m 35, I have owned one car for two weeks, and then only for the purpose of selling it on behalf of my partner without it looking dodgy. I don’t miss it.
    - strlen0 7y ago
      What freedom? Having to pay insurance? Or a car payment? Or car maintenance? In some states, having to pass inspection? Being subject to traffic jams and dangerous conditions like potentially slamming into other people or barriers at 60+ mi/h? Or what about the freedom to pollute as much as you want with little to no consequences other than an unlivable planet a few decades/centuries from now?
      - ben_w 7y ago
        Huh, I assumed it would be clear I dislike cars, but I guess I need to work on my writing style. Those things you listed are the costs; the freedom is to be able to spontaneously decide to go somewhere new. I’m lucky enough to have been able to move to Berlin, which has excellent public transport links both internally, nationally, and internationally. Before Berlin, I lived in a small village a 40 minute bus ride from Cambridge, itself an hour by public transport from most nearby interesting places. I cycled to work (in Cambridge) because it was faster than the bus, and also because (accounting for parking) the bike commute was about the same duration as going by car, and because of the health benefits of cycling. Cycling also represents the same freedom that the car represents. I’ve cycled from Hoek van Holland to Brugg in Switzerland. There are cycle paths for the entire route, although I ended up in Brugg because of a wrong turn in Stein-Säckingen. Public transport[1] also represents this freedom, at least when it’s set up properly. The point of my Cambridge anecdote is that it isn’t always done well enough. [1] I include air travel in that. Planes are clearly flying busses.
  - davidw 7y ago
    I'd find it convenient to have no one else on the roads when I drive on them. But what's convenient and a good idea in economic terms are often different things. Just because the government stops mandating parking doesn't mean it ceases to exist - it means that it's no longer exempt from market calculations. Some developers will surely keep adding parking, because there's a demand for it. Others may not. They should be free to do so.
- kontorlaore 7y ago
  But that's not what the article proposes. They want removal of regulation regarding parking spots (free market), but building of rent-controlled social housing on the freed space (non-free market).
  - davidw 7y ago
    I'm no ideologue, so I'm fine with scattering around some government subsidized housing to help out those who have been hit worst by the housing crisis. It's a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed, so I think the solution needs to be mostly market-based, but it's going to take a lot of different approaches to fix things.
    - kontorlaore 7y ago
      Fundamentally this problem is not fixable. Everybody wants to live in NYC/SF/LA/London/Paris/Tokyo/... The moment rents drop for whatever reason (more building), a new batch of people will finally afford to move in.
      - davidw 7y ago
        > Everybody wants to live in NYC/SF/LA/London/Paris/Tokyo/... And people say everyone wants to live here in Bend, Oregon. And people say everyone wants to live in Boulder, Colorado. Just maybe... it's not actually true. And Tokyo, by the way, does a pretty good job with housing: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-...
        kontorlaore 7y ago
        > And Tokyo, by the way, does a pretty good job with housing Only in the sense of getting more bang for the buck. It's the 10th most expensive city to rent in the world: https://infogram.com/1prdmkx1zvdve1sg79z2vp56vmsm2ygmn90 https://infogram.com/1prdmkx1zvdve1sg79z2vp56vmsm2ygmn90 Or a more comprehensive study here: https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000494405/Mapping_the_world%27s_prices_2019.pdf https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD000000000049... Notice something in these list? It's all famous cities. The fact that they have wildly different housing regulations doesn't affect the rent prices, any supply is immediately absorbed back.
robertnealan 7y ago
Build more housing where driving a car isn't the default mode of getting around and people will naturally start to demand better public transportation services and local spots they can get to via bike or walking. This housing won't suit everyone's needs but there's a significant part of the population who wouldn't mind being carless even in southern California. Changing LA's car mentality isn't going to happen overnight but it has to start somewhere.
jseliger 7y ago
LA has 93 rail stations spread across at least six lines that covers 105 miles right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail There are also a number of new lines and extensions coming up: https://www.metro.net/interactives/datatables/project/ https://www.metro.net/interactives/datatables/project/. The Crenshaw line is close to opening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crenshaw/LAX_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crenshaw/LAX_Line
- jayd16 7y ago
  LA has a lot of rail. Its just a wide city so it need far more.
- kcanini 7y ago
  Compare that to a rail system that's actually useful: 472 stations, 36 lines, 850 miles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway
timerol 7y ago
If I'm reading your comment right, I think you agree with the actual policy proposal presented. LA currently makes it illegal to build density via mandating parking everywhere. Removing that mandate doesn't remove any parking immediately - it only makes future development able to increase the density over what already exists. Also, the fundamental way to have density and speed is Transit-Oriented Development. Basically super-high density within walking distance of stations. That way the experience of walking to a station, taking the train, and walking to a destination near the end station is really good. The places between the stations can be lower density without really changing anything.
gcbw3 7y ago
> culture is built around using a car to get to places. This article does nothing to address that You should read the article. compare the two first images on section 3 https://noparkinghere.com/#03 https://noparkinghere.com/#03 to understand why people take the car instead of walking to what is supposed to be next-door stores. Then remind that with actual density, your local gym/church/cafe will be actually be local, as in no need to drive to it and you still get there under 5min.
laughinghan 7y ago
> you need a LOT of density. You also need speed. The two goals are fundamentally at odds with each other. At odds? Aren't they perfectly complementary? The closer things are together, the faster it is to get between them.
bluGill 7y ago
LA already has the people and density to make transit useful. If everybody rode transit instead of driving (I mean everybody - your trash hauler would take your trash to the dump on transit!) there would be enough riders to profitably run the transit system LA needs for this to work. Of course everybody riding transit in that way isn't practical, but there is no reason with more investment in transit system AL couldn't get more riders.
MirrorNext 7y ago
Projections that I read from urbanists about autonomous cars is that it will make transit worst, not better. We’ll have empty cars driving around the city to pick some up. Causing transit. It’s the same effect Uber is causing to cities. More transit and people taking less mass transit. The scenario that I read from urbanists is that people will continue to own an autonomous car, and the car will drive you to work, drive back home to pick up your partner, drive her/him to work, drive back to pick up the kids, then drive them to school, and on and on. So more empty cars on the road. While I see autonomous cars as a cool tech, I don’t see urbanists thinking it will solve urban planning.
- hnick 7y ago
  An autonomous car should have a better reaction time than a human. If we have 100% autonomous cars, and a traffic light turns green, we should be able to avoid (or reduce) the ripple effect where cars down the line don't even start moving until a while later. They can all move at roughly the same time (and none of these cars will be reading their phones). Likewise they will react more predictably. We won't have an idiot cutting lanes, or tapping his brakes since he can't maintain a constant speed. Apparently most traffic issues are caused by a few bad actors having an over-sized effect. So I think even with more cars, we can get better flow, which is what traffic is all about. But it will be difficult or impossible with humans in the mix. I'm pretty sure many drivers will try to bully the safer driving autonomous cars if they can.

davidw 7y ago

It's always amazed me that humans - even those without much 'high tech' - can adapt to environments as diverse as the arctic, Kalahari desert, or jungles of Borneo, but god forbid the government stop mandating the precise number of parking spots places need, because no one would be able to adapt.

jimmaswell 7y ago
Ok, go live in the arctic without any electricity since it's so easy then. Just because we can live in worse conditions doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for improvement, and as may come as a surprise to some people, most people like having parking available and find cars convenient.
- ben_w 7y ago
  People like the freedom that a car currently embodies — if you have good alternatives, the physical object is unimportant. I’m 35, I have owned one car for two weeks, and then only for the purpose of selling it on behalf of my partner without it looking dodgy. I don’t miss it.
  - strlen0 7y ago
    What freedom? Having to pay insurance? Or a car payment? Or car maintenance? In some states, having to pass inspection? Being subject to traffic jams and dangerous conditions like potentially slamming into other people or barriers at 60+ mi/h? Or what about the freedom to pollute as much as you want with little to no consequences other than an unlivable planet a few decades/centuries from now?
    - ben_w 7y ago
      Huh, I assumed it would be clear I dislike cars, but I guess I need to work on my writing style. Those things you listed are the costs; the freedom is to be able to spontaneously decide to go somewhere new. I’m lucky enough to have been able to move to Berlin, which has excellent public transport links both internally, nationally, and internationally. Before Berlin, I lived in a small village a 40 minute bus ride from Cambridge, itself an hour by public transport from most nearby interesting places. I cycled to work (in Cambridge) because it was faster than the bus, and also because (accounting for parking) the bike commute was about the same duration as going by car, and because of the health benefits of cycling. Cycling also represents the same freedom that the car represents. I’ve cycled from Hoek van Holland to Brugg in Switzerland. There are cycle paths for the entire route, although I ended up in Brugg because of a wrong turn in Stein-Säckingen. Public transport[1] also represents this freedom, at least when it’s set up properly. The point of my Cambridge anecdote is that it isn’t always done well enough. [1] I include air travel in that. Planes are clearly flying busses.
- davidw 7y ago
  I'd find it convenient to have no one else on the roads when I drive on them. But what's convenient and a good idea in economic terms are often different things. Just because the government stops mandating parking doesn't mean it ceases to exist - it means that it's no longer exempt from market calculations. Some developers will surely keep adding parking, because there's a demand for it. Others may not. They should be free to do so.
kontorlaore 7y ago
But that's not what the article proposes. They want removal of regulation regarding parking spots (free market), but building of rent-controlled social housing on the freed space (non-free market).
- davidw 7y ago
  I'm no ideologue, so I'm fine with scattering around some government subsidized housing to help out those who have been hit worst by the housing crisis. It's a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed, so I think the solution needs to be mostly market-based, but it's going to take a lot of different approaches to fix things.
  - kontorlaore 7y ago
    Fundamentally this problem is not fixable. Everybody wants to live in NYC/SF/LA/London/Paris/Tokyo/... The moment rents drop for whatever reason (more building), a new batch of people will finally afford to move in.
    - davidw 7y ago
      > Everybody wants to live in NYC/SF/LA/London/Paris/Tokyo/... And people say everyone wants to live here in Bend, Oregon. And people say everyone wants to live in Boulder, Colorado. Just maybe... it's not actually true. And Tokyo, by the way, does a pretty good job with housing: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-...
      - kontorlaore 7y ago
        > And Tokyo, by the way, does a pretty good job with housing Only in the sense of getting more bang for the buck. It's the 10th most expensive city to rent in the world: https://infogram.com/1prdmkx1zvdve1sg79z2vp56vmsm2ygmn90 https://infogram.com/1prdmkx1zvdve1sg79z2vp56vmsm2ygmn90 Or a more comprehensive study here: https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000494405/Mapping_the_world%27s_prices_2019.pdf https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD000000000049... Notice something in these list? It's all famous cities. The fact that they have wildly different housing regulations doesn't affect the rent prices, any supply is immediately absorbed back.

robertnealan 7y ago

Build more housing where driving a car isn't the default mode of getting around and people will naturally start to demand better public transportation services and local spots they can get to via bike or walking. This housing won't suit everyone's needs but there's a significant part of the population who wouldn't mind being carless even in southern California. Changing LA's car mentality isn't going to happen overnight but it has to start somewhere.

jseliger 7y ago

LA has 93 rail stations spread across at least six lines that covers 105 miles right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail There are also a number of new lines and extensions coming up: https://www.metro.net/interactives/datatables/project/ https://www.metro.net/interactives/datatables/project/. The Crenshaw line is close to opening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crenshaw/LAX_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crenshaw/LAX_Line

jayd16 7y ago
LA has a lot of rail. Its just a wide city so it need far more.
kcanini 7y ago
Compare that to a rail system that's actually useful: 472 stations, 36 lines, 850 miles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway

timerol 7y ago

If I'm reading your comment right, I think you agree with the actual policy proposal presented. LA currently makes it illegal to build density via mandating parking everywhere. Removing that mandate doesn't remove any parking immediately - it only makes future development able to increase the density over what already exists. Also, the fundamental way to have density and speed is Transit-Oriented Development. Basically super-high density within walking distance of stations. That way the experience of walking to a station, taking the train, and walking to a destination near the end station is really good. The places between the stations can be lower density without really changing anything.

gcbw3 7y ago

> culture is built around using a car to get to places. This article does nothing to address that You should read the article. compare the two first images on section 3 https://noparkinghere.com/#03 https://noparkinghere.com/#03 to understand why people take the car instead of walking to what is supposed to be next-door stores. Then remind that with actual density, your local gym/church/cafe will be actually be local, as in no need to drive to it and you still get there under 5min.

laughinghan 7y ago

> you need a LOT of density. You also need speed. The two goals are fundamentally at odds with each other. At odds? Aren't they perfectly complementary? The closer things are together, the faster it is to get between them.

bluGill 7y ago

LA already has the people and density to make transit useful. If everybody rode transit instead of driving (I mean everybody - your trash hauler would take your trash to the dump on transit!) there would be enough riders to profitably run the transit system LA needs for this to work. Of course everybody riding transit in that way isn't practical, but there is no reason with more investment in transit system AL couldn't get more riders.

MirrorNext 7y ago

Projections that I read from urbanists about autonomous cars is that it will make transit worst, not better. We’ll have empty cars driving around the city to pick some up. Causing transit. It’s the same effect Uber is causing to cities. More transit and people taking less mass transit. The scenario that I read from urbanists is that people will continue to own an autonomous car, and the car will drive you to work, drive back home to pick up your partner, drive her/him to work, drive back to pick up the kids, then drive them to school, and on and on. So more empty cars on the road. While I see autonomous cars as a cool tech, I don’t see urbanists thinking it will solve urban planning.

hnick 7y ago
An autonomous car should have a better reaction time than a human. If we have 100% autonomous cars, and a traffic light turns green, we should be able to avoid (or reduce) the ripple effect where cars down the line don't even start moving until a while later. They can all move at roughly the same time (and none of these cars will be reading their phones). Likewise they will react more predictably. We won't have an idiot cutting lanes, or tapping his brakes since he can't maintain a constant speed. Apparently most traffic issues are caused by a few bad actors having an over-sized effect. So I think even with more cars, we can get better flow, which is what traffic is all about. But it will be difficult or impossible with humans in the mix. I'm pretty sure many drivers will try to bully the safer driving autonomous cars if they can.