8 ms·

I'd also be in favor of getting rid of parking minimums in cities and just about everywhere else - an enormous benefit to car, oil and construction companies th

I'd also be in favor of getting rid of parking minimums in cities and just about everywhere else - an enormous benefit to car, oil and construction companies that just degrades the environment.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 6y ago
Which will tank home prices because suburbia is genuinely not livable without a vehicle. Public transportation doesn’t work since people are super spread out, all commercial activity is miles away, your work is probably 20-60 min away by car. Abolishing parking minimums or generally discouraging cars in isolation just makes everyone worse off. You have to make the area livable without a vehicle first.
- barrkel 6y ago
  Increased density makes public transport more viable. If you outlaw density increase, you're definitely not going to get good public transport.
  - jansan 6y ago
    Let's face it, public transportation has not proved to be very helpful during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here in Germany, private cars have saved our butt. I have become much more sceptical towards public transport in the last few months.
    - noirbot 6y ago
      How has Japan/South Korea worked around that? When I think of countries with crowded public transit, Japan is always top of mind, but they seem to have avoided a lot of the virus transmission problems you'd think would have been associated with that.
      - jansan 6y ago
        Maybe, but on the other hand New York has fared tremendously bad. And in Germany the public transport was working, but almost completely empty. Very few were using it, everybody else relied on private cars.
        noirbot 6y ago
        That's what I mean though - what are places like Tokyo doing that Berlin isn't in this case? Or is the Tokyo subway as abandoned as NYC's these days?
        ChuckNorris89 6y ago
        Because car ownership in much cheaper in Berlin and Germany as a whole than in Tokyo so even if public transport would be safe in Berlin as it is in Tokyo, if people are afraid of exposure, the Berliners have private alternatives while people of Tokyo have to shrug it off on take the subway.
        noirbot 6y ago
        But then wouldn't more people in Tokyo be catching the virus because they're taking a train where they're in close poorly-ventilated proximity to a lot of other people? But instead, we're seeing their case load actually stay fairly reasonable compared to NYC or Berlin, where there's more car usage.
- namdnay 6y ago
  you need both the stick and the carrot
- u801e 6y ago
  For distances of 10 miles or less, a bicycle would work as a vehicle.
  - briandear 6y ago
    It’s going to be 104 degrees where I am this weekend in Central Texas. Nobody wants to ride a bicycle for non-fitness/fun purposes in that sort of heat. And it’s 50% humidity as well. Ten miles in Amsterdam is much different than ten miles in Phoenix or Texas or New Orleans.
    - yohannparis 6y ago
      I disagree, I road my bike in Phoenix in middle of June by +100ºF. What was awful was the lack of infrastructure, and car drivers who have no idea how to use an oversize roads with oversized vehicle and no one else. Biking on a hot day with a nice hat at a leisure pace is fine. Specially if you provide safe environment.
      - u801e 6y ago
        > What was awful was the lack of infrastructure On lower speed roads with frequent intersections, that infrastructure causes more problems than it's worth because it makes intersection navigation far more hazardous than just using the roadway like any other vehicle.
        yohannparis 6y ago
        Bike infrastructure does not mean separate path ways. It can simply be normal 6' lanes for cars, and 4' lane for unmotorized vehicle (bike, skateboard, rollerblades, etc.)
        u801e 6y ago
        Are you using ' to denote feet? Most general travel lanes are 10 to 14 feet wide. The 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities states that the minimum operating width for a cyclist is 4 feet with a preferred operating width of 5 feet. A lot of bike lanes, in my experience, are of substandard width and, as a consequence, result in closer passes/overtakes by cars in the adjacent general purpose lane because of the lack of sufficient width in the bike lane and the fact that motorists tend to drift from side to side within their lane during the normal course of driving (especially when the road has a curve). So, riding in the bike lane actually makes things worse for the cyclist in terms of dealing with overtaking traffic compared to riding in the center of the general purpose lane.
- treis 6y ago
  Not having a parking minimum doesn't mean that people won't build parking. Just that they aren't forced to if it doesn't make sense. The flip side to this is that it doesn't work in the context of on street parking. Or at least it allows some freeloaders to overwhelm the public resource. But that's kind of the point for them. The goal is to make cars unviable so that people are forced to use public transportation.
  - kungtotte 6y ago
    100% of the time, companies will do what is either cheapest or stands to make them the most money in the long run. That's why you need regulations like minimum parking, otherwise companies would completely forgo parking if they could get away with it. So it really does mean that they won't build parking.
    - treis 6y ago
      I dont think that's right. Nobody would build a suburban mall without parking. Nobody would go there since they wouldn't be able to park their car. Developers would weigh the cost of building parking against the benefit it provides. Some would still build lots of parking but others might not.
      - kungtotte 6y ago
        Sure, you can't predict which way any given company will go in a situation like this, but my initial statement is still true. Minimizing costs and maximizing profits is always what companies do absent any external factors. Consider the following scenario: Walmart builds a new store with lots of parking, and across the road a Target opens and they gamble on having no parking since the Walmart lot is just across the street. Target saves a lot of money this way, so they're incentivised to not build parking. Imagine that Walmart knows this might happen, and so they choose not to build the parking because they don't want to subsidize Target's parking. Now two huge stores go up with no or minimal parking. It's a prisoner's dilemma brought on by lack of regulation.
- xvedejas 6y ago
  Allowing developers to decide to have a few fewer spots in new developments isn't going to change anything over night. Framing public transport and car diets as a chicken-and-egg problem helps nobody, they need to happen simultaneously; because your sentiment is right: why have one without the other?
  - Spivak 6y ago
    But it’s not a chicken/egg problem! It’s just that you have to have the carrot before you can start using the stick. People are just trying to live their lives. Inconveniencing vehicle users won’t actually change anything because they have zero power over the “vision” of their area and zoning. The change has to come from the city planners first. I would love love love to not need a car. And my area is pouring millions in mixed use land projects to make it happen. It’s a decades long project.
    - catern 6y ago
      If a developer doesn't include parking spots in a building, can't you just not go there? It's their choice to not prioritize customers using cars.
    - xvedejas 6y ago
      Let me double-down on a bolder argument. Removing minimums doesn't inconvenience vehicle users. It doesn't remove any parking spots that already exist. It doesn't bring in more vehicles than previously existed. If a new business expects to rely on driving customers, it will still build parking. If a new housing development expects to attract driving residents, it will still build parking for them. There are plenty of people who don't drive and currently have to pay a slight premium for a parking space they don't use. The market currently cannot efficiently serve those people. I am one of those people. Removing parking minimums helps people like me, and honestly doesn't effect people like you. Just because such a change wouldn't do anything in particular to help vehicle owners doesn't mean it's going to hurt them either.
      - michaelt 6y ago
- baq 6y ago
  That’s easily solvable with park and ride sites. I’d argue the biggest issue with implementing this is a no-can-do attitude, because it’s actually a positive feedback loop which needs to be cut without remorse.
  - briandear 6y ago
    Park and rides suck. It’s the worst of both worlds: I still have to drive. Then on top of that, I have to wait for a bus and ride on a bus with a bunch of other (potentially infectious) people.
- ixvvqktiwl 6y ago
  "tank home prices" - isn't the US supposed to be a free market economy? Price controls only exist in states with planned economies.
  - briandear 6y ago
    The free market would react to a lack of parking/transportation and fewer buyers will want to buy those houses and thus the prices will tank. Nobody is talking about price controls.
    - greenonions 6y ago
      Actually parking minimums are the price control, keeping prices higher than they may be without them. So someone is...
- yohannparis 6y ago
  I agree, just raise the price of gas by 10, then people might reconsider where to park, shop, and live.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    I feel like you assume people have way more financial independence than they actually do. Yes there are very wealthy burbs but they’re the outlier and most people are fleeing outside the city, and hence becoming dependent on personal vehicles, because it’s where they can afford to live. Like if you can afford to live downtown in my city you’re either really well off because $/sq ft. is astronomical or are some combination of young, single, and childless so you can put up with living in a studio/small 1 bedroom.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- theluketaylor 6y ago
  Abolishing minimums won’t do any of those things. It will allow the market to dictate how much parking is valued. In sparse suburbs parking levels would likely remain about the same, since as you point out, living there without a car is very challenging. In more dense areas (or near reasonable quality transit) developers can forgo some parking previously required and offer more units.
- ip26 6y ago
  Abolishing minimums does allow you to do things like build a nice compact downtown with lots of parking on the edges. Drive to downtown, park, walk a hundred yards to your destination.
nradov 6y ago
Removing parking minimums means that all the new residents still have cars and park on the street, thus making it impossible for my friends and family to find parking when they come to visit.
- omosubi 6y ago
  What do you mean by new residents? Is the number of net residents increasing? Parking minimums just mean that developers aren't forced to include parking, which raises prices. Developers can still add them if they want

I'd also be in favor of getting rid of parking minimums in cities and just about everywhere else - an enormous benefit to car, oil and construction companies that just degrades the environment.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Spivak 6y ago

Which will tank home prices because suburbia is genuinely not livable without a vehicle. Public transportation doesn’t work since people are super spread out, all commercial activity is miles away, your work is probably 20-60 min away by car. Abolishing parking minimums or generally discouraging cars in isolation just makes everyone worse off. You have to make the area livable without a vehicle first.

barrkel 6y ago
Increased density makes public transport more viable. If you outlaw density increase, you're definitely not going to get good public transport.
- jansan 6y ago
  Let's face it, public transportation has not proved to be very helpful during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here in Germany, private cars have saved our butt. I have become much more sceptical towards public transport in the last few months.
  - noirbot 6y ago
    How has Japan/South Korea worked around that? When I think of countries with crowded public transit, Japan is always top of mind, but they seem to have avoided a lot of the virus transmission problems you'd think would have been associated with that.
    - jansan 6y ago
      Maybe, but on the other hand New York has fared tremendously bad. And in Germany the public transport was working, but almost completely empty. Very few were using it, everybody else relied on private cars.
      - noirbot 6y ago
        That's what I mean though - what are places like Tokyo doing that Berlin isn't in this case? Or is the Tokyo subway as abandoned as NYC's these days?
        ChuckNorris89 6y ago
        Because car ownership in much cheaper in Berlin and Germany as a whole than in Tokyo so even if public transport would be safe in Berlin as it is in Tokyo, if people are afraid of exposure, the Berliners have private alternatives while people of Tokyo have to shrug it off on take the subway.
        noirbot 6y ago
        But then wouldn't more people in Tokyo be catching the virus because they're taking a train where they're in close poorly-ventilated proximity to a lot of other people? But instead, we're seeing their case load actually stay fairly reasonable compared to NYC or Berlin, where there's more car usage.
namdnay 6y ago
you need both the stick and the carrot
u801e 6y ago
For distances of 10 miles or less, a bicycle would work as a vehicle.
- briandear 6y ago
  It’s going to be 104 degrees where I am this weekend in Central Texas. Nobody wants to ride a bicycle for non-fitness/fun purposes in that sort of heat. And it’s 50% humidity as well. Ten miles in Amsterdam is much different than ten miles in Phoenix or Texas or New Orleans.
  - yohannparis 6y ago
    I disagree, I road my bike in Phoenix in middle of June by +100ºF. What was awful was the lack of infrastructure, and car drivers who have no idea how to use an oversize roads with oversized vehicle and no one else. Biking on a hot day with a nice hat at a leisure pace is fine. Specially if you provide safe environment.
    - u801e 6y ago
      > What was awful was the lack of infrastructure On lower speed roads with frequent intersections, that infrastructure causes more problems than it's worth because it makes intersection navigation far more hazardous than just using the roadway like any other vehicle.
      - yohannparis 6y ago
        Bike infrastructure does not mean separate path ways. It can simply be normal 6' lanes for cars, and 4' lane for unmotorized vehicle (bike, skateboard, rollerblades, etc.)
        u801e 6y ago
        Are you using ' to denote feet? Most general travel lanes are 10 to 14 feet wide. The 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities states that the minimum operating width for a cyclist is 4 feet with a preferred operating width of 5 feet. A lot of bike lanes, in my experience, are of substandard width and, as a consequence, result in closer passes/overtakes by cars in the adjacent general purpose lane because of the lack of sufficient width in the bike lane and the fact that motorists tend to drift from side to side within their lane during the normal course of driving (especially when the road has a curve). So, riding in the bike lane actually makes things worse for the cyclist in terms of dealing with overtaking traffic compared to riding in the center of the general purpose lane.
treis 6y ago
Not having a parking minimum doesn't mean that people won't build parking. Just that they aren't forced to if it doesn't make sense. The flip side to this is that it doesn't work in the context of on street parking. Or at least it allows some freeloaders to overwhelm the public resource. But that's kind of the point for them. The goal is to make cars unviable so that people are forced to use public transportation.
- kungtotte 6y ago
  100% of the time, companies will do what is either cheapest or stands to make them the most money in the long run. That's why you need regulations like minimum parking, otherwise companies would completely forgo parking if they could get away with it. So it really does mean that they won't build parking.
  - treis 6y ago
    I dont think that's right. Nobody would build a suburban mall without parking. Nobody would go there since they wouldn't be able to park their car. Developers would weigh the cost of building parking against the benefit it provides. Some would still build lots of parking but others might not.
    - kungtotte 6y ago
      Sure, you can't predict which way any given company will go in a situation like this, but my initial statement is still true. Minimizing costs and maximizing profits is always what companies do absent any external factors. Consider the following scenario: Walmart builds a new store with lots of parking, and across the road a Target opens and they gamble on having no parking since the Walmart lot is just across the street. Target saves a lot of money this way, so they're incentivised to not build parking. Imagine that Walmart knows this might happen, and so they choose not to build the parking because they don't want to subsidize Target's parking. Now two huge stores go up with no or minimal parking. It's a prisoner's dilemma brought on by lack of regulation.
xvedejas 6y ago
Allowing developers to decide to have a few fewer spots in new developments isn't going to change anything over night. Framing public transport and car diets as a chicken-and-egg problem helps nobody, they need to happen simultaneously; because your sentiment is right: why have one without the other?
- Spivak 6y ago
  But it’s not a chicken/egg problem! It’s just that you have to have the carrot before you can start using the stick. People are just trying to live their lives. Inconveniencing vehicle users won’t actually change anything because they have zero power over the “vision” of their area and zoning. The change has to come from the city planners first. I would love love love to not need a car. And my area is pouring millions in mixed use land projects to make it happen. It’s a decades long project.
  - catern 6y ago
    If a developer doesn't include parking spots in a building, can't you just not go there? It's their choice to not prioritize customers using cars.
  - xvedejas 6y ago
    Let me double-down on a bolder argument. Removing minimums doesn't inconvenience vehicle users. It doesn't remove any parking spots that already exist. It doesn't bring in more vehicles than previously existed. If a new business expects to rely on driving customers, it will still build parking. If a new housing development expects to attract driving residents, it will still build parking for them. There are plenty of people who don't drive and currently have to pay a slight premium for a parking space they don't use. The market currently cannot efficiently serve those people. I am one of those people. Removing parking minimums helps people like me, and honestly doesn't effect people like you. Just because such a change wouldn't do anything in particular to help vehicle owners doesn't mean it's going to hurt them either.
    - michaelt 6y ago
baq 6y ago
That’s easily solvable with park and ride sites. I’d argue the biggest issue with implementing this is a no-can-do attitude, because it’s actually a positive feedback loop which needs to be cut without remorse.
- briandear 6y ago
  Park and rides suck. It’s the worst of both worlds: I still have to drive. Then on top of that, I have to wait for a bus and ride on a bus with a bunch of other (potentially infectious) people.
ixvvqktiwl 6y ago
"tank home prices" - isn't the US supposed to be a free market economy? Price controls only exist in states with planned economies.
- briandear 6y ago
  The free market would react to a lack of parking/transportation and fewer buyers will want to buy those houses and thus the prices will tank. Nobody is talking about price controls.
  - greenonions 6y ago
    Actually parking minimums are the price control, keeping prices higher than they may be without them. So someone is...
yohannparis 6y ago
I agree, just raise the price of gas by 10, then people might reconsider where to park, shop, and live.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I feel like you assume people have way more financial independence than they actually do. Yes there are very wealthy burbs but they’re the outlier and most people are fleeing outside the city, and hence becoming dependent on personal vehicles, because it’s where they can afford to live. Like if you can afford to live downtown in my city you’re either really well off because $/sq ft. is astronomical or are some combination of young, single, and childless so you can put up with living in a studio/small 1 bedroom.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
theluketaylor 6y ago
Abolishing minimums won’t do any of those things. It will allow the market to dictate how much parking is valued. In sparse suburbs parking levels would likely remain about the same, since as you point out, living there without a car is very challenging. In more dense areas (or near reasonable quality transit) developers can forgo some parking previously required and offer more units.
ip26 6y ago
Abolishing minimums does allow you to do things like build a nice compact downtown with lots of parking on the edges. Drive to downtown, park, walk a hundred yards to your destination.

nradov 6y ago

Removing parking minimums means that all the new residents still have cars and park on the street, thus making it impossible for my friends and family to find parking when they come to visit.

omosubi 6y ago
What do you mean by new residents? Is the number of net residents increasing? Parking minimums just mean that developers aren't forced to include parking, which raises prices. Developers can still add them if they want