4 ms·

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

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
    The worry that motivates parking minimums is, if your street has 1 parking spot per home, and my street has 0.5 parking spots per home, that car owners will buy homes on my street anyway, and they'll park on your street when there's no space on mine. This is called 'displaced parking' and it's a pretty well known problem among parking planners. You'll get the same thing if, for example, the college campus starts charging $5 to park when students can park for free on nearby streets and walk. You can get around this with parking permits and towing everywhere in walking distance - but you can't be timid and imagine the new street won't interact with other parking locally.

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
  The worry that motivates parking minimums is, if your street has 1 parking spot per home, and my street has 0.5 parking spots per home, that car owners will buy homes on my street anyway, and they'll park on your street when there's no space on mine. This is called 'displaced parking' and it's a pretty well known problem among parking planners. You'll get the same thing if, for example, the college campus starts charging $5 to park when students can park for free on nearby streets and walk. You can get around this with parking permits and towing everywhere in walking distance - but you can't be timid and imagine the new street won't interact with other parking locally.