4 ms·
That is fine if those residents are not permitted to have cars. If they are, you are effectively taking parking from residents who paid for it in the form of h
by LatteLazy 3y ago
That is fine if those residents are not permitted to have cars.
If they are, you are effectively taking parking from residents who paid for it in the form of higher house prices.
And what exactly are we offering as an alternative for these developments? Guaranteed bus services? Bike parks? Trams/light rail. Or is this just a "build it and the residents and their neighbours will just have to fight over parking".
Sorry to be the cynic. I am not opposed to reducing car use, I just think it has to be managed. Life isn't as simple as "cut the parking and someone else will make it work".
- harambae 3y agoAs someone who lived in Palo Alto for a long time, at least they tend to be very lax on enforcing moped and motorcycle parking (e-bikes weren't yet a thing when I lived there). Boston has begun ticketing motorbikes very aggressively and requiring them to pay the same ticket price as a car (to fill up 1/6 of the space, and a random street space that no one else would utilize). For me, this seems like the end of the line for financialization of America -- there's no longer any guise that it's about efficiency or city planning it's just a straight revenue grab when mopeds become a priority.