3 ms·

> If they want to build one with zero parking spaces, let them. The problem (in many US cities at least) is that people still buy cars even if they don't have

> If they want to build one with zero parking spaces, let them. The problem (in many US cities at least) is that people still buy cars even if they don't have a dedicated parking space, and then just park it on the street. Which creates problems for everyone in the city (the article cites that 30% of traffic in New York is people "cruising" and looking for parking spaces, for example). So if you are going to let the market do its job efficiently, you also need to put the costs of street parking on the people who actually use it. The most straightforward way to do that in US is probably with more (and more expensive) metered parking, or eliminating street parking outright if the space can be used more efficiently for some other purpose (bike lanes, bus lanes, etc).

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> The problem (in many US cities at least) is that people still buy cars even if they don't have a dedicated parking space, and then just park it on the street. That's fine if they live in a 2-unit townhouse and there is plenty of street parking there. If they move into a 10,000 unit high rise with no parking spaces and expect to find street parking near it they're a silly masochist who will quickly learn the error of their ways. > the article cites that 30% of traffic in New York is people "cruising" and looking for parking spaces, for example Then the cost of parking is being put on the people with cars, in the form of time. If they'd rather spend money there are parking apps that will direct them to the nearest available paid parking garage, often at a discount for using the app. > The most straightforward way to do that in US is probably with more (and more expensive) metered parking Which is a tax on people who have less money than time, i.e. the poor. > or eliminating street parking outright But the problem was people driving around because there weren't enough parking spaces? > if the space can be used more efficiently for some other purpose (bike lanes, bus lanes, etc). Street parking is highly efficient because you need the space between buildings anyway for light and air, and putting parking at ground level is much less expensive than building a structure that can support the weight of a vehicle. Bike lanes are mostly useless. I see them all over the place; no bikes in them. And the falling price of ebikes is quickly turning them into obsolete technology, because an ebike can keep up with other motorized vehicle traffic at city speeds and doesn't need a dedicated lane. Bus lanes are entirely useless. Any place with enough bus traffic to justify a dedicated bus lane should instead have a subway line. Do the math. If a 40-passenger bus can carry the same number of people as 40 1-passenger cars spaced 30 feet apart and traveling at 30MPH, to have the bus lane carry as many people as a normal lane would require there to be a full bus every 27 seconds.
- freetime2 3y ago
  You are ignoring the external costs of street parking and cruising. The laws mandating a certain number of parking spaces when a new building is constructed aren't there for the benefit of the building's inhabitants. They are to protect the community from an influx of new cars with no place to park - which affects everybody including people who don't even own a car. Those mandates exist for a reason, and your solution of just letting everyone build and do whatever they want does nothing to address this. Your views on bike lanes and bus lanes are overly simplistic. Bike lanes and bus lanes can be effective at reducing traffic congestion in many scenarios. [1] [2] And saying that "any place with enough bus traffic to justify a dedicated bus lane should build a subway line" is laughable, especially coming from someone who just said "the way to solve this is diversity". There is a major cost difference between building a bus lane and a subway. Even Tokyo - which has arguably the best rail infrastructure of any city in the world - uses buses and dedicated bus lanes to expand coverage of public transportation where a subway line is not feasible or warranted. All forms of transportation - cars, taxis, trains, buses, bikes, walking, etc - have their own distinct advantages and disadvantages, and city planners need to consider all of the above when designing transportation infrastructure. And I disagree that e-bikes will make bike lanes obsolete. There is a significant proportion of people who (justifiably) don't feel safe riding a bike in traffic, and having access to faster bikes isn't going to make a difference. After all, we've had scooters and motorcycles for well over 100 years and they only make up a small fraction of automobile use. If anything I think the convenience of e-bikes will increase demand for and usage of bike lanes. I also disagree that charging for street parking or utilizing the space more efficiently would disproportionately hurt the poor. If public transportation could be improved as a result, then that could be a great benefit to the poor (many of whom cannot afford to own a car in the first place). To be clear I am not calling for the eradication of all free street parking. Street parking has benefits for residents and businesses - and if a neighborhood has the space to support it without issue then that's fine. But in a place like Boston which has the 4th worst traffic congestion in the world [3]? Absolutely I would be willing to sacrifice free street parking in the interest of better public transportation. [1] https://www.vtpi.org/blw.pdf https://www.vtpi.org/blw.pdf [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920922000050 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192092... [3] https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/01/12/boston-traffic-fourth-worst-in-world-commute-time/ https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/01/12/boston-tra...

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> The problem (in many US cities at least) is that people still buy cars even if they don't have a dedicated parking space, and then just park it on the street. That's fine if they live in a 2-unit townhouse and there is plenty of street parking there. If they move into a 10,000 unit high rise with no parking spaces and expect to find street parking near it they're a silly masochist who will quickly learn the error of their ways. > the article cites that 30% of traffic in New York is people "cruising" and looking for parking spaces, for example Then the cost of parking is being put on the people with cars, in the form of time. If they'd rather spend money there are parking apps that will direct them to the nearest available paid parking garage, often at a discount for using the app. > The most straightforward way to do that in US is probably with more (and more expensive) metered parking Which is a tax on people who have less money than time, i.e. the poor. > or eliminating street parking outright But the problem was people driving around because there weren't enough parking spaces? > if the space can be used more efficiently for some other purpose (bike lanes, bus lanes, etc). Street parking is highly efficient because you need the space between buildings anyway for light and air, and putting parking at ground level is much less expensive than building a structure that can support the weight of a vehicle. Bike lanes are mostly useless. I see them all over the place; no bikes in them. And the falling price of ebikes is quickly turning them into obsolete technology, because an ebike can keep up with other motorized vehicle traffic at city speeds and doesn't need a dedicated lane. Bus lanes are entirely useless. Any place with enough bus traffic to justify a dedicated bus lane should instead have a subway line. Do the math. If a 40-passenger bus can carry the same number of people as 40 1-passenger cars spaced 30 feet apart and traveling at 30MPH, to have the bus lane carry as many people as a normal lane would require there to be a full bus every 27 seconds.

freetime2 3y ago
You are ignoring the external costs of street parking and cruising. The laws mandating a certain number of parking spaces when a new building is constructed aren't there for the benefit of the building's inhabitants. They are to protect the community from an influx of new cars with no place to park - which affects everybody including people who don't even own a car. Those mandates exist for a reason, and your solution of just letting everyone build and do whatever they want does nothing to address this. Your views on bike lanes and bus lanes are overly simplistic. Bike lanes and bus lanes can be effective at reducing traffic congestion in many scenarios. [1] [2] And saying that "any place with enough bus traffic to justify a dedicated bus lane should build a subway line" is laughable, especially coming from someone who just said "the way to solve this is diversity". There is a major cost difference between building a bus lane and a subway. Even Tokyo - which has arguably the best rail infrastructure of any city in the world - uses buses and dedicated bus lanes to expand coverage of public transportation where a subway line is not feasible or warranted. All forms of transportation - cars, taxis, trains, buses, bikes, walking, etc - have their own distinct advantages and disadvantages, and city planners need to consider all of the above when designing transportation infrastructure. And I disagree that e-bikes will make bike lanes obsolete. There is a significant proportion of people who (justifiably) don't feel safe riding a bike in traffic, and having access to faster bikes isn't going to make a difference. After all, we've had scooters and motorcycles for well over 100 years and they only make up a small fraction of automobile use. If anything I think the convenience of e-bikes will increase demand for and usage of bike lanes. I also disagree that charging for street parking or utilizing the space more efficiently would disproportionately hurt the poor. If public transportation could be improved as a result, then that could be a great benefit to the poor (many of whom cannot afford to own a car in the first place). To be clear I am not calling for the eradication of all free street parking. Street parking has benefits for residents and businesses - and if a neighborhood has the space to support it without issue then that's fine. But in a place like Boston which has the 4th worst traffic congestion in the world [3]? Absolutely I would be willing to sacrifice free street parking in the interest of better public transportation. [1] https://www.vtpi.org/blw.pdf https://www.vtpi.org/blw.pdf [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920922000050 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192092... [3] https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/01/12/boston-traffic-fourth-worst-in-world-commute-time/ https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/01/12/boston-tra...