5 ms·

(Former Chicago resident here) Higher parking rates means fewer people driving, which is a long-term win. I highly doubt this was the top priority for the peop

(Former Chicago resident here) Higher parking rates means fewer people driving, which is a long-term win. I highly doubt this was the top priority for the people who set the Chicago parking rates, but it's actually a good thing for the city. Yes, you can argue "it just means parking is for rich people" -- to which I'd respond "keep increasing the parking rates, along with some other tactics, and even rich people will turn to other means of transportation." Here in Amsterdam, the city government is deliberately doing things like raising parking rates, closing streets to car traffic and removing street parking -- all in an effort to reduce car usage.

outworlder 3y ago
> Higher parking rates means fewer people driving, which is a long-term win. Only if they have decent alternatives.
- rubymancer 3y ago
  Indeed. Our elevated trains are excellent (even though everyone complains) but even with recent expansions they don't serve huge swaths of the city. https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/ctamap_Lsystem.png https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/ctamap_Lsystem.png If you're on the NW or SW sides in particular, you're going to need a car. We're getting more and more bike lanes but they're also very unequally distributed and biking is...not great for winter.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  There are many in Chicago
steveBK123 3y ago
Two issue - US is incapable of building transit infra. We should be able, but the last 50 years have shown otherwise. Making driving harder and praying that somehow makes transit good is not a solution, though many cities are now trying that. I think a lot of Euros misunderestimate (to quote Dubya) how much more extreme North American city climates are. Using wikipedia data, Amsterdam's lowest mean temperature month is January at 3.8C, and highest mean temperature month is July at 18.1C. Chicago has 3 months below 3.8C per year, in fact it's below 0C for 3 months. Plus 4 months above 18.1C. Some of our climates just aren't terribly comfortable for biking here. NYC is not much better either.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  The US has built lots of transportation infrastructure over the last 50 years, including astounding amounts of highways. I think the bigger issues here are (1) a regulatory environment that heavily disfavors mass transit, and (2) a suburban (and, increasingly, urban) culture that prefers isolation to the risk of "undesirables" brought into their neighborhoods by mass transit. As a small example of this: DC's metro was conceived a little over 50 years ago, and opened its first line about 47 years ago[1]. It's still expanding, and yet many of its stations are inconveniently placed because the communities it served didn't want DC's plurality black population entering their segregated suburbs[2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_Transit_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_T... [2]: https://ggwash.org/view/98/racial-politics-kept-college-park-metro-far-from-campus https://ggwash.org/view/98/racial-politics-kept-college-park...
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    DC metro was falling apart with massive service cuts as recently as like.. last year wasn't it? As I recall they had some massive deferred maintenance on the rolling stock causing derailments.
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      The DC metro's funding scheme can be most succinctly and politely described as "bonkers"[1]. I brought it up as an example of the US successfully constructing mass transit in the last 50 years, not a shining example of municipal management. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_Transit_Authority#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_T...
- vlark 3y ago
  The U.S. is capable of building transit infra. We are incapable of overcoming multiple nesting, competing, and ensnared layers of local, regional, state, and federal bureaucracies to actually get them built, even when there is a taxpayer desire/mandate for such projects.
b112 3y ago
Here in Amsterdam Yes, the car culture of Amsterdam, in one of the most densely populated counties on the planet, surely should be the car culture of a country with endless tracts of land. Voters (the important part of a democracy, you see) want to drive in the US. Therefore, there should be no attempts to thwart people in that goal. And to speak to that, Amsterdam has ample places to bike, a strong bike culture, paths, public transportation. It makes sense to remove unused parking spaces, and Amsterdam already has loads of places you cannot drive. This is not Chicago. Suggesting people remove parking spaces before providing strong, complete, full alternatives, such as extensive piblic transport, and alternatives to cars, should be criminal. It's the wrong way to approach the problem.
- LeanderK 3y ago
  it's not the wrong way because it's not always about the needs of the suburban/commuting community. Reducing car traffic can be a goal itself because it calms the neighbourhood for the community living in the urban areas or enables car-free, walkable zones reused for cafes etc. Those places can often fundamentally not coexist with cars. Parking can also be removed just because it's needed for other infrastructure, e.g. bike lanes. There are many reasons to remove parking spaces. So I would say that usually it's about providing incentives to use public transit and reduce the incentives to drive, but sometimes it's purely about reducing traffic. The poster also said that he's a former chicago resident (in his bio it says he's actually from chicago), so he exactly knows what he's talking about.
  - b112 3y ago
    The poster also said that he's a former chicago resident (in his bio it says he's actually from chicago), so he exactly knows what he's talking about. That's a logical fallacy. So I would say that usually it's about providing incentives to use public transit and reduce the incentives to drive, but sometimes it's purely about reducing traffic It should never be about either of these. Instead, provide public transportation people want to use. Carrot, never stick.
    - 3y ago

outworlder 3y ago

> Higher parking rates means fewer people driving, which is a long-term win. Only if they have decent alternatives.

rubymancer 3y ago
Indeed. Our elevated trains are excellent (even though everyone complains) but even with recent expansions they don't serve huge swaths of the city. https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/ctamap_Lsystem.png https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/ctamap_Lsystem.png If you're on the NW or SW sides in particular, you're going to need a car. We're getting more and more bike lanes but they're also very unequally distributed and biking is...not great for winter.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
There are many in Chicago

steveBK123 3y ago

Two issue - US is incapable of building transit infra. We should be able, but the last 50 years have shown otherwise. Making driving harder and praying that somehow makes transit good is not a solution, though many cities are now trying that. I think a lot of Euros misunderestimate (to quote Dubya) how much more extreme North American city climates are. Using wikipedia data, Amsterdam's lowest mean temperature month is January at 3.8C, and highest mean temperature month is July at 18.1C. Chicago has 3 months below 3.8C per year, in fact it's below 0C for 3 months. Plus 4 months above 18.1C. Some of our climates just aren't terribly comfortable for biking here. NYC is not much better either.

woodruffw 3y ago
The US has built lots of transportation infrastructure over the last 50 years, including astounding amounts of highways. I think the bigger issues here are (1) a regulatory environment that heavily disfavors mass transit, and (2) a suburban (and, increasingly, urban) culture that prefers isolation to the risk of "undesirables" brought into their neighborhoods by mass transit. As a small example of this: DC's metro was conceived a little over 50 years ago, and opened its first line about 47 years ago[1]. It's still expanding, and yet many of its stations are inconveniently placed because the communities it served didn't want DC's plurality black population entering their segregated suburbs[2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_Transit_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_T... [2]: https://ggwash.org/view/98/racial-politics-kept-college-park-metro-far-from-campus https://ggwash.org/view/98/racial-politics-kept-college-park...
- steveBK123 3y ago
  DC metro was falling apart with massive service cuts as recently as like.. last year wasn't it? As I recall they had some massive deferred maintenance on the rolling stock causing derailments.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    The DC metro's funding scheme can be most succinctly and politely described as "bonkers"[1]. I brought it up as an example of the US successfully constructing mass transit in the last 50 years, not a shining example of municipal management. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_Transit_Authority#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_T...
vlark 3y ago
The U.S. is capable of building transit infra. We are incapable of overcoming multiple nesting, competing, and ensnared layers of local, regional, state, and federal bureaucracies to actually get them built, even when there is a taxpayer desire/mandate for such projects.

b112 3y ago

Here in Amsterdam Yes, the car culture of Amsterdam, in one of the most densely populated counties on the planet, surely should be the car culture of a country with endless tracts of land. Voters (the important part of a democracy, you see) want to drive in the US. Therefore, there should be no attempts to thwart people in that goal. And to speak to that, Amsterdam has ample places to bike, a strong bike culture, paths, public transportation. It makes sense to remove unused parking spaces, and Amsterdam already has loads of places you cannot drive. This is not Chicago. Suggesting people remove parking spaces before providing strong, complete, full alternatives, such as extensive piblic transport, and alternatives to cars, should be criminal. It's the wrong way to approach the problem.

LeanderK 3y ago
it's not the wrong way because it's not always about the needs of the suburban/commuting community. Reducing car traffic can be a goal itself because it calms the neighbourhood for the community living in the urban areas or enables car-free, walkable zones reused for cafes etc. Those places can often fundamentally not coexist with cars. Parking can also be removed just because it's needed for other infrastructure, e.g. bike lanes. There are many reasons to remove parking spaces. So I would say that usually it's about providing incentives to use public transit and reduce the incentives to drive, but sometimes it's purely about reducing traffic. The poster also said that he's a former chicago resident (in his bio it says he's actually from chicago), so he exactly knows what he's talking about.
- b112 3y ago
  The poster also said that he's a former chicago resident (in his bio it says he's actually from chicago), so he exactly knows what he's talking about. That's a logical fallacy. So I would say that usually it's about providing incentives to use public transit and reduce the incentives to drive, but sometimes it's purely about reducing traffic It should never be about either of these. Instead, provide public transportation people want to use. Carrot, never stick.
  - 3y ago