5 ms·

L.A. should really remove all parking requirements: https://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-economics-fills-back-proposition-hhh-facilities-program/ h

L.A. should really remove all parking requirements: https://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-economics-fills-back-proposition-hhh-facilities-program/ https://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-economics-.... Dingbats were mostly constructed before the '70s constrictions on housing development, including severe parking minimums.

bcrosby95 3y ago
LA is a big place, and includes suburbs. If they're gonna do that, they'll have to add more transit to these areas. But for places with existing transit, yeah I agree.
- ravetcofx 3y ago
  Chicken and egg problem, less demand for transit and improving it if there's more people driving (and parking)
- jedberg 3y ago
  I grew up in LA and have visited many times since. The biggest change is from Uber/Lyft. You no longer need a DD or nearly as much parking, now that you can just pay someone to take you around. It's not as good as transit, but it's a good stopgap to solve the problem until there is a bunch of housing without parking and the need for transit increases.
  - mdorazio 3y ago
    FYI, Uber/Lyft are massively more expensive than owning your own vehicle or using public transit (3x-4x the cost) if you need to go places regularly. They are currently not a viable solution for lower income residents of most cities.
    - jedberg 3y ago
      Of course not, you're paying for the driver's time. That's why I said it's a viable stopgap for some people, but hopefully enough people to drive demand for better transit.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Taxis (which is all uber/lyft is) are are useful for cases where you mostly do not need to own a vehicle, but once in a rare while need to go someplace that your other alternatives don't work for.
    - scottyah 3y ago
      Rideshares (aka carpooling, not a separate paid-for service) for long distances, and bicycles for short distances are great ways to drastically increase mobility for cheap. The only time you don't get a "viable solution for lower income residents of most cities" is when you try to place a residence stupidly far from work.
    - testfrequency 3y ago
      What a subjective thing to say so confidently. I didn’t pay for a car for years as it would have been more expensive to maintain and own a vehicle - but I guess you know my finances somehow
- kurthr 3y ago
  Well, there is a bus stop 5 blocks away under the I10 overpass, which has service nominally once an hour. Maps says that it will only take 5 hours to get to your job in Culver city. Good thing you don't need parking any more.
dumbo-octopus 3y ago
Already happened, for all of California: https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/politics/2023-new-law-californias-new-minimum-parking-requirement-law-explained/509-2504c2da-2f2f-40f3-aee1-44ebaa38b285 https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/politics/2023-new-law-cali... > AB-2097 stops city and county governments across the state from implementing a minimum requirement for housing developments to provide parking, if those developments are within a half-mile of public transit. Unfortunately the LA Metro has opted for an opt-in payment scheme (for "diversity and inclusion", or some such), which means the public transit is filled with freeloaders who at best take seats and provide no money back to the maintenance of the track, and at worst are actively aggressive towards other passengers.
- gamblor956 3y ago
  LA Metro is not opt-in. Fares are mandatory, and the police can and do issue citations for fare evasion. The only free fares are for K-12 students, whose fares are being subsidized by a combination of public and private sources.
  - gosub100 3y ago
    Leaving it up to the cops discretion means they will be incentivized to enforce it against people who can pay but don't. This is what the signs say in San Diego. You CAN be asked to show your fare at any time. Meaning consequences for me but not for them. Except they don't have anything to lose so why bother? It's in their best interest to break the law and abuse the transit system for shelter, harassment, and committing more crime (spreading the heat == less chance of detection). I'll choose warming the globe any day over putting myself at risk of violence.
  - dumbo-octopus 3y ago
    Can, perhaps. Do: not so much. Most stations don't even have turnstiles, instead preferring some occasional posts you are "suggested" to tap your card at. Those that do have turnstiles without fail have handicap-ready turnstiles, which look enough like a completely open walkway to pass all forms of "plausible deniability" - especially when you see everybody in the station lining up to go through them. The only people I know who do pay are paying from company-provided passes. Everyone else is riding off them.
creer 3y ago
Most dingbats-style apts I see in California actually do use their parking space. Many of them use lots of curb parking around the location on top of that.

bcrosby95 3y ago

LA is a big place, and includes suburbs. If they're gonna do that, they'll have to add more transit to these areas. But for places with existing transit, yeah I agree.

ravetcofx 3y ago
Chicken and egg problem, less demand for transit and improving it if there's more people driving (and parking)
jedberg 3y ago
I grew up in LA and have visited many times since. The biggest change is from Uber/Lyft. You no longer need a DD or nearly as much parking, now that you can just pay someone to take you around. It's not as good as transit, but it's a good stopgap to solve the problem until there is a bunch of housing without parking and the need for transit increases.
- mdorazio 3y ago
  FYI, Uber/Lyft are massively more expensive than owning your own vehicle or using public transit (3x-4x the cost) if you need to go places regularly. They are currently not a viable solution for lower income residents of most cities.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    Of course not, you're paying for the driver's time. That's why I said it's a viable stopgap for some people, but hopefully enough people to drive demand for better transit.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Taxis (which is all uber/lyft is) are are useful for cases where you mostly do not need to own a vehicle, but once in a rare while need to go someplace that your other alternatives don't work for.
  - scottyah 3y ago
    Rideshares (aka carpooling, not a separate paid-for service) for long distances, and bicycles for short distances are great ways to drastically increase mobility for cheap. The only time you don't get a "viable solution for lower income residents of most cities" is when you try to place a residence stupidly far from work.
  - testfrequency 3y ago
    What a subjective thing to say so confidently. I didn’t pay for a car for years as it would have been more expensive to maintain and own a vehicle - but I guess you know my finances somehow
kurthr 3y ago
Well, there is a bus stop 5 blocks away under the I10 overpass, which has service nominally once an hour. Maps says that it will only take 5 hours to get to your job in Culver city. Good thing you don't need parking any more.

dumbo-octopus 3y ago

Already happened, for all of California: https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/politics/2023-new-law-californias-new-minimum-parking-requirement-law-explained/509-2504c2da-2f2f-40f3-aee1-44ebaa38b285 https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/politics/2023-new-law-cali... > AB-2097 stops city and county governments across the state from implementing a minimum requirement for housing developments to provide parking, if those developments are within a half-mile of public transit. Unfortunately the LA Metro has opted for an opt-in payment scheme (for "diversity and inclusion", or some such), which means the public transit is filled with freeloaders who at best take seats and provide no money back to the maintenance of the track, and at worst are actively aggressive towards other passengers.

gamblor956 3y ago
LA Metro is not opt-in. Fares are mandatory, and the police can and do issue citations for fare evasion. The only free fares are for K-12 students, whose fares are being subsidized by a combination of public and private sources.
- gosub100 3y ago
  Leaving it up to the cops discretion means they will be incentivized to enforce it against people who can pay but don't. This is what the signs say in San Diego. You CAN be asked to show your fare at any time. Meaning consequences for me but not for them. Except they don't have anything to lose so why bother? It's in their best interest to break the law and abuse the transit system for shelter, harassment, and committing more crime (spreading the heat == less chance of detection). I'll choose warming the globe any day over putting myself at risk of violence.
- dumbo-octopus 3y ago
  Can, perhaps. Do: not so much. Most stations don't even have turnstiles, instead preferring some occasional posts you are "suggested" to tap your card at. Those that do have turnstiles without fail have handicap-ready turnstiles, which look enough like a completely open walkway to pass all forms of "plausible deniability" - especially when you see everybody in the station lining up to go through them. The only people I know who do pay are paying from company-provided passes. Everyone else is riding off them.

creer 3y ago

Most dingbats-style apts I see in California actually do use their parking space. Many of them use lots of curb parking around the location on top of that.