6 ms·
Getting rid of parking can get rid of traffic since less people will drive if they aren’t confident that they can get a parking space. Most US cities have a ton
by seanmcdirmid 2y ago
Getting rid of parking can get rid of traffic since less people will drive if they aren’t confident that they can get a parking space. Most US cities have a ton of on street parking that they could eliminate to put an indirect dent in congestion. This would also mean fewer people with cars (since a lot of people rely on free on street parking at home) and would lead to better use of streets (transit lanes, bike lanes, wider pedestrian sidewalks, etc…). Also, if people can’t as easily own and operate cars, demand for public transit will shoot up (like in Japan and Europe, although they never experienced a car boom like the USA).
- ben-schaaf 2y agoI completely agree, but I don't see what that has to do with this discussion. What people are arguing for is using robot taxis as a city's primary/only public transportation, which just means more people with cars.
- fnordpiglet 2y agoSorry, how would robot taxis mean more people with cars? Robot taxis are generally either driving or parked at their lot. That’s not people with cars, that’s people in on demand cars that park outside the city away from the people.
- ben-schaaf 2y agoRemoving parking reduces congestion because less people take the car, taking alternative forms of transportation instead. Removing parking to improve traffic flow so that you can push more robot taxis through the city results in more cars.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoYou can always limit robotaxi fleets via legislation, medallions were a thing before Uber/lift. Even if they aren’t limited, not having the sunk cost of a personal car can lead to more transit use anyways as long as robo taxis are priced appropriately higher. My main point is that taking away easy/street parking will be more effective than just not building roads or even going with congestion pricing.