4 ms·

“Replacing parking” is going to cause all sorts of fun. Where will the cars go? And please spare me the tired “transit that is safe and not full of stabby hobo

“Replacing parking” is going to cause all sorts of fun. Where will the cars go? And please spare me the tired “transit that is safe and not full of stabby hoboes will magically sprout out of nothing overnight” nonsense.

ceejayoz 2y ago
> Where will the cars go? Half of some cities' downtown space is parking. https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities/4162455-paved-paradise-maps-show-how-much-of-us-cities-are-parking-lots/ https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities... Every apartment complex in my area clearly has way, way more parking that needed - at no time of day are they more than 50% occupied.
- jajko 2y ago
  In Europe generally all new bigger construction has most parking below ground, even 2-3 floors. Very few outside if any, normally just for quick drop off or services. I've even seen locals blocking a successful local bank trying to build a additional building and planning way too many of those - citing concern of too much added traffic in neighborhood. Not entirely sure if thats the best approach, but thats how how respect for laws and locals looks like. At the end, bank managed just fine despite that restriction.
- lotsoweiners 2y ago
  > at no time of day are they more than 50% occupied Why is that? Is there more than one parking space per bedroom or do people not have cars?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    America has eight parking spots per car. https://www.fastcompany.com/90645900/america-has-eight-parking-spaces-for-every-car-heres-how-cities-are-rethinking-that-land https://www.fastcompany.com/90645900/america-has-eight-parki... > Parking standards were created arbitrarily, without adequate data. Zoning laws usually require one parking space per apartment, one per 300 square feet of commercial development, and one per 100 square feet for restaurants. For context, a parking space measures 160 square feet on average, plus additional area for driveways and driving lanes, so an eatery’s parking lot may be three times the size of its dining area.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
The problem is that parking is too cheap. It's not hard to find parking in downtown NYC but you have to pay an arm and a leg for it. Get rid of free parking and you'll never be short of it again. Putting a proper price will reduce demand and increase supply.
- richwater 2y ago
  This is literally just a regressive tax. Especially (but not solely) in areas with lack of quality public transportation (ie, doesn't double the time it takes to get somewhere)
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Free parking is also regressive, the poor pay a much higher portion of their income for "free" parking than the rich do. More generally, parking is a service. All market goods & services are highly regressive, because the rich and poor pay basically the same price. Addressing inequality at the individual goods level always creates more problems than it solves. Addressing it for parking is particularly unfair, because the very poorest don't have cars. The poor would be far better off with more welfare and a less regressive tax system so they have more money to choose what they need. Paying for "free" parking via property taxes and baked into the costs of local stores is inefficient and regressive.
thesuitonym 2y ago
Transit that is safe will never sprout if you keep building parking lots.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. But you need to solve people's transportation problems first, not claim that if they give up car transportation options something else will materialize later.
  - thesuitonym 2y ago
    I never said otherwise, but continuing to prioritize cars only makes everything, even car travel, worse.
    - dmitrygr 2y ago
      > > But you need to solve people's transportation > > problems first, not claim that if they give up > > car transportation options something else will > > materialize later . > I never said otherwise, but continuing to prioritize > cars only makes everything, even car travel, worse. . You have JUST said otherwise! You want to deprioritize what works in favour of what does not exist while offering no path for it to exist and dodging the reality that no such path exists.
      - thesuitonym 2y ago
        Okay, thank you for telling me what I want to do. You see, I thought I wanted start working on other forms of transit while still leaving cars as they are. I thought I wanted to stop saying one more lane will fix it, and actually try adding transit options. I thought I wanted to build safe sidewalks and bike infrastructure that actually goes somewhere, instead of just adding more parking lots. I'm really glad you were here to tell me what I actually wanted. I'm glad you were here to twist my words up so bad that I finally understand that what I really wanted is to completely get rid of cars overnight, and then sit around on our thumbs and hope that someday a magic carpet will come and carry us all off to our destinations.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Where will the cars go? Idk, don't move there if having on-site parking is a dealbreaker for you. It isn't for a lot of people. Why should they subsidize someone else's parking preferences?
- _carbyau_ 2y ago
  OTOH, nimbyism sucks. OTOH, having 4/6/8 new tinyhouses worth of neighbours and the streets filled with their cars sucks for many in the neighbourhood - so you'd expect them to resist, or at least ask the question. Where will the cars go? The "pursuit of happiness" applies to all.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > you'd expect them to resist, or at least ask the question. Where will the cars go? Sounds like a streetside-parking regulation problem. Everyone asking questions every time someone wants to build anything is why we don’t build anymore. If we want to require parking we don’t get to complain about housing affordability.
    - _carbyau_ 2y ago
      The groups of people that "require parking" are largely different to the groups of people that "complain about housing affordability". It's no surprise that complex issues will have various factions arguing about "their happiness". It does seem like many countries are beyond the point of further conversation and need positive impactful action regarding housing affordability. Or even just any action at all so we can tell if it is the correct action...
      - NewJazz 2y ago
        Uh, no, there are plenty of people who complain about both affordability and availability of parking, sometimes in the same sentence.
        deleted 2y ago
rickydroll 2y ago
This is where you have to be smart about parking. Building small houses like that, raised up so you can park a car underneath, gets dual use out of the same square footage. While you are at it, orient the building properly so that installing PV panels on the roof makes sense. Now we have three uses for the same square footage.
gradientsrneat 2y ago
If you're not able to afford a regular-sized house in some area, you're likely not able to afford a car either. Also, the places with more residential density already have public transit that is heavily used by normal people. Sadly cities will always have crime, but IMO crimes on public transit are the least of your problems if you're stuck in a neighborhood like that. And nothing is stopping miscreants from stealing stuff from your car trunk, breaking a window in your car just for fun, or keying your car, or possibly much worse if your car is a Tesla these days.
- gradientsrneat 2y ago
  Forgot the elephant in the room here. Public transit fatality rates per mile are much lower than driving your own car.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> Where will the cars go? Half of some cities' downtown space is parking. https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities/4162455-paved-paradise-maps-show-how-much-of-us-cities-are-parking-lots/ https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities... Every apartment complex in my area clearly has way, way more parking that needed - at no time of day are they more than 50% occupied.

jajko 2y ago
In Europe generally all new bigger construction has most parking below ground, even 2-3 floors. Very few outside if any, normally just for quick drop off or services. I've even seen locals blocking a successful local bank trying to build a additional building and planning way too many of those - citing concern of too much added traffic in neighborhood. Not entirely sure if thats the best approach, but thats how how respect for laws and locals looks like. At the end, bank managed just fine despite that restriction.
lotsoweiners 2y ago
> at no time of day are they more than 50% occupied Why is that? Is there more than one parking space per bedroom or do people not have cars?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  America has eight parking spots per car. https://www.fastcompany.com/90645900/america-has-eight-parking-spaces-for-every-car-heres-how-cities-are-rethinking-that-land https://www.fastcompany.com/90645900/america-has-eight-parki... > Parking standards were created arbitrarily, without adequate data. Zoning laws usually require one parking space per apartment, one per 300 square feet of commercial development, and one per 100 square feet for restaurants. For context, a parking space measures 160 square feet on average, plus additional area for driveways and driving lanes, so an eatery’s parking lot may be three times the size of its dining area.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

The problem is that parking is too cheap. It's not hard to find parking in downtown NYC but you have to pay an arm and a leg for it. Get rid of free parking and you'll never be short of it again. Putting a proper price will reduce demand and increase supply.

richwater 2y ago
This is literally just a regressive tax. Especially (but not solely) in areas with lack of quality public transportation (ie, doesn't double the time it takes to get somewhere)
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Free parking is also regressive, the poor pay a much higher portion of their income for "free" parking than the rich do. More generally, parking is a service. All market goods & services are highly regressive, because the rich and poor pay basically the same price. Addressing inequality at the individual goods level always creates more problems than it solves. Addressing it for parking is particularly unfair, because the very poorest don't have cars. The poor would be far better off with more welfare and a less regressive tax system so they have more money to choose what they need. Paying for "free" parking via property taxes and baked into the costs of local stores is inefficient and regressive.

thesuitonym 2y ago

Transit that is safe will never sprout if you keep building parking lots.

bigstrat2003 2y ago
Maybe, maybe not. But you need to solve people's transportation problems first, not claim that if they give up car transportation options something else will materialize later.
- thesuitonym 2y ago
  I never said otherwise, but continuing to prioritize cars only makes everything, even car travel, worse.
  - dmitrygr 2y ago
    > > But you need to solve people's transportation > > problems first, not claim that if they give up > > car transportation options something else will > > materialize later . > I never said otherwise, but continuing to prioritize > cars only makes everything, even car travel, worse. . You have JUST said otherwise! You want to deprioritize what works in favour of what does not exist while offering no path for it to exist and dodging the reality that no such path exists.
    - thesuitonym 2y ago
      Okay, thank you for telling me what I want to do. You see, I thought I wanted start working on other forms of transit while still leaving cars as they are. I thought I wanted to stop saying one more lane will fix it, and actually try adding transit options. I thought I wanted to build safe sidewalks and bike infrastructure that actually goes somewhere, instead of just adding more parking lots. I'm really glad you were here to tell me what I actually wanted. I'm glad you were here to twist my words up so bad that I finally understand that what I really wanted is to completely get rid of cars overnight, and then sit around on our thumbs and hope that someday a magic carpet will come and carry us all off to our destinations.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Where will the cars go? Idk, don't move there if having on-site parking is a dealbreaker for you. It isn't for a lot of people. Why should they subsidize someone else's parking preferences?

_carbyau_ 2y ago
OTOH, nimbyism sucks. OTOH, having 4/6/8 new tinyhouses worth of neighbours and the streets filled with their cars sucks for many in the neighbourhood - so you'd expect them to resist, or at least ask the question. Where will the cars go? The "pursuit of happiness" applies to all.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > you'd expect them to resist, or at least ask the question. Where will the cars go? Sounds like a streetside-parking regulation problem. Everyone asking questions every time someone wants to build anything is why we don’t build anymore. If we want to require parking we don’t get to complain about housing affordability.
  - _carbyau_ 2y ago
    The groups of people that "require parking" are largely different to the groups of people that "complain about housing affordability". It's no surprise that complex issues will have various factions arguing about "their happiness". It does seem like many countries are beyond the point of further conversation and need positive impactful action regarding housing affordability. Or even just any action at all so we can tell if it is the correct action...
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      Uh, no, there are plenty of people who complain about both affordability and availability of parking, sometimes in the same sentence.
      - deleted 2y ago

rickydroll 2y ago

This is where you have to be smart about parking. Building small houses like that, raised up so you can park a car underneath, gets dual use out of the same square footage. While you are at it, orient the building properly so that installing PV panels on the roof makes sense. Now we have three uses for the same square footage.

gradientsrneat 2y ago

If you're not able to afford a regular-sized house in some area, you're likely not able to afford a car either. Also, the places with more residential density already have public transit that is heavily used by normal people. Sadly cities will always have crime, but IMO crimes on public transit are the least of your problems if you're stuck in a neighborhood like that. And nothing is stopping miscreants from stealing stuff from your car trunk, breaking a window in your car just for fun, or keying your car, or possibly much worse if your car is a Tesla these days.

gradientsrneat 2y ago
Forgot the elephant in the room here. Public transit fatality rates per mile are much lower than driving your own car.