4 ms·
It's adding indirectly, more space taken by parking lots means that you have to spread further, which begets the need for more cars Less parking spaces > dense
by joseda-hg 1y ago
It's adding indirectly, more space taken by parking lots means that you have to spread further, which begets the need for more cars
Less parking spaces > denser enviroments > more walking(Or other more compact forms of transport) > less cars (To an extent) > less congestion
The US has multiple (smaller) countries worth of parking space
- josephcsible 1y agoI'm immediately suspicious of any chain that links "denser environments" to "less congestion", since everywhere I've ever been, the densest environments have the most congestion.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- joseda-hg 1y agoIt's a bit like adding extra lanes, to some degree, demand expands to meet capacity (But I mantain that in this case the net effect is possitive) There would be less space to be congested by fewer vehicles, but in this context, less congestion also means fewer people experience the congestion directly (because it also works to disincentivize car usage), but those affected have it the same or worse. I wouldn't take my car to a large city center if I can at all avoid it, which seems to be the common reaction. These people are "transparent" to the congestion—they don't add to it and (mostly) aren't affected by it.
- joseda-hg 1y agoOn the same idea, I think the densest enviroments are a bad comparisson There's a noticeable middle ground between US Style Sprawl and say, Tokyo But the alternative to Tokyo isn't Tokyo but with 20 million cars, it just stops being Tokyo Density accounts for situations that expansion can't
- Ekaros 1y agoSo optimal would be to get entirely rid of private and single user vehicles likes taxis. Thus density could be maximised.