[HN Gopher] Maps show how parking lots "eat" U.S. cities
___________________________________________________________________
Maps show how parking lots "eat" U.S. cities
Author : Amorymeltzer
Score : 177 points
Date : 2023-03-31 23:15 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bigthink.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (bigthink.com)
| fnordian_slip wrote:
| As someone who visited the US as a kid and was even then shocked
| by the amount of space dedicated to cars, seeing this information
| on a map still blew me away.
|
| The space needed for these parking lots basically guarantees you
| can not walk or bike to get anywhere. I believe that unless
| there's big investment in public transportation, there might be
| no way for these cities to break out of this vicious circle. And
| that seems to be politically unfeasible at the moment, for
| reasons that elude me.
|
| The hyperloop, a ridiculously bad alternative to a subway,
| garnered so much attention even with its obvious downsides, so
| having actually useful public transportation should be a no-
| brainer imho.
| donatj wrote:
| > The hyperloop, a ridiculously bad alternative to a subway
|
| The idea was for the Hyperloop was to do the 400 miles straight
| shot from LA to San Francisco at speeds up to 300mph. I don't
| see how a subway could do anything comparable.
| anothernewdude wrote:
| I agree with you, but I would add: I don't see how a
| hyperloop could do that either.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| Good point! My idea is to have people simply rocket
| launched via pods from LA to SF over the air about 200-300
| meters off the ground on average. Sure, it's unsafe, and
| probably has a ton of reasons that it won't work. But isn't
| it an innovative way to solve transportation problems that
| definitely isn't a tactic intended to downplay public
| transit in CA so that my totally unrelated car business has
| less of a risk of succeeding?
| bagels wrote:
| The state can't even build a "high speed" (or as other
| countries might call it, regular speed) train track between
| those places.
| jcranmer wrote:
| The CAHSR plans were for ~350 km/h rail speed, which is
| basically the highest end of high-speed rail. It's the ~200
| km/h speed of the NEC that is at best barely-high-speed
| rail.
| bagels wrote:
| The plans were for that. It's not built, and much of it,
| if built, is now not planned to support that speed.
| aeyes wrote:
| It's not 400 miles and not 300mph but the Hong Kong to
| Shenzhen XRL line is underground, traveling at up to 350kph.
|
| https://www.hyd.gov.hk/en/road_and_railway/railway_network/x.
| ..
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| > And that seems to be politically unfeasible at the moment,
| for reasons that elude me.
|
| That's because you are looking from the outside in.
|
| Every person who has grown up in the US has grown up in this
| situation. Having to drive nearly everywhere is _our version of
| normal_.
|
| Public transit in the US _sucks_. In practically every city
| that even has it, it 's the worst way to get anywhere. It's
| often a last resort: a tool for the desperately poor.
|
| On top of that, most of the US is made up of small towns that
| public transit wouldn't make any sense for. A significant
| percentage of Americans _must_ regularly travel between a major
| city and a small town. That means they must have a car, and a
| place in the city to park it. It 's a fool's errand to convince
| most people that they should drive _and_ take public transit
| all in one trip, even if it _would_ save them time and gas.
|
| There is more to this situation than the vicious cycle that
| perpetuates it. If we can be clear about how we intend to
| accommodate that reality, we might be able to do something
| about it politically.
| pharmakom wrote:
| The UK used to have rail links from all of the small villages
| into the cities. It was an expensive system, but now that has
| been ripped out for decades we can see that the alternative
| is far worse.
| brewdad wrote:
| I can easily see a future in the US where the car is the next
| "crisis" like the housing crisis today. Auto manufacturers
| aren't in a hurry to ramp up production to pre-pandemic
| levels because they can earn record margins at their current
| levels. Dealers love it because they can sell pretty much
| everything above MSRP. It's become nearly impossible to find
| a basic new car as everything has shifted to crossovers and
| SUVs/light trucks.
|
| The story the other day about GM dropping CarPlay and AA
| support was alarming for their reason why. They want to know
| everything about how you use your car, so they can make you
| "subscribe" to things like climate control and power
| seats/windows. The future of the automotive industry in
| consumer hostile. In another decade or so, it's going to be
| really hard to find parts for the "dumb" cars of old and
| Americans are going to be screwed.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| I'm not saying it's possible for US, but Switzerland managed
| to route trains&busses to some really remote and low density
| villages
| 29083011397778 wrote:
| > On top of that, most of the US is made up of small towns
| that public transit wouldn't make any sense for. A
| significant percentage of Americans must regularly travel
| between a major city and a small town. That means they must
| have a car, and a place in the city to park it.
|
| Hang on though: I can't tell my neighbouring city to push for
| more housing because, while I want to live there in the
| future, the people that live there now like their lack of
| housing. Similarly, why can't the people that currently live
| in the city tell their local politicians that spending all
| this space for parking the residents don't need is stupid?
| Avshalom wrote:
| people commuting in is a large part of the work force in
| cities, tourism and generally shopping are important for
| their economies, also a lot of that parking space is needed
| by the residents because chicken/egg they all have cars
| too.
| Scarblac wrote:
| But why so much space... Why no high parking garages, or
| deep underground ones.
| lozenge wrote:
| They do need the space for parking, because they have to
| drive everywhere, because everything is so far apart,
| because so much space was given to parking...
| nec4b wrote:
| >> On top of that, most of the US is made up of small towns
| that public transit wouldn't make any sense for.
|
| And you think other other countries are not the same?
| cafard wrote:
| Most of the US geographically or demographically?
|
| I will say that public transit in the US could be a lot
| better. However, over about forty years it has largely been
| how I got to work. (Washington, DC, area.)
| sublinear wrote:
| > seems to be politically unfeasible at the moment, for reasons
| that elude me.
|
| Ever see that monorail episode of The Simpsons? Yeah that's
| where we're at. There's a strong desire from many people to
| slow things down and be more deliberate and careful before any
| more big changes. There's a sense of disillusionment about
| "progressivism" amongst even those who crave the most righteous
| of vibes. This is a weird time to be alive and people just
| don't want to wake up to construction crews ironically
| destroying their cities to make way for yet another wave of
| gentrification pretending not to be.
| m463 wrote:
| I know many females who won't park far and walk somewhere
| because they don't feel safe. This goes 5x at night.
|
| Do folks realize that walking somewhere in a city is like
| running a gauntlet to some of the population?
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Do folks realize that walking somewhere in a city is like
| running a gauntlet to some of the population?_
|
| Which is more of a reason to have more people walk: the more
| people in area going hither and thither the less isolated and
| vulnerable a person will feel.
|
| People often feel most vulnerable when they feel isolated,
| which is what happens on a lifeless street. If a street has a
| sidewalk cafes, bars, restaurants, and people waiting in
| lines to get into clubs, then there is a feeling of
| community.
| RajT88 wrote:
| This /\
|
| My wife and I a couple years back moved to the very edge of
| the suburbs. Like, across the street is forest preserves,
| and behind us is a river. We have only spoken with fewer
| than 10 neighbors since we moved in 2 years ago.
|
| Her, and her sisters all talk about it being like a "serial
| killer neighborhood". Even my fishing buddy nextdoor sort
| of rolls his eyes about how his wife says similar things
| sometimes.
|
| But I tell my fishing buddy: You'll never understand how
| vulnerable women feel. Ever. Honestly, being afraid of a
| place where nobody is around is statistically safer -
| people don't lock their doors in my neighborhood. I've
| started also not locking doors. It's that kind of place.
| That has been a point of friction for my wife and I too - I
| have been really diligent prior to this, because I always
| lived in really populous areas.
|
| My wife, thankfully, has never been a victim of any kind of
| violence. But she has had experiences where she avoided
| that. Once time some big guy late at night followed her
| into her apartment building asking to use her phone to call
| for a tow truck or some nonsense. She knew it was BS, but
| gave it to him anyways. He ran away.
|
| Men will never be able to understand how vulnerable women
| feel. We simply do not experience the world in the same
| way. I'll give another example to help anyone still reading
| get it: I once went to a haunted house (the Rob Zombie one
| in Chicagoland) with my buddy and his wife. Probably 10
| times, actors working there tried to jump-scare her, and
| not me or my buddy. Every goddamned time. Whether she was
| in front, or behind, or between us. She does not scare
| easily, so she was just really annoyed. Predatory men see
| women as easy victims in ways they do not other men.
|
| > females
|
| They prefer "women", just FYI.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Honestly, being afraid of a place where nobody is
| around is statistically safer - people don 't lock their
| doors in my neighborhood._
|
| I live a city and neither do I, at least during the day.
| Only when I go to sleep I try to remember to check it to
| make sure it's locked.
|
| And cities are often measured to be safer than suburbs:
|
| * https://science.time.com/2013/07/23/in-town-versus-
| country-i...
|
| * https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-your-
| children-ar...
|
| * https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/1307
| 24-su...
|
| There's no slam dunk case for either.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I have a Yale lock that locks automatically after 5
| minutes. This is important because we have unhoused
| neighbors who will occasional door check our home and you
| don't want to wake up in the morning to find someone
| sleeping in your living room.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >> females >They prefer "women", just FYI.
|
| Ouch! That bit ruined a good read.
| vegetablepotpie wrote:
| As a man I don't like the perception that I'm under suspicion
| of being a threat to half the population. And I shouldn't be.
| The vast majority of violence against women is perpetuated by
| men they know, not strangers [1].
|
| Domestic violence is not a reason why our cities should be
| filled with 1-ton death machines that spew soot, carbon
| monoxide, and nitrous oxide. Cars don't solve that problem.
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americas-deadly-
| epidemic-vi...
| kortilla wrote:
| > And that seems to be politically unfeasible at the moment,
| for reasons that elude me.
|
| Because the majority of the people in the US don't actually
| want to ride public transportation and they like houses. It's
| not that difficult to grasp.
| rchaud wrote:
| That's like saying Americans love working at McDonald's and
| Walmart because they are America's largest employers.
|
| Americans not liking public transportation, and not willing
| to fund public transportation are two different things.
| aquaticsunset wrote:
| I'll counter this - the majority of the people in the US want
| to live somewhere and get around in the least difficult
| method. Due to decades of policymaking, that happens to be
| houses and cars.
|
| It's very nearsighted to think our model is the penultimate
| in structuring society. Plenty of people are happy,
| fulfilled, and productive living in apartments & townhouses
| while taking trains to work.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Why would someone prefer to live like ants? Moving from a
| large place with a forest backyard to a tiny apartment is a
| lower standard of living. You live in an apartment and
| trade away personal space and still have to take a train to
| work where you get little personal space.
|
| People can be happy in an apartment but most would trade
| that in for a house they could afford it.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _You live in an apartment and trade away personal space
| and still have to take a train to work where you get
| little personal space._
|
| You have a limited view of 'urban living'. Want a front
| yard, back yard, and garage (attached to a laneway)?
| Plenty of that was built pre-WW2, and there's no reason
| why it couldn't be again:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0&t=1m8s
|
| The _Oh the Urbanity_ channel has a video on the
| (misguided) idea that _" urban living" = Manhattan / Hong
| Kong apartment blocks_:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCmz-fgp24E
|
| Examples (Streetview) of urban tree-lined streets which
| can support transit and where cycling is practical (and
| where a car is an option versus a necessity):
|
| * https://www.google.com/maps/place/125+Hampton+Ave,+Toro
| nto,+...
|
| * https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toron
| to,+O...
|
| * https://www.google.com/maps/place/70+Jackman+Ave+Toront
| o,+ON
|
| See also:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6txCZpbsQ&t=9m28s
|
| Fifteen minutes pedalling in one direction is downtown,
| fifteen minutes in the other is farm land.
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| I live in an apartment in a city (not in the US). Walking
| distances from my home:
|
| Pharmacy - seconds (right in the next building)
|
| Bar - seconds
|
| Supermarket - 1 minute
|
| Bakery - 1 minute
|
| Greengrocer's - 1 minute
|
| Children's playground - 1 minute
|
| Beach - 1 minute (OK, not representative of every
| apartment dweller, I'm privileged) :)
|
| Stationery shop - 2 minutes
|
| Bookshop - 2 minutes
|
| Bank branch with ATM - 3 minutes
|
| Amazon locker - 3 minutes
|
| My son's school - 4 minutes
|
| High school - 4 minutes
|
| Health center - 6 minutes
|
| Park - 7 minutes
|
| Library - 7 minutes
|
| Theatre - 13 minutes
|
| Cinema - 15 minutes
|
| Commute - 3 minutes walk to bus stop, buses every 5
| minutes, 15-minute trip
|
| Train station - 25 minutes
|
| For me, moving to a house where I would need a car or
| much longer walks for most of those things would be a
| huge downgrade in standard of living, not an upgrade.
| Sure, I would have more space. Not worth it at all.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Why would someone prefer to live like ants?
|
| Why would someone prefer to live like a snail?
|
| > Moving from a large place with a forest backyard to a
| tiny apartment is a lower standard of living. You live in
| an apartment and trade away personal space and still have
| to take a train to work where you get little personal
| space.
|
| A house does not imply a large backyard. Suburbs are the
| bigger problem, and they don't usually have much forest.
|
| And apartments don't have to be tiny. If you're comparing
| against a house in a similar location, that buys a lot of
| apartment space.
| baq wrote:
| Tokyo and Seul are poor cities full of people just
| longing for a house, right?
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| Forest background? Hah.
|
| Living in an apartment is a _compromise_. Unfortunately,
| most apartments in the US do not have much to offer.
|
| Most are not well insulated, particularly for sound. The
| overwhelming majority are rentals; and most of those are
| managed by landlords who charge an arm and a leg, only to
| be _less than_ helpful.
|
| Public transit relies on good apartments, and good
| apartments rely on public transit. It's symbiotic. The US
| has largely failed at providing both.
|
| People don't choose what is available in the market. They
| choose _from_ what is available in the market.
| angled wrote:
| MTR Corp has a great model for this type of development.
| It would be great to see other governments partnering
| with them!
| nayuki wrote:
| > prefer to live like ants
|
| Unnecessarily inflammatory wording. (Don't use the
| popular "shoebox" either.)
|
| > Moving from a large place with a forest backyard
|
| Most Americans live in suburban houses and over 90% of
| suburbs don't have a forest backyard. You're painting a
| sunny caricature.
|
| > tiny apartment
|
| Apartments come in a range of sizes, easily from 300 sq
| ft to 2000 sq ft. You get what you pay for. With houses,
| the minimum size is so large that many people have no
| choice but to overpay for space they don't need.
|
| > lower standard of living
|
| Being in proximity to people, shopping, and businesses,
| as well as having a shorter commute to work, contribute
| to a higher standard of living.
| tssva wrote:
| > Being in proximity to people, shopping, and businesses,
| as well as having a shorter commute to work, contribute
| to a higher standard of living.
|
| I live in a suburb. I'm in proximity to people, shopping
| and businesses. In fact, I'm in closer proximity to
| shopping and businesses than most residential areas in
| the closest city. Most of the large employers in my area
| are also in the suburbs so, commuting would be even
| longer living in the city since it would involve taking
| public transportation or driving from the city to the
| suburbs. Even if I lived and worked in the city walking,
| taking a bus or the subway from residential areas to the
| employment centers would take longer than my 15-minute
| commute.
| alexchantavy wrote:
| Eh, people can like different things. I think "most feel
| house > apartment" is way way too broad of a
| generalization.
|
| You give up space by living in a dense city but gain
| walkability and more public amenities, and on the other
| hand if you lived in the suburbs you would give that up
| for more personal space and - at least in the case of the
| US - better school districts. If you're rich you can have
| the plusses of all.
| kortilla wrote:
| > I'll counter this - the majority of the people in the US
| want to live somewhere and get around in the least
| difficult method
|
| No they don't. People consistently give up better commutes
| for more space.
|
| > It's very nearsighted to think our model is the
| penultimate in structuring society. Plenty of people are
| happy, fulfilled, and productive living in apartments &
| townhouses while taking trains to work.
|
| 100% agree. But Americans want houses more than a public
| train ride. Figure out how to solve the issue of living in
| shoeboxes with people still getting space to have a
| personal garden, a wood shop, etc and you'll be onto
| something.
| alexchantavy wrote:
| > The majority of the people in the US want to live
| somewhere and get around in the least difficult method. Due
| to decades of policymaking, that happens to be houses and
| cars.
|
| I think this is well said. The other dimension is public
| schools since US school funding comes from property taxes
| so more expensive areas have more funding for their
| schools, which usually means a higher quality education.
| oerpli wrote:
| This is well known to be wrong. I'm not sure why it's
| repeated so often.
| alexchantavy wrote:
| Got a link I can learn from?
| nayuki wrote:
| I can't speak for the US, but in Canada the city's budget
| is set first, then all the properties are appraised, then
| the property tax rate is determined. Expensive properties
| do not automatically increase the city's tax revenue.
| See: https://torontoist.com/2014/01/everything-you-ever-
| wanted-to... ,
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrWry5i3TBU
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| This is how it is in Washington state. But each state and
| even localities can do it differently. For example,
| someone was complaining that Montana property taxes would
| go up if all houses appreciated the same in value, or
| down if they all depreciated, which I thought was weird.
| alexchantavy wrote:
| I guess there are two questions:
|
| 1. Does school funding come mostly from property taxes?
|
| The answer here in Seattle is yes having seen some
| breakdown chart in some government document a while back.
|
| 2. What determines the amount of property tax?
|
| Thanks for sharing that link about how in Canada the tax
| collection amount works backwards from a goal amount.
|
| My understanding is that in the US, your property tax is
| assessed annually and the person doing it presumably uses
| market comparables to determine the taxable price - I
| don't know if they work backwards from a target, but that
| sounds odd to me.
| tssva wrote:
| > My understanding is that in the US, your property tax
| is assessed annually and the person doing it presumably
| uses market comparables to determine the taxable price -
| I don't know if they work backwards from a target, but
| that sounds odd to me.
|
| In my county they will definitely work back from a goal.
| The county will determine the budget for the coming year
| and adjust the tax rate to meet that budget. If assessed
| values go up 8% but the budget only goes up 4% the board
| of supervisors will lower the tax rate so the increase in
| property taxes only meets the 4% needed. This is
| politically easier than doing the reverse, but they have
| at times increased the tax rate when assessed property
| values have not risen enough to bring in the funds needed
| for the desired budget.
| noelherrick wrote:
| If you've only traveled in the US, you think public
| transportation is for poor people. I haven't used all US
| metros, but even NYC is pretty shabby in comparison to London
| or Tokyo. Most folks probably also haven't lived in a
| walkable city (which implies denser, smaller housing).
|
| I don't want to force a lifestyle on anyone, but for me it is
| glorious just popping on a skytrain or a subway, listening to
| my music, and watching the world go by. I don't have to buy a
| car, pay for insurance, get gas every week, change the oil,
| repair it when it inevitably breaks down or things wear out,
| thus easily doubling the initial cost, find parking, and wash
| and clean it. I don't like dealing with different vehicle
| sizes, pedestrians on their phone, and drivers who think
| their time is worth my safety.
| kortilla wrote:
| I've been to both London and Tokyo. Their transportation is
| significantly better, but it's optimized for a local
| minimum from the American suburban perspective.
|
| "They made the best of a shit scenario, which is way too
| many people living in one place. It's better than the way
| the US dealt with the people that have to live like that,
| but it's still worse than being able to have an acre to
| yourself in the middle class." The US optimized for people
| who are in that camp.
| syntheweave wrote:
| I feel assured that the transition is going to be pretty quick,
| watching Waymos and Cruises going around SF and dealing with
| some challenging traffic situations and weather(Waymo is
| definitely better at not getting stuck, but the gap is not
| insurmountable).
|
| As soon as they proliferate at scale, the risk profile changes
| such that you can bike everywhere safely, and parking is no
| longer a major urban issue, because the fleet is going to have
| a more flexible usage pattern whether or not individuals own
| the vehicles: instead of one space per vehicle per destination,
| it's going to be compressed down to parking space for the
| neighborhood plus drop-off zones.
|
| So to me, it's obvious that the market is going at the problem
| just about as fast as it can, and once the adoption S-curve
| hits, "need to drive" relaxes because other potential uses
| aren't being suppressed. You'll still have many instances where
| mass transit and active transit present a lower cost structure
| than taxi, and they'll have a lot of leeway to grow.
| htag wrote:
| Maybe. From the outside looking in self driving cars are
| vaporware that are very late on delivery. I wouldn't want to
| bet my city's architecture on this promise.
|
| It might be nice if they deliver on this promise though.
| loeg wrote:
| Biking here in the states isn't a problem from a distance
| perspective -- the problems are road safety and destination
| security (bike theft is a big problem but typically not valued
| by police because of the nominally low dollar impact). Walking,
| yeah.
| antifa wrote:
| Google maps says going to work would be a 6 hour bike ride.
| There is technically a train available to for half of the
| journey.
| ac29 wrote:
| Most bikers are going to be able to average at least 10
| mph. Working 60+ miles from where you live is a fairly long
| commute, even by car.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| That depends on the city, and where in it you live.
|
| If you live in a large suburban area (like many Americans),
| then biking distance is a huge problem.
|
| Sure, making an actually tractable amount of public transit
| in every suburb would resolve that problem, but that's a huge
| investment, and the overwhelming majority of Americans can't
| even imagine what the result might look like.
| brewdad wrote:
| I would argue biking distance isn't the problem in
| suburbia, it's biking safety. My rather spread out suburb
| is about 8 miles across. That's less than an hour for any
| cyclist and a fit cyclist could do it in half that time.
| The trouble is that most of those miles are on 45 mph
| stroads with either no bike lane or a thin stripe of paint
| for protection from cars and it's full of debris most of
| the year.
| avar wrote:
| The answer to this particular problem isn't public
| transportation.
|
| There's places elsewhere in the developed world where there's
| no public transportation, and everyone uses a car for longer
| trips.
|
| You can usually still cross the street safely as a pedestrian,
| and expect to reliably find a sidewalk next to the road.
|
| US roads, intersections, parking spots etc. are also absurdly
| large by the standards of most other countries, it all adds up.
| xracy wrote:
| Except that the answer to this _is_ public transportation??
|
| The problem is that people need a place to store their
| single-occupancy-vehicles. which means that each individual
| with a car takes up a permanent ~100 Sqft. They also need
| places to put that car. If you remove the parking lots, and
| the roads, admittedly, you'll create a more walkable city
| that means people don't need cars. But people will still want
| _something_ for longer distances. And that something is
| public transit.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Private shared transport could also solve the parking
| problem since a taxi doesn't need to hang out and park in
| the dense area it drops off passengers, except maybe to on
| board other passengers. In China this works well enough,
| although the traffic is still atrocious.
| xracy wrote:
| lol, you even admit your example doesn't work well enough
| to "fix" traffic.
|
| Your private taxi cab is never going to compete with the
| people-moving capacity of a bus, or a train. A road with
| 100s of cars on it, is a demonstration of how many people
| are heading in a common direction. If you want them to
| move faster in that direction, find a denser form of
| transportation that doesn't take up the space of 100s of
| cars.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| It solves parking, I never claimed it solved traffic.
| Please re-read my comment.
| pharmakom wrote:
| if we solve parking then we have more space for offices,
| shops, etc, which means more people travelling into the
| area, which means more traffic. only public transport and
| walking can properly scale up.
| xracy wrote:
| Okay, I definitely misread this. :) That said, I suspect
| my misread is because...
|
| Is parking an unsolved problem? I think in most cities
| it's a solved problem, and the consequence is traffic.
| But I would be curious of your take given that it's the
| question you asked. What is there to solve for parking?
|
| edit: Also, Public Transportation, arguably, fixes _both
| traffic and parking_.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| If parking were the only problem, you could call it
| solved in places where taxis are cheap and ubiquitous,
| which might happen in the developed world with self
| driving cars.
|
| But ya, if we could eliminate parking, we have some more
| space for some nice things, but having lived it, it
| doesn't solve the main problem at all if private
| transportation is still viable.
| xracy wrote:
| > but having lived it, it doesn't solve the main problem
| at all if private transportation is still viable.
|
| I'm having trouble parsing that sentence, could you
| clarify?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| It is possible for private personal transport to be
| viable without parking, and in that case, we can still
| run 80th the too many cars/not enough road problem.
| xracy wrote:
| ah, okay. My counter, if this only solves one of the
| problems (parking), why would we prefer that over public
| transit which solves 2 problems.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Personal transport is convenient. I admit to changing my
| schedule to super early in the morning and leaving work
| at 3 just so I could take a taxi rather than deal with
| the subway due to Beijing's harsh traffic jams. It wasn't
| the right choice for society, but it was the right choice
| for me.
| xracy wrote:
| Good public transit is convenient. Ask anyone in any city
| with good public transit how they commute. Trains and
| buses that run all day consistently are even cheaper and
| more convenient to plan around.
|
| "[A developed city isn't one where poor people take cars
| but where rich people take public transit.]"
| klabb3 wrote:
| > The answer to this particular problem isn't public
| transportation.
|
| Public transport is not a self-goal, but it's the best way by
| far to reduce the spatial requirements for transportation. In
| particular subways and commuter trains can move an absolutely
| insane amount of people for even the largest metropolitan
| areas, without obliterating the ability to walk and getting
| quickly from point A to B.
|
| Others include having motorcycles and bicycles for individual
| transport. That can work in small cities but usually impact
| walkability anyways. If you look at south east asia for
| instance, often lacking in good public transport, but having
| a lot of motorcycles in large cities making pedestrian
| movement hard.
| seer wrote:
| As someone who recently experienced hanoi traffic as both
| pedestrian and motorcyclist - I can attest that it can be
| scary, but after a certain learning period not that bad.
|
| The big problem there was the lack of sidewalks for
| pedestrians so you kinda had to go into traffic even if you
| were just following the streets.
|
| Crossing even the busiest boulevards was actually easy, if
| a bit nerve racking. The flow of scooters just parts around
| you as you cross, giving you the "I am Moses" feel - you
| only have to be visible and consistent with your movement.
|
| Honestly they should just get rid of all the zebra
| crossings and pedestrian lights - those don't work anyway,
| and just build lots of pedestrian islands everywhere and
| they would be golden, oh and ban cars.
|
| The amount of people those scooters move throughout hanoi
| is just staggering - even if they are a bit slow, they make
| up for it being like an organic flow that doesn't stop for
| anything as it can just ride around it.
| ntonozzi wrote:
| Don't forget cars.
| unsignedint wrote:
| The concept of a 'big investment' takes on a whole new meaning
| when it comes to public transportation in the United States,
| especially considering the vast geographical expanse of many
| metropolitan areas. In most cases, unless one resides in the
| heart of a city, public transportation isn't a practical
| option. This is evident in the fact that a 20-minute drive can
| easily transform into a commute of 90 minutes or longer when
| relying on public transit. I truly wish there were a way for me
| to avoid driving and still get to my destination efficiently.
| slaymaker1907 wrote:
| I think that's part of the point. This vast sprawl is
| somewhat caused by our over reliance on private vehicles.
| Also, a factor of more than 2 for travel times is VERY bad
| for public transit, even in the US.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| Most of my journeys here in SF would take 2.5x to 4x by
| public transport.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I've previously written up "what would it take to make a 9
| AM meeting at my office?" It's a _factor_ of 4 or 5 worse
| via public transit and I live in a probably top 5
| (definitely top 10) US city as it pertains to our public
| transit system (Boston).
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31723197
| htag wrote:
| At 8.5 miles a commute by bicycle or e-bike would be
| cheaper and close to thirty minutes. It would be
| healthier. It wouldn't require a parking spot.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Buying an e-bike to accomplish this commute would not be
| cheaper as it would not be a full replacement for the
| car, so I'd be paying for a car _and_ an e-bike.
|
| There is oodles of parking at the office (was built for
| commuters) and I already have to park the car near home.
| Eliminating a parking space on either end won't move any
| of the existing buildings closer.
| htag wrote:
| The GSA usage rate is $0.585/mile. That is $9.945/day in
| car usage from a 8.5 mile commute to the office. I
| understand you can drive for less than this rate, but it
| would be hard to reach $0.35/mile and doing so would
| sacrifice dependability of the motor vehicle.
|
| My e-bike is significantly cheaper to maintain than my
| car. It uses something like .7KWH for a full charge which
| handles over 30 miles. Thats less than 10 cents for a
| full charge at my rate. Other consumable goods like
| tires, chains, tubes, break pads are all similarly
| 10x-100x cheaper than their car counterpart. The only
| expensive wear item is the battery pack, which admittedly
| cost $550. I'd estimate my personal usage of the device
| to be around $0.05/mile.
|
| It's cheaper to own both and maintain both if you are
| going to use both. Using simple linear math, the ebike
| will save you over $2000 in ongoing costs (initial price)
| within 3850 miles or 235 commutes. A pretty good ROI.
| quesera wrote:
| > At 8.5 miles a commute by bicycle or e-bike
|
| GP said _Boston_.
| htag wrote:
| I've never been. Are bicycles illegal there?
| quesera wrote:
| Yes.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| One of the first search results for Boston bicycle
| declares it the fourth best biking city in the US, so
| you're going to need to be more specific about whatever
| criticism you're exaggerating.
| jen20 wrote:
| Boston sometimes gets 2 feet of snow in a single day, and
| often has sub-freezing temperatures. People just get on
| with life (but not really on e-bikes).
| htag wrote:
| Do people in Boston drive in 2 feet of snow?
| sokoloff wrote:
| After a 2 foot snowfall ends, secondary roads are usually
| passable within ~3-12 hours, depending on how much snow
| was removed during the storm. Major roads will almost
| always remain passable during the entire snow event.
| Essential stores and services almost never close as
| people can move around despite the weather (and except
| for a few hours immediately after, are expected to).
|
| Sidewalks and bike paths will take days to be down to
| pavement and some bike paths aren't salted or plowed at
| all so become safe to use again when the snow naturally
| melts.
| brewdad wrote:
| > Sidewalks and bike paths will take days to be down to
| pavement and some bike paths aren't salted or plowed at
| all so become safe to use again when the snow naturally
| melts.
|
| This is a choice, not an inevitability.
| sokoloff wrote:
| From my perspective as an individual living 8-9 miles
| from the office, there is no practical difference. It's
| not like I'm going to go out and shovel it.
| [deleted]
| throw0101c wrote:
| > [...] _and often has sub-freezing temperatures._
|
| So does Finland. See "Why Canadians Can't Bike in the
| Winter (but Finnish people can)":
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
|
| Also "Why Winter Cities Need to Reconsider Car
| Dependence":
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFkI3eglT1M
|
| If things can be taken car of so cars can operate in
| winter there's no reason why they can't be for bicycles
| (as someone who lives in Toronto, Canada).
| sokoloff wrote:
| If you slide a front tire 12" to 18" on a car, nothing
| much happens. If you do that on a bike, something very
| much happens.
|
| The standards of snow removal needed to permit 2 wheel
| vehicles to operate safely are quite a bit stricter than
| those for 4 wheelers.
| brewdad wrote:
| So the three times a year that happens, you find a
| different way to work or WFH. Don't let perfect be the
| enemy of the good. Minneapolis gets a decent bike share
| in winter. If they can bundle up and ride, it's
| positively simply for Bostonians to do it.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Honestly travel times on transit are bad everywhere. Its
| hard to beat the car, which is essentially a bus that goes
| express door to door to your destination, and can leave
| when you want. People take the alternative only when they
| can't afford to take the car in regularly (e.g. bridge
| tolls and high parking costs in nyc ensure mainly high
| income people enjoy the convenience of a car). Even if you
| lived just 15 mins walking from a train station, thats a
| half hour added to every trip just getting back home, to
| say nothing of the walking on the other end. Imagine if you
| were not in walking shape on top of this. Its for the
| greater good of course to take collective transportation
| over resource intensive individual transportation, but you
| sure do pay for it with your free time in most places, not
| just in the U.S.
| noelherrick wrote:
| If in your city, cars are faster than public
| transportation, I would say that's most likely due to
| poor implementation of it. In my experience in NYC,
| London, Tokyo, Bangkok, even the Bay Area (TBF, haven't
| visited in years), metros are much faster and much more
| pleasant.
|
| Unfortunately, in the US, we let a bunch of politicians
| who claim the government is bad at everything run the
| government. They have a vested interest in making sure
| it's not well run. For goodness sake, we had a president
| who said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English
| language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to
| help." A sitting US president, who according to
| Wikipedia, is part of the government. We should have
| demanded his resignation then and there, and got someone
| who wasn't terrified of the organization he was a head
| of.
|
| The most immediate solution to this is stop relying on
| contractors and let the government at every level build
| up public planning departments and a construction
| workforce that doesn't get let go when the project is
| finished.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| The metros being faster always is dependent on your
| destination being favorably connected to the lines you
| are near. Take a random a to b in any of those cities,
| and I'd say the car is typically going to be fastest.
| Here's a random trip across tokyo, which at the time of
| writing takes 50 mins by car or an hour and 38 minutes by
| transit.
|
| https://maps.app.goo.gl/Q17EFxjLKd85PYRv6?g_st=ic
| nayuki wrote:
| Not only that, right now is the middle of the night in
| Tokyo. If you change the "depart at" time to something
| like 5 PM, the driving time is estimated to be anywhere
| from 65 to 125 minutes.
| dublinben wrote:
| We wouldn't ever expect public transportation to be
| significantly faster than driving the same trip. If it
| were, people would switch from driving to the faster
| option. Decreasing the number of cars would then ease
| congestion and speed up driving, until a new, faster,
| equilibrium was reached.[0]
|
| This is how improving public transportation is actually
| one of the most effective ways to benefit drivers.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs%E2%80%93Thomson_p
| aradox
| cycomanic wrote:
| Funny I know plenty of places where public transport is
| faster than a car (maybe with the exception of the middle
| of the night). You bring up the example of walking 15min
| to a train station (that's already a longish walk), but
| somehow ignore the case of having to find a parking spot.
| I certainly have spend >20min finding a parking spot when
| I really needed to take a car for some reason (and the
| often still had to walk 10min after). Sure that's not the
| case if you consider a vast US City designed around cars
| where parking makes up a large fraction of the city
| (incidentally that's the point of the article), but a
| city like that is not very livable either.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I think its pretty easy to park because most american
| cities are overparked, and as they convert surface lot to
| 5/1 they end up even more overparked because that usually
| comes with a subterranean garage and another 300 spaces
| that weren't there before.
|
| You'd be hard pressed to lay rail based transit so
| densely where everyone in the metro area has a 15 min
| walk to a station much less one going somewhere relevant
| for them. Simple bussing upgrades are much more realistic
| for us to see comprehensive transit in our lifetimes.
| Things like signal priority and a protected lane would go
| a long way for little cash and time. Too bad the bus is
| invisible to most people and politicians.
| rainsford wrote:
| I agree in the abstract on an individual level. All else
| being equal, it's very difficult to beat the travel time
| of your own point to point transport that leaves whenever
| you want. But the only way that works is with a non-
| trivial up-front personal cost to obtain that transport,
| ongoing cost to operate it, and a massive societal
| investment to ensure you have ample road and parking
| infrastructure.
|
| There's also the consideration that all those point to
| point journeys and parking at each end is a fairly
| inefficient way to enable a city's worth of people to
| move around. There's no way a city like NYC could exist
| at all if everyone relied on cars for transportation. A
| point-to-point personal car journey in NYC may in theory
| be faster than taking public transit, but it would be
| impossible for everyone to do that as the car transit
| times would trend towards infinity as everyone is stuck
| in traffic. And because of the increased density a non
| car-centric city allows, you can actually shrink public
| transit times too because things can be closer together
| and transit can run more often and have more routes. And
| the increased density also allows point to point personal
| transport other than cars to be practical, like walking
| or cycling.
| baq wrote:
| It's easy to beat the car if the car isn't allowed where
| public transport is... which can be approximated by not
| building any parking in places where people want to or
| need to be.
| htag wrote:
| Thirty minutes of walking everyday is a good thing, not a
| bad thing.
| nayuki wrote:
| Not Just Bikes preached this concept in "The Gym of
| Life": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPUlgSRn6e0
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Of course but its more convenient when you choose when
| this time sink has to happen. Its why people go for a run
| in the morning instead of just jogging everywhere they go
| in life. Not to mention its a cost you pay more than once
| if you go down to the station multiple times a day. Take
| just three trips and your day just turned into a 22 and a
| half hour one only factoring the walk on the home side.
| htag wrote:
| 1. Any commute is a time sink we have little choice when
| to do it. I found walking as part of a commute with mass
| transit to be a better use of my time than sitting in a
| car. My walk was exercise. On transit I could read a book
| or answer work email/slack. In a car I was sedentary and
| focused on driving.
|
| 2. I don't know anyone that leaves their home for three
| separate trips on transit a day. Two tops, and usually
| it's just one. It's rare to leave the home three times in
| one day with a car if one of the trips is an eight hour
| workday. Usually people combine trips.
|
| 3. Again, walking is good. We should be walking. It's
| fantastic to have places to walk to. This isn't a bad
| thing or a chore.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| In a car you can listen to podcasts or audiobooks at
| least. If it self drives for you then email and slack is
| fair game too. 3 separate trips wouldnt be hard to
| imagine. The commute is trip one. Picking up takeout is
| trip two. Running to target after dinner is trip three.
| That sort of thing is tough with transit though.
| Oftentimes your business is not in the same place, so you
| might be going all over town running errands or making
| appointments. The car is of course much faster to pivot
| between places than tranfers and waiting. Walking is
| good, but clearly people today have opted for the
| temporal convenience of driving over the physical
| benefits of walking, which might be faster to achieve
| with a more intense gym session. Its not like many rail
| stations see 100% car free living within their walksheds
| today. For some they have big lots because many of their
| riders prefer a few minutes driving to the station in a
| climate controlled vehicle over the alternative.
| lozenge wrote:
| I also listen to podcasts and audiobooks... while walking
| and taking public transit to work. No difference.
| Retric wrote:
| Large subways can easily beat cars. The problem is most
| public transportation sucks in the US so people don't use
| it, so it isn't fixed.
|
| Just look at 248 mi of track in NYC vs 17.4 in LA.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I can often get somewhere fast during rush hour in
| Beijing on the subway rather than a taxi. But Beijing's
| traffic is Superbad compared to the USA. The city is also
| huge, but they have just done a good job building it out
| everywhere.
|
| The same with most big Chinese cities (smaller cities
| have taxis, so you still don't need your own car).
| Tokyo's system works ok as well, although I'm not sure if
| taxi would be faster since it is too expensive for me to
| try. The subway/loop lines are good enough to get places
| as quickly as I don't think taking a taxi would save much
| time.
| macNchz wrote:
| I think one of the issues is that once you start
| designing places around driving, cars become non-optional
| for day to day living, whereas many places designed
| around transit generally do not expect people to use
| transit for every single outing.
|
| For example: most car oriented American suburbs simply
| require a car for anything other than visiting a
| neighbor, whereas in a transit oriented city you might
| use transit to commute to work, but be able to walk to
| some local shops and services.
|
| I think many people who are familiar only with car
| dependent lifestyles make the mistake of imagining a car-
| free lifestyle that involves replacing all of the car
| trips they make one-to-one with bus or train trips, which
| would indeed be really cumbersome, but isn't really how
| things work (at least in my experience growing up in a
| rural small town in the US and having lived in a couple
| of European cities and NYC).
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Even if you lived out in the kanto plain where the trains
| came before the highways, its not like people are taking
| the bullet train to the grocery store thats a 5 min drive
| with the car you already own. Few places on earth are so
| dense where the car is actually a consistently losing bet
| when you account for all your trips. I'm not even sure
| what building for transit rather than car would look like
| for a semi urban or rural area, considering the transit
| with the lowest capital investment, the bus, is also
| benefited by car oriented development like a road network
| with more connections between nodes. Even in the times
| before a car, some people had a horse or mule to
| essentially play the role of a car today, of an instant
| express bus.
| beberlei wrote:
| You can design a citycenter to primarily benefit bike
| traffic and then it will be consistently faster than car
| travel
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I'm a big fan of taking the bike around. Of course you do
| get those people who can't imagine biking if theres
| weather. And it favors more able bodied people for the
| most part.
| nayuki wrote:
| Bike infrastructure is compatible with mobility scooters.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I'm not sure they go fast enough to keep up with bike and
| ebike traffic
| pharmakom wrote:
| This is how it's done in the Netherlands and it works
| very well. this is not an issue.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Existing bike lanes in the us need a serious overhaul.
| One of the standard designs runs along the dooring areas
| of parked cars, and right turning traffic is allowed to
| cross over it at intersections. The mobility scooters I'm
| familiar with seem to top out at a brisk walk speed on
| the other hand. That sort of speed differential is a
| recipe for danger as the roads and bike lanes are
| currently built in north america.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > [...] _considering the transit with the lowest capital
| investment, the bus, is also benefited by car oriented
| development like a road network with more connections
| between nodes._
|
| 'Improving' car-oriented development has been observed to
| make things worse:
|
| > _It is a paradox in that improvements in the road
| network will not reduce traffic congestion. Improvements
| in the road network can make congestion worse if the
| improvements make public transport more inconvenient or
| if they shift investment, causing disinvestment in the
| public transport system._
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs-Thomson_paradox
|
| Improving things for non-car users can actually make
| things better for drivers:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
|
| * https://fortune.com/2015/09/30/best-country-drive-waze/
|
| * https://archive.ph/S4FKM
| jltsiren wrote:
| * Public transport relies on population density. Once the
| density is high enough, people tend to take transit
| whenever it's faster and/or more convenient than driving.
| Which is trivially true for many people, because there is
| not enough space for wide enough roads and enough parking
| for everyone to drive.
|
| * If you assume that public transport is only for those
| who can't afford driving, you basically guarantee that
| it's going to be bad. If you want good public transport,
| you must design it for the middle class.
|
| * 15 minutes of walking is a very long distance to the
| nearest station. If you are in an area served by
| reasonable public transport, you should be able to reach
| the next station in at least one direction in that time.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| Underground metros can be way faster than cars stuck in
| traffic.
|
| At least in most cities. The one in NY has slow driving
| trains compared to any other cities I've seen.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I have a commute that parallels the freeway for a
| portion. The train takes 18 mins or so to get through the
| stretch stops and all. The highway in rush hour takes
| about 30 mins if its really bad. However, the twist is I
| don't work directly on this corridor, I need to transfer.
| The highway has an interchange with another, making the
| entire trip even in bad traffic about 40 minutes by the
| time I park and walk in.
|
| With the train I need to transfer to another train. This
| could be a 10 minute wait at the platform before the
| train arrives, plus its an end of the line stop for this
| particular line so it will sit for another 5-10 mins
| while it changes operators. Then once it gets moving,
| another 15 mins since there are a few at grade crossings
| with this line and then a 10 min walk. I do it over
| driving because I can zone out half asleep in the
| mornings.
|
| The transfering and frequencies are where transit enters
| a world of pain and these are expensive, complex issues
| to fix compared to an interchange ramp. Anytime I bring
| someone unfamiliar on the train, they basically swear off
| the system for good and moan why we didn't just pay for
| the surging uber.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| In many big asian cities, the nearest MRT stop is less
| than 5 minutes walking away, there are trains every 3
| minutes, they ride fast, and the layout is such that you
| usually need 0 or 1 transfers to another colored line,
| can't really beat it imho, except with the public bikes
| in some cases
|
| EU's metros are a bit dated compared to that, but still
| very useful.
|
| In the NY one, I was sometimes thinking walking is about
| as fast if you add up the slow train speed with the
| waiting time. In SF, there is none?!
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I'd love to see some maps of good examples, but I think
| transit with minimal transferring is a really tough
| network nut to crack. You can build hub and spoke or with
| a few hubs and spokes but this often requires going way
| out of your way into somewhere you can transfer between
| spokes. You can build a grid basically like what is done
| with busses, but again, the routing demands compromising
| your personal convenience because you are moving along a
| grid, versus more as the crow flies. At the end of the
| day no one is going to be perfectly happy with transit by
| definition. It serves the average commuter along the
| given corridor, never you in particular and your
| particular commute. A lot of car drivers today probably
| wont accept that, taking a backseat and saying they will
| deal with waiting if it means second order benefits that
| aren't immediately obvious, since for the last 100 years
| they've held the notion that they are in charge.
| [deleted]
| magicalist wrote:
| > _This is evident in the fact that a 20-minute drive can
| easily transform into a commute of 90 minutes or longer when
| relying on public transit. I truly wish there were a way for
| me to avoid driving and still get to my destination
| efficiently_
|
| It's not like it's the natural state of things that 25% of
| the Atlanta city center is dedicated to parking so we just
| have to accept the downsides.
|
| There's a reason everything is so spread out and so it's
| difficult to walk places or design efficient public transit,
| and it's the same reason driving and parking your car is the
| most efficient transportation method.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Because the US insists transit need to look like a big sexy
| expensive two mezzanine underground platform, when a
| decidedly unsexy painted bus lane on the already existing
| wide arterial would offer most of the same utility for orders
| of magnitude less money.
| orangepurple wrote:
| All of the commenters are missing a huge point. US commuter
| rail projects are hugely corrupt enterprises. Just look at
| Honolulu for a blatant example of corruption in
| infrastructure spending (their train NO-ONE wanted)
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I've heard sometimes metros are forced to contract with
| certain contractors in particular because they have
| headhunted all the talent qualified to interpret the
| metros own requirements. You can imagine how much abuse
| this situation can lead to.
|
| The US needs to drop the contractor model and just
| directly staff labor for public works. If there is enough
| work going around to maintain a contracting company, then
| there's therefore enough work to staff a public rail
| building division, and build out some standardized and
| therefore cheaper designs for this infrastructure.
| xracy wrote:
| This feels like a positive feedback loop (not the good kind),
| where the more parking is needed, the more people feel they need
| to drive. And the more people feel they need to drive, the more
| they need parking and the more space between stores gets added.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Have the parking minimums actually been increased lately,
| though?
| xracy wrote:
| I sure hope not, but that doesn't really solve the parking
| issues?
|
| You need a parking space for your car permanently, and one
| for every place you might visit. (up to as many people as are
| likely to be visiting it). In a popular place to visit, that
| could be a lot if people don't have some other way to get
| there. So, you have to build in extra space between you and
| that place to account for parking, and the roads required to
| get there.
| josephcsible wrote:
| My point is that if the parking minimums haven't gone up,
| then the loop you describe doesn't actually exist, since
| more space between stores doesn't actually get added.
| xracy wrote:
| What?
|
| If the law that requires an absolute minimum number of
| parking spaces hasn't increased, then the total number of
| parking spaces hasn't increased?
|
| People can build more parking spaces than the parking
| minimums? Also, Parking minimums themselves increase
| parking for new businesses? Any new structure you build
| being subject to parking minimums contributes to the loop
| I'm describing.
| dublinben wrote:
| Much of a city will predate these regulations. Even without
| increasing the minimums, as grandfathered properties are
| redeveloped they must increase their parking. New
| developments will also bring up the amount of parking as they
| comply with current minimums.
| favflam wrote:
| Step 1 to fix out of control real estate prices and suburbia
| depression is not public transit.
|
| Step 1 is to deprioritize cars. No more free parking, no single
| family home zoning, free-for-all zoning around train stations and
| bus stops.
|
| Step 2 is to keep deprioritizing cars. Ban highway expansion
| beyond 2 lanes in both directions. Match demand and supply with
| tolls. Excess revenue goes towards funding public transit.
|
| Step 3 is to fund public transit. Private sector will see massive
| opportunity to build out private bus lines and trains (see
| Brightline in Florida). The real play is not ticket revenue, but
| real estate appreciation around public transit. Republicans
| should get around this idea with private equity guys. This is a
| no brainer to me.
|
| In conclusion, the key to this morass to make car owners suffer
| and switch to real estate appreciation to incentivize private
| development of transit systems.
| xracy wrote:
| Yeah, real estate appreciation has its own costs that we're
| going to pay for down the line... in particular increased costs
| of housing/living is causing more homelessness.
| oliwarner wrote:
| "Maps show how a lack of forward planning, well-structured free
| parking and public link-transport cause retroactively developed
| parking to be a commodity that is valued higher than a business
| sector nobody can drive to"
|
| The rest of the world fixes this by banning cars in these areas,
| making it a nice place to be, providing out-of-town link-
| transport (eg Park & Ride) for people driving in.
|
| The car _is_ eating US cities but only because people don 't have
| a better option.
| htag wrote:
| I like these maps. I do think it glosses over many details of
| vertical parking. It's hard to compare how tall the parking
| garages are. It's unclear if it covers underground parking for
| buildings with other uses or not. It's hard to determine exactly
| how much parking is provided in the red shaded regions. It's hard
| to determine what are parking garages and what are parking lots.
|
| I also would have liked to compare street parking options in
| various cities, but this doesn't seem to document it. Street
| parking can have just a big of an impact as garages and lots, as
| it leads to wider roads, people hunting for a spot, and a hazard
| for bicyclist.
| causality0 wrote:
| _Street parking can have just a big of an impact as garages and
| lots, as it leads to wider roads, people hunting for a spot,
| and a hazard for bicyclist._
|
| Street parking has always seemed slightly insane to me. You
| take a dense city that's already tough to get around by road
| and then you sacrifice half your road area for people to park
| on. Instead of one car park entrance you have to keep an eye on
| for emerging vehicles, any one of a thousand cars could
| suddenly move into the road with no notice. It's a safety and
| efficiency nightmare.
| LanceH wrote:
| The smell of urine is less present with street parking.
|
| And I'm not trying to be glib. Off hours especially, parking
| garages can be places people don't want to go.
| kbos87 wrote:
| There's an entire genre of anti-car content popular on social
| media right now that completely overlooks the reality of how most
| US cities are dispersed. I agree that the utopian ideal of a car-
| free existence is appealing, but it's far from realistic for a
| lot of places and there's an awful lot of shaming and shunning
| going on of regular people living their lives right now.
| xracy wrote:
| It's not about shaming and shunning. It's about educating, so
| that people are more amenable to non-car-centric changes to
| public transit and their cities that will improve everyone's
| way of life.
|
| I think the thing about Public Transit, is if you _truly_ love
| driving your car, you should _still_ be in favor of public
| transit, because better public transit means less traffic for
| you.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Someone has to pay for transit and it usually comes from
| drivers
| xracy wrote:
| Who subsidizes the roads for drivers?
| ipaddr wrote:
| Gas taxes.. where does transit money come from? General
| revenues and gas taxes.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Gas taxes.._
|
| Questionable:
|
| "Why Gas Taxes Aren't Paying the Bills Anymore"
|
| * https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-15/g
| as-ta...
|
| "Gas Taxes Don't Cover the Costs of Our Roads"
|
| * https://www.onthecommons.org/gas-taxes-dont-cover-
| costs-our-...
|
| "Ten Years of Highway Trust Fund Bankruptcy: Why Did It
| Happen, and What Have We Learned?"
|
| * https://www.enotrans.org/article/ten-years-of-highway-
| trust-...
|
| Further, expanding roads for car-centric use just makes
| things worse:
|
| > _It is a paradox in that improvements in the road
| network will not reduce traffic congestion. Improvements
| in the road network can make congestion worse if the
| improvements make public transport more inconvenient or
| if they shift investment, causing disinvestment in the
| public transport system._
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs-Thomson_paradox
|
| There is decades of empirical evidence that building more
| roads/highways does not improve congestion (but makes it
| worse):
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
| dragonwriter wrote:
| All of society subsidizes fuel for drivers by the absence
| of sufficient pigovian taxes to offset the externalities
| of burning it.
|
| (Well, additionally by the way US military and foreign
| policy revolves around fossil fuel supply. Which _lots_
| of people around the world pay for, and not just US
| taxpayers.)
| 0x53 wrote:
| So this is a common argument, but I don't think it holds true.
| Here is a video comparing the train system in Spain to the one
| in the US. Around the 8 minute mark he compares the population
| of the US east coast with Spain and their train system. The
| truth is that the population density in certain areas of the US
| is certainly high enough to support much better public transit
| that doesn't exist.
|
| https://youtu.be/wfxJhX8Y4QI
| magicalist wrote:
| > _There 's an entire genre of anti-car content popular on
| social media right now that completely overlooks the reality of
| how most US cities are dispersed_
|
| This content is _literally_ about how US cities are dispersed.
| kortilla wrote:
| Trends come and go, but the suburbs will continue to grow.
|
| Anti-car posts are fun because they are escapism from the worst
| part of the suburbs. However, you lose all of the best parts
| when you switch to the current alternatives (expensive density
| and shared public transportation).
| [deleted]
| ripley12 wrote:
| I don't see the "shaming and shunning" aspect much, myself.
| When I do see it it's usually directed at people who are
| driving dangerously or fighting policy that would make it
| easier to live without a car.
| cycomanic wrote:
| The point of this is that city planning is a slow process it
| literally takes decades to change cities. So yes you can't
| change cities to only operate with public transport overnight,
| because they have not been designed that way, but if you want
| to make them so that public transport becomes an option then
| you need to start now. And we do need to change how we get
| around, even if we go full electric cars, we still use too much
| of our energy needs for transport.
| nayuki wrote:
| Defaults are powerful. Undoing them will feel uncomfortable.
|
| Since the 1940s, the vision sold to society is one of private
| motor transport, free-flowing highways, and houses on big lots.
| The past 80 years have seen the execution of this plan with
| little to no reflection or criticism.
|
| We're finally starting to wake up to the reality that we find
| ourselves living in. We're questioning the choices made by our
| forebears and the infrastructure that has been constructed. If
| we want to change how cities are designed, we have to recognize
| the problem first. Only then can we embark on a decades-long
| transformation where we slowly replace buildings and roads with
| ones that reflect a new vision.
|
| The fact that US cities are dispersed is a red herring. Most
| cities will have expensive areas that people want to move into
| but are prevented from doing so due to a lack of available
| housing. The demand to densify already exists. By adjusting
| zoning laws, parking minimums, and transportation networks,
| housing can be added in those areas, and no one would be
| coerced to move to somewhere they don't want to be.
| seri4l wrote:
| Looking on the bright side all that open space means there is
| more sunlight, a scarce resource in many cities.
| notsound wrote:
| In what cities is sunlight a "scarce resource"? Many cities
| actively plant trees to create shade. Also, who the hell
| sunbathes in a parking lot? Nice pun tho
| seri4l wrote:
| When you live in front of a tall building that blocks the Sun
| the days are shorter and it's harder to keep the house warm
| during the Winter. Maybe I went too far calling it a "scarce
| resource" but tall buildings that are too close to each other
| increase the lighting and heating costs a great deal.
| kirel33 wrote:
| A lot of European countries tend to regulate the height of
| buildings to avoid such problems, density doesn't have to
| come at the expense of basic standards of living
| 0x53 wrote:
| I think of the hardest things to believe when I learned about it
| was that almost everywhere in the United States has laws that
| force anyone building a business to build parking. Often the
| parking has to be more in square foot terms then the building
| itself! In my town if you build a place that serves alcohol you
| have to build more parking than for any other type of building.
| It's crazy to me that we mandate paving over large sections of
| our town. I used to blame Walmart for moving into an area and
| buying up local businesses and destroying them to build a parking
| lot, but now I know they were legally required to do that!
| spockz wrote:
| Aside from that. If you sell alcohol you need more parking
| spots? That seems like promoting drink and drive.
| steponlego wrote:
| [flagged]
| sdwr wrote:
| So true. Thinking about my city, it's gross how much space is
| used up by parking. Half the street space, plus lots for every
| store + destination.
|
| Self-driving cars will fix this, no?
|
| A combo of taxis, automatic parking garages, and just driving
| itself home to wait.
| slaymaker1907 wrote:
| It'll be worse because the average number of people per vehicle
| will be less than 1.
| ecliptik wrote:
| I've been fascinated with Milliron's Department Store [1] from
| the late 1940s and it's use of parking on the roof of the
| department store. At the time "autotopia" was something
| developers cater too and seeing how architecture at the time
| responded is something in itself.
|
| Sadly the rooftop lot was removed with the rear X ramps blocked
| off, and the store is now a relatively generic Kolhs. In Southern
| California though a lot of the parking lots are getting
| retrofitted with solar, which while still taking up space, at
| least providing energy and shade.
|
| 1. https://www.gruenassociates.com/project/millirons-
| department...
| DangitBobby wrote:
| I'm curious if there are any bright ideas on practical first and
| last mile transportation for people who want to take the bus or
| train. Say my house is 1.5-3 miles from the closest bus stop and
| my destination is 1.5-3 miles from its closest bus stop. Should I
| be bringing my scooter on the bus? Is there room for everyone's
| scooter on the bus?
|
| Curious to hear from people who use the bus or train daily, how
| do you get to and from the bus stop in a timely manner and in the
| cold.
| htag wrote:
| 1. Bus stops can be as cheap as a sign on the road. We should
| embrace cheaper bus stops to build more bus stops. Another
| benefit of cheap bus stops is under-utilized stops can be
| removed with less investment lost.
|
| 2. There's rooms for lots of scooters on buses. It's pretty
| common for there to be places for bicycles on buses too. Have
| you been inside of a city bus? There pretty big.
|
| 3. Real estate near train stations is almost always more
| expensive. This is a type of amenity you have to look into
| while choosing your home.
| 29083011397778 wrote:
| > Another benefit of cheap bus stops is under-utilized stops
| can be removed with less investment lost
|
| According to the public transit authority around here, if you
| remove a bus stop (due to, say, a drop in transit usage) and
| try to bring it back later (after usage of transit goes back
| up), it can take up to five years to see ridership recognize
| that, and start to use the stop at the same rate as when it
| was removed. It may be cheaper to leave the stop there long-
| term.
| brewdad wrote:
| Buses can drive past unused stops as if they aren't there.
| There is little cost to keeping little used stops open and
| available.
| nayuki wrote:
| I can't speak for your situation, but I can tell you that
| Toronto made it work. Despite the fact that the majority of the
| land is single-family detached housing, it seems anyone is
| within a 1.0 km (0.6 mile) walk of a bus stop thanks to the bus
| grid. See: https://youtu.be/-ZDZtBRTyeI?t=304 ,
| https://media.blogto.com/articles/20201022-vox-news.jpg?w=10...
| xracy wrote:
| I like biking/walking. Both give me time to clear my head on my
| way to work. One of them is like 2x faster than the other.
| Scooters are fine if that works for you. AFAIK all of these
| options fit on the bus/train. But I will also say that the
| people at my work have long stated that the day they have to
| figure out where to park extra bikes, scooters, etc. They will
| make it happen. Because they take up so much less space it's
| much easier to manage. I think the same is probably true for
| public transit.
|
| I would suggest something you enjoy :).
|
| Accessibility is something else to consider for a lot of
| this... But it's not really an argument I feel people make in
| good faith. I would be okay with some car usage for people with
| accessibility needs for first/last mile transportation.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| Add more bus stops.
|
| Beyond that, I think the most honest answer is, "Wear a coat,
| and give yourself more time."
| keenboy wrote:
| I think the answer to this is to adopt Land Value Taxes. This
| would naturally incentivize property improvement and dis-
| incentivize people from owning large swaths of unproductive land.
| Communities would grow upward before they grow outward.
| Infrastructure costs would drop significantly and communities
| (over time) would become more walkable.
| [deleted]
| cafard wrote:
| Downtown Washington, DC, has plenty of parking (especially since
| the pandemic). However, for the most part it is under office
| buildings.
| rascul wrote:
| The title says cities but it's really about city centers.
|
| Edit: This is relevant because US cities tend to include a large
| amount of residential areas that don't have parking lots. When
| city centers are commercial areas that serve the city and
| surrounding areas inside and outside of the city, people are
| going to drive there and they need a place to park. There are
| potential ways to make parking less concentrated in the center
| though, which includes public transportation, one thing we're
| often not great at in the US.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| Large amounts of residential areas filled with single family
| homes, _all of which have their own private parking lots_.
| rascul wrote:
| Maybe they all do, maybe they don't. Maybe it's more than
| 1/5, but maybe it's less. The article doesn't touch on it.
| brewdad wrote:
| Look around you. How many SFH homes have been built in the
| last 80 years that don't have a driveway or an off-street
| parking spot? Maybe 1%? Probably far fewer than that.
| erik_seaberg wrote:
| California relaxed the requirements on converting a garage to
| housing, which potentially doubles the drivers while removing
| parking spaces.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| Link to the actual tool:
|
| https://parkingreform.org/resources/parking-lot-map/
| lotsoweiners wrote:
| Who cares? If Americans want room to drive and get places and
| park then let them. If my suburban town 25 miles away from a
| major city's downtown got rid of streets and places to park, me
| and 95% of the other residents would just move another 15 miles
| further.
| voisin wrote:
| > Who cares? If Americans want room to drive and get places and
| park then let them.
|
| It's terrible for the environment and leads to soulless shitty
| suburbs rather than vibrant, dense neighbourhoods.
| donatj wrote:
| How is having some open space worse for the environment than
| being tightly packed? That seems baseless
| virgildotcodes wrote:
| If you concentrate all the people into a small area you use
| less energy for transportation and you use less land
| overall, it's a lot more efficient.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Dense urban life is far more environmentally friendly and
| efficient in terms of consumption than suburban life.
| LooseMarmoset wrote:
| I call shenanigans. Take a look at any dense urban
| environment:
|
| * Concrete and asphalt EVERYWHERE. Ask yourself about the
| carbon cost of all that concrete - which, in the
| northeast, requires constant repair.
|
| * Street lighting - I mean, you can see dense, urban
| areas from freaking space - think about all the energy
| that takes. Is that environmentally friendly and
| efficient?
|
| * Heat islands - Dense, urban areas concentrate so much
| heat they literally change local weather.
|
| * I've got an entire ecosystem of nature right in my back
| yard. Trees, wildflowers, grass, an array of wildlife,
| even a small garden growing local food (that the deer and
| groundhogs are determined to eat). What do dense, urban
| environments have? A practical monoculture of pigeons and
| rats?
| ripley12 wrote:
| You are effectively arguing that it's better for the
| environment if we spread out _and use up more land per
| person_. This is an untenable position.
| nayuki wrote:
| Most of your argument goes against suburban living.
|
| Concrete and asphalt: If you add up all the parking lots
| and roads in a suburb and divide it by the number of
| people, the area is much larger than the amount of
| concrete per apartment dweller.
|
| Street lighting: Again, much higher in the suburbs due to
| the low density. An apartment building with 100 units
| might have 10 street lights. Each house could very well
| have 1 street light in front of it. Not to mention all
| the arterial stroads where no one lives.
|
| Extra topic - heating: A house is surrounded on 5 sides
| by cold. An apartment is surrounded on 5 sides by
| apartment.
| xracy wrote:
| You are more disruptive to that environment in your back
| yard than you would be if you moved to a city.
|
| That's exactly the problem. Any asphalt and concrete you
| add is sustaining 1 person. Any asphalt and concrete in
| an urban place is sustaining 1000s of people.
|
| You burn more fossil fuels in the winter to stay warm.
| You burn more fossil fuels to provide 1 source of light
| that only you use.
|
| The multiplier you're missing is the number of people we
| service with the things we're doing in an urban
| environment.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Why do you assume parent burns more fossil fuels?
|
| Having a 1,000s crammed into small spaces is China and
| that populatin density caused covid, sars, etc to spread.
| It's not health physically or for your psychology to live
| in an endless noise, light polluting environment.
| xracy wrote:
| There's an ocean of cities that people like between what
| you're describing and suburbia.
|
| What non-US cities do most people like to visit?
|
| You can look up suburban fossil fuel usage per capita vs
| urban fossil fuel usage per-capita just as well as I can.
| nayuki wrote:
| > that population density caused covid, sars, etc to
| spread
|
| I wonder why the USA, with all its fantastic green
| suburbs and private motor transport, had a much higher
| COVID case rate and death rate per capita than other
| countries that have denser urban living?
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Parking lots vs tightly packed is a false dichotomy. You
| could use the parking lot space for parks for instance.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _How is having some open space worse for the environment
| than being tightly packed?_
|
| All that open space means things are farther apart and you
| have to expend more energy to get from Point A to Point B.
| Less density means more joules per capita for
| transportation:
|
| * https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environm
| ent...
|
| Does it take more energy to drive 5 minutes to the store to
| pick up some milk and eggs, or to walk (or cycle) 5 minutes
| to the store?
|
| * https://www.vox.com/science-and-
| health/2017/1/26/14388942/bu...
| ripley12 wrote:
| Scenario 1: lots of land dedicated to car storage, people
| are spread out, commutes are longer and must be done by car
|
| Scenario 2: less land dedicated to parking, people live
| closer together, commutes are shorter and can more often be
| done by bike/transit/walking
|
| It's pretty clear which of those is better for the
| environment.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Which one is better for your environment? Pollution
| filled cities or open country air?
| nayuki wrote:
| Cars cause the pollution. Cities would be cleaner if
| suburbanites didn't drive in.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Cars are only a small part of the pollution problem.
| c-cube wrote:
| Then please inform us on what causes the bulk of
| pollution in cities. It's certainly not metros or
| bicycles.
| xracy wrote:
| I live in a 1600 sqft house on a 5600 sqft lot. If everyone
| in the US lived in that area, we would take up ~51,423,324
| acres (assuming population of 400 million). (~2.7% of the
| Continental US)
|
| If instead, every person took up 800 sqft in an apartment
| building, and assuming absolutely no vertical building, we
| would take up ~1/7th of that space (7,346,189 acres, 0.38%
| of the Continental US). That would free up ~44 Million
| acres of open space. Every level up you build, you get to
| increase the amount of open space by A further 6/7ths of
| the previous value.
|
| Now, Admittedly, this is back-of-the-envelope math that
| doesn't work for all scenarios (farms and whatnot are a
| separate thing). But pretending that suburbanism is better
| for "open space" is a load of BS. Urbanism provides more
| open space.
| ipaddr wrote:
| What's wrong with using 2.7% for housing? That seems low
| compared to many countries. Isn't that the American
| dream?
| xracy wrote:
| What's wrong is that I don't live on what is even the
| smallest per-state average of sqft for a single family
| home.
|
| average yard size is ~4x that. So that's 4x less open
| space. You're also assuming that all parts of the US are
| equally habitable. We're doing a lot of work to try and
| let people live in increasingly inhospitable deserts.
|
| https://housemethod.com/lawn/average-yard-size/
| cycomanic wrote:
| As the article established you then need to take up a
| similar amount of space for parking, then add the roads
| so suddenly you're at 10%. I thought you want open
| spaces?
| ipaddr wrote:
| I want less density which makes neighbourhoods have more
| open spaces. Stacking everyone together in a small postal
| stamp area creates more overall land that may be open but
| it creates less open areas where people live.
| goosedragons wrote:
| I dunno about you but I'd rather have one or two parks in
| an area than a sea of parking lots.
| xracy wrote:
| Open areas where people live (people's yards) are
| famously open to the public. There's certainly not a
| common acronym for what people don't want happening in
| their yards...
| DangitBobby wrote:
| I like my suburb :)
| jen20 wrote:
| I'd be a lot more amenable to suburbs if they weren't used
| to try to enforce puritanical ideals - it's usually
| impossible to walk to a bar from one (much less to a choice
| of bars).
|
| Some people fix that problem by driving drunk (the stats
| aren't pretty), but I fix it by living somewhere where
| there are bars within walking distance, and will not
| countenance the idea of living in a suburb even if it would
| cost me 3x less for the same space.
| LooseMarmoset wrote:
| The words "vibrant, dense neighborhoods" might mean "high
| crime, low privacy, and high noise" to people who prefer
| living elsewhere.
|
| Lots of people write glowingly about the "gritty, vibrant"
| streets of 1970s New York City too. Places like that helped
| spur the move to the suburbs - ask yourself why.
| noelherrick wrote:
| Pretty sure that was just racism:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States
| dminvs wrote:
| It's possible to create parking space that isn't surface lots
| goosedragons wrote:
| Because it's a terrible, unsustainable way to do society?
| Should we be dumping our trash on the streets too? I mean who
| cares?
| richwater wrote:
| Humans shouldn't be living in shoeboxes stacked 40 floors
| high. It's disgusting.
| com2kid wrote:
| The medium density townhome I lived in had more green space
| accessible to me than the single family home I'm in now.
|
| Turns out 2 large yards are plenty for even 100 families,
| and lawn care is super affordable when split 100 ways!
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Humans shouldn 't be living in shoeboxes stacked 40
| floors high._
|
| You have a limited view of 'urban living'. Want a front
| yard, back yard, and garage (attached to a laneway)? Plenty
| of that was built pre-WW2, and there's no reason why it
| couldn't be again:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0&t=1m8s
|
| The _Oh the Urbanity_ channel has a video on the
| (misguided) idea that _" urban living" = Manhattan / Hong
| Kong apartment blocks_:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCmz-fgp24E
|
| Examples (Streetview) of urban tree-lined streets which can
| support transit and where cycling is practical (and where a
| car is an option versus a necessity):
|
| * https://www.google.com/maps/place/125+Hampton+Ave,+Toront
| o,+...
|
| * https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto
| ,+O...
|
| * https://www.google.com/maps/place/70+Jackman+Ave+Toronto,
| +ON
|
| See also:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6txCZpbsQ&t=9m28s
|
| Fifteen minutes pedalling in one direction is downtown,
| fifteen minutes in the other is farm land.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > Humans shouldn't be living in shoeboxes stacked 40 floors
| high. It's disgusting.
|
| Strawman. No one said anything about 40 floor high
| shoeboxes.
| notacoward wrote:
| > If Americans want room to drive and get places and park then
| let them.
|
| You do realize that much of that parking exists because of
| mandates and subsidies, right? If Americans want _something
| else_ then let them. Does your interest in letting people make
| their own choices extend to other people 's choices as well as
| your own?
| __derek__ wrote:
| > my suburban town 25 miles away from a major city's downtown
|
| The article is explicitly about city centers, not suburbs let
| alone outer ones.
| QIYGT wrote:
| > If Americans want room to drive and get places and park
|
| A whole lot of Americans don't want that. You can tell by how
| much more expensive it is to live in walkable city centers than
| in suburbs.
| kortilla wrote:
| You're not adjusting for per-capita. The supply is much
| smaller for walkable city centers so a much smaller
| population can support the higher cost.
| [deleted]
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Who cares?_
|
| People who want fiscally responsible government? "The Many
| Costs of Too Much Parking":
|
| * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/20/the-many-
| cost...
|
| And that's not even getting into high(er) density areas
| subsidizing low(er) density areas:
|
| * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-
| reason...
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
|
| * https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-
| publ...
|
| * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-
| apartment...
|
| Want to live in low(er) density areas? Go ahead: but stop
| externalizing the costs onto others.
| pookah wrote:
| > People who want fiscally responsible government?
|
| The Washington D.C metro is a multi-billion dollar money pit
| from hell that's mismanaged and filled with graft, death and
| delays. California built a 1 billion dollar bus station that
| nearly collapsed on itself. In the US, some of the most
| fiscally un-responsible transportation is public government
| run transportation.
| matchbok wrote:
| Highways lose far more money than transit. And death?
| Really? Please look up how many people die on highways vs
| buses. You have no idea what you are talking about champ.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > [...] _mismanaged and filled with graft, death and
| delays._
|
| So no different than highway construction then? The seventh
| annual report of Highway Boondoggles:
|
| * https://frontiergroup.org/resources/highway-boondoggles/
|
| And let's not forget that it's been empirically measured
| for decades that building more roads/highways doesn't
| decrease congestion:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
|
| And that car-oriented 'improvements' makes things worse for
| drivers and worse for those for those taking public transit
| (often due to not being able to afford a car):
|
| > _It is a paradox in that improvements in the road network
| will not reduce traffic congestion. Improvements in the
| road network can make congestion worse if the improvements
| make public transport more inconvenient or if they shift
| investment, causing disinvestment in the public transport
| system._
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs-Thomson_paradox
|
| And that improving things for non-car users can actually
| make things better for drivers:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
|
| * https://fortune.com/2015/09/30/best-country-drive-waze/
|
| * https://archive.ph/S4FKM
|
| In no instantiation of the multiverse does the data show
| that focusing on car-centric development and private
| automobile transportation is more efficient, from a fiscal
| or energy point of view, or better for individuals' health
| and things like climate change.
|
| Certainly roads are useful for commerce and trade, but
| personal transportation? Not so much.
| wyre wrote:
| Compared to Uber that hasn't made a profit in 10 years?
| wasabinator wrote:
| [flagged]
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Columbus is sprawling, sad to see so much of that from parking
| and other pavement. As a driver though it is much better than
| Cleveland.
|
| Ultimately I do wish we had more biking trails and pedestrian
| friendly cities in Ohio. And I'd trade my car in for an electric
| bike if my city made it happen.
| kazinator wrote:
| Surely, new development can hide the parking in multi-level
| underground parkades. That solution isn't being rolled in those
| specific lots for whatever reason. We would have to interview the
| land owners to understand why they don't develop it into
| something more useful, _and_ possibly with more parking than it
| has now. Might it be they are hanging on to the land as an
| investment, hoping to get more money in the future, and the
| taxation of parking lots is favorable, not to mention operating
| costs? Next to no utility bills, no roofs to patch, ...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-01 23:03 UTC)