71–80 of 174 posts
Where I live (not in the US) we have parking maximums, not minimums. A new office development will not get planning approval if it has more than 2 parking spaces per 3 employees (based on some obscure measurement of building capacity). This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation.
Where I live (not in the US) we have parking maximums, not minimums. A new office development will not get planning approval if it has more than 2 parking spaces per 3 employees (based on some obscure measurement of building capacity). This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation.
Maybe that's good long term, but the short and medium term is that existing business and residents that rely on street parking will be pushed out.
Gov'ts can do 3 things - encourage something, do nothing, or discourage something. Parking minimums encourage people to drive cars. This is LA taking a small step towards picking winners (cars...) just little bit less.
If you want people to use public transit, encourage public transit.
Where I live (not in the US) we have parking maximums, not minimums. A new office development will not get planning approval if it has more than 2 parking spaces per 3 employees (based on some obscure measurement of building capacity). This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation.
Here’s a crazy idea: let the property owner and developer decide the correct amount of parking to provide. And the size of the apartments. And the number of floors to build. The regulations here should be based around things like structural integrity, egress, and safety. Not views, not density, not what size of apartment is “too big” or “too small.” All of those are things the market can sort out.
Unfortunately, developers and property owners will care nothing for the wider community. Firstly, at what point would you end regulations? Perhaps zoning and planning permission frameworks are too much? Let the market decide. Electrical, again that really is too much regulation, and we should let the free mark reign as people will have to adhere keep up their personal reputation.
The unfortunate fact is that personal reputation does not count for shit. Just look at Trump and Johnson. They outright lie and nobody is holding them to account, so what makes you believe that shonky developers and property sales people will hold to their word.
Secondly, our road systems and other community infrastructure can only accommodate and scale with so much growth. If growth is not managed reasonably, then our communities will become truly awful places to live.
I would agree that where population density is lower, then there needs to be less regulation, and where it is higher there needs to be more.
Finally, I would add that that charging 5p for disposable plastic shopping bags has had a hugely positive effect on curtailing the use of single use plastic bags.
Sometimes there is too much regulation, and sometimes there is too little, but fundamentally we need regulation, and participatory democrat systems to manage it.
Your quality of your life and ownership should not be obliterated overnight because somebody bought the neighbouring property and decided to build an industrial composting facility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe that's good long term, but the short and medium term is that existing business and residents that rely on street parking will be pushed out.
Yes, that’s the point.
Hacker news loves to talk about solutions to zoning problems that only benefit people who don't live there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cars are the reason the buses are slow. 22% of LA workers travel to work without a car, which isn't great but it's not zero either. Metro LA added a dedicated bus lane on Flower and they are moving more than one bus per minute in that lane. As soon as you remove the cars everything else gets a lot better. https://twitter.com/metrolosangeles/status/11538072082299576...
Are they? It's always seemed to me that frequent stops, circuitous routes and long travel distances are the reason the buses are slow relative to cars. After all, cars have to deal with other cars as well. And for comparison, to the south, San Diego has much better traffic than LA, but the buses are still quite slow (e.g. I recently considered taking the bus rather than a 15-minute drive in San Diego, but it would ha…
The solution to these issues is to provide bus signalization, dedicated lanes, and/or queue jumping opportunities. These changes minimally inconvenience cars while significantly speeding up buses. It makes it so that a bus route, while longer, can be time-competitive with driving (or rather, closer enough that it overcomes the inconvenience of walking to/from stops and sometimes having to wait for your bus)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Removing parking spaces puts more cars on the road -- circling for spots and parking illegally in traffic lanes. If you want faster buses, evict the cars from the bus travel lanes.
Yeah, except no. This is just one of those tropes that motorists use to force cities to subsidize them. Every study on this topic has conclusively shown that parking causes traffic. The construction of parking precedes the worsening of traffic, the amount of parking built is proportional to the amount of traffic observed, and the reverse process is also observed to correct the problem: removing parking alleviates tra…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Removing parking spaces puts more cars on the road -- circling for spots and parking illegally in traffic lanes. If you want faster buses, evict the cars from the bus travel lanes.
If you want faster buses, evict the cars from the bus travel lanes. That's hard to do without BRT - we have plenty of dedicated bus lanes (the right lane) around here, but they all allow cars for right-hand turns, so buses still get stuck behind a line of cars. Without BRT and center-island boarding, it's harder to reserve anything but the far-right lane since the bus needs to get there to pickup/dropoff passengers.
Dedicated bus signalization, no right turn on red, and cars perform right turns from the second lane. Dedicated signal phase can be combined with separated bike lanes to improve safety for other road users, as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just lifting a requirement, for know. Presumably, there are currently cases where you have to build a parking lot even though it's the headquarters for Fundamentalist Cyclists International and situated right next to public transport. After that, it's chicken-and-egg more than cart-and-whores. With surface parking lots taking up easily half the space in many US business districts, eliminating them could double d…
Cart-and-what?
Where I live (not in the US) we have parking maximums, not minimums. A new office development will not get planning approval if it has more than 2 parking spaces per 3 employees (based on some obscure measurement of building capacity). This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation.
Here’s a crazy idea: let the property owner and developer decide the correct amount of parking to provide. And the size of the apartments. And the number of floors to build. The regulations here should be based around things like structural integrity, egress, and safety. Not views, not density, not what size of apartment is “too big” or “too small.” All of those are things the market can sort out.