LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

Post by C1sc0cat » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 8:26 AM UTC

bartread wrote: post #146

StringyBob wrote: post #10

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.

> This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation. A similar policy operates here in the UK, except that the parking allowance is significantly less generous. I find it utterly asinine because it is not paired with the necessary corollary: you can't "encourage" more environmentally friendly methods of transportation, you have to actually - you know - take action and…

Post by adrianN » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 8:28 AM UTC

bartread wrote: post #146

StringyBob wrote: post #10

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.

> This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation. A similar policy operates here in the UK, except that the parking allowance is significantly less generous. I find it utterly asinine because it is not paired with the necessary corollary: you can't "encourage" more environmentally friendly methods of transportation, you have to actually - you know - take action and…

Post by adrianN » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 8:29 AM UTC

chc wrote: post #17

StringyBob wrote: post #10

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.

I feel like this would be putting the cart before the horse in the US. Failing to put parking in a place with poor walkability and terrible public transportation doesn't seem like it would encourage much of anything.

Post by bartread » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 8:40 AM UTC

chc wrote: post #107

gamblor956 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You guys are both right. Removing cars from a bus lane makes the buses go faster. And having frequent stops makes buses go slower. Traveling long distances doesn't make the bus any slower; it just limits the frequency you can revisit a stop on the route without increasing the number of buses on that route.

I didn't mean long travel distances make buses go slower, I meant they amplify the disadvantages of buses, and America tends to have a lot of distance between things. If a trip would take one minute and it takes four instead, that's probably fine. If a trip would take 15 minutes and it takes an hour, that's a bigger problem, even though it's the same relative slowdown.

Post by michaelt » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 11:05 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #138

obelos wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy because it doesn't work. All of those factors rely upon the use of common, municipal resources, and those municipal resources, especially streets, often can't be expanded.

How do we know it doesn’t work? If I was a builder, my incentives are closely aligned with the city - build something that appeals to buyers. If I build a fancy apartment building where everyone owns cars but I provide no parking, well those aren’t going to be very desirable.

  If I was a builder, my incentives are
  closely aligned with the city