Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 432 posts

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#281

Post by Spivak »

lukas099 wrote: post #258

I vote we ban all free public parking and let the free market determine how much parking there is and where.

If you let the free market decide the answer will be "a lot" and "everywhere there's business that want customers from outside walking distance" and "everywhere there's apartments and houses that don't have garages."

Parking minimums are one of those things that are a huge PITA when you hit edge cases but when you go to city council meetings residents and business owners ask for more and cheaper parking because it draws in business and keeps street parking available for residents.

You can't remove parking in isolation, I genuinely wish you could. You have to fix the reason people want it in the first place. And high density public transportation is unfortunately a double-edged sword because it means you need a government blessing to make an area a new hot spot and drives business and residential rents way up in the spots people can get to easily.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#282

Post by [deleted] »

chimeracoder wrote: post #251
kube-system wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Carrying things home from the hardware store is not conducive activity with my e-bike. Large item purchases, blah blah blah. If I were to rent a car suitable each time, I could just pay the monthly car payment Do you have on-demand car sharing in your city? Like Zipcar or similar? You could go on a heck of a lot of hardware store trips in one of these cars for the price of a car payment + parking + insurance + taxe…

> Do you have on-demand car sharing in your city? Like Zipcar or similar? You could go on a heck of a lot of hardware store trips in one of these cars for the price of a car payment + parking + insurance + taxes + maintenance. I think you're replying to the wrong person. I do use Zipcar on the rare occasion that I need a car. It's way cheaper than car ownership (not even including parking).

[deleted]

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#283

Post by chung8123 »

rcpt wrote: post #269
chung8123 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need all of that to have every amenity at a walking distance. I live in the suburbs and I still have almost every amenity walking distance. Do I need 20 restaurants and coffee shops? Having space for your hobbies is nice so if your priority is hobbies that need space living out of the city is nice. If your priority is going out for things it is probably better to live in the city.

> live in the suburbs and I still have almost every amenity walking distance Are you sure you live in a suburb?

Of course I am sure. If you plan where you live you can live in the suburbs just fine and still be able to walk most places. I have done it in the last few places I have lived. They even have bus routes. Suburbs can be walk-able for those that make it a priority. Many don't care and will pick their homes with different criteria.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#284

Post by chung8123 »

dionidium wrote: post #264
chung8123 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need all of that to have every amenity at a walking distance. I live in the suburbs and I still have almost every amenity walking distance. Do I need 20 restaurants and coffee shops? Having space for your hobbies is nice so if your priority is hobbies that need space living out of the city is nice. If your priority is going out for things it is probably better to live in the city.

> Do I need 20 restaurants and coffee shops? That should be up to individuals, not central planners.

Agreed. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#285

Post by JumpCrisscross »

autoexec wrote: post #250
dragonwriter wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When those developers don't have to providing parking space anymore, people will still need cars but now have no place to put them at night. If they have no place to put them, they won't have them, and if they don't have them, then either (1) they won't live there at all, or (2) they don't actually need them. > This is the kind of move that should be done selectively No, having parking requirements should be done s…

> If they have no place to put them, they won't have them This is demonstrably false. People still need cars to get to where they need to go, like work, or their doctor's office, or the grocery store. There are no alternatives. Public transportation doesn't get them there. Ubering everywhere is more expensive than owning a car. Until alternatives exist, not having a car isn't an option. If you've been to cities where…

> If you've been to cities where there isn't enough street parking to meet demand you'd know that even when people have no place to park their cars they still keep cars

No? They park them outside the city centre. Or they rent them. You're speaking as if Austin is the first city in the world--or even America--to do this.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#286

Post by s1artibartfast »

AlexandrB wrote: post #34
1-6 wrote: post #21

I thought a generation of remote work would change attitudes about cities. Why are we still trying to cram into small spaces?

I'm not sure what you mean. Even with remote work, living in a high-density area offers advantages - the primary one (in my mind) being that you don't have to own a car.

It is hard to replace a vehicle when my primary use case is getting away from the high density area I live in go places with minimal public access.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#287

Post by pastage »

avianlyric wrote: post #173
pc86 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let's pay 3x as much for rent [and other things that more expensive with density] to save $300/mo on a car payment" is certainly an interesting life choice. More seriously though I do think there are benefits to city living if that's a lifestyle you want, but saving money is almost never one of them unless you have a job where you can make a LOT more living in the city, which sort of by definition means you're not g…

> "Let's pay 3x as much for rent [and other things that more expensive with density] to save $300/mo on a car payment" You must have one of those magical cars that runs on air, never needs to be filled up, never needs to be taxed, never needs to be insured and never breaks down. Wish I could have one of those cars. In the meantime I’ll settle for using my feet and my bike. Never needed to fill them up with fuel, pay…

Cheapest TCO for a bought used car is about 400 euro per month here in Sweden, most will spend more because they drive more or buy a more expensive car. The majority of people will spend more than 600 euros per month at 1200km YMMV, the externalties are subsidized to at least 100-1500 euros per month depending on how you count.

All these numbers are from 2019.

Without car we pay about 300 euros per month for all transport needs, an extra 100 euros per month are direct subsidies. I would guess we would pay at least 800 euros per month for a car, probably more.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#288

Post by kube-system »

dylan604 wrote: post #277
chimeracoder wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have on-demand car sharing in your city? Like Zipcar or similar? You could go on a heck of a lot of hardware store trips in one of these cars for the price of a car payment + parking + insurance + taxes + maintenance. I think you're replying to the wrong person. I do use Zipcar on the rare occasion that I need a car. It's way cheaper than car ownership (not even including parking).

On the chance they were meaning to reply to me, no, I don't think a Zipcar is going to help me carry sheets of plywood or other similar large items. However, I'm not familiar with Zipcar, so I just took a look. Near me, there's a Kia Soul or a Toyota Prius. Nope, neither of those helpful for my needs. I'll continue with the "hey buddy...got another sixer-request", although, some requests become cases.

Yeah, I replied to the wrong person. Anyway, I don't see many people buying full sheets of plywood in dense cities, but if I wanted to do that, I wouldn't be going to my neighborhood hardware store with a Zipcar, because it doesn't have a lumber yard. I'd go to the Home Depot a few miles away, and I'd use their rental truck.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#289

Post by FpUser »

brewdad wrote: post #206
FpUser wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want to arm twist people to suit your agenda? It does not work this way. Personally I aways support and would vote for more public transport but not by forcing me to abandon my car. If that is the approach the only vote you'll get from me is fuck you. And I am a nicer guy who mostly uses EUC, bike and feet.

Carrot vs stick is one of the most basis forms of influence. When the carrot doesn't work...

It works both ways

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#290

Post by FpUser »

LargeWu wrote: post #261
FpUser wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want to arm twist people to suit your agenda? It does not work this way. Personally I aways support and would vote for more public transport but not by forcing me to abandon my car. If that is the approach the only vote you'll get from me is fuck you. And I am a nicer guy who mostly uses EUC, bike and feet.

Nobody is forcing you to abandon your car, you are just going start absorbing the true cost of the externalities (whether in tolls, taxes, inconvenience, etc). You can decide for yourself then whether using or owning a car is worth that.

Sure. Foot me a bill since I am affecting other person's lives. Just make sure it is correct. Also do not forget to compensate me as I am affected by other people.
Post reply on HN