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

31–40 of 432 posts

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

#31

Post by _dain_ »

tellsomething wrote: post #20
jmyeet wrote: post #7

The amount of money we collectively spend subsidizing driving is utterly insane. Yet every public transit measure is jet with the same tired dogma of “it’ll raise our taxes” or “it will run at a loss”. Street parking tons at a loss. Why is this never brought up? Significant money is spent by the likes of the remaining Koch brothers to fight public transit infrastructure in every city. Yet taking drivers off the road…

Seems silly to think infrastructure means subsidising. Why don't you switch to dial up so that all the cables underneath the ocean can be slowly removed in order not to bother wild life over there? But really, your whole life is sustained by providers driving. Taxes in the city comes from humans being able to physically move their bodies to the right location. I mean, wouldn't it be ideal to get all the benefits of a…

>But really, your whole life is sustained by providers driving. Taxes in the city comes from humans being able to physically move their bodies to the right location.

because the only way to get around in a city is by driving, right?

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

#33

Post by Eisenstein »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #25
notatoad wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this doesn't eliminate parking spots. they're eliminating parking minimums , which in most cases are not backed by any sort of science or study - parking minimums get set mostly randomly, as a roadblock for development that people don't want in their neighbourhood. there's no good reason for most of these parking minimums, and they're not necessarily parking spots in places where there is any demand. steet parking, p…

Your comment is completely wrong, at least as it applies to Austin as explained in the article. Parking minimums are simply a requirement that if you build an apartment building with N apartments, you need to include a number of parking spots that is a function of N. The idea being that if you're building a number of places for people to live , the vast majority of them (especially in Austin) will need a place to par…

> I'm not really convinced of the counter argument, at least it Austin. Public transportation (or, basically any transportation) is notoriously bad in Austin, and for decades we've basically had the stance "if you don't build it, they won't come", but that hasn't quite worked out.

Well, since what you have been doing hasn't worked, maybe let's try the other tactic.

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

#34

Post by AlexandrB »

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.

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

#35

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

> "Austin has developed as a low density city without adequate mass transportation system," said resident Malcolm Yeatts. "Austin citizens cannot give up their cars. Eliminating adequate parking for residents will only increase the flight of the middle class and businesses to the suburbs."

I think this is likely to happen. Also, as a potential customer, when I look at a business, if I see that the parking is going to be a hassle, I will pick another location even if it means it is further away. So this has potential to make the business situation worse as well.

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

#36

Post by hnaccount_rng »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #25
notatoad wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this doesn't eliminate parking spots. they're eliminating parking minimums , which in most cases are not backed by any sort of science or study - parking minimums get set mostly randomly, as a roadblock for development that people don't want in their neighbourhood. there's no good reason for most of these parking minimums, and they're not necessarily parking spots in places where there is any demand. steet parking, p…

Your comment is completely wrong, at least as it applies to Austin as explained in the article. Parking minimums are simply a requirement that if you build an apartment building with N apartments, you need to include a number of parking spots that is a function of N. The idea being that if you're building a number of places for people to live , the vast majority of them (especially in Austin) will need a place to par…

The comment just said, that the function of N that gives the number of parking spots (really it's just going to be a proportionality factor) is "set nearly randomly". Nothing in your comment counters that assertion. Which I personally don't find implausible (although that is without any exposure to the decision process in Austin in particular)

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

#37

Post by oldpersonintx »

DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #13
coldpie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before: If you build a building of this size, you MUST also build at least X parking spaces. Now: If you build a building of this size, you MAY build as many parking spaces as you think you need. Seems like a strict improvement to me.

It’s not. I’ve lived in neighborhoods that did this and it was a nightmare. All street parking filling up by 4pm. Half hour walks to your car. Neighbors keying each others cars for taking up a space for too long. Guests basically just being SOL - you’d literally be unable to have guests over because if you left to pick them up there’d be no spot when you got back, and if they drove themselves they’d never find a spot…

[dead]

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

#38

Post by foxyv »

_dain_ wrote: post #17
DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not. I’ve lived in neighborhoods that did this and it was a nightmare. All street parking filling up by 4pm. Half hour walks to your car. Neighbors keying each others cars for taking up a space for too long. Guests basically just being SOL - you’d literally be unable to have guests over because if you left to pick them up there’d be no spot when you got back, and if they drove themselves they’d never find a spot…

It sounds like the parking was underpriced. EDIT I am rate-limited so can't reply, but this part: "If you have 200 cars" This is only the case if the demand for parking / driving is perfectly inelastic, which would be quite extraordinary. Empirically, when you charge for parking or institute toll roads, traffic tends to fall, in some cases sharply (because many journeys are low value). I repeat: if the parking spaces…

Parking, Roads, Gasoline, Pollution, etc... We so heavily subsidize people's cars for no reason. For the cost of all of it we could have free healthcare and amazing public transportation then lower taxes with the left over money.

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

#39

Post by Eisenstein »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #30
r00fus wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Nothing changes overnight but it allows for denser development esp. around existing public transit lines. The problem is there a barely any decent "existing public transit lines" in Austin. Existing public transit line, singular, perhaps, and in a decade or so we'll get some more. In the meantime it just means traffic gets much shittier with no real alternatives.

> The problem is there a barely any decent "existing public transit lines" in Austin. Existing public transit line, singular, perhaps, and in a decade or so we'll get some more. In the meantime it just means traffic gets much shittier with no real alternatives.

"Let's keep doing the same thing that doesn't work and complain when anyone decides to try something else".

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

#40

Post by siliconc0w »

I should be for every n sq ft contribute a parking space or $$$ to mass transit. Otherwise people still need a car and live a miserable life of shuffling their cars around, taking public spots that should be reserved for commerce or occasional use, like guests, not permanent parking.
Post reply on HN