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

How Parking Destroys Cities

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: How Parking Destroys Cities

#41

Post by sofixa »

zozbot234 wrote: post #25
zemvpferreira wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Portugal the louder voices speak for public transit - greener, fairer, etc etc. You know the usual arguments. Unfortunately massive public works are by far our biggest source of grifting. It takes an average of 20 years and $120M/mile (60M €/km) to open a new metro station. Maybe Switzerland doesn't have this problem, but I'm all for solutions that take funds away from our politician's hands. And the car is g…

> It takes an average of 20 years and $120M/mile (60M €/km) to open a new metro station. Light rail transit or streetcars can be a lot cheaper than that, while still avoiding quite a bit of car traffic. The best system for any given atea is going to depend on density and local demand.

> Light rail transit or streetcars can be a lot cheaper than that, while still avoiding quite a bit of car traffic

Yeah, but their downsides (noise, vibrations, visibility) make them impractical for new projects in most old cities.

Re: How Parking Destroys Cities

#42

Post by sofixa »

zemvpferreira wrote: post #11
adav wrote: post #2

Should be: How Parking Destroys American Cities

No, this is my exact sentiment in Lisbon, Portugal - Europe. A city going on 1000 years. Our parking requirements for new construction and our addiction to free curb parking everywhere have destroyed mobility. There are unnecessary jams at all times of the day thanks to idiotic parking. I drive daily and have nothing against cars. I hope that small semi-self-driving electric cars will eventually replace our dying pub…

> I hope that small semi-self-driving electric cars will eventually replace our dying public transit

Why?? That can't work with the terrain and current buildings in Lisbon, there simply isn't enough space for a car per person. And I can't imagine a livable city with so much space and money wasted for parking and roads. ( Due to induced demand )

Improving public transit is a much better option, especially considering Lisbon has some decent infrastructure already ( the tram and metro networks seemed pretty decent from my trip there just at the start of the pandemic).

Re: How Parking Destroys Cities

#43

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

zemvpferreira wrote: post #33
LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm. What do you think of the taxes on top of the costs for fuel/gas, then? And how they relate to the 'peanuts' for some metro?

That's fair enough, I'm pinning my hopes on the electric car/bike coming down in price enough to make them viable for our commuters in the next 5 years. Still, if we don't have massive public works, it's a lot harder to fill politician's pockets on the side.

Hmmm. Ok. From my german point of view I wouldn't bet on energy getting cheaper anytime soon, no matter if electric, hydrogen, or any other fuels.

"Vee arr ze stupid cows being milked until implosion!"

Moooo! ;->

Re: How Parking Destroys Cities

#44

Post by zemvpferreira »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #43
zemvpferreira wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair enough, I'm pinning my hopes on the electric car/bike coming down in price enough to make them viable for our commuters in the next 5 years. Still, if we don't have massive public works, it's a lot harder to fill politician's pockets on the side.

Hmmm. Ok. From my german point of view I wouldn't bet on energy getting cheaper anytime soon, no matter if electric, hydrogen, or any other fuels. "Vee arr ze stupid cows being milked until implosion!" Moooo! ;->

Not so worried about energy cost as I am purchase price ;)

Re: How Parking Destroys Cities

#45

Post by distances »

userulluipeste wrote: post #34

This is madness. Despite the pandemic we all went through and the need to avoid unnecessary human contact and proximity, despite the fact that the highest risk of infection has been demonstrably in walkable cities like New York, the old policy of pushing for measures that would force people to travel together, regardless of their preference or safety, hasn't changed. I like to walk, and pre-pandemic I took public tra…

Urban planning is much longer scale than this pandemic.

In my opinion there should be no free parking in inner cities, and no requirements for parking spaces for property developers. Parking should be possible only in market priced parking garages. Parking options could still be built into apartment buildings, again at prices reflecting the cost of land/building costs. It should be markedly cheaper to buy an apartment without parking option.

Suburban areas are different of course, but cities seem to only turn really alive when cars are reduced and population density exceeds 10,000 per square kilometer.

Re: How Parking Destroys Cities

#46

Post by supertrope »

sofixa wrote: post #40
QuarterReptile wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more painful in the US because so much of our built environment is not at a human scale conducive to public transit. Transit uses an implied hub and spoke network system where the base level of spoke is walking, then some combination of buses/trains/subways integrating those walk-sheds. For huge areas of the country (and yes, this includes those classified as "urban"), the distances are too long, and the scenery…

> Transit uses an implied hub and spoke network system where the base level of spoke is walking, then some combination of buses/trains/subways integrating those walk-sheds. Not necessarily. Minibuses, bikes, e-scooters, even cars (park and ride, a big parking next to a train station; you get off the train and on your car for the last/first part of your trip) are perfectly viable "last mile" options.

I prefer not to get killed in a traffic crash. Even personal mobility requires infrastructure like fully separated bike lanes and multi-use trails. A white paint line or sharrows is a joke.

We have level of service standards for roads and highways. But for pedestrians and bicyclists there's no standards for sidewalks on every street, bus stop quality, tree canopy, protection from speeding SUV drivers, crosswalks, bike racks, etc.

Re: How Parking Destroys Cities

#47

Post by supertrope »

userulluipeste wrote: post #34

This is madness. Despite the pandemic we all went through and the need to avoid unnecessary human contact and proximity, despite the fact that the highest risk of infection has been demonstrably in walkable cities like New York, the old policy of pushing for measures that would force people to travel together, regardless of their preference or safety, hasn't changed. I like to walk, and pre-pandemic I took public tra…

San Francisco has had less COVID-19 fatalities than drug overdoses. New York got heavily infected because up until Mid February the governor considered it just the flu. On top of the feds failing to respond (botched test creation, minimal contact tracing, resistance to travel restrictions). The MTA forbid workers from wearing masks to avoid causing a panic.

Re: How Parking Destroys Cities

#48

Post by TYPE_FASTER »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #35
soco wrote: post #19

I hear this discussion also on this side of the pond and I just don't get it: why not reviving public transport? I can't see how even more car-friendly policies - self-driven cars or not - can make the roads more available... I'm in Switzerland and short or long distance, public transport gets you in comparable times with driving. Maybe not for some godforsaken places where you need to switch three buses, but 90% of…

It's more painful in the US because so much of our built environment is not at a human scale conducive to public transit. Transit uses an implied hub and spoke network system where the base level of spoke is walking, then some combination of buses/trains/subways integrating those walk-sheds. For huge areas of the country (and yes, this includes those classified as "urban"), the distances are too long, and the scenery…

I think there are a ton of opportunities to use unused or infrequently used existing rail infrastructure. Passenger rail travel was more common when the population density of the country was lower [0], so there's no reason we couldn't restore it.

For example, a local city wants to expand a road leading to the downtown area, to improve traffic flow from the highway to the downtown core area.

I'd much rather they build a parking garage where we have a park and ride lot, and run the modern equivalent of a Budd Car on existing track a couple miles into the city and back. The tracks parallel the road they want to build, and anybody who wants to drive into the city is going to park and walk around anyway, so why not reduce traffic and make it less frustrating to go downtown?

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car

Re: How Parking Destroys Cities

#49

Post by zemvpferreira »

sofixa wrote: post #42
zemvpferreira wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is my exact sentiment in Lisbon, Portugal - Europe. A city going on 1000 years. Our parking requirements for new construction and our addiction to free curb parking everywhere have destroyed mobility. There are unnecessary jams at all times of the day thanks to idiotic parking. I drive daily and have nothing against cars. I hope that small semi-self-driving electric cars will eventually replace our dying pub…

> I hope that small semi-self-driving electric cars will eventually replace our dying public transit Why?? That can't work with the terrain and current buildings in Lisbon, there simply isn't enough space for a car per person. And I can't imagine a livable city with so much space and money wasted for parking and roads. ( Due to induced demand ) Improving public transit is a much better option, especially considering…

Sorry if I sound blunt but you're clearly not a resident of the Lisbon metro if you think public transit is serviceable. Maybe some 20% of commuters would have to trade 45 minutes in a car for 2 hours minimum in public transit. Lisbon =! the city centre. And our public transit is impossible to improve as seen in the last 50 years - we just can't make public works work.

Maybe it's a sign of old age but I've grown tired of idealistic solutions to persistent problems. Would I prefer a phenomenal public transit system over cars? Absolutely, I hate driving. But it is what it is and pining for Nirvana will not help us whatsoever. Better work with the momentum we have.

Re: How Parking Destroys Cities

#50

Post by Jochim »

Tade0 wrote: post #38
Jochim wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct in that once you start building for cars your city sprawls out and other modes of transport become impractical. I don't think the 27% number is particularly useful because it offers no context into the type of trip. No one is suggesting you use bicycles for intercity trips, but for city transport they're perfect. This is reflected in the mode share numbers for cities compared to the national average: W…

> Wikipedia has Amsterdam at 40% bike share with 29% public transport and 27% driving. That's the thing: in Amsterdam. Who are those people that are responsible for half of all trips and where are they headed with their cars? Looking at the map I wouldn't drive in this city as well - the distance from the city limits to the centre is less than 5km, so as much as I have from my apartment to the centre of the city I li…

The problem is that the majority of people do end up driving within that ~5km limit in cities that don't invest in public transport and cycling infrastructure. In the UK most cities are around this size, but our modal share for cycling is much lower, despite similar climate conditions. The main difference I see is that we invest heavily in infrastructure suited for cars, but very little in public transport or cycling.

I guess what I'm trying to say is cities typically end up the way they do due to how their residents approach transport planning. You can either continue with a car centric approach that leads to more sprawl and a city center that's less welcoming/interesting to visit, or you can try to make the city friendly towards more efficient modes of transport that encourage people to onto the streets.

Post reply on HN