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

The force that shapes everything around us: Parking

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 683 posts

Re: The force that shapes everything around us: Parking

#671

Post by daveliepmann »

josephcsible wrote: post #28
the_snooze wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing urban environments. A lot of people live in those places already. But a lot of people prefer to live elsewhere. Differences in preference is fine. What doesn't make sense though is driving in urban environments, especially single-occupant vehicles that make up the vast majority of motor traffic in major cities. Keep the suburbs. But I think it'd be good to make cities painful to drive in for all but…

> it'd be good to make cities painful to drive in This is the wrong approach. Don't intentionally make driving worse for anyone, anywhere, ever. If you want people to use transit instead, then improve it until it's a better option than driving is today.

Researchers like Giulio Mattioli have shown pretty well what should be clear from watching politics: getting people out of their cars requires sticks as well as carrots.

>Improvement to public transport is the only win-win policy measure in the diagram. As a matter of fact, all policies that reduce the need for an automobile to access jobs and services by improving the effectiveness of other modes are generally seen as contributing to alleviating social exclusion, insofar as they improve the situation of households without a car (Shaw and Farrington, 2003, p.109). They should have a positive impact on environmental sustainability as well, insofar as they encourage a modal shift from the private car to less polluting means of transport. However, transport researchers generally agree that “pull” measures that encourage voluntary reductions of car use – or “carrots” – are unlikely to effectively bring about change at an adequate scale and speed (Huby and Burkitt, 2000, p.390); therefore it is generally pointed out that there is a need for complementary “push” measures, which aim to reduce car use in a more direct and coercive manner (“sticks”).

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Giulio-Mattioli-2/publi...

Or see this thread: See https://twitter.com/giulio_mattioli/status/16250810050893660...

Making driving worse is good, actually.

Re: The force that shapes everything around us: Parking

#672

Post by wizofaus »

josephcsible wrote: post #28
the_snooze wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing urban environments. A lot of people live in those places already. But a lot of people prefer to live elsewhere. Differences in preference is fine. What doesn't make sense though is driving in urban environments, especially single-occupant vehicles that make up the vast majority of motor traffic in major cities. Keep the suburbs. But I think it'd be good to make cities painful to drive in for all but…

> it'd be good to make cities painful to drive in This is the wrong approach. Don't intentionally make driving worse for anyone, anywhere, ever. If you want people to use transit instead, then improve it until it's a better option than driving is today.

> getting people out of their cars requires sticks as well as carrots

Or...it requires that governments stop prioritising car-based travel over all others, i.e. they should provide carrots for all forms of transport in equal measure, according to the long-term costs of providing it. I live in a area with far better cycling/walking/PT infrastructure than probably most suburbs in my country, yet I'm still regularly struck by the degree to which infrastructure dedicated to moving people around in private automobiles takes up far more space and taxpayer budget than all the others combined.

Re: The force that shapes everything around us: Parking

#674

Post by myroon5 »

ClassyJacket wrote: post #373
ultra_nick wrote: post #124

A land value tax would fix this. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/what-is-a-land-value-tax-520...

A drive in cinema I loved going to shut down last week because a land value tax made it impossible to conduct their business there. They were being charged over one thousand dollars per day of tax because in that area, tax is calculated ignoring what's actually on the land. If it was shut down and turned into apartments (which is what's happening now), the tax is spread out across all owners and manageable. But conce…

> tax is calculated ignoring what's actually on the land

Isn't that the point? LVT forces land to be valued more so large less productive land use shifts to more productive use

Re: The force that shapes everything around us: Parking

#675

Post by sethrin »

midoridensha wrote: post #667
drekk wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you prefaced your argument with saying it's your view and all but that's just not based in reality. Americans want alternatives. It's just too bad they can't afford lobbyists to agitate for those policy preferences. https://www.filesforprogress.org/memos/gnd-for-transit-polli... I suspect maybe part of it is a generational thing. In my circles at least a lot of my peers get actual anxiety while driving. It's c…

My view is based in reality, yours isn't. Just because a small minority of 20-something hipsters want bikeable cities doesn't mean most Americans do. They don't. This has nothing to do with "lobbyists" and everything to do with the voting public, just like Trump was not elected by lobbyists, but instead by half the voting public who supported his repulsive views.

Well no, Trump was elected by a majority of the Electoral College. The majority of the public vote went to the other candidate. Which is sort of the point, that the US is not actually democratic in some important ways which influence policy decisions.

Re: The force that shapes everything around us: Parking

#676

Post by midoridensha »

sethrin wrote: post #675
midoridensha wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My view is based in reality, yours isn't. Just because a small minority of 20-something hipsters want bikeable cities doesn't mean most Americans do. They don't. This has nothing to do with "lobbyists" and everything to do with the voting public, just like Trump was not elected by lobbyists, but instead by half the voting public who supported his repulsive views.

Well no, Trump was elected by a majority of the Electoral College. The majority of the public vote went to the other candidate. Which is sort of the point, that the US is not actually democratic in some important ways which influence policy decisions.

>The majority of the public vote went to the other candidate.

No, it didn't. Hillary didn't get a majority, she got about 48%. Trump got about 46%. There was not a significant difference between the two, and roughly half the American public voted for Trump.

It's so weird how every single time I write about how roughly half the American public voted for that turd, people like you come out of the woodwork to try to insinuate that Trump was elected by some vanishingly small minority. Why is that?

Re: The force that shapes everything around us: Parking

#677

Post by anticensor »

criddell wrote: post #358
arthurbrown wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing a train

A door-to-door train would be pretty cool, especially when my door is on a 10 acre lot 35 minutes outside of the city and I get a private cabin on the train that I can sleep in.

A self driving version of this could help you reach the train station/tram stop: https://www.karsan.com/tr/e-jest-genel-bakis

Re: The force that shapes everything around us: Parking

#678

Post by sethrin »

midoridensha wrote: post #676
sethrin wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no, Trump was elected by a majority of the Electoral College. The majority of the public vote went to the other candidate. Which is sort of the point, that the US is not actually democratic in some important ways which influence policy decisions.

>The majority of the public vote went to the other candidate. No, it didn't. Hillary didn't get a majority, she got about 48%. Trump got about 46%. There was not a significant difference between the two, and roughly half the American public voted for Trump. It's so weird how every single time I write about how roughly half the American public voted for that turd, people like you come out of the woodwork to try to ins…

Because you're lying about the claim being made. It is correct to say that Trump was elected by a minority of the total votes cast. It would be incorrect to say that he was elected by "some vanishingly small minority", but you're the only one saying that. Being elected by a minority is sufficient to sustain the claim that an institution is antidemocratic, particularly in an otherwise simple-plurality voting system. I'm sorry if there's some reality there you don't like.

Re: The force that shapes everything around us: Parking

#679

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

midoridensha wrote: post #676
sethrin wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no, Trump was elected by a majority of the Electoral College. The majority of the public vote went to the other candidate. Which is sort of the point, that the US is not actually democratic in some important ways which influence policy decisions.

>The majority of the public vote went to the other candidate. No, it didn't. Hillary didn't get a majority, she got about 48%. Trump got about 46%. There was not a significant difference between the two, and roughly half the American public voted for Trump. It's so weird how every single time I write about how roughly half the American public voted for that turd, people like you come out of the woodwork to try to ins…

indeed, how bizarre that saying "half" (not "roughly half", as you are now saying), a literally factually untrue statement, garners responses pointing out that it is.

are you sure you're on the right forum for you? This community generally values accuracy over flamebait.

Re: The force that shapes everything around us: Parking

#680

Post by midoridensha »

sethrin wrote: post #678
midoridensha wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The majority of the public vote went to the other candidate. No, it didn't. Hillary didn't get a majority, she got about 48%. Trump got about 46%. There was not a significant difference between the two, and roughly half the American public voted for Trump. It's so weird how every single time I write about how roughly half the American public voted for that turd, people like you come out of the woodwork to try to ins…

Because you're lying about the claim being made. It is correct to say that Trump was elected by a minority of the total votes cast. It would be incorrect to say that he was elected by "some vanishingly small minority", but you're the only one saying that. Being elected by a minority is sufficient to sustain the claim that an institution is antidemocratic, particularly in an otherwise simple-plurality voting system. I…

If Hillary had won, it would have also been "antidemocratic" according to your definition. So would you have protested that too? No one was going to get greater than 50% of the popular vote in that election.

Apparently there's some reality there you don't like either.

You Americans are seriously lunatic reality-deniers. Close to 50% of the voters vote for Trump, but because it's not mathematically 50%, you dismiss it as a not-significant part of the electorate. You liberals are no better than the people who stormed the Capitol; you're just as unbelieving of reality as they are.

Post reply on HN