U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-23-2014, 08:05 AM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,933,575 times
Reputation: 2150

Advertisements

What entitles people with families who find street parking "annoying" to get what they want over people like me who are single and don't find street parking annoying? Why is the former preference more valid than the latter?
The answer is it's not. The reasonable approach is to say "live and let live" rather than "my subjective lifestyle choice or nothing." You do that by lifting these regulations and allow the neighborhoods where there is a demand for density and walkability to grow that way, and for people who want off-street parking, there are plenty of areas where there are houses with garages and those aren't going away. You really think that if we lifted minimum parking regulations the suburbs would turn into Manhattan? Of course not. There will always be demand for cars and thus demand for houses with off-street parking.
Stop acting like your subjective preference that street parking is "annoying" is some objective truth that deserves government action. I love street parking. I will gladly park my car a block or two away if it means a neighborhood where less space is reserved for cars and more for things I actually want to walk to (and yes I do own a car, I just don't drive it all that often). But that is just MY OPINION. I don't support enshrining my opinion into law and banning off-street parking everywhere. That would be no more valid than if it was my opinion that I love free off-street parking, therefore everyone everywhere should be forced by law to have that.

 
Old 07-23-2014, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,081,823 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I am not trying to make an argument for getting rid of mass transit. In fact, I said upthread I favor mass transit for several reasons. However, one of the reasons is NOT that it is more cost effective. Oh, it might be more cost-effective for the individual who doesn't have to buy a car, but not for the taxpayers, which is who "the city" is.
I am pointing out that if taxpayers in a major city don't pay for mass transit, they still face other large expenses related to requiring everybody to drive and have a place to park. Which way is more cost effective, I can't say. But you have to acknowledge that there are indeed substantial costs of NOT having an effective mass transit system in a large city, especially opportunity costs.
 
Old 07-23-2014, 10:50 AM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,290,242 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
I am pointing out that if taxpayers in a major city don't pay for mass transit, they still face other large expenses related to requiring everybody to drive and have a place to park. Which way is more cost effective, I can't say. But you have to acknowledge that there are indeed substantial costs of NOT having an effective mass transit system in a large city, especially opportunity costs.
Not having sufficient mass-transit in a city is pure assinine. Automobile travel is a city detriment due to pollution, space / parking, increased health care costs, and lost productivity (congestion).
 
Old 07-23-2014, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,081,823 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
This is what some of the New Urbanists always ignore. Not everyone has a 9-5 office job.
Who on this forum ever said EVERYBODY must commute on mass transit???? It's about having a CRITICAL MASS of riders so that you don't have to dedicate parking spots and peak-hour road space to those people, so people who really do need to drive can make use of the parking and road space, and the city can function at much higher capacity than if everybody drives and parks. Of course, if you work at 4 am or you have to run around town to make appointments or you work outside of the city or you have three children who you have to drop off at daycare or school and pick up directly after work and take to afternoon and evening activities, nobody here is realistically expecting you to be taking mass transit.

In most urban areas there is a critical mass of people working day jobs in and around the city center--and even in the most car-dependent large cities like Miami, Atlanta, and LA, parking in the city center comes at a premium--especially the kind of parking which is 20 ft from the entrance of where you're going. The advantage of a car is the ability to travel long distances quickly without having to worry about schedules. Works great in the country and in most suburbs. But this advantage is greatly diminished when hundreds or thousands of other people also have to get to the same location where you're going, hence the traffic and parking woes even in car-dependent cities and many of their outlying suburban areas.
 
Old 07-23-2014, 11:02 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,896 posts, read 42,143,850 times
Reputation: 43304
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
Who on this forum ever said EVERYBODY must commute on mass transit???? It's about having a CRITICAL MASS of riders so that you don't have to dedicate parking spots and peak-hour road space to those people, so people who really do need to drive can make use of the parking and road space, and the city can function at much higher capacity than if everybody drives and parks. Of course, if you work at 4 am or you have to run around town to make appointments or you work outside of the city or you have three children who you have to drop off at daycare or school and pick up directly after work and take to afternoon and evening activities, nobody here is realistically expecting you to be taking mass transit.

In most urban areas there is a critical mass of people working day jobs in and around the city center--and even in the most car-dependent large cities like Miami, Atlanta, and LA, parking in the city center comes at a premium--especially the kind of parking which is 20 ft from the entrance of where you're going. The advantage of a car is the ability to travel long distances quickly without having to worry about schedules. Works great in the country and in most suburbs. But this advantage is greatly diminished when hundreds or thousands of other people also have to get to the same location where you're going, hence the traffic and parking woes even in car-dependent cities and many of their outlying suburban areas.
You need to read some of the responses. You'll see several for whom your question is a constant refrain.

Also, you will see others whose experience has been limited to being students (some nothing but) to an office job no matter how low level) and think everyone is the same.

It's like many teachers who have done nothing since age 5 and have no concept of what else there is.
 
Old 07-23-2014, 11:08 AM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,290,242 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
The idea is that there is space for both the people who live there(1 space) and guests. Would you like to be the wife who has to walk one block to your car daily because the building does not have parking and both you and your husband need to drive to work in separate cars? Part of having an car is being able to bring the car closer to where you live than the bus. Now for an single, someone who does not need the car daily it might make sense, but it makes no sense and will get old quick if you need to do that every day.



I have lived in an transit rich environment but the need to be at work at 4a.m. trumped public transit.



This is why the demographics of Lincoln park are what they are. Yuppies, recent college grads and young families because the area can not appeal to blue collar workers(need the car). Losses appeal as the family gets larger and children grow older(lack of space, need of faster transit as well as better schools). While every apartment does not have to be for every possible use, lack of parking limits the customer base and impacts the neighborhood.



They might be short blocks but it makes no sense to do so when parking is available. In my experience it is never convenient to shop via transit. It is so much easier to just throw it in the trunk.



The difference between your sister and I is that I can both use public transit or drive. This greatly increases the range and hours of any possible job I could take. An relative of mine works downtown, but they had an project in the suburban office that she could do because she had an car. An person without an car may be in a bad position if they need another job that is less well located.



And they usually are not. Chicago's parking requirements can be low, but they are there.



Off-peak is always expensive because by definition it is off peak. Not everywhere can support 24 hour transit with reasonable frequency nor should it always try. Also San Francisco is just one place where cars don't work well. It is surrounded by water on 3 sides(no where to expand but one direction). Most places have room to expand or grow. It also has ridiculously high land prices which price out certain groups and so the only way that city could grow or function is with transit. New York is built on islands and again lack of space and those bridges make transit viable but many other places are surrounded by farm fields in which case growing outward is cheaper than growing upward.
None of these rebuttals explain why a car is preferred over a lesser vehicle (bicycle, moped-scooter, motorcycle)
 
Old 07-23-2014, 11:41 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,896 posts, read 42,143,850 times
Reputation: 43304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
None of these rebuttals explain why a car is preferred over a lesser vehicle (bicycle, moped-scooter, motorcycle)
Comfort, safety and non-exposure to the elements would be three.

I'm easily amused but nothing makes me laugh more than seeing someone on a crotch rocket going to work, or back home, in an unexpected rainstorm. Makes splitting the lanes almost impossible.
 
Old 07-23-2014, 11:50 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,005,466 times
Reputation: 1348
In other, relevant, news in Australia:

Billions spent on roads in “hideously inefficient” way

Quote:
“The unhealthy focus of road agencies appears set on ‘getting, controlling and spending’ more taxpayer money, rather than questioning efficiency or value to the motorist and governments,” the report says.
Read more: Billions spent on roads in “hideously inefficient” way
 
Old 07-23-2014, 12:22 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,290,242 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Comfort, safety and non-exposure to the elements would be three.
1) Comfort is relative. In the sense of a car vs. bike, I equate "comfort" with laziness.

2) Safety with automobiles is hilarious. We have tens of thousands of traffic deaths per year due to the automobile. The solution is always to make them bigger and heftier, which means we need more safety features (thus weighing even more).

You see, if we all drove smaller vehicles (bikes, scooters, mopeds), we wouldn't have safety problems now would we?

3) Exposure to the elements? What elements?

Sun - wear sunscreen
Rain - wear a jacket
Cold - wear a jacket

When's the last time the 3 killed someone within 30 minutes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
I'm easily amused but nothing makes me laugh more than seeing someone on a crotch rocket going to work, or back home, in an unexpected rainstorm. Makes splitting the lanes almost impossible.
Why is it funny? I laugh at overweight people in cars every day. If they got off their tails, they wouldn't be on blood pressure / cholesterol medication. They wouldn't make our tax dollars and health insurance premiums go up.

I don't split lanes with cars. It's actually illegal. I claim the whole lane. Cars go around me and on about their business.
 
Old 07-23-2014, 12:43 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,896 posts, read 42,143,850 times
Reputation: 43304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
1) Comfort is relative. In the sense of a car vs. bike, I equate "comfort" with laziness.

2) Safety with automobiles is hilarious. We have tens of thousands of traffic deaths per year due to the automobile. The solution is always to make them bigger and heftier, which means we need more safety features (thus weighing even more).

You see, if we all drove smaller vehicles (bikes, scooters, mopeds), we wouldn't have safety problems now would we?

3) Exposure to the elements? What elements?

Sun - wear sunscreen
Rain - wear a jacket
Cold - wear a jacket

When's the last time the 3 killed someone within 30 minutes?



Why is it funny? I laugh at overweight people in cars every day. If they got off their tails, they wouldn't be on blood pressure / cholesterol medication. They wouldn't make our tax dollars and health insurance premiums go up.

I don't split lanes with cars. It's actually illegal. I claim the whole lane. Cars go around me and on about their business.
Safety? Ok.
What The Latest NHTSA Fatality Stats Reveal About Motorcycle Safety

Then you're just an all around better human being and tough guy I guess. And incredibly closed minded for someone so young and lacking in life experience. Your user name is appropriate.

Happy motoring.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top