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.
As it should be. Good public transit is a boon to any urban area and any nation/state for that matter. It's an enhancement for the business community, higher education, and city residential areas;
Roads are a boon to urban areas. They are how goods and services are delivered and the route used by buyers, sellers, employees, and employers alike. Public transit, not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl
lessens the need to use up valuable urban property for parking lots and gas stations; makes cities safer, and is a boon to the suburbs that are served (as opposed to exurbs, which will always be automobile-dependent).
Hmmm. The "valuable urban property" is more valuable to the owner when the owner gets to choose what to do with it. Those owners decided it would be profitable to install parking lots and gas stations, respectively. Also having parking lots increases the customer base. Public transit makes cities safer? That's laughable. Are your police, EMS, fire department, etc. using public transit for calls? No. They use roads.
As it should be. Good public transit is a boon to any urban area and any nation/state for that matter. It's an enhancement for the business community, higher education, and city residential areas; lessens the need to use up valuable urban property for parking lots and gas stations; makes cities safer, and is a boon to the suburbs that are served (as opposed to exurbs, which will always be automobile-dependent).
Public transit only benefits a tiny minority of people. Most people prefer driving cars and living in big single family houses with plenty of land where they can raise families. That's the American dream. Public transit is not practical for that lifestyle. Therefore, public dollars should go to roads and parking, not public transit. It's a long-standing American tradition that the majority should always get what it wants. So we're making America great again (#maga) if we cut public transit subsidies and steer them towards spending that supports cars.
Roads are a boon to urban areas. They are how goods and services are delivered and the route used by buyers, sellers, employees, and employers alike. Public transit, not so much.
Hmmm. The "valuable urban property" is more valuable to the owner when the owner gets to choose what to do with it. Those owners decided it would be profitable to install parking lots and gas stations, respectively. Also having parking lots increases the customer base. Public transit makes cities safer? That's laughable. Are your police, EMS, fire department, etc. using public transit for calls? No. They use roads.
No, this idea that the owner should be able to choose what he gets to do with his property is anti-car. That is exactly what has led to the situation in many cities described earlier in this thread: property owners who won't put in free parking. They have to be forced to do with their property what all motorists would want, ie provide a free place to park. If most people want something for free, they should get it.
No, this idea that the owner should be able to choose what he gets to do with his property is anti-car.
Only when the local government is trying to limit the parking someone might want to add.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
That is exactly what has led to the situation in many cities described earlier in this thread: property owners who won't put in free parking. They have to be forced to do with their property what all motorists would want, ie provide a free place to park. If most people want something for free, they should get it.
Sarcasm.
Economics will drive the decision for rational retail businesses, not so much for hippies, environmentalists, and homeowners. City has some rights to impose requirements for development of retail locations and residential locations. Problem is acute though when city adopts policies that take away significant value for the owner.
Roads are a boon to urban areas. They are how goods and services are delivered and the route used by buyers, sellers, employees, and employers alike. Public transit, not so much.
Public transit is a boom to urban areas as well. High density areas neither have the space to handle lots of traffic converging at once nor to park. Transit allows them to continue to be conveniently accessible.
Only when the local government is trying to limit the parking someone might want to add.
Sarcasm.
Economics will drive the decision for rational retail businesses, not so much for hippies, environmentalists, and homeowners. City has some rights to impose requirements for development of retail locations and residential locations. Problem is acute though when city adopts policies that take away significant value for the owner.
No, it's NOT a problem when the city adopts policies that take away significant value for the owner. In fact, that is exactly what is needed to fix these anti-car cities! Have you seen how expensive parking can get in places like Manhattan, San Francisco, etc? It's hundreds of dollars a month per spot!! The reason most businesses in these areas don't offer free parking is because it would be prohibitively expensive for the owner. They should be forced to take on those costs because everywhere should have free parking. If that forces them out of business, too bad.
It sounds like you are in favor of forcing property owners to do what is right for society even if the owners disagree (which I wholeheartedly support!), so I am very confused by your first statement that the land is more valuable when the owner chooses to do what he wants with it.
No, it's NOT a problem when the city adopts policies that take away significant value for the owner. In fact, that is exactly what is needed to fix these anti-car cities! Have you seen how expensive parking can get in places like Manhattan, San Francisco, etc? It's hundreds of dollars a month per spot!! The reason most businesses in these areas don't offer free parking is because it would be prohibitively expensive for the owner. They should be forced to take on those costs because everywhere should have free parking. If that forces them out of business, too bad.
It sounds like you are in favor of forcing property owners to do what is right for society even if the owners disagree (which I wholeheartedly support!), so I am very confused by your first statement that the land is more valuable when the owner chooses to do what he wants with it.
The statement was that the land was more valuable to the owner when the owner can choose. You and I agree that you are confused.
Public transit is a boom to urban areas as well. High density areas neither have the space to handle lots of traffic converging at once nor to park.
How ironic. It's not justified without "densification". So all these urban planners try eliminating roads, parking, etc. and push for densification in order to rationalize public transit. Then all of a sudden what couldn't be justified before is suddenly a "boon". Except it's not the same. Roads and road traffic offer more versatility and serve far more people than public transit. Try using public transit for your EMS, fire, police.
I would add school to that list although many place have what might be deemed specialized public transit called school buses for picking kids up, taking them to school, and returning them home in the afternoon. They use roads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Transit allows them to continue to be conveniently accessible.
I wouldn't put "continue" or "conveniently" in that sentence. They might have been conveniently accessible before. Now only those with convenient and inexpensive access to public transit have access. So the rest of the world does business elsewhere.
The statement was that the land was more valuable to the owner when the owner can choose. You and I agree that you are confused.
Of course I agree that the land is more valuable to the owner when the owner can choose! In general that's good, but in at least one instance that's the problem! Landowners in the areas I am talking about are choosing to avoid the expense of providing parking, saving themselves money. So you are wrong when you say that it's a problem "when city adopts policies that take away significant value for the owner." We absolutely need to force these owners to provide parking, which will be very expensive for them. We have to avoid this mindset that taking away value for the owner is always a bad thing.
Last edited by stateofnature; 03-01-2017 at 08:24 PM..
Of course I agree that the land is more valuable to the owner when the owner can choose! In general that's good, but in at least one instance that's the problem! Landowners in the areas I am talking about are choosing to avoid the expense of providing parking, saving themselves money. So you are wrong when you say that it's a problem "when city adopts policies that take away significant value for the owner." We absolutely need to force these owners to provide parking, which will be very expensive for them. We have to avoid this mindset that taking away value for the owner is always a bad thing.
I agree with you that a city has some right to impose requirements on buildings and developments within its city limits - including a requirement for some amount of parking. Anti-car people want a city government that will impose a low maximum limit on parking spaces. Pro-car people want a city that imposes a high lower limit on parking spaces. The owner wants to exclude the city from the decision as to how many parking spaces he would have.
If there is a parking requirement there should also be a requirement addressing the size of the parking spots. I've been in city parking garages where the car slots were so small, I could not get out of the car without great effort. I don't bother to frequent that garage nor the places around that garage which depended on it because of city anti-car policies. Nothing to do with the businesses but rather the convenience of access to the businesses.
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.
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.
