all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Glaring at San Francisco intensifies

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    SF has already removed their parking mandates since 2018 and also implemented a parking maximum

    See https://parkingreform.org/mandates-map/city_detail/SanFrancisco_CA.html

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    We need parking mandates.

    We need mandates that set a maximum number of parking spots per building. It should force the majority of people to live car free and rideshare or take public transportation

    A mandate of something like maximum 1 car per 4 people would be a good start today, with plans to gradually become maximum 1 car per 100 people over the next 10 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago
    70 comments in c/upliftingnews@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I think this is one of the key quotes:

    “It used to make sense to require parking in homes to avoid public spaces being filled. But this generates traffic because it encourages people to drive. Young people are also less likely to own a car. They may either opt for car sharing or renting.”

    There's practically no free public parking in Barcelona. It's either for-pay or you have a resident permit.

    I hope this frees up space, not just for sustainable transportation but also for more affordable housing, something Barcelona really needs ...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 month ago (30 children)

    I am curious to see if it plays out the way experts anticipate. I'd worry that cars are increasingly parked alongside roads, taking up space. I would love for parking to be a mandatory part of any real estate here in Germany.

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Hard no. Parking shouldn't be bound as a necessity to every real estate, but every car ownership (see Japan).

    There of course is an argument to make sure there's enough parking per let's say square 100m for everyone who'd need it for their car (even more so if this free's up the damn road), but mandating an available car parking space for any real estate would go the wrong direction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (20 children)

    The idea is to remove free parking on the road side as well. Taking up space from the public like this shouldn't be free. The end goal is to reduce the numbers of cars, not to put them somewhere else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (9 children)

    What do you think tax money pays for? And what do you think making building install parking is? Paying for parking….

    If you remove the free parking and remove mandatory parking in buildings. Where would the parking be?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    It's not free if it's deeded to the property.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Who paid for it? Not the person buying the building or unit. It was already installed, and if it’s street, that’s tax payer money.

    Why would you need to charge for a deed? It’s something that’s already there, and what would that money go to? Someone’s pocket? Just charging for parking means squat. The only way it’s useful would be if the city is collecting it, but it’s always a third party and they give a pittance to the city if they even do. It’s almost always profit driving instead of community or for the benefit or the city.

    And why is the street parking filled up? Well that would be because buildings don’t install enoughparking already…. Or they don’t want to pay, so they go somewhere else nearby…. There’s also nothing to stop someone from buying one of these parking feee units while owning a vehicle… the law doesn’t fix anything, it’s just feel good.

    Charging for parking is an archaic system and doesn’t even solve anything, just makes other problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    More and more european towns aim to have very few parkings, and very expensive ones only (or some that need a valid reason, as for hospitals). So the most convenient and affordable way to park the car is out of the town, near some public transport ending stations. As you let your shoes at the house's entrance, you let your car at the town's entrance.

    Reducing cars improves the quality of air, reduce sound nuisances, reduce accidents risk, and allows to the public space to have more trees, benches, etc. Otherly said, less cars in town brings an higher quality of life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children)

    Why the fuck should you have to pay to park at a hospital….? With your asinine logic, the library and train probably should need paid parking too? So everything should have to be paid for? Using the train? Using the library? Gotta pay out to use free amenities I guess. Because that makes fucking sense….

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    That is one of the usual exception made: parking at hospital is usually free (when justified by hospital needs).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    Hospitals almost always charge because it’s usually near public transport and they don’t want people using their parking and using the train leaving nothing for the people that would need them. If they aren’t near public transport or a neighborhood (which is not a great place…) they usually don’t need to since it’s not being stolen by residents of the neighborhood or publicly tranport users.

    If your gonna pay for parking, you mind as well pay to use the library and train too. Mind as well have everything paid and nothing is free with taxes. That’s what your saying here. That’s obviously a terrible way to do things.

    In the ideal world, the parking and the amenities would both all be free. There’s no need or reason to charge for parking, other than pocketing the money, provided enough parking is available for everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    That is a great way of doing, people living in such town are mostly happy about it. Except car fanatics of course.

    Here exterior parkings are linked to public transport. So if you park there and take trams or bus, it is both secure and cheap. There are enough public transport and a good network, and so you can easily go to library or train station... or to whatever place of interest in town.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    So you’re fine with paying to use a library or train? Instead of these being free amenities from taxes?

    Okay buddy.

    Charging for parking, unless it’s by the city is purely for that locations profit. It doesn’t prevent anything.

    And the city charging is pointless and quite backwards, they should be providing amenities for free, not charging per use. That’s archaic as fuck.

    And your comments don’t align with the story, if there’s enough parking for all this stuff, why are they doing all this to remove street parking? And with this law, that library and train station wouldn’t have to provide any parking anymore… so there wouldn’t be enough spots. Are you even following along or just saying what comes into your mind?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    I am describing how many modern european cities evolve nowaday, including the one I live in.

    I don't know if you really try hard to do not understand or if you are genuinely surprised by it.

    Here, library comes with no cost at all unless you want a plan for borrowing books AND you aren't a resident of the city. The transport system isn't linked to the library. And the library doesn't have parking slots (except for those who work there, for some).

    The public transport system is huge and allows to go fastly from anywhere in town to anywhere in town. It comes with different pricing according to the uses, and resident with low income have special prices. But the full price for an unlimited travels plan for a month is still cheaper than a full tank of ethanol gazoline. (Yet I agree with you, Montpellier is right to make public transport free for everyone, and we are more and more pushing for that).

    Exterior parking offer a daily secured parking that come with a daily worth of transportation on the public network. Price is made to be affordable. I don't personaly use this service, but many do and like it, so I think it is adapted.

    Those who insist to go into town by car, can still do it. Public parking are lesser and lesser, and price for parking on town owned parkings in center town is usually expensive. Free or affordable parkings in center town are not at convenient places (or need a subscription). Of course, public services often have some parking reserved for their own use. Some shops have their own parking slots too, but reserved for their clients too...

    The whole thing is a financial insentive play: if you accept to respect the soft rules it is cheap and easy, if you want refuse to respect them it is costy and less convenient. Which is not a perfect way, I agree, it makes laws that rich are allowed to disrespect just because they pay instead ; but it makes life in town better than before, and hopefully it opens the door to even less cars in town.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    This will result in motorcycles and ebikes occupying all the space

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    A single car parking space can accomodate three to four motocycles / big scooters or up to ~15 bicycle / small E-Scooter parking spaces (or even more when stacked).

    Likewise a single car parking space can be converted into two lots for small wheelchair-accessible mobility vehicles (basically tiny 50 kmh cars just bigger than the wheelchair that can be driven straight into them). Which still offer better accessibility.

    It's not even a damn competition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    A lot of wheelchair users need someone else to drive the vehicle because it's not just their legs which don't work. Or because they're children or elders. A minivan is the smallest vehicle they can use. Especially if they have kids as well. And public transit is often difficult or impossible, especially older systems. (I can't judge Barcelona's in particular, the buses are accessible though I've read there's problems with/scarcity of elevators in key Metro stations)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    All of that is true in some cases, for which there still can be and are parking spots. But those cases can't be used as a scapegoat to build everything for cars (mentioning this specifically since car-brained people constantly do exactly that). Even in streets not made for cars you can drive if there are good reasons (emergency, moving in and out, accessibility…). Not to mention that, if a city or town you live in was build properly, even families don't necessarily need their own car there.

    If your cities' public transport still isn't wheelchair-compatible that's a totally different (huge) issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Not disagreeing with your points but I want to mention that people who live in cities often like to get away from them to the countryside fairly frequently, and that can't be done on public transit, especially if they need to take stuff with them. Planning should take that into account, and provision made.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    That's what Carsharing is for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    Just because parking isnt mandatory doesnt mean they wont build it. It will just match demand more closely.

    Plenty of functional cities were built before parking was a thing. While they do have lots of on street parking, pre-1950s cities also have the best transit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    No, please God don't make mandatory parking a part of real estate. Build one large garage per X blocks and get rid of cars as a primary means of transport. Cars are a blight on the land and far to expensive to be sustainable. We need better public transit everywhere in Germany (although I think it's quite good especially compared to the north America).

    Trams, trains, and subways should be the future of Germany as they're far more cost effective and far more human centric.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    maybe not garages, but just centralizing surface parking lots is definitely a good idea since it makes car ownership more annoying and later on you can trivially construct a proper building on that spot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago

    Anything that keeps cars off streets the longest and efficiently stores them. The vast majority of people should be forced to use public transit to transverse cities. Everything is made slower and more expensive when we allow cars on inner street roads.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 51 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    This isn't the way to get rid of cars. If public transit is still shit, people will still have cars. They will instead park on the roadside and be more unhappy that their parking isn't convenient.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago

    Parking on the roadside (outside the official parking spots, which you have to pay for) will usually get you a ticket or towed ... free public roadside parking is mostly a thing of the past in most densely-populated places, really ...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Getting rid of parking is 100% the easiest way to get rid of cars. Maybe second easiest besides replacing roads with pedestrian walk ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Building efficient inexpensive public transit is the best way to get rid of cars. Otherwise you just have cars circling blocks looking for a parking spot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I think this is fine

    It means easier rules for housing in a city that's mostly friendly to public transit and biking, which should help with the rising housing cost Spain is dealing with.

    If you live in barcelona you aren't expecting to need a car anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    unhappy that their parking isn’t convenient.

    Oh no, not me, I'm perfectly fiiiine walking as far as necessary to get to my apartment from my parking space (says the people who are able to drive home in the middle of the day and park up for the night when everybody else is at work).

    It's not just lack of convenience, it's behaviors: double parking, congestion, Oh I'm just going in for a second...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXLqrMljdfU - Yes, this is uplifting news for all but the terminally car-brained.

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    fuckcars is leaking again.

    this is not uplifting news. this is the opposite. this is the reduction of tenant rights.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    That sounds like a welcome reduction in housing cost in an expensive, densely populated city with good public transportation

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Like this will actually cause prices to down. I could see some Landlords trying to upsale this for higher prices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Since when is a parking spot a right? At least where I have lived so far, no apartment ever came with a guarantee for a parking spot, either you had to pay for a resident permit in your respective zone, or find a public spot, with free public parking (thankfully) becoming a rare occurrence these days ... very few buildings I ever lived in had a garage ...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago

    Since when is a parking spot a right?

    it was before this was repealed.

    At least where I have lived so far...

    insufficient evidence to show that this isn't a tenant right. you're just using your objective opinion as a kludge to hammer your opinion down as a "fact".

    you are a liar.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    It was a right in Barcelona that had been won and written into the building code by a coalition between tenants and others tired of trying to find street parking. As has been the case in many cities. Los Angeles, for instance, is just starting to allow exemptions for apartments near the Metro stations, as they are finally getting better (not great but better than nothing) public transit and struggling with a lack of affordable housing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    I think many people are imagining it wrong, though ... it's not like every house in Barcelona has a parking garage, especially in the old town, but also in newer dense neighborhoods. It's just my estimate based on observation but I would say apartment buildings WITH a parking garage are the exception rather than the norm. If they have a garage, you still have to pay extra for the spot usually.

    As a resident you can apply for resident street parking, which gives you preferential parking in the parking zones associated with your neighborhood. That's not free, either, but you can park at a discount.

    But typically renting an apartment doesn't come with any guarantee that you'll have guaranteed immediate access to parking close to your place ... heck, if you're living in the old town you might have trouble finding a place to put your bicycle ....

    EDIT: the article only mentions selling, not renting, so, not sure how that compares really ...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    The right to parking? That's up there with the right to free hand sanitizer as you enter a building.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago

    no, you imbecile, tenant rights. not to be confused with "human rights" as you have clearly done so to somehow strengthen your misguided opinion.

    tenant rights are rights that protect tenants from corrupt landlords that attempt to use the tenancy system wholly in their favor in an attempt to circumvent protections or responsibilities that have been set by law.

    how does the repealing of this protect tenants?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    How come this is uplifting news. This makes me want to curl up and die

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    Spanish cities are very dense, have a lot of public transport , and very little free parking. You can walk to most places in less time than it takes to ride there and find parking.

    I'm curious about your circumstances, do you live in a town or a car centric country?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I currently live in a city with a massive car problem which is not addressed in any way.

    Removing underground parking here means that all the cars will be left in the streets blocking pedestrians and cyclists

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Your city doesn't enforce street parking restrictions?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Enforces, but they've replaced fines with towing and now though the cost of parking like an idiot is higher, the budget gains from this decision are at an all time high, the reality is that streets are full of cars parked at pedestrian walks. Because the towing capacity is the bottleneck here

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment