Kelly: Is there a downside? I’m thinking of people trying to find a parking place, for starters.

Horowitz: So we see that in places that have actually eliminated parking minimums, that we see fewer people driving at all and having cars and we see vehicle miles traveled decrease because people can get around via other mechanisms.

Well, now, would you look at that?! If we change the incentives, if we stop incentivizing driving by law, people change their behavior. In this case, they can save a ton of money by not needing a car.

  • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    because people can get around via other mechanisms.

    You have to have the “other mechanisms” for it to work. So it’s really just saying that public transportation works.

    • Franklin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      My favorite is when they purposely sabotage public transportation and then make that the case study for why it never works

    • grue@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You have to have the “other mechanisms” for it to work.

      No you don’t. Just fix the zoning and people will figure it out, public transit or not.

      “But we can’t reduce parking until we have transit” is (a) backwards and (b) often a bad-faith excuse given by sprawl-supporters.

    • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      Less space wasted on parking lots also makes for short distances between places. How about a bicycle? Or… legs?

      • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        That’s just an argument for building infrastructure to support it which isn’t different from what I said. WTF is with the seemingly snarky bicycle or legs comment like I’m against either somehow?

        • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The infrastructure for walking is actually quite a bit smaller than that for parking cars. The smaller infrastructure might actually allow you to talk from building to building in mere seconds!

          Same for bicycles. Bonus: they don’t smell, don’t pollute, don’t make as much noise, you can carry them when broken, etc

          Cars are handy for long distances, or for heavy loads. Tho you could use a bakfiets for the latter

    • Gigan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Not even. There are several parking lots in my city that are way bigger than they need to be. They’re not even full on Black Friday. The lots are just unreasonably big for no reason.