A small car takes up just as many parking spaces (i.e., one) as a big car does (i.e., also one). If the problem is parking – and boy howdy, it is! – then the only solution is to show up in a not-car (e.g. riding a bike or on foot), not a small car.
Comment on Parking isn't as important for restaurants as the owners think it is
DmMacniel@feddit.de 1 year agobuy a smaller and more efficient car.
grue@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Salvo@aussie.zone 1 year ago
*for certain values of big car.
…yahoo.com/tasmania-ram-driver-four-car-park-spac…
If the parallel parking is unmarked. I can part my Jimny in half the space of a large sedan or SUV. I can only carry 3 passengers, but all of life is a compromise.
grue@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Man, I wish I could have a Jimny.
Anyway, yeah, I know short cars are short. The trouble is that unmarked parallel parking is a tiny fraction of all parking, so the size of cars really doesn’t make much difference in terms of city-wide macro scale. (Unless you went all-in Japan-style and put them in their own separate category with kei-car-only parking spaces and such, anyway.)
muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 1 year ago
First thats fucking expensive. Second i like my car. Third the best thing u can do for the enviroment with a car is buy a second hand one drive it forever. Forth fuck anyone who talks about carbon footprint it was a term invented by bp to pass the blame to the consumer for the enviroment.
And if anyone suggests public transport, yeah thats a great idea i love the concept unfortunatly we dont live in europe and to hell with waiting 40 fucking minutes for a bus when i can drive in 10.
That concludes my rant wasnt directed at u just the state of the system as it stands.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 year ago
I actually agree completely. It’s a serious problem.
But it’s also why we need to be investing more in public transport. We need to take away street parking to make room for bus lanes (or even better—build light rail!) to enable them to run quickly and efficiently. We need public transport that runs on 15 minute headways during non-peak times, up to more like 5 minutes or less during peak. And at least half-hourly even overnight.
We also need to up the density of our housing, and allow for greater mixes of local businesses (mixed-use zoning), so that more trips are shorter and can be easily walked or cycled.
The point is, you’re right that in many cases, our current public transportation options are really bad. But the solution is not to just keep making driving easy. That’s just throwing good money after bad.
muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Ur 100% correct. Im just complaining that the options for cars are being removes and public transport is stagnet or in some cases activly getting worse.
grue@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If your two middle paragraphs are listed in order of priority, they’re backwards. Transit doesn’t work without having density first, so fixing the zoning code should be a higher legislative priority than funding transit.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 year ago
They are not. They were merely in the order it came to mind, based on context. Since the thread is primarily about road design, it’s natural that the existence of public transport should come first. That’s also why I started with “bus lanes” first, and not light rail. Bus lanes most directly compete with parking lanes, while light rail tends to compete indirectly.
That said, I reject the notion that it needs to be done in a particular order. That’s a surefire way to ensure nothing ever gets done, because you might say you need density for improved public transportation, but someone else will say they won’t get rid of their car until there is first good alternatives.
But also, while higher density is certainly necessary for cyclability, I don’t even believe it really is that necessary for public transportation to be viable. Remote US towns were built on the backbone of train networks. Rural towns in Europe have better public transport than much larger cities in America. Yes, increased density makes public transportation even more efficient, but efficiency is not a necessity for it to be viable. Only the political will to have it be good is necessary.
So I support, very strongly, any effort to improve public transport or increase density, regardless of whether it is done before, after, or alongside the other.
grue@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Too bad. You are not entitled to impose the costs of your car on the rest of society just because you like it. Pay the whole cost yourself instead of demanding demanding to use public space for your private car storage for free.
NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 1 year ago
Oh shit!
Do car owners not have to pay any kind of tax supporting said public spaces?!?
Where do I go to file for my refund?
grue@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Not in proportion to their fair share!
muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Its not like im the only person in the world with a godamn car. Why dont we just completly abolish roads while we are at it. I will continue to demand that i can park my car near wherever the fuck i need to go untill it is faster and more convenient for me to take public transport. I used to be able to park i nolonger can and public transport hasnt become viable for me why would i give something up with nothing in return.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Or you could park a little bit further away and walk the remainder of the distance? It’s not difficult.
JamesStallion@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I love it when people like you get angry at my cities anti cat policies. It’s nice to know the assholes are seething
muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 1 year ago
By being anti car it indicates the critical failure of design. You dont want to force people away from cars u want to make public transport a better alternative.
Salvo@aussie.zone 1 year ago
The fact that people are still trying to drive Dodge RAMs in undercover carparks and down city laneways suggests that failure of design is not the key issue. Fuckwits are the issue.
Designing city’s that encourage social transit over independent transport is one thing. Legislation to prevent people being selfish fuckwits and driving a “Light” Truck into your office job.
grue@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It depends what you mean by “force.” It isn’t necessary to legislatively outlaw cars or anything like that, but you really do have to at least stop catering to cars if you ever want public transit to be good. More concretely, you have to change the zoning code to stop limiting density and forcing developers to build parking. That accomplishes two things: it allows there to be enough trip origins/destinations within walking distance of stations to make the transit viable, and it limits the available parking to only that which the free market is willing to provide (a lot less than zoning codes typically mandate now) which discourages driving by making it hard to find a place to park.
That’s not actually “forcing” anything in reality, but a lot of car-brained people will tend to think it is because to people accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
JamesStallion@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Yeah yeah yeah, meanwhile my street is much nicer without cars in it, and the shops are full of locals buying things. How sad that you car folks need to stay in your own neighborhoods instead of giving us all brain damage.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 year ago
It really depends on what you mean by “force”. Certainly we don’t want to just ban cars, but in order to make public and active transport appealing, some restrictions on driving are necessary.
For example, at the moment you can drive from anywhere, to anywhere, via almost any route. This makes even local streets unnecessarily dangerous because people end up driving through unrelated local streets when that ends up being faster than sticking to main roads. Which in itself is making walking and cycling more dangerous, causing more people to drive instead.
If instead we used modal filters—sections of local streets that you can’t drive through but can walk or ride through—that would definitely make driving seem “worse” because rat running would no longer be possible and access to local streets would be possible only via one route instead of 4 different ones, but it would also make walking and cycling better, too. It would make them safer, and would mean for some trips they can literally take a shorter journey.
This is just one example of good design. There are a number of other ways things can be designed better that might both help public and active transport users and hinder car use. Ironically, if done well, even all this would actually make driving better, because the number one problem for drivers at the moment is other drivers. And if you design well, you can reduce the number of other drivers, so anyone who continues to drive will have a better experience.
NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 1 year ago
And why does someone else’s misery make you happier?
DroneRights@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Your car is a pollution machine that gives children asthma.
Salvo@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Depends a lot on the car.
Keeping a HSV Avalanche on the road as your primary vehicle so that you do not have to buy a newer car is probably not a fiscally or environmentally responsible choice. Nor is replacing it with a Rivian or Lightning.
Maybe a Suzuki Swift or a Nissan Leaf would be a better choice.
muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Alright using your examples which seem awfully chery picked the break even point of co2 in terms of years being as generouse to the suzuki as possible is about 4.16 years. Depending on age the average time someone keeps a car is 6-10 years (older people tending to keep it longer) that means about half the lifespan of ur suzuki must be spent before u break even on carbon cost. If u do the same calculation for electric vehicles u find they have a far longer break even period.
If u do the same calculations for my car it will take 27years to break even in terms of carbon cost.
unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 1 year ago
What do you mean break-even point? A petrol car will emit CO2 to produce and drive, an electric one charged exclusively on renewables will only require CO2 to produce (which I assume will be phased out at some point). I am quite interested in these calculations