A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
I agree with the objections about the title, but we don't currently have a rule to address it. I'm not going to remove the post, but @NomNom@feddit.uk, would you please consider editing it to a less editorialized title?
Building an apartment building without parking is dumb. Maybe not have 1 space per unit, maybe have 1 space for every two units. Why does everything have to be one extreme or the other.
Have an apartment building with only 50% of the units having a parking spot, is a really big win for a car centric city. It's a good way of pushing the ball.
Also working class people that need affordable housing, probably also need a car as they can't work from home.
My honest issue is the us makes everything so impossible, like I get fussed at for being more than 5 minutes late, and can get written up, I could only imagine what I would get if a bus got delayed. There are places I could reasonable bike to but none of them pay enough to cover rent. So I drive my ass to target, and unfortunately I have a car that takes up space it sucks but the us needs massive retooling everything here is systemically fucked
$50,000 to $100,000 per unit
That seems really high, but it is California. Everything costs way more than it needs to in California. My solution was to leave California.
Cars basically have more effective rights than people.
Drivers and driving certainly do. Gods forbid a protest slow a commute to the Costco
'All Americans shall have their unalianable right to the pursuit of gridlock wholly unimpinged.'
Would the salvage value of a hospital patient be from their organs?
Pretty much.
There are people whose job is to be dispatched to traffic fatalities, check if they're an organ donor, begin harvesting.
I mean they go to the hospital, not the crash site, but that’s about right. The alternative is the organs get wasted because too much time passed, and that seems wasteful to me.
... Not for motorcyclists.
Who wore full helmets.
And have good eyes.
Gotta get those on ice pretty fast, is what I've been told.
Almost every motorcyclist I know is against organ donation.
It’s almost like the medical industry acting like ghouls is driving people away from donation for some reason.
Oh yeah, the American healthcare industry is so insanely corrupt and broken that uh, guess what?
There's no ethical healthcare under capitalism.
If you're a medical professional, and you're willingly any part of this system?
Nobody cares that its some other part of the bureacracy that's actually the bad guy and you're just doing your job.
Nope, fuck you, you're just another, willing part of the machine that shackles people into debt slavery and destitution.
Oh yeah, the American healthcare industry
Miss me with your US defaultism thanks.
Miss me with your nationalistic bigotry, thanks.
I very clearly specified what I was talking about.
If you don't wanna talk about it, don't.
You think its bigotry to point put that the aussie.zone user talking about motorcyclists they know is not US centric and not what you should focus on?
I get this too. I’m registered with Piefed.ca and Americans tend to assume they are talking to another American. It’s like, bro, just read the username.
Yes, for all of those. A procurement specialist isn’t going on site. EMS is recovering the body, getting it to the hospital, and that’s where procurement happens.
Again, I've been told otherwise, that the...
... apparently the preffered term for 'organ harvester' is 'procurement specialist'...
... that there are cases, namely where people are more splattered about the scene than a single consistent mass, where such people get dispatched to the scene.
Sure, the actual organ extraction takes place in a controlled environment, but the first step is getting the good bits secured in a climate controlled container.
Editorialized title aside… the thing about parking is that in the US, we're sparse and spread out and need cars in most places.
You want to eliminate cars? Build densely. Replace great swaths of our suburbs with medium to high density housing + commercial spaces where people don't need cars to go shopping or eat at restaurants or grocery shop. Then you're also dense enough to be able to support great public transportation. And then you can greatly reduce the number of cars.
It'd be great. I'd love to be able to walk^[well, roll, as a wheelchair user] to shopping and restaurants. I'd love to take good public transportation to my doctor visits and elsewhere.
But that requites a radical re-thinking about how we live, and then a radical re-building.
I'd be all for it - the cost savings of not owning a vehicle would be fantastic, and while electric cars wll help, congestion and pollution are even less of a problem with a great public transportation network.
I wonder what are between the buildings in these low-density cities? 🤔
The buildings are the low density and all the space between. That's the problem.
@daychilde @NomNom What about all the places that have density and public transit but hamstring themselves with parking mandates based on suburban trip generation assumptions? The more you mandate parking, the harder you make it to get around or do business. We have walkable urban neighborhoods that are food deserts and people want to open corner stores in old vacant buildings but are blocked because they don't have space for off-street parking.
Cities today are orders of magnitude larger (population-wise) than cities in the early 1900s and this is largely due to plumbing and fire codesn Parking is like an afterthought in terms of city planning of any size, usually.
Parking in most US cities is insane because of lobbying and corruption by the car industry. The design challenges aren't unique.
The problem in the US is not size or distance or density, none of those are in any way unique.
The #1 biggest difference between US and other countries is lobbying by car companies. In the US car companies have created not only a plethora of pseudoscientific parking laws but also import/export, safety, transit, and emission laws. None of which make any sense.
Take a look at aerial photos of cities in the US in the early 1900s vs the same cities today. In every single case, 50% or more of the land had buildings torn down to put in flat level parking lots. Population wise they are larger, but they are also way less dense than we used to build.
So you just warped the title into whatever sensationalized garbage you wanted. The Streets Blog headline actually reads:
New UCLA Report Looks into the High Cost to Build Parking
And the UCLA Center for Parking Policy Report is titled:
No Such Thing as Free Parking: Construction Costs in 17 U.S. Cities
It's grossly disrespectful to overeditorialize a report like this that probably had hundreds of hours of work put into it; you're actively misrepresenting that work and putting words in the author's mouth. If you're going to say "study finds", then you should say what the study finds according to the author(s) who actually painstakingly analyzed the data. If not, then it's "I read this study [doubt] and drew these conclusions about it".
I know we have to do studies to prove it, but I could’ve told you that during the W admin
Is that because you wouldn't have been old enough to tell us this during the Nixon administration?
You whippersnappers seem to be forgetting about Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, who set the stage for the 1929 Great Depression and the shanty towns that would follow.
Technically I was ageless back then
The article makes no mention of homelessness and thus I find the title disingenuous/misleading.
It's a good article though. I think the community would be better served with a title about how this study shows that we would be better off removing parking requirements from building codes.
It's a worthwhile read about how new parking spaces now cost as much as a new car, but there's no mention of public opinion polling like the title implies.
Is it weird that I'm totally not shocked by this ~~headline~~ title?
Edit: even after reading the beef against it.
Across the United States, zoning codes require new developments to provide a minimum number of parking spaces, which carry substantial construction costs.
In this report, we use 2025 construction cost estimates from Rider Levett Bucknall to calculate the cost per space in 17 U.S. cities and combine these data with local minimum parking requirements to estimate how parking mandates increase total construction costs across building types.
We find that parking construction costs have risen substantially faster than inflation since 2012 and that required parking can account for a large share of total project costs—adding tens of thousands of dollars per housing unit and, in some cases, increasing total construction costs by more than 50%
That headline sounds like a false binary...
But yes, I read the article and I understand the logic
The fuck is all the pearl clutching in this thread?? It's clearly a sardonic title. No one is being deceived, get a grip.
Sardon deez nuts
THANK you, a little bit of rationality.