undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvkou3y ago0 comments

Doing so would also require the city to provide parking spots for them - which is the real reason for the bans. Drivers aren't interested in losing any parking spots to scooters/bicycles/???.

It's shooting themselves in the foot (because people driving less results in less congestion and competition for car parking spots), but as this thread demonstrates, there's no shortage of counter-productive thinking around non-automotive transportation.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

acdha3y ago· 2 in thread

Nobody has a right to city-subsidized on-street parking. In most cases there is considerably more off-street parking than needed, not to mention easy opportunities to park within transit/bike/modest walking distance, and removing street parking removes a significant portion of congestion and pollution because you don’t have guys driving around for 20 minutes looking to save a couple bucks, or blocking a traffic lane while they spend 5 minutes trying to inch their Denali into a Camry-sized spot.

vkouOP3y ago

> Nobody has a right to city-subsidized on-street parking.

In theory, you are correct.

In practice, drivers feel that they are entitled to it, to the exclusion of parking for all other vehicles.

acdha3y ago

Very strong agreement on that. I'm hoping that this is changing, especially with younger generations having less financial margin to soak up the cost of private vehicles. The amount of money we spend trying to indulge that 1940s commuter dream is unsustainable.

Reason0773y ago

Scooter parking takes up very negligible street space. You can fit a huge number of scooters into the space occupied by one car.

If London can find plenty of space for scooter parking (and it has), I’m sure any North American city can.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse