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
    0
    ·
    7 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
      1
      ·
      7 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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 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.