Why Parking Should Be Removed and Replaced With Bike Lanes
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 гру 2024
- 00:27 The Current State of Urban Transportation
01:47 The Case Against Free On-Street Parking
04:05 The Benefits of Allocating Space to Cycle Lanes
06:43 Addressing Common Objections
08:17 The Ethical Perspective
09:25 Technological and Cultural Shifts
10:02 Policy Recommendations
10:35 Conclusion
Reimagining Urban Spaces: Allocating On-Street Parking to Cycle Lanes
Urban areas worldwide are grappling with congestion, pollution, and the need for equitable use of public space. A transformative solution is reallocating on-street parking spaces to dedicated cycle lanes. This shift addresses environmental concerns, promotes public health, and rectifies social equity issues.
The Hidden Costs of Free On-Street Parking
Economic Burden: Free on-street parking isn't truly free. Taxpayers fund the construction, maintenance, and enforcement of parking spaces. This means everyone, including non-drivers, subsidizes the storage of private vehicles. Urban planning expert Donald Shoup highlights that these hidden subsidies distort transportation choices, encouraging car dependency.
Environmental Impact: Ample free parking incentivizes driving, leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation accounts for a significant portion of global emissions, exacerbating climate change and air pollution.
Social Inequity: Allocating public space for private vehicle storage benefits a minority (car owners) at the expense of the majority who may not own cars. This raises questions about the fair and equitable use of shared urban spaces.
Benefits of Dedicated Cycle Lanes
Promoting Sustainable Transportation: Cycle lanes encourage more people to choose cycling over driving, reducing traffic congestion and lowering emissions. Cycling emits significantly less CO₂ per kilometer than driving, contributing to cleaner air and a smaller carbon footprint.
Enhancing Safety: Protected bike lanes improve safety for all road users by physically separating cyclists from vehicular traffic. Cities with extensive cycling infrastructure report lower rates of cycling-related accidents.
Improving Public Health: Cycling is an accessible form of physical activity that combats sedentary lifestyles. Increased cycling rates lead to better public health outcomes, reducing the prevalence of obesity, heart disease, and other health issues.
Economic Advantages: Cyclists often support local businesses more than drivers, as they are more likely to make frequent stops. Moreover, cycling infrastructure is cost-effective to build and maintain compared to roads designed for heavy vehicular traffic.
Addressing Common Concerns
Impact on Businesses: Evidence shows that businesses benefit from increased foot and bicycle traffic. For example, areas with improved cycling infrastructure often see higher retail sales due to greater accessibility and a more pleasant shopping environment.
Accessibility Issues: Solutions like designated parking for disabled drivers, improved public transportation, and paratransit services ensure that accessibility needs are met without relying heavily on on-street parking.
Ethical Considerations
Equitable Use of Public Space: Reallocating parking spaces to cycle lanes promotes a fairer distribution of public resources, benefiting a broader segment of the population, including those who cannot afford cars.
Environmental Responsibility: Cities have a collective duty to mitigate climate change. Encouraging sustainable transportation options like cycling is a tangible step toward reducing emissions and fostering environmental stewardship.
Conclusion
Allocating on-street parking to cycle lanes is a strategic move toward creating more livable, sustainable, and equitable cities. It challenges the notion that drivers have an inherent right to free vehicle storage at the taxpayer's expense. By reimagining our streets, we prioritize people over cars, leading to healthier communities and a better quality of urban life.
Hashtags: #UrbanPlanning #CyclingInfrastructure #SustainableTransportation #PublicHealth #EnvironmentalStewardship #SocialEquity #CycleLanes #ReimagineStreets
It is remarkable that the blight of car parking goes so unnoticed and rarely mentioned except when-THE HORROR-2 or 3 parking spaces are marked for removal for some reason or other. It says a lot about our deeply pathological car culture. In my city, the introduction of scooters for hire caused a major outbreak of Driving Entitlement Syndrome (DES) that not only included the more common symptoms such as focussing on the perceived negative impact of scooters on traffic flow, the "unprecedented" dangers scooters present to pedestrians, and the hypochondriacal "they don't pay for the roads", they run red lights etc etc etc. What grabbed my attention in this case was the frequent complaint about the scooters (and hire bikes too) "littering" the streets, and making our city ugly as a result. This stood out as particularly closed minded-I looked around and couldn't see any scooters or share bikes-not because they were't there, but because they were blocked from view by the omnipresent parked cars. In a sane culture, people would notice the vast majority of our public spaces, our city streets, are-like unhealthy arteries-lined with a dangerous, clogging plaque that is is so ubiquitous it has apparently become invisible to sufferers of DES. And while recalling he launch of scooter and public bicycle hire schemes here, it is worth noticing that the scheme was also greeted with near hysteria. Initially, the bikes were thrown in the river, put in trees and other such antisocial antics were common in what appeared a free-for-all for DES infected sociopaths. This behaviour was one of the leading reasons the DES people yammered on about the need to end the program, which was-initially at least-successful. Pathetic. Ah ... if ONLY getting the authorities to get rid of street parking were so easy, we could wander around vandalising parked cars, and by the same logic as the share bikes were removed, cars should be removed from our streets in the interests of public order. Great video yet again-very smooth editing, great wring and clear concise arguments. Thanks and take care out there.
@@mudelta4068 Some great points there. Thanks, you as well.
Londoner here, new to cycling. The other day on my commute to uni, I remember like 20 cyclists all riding together in the space of like 4 cars. Imagine how efficient road usage could be if cycling was the norm, it's crazy.
Living in London for 20 years, I'm staggered that so much congestion and road space is wasted by parked cars. I would vote for the abolition of parking on anything classed as a public highway. it's a highway, not a parking location for your private vehicle. Obviously, this isn't going to be a popular opinion for people dependent on cars, but that was me for 6 years, with a car in London and parking on the street outside my front door. Drivers who have cars in cities are their own worst enemy. They hate the traffic but they ARE the traffic and their parked cars are why everything sucks.
This is a good video and thanks for addressing the issue of meeting the needs of people with disabilities.
I remember someone telling me the reason that we can't have more cycle lanes is "if people can't park on the streets it lowers house prices and means you start attracting the wrong kind of people" after another hasty rendition of 'your people integrated' they explained how the neighbourhood becomes either unaffordable to anyone who doesn't have a job in academia or becomes a no-go area run by gangs where women wouldn't be safe.
Thankfully it seems in the years since the conversation has been developing in a less scare monger direction and more people seem to see the virtue of roads being for everyone and not just car drivers.
Great video. I don't think I've ever seen more cars parked on the street than in my city of the last five years, Los Angeles, where you can see a wall of cars due to multiple people in each apartment owning cars. In my neighborhood, you can't even step from the sidewalk to the street in a lot of places because parked cars line the curb.
Los Angeles County has over 200 square miles of parking. That’s enough land to fit two San Franciscos.
On the weekends, it looks here like a "Car piniata" Exploded. Every spot here is packed with cars, and even though there is no space for them, people buy bigger and bigger cars. Please send help!
Im really sick of this. There are good small car models, but all I can see here are bigger and bigger cars. I hate this! 😞😞
Bigger is better, including bigger bicycles, buses, trains, ferries, parking spaces, houses
Great video, I agree with pretty much everything you've said. As I cycle less and find myself travelling as a pedestrian way more often than a cyclist, I find myself getting more bothered by the stationary car than the car in motion.
Removing on street parking would need every one of those considerations you've mentioned and you can see the reason right in the beginning of your video and throughout. The funny thing with the points you've made is that many drivers have come to the same realisation you have where excessive on street parking is causing on road congestion. The sad conclusion though is that instead of the solutions you outline the bastards have instead chosen to invade the footpath. I can't remember the last time I have walked around the area I live without some inconsiderate driver blocking the footpaths with their vehicles.
It's becoming increasingly more of a problem and the thing is I see it everywhere, both in person and from other peoples accounts in the rest of the uk and in other countries like america and Ireland in your case. The pedestrian isn't even a second class citizen on our streets any more.
@@sharktamer I agree. Pavement parkers are the worst kind of entitled. Absolutely infuriating.
Haven't even watched yet and I've already put in my vote to elect you as mayor! 🍻
May I also add another idea to consider: one-way, low-speed streets. It may make car traffic a little more circuitous but compared to a two-way street, you can keep on-street parking and have suitable bicycle infrastructure. It also makes it safer for cyclists & other users (such as kids playing) as the streets will be quieter and cars slower, while still allowing cyclists to have maximal mobility by allowing bike traffic to be two-way. I think everyone wins in this type of scenario; cars get to keep their parking at the cost of a little convenience, while cyclists and other users get safer and more convenient routes :)
contra point: you could make dedicated bus lanes instead.
In terms of urban mobility, buses IMO are quite limited as they have fixed stops. I think people would prefer to be able to get from door to door without the faff of timetables etc. I could be wrong though, just basing it on anecdotal experience.
@@averagemanonabike in the end you need both: public transport (that does not get stuck in traffic) and bike infrastructure. I do think public transport is a little more inclusive ( and way more inclusive than car infrastructure)
your worry about timetables kind of show that you never have been in a City with good public transport. when the frequency gets high enough you don't worry that much about time tables.
@@MusikCassetteyou can have both.
Public transit lanes on the main streets and other streets that make it reachable for people.
And bike lanes on all other streets.
There are plenty of streets (unfortunately) so you're able to do both, but on 2 separate networks.
And build underground parking structures under parks, malls etc for the cars of residents. So they can still own cars. But we don't have to look at them (the cars)
@@ChristiaanHW well I look outside my Window and I see a street with one car lane in each direction, one transit lane in each direction, one bike lane and one pedestrian lane (in each direction). The bike lanes are not as wide as suggested here, so emergency vehicle would need to use the transit lane.
So yes, sometimes you can have it all. obviously decisions have to be made on a case by case bases. not every street needs a bus lane. But when busses are stuck in traffic. there is obviously no place for parking cars.
Exactly and to the point!
at 0:27 was that yuji itadori?
@@lyadhkhorcyclechalai69 Possibly, had to Google the name. That area tends to change from time to time.
@averagemanonabike no yuji itadori is the name of an anime character from jujutsu kaisen...the guy in the left looks a lot like him...
Lmfao, yess he does look like Itadori Yuji 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣.
I do not understand why business owners think people driving by their business is good for business
I feel for them.They don't know any better, and are reliant on their businesses to live. Of course they're going to be a bit averse to change, but I think once they realise they won't look back.
@averagemanonabike very good point, thank you
They complain for the benefit of themselves ! Owners and staff usually/often don't live in the store's neighbourhood, so they come by car and park their car. Removing parking spots affect them where to park and how to come. If appeared that a good deal of the cars near stores are of people working in the shop , not so much customers.
A solution would be to ofter businesses a right to park around the block ..
@@lws7394 Let their workplace provide parking on their own land. Otherwise the taxpayer is just subsidising the business.
It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. It's very hard to tell people living in terraced houses without off-street parking that you cannot conveniently own a car when alternatives to car ownership might not exist: public transport outside of London is generally a nightmare, and many houses might not even be serviced by it. Cycling is a good alternative, but isn't possible for everyone, and is more impacted by adverse weather. It's also dangerous while cars are still in wide use and cycle lanes aren't present, and that change won't happen until after this law would be brought into effect.
This change should be made, but it shouldn't be made overnight: realistically you would need several decades to transition to a new system where car ownership is optional for the average person living outside of a major city.
It's also in a sense a discriminatory/elitist policy, as those wealthy enough to afford a house with off-street parking (which can be much more expensive in many areas) would be unaffected, and could continue to own cars. Making this change in a way which feels equitable, particularly given people living in housing without off-street parking would likely see a sudden loss to their house value, is something which should be heavily considered.
As a cyclist, I constantly wish on street parking wasn't a thing, but I also have to accept that what is an inconvenience to me is also helping hundreds of thousands of people to more or less survive within our current system.
It's why the argument about government subsidies seems a bit contrived - yes I wish the government subsidized alternative transport methods more, but in the system that has been inherited, they have to in order to keep the system functioning. If they made car ownership suddenly impractical for the millions of people commuting via that method, suddenly people can't get to work, which is what any government prioritises over just about anything else.
You're right. Changes need to be made incrementally.
Some nice scenery.
New Forest UK 😍
The same people that get upset when you remove a lane for a bikes have no problem with a lane full of parked cars.
Funny how bike lanes cause "chaos” and "mayhem" traffic delays, but issues caused by lanes for parking are ignored.
Another solution is to ban all wheeled vehicles and walk everywhere.
A solution to what?
Wouldn't work.
@@averagemanonabike That's right, every car removed from the road means the Government lose a tone of cash. So expect sometime in the future a tax on bicycles, which will lead to an other tax on just "being". Cycle lanes don't pay tax.
@@basher50 The cash that is spent on healthcare due to cars polluting ? The cash that is spent on subsidizing the fuel ? The cash that is spent on upkeeping the roads due to the fourth power law ? The cash that is spent on emergency services for accidents ? The cash that is spent on law enforcement when it comes to speeding and drunk driving ?
That kind of cash ?
@@randoguy7488 Absolutely correct, driving is heavily subsidised by the texpayer in many forms.