Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FlimFlamMagoo728 t1_j8ohj57 wrote

Build more parklets. Close more streets to traffic! Seriously I wish we would build this city to work for the people who actually live here instead of having more parking so people from the counties can come drive their big ass SUVs down into the city 4x per year.

Also, ffs if 85% of people are supportive of parklets and streeteries, I'm really not sure why this is being treated as contentious (lol actually of course I do, this city isn't a democracy but rather a mafia run by like a dozen wealthy families and corporations)

28

lolokaydudewhatever t1_j8q4h5p wrote

The fuck are you talking about? Lots of city residents need to drive to get anywhere in the city at a reasonable speed.

2

Nintendoholic t1_j8rf4qd wrote

And they can certainly do so, even if we shut down every 4th street to car traffic

5

lolokaydudewhatever t1_j8rktgi wrote

So a near 25% reduction in parking spots?

We need to address public transportation gaps first before we start jumping ahead here.

0

Nintendoholic t1_j8rlph0 wrote

Induced demand my dude

You can’t get people to use public transpo when using a car is always more convenient. Need both the carrot and the stick

6

lolokaydudewhatever t1_j8rm5d5 wrote

So you want to reduce demand? What does that mean? Less people frequenting baltimore businesses?

Build the public transportation first, then shut down those streets. It should happen in that order, that is all.

0

Nintendoholic t1_j8roreq wrote

Have you considered that roads are a barrier to people walking places, reducing the amount of foot travel and therefore demand? You could very well see an uptick in business if people feel confident that they can get there safely and directly.

5

lolokaydudewhatever t1_j8rpnbl wrote

Urban sprawl and the lack of public transportation are the reasons why people rely on roads and cars.

Even if people want to use public transportation, they can't if it DOESN'T EXIST

2

Nintendoholic t1_j8s2xqv wrote

Roads and parking lots ARE urban sprawl. Get rid of them and you can fit more people and amenities!

5

lolokaydudewhatever t1_j8s4p5r wrote

You dont need more people and amenities first. You need better public transportation first.

If the elimination of select roads is part of an integrated and strategic public transportstion overhaul, sure.

But "getting rid of roads" is not the first step in fixing the problem.

2

bmore t1_j8s76gs wrote

Cars are the biggest barrier to improved public transit. We could have dedicated alignments for all of our high frequency buses if there wasn't parking or car traffic in the way.

3

lolokaydudewhatever t1_j8s8853 wrote

And like i said if the removal of roads is part of a strategic public transportation overhaul program i support it.

But arbitrarily closing off every 4th road to cars is not the right first step

1

drillpublisher t1_j8w7j29 wrote

Dude, Jesus Christ.

Cities and urban environments existed long before "public transit" and even the bicycle. We've got even better amenities now with electric scooters/bicycles. Yes, people have adapted to how cities have evolved, but they're not necessary.

Waiting to spend billions on public transit before increasing urbanization and density is a wild push.

1

lolokaydudewhatever t1_j8w7oo8 wrote

Not at the population densities that exist today.

Are you seriously advocating the shutting down of 25% of baltimore's roads to cars before addressing public transportation? Youre out of your mind

1

HorsieJuice t1_j8s9jca wrote

Shutting down roads won't reduce the amount of walking people would have to do since it doesn't magically uproot the stores and homes that already exist. My dentist or my grocery store are still a half mile away regardless of the number of streets I have to cross in the middle. And if you're only closing one out of every four roads, that leaves 75% that people will still have to cross. If you have trouble crossing streets, you're still going to have trouble crossing streets.

1

HorsieJuice t1_j8phmp3 wrote

Where do you live that you think it’s only county people who drive in the city? I do live here and I’m not taking three or four busses to go to dinner in Harbor East or Fells when I could get in my car and be there in 15 minutes.

I’m all for making the city more walkable and for improving transit options. I’m even for keeping the parklets in some capacity. But I’m also for basing our plans on the present reality being lived by the folks here rather than on some idealized fantasy of how we wish things were.

0

StinkRod t1_j8rf3vr wrote

You can get in a cab and be there in 15 minutes and not have to find parking at all.

6

bmore t1_j8s7lhh wrote

How many minutes does it take for you to park and walk to your destination on either end of this 15 minute trip?

5

HorsieJuice t1_j8s8nkf wrote

I park in front of my house, so zero time there. Maybe a couple minutes tops on the other end; if we're getting fancy (a couple times/yr) I'll valet it. It's rare that I spend much time hunting for parking.

−2

bmore t1_j8sa58l wrote

So it sounds like the parklets don't negatively affect you at all.

3

HorsieJuice t1_j8scz77 wrote

I’ve been places where they’re more obtrusive - Mount Washington comes to mind. But not generally, no, they don’t impact me much. That said, I think it’s entirely appropriate for the city to charge for the spaces. Whether the amount given in the article is optimal, I don’t have an opinion.

0

drillpublisher t1_j8w7qm2 wrote

If a park let charge exceeds the maximum revenue a parking meter would accrue daily, it's excessive.

Even better would be the same amount charged for residential parking permits.

1