[iav]

If a developer is replacing a 2 story, 20 unit building with 20 parking spots with a new 5 story, 50 unit building, they shouldn’t be able to have more than 25 parking spots, as that is already a net increase from the status quo and will thereby increase traffic and congestion (the street isn’t getting wider…). The logical fallacy here is that it assumes those 25 units without a spot won’t just street park.

[infecto]

Which I would agree with but they Bay Area is in deadlock when it comes to roads and public transportation.

You cannot build better roads because cars are bad, so rush hour is just a polluting nightmare. You cannot have better public transportation because there will be at least one person that going to block it for any number of reasons.

[ac29]

The Bay Area has and continues to spend a lot of money on roads and public transportation. You can argue its not enough, but improvements absolutely have been made recently, and a lot more is in progress.

[infecto]

I am not saying projects have not been completed or that money has not been spent. My view is it is far too difficult in the Bay Area to make significant progress because it’s too easy to derail projects. I look at how many years we keep pushing out the Silicon Valley Bart extension. How long the Richmond district bus lane. There is change happening but it’s far too slow.

[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

Sounds like a problem for a land tax. If cars make more money than homes and businesses, go for it.

[zozbot234]

Too many cars will just add to congestion and make the surrounding spaces less desirable. You could address this with a congestion charge, but that has problems of its own. Limits to parking in some key spots around transit can then be a workable alternative.

[nemo44x]

Just because I have a car doesn’t mean I intend to drive it in the city. There’s a whole world out there and a lot to do that requires a car. So if I live by a train that’s good for commuting to the city I’m now stuck only doing that? What about the many things I do that have nothing to do with that?

[zozbot234]

You can keep your car parked elsewhere and get to it via a folding bike or stand-up scooter.

[nemo44x]

What about all the things I have to haul? What if I don’t want to ride a bike or the weather is bad?

What if I have kids? There’s a million reasons your solution is awful.

[tekla]

> What about all the things I have to haul?

Rent a car. Millions of people do it just fine

> What if I don’t want to ride a bike

Deal with it

> the weather is bad

Deal with it

> What if I have kids

Kids ride bikes just fine.

[zozbot234]

Oh yes, cargo bikes are a thing too. And people do ride bikes in bad weather, especially in a place like Berkeley.

[apsurd]

you really think so? i get the free market angle, but what about the local optimum risk? People want parking because they need parking. and they need parking because they need cars because everything's unwalkable because there's too much parking...

[infecto]

Yes get rid of minimums but really the first step here is having better public transportation.

[ildjarn]

But there is a side mission to reduce car dependency.

[malermeister]

Trying to shoehorn a market into everything is not necessarily a good thing. I'd prefer housing for low income folks over parking for rich tech dudes.

[infecto]

I am sure we all have different views here but parking maximums seems to discriminate the most towards low income folks as you would classify them. Those who are not working normal 9-5 or have employment that does not follow the Bart stops.

[HPsquared]

Ideally, parking for low income folks.