Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau
That's because... that's NIMBYism.
You hear incumbent homeowners and neighbours complain about "traffic".
You never, ever, not once, hear those people tell you what they, personally, are doing to reduce the amount of imaginary "traffic".
All "traffic" means is "a car being driven by someone who isn't me." It's pure selfishness.
|
Depends on who it is. I'm opposed to lots of parking in buildings (and have been quite vocal in this forum), but I don't even have a driver's license. A lot of my friends around my age don't drive either, but certainly people do.
Something that does get me is that there aren't many strong restrictions on how many cars one can own if they live in a house. I've shared my perspective that over the generations households went from no cars to 1 car per family to 1 car per adult in each household. People expect to have multiple cars, and many park on the street in front of their houses. We see houses in older neighbourhoods where you either had no parking (like Centretown) or rear/ side lane parking being torn down and replaced with houses with garages built into the house, taking up most of the front face. I think if we want to get serious about traffic and mobility, we should also restrict parking provided for houses and businesses. That said, I still oppose reducing what we provide in buildings. If you're within a certain distance of a transit station parking should not be provided, and the City should be more judicious about approving development where we can easily predict the residents will have to rely on a car to live there.
Threaded Mode