I think the intent behind the comment was to suggest that the parking is a need based on a superfluous want, and is intended as a criticism of cities that do have major transit systems which capitulated to the demand for car access. NYC has pretty substantial public transit presence that could and probably should be the transit answer for far more people, however, people chose cars for a variety of reasons.

For some of the population, cars probably are a necessity; commuting may not always have a convenient transit option into the city and as such these people have a legitimate need. What the article, and likely the commenter, are suggesting, is that the "need" for parking is a result of a want for cars, not a need for cars, and the article is suggesting the trend is reversing. I think the commenter is suggesting is that it's time to start discouraging those who would take a car when they really don't need to, especially in high density urban populations with substantial public transit presence, and that with an alternative on the horizon, it's time for cities to start reclaiming space that was formerly given to parking.

Tangential to this response, I am pretty glad to see that the article takes a more realistic look at the future with self-driving cars. I have been reading comments and articles for a long time where people envision "their" self-driving car, but I've always thought it far more practical to have fleets of these cars instead that are summoned rather than owned by an individual.

Have you ever driven in NY? Anyone who drives a car there needs to, rather than wants to.

So I was mocking the idea that making things harder for people who already have no choice about driving is a good idea.

It's not.

You want less cars? Then make the alternatives better, people will automatically drive less. To try to change things from the other end is just a way to torment your fellow man.

I find it difficult to believe that compared to cities of similar size and population density that New York citizens have a greater need for cars. The other similarly sized/populous cities all rely far more heavily on mass transit than New Yorkers appear to, many of the cities that are more populated/larger than New York also are far more mass-transit focused. (Not to say that cars/congestion issues do no exist in said cities, it's just that a greater % of the population rides instead of drives)

What about New York makes it so different that driving is an absolute necessity as opposed to say, London? And what creates the need for ownership as opposed to a fleet of automated cars handling the movement around the city? I can envision how a car might be important for occasional living errands, like groceries, etc., but car ownership as a need? Could not the majority of New Yorker needs be filled by either street services like Car2Go/Zipcar or by a fleet of summonable self-driving cars?

You do know self driving cars don't actually exist yet? When they do we can make changes, but don't start getting rid of parking ahead of time.

New York attracts workers from all over, many from places without trains etc.

London is also jam packed, I'm not sure it's any different.

Yes...I'm not sure why you would think I suggested otherwise.

There's no reason that the preparation can't start happening sooner, especially since an intermediary step towards self-driving cars exists and that's car share fleets.

The whole point of self-driving cars is less about the tech itself and more about the cultural shift that it permits. Parts of that shift can be happening now - the problems with parking, congestion, costs of road maintenance, car accidents, and everything can be addressed and affected now.

The proposed changes work just as well for a fleet of shared cars as they do for self-driving.

London's population density is far less than that of NYC, with London having nearly twice the total area and nearly half the population density. My reason in mentioning the density is that even though London does have a large car population, far more people take transit in a place that has a larger population and a larger area. NYC, which is smaller and more population dense, should see its citizens having easier access to essential stores and location just due to proximity, where as a London citizen may need to travel considerably further.

> There's no reason that the preparation can't start happening sooner

There is a very good reason. Without the actual cars the preparation makes things worse for everyone. So why do it? It's like saying "I'm going to get a bike to go to work, so I better stop driving now, even though I don't actually have a way to go there."

On top of that, despite all the excitement in the tech field it'll actually be many many decades before general purpose self driving cars exist. We don't need 30 years of preparation.

At first they will only be used on long distance highway trips, with specially prepared and marked roads, with the human taking over for city driving and for roads not prepared.

But these preparations are about city driving, which won't be automatic for a very very very long time. (How does a self driving car, without true AI, know what to do when there is an illegally parked car in the road? Or a stopped garbage truck, and the works are waving you to go around them?)

> NYC, which is smaller and more population dense

The greater NYC area is not smaller than London. People come from a hundred miles away, every day, to work there.

Are you focused excessively on people living in Manhattan? They already take public transportation.

This is an example of an approach to social problems I sometimes see that I'm going to call "sink or swim". It is a form of proposal framed in terms like "Well, if we do this, it will force $group to either $do_what_we_want or $something_really_unpleasant" and then assumes that everyone in the group will just choose to do what the proposer wants them to do, because the alternative is unthinkable and possible horrific.

It is in fact the case that if you take your child and toss them into the middle of the pool, you do force them to either sink or swim. But that isn't the same thing as actually getting them to swim.

> Yes, definitely, kick all the people out. Who needs them, right?

3/4s of Manhattanites do not even own a car, let alone drive it in the city as their main form of transportation.

Yes, enough with catering to Jersey and LI people that are for some reason unwilling to use the perfectly fine NJT, PATH, and LIRR trains. If they will not use mass transit and expect to store their personal vehicle on some of the most expensive real estate in the world for free, yes, "kick them out".