News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in ... by mktmkr on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @02:56PM (#20637728)
1 shared car is shown to replace between 7 and 20 private cars in various deployments. Building new housing with dedicated car-share parking is a great way to go.
Re:LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in ... by kbenson on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @03:22PM (#20637968)
Housing may be a little harder to accomplish usefully for the people that would live there for this idea, but business would likely work well. The problem with housing (if it encompasses a large area and not just small subsets of the available area) is that some people functionally need a car for their job or life. Cutting off large amounts of housing from those that commute or those that need to make semi-regular long trips for other reasons (maybe picking up children weekly for a custody agreement, or taking care of a relative that is semi-dependent).

Maybe paid dedicated parking separate from the housing and only allowed to people that live in the area (with an increase in price for a second car for a household) would suffice, as long as it was planned well. But that's the problem, poor planning (or changes over time) could cause problems again.

Re:LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in ... by mktmkr on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @03:45PM (#20638149)
Car shares are definitely not for driving to work but I fail to see why you can't use them to pick up your kids. Car sharing solves the problem where people can easily journey to work without a car, but they want one for other purposes like shopping.
Re:LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in ... by sokoloff on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @05:27PM (#20639296)
Wouldn’t most residents of the building need the shared car at roughly the same time to pick up their kids from school?
Re:LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in ... by mayneack on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @11:25PM (#20641580)
If most people need it at roughly the same time to get to a small number of places, then it's an obvious use for public transport.
Re:LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in ... by mktmkr on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @05:46PM (#20639489)
No because fewer than 20% of households in Los Angeles have school-age children. That puts a ceiling on your worst case right there.
Re:LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in ... by sokoloff on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @06:05PM (#20639642)
Provided that the housing wasn’t in some way differentially appealing to families with children (cheap 3BR, good schools, parks nearby, other amenities)
Re:LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in ... by briandear on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @04:57PM (#20638961)
Does Uber carry approved child safety seats?
Re:LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in ... by mktmkr on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @05:07PM (#20639086)
No, but to make sure we are talking about the same thing, a car share is a bit like renting a car by the hour. Uber is a computer-dispatched taxi service. Uber is not "car sharing". It is also not their other bullshit moniker "ride sharing"
Re:LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in ... by sokoloff on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @05:28PM (#20639306)
I think there’s a fair argument that Uber Pool is pretty close to, or at least has substantial elements of, what one would naturally call ride sharing.
Re:LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in ... by wilsonchaney on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @09:13PM (#20640954)
Hmm...source?