But what's convenient and a good idea in economic terms are often different things.
Just because the government stops mandating parking doesn't mean it ceases to exist - it means that it's no longer exempt from market calculations. Some developers will surely keep adding parking, because there's a demand for it. Others may not. They should be free to do so.
I've yet to see any alternative to cars proposed that I personally find acceptable, but some people do want to live that way for some reason. New areas of the city being made without parking for those people would be fine if there really is a demand for it but I wouldn't like moving somewhere and it later becoming car-hostile.
Where my family and I lived in Padova, Italy, transportation was a "right tool for the job" situation:
* We could walk to a grocery store, our kids schools, the doctor, a few cafe's, a barber, and a takeout pizza place.
* We could also walk to a tram that would whisk us downtown, which was way more convenient than driving and looking for a parking spot.
* We could ride our bikes downtown if the weather was nice, which was good for date nights when we wanted to be more mobile than the tram allowed for, and we didn't have the kids.
* We could drive (1 car for a family of 4) if we wanted to, say, go hiking somewhere out in the woods, or take a trip somewhere. There were weeks when the car would just sit there, though, because we just didn't need it.
Walking and biking are much nicer ways of getting around when stuff is convenient to those modes of transportation. Less stressful, and it feels good to move around. It's also far better for the environment.
Those things you listed are the costs; the freedom is to be able to spontaneously decide to go somewhere new.
I’m lucky enough to have been able to move to Berlin, which has excellent public transport links both internally, nationally, and internationally.
Before Berlin, I lived in a small village a 40 minute bus ride from Cambridge, itself an hour by public transport from most nearby interesting places. I cycled to work (in Cambridge) because it was faster than the bus, and also because (accounting for parking) the bike commute was about the same duration as going by car, and because of the health benefits of cycling.
Cycling also represents the same freedom that the car represents. I’ve cycled from Hoek van Holland to Brugg in Switzerland. There are cycle paths for the entire route, although I ended up in Brugg because of a wrong turn in Stein-Säckingen.
Public transport[1] also represents this freedom, at least when it’s set up properly. The point of my Cambridge anecdote is that it isn’t always done well enough.
[1] I include air travel in that. Planes are clearly flying busses.
They want removal of regulation regarding parking spots (free market), but building of rent-controlled social housing on the freed space (non-free market).
It's a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed, so I think the solution needs to be mostly market-based, but it's going to take a lot of different approaches to fix things.
Everybody wants to live in NYC/SF/LA/London/Paris/Tokyo/...
The moment rents drop for whatever reason (more building), a new batch of people will finally afford to move in.
And people say everyone wants to live here in Bend, Oregon.
And people say everyone wants to live in Boulder, Colorado.
Just maybe... it's not actually true.
And Tokyo, by the way, does a pretty good job with housing: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-...
Only in the sense of getting more bang for the buck. It's the 10th most expensive city to rent in the world: https://infogram.com/1prdmkx1zvdve1sg79z2vp56vmsm2ygmn90
Or a more comprehensive study here: https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD000000000049...
Notice something in these list? It's all famous cities. The fact that they have wildly different housing regulations doesn't affect the rent prices, any supply is immediately absorbed back.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article208678414.html
Changing LA's car mentality isn't going to happen overnight but it has to start somewhere.
You should read the article.
compare the two first images on section 3 https://noparkinghere.com/#03 to understand why people take the car instead of walking to what is supposed to be next-door stores. Then remind that with actual density, your local gym/church/cafe will be actually be local, as in no need to drive to it and you still get there under 5min.
Also, the fundamental way to have density and speed is Transit-Oriented Development. Basically super-high density within walking distance of stations. That way the experience of walking to a station, taking the train, and walking to a destination near the end station is really good. The places between the stations can be lower density without really changing anything.
We’ll have empty cars driving around the city to pick some up. Causing transit. It’s the same effect Uber is causing to cities. More transit and people taking less mass transit.
The scenario that I read from urbanists is that people will continue to own an autonomous car, and the car will drive you to work, drive back home to pick up your partner, drive her/him to work, drive back to pick up the kids, then drive them to school, and on and on. So more empty cars on the road.
While I see autonomous cars as a cool tech, I don’t see urbanists thinking it will solve urban planning.
Likewise they will react more predictably. We won't have an idiot cutting lanes, or tapping his brakes since he can't maintain a constant speed. Apparently most traffic issues are caused by a few bad actors having an over-sized effect.
So I think even with more cars, we can get better flow, which is what traffic is all about. But it will be difficult or impossible with humans in the mix. I'm pretty sure many drivers will try to bully the safer driving autonomous cars if they can.
At odds? Aren't they perfectly complementary? The closer things are together, the faster it is to get between them.
There are also a number of new lines and extensions coming up: https://www.metro.net/interactives/datatables/project/.
The Crenshaw line is close to opening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crenshaw/LAX_Line
In order for a public transit system to be convenient you need a LOT of density. You also need speed. The two goals are fundamentally at odds with each other. That’s why a lot of people prefer cars. No one likes traffic or emissions, and cars are way more likely to kill you, but damn are cars convenient even in urban environments.
Any plan like this can have all these numbers talking about how much space could be freed up but they need to address this fundamental problem, and this article failed to.
Now what interesting is the rise of self driving cars. I’ve often see paid parking lots and think within 20-30 years they will be out of biz. A few large operators will emerge and park their cars overnight at some owned large lot far out of the city to recharge, maintain, etc, and there won’t be much need anymore. So that could be a path to what author is talking about, long term. Of course does nothing for parking lot owners who just hold onto the property speculating...