Moving beyond the automobile.

[MonopolyBag]

This site is cool, and living in New England it plays a part in our community development.

Street Films

As a kid, I would always think down upon the city, a smog ridden place with weird smells and always too crowded. But as I grow older I find myself being more intrigued with them, less so with the :city life" and more so with the fact that environmentally they are much more efficient ultimately making more sense. Overall, a cities population produces less of an environmental impact than that so of the same suburban population. Cities also have more to offer, and can have their own interesting characteristics. Also architecture is always cool since I like art and things like that.

But imagine if people lived in cities only. And beyond the outskirts of the city was literally not inhabited. It would be very pristine and I would find this to be better than finding a happy medium living in a suburban area like I do now. I have trees, yet I can drive down to Best Buy whenever I want. Although this living style is nice, living in a city, not needing a car to just go by a loaf of bread, then working all within the city, and then taking a weekend trip to true wilderness only an hour or two away would be my ideal situation. However we don't really have this. Even the White Mountains have a huge REI and developments scattered throughout.

But in watching the first video on the link provided, the car owner ship in some parts is as low as 30-40%. That is amazing! I do know some people without cars living in Cambridge. But imagine the impact this has on the environment. It is probably huge and I am glad too hear things like this.

 

[Corey]

Thanks for sharing; I'll have to check out the video when I get home. The whole streetsblog network is one of my favorite sites to visit. As a car-free Portlandite, now in my 3rd or 4th year, and a life-long fan of cities, I can relate to the positive benefits of not having to drive to the store for a loaf of bread and other simple chores. Cities are a wonderful man-made invention that will likely continue to be the backbone of civilization in the future as they have been. Reducing the number of personal automobiles on the roads is a smart move environmentally, but there are also many other positive benefits (socially, economically, etc) of 'moving beyond the automobile.'

 

[FrankLloydMike]

I'm looking forward to watching the video when I get home, too.

I have a car, which usually stays parked on the street for a few weeks at a time, and which I mostly use to get back to New Hampshire when I go home. When it finally dies, I'm not sure I'll buy a replacement, and certainly not right away. Cars are helpful for going on trips, and still necessary when visiting home, but otherwise they can be a big headache. Still, I think even if we don't see a huge a drop in car ownership, good transit and walkable neighborhoods mean households may only own one car and they may use it rather infrequently. Pro-suburban types like to cite the so-called independence of the automobile, but that's a joke. Cars not only tie owners into huge financial commitments, the type of development that supports them requires their use. Cars aren't going to disappear any time soon, but a more balanced transportation and planning policy would encourage people to leave the car at home except for special trips.

I actually meant to just mention a piece on Radio Boston that is about to air regarding the strength and appeal of cities.

 

[MonopolyBag]

Cars are not free, you gotta pay for them and stuff. Parking is a b***h in Boston. I ride the Boston Express into Boston from Salem here (FrankLloydMike, the bus goes from South and Logan to Exit 2, 4, 5, and 293 Exit 6 (Granite St.) and Concord) Also a bus to Nashua stopping once in MA. Ride it as I try to when I can as more riders = more public transportation success stories. Very clean buses and price rose after opening $4 and wish it had not as now the price is a bit high. But reasonable.

However, cars will not go bye bye, I use mine for my current business driving to customers house as a service. However I hesitate going to the Post office, Market and places like that due to gas and waste of time driving so far due to living where I do.

 

[Corey]

Cars aren't going to disappear any time soon, but a more balanced transportation and planning policy would encourage people to leave the car at home except for special trips.

Very true. I think balance is important. I was able to watch the video in the original post and was intrigued by the Jersey City policy/code that does not require new development to have a minimum number of parking spaces and actually establishes a maximum number of spaces. In Portland there have been a few news stories lately regarding the 'fee in lieu of parking' which allows developers the option to pay a fee instead of a parking space (the fee goes towards a sustainable transportation fund). I think a no-minimum parking requirement would be interesting to try out.

I actually meant to just mention a piece on Radio Boston that is about to air regarding the strength and appeal of cities.

I'd really enjoy reading that book. I saw the author on the Daily Show last week.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Yeah.. what a novel idea: no minimum parking requirements!

I really liked the Radio Boston interview, though I was disappointed with his decision to move to the suburbs. I am glad he framed it as a critique on how cities are funded, etc., but it seemed like a cop-out. Cities are just as good, and often better places to raise children than suburbs, in my opinion. In Cambridge (or Manchester, Portland, Providence), for instance, there are plenty of small yards, playgrounds, ice cream shops, bookstores and so on within easy walking distance of schools, houses and public transit. That's something no suburb can ever offer a child or family.

 

[Patrick]

Corey, I don't know much about Jersewy City, but I suspect it is a lot of business there (more than residents), which may explain how that city was able to pull that off. In Portland, minimum parking requirements are needed so residents in nearby neighborhoods don't complain that their own on street parking spaces are being competed for by new workers. Just a theory though, and I think portland is on the right track with the fee in lieu (but I don't know if the final version was enacted or not).

 

[Justin7]

Does someone have the exact working of the law concerning minimum parking requirements? Also a history of why they exist and when they came into existence?

If aB is seriously considering taking on more of advocacy roll, perhaps this would be a good place to start.

 

[Patrick]

Does someone have the exact working of the law concerning minimum parking requirements? Also a history of why they exist and when they came into existence?

If aB is seriously considering taking on more of advocacy roll, perhaps this would be a good place to start.

Hi Justin,

minimum parking requirements are required by zoning, which is a local exercise of the Police Power (and has to be delegated to towns and cities by the states). Therefore, the requirements differ in every town. So the exact workings of the law would be tough to describe unless you meant for a specific town (did you mean for Manchester?). However, much zoning is a copy and paste job from other towns, so I bet with some minimal research one could track the first instances of parking requirements, from which the idea spread.