This isn’t the way to get rid of cars. If public transit is still shit, people will still have cars. They will instead park on the roadside and be more unhappy that their parking isn’t convenient.
A lot of European apartment parking is just a designated street parking space anyway. I’m not sure if that’s the case in Barcelona, but I see it often in the UK.
Barcelona has great public transit and quite a decent bike lane network. I have no idea why people use cars in Barcelona.
Public transport in Barcelona is excellent
I only visited but it seemed very good to me. Up by the university I was astounded by how much they packed (subway, trams, buses going anywhere and everywhere.)
Public transport in Barcelona is great, and street parking for residents is also pretty affordable.
Parking on the roadside (outside the official parking spots, which you have to pay for) will usually get you a ticket or towed … free public roadside parking is mostly a thing of the past in most densely-populated places, really …
There is no way to get rid of cars without inconveniencing drivers, and they will have to be very inconvenienced.
I think this is fine
It means easier rules for housing in a city that’s mostly friendly to public transit and biking, which should help with the rising housing cost Spain is dealing with.
If you live in barcelona you aren’t expecting to need a car anyways.
Getting rid of parking is 100% the easiest way to get rid of cars. Maybe second easiest besides replacing roads with pedestrian walk ways.
Building efficient inexpensive public transit is the best way to get rid of cars. Otherwise you just have cars circling blocks looking for a parking spot.
They’ll do that one or two times in a city before realizing it’s better to take public transit in.
I knew people who would move their cars every week just to be able to drive out of the city once a month.
People do occasionally travel outside of metro transport coverage.
unhappy that their parking isn’t convenient.
Oh no, not me, I’m perfectly fiiiine walking as far as necessary to get to my apartment from my parking space (says the people who are able to drive home in the middle of the day and park up for the night when everybody else is at work).
It’s not just lack of convenience, it’s behaviors: double parking, congestion, Oh I’m just going in for a second…
I think this is one of the key quotes:
“It used to make sense to require parking in homes to avoid public spaces being filled. But this generates traffic because it encourages people to drive. Young people are also less likely to own a car. They may either opt for car sharing or renting.”
There’s practically no free public parking in Barcelona. It’s either for-pay or you have a resident permit.
I hope this frees up space, not just for sustainable transportation but also for more affordable housing, something Barcelona really needs …
I mean, in an ideal world, this is great.
I think it needs a followup to at least track, possibly tax, residents of apartments which lack parking who also own cars. In small numbers it’s no big deal, but it could quickly get out of hand.
I still view the Japanese model as ideal …
I am curious to see if it plays out the way experts anticipate. I’d worry that cars are increasingly parked alongside roads, taking up space. I would love for parking to be a mandatory part of any real estate here in Germany.
Just because parking isnt mandatory doesnt mean they wont build it. It will just match demand more closely.
Plenty of functional cities were built before parking was a thing. While they do have lots of on street parking, pre-1950s cities also have the best transit.
No, please God don’t make mandatory parking a part of real estate. Build one large garage per X blocks and get rid of cars as a primary means of transport. Cars are a blight on the land and far to expensive to be sustainable. We need better public transit everywhere in Germany (although I think it’s quite good especially compared to the north America).
Trams, trains, and subways should be the future of Germany as they’re far more cost effective and far more human centric.
The idea is to remove free parking on the road side as well. Taking up space from the public like this shouldn’t be free. The end goal is to reduce the numbers of cars, not to put them somewhere else.
What do you think tax money pays for? And what do you think making building install parking is? Paying for parking….
If you remove the free parking and remove mandatory parking in buildings. Where would the parking be?
More and more european towns aim to have very few parkings, and very expensive ones only (or some that need a valid reason, as for hospitals). So the most convenient and affordable way to park the car is out of the town, near some public transport ending stations. As you let your shoes at the house’s entrance, you let your car at the town’s entrance.
Reducing cars improves the quality of air, reduce sound nuisances, reduce accidents risk, and allows to the public space to have more trees, benches, etc. Otherly said, less cars in town brings an higher quality of life.
Why the fuck should you have to pay to park at a hospital….? With your asinine logic, the library and train probably should need paid parking too? So everything should have to be paid for? Using the train? Using the library? Gotta pay out to use free amenities I guess. Because that makes fucking sense….
That is one of the usual exception made: parking at hospital is usually free (when justified by hospital needs).
Hospitals almost always charge because it’s usually near public transport and they don’t want people using their parking and using the train leaving nothing for the people that would need them. If they aren’t near public transport or a neighborhood (which is not a great place…) they usually don’t need to since it’s not being stolen by residents of the neighborhood or publicly tranport users.
If your gonna pay for parking, you mind as well pay to use the library and train too. Mind as well have everything paid and nothing is free with taxes. That’s what your saying here. That’s obviously a terrible way to do things.
In the ideal world, the parking and the amenities would both all be free. There’s no need or reason to charge for parking, other than pocketing the money, provided enough parking is available for everyone.
That is a great way of doing, people living in such town are mostly happy about it. Except car fanatics of course.
Here exterior parkings are linked to public transport. So if you park there and take trams or bus, it is both secure and cheap. There are enough public transport and a good network, and so you can easily go to library or train station… or to whatever place of interest in town.
It’s not free if it’s deeded to the property.
Who paid for it? Not the person buying the building or unit. It was already installed, and if it’s street, that’s tax payer money.
Why would you need to charge for a deed? It’s something that’s already there, and what would that money go to? Someone’s pocket? Just charging for parking means squat. The only way it’s useful would be if the city is collecting it, but it’s always a third party and they give a pittance to the city if they even do. It’s almost always profit driving instead of community or for the benefit or the city.
And why is the street parking filled up? Well that would be because buildings don’t install enoughparking already…. Or they don’t want to pay, so they go somewhere else nearby…. There’s also nothing to stop someone from buying one of these parking feee units while owning a vehicle… the law doesn’t fix anything, it’s just feel good.
Charging for parking is an archaic system and doesn’t even solve anything, just makes other problems.
This will result in motorcycles and ebikes occupying all the space
Im currently in SE asia. Motorcycles and ebikes are 100x better than cars. Anytime there are cars here they are just in the way and even dangerous but bikes an scooters tuck away really nicely.
A single car parking space can accomodate three to four motocycles / big scooters or up to ~15 bicycle / small E-Scooter parking spaces (or even more when stacked).
Likewise a single car parking space can be converted into two lots for small wheelchair-accessible mobility vehicles (basically tiny 50 kmh cars just bigger than the wheelchair that can be driven straight into them). Which still offer better accessibility.
It’s not even a damn competition.
A lot of wheelchair users need someone else to drive the vehicle because it’s not just their legs which don’t work. Or because they’re children or elders. A minivan is the smallest vehicle they can use. Especially if they have kids as well. And public transit is often difficult or impossible, especially older systems. (I can’t judge Barcelona’s in particular, the buses are accessible though I’ve read there’s problems with/scarcity of elevators in key Metro stations)
All of that is true in some cases, for which there still can be and are parking spots. But those cases can’t be used as a scapegoat to build everything for cars (mentioning this specifically since car-brained people constantly do exactly that). Even in streets not made for cars you can drive if there are good reasons (emergency, moving in and out, accessibility…). Not to mention that, if a city or town you live in was build properly, even families don’t necessarily need their own car there.
If your cities’ public transport still isn’t wheelchair-compatible that’s a totally different (huge) issue.
Not disagreeing with your points but I want to mention that people who live in cities often like to get away from them to the countryside fairly frequently, and that can’t be done on public transit, especially if they need to take stuff with them. Planning should take that into account, and provision made.
That’s what Carsharing is for.
Even if that were true, it would still be better than cars taking all the space.
Hard no. Parking shouldn’t be bound as a necessity to every real estate, but every car ownership (see Japan).
There of course is an argument to make sure there’s enough parking per let’s say square 100m for everyone who’d need it for their car (even more so if this free’s up the damn road), but mandating an available car parking space for any real estate would go the wrong direction.
Oh I mixed it up. Thought the whole “parking with real estate” was mandatory there, but it totally makes sense to connect that to car ownership.
That’s how it played out in my neighborhood. The less space for cars on private property, the more cars left out on the street. The cars become a problem without even being used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXLqrMljdfU - Yes, this is uplifting news for all but the terminally car-brained.
How come this is uplifting news. This makes me want to curl up and die
Spanish cities are very dense, have a lot of public transport , and very little free parking. You can walk to most places in less time than it takes to ride there and find parking.
I’m curious about your circumstances, do you live in a town or a car centric country?
I currently live in a city with a massive car problem which is not addressed in any way.
Removing underground parking here means that all the cars will be left in the streets blocking pedestrians and cyclists
Your city doesn’t enforce street parking restrictions?
Enforces, but they’ve replaced fines with towing and now though the cost of parking like an idiot is higher, the budget gains from this decision are at an all time high, the reality is that streets are full of cars parked at pedestrian walks. Because the towing capacity is the bottleneck here
Sounds like they’re working on addressing the problem to me.
Classic USA person to me
