Comments by "Chaos Corner" (@chaos.corner) on "" video.

Well, if you're talking about taking things away, sure. It's not like they're talking about giving everyone a car with on-street parking. With that said, moving on-street parking into parking garages seems good to me. Eliminating cars (or a large segment of them) is another question entirely. As for "subsidizing drivers", they should just be paying market rates.
80
It looks like technically they're not really removing them but relocating them. Looks like that's giving them unintended consequences too.
66
@casperd2100 Yes. I'm pretty car friendly myself but I do think he has some good points, especially where car driving kinda falls apart like in big cities. Also, pedestrian density tends to indicate other solutions might be appropriate (I like pedestrianization). I think there's definitely common ground to be found but car haters tend to get in the way of their own goals sometimes, the perfect being the enemy of the good.
25
@baronvonlimbourgh1716 So what? Asphalt is cheap, human living space is not. There's plenty of space for both in the US. Though it's worth pointing out that lliving spaces are also typically larger in the US than other parts of the world also. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
21
Flexibility is key also.
14
@ThunderClawShocktrix Commutes don't tend to need to be flexible though.
8
@PK-tt5kk Right. But OP was talking about total living space vs total parking space. If we just want to talk about cities, that's another discussion. Though highly dense cities are something of an anachronism with modern communication options. NYC is suffering a huge loss in tax revenue as businesses close down or move out and the people are only likely to follow as rents are ridiculous. The reasoning behind larger living space in the US is another discussion (I think the argument you're repeating is fallacious) but, once again, I was addressing the narrow point that the OP made that there was more space for cars than people. It's a pointless comparison, there's plenty of space for both.
6
If you get smart enough, you can also do tricks like discounts for deprioritized charging or "take me to 30 miles range ASAP then just trickle".
5
It's not that unusual to have to pay for a scarce resource like parking (when it is scarce). Arguably nobody should expect free on-street parking either.
4
Very common in big cities. Once you get outside of them, a lot less common as there's plenty of space and it's cheaper to throw some tarmac down than build a structure. I'm not sure where you're getting your impressions from. Could be selection bias. Channels like this tend to focus on things like problem sprawl so are more likely to feature that kind of parking lot.
4
@PK-tt5kk By the way, those cell-phone towers are required anyway otherwise you have awful blind spots that make everyone's (who wouldn't be better served by a landline) phone much less useful. Speaking as someone who had a mobile phone when coverage was much more spotty, it was very frustrating. Towers are cheap anyway, relatively speaking.
4
It's not really fair without considering the costs of the alternatives though.
3
@jasonreed7522 I will say that the last few public parking lots put in around here appears to have been the local government bailing out their chums who have had land they have been unable to sell.
2
It's all corruption anyway. Of that $10B, a good chunk will be going into kickbacks and such. That is why it's being built.
2