Uplifting News
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
view the rest of the comments
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.
So you’re fine with paying to use a library or train? Instead of these being free amenities from taxes?
Okay buddy.
Charging for parking, unless it’s by the city is purely for that locations profit. It doesn’t prevent anything.
And the city charging is pointless and quite backwards, they should be providing amenities for free, not charging per use. That’s archaic as fuck.
And your comments don’t align with the story, if there’s enough parking for all this stuff, why are they doing all this to remove street parking? And with this law, that library and train station wouldn’t have to provide any parking anymore… so there wouldn’t be enough spots. Are you even following along or just saying what comes into your mind?
I am describing how many modern european cities evolve nowaday, including the one I live in.
I don't know if you really try hard to do not understand or if you are genuinely surprised by it.
Here, library comes with no cost at all unless you want a plan for borrowing books AND you aren't a resident of the city. The transport system isn't linked to the library. And the library doesn't have parking slots (except for those who work there, for some).
The public transport system is huge and allows to go fastly from anywhere in town to anywhere in town. It comes with different pricing according to the uses, and resident with low income have special prices. But the full price for an unlimited travels plan for a month is still cheaper than a full tank of ethanol gazoline. (Yet I agree with you, Montpellier is right to make public transport free for everyone, and we are more and more pushing for that).
Exterior parking offer a daily secured parking that come with a daily worth of transportation on the public network. Price is made to be affordable. I don't personaly use this service, but many do and like it, so I think it is adapted.
Those who insist to go into town by car, can still do it. Public parking are lesser and lesser, and price for parking on town owned parkings in center town is usually expensive. Free or affordable parkings in center town are not at convenient places (or need a subscription). Of course, public services often have some parking reserved for their own use. Some shops have their own parking slots too, but reserved for their clients too...
The whole thing is a financial insentive play: if you accept to respect the soft rules it is cheap and easy, if you want refuse to respect them it is costy and less convenient. Which is not a perfect way, I agree, it makes laws that rich are allowed to disrespect just because they pay instead ; but it makes life in town better than before, and hopefully it opens the door to even less cars 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.
Uhhh… someone needs a car for that mate… get rid of the cars and you couldn’t do that…
Show me where I said we should ban cars completely. That was your interpretation.
Even if that were true, it would still be better than cars taking all the space.