> but there are many equally maximalist auto superhighways in the city aren't there?
I don't know about that. Most city highways in the US have a speed limit of 50-55 MPH or less. It's certainly possible to construct roads that allow for higher speeds. Germany has many highways with no formal speed limit and a limit by gentleman's agreement of around triple that.
No one wants to have that literally in their front yard, but many people find it convenient to live within a few blocks of it, and the directly adjacent land is suitable for things like industry and warehouses and high voltage lines and railways, which all have to be somewhere.
> if multiple 53 foot trailers can legally park next to my vehicle with a jet ski on a trailer, next to a public park, that is not a scarcity of parking in my eyes.
Neither is that the place where contractors are racking up parking tickets.
> It should all just be commercial parking only basically.
That doesn't quite work though, does it? Suppose you live there and you're taking home a new kitchen sink from the hardware store, or literally any other heavy object you have to get from wherever it is now to your residence or vice versa. It's not about whether the vehicle is a truck, it's about whether what's in it is too much to carry long distances on foot.
> I think the best strategy is to do a congestion charge
Which then itself becomes a cost of doing business for anyone who can't avoid it, so it gets priced into the cost of trade services etc. even when the customer isn't rich.
Socially it's always better to reduce scarcity than extract rents from it.
> pedestrian superpaths
The reason there is resistance to this is that cars are heavy, so the best place for them is on the ground where you don't need expensive structural support. Whereas pedestrians are light, so you can build pedestrian spaces vertically at much lower expense. Which means there is much more constraint on the space that can be allocated to cars, whereas if you want more space for pedestrians, you can build taller buildings. Which in turn means it makes sense to use the ground level space for the things that it costs more to put higher up.
And if you want pedestrian spaces outside, put them above the road. Build balconies that overhang the street with pedestrian bridges to other buildings at the level of the second story. Have your al fresco dining on the roof -- the view is better from there anyway.
I don't know about that. Most city highways in the US have a speed limit of 50-55 MPH or less. It's certainly possible to construct roads that allow for higher speeds. Germany has many highways with no formal speed limit and a limit by gentleman's agreement of around triple that.
No one wants to have that literally in their front yard, but many people find it convenient to live within a few blocks of it, and the directly adjacent land is suitable for things like industry and warehouses and high voltage lines and railways, which all have to be somewhere.
> if multiple 53 foot trailers can legally park next to my vehicle with a jet ski on a trailer, next to a public park, that is not a scarcity of parking in my eyes.
Neither is that the place where contractors are racking up parking tickets.
> It should all just be commercial parking only basically.
That doesn't quite work though, does it? Suppose you live there and you're taking home a new kitchen sink from the hardware store, or literally any other heavy object you have to get from wherever it is now to your residence or vice versa. It's not about whether the vehicle is a truck, it's about whether what's in it is too much to carry long distances on foot.
> I think the best strategy is to do a congestion charge
Which then itself becomes a cost of doing business for anyone who can't avoid it, so it gets priced into the cost of trade services etc. even when the customer isn't rich.
Socially it's always better to reduce scarcity than extract rents from it.
> pedestrian superpaths
The reason there is resistance to this is that cars are heavy, so the best place for them is on the ground where you don't need expensive structural support. Whereas pedestrians are light, so you can build pedestrian spaces vertically at much lower expense. Which means there is much more constraint on the space that can be allocated to cars, whereas if you want more space for pedestrians, you can build taller buildings. Which in turn means it makes sense to use the ground level space for the things that it costs more to put higher up.
And if you want pedestrian spaces outside, put them above the road. Build balconies that overhang the street with pedestrian bridges to other buildings at the level of the second story. Have your al fresco dining on the roof -- the view is better from there anyway.