Paul D wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Paul D wrote:
>>> "PeterE" <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I suspect that through various means - for example, bringing off-
>>>> street garages back into use - the number of houses totally
>>>> deprived of parking spaces would be relatively small.
>>> There are many, many streets in London which are terraces of four
>>> story buildings with a flat on each floor (and not a garage or drive
>>> in the entire street)
>>> For a typical street with 100 houses, that's 400 flats.
>> That's 50 houses on each side of the street, each house about 15"
>> wide. That's about 750 feet of kerbside, multplied by two.
> Well, they may be where you live, but the streets I'm thinking of
> it's more like 25'.
That sounds like very upmarket terraced housing. Typically, in the sort of
area where I was brought up (inner-city Liverpool, Manchester, etc),
terraced house plots are little more than 15' wide (if wider at all - and
there are still street corner protection issues, meaning that not every
frointage can be counted into the practical total). So, there isn't usually
enough kerbside space to keep one car per house in the street, and often, a
row of cars on each side of the street will leave such a narrow channel that
a fire-engine could not pass (which, IMHO, is the ultimate definition of
unreasonable obstruction).
>>> Even if they were in single occupancy, you'd need 400 garages. There
>>> just are not that number of garage spaces available.
>> Can you *fit* 400 cars along 750 feet of kerbside?
> Well, just ignoring for a moment the fact that your answer is out by
> a factor of 2 (good job you showed the working, I'll give you 3/10),
> if you would now transfer your attention to what was said, you'll see
> that the person to whom I was responding was talking about the number
> of houses "deprived of parking" if there was NO on street parking,
Nonsense.
They can't all be parking there in the first place, so a smaller number
would be "deprived" (nice emotive word - full marks) of parking.
> i.e. How many you can park on the street is irrelevant. He was
> talking about how much paking could be made available OFF street.
Oh do come off it.
The total number of "potential" vehicles (in the exeptionally far-fetched
scenario you raise) has nothing to do with the amount of off-street parking
that moight be provided. What can be provided can be provided. Price will
ration it (and may tempt some into releasing a little more land from
alternative uses), but no-one, not even on the wildest extremes of your side
of this, is arguing that 400 spaces would either be available or needed for
every street of 100 houses.
> So:
> Results for J Nugent
> Sums: 3/10
> English Comprehension: 1/10
> Overall: Could do better. In fact, could do MUCH better.
It made you feel so much better for contriving that, didn't it?