Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 455 posts

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#131

Post by tedunangst »

CalChris wrote: post #27
trentmb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Handling cash ain't free. At a minimum, a certain amount must be kept on hand to make change. Then theres insurance on that cash. Then theres the safe (and registers) you have to buy to store the cash. Then theres the transport of the cash to the bank. Also, better hope your cashiers never make a mistake or accept a forged bill.

So that's the basis of a comparison. Cost of cash vs cost of credit cards over the economy. I can't resist an aside. A buddy of mine was in a well known cash business. You can imagine. Anyways, hanging out with him, we'd be driving around and he'd need gas. He'd pull out 2 or 3 $20s, hand them to the attendant pump gas and go. Some gas stations gave a cash discount. It seemed to me that credit cards were supposed to…

I can dip my credit card in the pump faster than I can walk into the station and hand over cash. Never mind what happens when I'm topping off before a trip and don't need $20 in gas, requiring change. That's not the best example of how cash is supposed to be fast.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#132

Post by tedunangst »

kuschku wrote: post #126
trentmb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Handling cash ain't free. At a minimum, a certain amount must be kept on hand to make change. Then theres insurance on that cash. Then theres the safe (and registers) you have to buy to store the cash. Then theres the transport of the cash to the bank. Also, better hope your cashiers never make a mistake or accept a forged bill.

> Handling cash ain't free. But it's so much cheaper than handling credit cards that many small stores in Germany won't accept any cards at all.

Germany becoming the anti Sweden?

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#133

Post by 6t6t6t6 »

sfifs wrote: post #119

Most of the commenters on this thread don't appear to have lived in a country with the opposite problem. Consider what happens when development and car ownership expands in a country without adequate government parking mandates. You routinely find at least two road lanes blocked by parked traffic because buildings don't have adequate parking. This leads to very slow bumper to bumper traffic (try Bangalore, Mumbai, Ca…

I'm afraid that you are comparing pears and oranges.

If you want to be fair, compare American cities with European cities. In Barcelona or the center of Copenhagen, there are not free parking spaces. And I can assure you that there are not the traffic issues that you are mentioning in your comment... It's quite on the contrary, actually.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#134

Post by tedunangst »

gohrt wrote: post #76
kylec wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the choice between a mall with paid parking and a mall with free parking, I'm picking the mall with free parking. Even if there's some sort of validation system if you buy something, dealing with the whole ticketing system on entry and exit is annoying, and in the circumstances where I don't end up buying anything I have to deal with paying for the parking. It's much less of a hassle to just avoid all that.

How much farther will you drive (wasting time and gas) to avoid paid parking? It's the 21st century, paid parking can be a radio transmitter in your car or on your receipt.

People assess visible and invisible costs very differently. We are, by nature, often penny wise and pound foolish.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#135

Post by [deleted] »

JDDunn9 wrote: post #127
userbinator wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that many people actually want higher population densities.

Actually, we are seeing a return towards urbanisation globally, which is a positive trends, since it's a vital component for curbing global warming. Residents of NYC use 1/3 as much electricity as their suburban counterparts, use a tiny fraction of the carbon emissions on transportation, and produce less garbage. All without convincing New Yorkers to recycle or drive electric cars. Environmental responsibility is bak…

[deleted]

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#136

Post by enraged_camel »

honkhonkpants wrote: post #23
makecheck wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also the concept of “ground cover” in some places. I have seen office buildings create gigantic parking lots just to “occupy” all their land so that the land cannot be taken away later. If land is completely undeveloped then it can be reclaimed in some situations, e.g. someone decides they want to build a railway.

Building a parking lot will in no way save you from the imminent domain powers of people who want to build roads and railroads. This strikes me as some kind of urban legend. Every place I've lived has mandated some ratio of parking to floor space in new office buildings, which is why office buildings are surrounded by parking.

That said, under eminent domain the government is required to pay you the fair market price of the land it is taking from you. That's why it's in companies' best interest to not let their land sit undeveloped.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#137

Post by pmiller2 »

kuschku wrote: post #126
trentmb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Handling cash ain't free. At a minimum, a certain amount must be kept on hand to make change. Then theres insurance on that cash. Then theres the safe (and registers) you have to buy to store the cash. Then theres the transport of the cash to the bank. Also, better hope your cashiers never make a mistake or accept a forged bill.

> Handling cash ain't free. But it's so much cheaper than handling credit cards that many small stores in Germany won't accept any cards at all.

It's the same in SF. There are so many "cash only" places that I now routinely check Yelp before going just about anywhere unless it's a relatively high volume place or franchise.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#138

Post by makecheck »

honkhonkpants wrote: post #23
makecheck wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also the concept of “ground cover” in some places. I have seen office buildings create gigantic parking lots just to “occupy” all their land so that the land cannot be taken away later. If land is completely undeveloped then it can be reclaimed in some situations, e.g. someone decides they want to build a railway.

Building a parking lot will in no way save you from the imminent domain powers of people who want to build roads and railroads. This strikes me as some kind of urban legend. Every place I've lived has mandated some ratio of parking to floor space in new office buildings, which is why office buildings are surrounded by parking.

Maybe a railway isn’t a realistic example. A nature preserve might be a better one; they can’t decide to cordon off an area for wildlife if you’ve already destroyed all the trees, whereas untouched land might fall into that category.

The examples I can think of were in Texas and I’m sure the rules vary by region.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#139

Post by mantas »

zik wrote: post #107
bsznjyewgd wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really get why trams are better than buses. Do they really carry a ton more people than buses? Why are people more likely to ride them? Buses come in short/long/articulated/double-decker sizes and don't need to be on rails or require overhead electrical lines. The only argument I can think of is that you get a smoother ride and no need to burn fuel with a tram. (I've only ridden the trams in one city, and the…

Here's an example of a good tram system: http://dyob.com.au/sites/default/files/u9/96%20North%20Carlt... It's separated from the traffic so it's fast, doesn't have associated tyre and asphalt maintenance costs, and each tram carries over 200 people maximum. The service is frequent - about every five to seven minutes - and much smoother and more comfortable than a bus.

My city don't have trams but there was a political push to build them. However, bus routes were upgraded instead. Result is better than trams IMO. Some key points we do:

- Popular buses run ever 5-ish minutes during peak times

- Some buses have extension and cary a crapload of people.

- Problematic spots have bus-only lanes.

What is better than tram:

- Buses that share only a bit of the route can use those lanes too

- Taxis can use bus lanes

- Some of the lanes allow cars with 4+ people to promote carpooling

- If there's an accident or emergency, cars can use the bus lane

- Bus lanes are frequently reused as designated right turn lanes

- Overall maintenance is cheaper when using a single mode of transport. Same backup vehicles can serve all routes - no need for separate backup trams and buses. Same for technicians, spare parts etc.

- No big upfront construction costs. Some bus lanes were snatched from regular traffic, some were built later on. Mostly by making other lanes narrower and widening the road just a little bit. Trams would require much more space and wouldn't even fit in some spaces without banning cars altogether. The'd still have to pave these bits to let emergency services use them.

- In tight spots, buses can easily merge with general traffic. Buses have defacto priority, so no delays during merge.

In my city, introducing trams would have been at least few years of city-wide construction works, lots of possibilities for wasting public money and/or corruption. Bus lanes were super cheap and are added incrementally wherever costs in that specific section can be justified by savings. They can be removed easily if they cause too much trouble or don't speed up buses much. Rails would be there forever.

Comfortwise, good tram and good bus ride equally well. Unmaintained, both trams and buses suck.

TL;DR Buses are much cheaper and more agile stepping stone into good public transit. Trams themselves ain't magic cure. Buses can be

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#140

Post by an_account »

zik wrote: post #107
bsznjyewgd wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really get why trams are better than buses. Do they really carry a ton more people than buses? Why are people more likely to ride them? Buses come in short/long/articulated/double-decker sizes and don't need to be on rails or require overhead electrical lines. The only argument I can think of is that you get a smoother ride and no need to burn fuel with a tram. (I've only ridden the trams in one city, and the…

Here's an example of a good tram system: http://dyob.com.au/sites/default/files/u9/96%20North%20Carlt... It's separated from the traffic so it's fast, doesn't have associated tyre and asphalt maintenance costs, and each tram carries over 200 people maximum. The service is frequent - about every five to seven minutes - and much smoother and more comfortable than a bus.

Los Angeles had dedicated bus lanes seperate from traffic (orange line) which is almost as good as rail for a fraction of the cost of laying track.
Post reply on HN