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

161–170 of 455 posts

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

#161

Post by jschwartzi »

readme wrote: post #86

Implicitly, the author assumes that a car would be the last thing this hypothetical poor person would purchase. There are in fact, many impoverished homeless people who live in cars. In this case, they might find themselves parking in one of those abundant spaces. I wonder when the last time she walked by a walmart was.

It's a catch-22, because they have to buy the car to get anywhere, and now that they have the car they can't afford to live anywhere, and because everyone else owns a car nobody will build places that don't require a car.

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

#162

Post by vbezhenar »

JDDunn9 wrote: post #98

This topic is discussed at length in the book, "Green Metropolis". It's part of a bigger issue of always putting cars first. You can't build a large building without first doing a traffic study. If you bring too much traffic, you can't build it. Never mind that traffic is about the only cost in America that you can increase to make public transportation more appealing. Generally U.S. building codes include a maximum…

I live in city, where there're problems with parking, everything is tight, no suburbs, etc. And US looks like a dream for me. Living outside this city, driving fast lanes? I would love to live there, I hate public transportations and I hate concentrated people.

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

#163

Post by JDDunn9 »

closeparen wrote: post #152
JDDunn9 wrote: post #98

This topic is discussed at length in the book, "Green Metropolis". It's part of a bigger issue of always putting cars first. You can't build a large building without first doing a traffic study. If you bring too much traffic, you can't build it. Never mind that traffic is about the only cost in America that you can increase to make public transportation more appealing. Generally U.S. building codes include a maximum…

I propose a fundamental principle that should be obvious, but apparently isn't. Public policy should aim to improve average quality of life in the short, medium, and long terms. We live in low-population-density areas because we get more, higher quality housing for less money, shorter lines, less crowded public places. We drive instead of taking transit because we get where we're going faster and more comfortably, si…

Many of the benefits you listed are good examples of how people are actually pretty bad at predicting what will make them happier. We have a lot of data on the subject.

- People think that living in a larger home will make them happier than a shorter commute. Cohort studies show the opposite is true. We adapt most quickly to things (good/bad) that stay the same (like the size of your house), and poorly to things that change (like the traffic situation from day to day).

- People think they will be more active if surrounded by parks and greenery, but city dwellers actually walk/bike more. People moving to the city lose weight within a few months (~3 lb. if I remember correctly)

- People think that cities are dangerous, but you are more likely to be killed young in the suburbs. This is because car accidents are far more likely than homicides, and you drive more in the suburbs.

We know people in cities are, on average, happier and healthier.

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

#164

Post by fulafel »

mantas wrote: post #146
TheSmiddy wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does, however self driving taxis can be operated far cheaper than human driver taxis. So if the cost of running your car is say $5000 a year and you can get an subscription robocar service for $100 a week then a large number of people will switch. At the moment it's only cheaper to go car free if it's possible for you to walk/ride/catch public transport to work Mon-Fri and catch the occasional taxi when needed.

Robocar for $100 a week would be $5600 a year. So individual car would be still cheaper in such case... :) Unless you start factoring in time that you were away for vacation and didn't pay for that week etc. But that'd be some Adobe-level subscription madness...

Average owned car cost is $725/month according to the AAA[1].

[1] http://exchange.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Your-Driv...

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

#165

Post by JDDunn9 »

closeparen wrote: post #156
JDDunn9 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Residents of NYC pay $3000/mo for 1-bedroom apartments, while their suburban counterparts pay $1000/mo for 3-bedroom houses. You could buy quite a few solar panels and lease several electric cars for less than it would take to move to NYC.

Housing prices are often a related to geography. Manhatten is an island, SF and Boston are peninsulas. You could have a high density city that didn't have a high cost of living.

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

#166

Post by yason »

jedberg wrote: post #16

There was a study a while back that showed that the USA has eight times as many parking spaces as it has cars. At first that seems crazy, but it makes sense if you think about the fact that all the places you go in a day need to have enough parking to meet their peak demand all year, so places like malls have huge empty lots most of the year until Christmas rolls around. And then there is the spot your car is in at w…

Also roads are built for the peak consumption. Outside the peak, there's generally excess capacity quietly eating away space from pedestrians and human beings.

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

#167

Post by flukus »

erentz wrote: post #57
djsumdog wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we wouldn't see things as being nearly this bad if all American cities didn't rip out their tram networks. Every city I've lived in, even small ones with ~100k people, use to have Streetcars. Today, cities like Cincinnati struggle to get a tiny segment put in. Trams carry a ton more people than buses. People are more likely to ride them too. If American cities hadn't given in to GM and Ford and kept streetcar…

Not only that but the suburbs built up around these streetcar networks are typically the preferred places to live in cities these days, due to their walkable neighborhoods.

Shopping centers are rare because business is typically spread out along the length of the line.

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

#168

Post by mjevans »

JDDunn9 wrote: post #163
closeparen wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I propose a fundamental principle that should be obvious, but apparently isn't. Public policy should aim to improve average quality of life in the short, medium, and long terms. We live in low-population-density areas because we get more, higher quality housing for less money, shorter lines, less crowded public places. We drive instead of taking transit because we get where we're going faster and more comfortably, si…

Many of the benefits you listed are good examples of how people are actually pretty bad at predicting what will make them happier. We have a lot of data on the subject. - People think that living in a larger home will make them happier than a shorter commute. Cohort studies show the opposite is true. We adapt most quickly to things (good/bad) that stay the same (like the size of your house), and poorly to things that…

I think this depends vastly on the city. An unhealthy city won't have these kinds of benefits.

I think, particularly in the climate that I'm in, a /cave of steel/ style city WOULD have those benefits. If instead of streets for cars we had a mesh of (Babylon 5 style) 'zocolo' (sp) markets that had smaller storefronts and a lightly park like median.

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

#169

Post by msl »

closeparen wrote: post #156
JDDunn9 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Residents of NYC pay $3000/mo for 1-bedroom apartments, while their suburban counterparts pay $1000/mo for 3-bedroom houses. You could buy quite a few solar panels and lease several electric cars for less than it would take to move to NYC.

> You could buy quite a few solar panels and lease several electric cars for less than it would take to move to NYC.

Neither of which is nearly as good for the environment as simply using less energy. Solar panels and electric vehicles take a lot of energy to make, and are not guarenteed to become carbon neutral during their usable life.

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

#170

Post by mjevans »

userbinator wrote: post #116
JDDunn9 wrote: post #98

This topic is discussed at length in the book, "Green Metropolis". It's part of a bigger issue of always putting cars first. You can't build a large building without first doing a traffic study. If you bring too much traffic, you can't build it. Never mind that traffic is about the only cost in America that you can increase to make public transportation more appealing. Generally U.S. building codes include a maximum…

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

I want higher population density, BUT I don't want to give up my privacy or fresh air to do this.

Building codes should reflect proper sound insulation, windows opening up on to areas with clean air (and no exhausts anywhere near), even greenery (possibly an in door garden / atrium).

Post reply on HN