Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by hvidgaard » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 7:41 AM UTC

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…

It's a funny thing. I don't mind a long commute, of say, 1 hour each way mostly highway. I can use that time to listen to podcasts, audiobooks, or music. Things I rarely find time to in my daily life. But if I have 1 hour commute in heavy traffic, I feel that I'm wasting my time. The former I'm okay with, the latter I avoid at all cost, even if the net result is the same for me.

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

#182

Post by jschwartzi » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 7:52 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #95

cldellow wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument isn't blaming rich people for parking that causes costs to rise for poor people. The argument is: * mandatory parking is imposed by urban planners * mandatory parking raises costs for all people * poor people are less able to absorb the increased costs Shoup's The High Cost of Free Parking goes into a lot of detail and approaches it from the point of view of planning theory. It's a good read, I recommend…

Also, traffic lights, fire stations, rural mail deliver.... everything makes society expensive to some degree.

The difference is that fire stations have some tangible benefit, like a form of mandatory insurance that pays out before your house and everything you own burns down.

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

#183

Post by jschwartzi » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 7:56 AM UTC

zensavona wrote: post #61

And you know what? In countries with free healthcare the healthy pay for the care of the sick, even when they are healthy. Doesn't make it a bad system.

So are you saying that the poor are like healthy people, and the wealthy are like sick people who need the help of the poor?

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

#184

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 7:57 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #147

mantas wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you have to sit down on them like normal buses? One of the benefits of trams is the standing part so you can fit more people in. Last time I tried this on a bus the results weren't as good.

The interior of a bus doesn't need to be any different than the interior of a tram. Unless your city is repurposing coaches for public transport, the interiors of buses should have ample standing space.

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

#185

Post by dagw » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 8:05 AM UTC

cameldrv wrote: post #118

hibikir wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be very surprised if shared self driving cars lead to a major reduction in excess parking, or lower the number of traffic jams. People want to do the same things at more or less the same time: Having time off while your social circle is at work is not as fun. Many jobs require customers, and others require entire groups of people to be there together. This means the minimum capacity needed to handle peaks is not…

You're underestimating all of the ways self-driving cars will increase efficiency relative to parking, which are multiplicative. 1. Much higher occupancy per car. Based on my personal observations, at rush hour the average occupancy of a car is something like 1.3. I don't see any reason that can't increase to 2.6 or more without significantly slowing anyone down -- 2x 2. Yes, a lot of people need to get to work at 8,…

Yes, a lot of people need to get to work at 8, but normal working hours start at different times for different people

The other factor is school. While I can show up at work, more less, whenever I want, my daughter has be at school by 8.10 at the latest, as does everybody else's kids. If we don't add flexibility to school starting times times then, to many people, it won't matter what sort of flexibility they have with work.

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

#186

Post by voldemort87 » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 8:07 AM UTC

zanny wrote: post #22

stuartaxelowen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it, really? Or is cars as the default transportation the problem? Come to Tokyo, you'll see how well things work with effectively no parking in general.

Its an American problem, but it isn't one you just solve banning cars or something. Post-war US built up all its major metro areas on the hype for the automobile. Where European and Asian cities are walkable, American ones are not, and to try to retrofit car cities into public transit / bike / foot traffic is insanely expensive. Add to that America has a systemic car culture (there is a reason cars are all bigger in…

Not all cities in Asia are walkable.

I was in Thailand recently and I found it's cities incredibly difficult to walk around. Roads often don't have sidewalks, often have many lanes, and pedestrian crossings are just marked on the road - without traffic lights - and are ignored by the traffic. The level of traffic makes the roads extremely difficult to cross.

Everyone in Thailand, even the very poor, seems to have a moped. If they don't have a moped they have a pickup truck. Tourists are forced to take taxis - the locals think you are weird for wanting to walk even 200 metres to a shop.

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

#187

Post by closeparen » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 8:19 AM UTC

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…

New York, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. have significantly higher commute times (including by public transit) than less dense cities. New York's subway riders have it particularly bad, spending an average of 7.5 hours per week on the trains [0]. This is despite those cities having some of the best transit systems in the country [1].

I'm aware of the finding that lower commute times are associated with happiness, but that makes the opposite of your argument. The lowest commute times are found in small, low-density, car-oriented cities. Even in New York, drivers and taxi-riders have shorter commutes than public transit users.

As you'll see in the report, a very lucky few have short walks, but it is not at all the norm. I surmise that if you can afford to live within walking distance of work in New York, you're likely an order of magnitude too rich to need to work.

Your other points are valid, but I'm highly skeptical that these benefits are worth the extra $2000/mo they bring in housing costs (when collapsing a 3-bedroom house family into a 1-bedroom apartment), particularly when we are talking about people who do not have $2000/mo.

I say this as a relatively new Berkeley to SF public transit commuter. I love my job, but I'd rather stab my eyes out than spend 80 minutes on overstuffed, lurching BART trains every day for the rest of my life. Fortunately, the gruesome death vs. BART tradeoff is available in the form of motorcycling, which I'm trying next.

[0] http://origin-states.politico.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazo...

[1] http://ao.umn.edu/research/america/transit/2014/index.html

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

#188

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 8:22 AM UTC

mantas wrote: post #174

fulafel wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average owned car cost is $725/month according to the AAA[1]. [1] http://exchange.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Your-Driv...

Just pointed out a math flaw in parent post. It's obvious where both numbers were pulled from...

[deleted]

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

#189

Post by sandworm101 » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 8:26 AM UTC

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…

The one thing that definitely won't make people happy is someone else telling them they don't know how to make themselves happy. People want choice, even if that means making a few incorrect choices.

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

Some people really dislike cities. I need woods. I need open spaces. I need to see the stars at night. I need a place for my dog to run without some stranger screaming about leash rules. But I also need to work. Personal transport, my own vehicle to carry myself and my dog, allows me to both work and enjoy the open spaces. So I'm all for parking spots.

And yes, weather permitting, my dog does come to costco with me. She would much rather sit in the car than sit at home. If she wants we'll hit any number of dog parks on the way home. If I took the bus, or Uber, she would have to sit at home ... alone all afternoon rather than being with me. That's what having parking spots at Costco means for us.

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

#190

Post by closeparen » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 8:32 AM UTC

msl wrote: post #169

closeparen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If we are going to impose a $24k/person/year tax to help the environment, is New York-style living the optimal allocation?

You could be very picky about sourcing food, and put the farmers using cheap but unsustainable methods out of business. Pay the premium for American-made products under American factory emissions regulations, to shut down some cargo ships and Chinese smokestacks. Every 5th American could be a $96k/yr researcher working on environmental problems, etc. We could all telecommute, and have our pay docked by $24k/year to compensate for the lost productivity.