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

191–200 of 455 posts

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

#191

Post by oblio »

closeparen wrote: post #187
JDDunn9 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is driving the same as being in public transport? You can read a book, watch a video, and in general not pay attention to your surroundings (more or less). Meanwhile driving in traffic is half boring, half stressful.

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

#192

Post by paganel »

mschuetz wrote: post #157
userbinator wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I do! I'm from Austria/Vienna and I love our high density cityscapes. There is no need for a car in cities since you can get anywhere with public transport. I usually use my bike, though, which has a huge part of the city within 20 minutes driving distance. In comparison, when I was working in Santa Clara, CA, there was virtually nothing within 20 minutes and the public transport was next to useless. I'm also not a f…

> There is no need for a car in cities since you can get anywhere with public transport

Visiting Vienna some time ago was the first time when I realized that if I ever were to move to another city from the one I'm currently living in (a capital city in Eastern Europe) that city would need to have a decent tramway network, just like Vienna does (trolley-buses also count).

Relying only on cars or Diesel-hungry buses for carrying people around a big city is barbarous. It also counts that I don't like taking the metro, as traveling 45 minutes - 1 hour per day underground doesn't fit my idea of "good travel".

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

#193

Post by paganel »

bsznjyewgd wrote: post #77
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…

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…

Trams definitely carry more people than buses, even articulated ones. On top of that they produce no local pollution, as they run on power that is not produced locally (and which might actually come from clean sources of energy). As per for the "trams are slow" argument that doesn't really count. Most of the time cars are riding bumper to bumper during rush hour, while a tram has its own dedicated line which makes it get ahead of cars almost all the time.

Source: me, who's riding the tram to work and back most of the times.

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

#194

Post by adrianN »

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…

Quality of life is very difficult to measure. Average quality of life is probably worse than median quality of life. What about minimum quality of live? Should we make the life of the very poor worse if it improves the lives of the middle class?

I think the problem is a lot more difficult than what can be addressed with a single sentence.

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

#195

Post by briandear »

mantas wrote: post #139
zik wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why should a taxi get to use a bus lane? That's essentially a single person car with a chauffeur. How is a taxi-driven car more worthy than someone else's car?

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

#196

Post by adrianN »

dagw wrote: post #185
cameldrv wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

So, have self-driving minibuses that can pick up ~10 kids and ferry all of them to school.

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

#197

Post by [deleted] »

oblio wrote: post #191
closeparen wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is driving the same as being in public transport? You can read a book, watch a video, and in general not pay attention to your surroundings (more or less). Meanwhile driving in traffic is half boring, half stressful.

[deleted]

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

#198

Post by adrianN »

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…

Blocking lanes to park cars is illegal. It's just a problem of enforcing the rules.

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

#199

Post by jabl »

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.

It's a tradeoff, of course. Hey, I want to live in a large country estate but still within walking distance of work, shops, restaurants, all kinds of leisure activities and whatnot. However, as this isn't happening unless I win the lottery (probably not even then..), I have to sacrifice some of that.

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

#200

Post by mantas »

briandear wrote: post #195
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…

Why should a taxi get to use a bus lane? That's essentially a single person car with a chauffeur. How is a taxi-driven car more worthy than someone else's car?

More people using taxis - less cars parked in busy parts of city? Lobbying from taxi tycoons may or may not have influenced this.

Bus lanes are relatively empty most of the time. There're not that many taxis to slow down buses. Maybe not win-win, but nobody looses either. To be honest, this is first time I hear somebody complain about this rule. Feels kinda natural over there.

Post reply on HN