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

#291

Post by 35bge57dtjku » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 3:00 PM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #207

wvenable wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately insufficient parking is also a big issues; one in which these regulations are an attempt to solve. One could prevent less parking to be built but that would put more pressure on public roads. If you've ever been to an area with insufficient parking, it's pretty horrible. More so for people with cars but it affects those without cars as well.

" If you've ever been to an area with insufficient parking, it's pretty horrible." So are places with excess parking. Do you _enjoy_ sauntering through your local big-box shopping center's acres upon acres of parking? Also, if parking is so valuable why is it free? Charge market rate for the land and let people build parking on it if the market will pay. If the market doesn't pay, maybe they don't want the parking th…

> So are places with excess parking. Do you _enjoy_ sauntering through your local big-box shopping center's acres upon acres of parking?

You'd typically park in one of the closest open spots, so you don't need to walk through the excess spots.

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

#292

Post by Zach_the_Lizard » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 3:01 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #264

Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are actually not correct; suburban areas have more intense and all encompassing parking minimum laws. Manhattan, for instance, has either none or none below 125th Street IIRC. Suburbs look like they do not because of preference but because it is not legal for them to look otherwise. The idea in the 50s was: A) Require cars to live and you will not have to live next to poor people or minorities since cars and main…

In the 1950s vehicle ownership wasn't the significant financial hurdle you seem to think it was.

Car ownership today, as then, is actually a pretty big financial hurdle for the poor. Cars are probably the most expensive way of getting to work. Let's count how they are expensive:

1) Large initial capital outlay; back in 1950 this might be $1500 but your earnings might be $3300 a year. You'd either need to get a loan, save up a significant portion of your salary, or get a used car (which were less plentiful as car ownership was much lower and earlier cars were less reliable)

2) You need to pay for ongoing maintenance. Oil changes, tires, etc. all add up. In the 50s the cars were more mechanically simple, so probably the labor costs were much lower (you'd probably do at least a portion of it) but there was more work to be done. Oil changes were more frequent, things like points had to be adjusted, etc.

3) Gas is not free. In the 50s this was in the $2.00 per gallon range in 2016 dollars. Cheap, but again not free

4) Parking costs money, then and now

Compare that to the previous costs:

1) Buy bus / train / subway / streetcar ticket

2) Shoes

It's much easier to afford a single trip as there is no capital outlay involved.

You're thinking like a well off software engineer. Think like a poor person.

Several of my family members have trouble getting to work because of unreliable and expensive car based transportation. They work just above minimum wage.

Their town has no real public transit to speak of, except in one or two unreliable bus lines, so getting to work is an actual hurdle.

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

#293

Post by criddell » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 3:06 PM 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…

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

I've lived in both and had a happy, healthy life in both.

When I was young, the city was definitely where I wanted to be. I loved the energy and the density. I was close to my friends and because of easy transportation, could get to them anytime I want.

Almost thirty years later, I'm now living in the 'burbs and I never want to leave. It's quiet and I have space to work on my motorcycle, I have a garden, I like my neighbors and I like that they aren't right on top of me. It's fantastic for dog walking and my office is a very scenic 7 mile bike ride from my home.

With self-driving cars on the horizon, I think the suburbs might go through some type of re-birth.

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

#294

Post by criddell » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 3:07 PM UTC

hvidgaard wrote: post #181

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…

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.

If you had a self-driving car, do you think the heavy traffic or even stop-and-go traffic would be as bothersome?

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

#295

Post by criddell » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 3:09 PM UTC

verbify wrote: post #217

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…

> You can already make these tradeoffs for yourself by moving to SF or Manhattan, which is generally ill-advised unless you make so much that the astronomical housing costs don't hurt too badly. The shoe is on the other foot. The reason why rent is so high in these places is because there's a lot of demand to live there - people do find it desirable. If more cities were built like SF or Manhattan (i.e. there was more…

SF isn't particularly dense, is it?

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

#296

Post by maxsilver » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 3:09 PM UTC

optimuspaul wrote: post #288

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.

Or you could move to a city with more reasonable housing costs, like Minneapolis where 2br apartments <$2k/mo.

> more reasonable housing costs

Your "reasonable" housing costs are still double the price for half the space.

A lot of Americans just don't have an extra $1,000/month sitting around to throw towards rent. Even if they ditch their car, they'd still be $800/month short.

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

#297

Post by VLM » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 3:12 PM UTC

tjic wrote: post #245

Meh. You also pay for the cost of public parks even if you never use them. You pay for the cost of government elementary schools even if you homeschool your kids. etc. Now, I'm an anarchocapitalist and would love to see all of these costs unbundled, so that we each pay only for what we use. ...but the other 99.9% of folks in our society think that it is reasonable to have one-size-fits-all solutions, where a single b…

"99.9% of folks in our society think that it is reasonable to have one-size-fits-all solutions,"

Yes, police, parks, fire, libraries, K-12 schools, air traffic control, restaurant health inspectors, everyone agrees ... Just don't bring up the seemingly tiny little detail of the financial structure of the health care system in the USA. And secondary side issue of roads full of cars.

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

#298

Post by spaceflunky » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 3:12 PM UTC

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…

This is anecdotal (though Im sure I could find some supporting evidence if I wasn't lazy), but Thailand is an example of a country that is shifting to a car culture without the infrastructure.

I first went to Thailand in 2005 and I saw a lot of people on motorbikes in Bangkok. Which is great because the streets are narrow and there is not a lot of traffic. It was quick to get around Bangkok on a bike or Tuktuk.

I went back in 2012 and 2014 and I notice a lot more cars on the road and a lot less bikes. It appears that as the country has become more wealthy, more people can afford a small Corolla-type sedan. However, it does not appear infrastructure has been built to support all these new car owner so traffic is considerably worse in Bangkok.

Ok stopped getting lazy... the number of registered cars has doubled since 2009, probably quadrupled since 2005 according to the trend line. Only 37% of new registrations are for bikes these days.

[0]http://bk.asia-city.com/city-living/article/bad-bad-drivers-...

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

#299

Post by calvinbhai » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 3:13 PM UTC

I used to believe this for a long time, but now I dont.

Here's why:

If there was a Walmart that had zero parking lots, only those without cars would do business with that Walmart. That'd probably be 1/10th or 1/100th the revenue compared to that of a Walmart with a parking lot. Its because people with cars come in and purchase more and larger stuff, revenue goes up. The increased revenue justifies the cost of building such a parking lot or a structure.

Now, this argument holds true, only if there's a Walmart that has a huge parking lot and is always empty.

fwiw: I think these are the types of articles paid for by TNCs like Uber and Lyft, to popularize the idea of getting rid of parking everywhere so that their market expands. (I'm not judjing, but this is my observation).

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

#300

Post by Mz » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 3:15 PM UTC

cauterized wrote: post #248

jstanley wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you, though? Manhattan, San Francisco, and Boston aren't where they are because of random chance.

They all have world-class natural harbors. That was far more important for transportation purposes even 60 years ago (and certainly when these cities were established) than it is today. Population centers formed around places where large quantities of goods and people could be shipped from. And that meant harbors. Good harbors used to create economic powerhouses and centers of immigration, which in turn created large…

LA was built before the cult of the car. It sprawled when trolleys were the norm there. The reason: It's a desert. It made no economic sense to develop it in little bits. They had to develop large tracts at a time to defray infrastructure costs related to importing water.