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…
To what granularity? Toll booths at each intersection? (Serious question.)
Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car
311–320 of 455 posts
Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car
#312Meh. 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…
Which means that your kids will live in society largely made up of people who have received some education. You could argue that there is more value in this than there is in providing parking.
Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car
#313Earlier 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,…
Have you tried the transbay busses? I ride the F from North Oakland every day and I have a seat every morning and, with a little planning, a seat every night on the way home (get to the stop early).
A motorcycle will probably be faster, but a 40 minute "leisurely" commute on the transbay is a pretty nice option.
http://www.actransit.org/transbay-lines-in-east-bay-neighbor...
Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of your hypotheticals seem to still assume individually-used cars. This is much nearer term thinking than the real interesting stuff. Cars wouldn't need to circle or park themselves. They would just go pick somebody else up. When you're done, some other car would come pick you up.
Many people will prefer to keep individually used cars. Cars is not only transportation, but storage too. From children seats to umbrella to things you bought at previous stop. The random self-driving car is pretty much the same as public transport. Individual cars seem to be still a thing, even though we have buses, taxis etc. Having random car pick you up is not some totally new idea that wasn't tried ever before.
The point about storage and kids is definitely interesting. Seems like potential for business opportunities if we ever find ourselves in this world.
Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> The reason why rent is so high in these places is because there's a lot of demand to live there - No. Mere demand alone does not raise costs. There is a lot of demand for water, but it is still super cheap. Prices are high when demand is high and supply is low. The reason that prices in Manhattan and SF are high is because (a) lots of people want to live there, and simultaneously (b) government policies severely li…
Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
A factor rarely mentioned is heat. People in tropical climate do not enjoy walking even relatively short distance because of its hot and humid weather during most of the year. Middle-class people in dense tropical cities with traffic problems still buy a car as soon as they can afford it. Coupled with barebone funding for and low quality of public transportation, the traffic problem gets worse and worse as people bec…
It works the other way around too. In countries where the temperatures drop down to -20C, you really don't want to be standing outside waiting for a bus or a tram, even if it's "only" 30 minutes. Any shitty old car is better than waiting outside.
Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car
#317Earlier 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…
Likewise the rails are convenient enough because most social media holiness spiral destinations are permanent. So you can brag about how you're going to the progressive art museum, or a book signing at the library, or the performing arts center, or the hyper trendy college hipster bars (although the tram service stops at sundown to avoid actual drunks), but you can't use the tram to do prole stuff like go to work or school or the food store or doctors office because there's no tracks there, proles go away keep out. Trams are only for special rich people doing special rich people things, the kind that pat themselves on their backs for their egalitarianism on a regular basis, if you have to ask you don't belong there on the tram. Ideally there would be no icky poor people anywhere along the tram rails, nothing but rich white faces as far as the eye can see. Maybe they could build a fence around the whole neighborhood, or just have the police keep the riff raff out of our special area for special people.
Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car
#318Come on, now, why was the title changed? The originally submitted title, "Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car," is the title of the article, and it's true , not click bait at all.
Because the 'poor people' angle is a red herring and thus arguably misleading, and perhaps clickbait as well since it makes the story more sensational. Those are the two reasons why titles should be changed on HN, as described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . The article's actual argument is that free parking forces people who don't drive to subsidize those who do. That's a sentence from the arti…
>"People who are too poor to own a car," Shoup writes in the University of California's ACCESS Magazine, "pay more for their groceries to ensure that richer people can park free when they drive to the store."
You could argue that the article is in itself overly sensational but the title is accurate.
Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car
#319Earlier 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…
One factor nobody has mentioned yet, social stigma. Busses in the US are often associated with poor people who can't afford a car or have lost their licenses. Trams do not have the same stigma.
Solely because they're new. If they're heated or air conditioned they'll fill with smelly homeless just like a bus, unless they're more expensive.
Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people will prefer to keep individually used cars. Cars is not only transportation, but storage too. From children seats to umbrella to things you bought at previous stop. The random self-driving car is pretty much the same as public transport. Individual cars seem to be still a thing, even though we have buses, taxis etc. Having random car pick you up is not some totally new idea that wasn't tried ever before.
It would be new: the price could be much lower, perhaps closer to public transportation, while the privacy and directness of pickup and drop-off would be like taxis. The point about storage and kids is definitely interesting. Seems like potential for business opportunities if we ever find ourselves in this world.
I guess bottom line would end up ~ the same as current car sharing services. Cheaper if you want occasional use, but more expensive as daily driver. And availability issues at peak times.