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

411–420 of 455 posts

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

#411

Post by jessaustin »

sergiosgc wrote: post #366
tjic wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm anarchocapitalist; I don't believe that "working democracy" is a thing. Or, perhaps, if it is a thing, it's not what you think it is.

I'm falling for the "someone on the Internet is wrong" trap, but neverthless: Anarchocapitalism is fundamentally flawed because it rests on the assumption that capitalist markets optimize for the best utility function. They don't. Further, even in the optimization they do provide, they are flawed. Capitalist markets are powerful optimization systems, but they routinely fail, in pretty well described scenarios. Namely…

"Externality" is a useful concept, but its mere existence doesn't mean that capitalism has "failed". Sure there are unfair conditions for lots of people, but in general there aren't too many Holodomors or Great Leaps Forward in capitalist societies. That's worth something.

That said, I'm no capitalist. So much seems so arbitrary. Like me, most people who advocate "radical" critiques of the status quo don't do so because they seek the most extreme disaster scenarios one can imagine resulting from those critiques. Rather, they see that current society isn't perfect, and could be improved by moving away from rigorously enforced neoclassical neoliberalism.

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

#412

Post by prodigal_erik »

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #284
MarchHare wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Busses in the US are often associated with poor people who can't afford a car Also, to be blunt, black people. I live in a pretty white area. If I didn't ride the bus, I could probably not see a single black person for a week or two at a time. Riding the bus, it's every day. And I'm quite sure a lot more people prefer the former scenario than will admit it (not that they necessarily have any particular animosity, b…

In part because the races are taught different norms about appropriate behavior in public. The black people sitting quietly aren't the ones everyone else is hesitant to be near.

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

#413

Post by jedberg »

cardiffspaceman wrote: post #386
dclowd9901 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It floors me that businesses are allowed to keep their parking lots off limits during non business hours. That alone would go a long way to freeing up spaces.

A property owner that allows the public onto their property needs to have insurance against claims that members of the public were injured by the property owner. Such claims can arise out of accidents that happen in the normal course of walking. The claim process itself is expensive to use for settling claims, regardless of the outcome, therefore the insurance premiums are significant. It is cheaper therefore, to onl…

I've seen places where this situation exists, and the supermarket will charge some amount of money to park in the lot, but make it free if you shop in the market. Seems like a reasonable solution. The paid parking covers the extra insurance and maintenance. Maybe you should suggest it to the market across from your bar. :)

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

#414

Post by verbify »

closeparen wrote: post #381
verbify wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not advocate for everyone living in cities. I advocated for more city housing, as currently it is unaffordable to many who do want to live in them due to demand outstripping supply. If you want to see my view as Pol Pot style authoritanrianism, well, I'm not even sure where to start. We need more city housing because there's plenty of demand. I understand plenty of people want to live in rural areas, and I wish…

Decreasing the viability of suburban life will create more pressure for urban apartments as suburbanites get tired of crowded trains and move to the city center. If your more housing comes with an effective requirement for everyone who works in the city to live in that housing, we should expect the price to go up .

> If your more housing comes with an effective requirement for everyone who works in the city to live in that housing

What? Where did I require that?

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

#415

Post by Ensorceled »

hackuser wrote: post #367
michaelmrose wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fleet of self driving cars equal to the maximum needed simultaneously can move around ferrying first one person then another to their destination. Car ownership requires at worst 1 car per person. Carpooling requires a lot of planning and only works for with individuals with similar scheduled routes and requires the humans to include the time to drop off additional passengers or pass control of the vehicle to anoth…

> A fleet of self driving cars equal to the maximum needed simultaneously can move around ferrying first one person then another to their destination. A fleet of taxis or cars from similar services could do the same. I don't see how the self-driving aspect changes the situation, other than possibly reducing cost by eliminating the driver.

More than 50% of the cost of operating a taxi is the driver.

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

#416

Post by usrusr »

optimuspaul wrote: post #290
usrusr wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For many people, that meander will save them more money than they will earn in any other 10 minute slot of the day. And sitting in a robocab is smartphone media consumption time (or time for a printed newspaper, if you're a Vicky), it's not terribly hard to tolerate minutes that way. A well designed (and sufficiently dense in usage) shared autonomous car system could also support usage patterns a lot more dynamic tha…

> if you're a Vicky What does that mean? Like someone from the victorian age? I think they are all dead.

Sorry for the confusion. Like the other answer said, as in neo-Victorian, the retro-tribe from The Diamond Age. I was hoping that the reference was buried deep enough in a tangent to be harmless, and you mostly figured it out from context anyways.

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

#417

Post by galdosdi »

o0-0o wrote: post #400
galdosdi wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we do each of those things because we want to strongly encourage their use. The unfairness is supposed to be outweighed by the social benefits to all by this encouragement. This is a good thing IF we think it's a good thing for people to: - Go to parks more, and be more relaxed and healthy, benefiting everyone - Get more education more, benefiting all of society - Drive more.... thus creating more traffic, accid…

Somehow I doubt your support of home schools. Even though the students perform better.

WTF? I didn't mention home schools. I'm in no way against them.

(I see your point though -- I think you are implying that since home school parents are not given any of the money that would be spent in the school district, this strongly encourages public schooling as opposed to home (or private) schooling. TBQH changing this to be fairer to home schoolers would be fine by me, seems like a parallel example. But whatever, I'm trying to have a conversation about transportation here, not education)

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

#418

Post by Anthony-G »

sergiosgc wrote: post #366
tjic wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm anarchocapitalist; I don't believe that "working democracy" is a thing. Or, perhaps, if it is a thing, it's not what you think it is.

I'm falling for the "someone on the Internet is wrong" trap, but neverthless: Anarchocapitalism is fundamentally flawed because it rests on the assumption that capitalist markets optimize for the best utility function. They don't. Further, even in the optimization they do provide, they are flawed. Capitalist markets are powerful optimization systems, but they routinely fail, in pretty well described scenarios. Namely…

That’s an interesting comment so thanks (and upvoted). I’ve come across the term “externality” used to refer to capitalist enterprises off-loading part of the cost of their economic activity to wider society, e.g. dumping chemical waste into a river. However, I wasn’t aware of what the term specifically means or the difference between positive and negative externalities. I was going to request a follow-up comment to enlighten me but it turns out that there’s already a good Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

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

#419

Post by jessaustin »

cauterized wrote: post #256
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…

Bus lanes are only as good as their enforcement. Which in my experience has typically been near zero. The de jure bus lane is the de facto parking lane.

You describe a political decision to make bus service suck. A police force that can't keep cars out of the bus lane when it is actually trying to do so is a police force that can't enforce any law.

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

#420

Post by criddell »

JamesBarney wrote: post #356
criddell wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

And I think everyone is OK with your choice, they just don't want to subsidize it.

I'm okay with taxes going up, but isn't that just how taxes are? Pacifists don't want their taxes to pay for the military. Pro-lifers don't want national healthcare to cover abortions. Some people think NASA is a waste of money.
Post reply on HN