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

431–440 of 455 posts

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

#431

Post by snrplfth »

zdragnar wrote: post #426
snrplfth wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's a large deadweight on the economy. It requires the production of considerable amounts of parking that is never, or almost never, used or needed by anybody. It makes parking easier only by hiding the cost of parking in everything else, in a wholly regressive way. And it's not a "commons problem" like air pollution - it's just the government deciding that a particular private good is nice, and everybody should…

That precisely describes the example I gave (sales tax that funds pointless art projects noone likes), except the cost to the economy, and the impact on the poor, is readily quantifiable, unlike hypotheses of various opportunity costs regarding parking. Saying all parking is funded the same way and has the same externalities is both reductionist and absurd. Furthermore, what value empty lots provide is entirely up to…

I'm not saying "all parking has the same externalities" - obviously, the first parking spot at a house has different impacts than the tenth. And of course people can do creative things with parking lots. I never said that they couldn't. What I am saying is that mandated parking, above what property owners want to provide, is a deadweight loss and can't be ignored. And, as is common in many suburbs, when parking and roads is frequently one-quarter of total land use, we have to consider that this could have a significant impact.

If what you desire is a walkable or Main-Street-y type urban form, you have to tackle parking minimums. Likewise if you want compact row housing and multi-storey apartments. If you don't want those things, that's fine, no problem. But if you do, you should consider that the dense urban form of older downtowns and main streets is basically impossible to build with current parking regulations.

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

#432

Post by sanderjd »

mantas wrote: post #320
sanderjd wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They'd drive quite a lot of junk miles, which is virtually non-existant for public transit. And wouldn't have several passengers either. Taxis don't have economy of scale passengers-wise either, but they try to minimise junk miles a lot. Sometimes event rejecting travels to certain destinations or charging 2x to cover return. I guess bottom line would end up ~ the same as current car sharing services. Cheaper if you…

I don't follow your logic here. Why would they need to drive more "junk miles" than taxis? It seems to me that there would be quite a bit more opportunities for optimization. How does the bottom line end up about the same as current car sharing services when you have removed one of the largest costs? Availability also seems easier to manage than with a fleet of people driving...

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

#433

Post by jessaustin »

michaelmrose wrote: post #154
forgettableuser wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Now you got me thinking more about what things might change with self-driving cars. Will cars offer an "orbiting" mode where they keep driving in a circle until you are ready to be picked up. Will stores offer a driving ring where cars can drive around in circles off the main street in the case where no parking slots are available? Will cars be able to drop you off, and park themselves when a space becom…

Driving in a circle still isn't free it either costs gas or electricity. When you park your car you are constrained to park it relatively nearby. Logically your car lacking a parking spot at your location will seek one nearby until it has traveled far enough that it is logical for it to turn around and drive back to you. In some cases perhaps it will rejoin the pool of available cars and you will picked up by a diffe…

Perhaps retailers...

Yes they'll be happy to pay a premium for delivery trucks that require no drivers. Time-of-day flexibility will enable serving more customers with the same size fleet. Many customers will be more willing to use delivery when they can plan around working hours and don't have to worry about tipping. Service levels won't be subject to mistakes in shift planning.

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

#434

Post by mixedCase »

brewdad wrote: post #362
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You pay for the cost of government elementary schools even if you homeschool your kids. Being a Floridian, we get a lot of retirees from other states (shocker, right?). A portion of these retirees don't like paying taxes for education. They say their kids are grown and they went to schools in other states, so why should they pay taxes for education?

Because they need the children of today to grow to be productive members of society who will fund the retirees' Social Security.

Too much education though, and they might become aware of the ponzi scheme they're being forced into.

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

#435

Post by ars »

lhc- wrote: post #394
mason240 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, people without cars benefit from parking lots at stores, because store wouldn't be able to stay open if they only catered to people without cars. You still enjoy the benefit of a society where people get to choose their transportation and more be productive, rather than everyone living in a bleak grey dystopian city where everyone is riding the bus and can't control when or where they want to travel.

But the article doesn't argue for NO parking lots; it argues that FREE parking lots are the issue. The stores could stay open with paid parking, and could lower costs for non-drivers because they no longer needed to subsidize that free parking by charging everyone more.

Any store that tried to make people pay for parking would go out of business equally as fast as one without parking. (i.e. in some places that would fly, in most it would not.)

Your store or entertainment or whatever better be something absolutely unique and special for me to be willing to pay for parking.

The reasons cities require stores to build free parking is otherwise people park in residential areas and annoy the residents with extra traffic.

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

#436

Post by jessaustin »

mantas wrote: post #145
sanderjd wrote: post #122

Earlier 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.

Future humans will laugh at this quaint preference for one's own generic auto. Perhaps there will still be a point to owning specialized vehicles that e.g. go over difficult terrain or have extra comfort amenities. The idea that one Hyundai Sonata could be preferred to another Hyundai Sonata, however, is very odd.

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

#437

Post by jessaustin »

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...

Many people would pay a premium not to have to pony up a down payment or deal with oil changes.

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

#438

Post by ars »

hx87 wrote: post #354
calvinbhai wrote: post #299

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 buildin…

If Walmart needs parking spaces in order to make revenue, then Walmart will put up parking spaces, government-mandated minimums or not.

You are forgetting that if Walmart doesn't provide the parking spaces people will park in the nearby residential areas.

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

#439

Post by skrap »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #265
CalRobert wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Increasing use of public transit benefits everyone, including by reducing greenhouse gas emissions" Which would be a good reason to put housing and amenities near the station instead of parking...

That does nothing to help existing residents utilize the rail station.

In this case, the city is only 4.3 square miles, and there's enough homes within walking distance to saturate the new transit stop. The garage isn't a commuter rail parking lot. Rather, it's a parking lot for people working at the school and city hall, on the presumption that they won't want to take the light rail to work.
Post reply on HN