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

441–450 of 455 posts

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

#441

Post by michaelmrose »

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.

Most people can't afford to commute via taxi and commuting by bus is hindered by routes that are geographically and temporally limited.

Self driving cars by displacing the driver may eventually be cheap and flexible enough to compete with ownership.

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

#442

Post by wodenokoto »

tjic wrote: post #387
tgb wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've missed the point of the article. People who don't use public transportation subsidize those who do, but we're OK with that as a society in large part because many need to use public transportation; the young, the disabled, anyone who can't afford a car and or to live next to their work and a grocery store. Similarly, we subsidize schooling and school lunches. But subsidizing parking is the opposite of…

No, you're doing EXACTLY what I was calling out. You've got your own ethical / utility function and are explaining to me that basket of goods X is ideal bc it's exactly the basket that your ethical / utilitarian code wants, and basket Y is very bad, because it's the basket that other people want. This is special pleading.

By that logic the current basket is special pleading and any basket is as good as the other.

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

#443

Post by Eric_WVGG »

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.

Healthier too, as much of that time is spent walking or standing instead of sitting on your ass.

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

#444

Post by mantas »

sanderjd wrote: post #432
mantas wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Over there, taxis refuse going out of city limits or even to remote parts of town where they know they won't have a passenger back. They have reserved spots for parking in many areas (just idle in grey-legal spots). There would be many autonomous cars and they'd follow rules more strictly I guess. So they'd have to drive off to find some parking. Then come back to pick up next customer. They'd drive a shitload of junk miles to pick up/drop off people to suburbs. Taxis either refuse such trips or charge $$$.

Current car sharing service (e.g. zipcar) is virtually the same as autonomous car sharing. You're not removing any large costs. Fleet balance is arguably the only cost removed. But it seems to be more or less solved problem even without autonomous cars. At least in my city, they no longer require to return (most) cars to the same lot. Wether car is autonomous or not, you still have to purchase the vehicle, pay insurance, gas, maintenance... Same price. The only change would be paying for idle car, it could drive back by itself. But user would have to pay for those junk miles. Which may be the same as paying for idling in the long run.

If car sharing service would want to have good availability at any time, they'd have a lot of overhead cars. Which would increase the cost. Otherwise they'd have to have reservations. And we get into a whole can of worms..

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

#445

Post by mantas »

jessaustin wrote: post #436
mantas wrote: post #145

Earlier 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.

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.

People already laugh at people who love their vehicles to death. They don't drive a generic car though. Those people can usually explain why they drive that specific vehicle with those specific addons in no less than an hour.

For the record, I drive a stock car. I like few extra comfort bits I got, but many cars got that these days. I'm fine with people having fun in a way I don't get though.

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

#446

Post by mantas »

jessaustin wrote: post #437
mantas wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What percentage of population? 5%? In mean time, people buy used cars for the amount of down payment, if not less. And do oil changes themselves because it's cheaper.

There're already services that cater to those people. Full-service car leases, regular car sharing etc. People who want that already use them. But they don't seem to get that wide adoption. If shared autonomous cars would be adopted as widely, they wouldn't change traffic flow much.

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

#447

Post by TulliusCicero »

overcyn wrote: post #390
TulliusCicero wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They aren't forcing subsidized parking. They're forcing the construction of parking lots and structures. The part where they're required to build these lots virtually always results in subsidized parking. Yes, technically you could charge for spots, and then they wouldn't be subsidized, but in practice that's so much effort that it's much easier to just let the spots be free. For most businesses, running a paid par…

Like you say, for most businesses running a paid parking scheme is too much overhead to be worth it. But you would remove requirements for minimum amounts of parking. So wouldn't you expect in areas with limited parking the issue to be exacerbated, since business would have less incentive to build parking? You say that the city can then charge for parking, but also that they already do it, so not much would change th…

> So wouldn't you expect in areas with limited parking the issue to be exacerbated, since business would have less incentive to build parking?

Yes. This is actually the natural outcome one would expect from the market; it takes a lot of resources to provide storage for cars, and those costs will result in things like, say, less parking.

> You say that the city can then charge for parking, but also that they already do it, so not much would change there...

Many (most?) cities do it in a small part of their urban core. I'm suggesting they could expand those areas. They can also adjust the price of parking as the supply:demand ratio changes.

Additionally, past a certain point, it becomes worthwhile for developers to create parking garages as a standalone business.

> Re-planning cities takes a long time. Do you suggest people just take taxis/uber for a decade until public transportation catches up? Might not be the worst idea.

Of course not. Removing parking requirements wouldn't result in massive change overnight. There would be plenty of time to improve transit (and walking and biking) as the number of parking spaces gradually declined.

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

#449

Post by criddell »

JamesBarney wrote: post #422
criddell wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The military, healthcare, and NASA are have at least some aspect of being a public good. But that's not true of the suburbs, it's just a lifestyle choice. And it's just as weird as the federal government heavily subsidizing video game purchases.(ignoring externalities.)

The Quakers I grew up with might argue with you about the military, but I get what you are saying.

Maybe a better comparison would be the tax deduction for mortgage interest or agricultural subsidies.

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

#450

Post by InitialLastName »

closeparen wrote: post #377
InitialLastName wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a data point, I pay $2310/mo (total, not individual) for a 3-bedroom apartment in a safe, vibrant, reasonably commutable part of Manhattan. The NYC residents you're talking about are making poor decisions with their money.

Is it under rent control? (Otherwise I have totally misread the NYC housing market, thank you).

Rent stabilized (they can't change it more than some % per year), but in my experience not far off the market.

To be sure, there are $3000 1-bedroom apartments around as well.

Post reply on HN