Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

econlib.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 195 posts

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#71

Post by dpark »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #55
dpark wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see how removing off-street parking requirements would address anything. It doesn’t. It allows developers to dump the problem on public streets. Seattle does this stuff now. 42 unit buildings with 5 parking spots. This is great for developers. They get to build more units and let Seattle deal with the additional parking pressure. It’s car hostile, which fine, but then you need to provide alternatives to the…

Agreed, it's not enough to just be car-hostile. Pain and inconvenience do not automatically lead to increased public transit utilization.

Especially not when public transit is extremely inconvenient and painful.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#72

Post by ctdonath »

Think: why am I parking there? Who benefits? Will added friction hinder? How does charging enhance that benefit, making me want to pay vs avoid?

We’re in the age of COVID, discovering the benefits of not going places, and creating new options not to. Charging for parking makes me reconsider going there at all, raising the cost and hassle - more likely to go elsewhere, stay home and do remotely, or forego the activity. Low-cost or low-planning activities don’t happen if parking sets minimum cost to >$0; random purchases will be passed up. If I do pay for parking, I expect convenience, security, and ease for the act. I’m less likely to visit a local city precisely because parking will at least double my cost getting there (gas); I’d rather spend that $ going somewhere farther, more interesting and free parking.

Want more business? Figure out how to make it cheaper for me to be there: reduce friction, make parking free and easy.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#73

Post by beaconstudios »

nostromo wrote: post #64

People supporting "new urbanism" -- a camp I was in until pretty recently -- should come look around downtown Seattle and see how it's working out. Our downtown is a grim wasteland. Shoppers, workers and residents have voted with their feet -- and they voted to avoid downtown. And it's not just Covid. The suburbs are booming. Walkable areas (most with free parking) in the 'burbs have new stores opening and have crowd…

Isn't that just because people live in the suburbs? I think your example proves the opposite point to the one you're making - people would rather live in walkable mixed developments than have their destinations zoned away from their accommodation.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#74

Post by 0_____0 »

sokoloff wrote: post #63
0_____0 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you approach the issue holistically, you both improve transit and wind down subsidies and aids for drivers. Tangent: there's an interesting equilibrium effect with commuter traffic - if a commute is served by an automobile route and a train line, the commute times will be similar. If for some reason, automobile traffic is delayed by loss of road capacity, over the long term some of that auto traffic will switch mo…

I can believe that; I look at total door to door time as the primary factor in choosing my transit (with cost as a second, but pretty distant second [I’m not commuting daily into the city->I’d have to consider cost higher if doing it 20x/month]). I live in Cambridge, MA (1.4 miles from the Boston red line subway) and, excluding rides where I’m coming home from the airport, I bet I ride the subway less than once per y…

Somerville here :)

Like you, I commute to somewhere where it's annoying to take transit. I've settled on a combination of cycling, WFH and driving on occasion. I can pick up a rail trail for about half my commute, which means that it's actually faster to bike than to dive.

I'm actually looking for employment that's a little bit closer. If I worked within about a 2 mile radius, I'd actually have a feasibly walk-only lifestyle.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#75

Post by eertami »

0_____0 wrote: post #25
chizhik-pyzhik wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one is giving up their cars When you live in the downtown of a city, and parking at your apartment is $300/month, that's a strong incentive to give up your car

As I've found out first hand, when you live in a neighborhood where it's more convenient to walk to the grocery, gym, bar, friends' houses, it really makes you wonder what you're spending all that money on that car for. Not just the parking spot, but depreciation, fuel, maintenance, insurance, parking tickets...

> it's more convenient to walk to the grocery, gym, bar, friends' houses, it really makes you wonder what you're spending all that money on that car for

I would never use my car for any of those examples (living in a small EU city). The car is just there for leisure activities, to access skiing in winter and mountain biking/hiking/camping spots in the summer. Yeah it's more expensive than not owning a car but for some hobbies it's hard to give it up.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#76

Post by dijonman2 »

bognition wrote: post #3

I can't help but think that many of our economic, social, and environmental issues stem from a culture of cars. Cars push out urban sprawl weakening economies of scale, cars take up a massive amount of expensive real-estate (roads and parking), cars produce a tremendous amount of pollution in addition the environmental impacts of the previous two points. At least in the US, I do not see a path forwards tho. The house…

There isn’t a single appropriate viewpoint, I think cars are amazing and I will never be giving mine up. I support those who want to trade theirs in, but don’t force that on me.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#77

Post by ghaff »

ars wrote: post #39
jurassic wrote: post #24

I think non-residential street parking, paid or not, should probably be illegal. Or at least eye-wateringly expensive and limited to a few minutes at a time (e.g. food pickups). I say this as someone who drives regularly. The lack of visibility street parking creates in densely developed areas is a major safety hazard for all. Cyclists can get doored, drivers have diminished environmental awareness of things such as…

> I think non-residential street parking, paid or not, should probably be illegal. Or at least eye-wateringly expensive and limited to a few minutes at a time So basically you don't want me to go there. Ok, I won't. I'll take my business somewhere else. I personally never shop at small local stores in my area because of lack of parking. I go to the huge stores 10 minutes away that have parking lots.

I'm not sure why this is a controversial take. I absolutely make decisions about activities, where I shop or eat, etc. based on whether--if I drive into the city--I can find parking and, if so, how expensive it is. Cities (and to a lesser degree businesses) can absolutely decide they don't care if they discourage people from coming in from outside. And I'll act accordingly. Which is fine.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#78

Post by zip1234 »

jimbob45 wrote: post #11
chizhik-pyzhik wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The path forward is zoning changes. Make it legal to build small apartments in a neighborhood, make it legal to run a corner shop, etc. We can build walkable environments in suburban hellscapes if we tweak the laws.

I like this framing of the zoning issue much more than “build build build on every scrap of land you can get your hands on”. Ownership of land is really important for ensuring everyone in America is literally bought into the American Dream. Until you’re ready to buy a house, I feel no compunction forcing you into high-density housing in the meantime (paired with greatly increasing low-income mortgage assistance).

Zoning means someone that owns a property cannot do with it as they see fit. How does allowing individual people to make their own decisions about their land have anything to do with forcing people into high density?

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#79

Post by thatfrenchguy »

godot wrote: post #26
emptybits wrote: post #9

> Rational people quickly become emotional about parking ... Thinking about parking seems to take place in the reptilian cortex, the most primitive part of the brain responsible for snap judgments about urgent fight-or-flight issues, such as how to avoid being eaten. Lol. A bit melodramatic, but sure. Charge for it, yes, but give motorists a civilized experience when possible. Some of the emotion and impatience and a…

I feel like that's not all of it; there is a certain expectation for parking to be free from many people and I feel like it's because the demand for parking can be drastically different in geographically nearby locations. For example, in the bay area, parking in SF is difficult to say the least and usually in paid garages. But go less than 30 miles to east bay (far east or south east bay, not Oakland or Berkeley), pa…

> For example, in the bay area, parking in SF is difficult to say the least and usually in paid garages.

Funnily enough, when you live in SF, you find parking to be easy and mostly free :-)

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#80

Post by sokoloff »

0_____0 wrote: post #74
sokoloff wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can believe that; I look at total door to door time as the primary factor in choosing my transit (with cost as a second, but pretty distant second [I’m not commuting daily into the city->I’d have to consider cost higher if doing it 20x/month]). I live in Cambridge, MA (1.4 miles from the Boston red line subway) and, excluding rides where I’m coming home from the airport, I bet I ride the subway less than once per y…

Somerville here :) Like you, I commute to somewhere where it's annoying to take transit. I've settled on a combination of cycling, WFH and driving on occasion. I can pick up a rail trail for about half my commute, which means that it's actually faster to bike than to dive. I'm actually looking for employment that's a little bit closer. If I worked within about a 2 mile radius, I'd actually have a feasibly walk-only l…

I had that living by Museum of Science and later in Cambridgeport and walking to Kendall Sq for years. It was awesome! When it came time to have a family, a one BR apartment didn’t cut it any more so we moved to a less dense part of Cambridge and I got a job in a suburban office park just off Rt 128 with a reverse commute. My 9 mile commute time went way down, but it’s not nearly as pleasant as a 1.5 mile walk in the city.
Post reply on HN