Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking • Hacker News Board

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#81

Post by decafninja » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 8:36 PM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #59

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…

While I understand the sentiment, this makes cities even more unfriendly to families with kids. How can grandparents or relatives visit for a weekend?

I'll say it before someone else inevitably does - they're supposed to take public transportation and/or cabs.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#82

Post by criddell » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 8:36 PM UTC

0_____0 wrote: post #52

criddell wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking about other transit modes for medium and long distances and I'm having a hard time thinking of great ideas for where I live (central Texas). Public transportation is one, but the last thing many of us want to do right now is get on a crowded train. Bicycles are great until it gets too hot or too cold which is a pretty large chunk of the year. They also aren't an option for many of us with health is…

If you try to conceive of The One Weird Trick that will solve urban mobility, it's an impossible problem. The best general purpose plan I can conceive of is to build mixed housing and commercial in places where there is already decent transit. No parking minimums. Build in earnest for a city where people can literally walk to any errand they may need. European planners actually do this -- they require neighborhood pl…

But what's decent transit? I don't think mass transit options like buses or trains fit that description anymore, at least not for everyday.

Cities ultimately have to be built for the people who live there. In Austin, I'm pretty sure voters are going to continue to demand better car-based infrastructure first and then bus, train, and bicycle infrastructure second.

Definitely agree with mixing commercial and residential though. I live in the suburbs but that's because my office is also out here.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#83

Post by jabbany » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 8:37 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #66

jabbany wrote: post #53

The problem with paid parking at least in North America is that many/most cities are designed so that you need a car to get around -- driving is a necessity not a luxury. This makes paid parking feel like a tax rather than a service. Contrast that to, say, a dense city like Tokyo or Beijing where parking is both scarce and almost always comes at a cost. There is much less backlash, because you can get to pretty much…

Sure parking is a "tax", the same way the car payment, insurance, annual registration, maintenance, repairs, tolls, gas are all taxes. If someone can be expected to pay for all of this, why not parking as well?

Implying people are happy to pay those things...? There's just as much drama about all of those things as there is for parking. Have you seen how much people complain every time registration fees, insurance costs or gas prices increase?

Heck, the federal gas tax in the US has not been increased since 1993 because people are so sensitive about stuff like this...

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#84

Post by donjoe » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 8:38 PM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #59

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…

While I understand the sentiment, this makes cities even more unfriendly to families with kids. How can grandparents or relatives visit for a weekend?

I guess we have to ask ourselves a different question if we truly want to create a sustainable urban environment:

Why can grandparents only visit by car? Why are there no (better) alternatives?

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#85

Post by criddell » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 8:38 PM UTC

forty wrote: post #61

criddell wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we need a lot of investment in transportation alternatives. Some small changes can have a pretty minimal investment. The city of Austin lets motorcycles use street parking for free.

I live in the Paris, France area, and I think most people here that are not themselves driving such things are hoping that motorized two wheel vehicle gets outlawed. I'm not sure why, but people driving those seem to completely ignore driving laws (red lights, stop sign, lanes, etc) which makes them very dangerous and annoying. Not to mention the noise (for those which are not electric)

In Austin, motorcycles generally follow the same rules as cars. The two wheeled vehicles that seem to annoy most people are bicycles and for the reasons you state (except noise).

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#86

Post by zip1234 » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 8:38 PM UTC

dijonman2 wrote: post #76

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.

Cars are highly subsidized right now. I think it would be good for everyone, car lovers included, if all the externalities would be priced into car ownership. Noise, pollution, space taken up, and road damage should be priced into use of cars. Cars may be private property but they use ridiculous amounts of public space. Everyone can keep their car if they want, but the cost of car ownership should reflect the externalities. This could be done through tolls, annual registration fees based on noise, emissions, and usage or similar measures.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#87

Post by sokoloff » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 8:39 PM UTC

SECProto wrote: post #67

sokoloff wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Send the car on an errand and have it come back, or even send it “home” and summon it later. (I’m deeply skeptical that we’ll have level 5 self-driving cars in my lifetime, but if we do, we won’t need to pay $50 in today’s money to park anywhere…)

> Send the car on an errand and have it come back, or even send it “home” and summon it later Now imagine what this will do to rush hour traffic - There would be twice as many vehicle trips for the same number of people. Road tolls (particularly on unoccupied cars) would be needed as part of any solution, which everyone loves even more than parking fees.

A lot of rush hour traffic is asymmetric so increasing the number of cars headed on the reverse commute isn’t as bad as doubling them on the primary direction. I suspect new equilibriums would arise pretty naturally, with a mix of solutions depending on the circumstances.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#88

Post by rahimnathwani » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 8:39 PM UTC

SECProto wrote: post #67

sokoloff wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Send the car on an errand and have it come back, or even send it “home” and summon it later. (I’m deeply skeptical that we’ll have level 5 self-driving cars in my lifetime, but if we do, we won’t need to pay $50 in today’s money to park anywhere…)

> Send the car on an errand and have it come back, or even send it “home” and summon it later Now imagine what this will do to rush hour traffic - There would be twice as many vehicle trips for the same number of people. Road tolls (particularly on unoccupied cars) would be needed as part of any solution, which everyone loves even more than parking fees.

"Road tolls (particularly on unoccupied cars)"

Why should the number of occupants affect the amount of the toll?

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#89

Post by criddell » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 8:40 PM UTC

SECProto wrote: post #67

sokoloff wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Send the car on an errand and have it come back, or even send it “home” and summon it later. (I’m deeply skeptical that we’ll have level 5 self-driving cars in my lifetime, but if we do, we won’t need to pay $50 in today’s money to park anywhere…)

> Send the car on an errand and have it come back, or even send it “home” and summon it later Now imagine what this will do to rush hour traffic - There would be twice as many vehicle trips for the same number of people. Road tolls (particularly on unoccupied cars) would be needed as part of any solution, which everyone loves even more than parking fees.

Tolls of some type are probably the answer to shaping congestion. If my car is going to pick up my dry cleaning, I probably only care that I have it by tomorrow and don't care if my car picks it up at 10 am or 10 pm.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#90

Post by initplus » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 8:40 PM UTC

devchix wrote: post #18

The core of this post is the linked article The Pseudoscience of Parking Requirements . The core of that article is three bullet points: • Remove off-street parking requirements. Developers and businesses can then decide how many parking spaces to provide for their customers. • Charge the right prices for on-street parking. The right prices are the lowest prices that will leave one or two open spaces on each block, s…

Removing off street parking transitions from an "everyone pays" model to a "user pays" model.

Under a user pays model, parking will be allocated to those who need it the most. Those whose need for parking is not as strong will make more use of alternatives. But when everybody pays there is no incentive to reduce individual consumption, as you will not personally be better off.

If you have office workers why must you allocate parking? Why can't some of those office workers choose to take the bus or a train, or cycle or walk? When the cost of driving is subsidised by everyone, there is no incentive to consider or develop these alternatives.