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

91–100 of 195 posts

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#91

Post by donatj »

donjoe wrote: post #84
aeternum wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because when you live 75 miles from the nearest major city, in a township of a couple hundred, a bus line or really any sort of infrastructure for that matter isn't practical?

I think a lot of people forget how sparse much of the country really is.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#92

Post by ctdonath »

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…

Is the public transit free? If not, then it’s friction hindering being there, adding baseline cost just to be there. Having added cost, I’m expecting commensurate payoff for being there. I’m apt to just peruse/enjoy if no cost to be there (and likely spend on a whim), but if it’s $10 just to be there then I’m expecting to spend >$100 on something - and I’m likely to balk at that, and not go at all.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#93

Post by [deleted] »

ghaff wrote: post #77
ars wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#94

Post by userbinator »

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…

HN seems to have a radical anti-car faction, which is probably why you're being downvoted, but I agree. Turning cities into the equivalent atmosphere of a factory farm is a disturbing trend which seems to mainly come from one side of the political spectrum, the same one that's also anti-car.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#95

Post by criddell »

brk wrote: post #65
criddell wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If parking gets too expensive, I can imagine self-driving cars circling the block until the owner is ready to go.

Fortunately we're still quite a long ways away from self driving cars in the sense of truly driverless cars that can be relied upon to navigate safely on their own in random settings, like a city block.

Yeah, for sure.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote about his experience in a Waymo and he came to an interesting conclusion. Because self driving cars always defer to pedestrians, pedestrians will get very bold and not be scared about stepping off the curb in front of a self driving car. It could mean traveling through dense urban centers by car is almost impossible.

Of course, car owners vote in enough numbers that, if this were to happen, I could see cities installing barriers between side walks and streets like Las Vegas has in the strip area.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#96

Post by paganel »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #45
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…

>The lack of visibility street parking creates in densely developed areas is a major safety hazard for all. I believe that when used right*, "lack of visibility" can be a very useful design feature to get drivers to Slow The Fuck Down. In general, North American fetishization of "clear lines of sight", leading to removal of supposed "obstacles" like trees, bushes, etc., leads to streets that are far easier to speed o…

> "lack of visibility" can be a very useful design feature to get drivers to Slow The Fuck Down.

That's why I personally do, as I live in such a city with cars parked literally everywhere so that in order to drive safe I need to slow down. As you imply, it's almost a feature, not a bug.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#97

Post by beaconstudios »

zip1234 wrote: post #78
jimbob45 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Zoning is good. It came about because industrialists were building factories next to people's houses and they were dying of pollutant inhalation. You need rules for what kind of buildings can go together, but the historic mistake (intentional or not) was to zone retail away from housing and force everybody to drive to get to anything that isn't a single family home.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#98

Post by 0_____0 »

eertami wrote: post #75
0_____0 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 som…

Same. Most places in the US aren't built in a way where everyday errands are walkable. I feel insanely lucky to have semi-randomly ended up in one of the few places that are. I'm in love with the format of small European cities, enough that I'm considering attempting to emigrate before trying to start a family.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#99

Post by ctdonath »

chizhik-pyzhik wrote: post #16
newaccount2021 wrote: post #6

remove or charge for parking and people park on the street...no one is giving up their cars, all of the social engineering just ends up creating more problems in many Bay Area communities you will see cars as tightly aligned on both sides of residential streets as is physically possible...homeowners don't even have room to put out trash bins without blocking their own drives. and why? because apartment complexes and…

> 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

That’s strong incentive to give up living downtown, parking costing 1/4 of far more spacious accommodations (with lots of parking).

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#100

Post by donatj »

> Rational people quickly become emotional about parking, and staunch conservatives turn into ardent communists

I don't follow the reasoning. Conservatives are against taxes, right? How is not wanting a tax on parking, something that is naturally free, "communist"?

Post reply on HN