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

181–190 of 195 posts

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#181

Post by sokoloff »

Symmetry wrote: post #125
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…)

Why do that when you could send it somewhere where parking is cheap? The behind anti-cruising laws is to prevent cars from jamming up popular locations, if you send it somewhere other than your destination block then the law is working.

If there’s a place nearby that’s more advantageous than a farther away place, people will naturally do that. It would hopefully spur some competition for economy parking someplace close but not in the city center.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#182

Post by rahimnathwani »

SECProto wrote: post #178
rahimnathwani wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A larger toll on empty cars would disincentivize it more." A larger toll on all cars would disincentivize it just as much. My point is: why not set the toll at an optimum level, and then let each car owner decide whether it's worth the car driving at a particular time and place? If we want to charge people based on the contents of the car, why not charge lower tolls for cars with 5 occupants instead of 4. Or lower t…

> My point is: why not set the toll at an optimum level, and then let each car owner decide whether it's worth the car driving at a particular time and place? Because to a person stuck in traffic, seeing a bunch of empty cars beside you wasting space is infuriating regardless of if they paid the government their $3 toll or whatever > If we want to charge people based on the contents of the car, why not charge lower t…

"a bunch of empty cars beside you wasting space"

So if you're sending your car to pick up your grandparents, you are 'wasting space' for the first leg of the journey if you don't sit in the car during the round trip?

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#183

Post by SECProto »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #182
SECProto wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point is: why not set the toll at an optimum level, and then let each car owner decide whether it's worth the car driving at a particular time and place? Because to a person stuck in traffic, seeing a bunch of empty cars beside you wasting space is infuriating regardless of if they paid the government their $3 toll or whatever > If we want to charge people based on the contents of the car, why not charge lower t…

"a bunch of empty cars beside you wasting space" So if you're sending your car to pick up your grandparents, you are 'wasting space' for the first leg of the journey if you don't sit in the car during the round trip?

Correct, yes, and I feel that a higher road usage toll is appropriate for that leg of the journey.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#184

Post by jabbany »

newaccount74 wrote: post #156
jabbany wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice people do this all the time already because there's no perfect enforcement. Plenty of people will risk parking in "no parking" / "permit only" spaces if they expect to only be away for a short duration (<30 mins).

That's true. But I was also thinking that long term parking should be expensive -- when long term parking is cheap, you won't find a space. The worst places in the city to park are streets where residents are allowed to park free / cheap. There's almost never a free spot! I lived in a street like that, and it was really annoying. Visitors / people running errands wouldn't find a spot, and residents wouldn't find a sp…

Hmm, many parking starved cities I've lived in tend to have permit systems in the especially bad areas that (1) only allow residents to acquire permits and (2) have ramping cost structures (like $0-$10/mo for the first permit per household, ramping to something really high like $100/mo for like the third).

It's also pretty common for apartment complexes to have a "loading only" spot in front of a building for deliveries and moving etc.

Also most cities tend to have restrictions for free street parking like "no more than 72hrs in a spot". Although I suspect this is to discourage RVs...

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#185

Post by dpark »

tptacek wrote: post #180
dpark wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely do not understand your argument. That’s why I’ve asked you to clarify it several times. This is what I responded to: > What we should be doing is eliminating all off-street parking requirements […] and then simply charging for convenient on-street parking I don’t understand how this solves for any parking issues. It seems like it will create a significant parking issue. There is insufficient street parki…

None of our problems involve insufficient street parking.

You’re strangely curt. I think your proposal would absolutely result in insufficient street parking. That seems self-evident since the plan starts with charging enough to reduce street parking congestion.

Fine if you don’t want to discuss, though.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#186

Post by tptacek »

dpark wrote: post #185
tptacek wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of our problems involve insufficient street parking.

You’re strangely curt. I think your proposal would absolutely result in insufficient street parking. That seems self-evident since the plan starts with charging enough to reduce street parking congestion. Fine if you don’t want to discuss, though.

No part of our problems involve street congestion.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#187

Post by jdminhbg »

vkou wrote: post #170
jdminhbg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even outside of "cheating" like this, self-driving would have a pretty significant impact on parking economics. You don't need to have parking spread throughout the city in convenient places, because you can send your car to the central parking depot while you're shopping and recall it when you're done.

This sounds wonderful, except for the part where your desire to avoid paying for parking is creating gridlock for everyone else, as your car drives around, creating traffic. [1] Since I'm not interested in paying the taxes necessary to double the amount of roads in town, and since I hate traffic, I'd rather just make what you describe illegal [2], just like how many other nuisances are illegal on public roadways. It…

I think you misunderstood. I'm not talking about driving around in a holding pattern. I'm saying that instead of interspersing valuable real estate with parking lots so that people can walk from their car to the shop/restaurant, you can put all the parking in one (realistically, a few) places.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#188

Post by donjoe »

donatj wrote: post #159
donjoe wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this is exactly the opposite to an urban environment - this is urban sprawl. Is it better to construct and maintain 75 miles of roads (and all the other infrastructure) for a couple of hundred folks? I highly recommend this video on the finances around urban sprawl and their long term consequences: https://youtu.be/XfQUOHlAocY

Huh, so at 2:23 the speaker brings up Brainerd Minnesota. A town I am very familiar with, having visited family there many times growing up. Cute little town, big chunk of the economy is people coming up to go fishing. He really cherry picked the least flattering angle on modern Front Street. Here's a better angle - https://goo.gl/maps/CBnqs6i9YLG1mSEG6 It's a very strange town to pick to make an argument about spraw…

I just see a huge parking lot. What do you see?

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#189

Post by forty »

criddell wrote: post #85
forty wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Yes, bicycles too, maybe worse. But I tolerate them better because at least it's good for our planet. Also when I drive (very very rarely), I have been much more annoyed by motorcycles which are passing on the right or driving between cars than by bicycles which tend to only be in areas where you can to drive really slow anyway, do it's much less dangerous.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#190

Post by kar5pt »

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.

You think that because you live in a society that's been designed around cars. if that wasn't the case, you wouldn't need your car so much.
Post reply on HN