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

The High Cost of Free Parking (2005)

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: The High Cost of Free Parking (2005)

#51

Post by elyobo »

jj999 wrote: post #27
Gigachad wrote: post #16

Imo, street side parking in cities should just be scrapped. It makes no sense for the public to pay so much money to allow people to park particular kinds of private property for free. Pushing all parking on to businesses own lots or in dedicated parking facilities would let the market adequately price parking rather than externalising the cost.

In my building, there are 40 units... and 6 parking places in the basement. Most of the city is this way. Street side parking is the only way to go. TBH I prefer trees and grass over parking lots. I would not change it.

> I prefer trees and grass over parking lots

I don't see a meaningful distinction between a consolidated parking lot and one that's distributed along the side of the road when it comes to tree and grass cover. For dense urban situations car parking buildings allow more than either surface lots or surface street parking.

Re: The High Cost of Free Parking (2005)

#53

Post by felixfbecker »

kijin wrote: post #45
alex_young wrote: post #21

The city center in many European cities does not have street parking of any sort, private cars are largely or entirely banned, and they are some of the most livable, walkable, and vibrant urban areas.

That's because most of those cities were built up before cars existed, and even horse-drawn carriages were a luxury for the few. Many American cities on the other hand have grown up with the car, with wide streets dividing neighborhoods, and essential facilities scattered far away from one another. Reducing car usage in a typical American city (not downtown Manhattan) is not just a matter of banning cars or replacing…

This is untrue. Most American cities were built before the car and even had wide streetcar networks. Buildings and (often poor and black) neighborhoods were torn down to make way for urban highways. Car manufacturers literally bought up streetcar companies just to rip out tracks and sell more cars.

Europe picked up on this trend too a little delayed in many places, but luckily not to the same degree and realized the bad direction more quickly.

Re: The High Cost of Free Parking (2005)

#54

Post by supertrope »

Loocid wrote: post #18
WD40forRust wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are right. There are already places like that, which are "Papers Please!" about travel outside assigned zones.

Can you give some examples?

Conspiracy theorists have distorted proposals for congestion zones into much more nefarious things. This not much different than a street not allowing large trucks, or turning over lanes to only HOV, bus or taxi use.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-15-minute-city-conspir...

Re: The High Cost of Free Parking (2005)

#55

Post by htfu »

justin101 wrote: post #8
tessierashpool wrote: post #2

I love my car, but building cities around cars was an epic mistake, and making those cars electric will not change that.

[flagged]

I mean yes, it's unironically better if something that ruins things for everyone is restricted to be a luxury good, because less of a bad thing (congestion, pollution, space, death etc) is a good thing even if some lucky fuckers (not enough to meaningfully impact the larger effect) manage to skirt the spirit of the law.

Private cars will eventually be banned from cities, though, I'm sure of that. But it will take a long time. Congestion pricing and such are baby steps and is just you finally paying for your previously free externalities, and yes the market (in this case society/dominant politics) gets to set the price. Tough luck, welcome to proper capitalism.

Re: The High Cost of Free Parking (2005)

#56

Post by Gigachad »

Arainach wrote: post #30
Gigachad wrote: post #16

Imo, street side parking in cities should just be scrapped. It makes no sense for the public to pay so much money to allow people to park particular kinds of private property for free. Pushing all parking on to businesses own lots or in dedicated parking facilities would let the market adequately price parking rather than externalising the cost.

Per-business lots are incredibly inefficient. They have to optimize for peak demand or lose sales during crucial peak seasons - when was thr last time you saw a Walmart parking lot full? They make it more difficult to visit multiple stops in one trip. Instead of parking downtown, going to an appointment and grabbing lunch I have to move my car in between those trips, generating more emissions and waste.

They don't have to be per business. In Australian cities at least, you'll have one multi level parking facility which serves the whole area. It's entirely funded by the user rather than the tax payer and is even more effective.

Re: The High Cost of Free Parking (2005)

#57

Post by userbinator »

totetsu wrote: post #34
userbinator wrote: post #3

[flagged]

I really want to know what 5D chess went on to make put "livable cities" and "urban planning" on the truther, red-pilled, plandemic, crowds hit list. It is something that should be examined and critically discussed thats not what i'm talking about I'm talking about how suddenly people who have never so much as listened to an episode of 99PI before or showen any interest are suddenly passionately saying livable cities…

are suddenly passionately saying livable cities are a way to control us.

Look at what the government and Big Tech are doing. There are constant articles here being posted about surveillance, loss of privacy, etc. It's a whole lot easier to control the population when you gradually make it harder for them to travel unhindered and untracked.

Chickens in a factory farm can be described as being in "livable" conditions. After all, they are still alive and healthy enough (for a controlled period of time.)

They're only calling it a "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to discredit the other side.

Who benefits from the propagation of this idea?

Everyone who still believes in freedom.

Re: The High Cost of Free Parking (2005)

#59

Post by userbinator »

supertrope wrote: post #54
Loocid wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give some examples?

Conspiracy theorists have distorted proposals for congestion zones into much more nefarious things. This not much different than a street not allowing large trucks, or turning over lanes to only HOV, bus or taxi use. https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-15-minute-city-conspir...

People thought Stallman was a crazy conspiracy theorist 20 years ago. Now we know he was just unusually prescient (and there's still an ongoing campaign against him.)

They're just boiling the frog slowly enough and hoping we don't notice.

Re: The High Cost of Free Parking (2005)

#60

Post by dfiohnio »

userbinator wrote: post #57
totetsu wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really want to know what 5D chess went on to make put "livable cities" and "urban planning" on the truther, red-pilled, plandemic, crowds hit list. It is something that should be examined and critically discussed thats not what i'm talking about I'm talking about how suddenly people who have never so much as listened to an episode of 99PI before or showen any interest are suddenly passionately saying livable cities…

are suddenly passionately saying livable cities are a way to control us. Look at what the government and Big Tech are doing. There are constant articles here being posted about surveillance, loss of privacy, etc. It's a whole lot easier to control the population when you gradually make it harder for them to travel unhindered and untracked. Chickens in a factory farm can be described as being in "livable" conditions.…

[dead]
Post reply on HN