Live data from Hacker News

Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

econlib.org

191–195 of 195 posts

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Road tolls (particularly on unoccupied cars)" Why should the number of occupants affect the amount of the toll?

To disincentivize cars driving around empty.

You mean like the autonomous delivery van?

Clearly it's not that simple and we want certain vehicles to be devoid of human occupants.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#192
post #131
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if day to day errands are reasonably walkable/bikable/transitable, in most US cities you're adding a lot of overhead and inconvenience for carless people who want to regularly get out of the city on weekends. Very few people I know (so somewhat older folks) don't own cars even in walkable cities.

Speaking as someone who lived in the Bay Area, most of the impediment to getting out of town on the weekends was traffic on 80/101 from people commuting to and from work. Once you escaped past Sacramento most of the traffic disappeared.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#193
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying for parking changes the calculus of life. It makes everything significantly more expensive and really puts a damper on membership type things. Like we've got a membership to the children's museum. But parking is ~$15 a time so we go far less frequently than we otherwise would. Economic arguments about freeloading are good and something I theoretically agree with. But in practice when the other option is 2 buss…

To some extent, this is the very point of having these charges. They relieve congestion on scarce resources by ensuring the only people using it are the people who want it really badly and are willing to pay, in either time, money, or inconvenience.

> this is the very point of having these charges. They relieve congestion

Yes.

>> ensuring the only people using it are the people who want it really badly

Not necessarily. People using it could just have more money.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#194
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’ve lived in major cities and went over a decade without a car. I won’t be going back.

Re: Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking

#195
post #49
post #42

We’ve a massive problem here in Western Europe (UK and Ireland) with people parking on the footpath (sidewalk). They’ll put all four wheels up blocking the passage all pedestrians rather than use their driveway or a legal space. Unfortunately there is little to no enforcement.

Apparently nowhere it is as much of a problem as in Russia. Stop a Douchebag has two entire Youtube channels (with shockingly frequent releases) to film people driving (often quite recklessly) and parking on the sidewalks of Moscow and Saint Petersburg. https://www.youtube.com/c/StopaDouchebag https://www.youtube.com/c/StopaDouchebagWorld

I’ve watched several of these now. What’s incredible is how they expose the entitlement of those illegally parking and how quickly they lie and exaggerate rather that admit fault. It’s exactly how it unfolds here when some driver nearly kills me on my bike reacts.
Post reply on HN