Live data from Hacker News

Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

washingtonpost.com

421–430 of 455 posts

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#421
post #245

Meh. You also pay for the cost of public parks even if you never use them. You pay for the cost of government elementary schools even if you homeschool your kids. etc. Now, I'm an anarchocapitalist and would love to see all of these costs unbundled, so that we each pay only for what we use. ...but the other 99.9% of folks in our society think that it is reasonable to have one-size-fits-all solutions, where a single b…

[I] would love to see all of these costs unbundled, so that we each pay only for what we use.

If you don't like subsidies, why make such a show of arguing in favor of this subsidy? (Sure, from a particular idiosyncratic point of view, you aren't so arguing, but you've deliberately left that quite ambiguous...)

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I think everyone is OK with your choice, they just don't want to subsidize it.

I'm okay with taxes going up, but isn't that just how taxes are? Pacifists don't want their taxes to pay for the military. Pro-lifers don't want national healthcare to cover abortions. Some people think NASA is a waste of money.

The military, healthcare, and NASA are have at least some aspect of being a public good.

But that's not true of the suburbs, it's just a lifestyle choice. And it's just as weird as the federal government heavily subsidizing video game purchases.(ignoring externalities.)

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#423
post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, people without cars benefit from parking lots at stores, because store wouldn't be able to stay open if they only catered to people without cars. You still enjoy the benefit of a society where people get to choose their transportation and more be productive, rather than everyone living in a bleak grey dystopian city where everyone is riding the bus and can't control when or where they want to travel.

But the article doesn't argue for NO parking lots; it argues that FREE parking lots are the issue. The stores could stay open with paid parking, and could lower costs for non-drivers because they no longer needed to subsidize that free parking by charging everyone more.

"NO parking lots" is, in this case, analogous to "NO paying for parking lots."

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#424
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also roads are built for the peak consumption. Outside the peak, there's generally excess capacity quietly eating away space from pedestrians and human beings.

This is VERY MUCH a falsehood. Have you ever commuted during the very ironically named 'rush hour'. (Everyone would much rather go fast, and it usually takes much longer than an hour)

It's called "Induced Demand". That combined with "drive until you qualify" lead to over congestion on roads that were built to "peak" demand.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#425
I'm feeling more attuned than usual to the fact that I inhabit a filter bubble. Thus I observe the preponderance of anti-car posts on Hacker News and wonder, what's the other side of this issue? What are the arguments in favor of sprawl and car-first development? Surely it's more complicated than just "cars are evil, why don't we change this!?"

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#426

...And I pay for public schools even though I do not and will not have children. I'm not complaining, mind you, but of the problems we could be trying to solve, this seems like a relatively low priority. My state also passed a sales tax (you know, the regressive kind) intended to preserve natural resources and cultural heritage, and most of the money has gone to art projects in the major metropolitan area that are mo…

But it's a large deadweight on the economy. It requires the production of considerable amounts of parking that is never, or almost never, used or needed by anybody. It makes parking easier only by hiding the cost of parking in everything else, in a wholly regressive way. And it's not a "commons problem" like air pollution - it's just the government deciding that a particular private good is nice, and everybody should…

That precisely describes the example I gave (sales tax that funds pointless art projects noone likes), except the cost to the economy, and the impact on the poor, is readily quantifiable, unlike hypotheses of various opportunity costs regarding parking.

Saying all parking is funded the same way and has the same externalities is both reductionist and absurd. Furthermore, what value empty lots provide is entirely up to the people who control them; several around here are used for farmers markets and other activities outside of peak time usage.

We've got light rail and buses where I live; one of the light rail lines was poorly planned and is now subsidised somewhere around $20-30 per passenger per trip. Another was promised to ease traffic congestion and revitalize several neighborhoods along the path; it has done neither and has arguably made both worse (traffic has to stop when it goes by, and the horns contribute significant noise pollution) and driven down property values to a certain degree.

Basically, costs are relative, and arguing over parking is far less productive than what we could be working on in our communities.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#427
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might apply in cities, but I don't believe parking spaces at suburban malls are typically regulated.

You are actually not correct; suburban areas have more intense and all encompassing parking minimum laws. Manhattan, for instance, has either none or none below 125th Street IIRC. Suburbs look like they do not because of preference but because it is not legal for them to look otherwise. The idea in the 50s was: A) Require cars to live and you will not have to live next to poor people or minorities since cars and main…

Do you have a source for the broader claim (outside of NYC) that suburban malls in particular have more intense parking minimum laws? My comment was not talking about residential parking or standalone businesses.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#428
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might apply in cities, but I don't believe parking spaces at suburban malls are typically regulated.

You are probably incorrect. Suburbs generally have parking requirements in their zoning laws as well.

I'm talking only about malls.

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#429
post #14

I haven't read the actual study, but I don't really buy this on the basis of the article alone. Allocated parking that you're not using? Let it out. Abundant parking at supermarkets? Pfft - only in locations with an abundance of space anyway. At least in the UK, I'd argue that supermarkets with plenty of parking have lower prices than those without - since they're not in city centres.

The problem is that the requirements are so high, and demand the creation of so much parking (indeed, parking lots for commercial uses are generally required to be larger than the buildings they serve) that the price for parking is driven down to $0. Most parking lots in the suburban US fill up either never, or on a single day per year. The point is that forcing businesses to have excess parking imposes a real cost o…

Okay, I think I might retract my comment then, on the basis that this seems to be US-centric issue due to specific regulations.

Definitely sounds odd, why is it that way? (I generally believe that even the maddest of regulations had sound reasoning at some point in time or for some circumstance, even if hypothetical!)

Re: Poor people pay for parking even when they can’t afford a car

#430
post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the requirements are so high, and demand the creation of so much parking (indeed, parking lots for commercial uses are generally required to be larger than the buildings they serve) that the price for parking is driven down to $0. Most parking lots in the suburban US fill up either never, or on a single day per year. The point is that forcing businesses to have excess parking imposes a real cost o…

Okay, I think I might retract my comment then, on the basis that this seems to be US-centric issue due to specific regulations. Definitely sounds odd, why is it that way? (I generally believe that even the maddest of regulations had sound reasoning at some point in time or for some circumstance, even if hypothetical!)

Well, a lot of it originated around street parking. When cars were becoming very popular and common, they would generally be parked on the street. Of course, since most street parking spaces were not metered (that is, free parking) this meant that parking was constantly scarce. Huge parking congestion, conflict over spaces, etcetera. Even where the parking was metered, the price was usually set too low (since it was owned by municipalities, with no incentive to maximize revenue). So street parking was still congested everywhere, but the straightforward solution of just raising the price of street parking was too unpopular for most cities.

This led, mostly post-1940s, to urban planners requiring homes, businesses and offices to have a minimum amount of parking. However, the way they usually determined the "appropriate minimum" was to estimate the maximum probable use: measuring the busiest day of the year at a shopping mall, or requiring one parking space per bedroom in a house, etcetera. This basically ensured that, no matter where you go, there's almost always parking available. However, this also means that most parking is never used. The secondary effect of this means that everything becomes surrounded by large amounts of parking, causing everything to be further apart, making driving much more appealing. Also, people become very accustomed to free parking, so anywhere that there is a parking shortage, they demand not better pricing, but more mandatory supply. In the US at least, you will typically only pay for parking in areas built before 1940.

But it's not necessarily US-centric. While the US tends to have the most extreme parking minimums, they're common all over the world, from England to Malaysia.

Post reply on HN