6 ms·

The easiest thing that I can imagine working is elimination of most free parking. That's effectively been a huge subsidy to drivers.

panzagl 11y ago
Where is there free parking? Either you have metered public spaces in a downtown area, or sections of private property set aside for parking use by the customers/employees of the owner of the property. Not really a subsidy in the way most people think. Or you're playing Monopoly wrong and wondering why it takes 3 hours to finish...
- fixermark 11y ago
  Pittsburgh uses free parking as an incentive to draw people into commercial areas. Ironically, those commercial areas are well-served by the mass transit system generally, but Pittsburgh's suburbanization pattern doesn't align with how the mass-transit system is laid out (and, yes, plenty of suburanites appear anecdotally to think of the bus system as for "Those people").
- teek 11y ago
  Free parking is kind of mislabeled. The correct term is minimum parking requirements. Most build standards now enforce having a minimum amount of parking for any new building or housing development, including for low income housing. In order to have mass transit work, we need to be able to build housing and businesses that have very little to no parking allocated. Minimum parking (along with level of service for roads) makes every business and house foot print larger, decreases density, and decreases pedestrian accessibility. It wouldn't even be that hard to naturally enforce/encourage this. All we would have to do is eliminate minimum parking requirements for developments within a quarter mile radius of a mass transit station. One would argue that would do essentially nothing. For example a wealthy condo owner would naturally want a parking space and thus pressure the developer to build a space. But I argue there is demand and will be more demand for this parking-less space today in very crowded cities (think SF) or in the future when younger generations or immigrants decide to live in high density areas. I actually think we have things backwards with minimum parking compared to other cities like Tokyo. Minimum parking acts as a hidden subsidy that increases the price of the property. In Tokyo, houses can be sold without parking. But in order to own a car in Tokyo, you have to prove you also own a parking space. So many housing communities will have parking lots or shared parking garages where nearby residents can rent a space. (There also exist houses that are sold with attached parking as well, but it isn't a requirement.) This is essentially a free market solution to the problem where as the American minimum parking solution is a government regulated solution.
- tricolon 11y ago
  > Where is there free parking? In New York, there's free street parking practically everywhere except Midtown and FiDi: https://smoothparking.com/ https://smoothparking.com/ If all street parking were metered or for commercial use only, I think it would improve the city a lot.

panzagl 11y ago

Where is there free parking? Either you have metered public spaces in a downtown area, or sections of private property set aside for parking use by the customers/employees of the owner of the property. Not really a subsidy in the way most people think. Or you're playing Monopoly wrong and wondering why it takes 3 hours to finish...

fixermark 11y ago
Pittsburgh uses free parking as an incentive to draw people into commercial areas. Ironically, those commercial areas are well-served by the mass transit system generally, but Pittsburgh's suburbanization pattern doesn't align with how the mass-transit system is laid out (and, yes, plenty of suburanites appear anecdotally to think of the bus system as for "Those people").
teek 11y ago
Free parking is kind of mislabeled. The correct term is minimum parking requirements. Most build standards now enforce having a minimum amount of parking for any new building or housing development, including for low income housing. In order to have mass transit work, we need to be able to build housing and businesses that have very little to no parking allocated. Minimum parking (along with level of service for roads) makes every business and house foot print larger, decreases density, and decreases pedestrian accessibility. It wouldn't even be that hard to naturally enforce/encourage this. All we would have to do is eliminate minimum parking requirements for developments within a quarter mile radius of a mass transit station. One would argue that would do essentially nothing. For example a wealthy condo owner would naturally want a parking space and thus pressure the developer to build a space. But I argue there is demand and will be more demand for this parking-less space today in very crowded cities (think SF) or in the future when younger generations or immigrants decide to live in high density areas. I actually think we have things backwards with minimum parking compared to other cities like Tokyo. Minimum parking acts as a hidden subsidy that increases the price of the property. In Tokyo, houses can be sold without parking. But in order to own a car in Tokyo, you have to prove you also own a parking space. So many housing communities will have parking lots or shared parking garages where nearby residents can rent a space. (There also exist houses that are sold with attached parking as well, but it isn't a requirement.) This is essentially a free market solution to the problem where as the American minimum parking solution is a government regulated solution.
tricolon 11y ago
> Where is there free parking? In New York, there's free street parking practically everywhere except Midtown and FiDi: https://smoothparking.com/ https://smoothparking.com/ If all street parking were metered or for commercial use only, I think it would improve the city a lot.