3 ms·

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 anyb

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 be forced to provide it. It's silly.

zdragnar 10y ago
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.
- snrplfth 10y ago
  I'm not saying "all parking has the same externalities" - obviously, the first parking spot at a house has different impacts than the tenth. And of course people can do creative things with parking lots. I never said that they couldn't. What I am saying is that mandated parking, above what property owners want to provide, is a deadweight loss and can't be ignored. And, as is common in many suburbs, when parking and roads is frequently one-quarter of total land use, we have to consider that this could have a significant impact. If what you desire is a walkable or Main-Street-y type urban form, you have to tackle parking minimums. Likewise if you want compact row housing and multi-storey apartments. If you don't want those things, that's fine, no problem. But if you do, you should consider that the dense urban form of older downtowns and main streets is basically impossible to build with current parking regulations.

zdragnar 10y ago

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.

snrplfth 10y ago
I'm not saying "all parking has the same externalities" - obviously, the first parking spot at a house has different impacts than the tenth. And of course people can do creative things with parking lots. I never said that they couldn't. What I am saying is that mandated parking, above what property owners want to provide, is a deadweight loss and can't be ignored. And, as is common in many suburbs, when parking and roads is frequently one-quarter of total land use, we have to consider that this could have a significant impact. If what you desire is a walkable or Main-Street-y type urban form, you have to tackle parking minimums. Likewise if you want compact row housing and multi-storey apartments. If you don't want those things, that's fine, no problem. But if you do, you should consider that the dense urban form of older downtowns and main streets is basically impossible to build with current parking regulations.