4 ms·
Putting aside the awkward title, the article is confirming what we instinctively would expect: increasing the burden of commuting by car will reduce the number
by bhauer 10y ago
Putting aside the awkward title, the article is confirming what we instinctively would expect: increasing the burden of commuting by car will reduce the number of people who commute by car. The cost of parking is an example burden.
Obviously life needs to balance many things, and increasing the cost of parking in an attempt to shift commuters to alternative forms is also going to decrease the number of people who want to commute to the destination at all.
I live in the Los Angeles area and significantly prefer living in and visiting cities that have free parking (e.g., the southern beach cities). I actively avoid cities such as Santa Monica that have costly and insufficient parking--and importantly, that means I don't spend any money at Santa Monica retail businesses. Alternative transit options are not appealing. Light rail, while expanding in this metropolitan area, is far too inefficient. Uber and Lyft are an additional cost friction that gets factored into any decision (e.g., where to go for a dinner out?). Plus I don't want to have to deal with an app to go somewhere.
All that said, self-driving cars may be a big game changer for my lifestyle. I would be more likely to visit Santa Monica if my car could find a suitable parking structure and park itself. To my mind the cost of parking would be less of a nuisance if I didn't even have to think about the parking process.
- zippergz 10y agoI know this wasn't your point (and I completely agree with what you're saying), but I actually find Santa Monica to be one of the easiest places to visit in LA, because they have a bunch of reasonably cheap city-run parking garages. I've never had a major problem parking in Santa Monica, and if I did, I'd got there a lot less often.