4 ms·

This article didn't touch on the interaction between free parking and public transit, and I've seen a few comments here talk about the dearth of good public tra

This article didn't touch on the interaction between free parking and public transit, and I've seen a few comments here talk about the dearth of good public transit options as justification for free parking. I believe it's worth pointing out that free parking causes bad public transit: - free parking siphons away would-be bus and train customers, which deprive the transit authority of revenue (leading to less frequent service, older vehicles, etc.) and also reduce the political impetus to deliver high quality transit. - subsidized parking leads to lots of drivers circulating looking for an open spot, causing congestion and pollution -- the article mentioned that 53% of SF residential parking permit holders spent more than five minutes looking for parking at the end of their most recent trip. This congestion makes surface buses and trams run slower and with greater schedule uncertainty, making transit even more unattractive. Obviously I would like great public transit in America yesterday, but I don't think the current state of transit is good reason to preserve subsidized parking. Preserving subsidized parking is going to keep transit in America as unattractive as it is now.

ianbicking 9y ago
Traffic compounds the problems of public transit, but public transit is really bad even on its own. It's slow on its own, total cost is high, it's inflexible for many purposes, it doesn't respond to changes in the city, it's run monolithically, it's not aligned with its customers (customers are a liability), it's designed to encourage points of failure. It has such a multitude of problems, making cars less attractive won't go far to making public transit more attractive.
mamon 9y ago
>> deprive the transit authority of revenue I think that most of the time public transportation must be subsidized anyway. In fact some cities in Europe make public transport completely free, because subsidizing 100% of the cost it not much worse than subsidizing (on average) 75%, especially considering that you can greatly reduce traffic jams this way.
- sitkack 9y ago
  Afaik in most transit systems, the fare only covers 20-30% of the budget.
closeparen 9y ago
Where is the evidence that increased public transit demand leads to better public transit service? From what I can see, it just leads to crush loads. When there's money for expansion, it goes to routes that make political (not practical) sense, subsidized tickets for certain demographics, etc. Frequency and capacity on popular routes stays the same, so with increased ridership they just get worse. A public transit agency isn't incentivized to fulfill customer needs. It's incentivized to get its director elected up the ladder in city politics, which means serving swing districts, not demand.

ianbicking 9y ago

Traffic compounds the problems of public transit, but public transit is really bad even on its own. It's slow on its own, total cost is high, it's inflexible for many purposes, it doesn't respond to changes in the city, it's run monolithically, it's not aligned with its customers (customers are a liability), it's designed to encourage points of failure. It has such a multitude of problems, making cars less attractive won't go far to making public transit more attractive.

mamon 9y ago

>> deprive the transit authority of revenue I think that most of the time public transportation must be subsidized anyway. In fact some cities in Europe make public transport completely free, because subsidizing 100% of the cost it not much worse than subsidizing (on average) 75%, especially considering that you can greatly reduce traffic jams this way.

sitkack 9y ago
Afaik in most transit systems, the fare only covers 20-30% of the budget.

closeparen 9y ago

Where is the evidence that increased public transit demand leads to better public transit service? From what I can see, it just leads to crush loads. When there's money for expansion, it goes to routes that make political (not practical) sense, subsidized tickets for certain demographics, etc. Frequency and capacity on popular routes stays the same, so with increased ridership they just get worse. A public transit agency isn't incentivized to fulfill customer needs. It's incentivized to get its director elected up the ladder in city politics, which means serving swing districts, not demand.