7 ms·

I used to live in Sandpoint, and the large city parking is full very often forcing people to park on the street where it's a 3 hour or so limit. I always rode m

by Gobd 8y ago

I used to live in Sandpoint, and the large city parking is full very often forcing people to park on the street where it's a 3 hour or so limit. I always rode my bike (yes even in the winter) but it's challenging for tourists visiting the beach or shopping in the summer to find parking. Also very few people ride their bike in the winter with all the snow & ice, and that's when there are the fewest parking spots since the snow piled up cuts the size of the city lot in half. I always thought a park and ride would do well there so tourists could park out of downtown and take a bus to downtown or the beach. It's not a big problem, but I couldn't imagine the city having less parking.

jnty 8y ago
Without wishing to sound flippant, as a society we've developed a mechanism to control the allocation of scarce resources - pricing. It sounds a lot like the parking you're describing is extremely underpriced, both in the demand/supply sense (demand is outstripping supply) and in the externalities sense (impacts to tourism, issues like air quality caused by traffic hunting for a space, walkability death spiral etc.) For such a capitalist country as the US, the die-hard attachment to free or overcheap parking is really odd.
- barrow-rider 8y ago
  Everyone notices the pay parking in the US because everyone drives.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    1) Not everyone drives. 2) They notice it because they're used to getting it for free. Do people notice pay-renting in the US because everyone needs to sleep somewhere? Or do we just understand that using land comes with a cost? It shouldn't cost less to give a place to sleep to a car than to a person.
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      >It shouldn't cost less to give a place to sleep to a car than to a person Really? It shouldn't? Beyond the obvious fact that people in the US _need_ cars (it's not an option for most), parking space costs far less to build and maintain than does a home.
      - cozzyd 8y ago
        I don't own a car (like the majority of people who live in my apartment building). A parking spot (including alley space required for egress) takes up 50% of the space of my apartment.
      - eherot 8y ago
        Arguably people need a home more than they need a car even in the most extreme cases.
        lazerpants 8y ago
        > even in the most extreme cases Not true. A car can function as a home, but not vice versa, so in extreme cases this is almost unilaterally untrue.
      - CalRobert 8y ago
        Why do they need cars? because you can't walk to things. Why can't you walk to things? Because they're so far apart. Why are they so far apart? Because a) parking minimums mean more land is given to parking than the actual amenity, and b) zoning forces single-use and density maximums Why do people want parking minimums and zoning restrictions like that? Because it's annoying to drive through high density. Why do they need cars? on and on and on It's not an option because we built an entire country for 2 ton beings that need 30 feet to move in a circle, rather than humans. Can ants walk across Manhattan? Seriously, look at your standard US "shopping center" and it's almost entirely parking. The lots dwarf the actual buildings.
        EpicEng 8y ago
- maxsilver 8y ago
  > For such a capitalist country as the US, the die-hard attachment to free or overcheap parking is really odd. The US is also a country defined by an extreme attention to individual freedom and personal liberty. It's practically a meme that "Americans love Freedom" (using the American definition of 'Freedom'). Limiting parking in any way is, in practice, a very real limitation on a person's freedom to exist and/or move about. This is why parking is given such high attention. Obviously not every single American drives (and I'm not justifying this response, just attempting to explain it) but when you limit roads/parking, you are effectively telling the vast majority of Americans that they should never be allowed somewhere, and they react accordingly. You can think of this as like the American version of how France has major protests/riots whenever their leadership does something really bad/unpopular against the citizens.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    By this logic I should get free hotel rooms when I visit places.
    - maxsilver 8y ago
      You effectively do, in that we pay for lots of private spaces for the general public to use. This is the same logic that makes Public Libraries free to all, even if you aren't a resident of that city or state. Public Restrooms, too, and so on. If your argument is that we should have stronger public housing, to mimic public parking and/or for consistency sake -- I agree 100%.
      - EpicEng 8y ago
        Please tell me where to find these free hotels. What a sucker I've been paying for rooms my entire life.
        coraltime 8y ago
        maxsilver was not claiming that cities currently offer free hotel rooms as you're implying, but rather that cities already provide adjacent services---suggesting that free hotel rooms might not be a totally crazy idea---and that in general we ought to have stronger public housing. Do you disagree? Why?
CalRobert 8y ago
Just charge for it. That encourages efficient allocation of the resource (land). If the government mandated free ice cream for everyone there would likely be an ice cream shortage. The solution would be to charge more for ice cream, not just try to increase the supply to meet demand (which is basically infinity when the cost is 0)
- Gobd 8y ago
  I agree with this idea, amusingly the parking lot used to be pay to park then the town made it free. I don't see a problem with charging a minimum, then hourly up to a max, just make sure it's cheap enough, maybe max $8 a day. This would give the town money to use to help the problem, either more parking or better public transit options.
- ars 8y ago
  It also encourages people to go elsewhere. I needed glasses recently, with my insurance I had a choice of 4 stores. I went to the one with free parking. (Google maps streetview is great for checking that.) Requiring paid parking in a tourist town encourages people to visit a different town.
  - safepants 8y ago
    If all your tourist town has going for it is free parking, I don't think it's worth visiting anyways.
  - graeme 8y ago
    Choosing a store within a town is different from choosing a different town. All the old style tourist towns with limited parking seem to be doing more than fine. I live in such a neighbourhood, with no parking minimums and paid parking. People still visit.
    - ars 8y ago
      Think about it like this: Why is there paid parking? It's because demand exceeds supply, so they require a fee in order to encourage people not to come. But that means you could have more visitors. Now, if you are maxed out, then good, paid parking makes sense - send those tourists elsewhere. But if more visitors = more money, and that is something the town wants, then adding more parking, and reducing fees is what the town should do. Which is what I said: "It also encourages people to go elsewhere." It boils down to this: When choosing paid parking make sure this is what you want, that you want people not to come. (And I acknowledge that in certain situations it makes sense to want that.) And I know what you are thinking: You'd rather they take the bus or whatever. But think about this: Why do they chose to drive anyway, forcing you have to encourage them not to? Clearly there is something lacking with the bus, to the point that you have to deliberately make driving worse just to induce them to use it.
coraltime 8y ago
I'm not familiar with Sandpoint, but rather than a park and ride, why not a park and walk? Tourists who want to hang out downtown all day could park a half mile or so away and walk. While it's not the expectation in some places, prominent signs and way finding could alleviate any confusion about their being "no parking". This would bring additional foot traffic to downtown adjacent neighborhoods, and encourage people to stay longer.

by Gobd 8y ago

jnty 8y ago

Without wishing to sound flippant, as a society we've developed a mechanism to control the allocation of scarce resources - pricing. It sounds a lot like the parking you're describing is extremely underpriced, both in the demand/supply sense (demand is outstripping supply) and in the externalities sense (impacts to tourism, issues like air quality caused by traffic hunting for a space, walkability death spiral etc.) For such a capitalist country as the US, the die-hard attachment to free or overcheap parking is really odd.

barrow-rider 8y ago
Everyone notices the pay parking in the US because everyone drives.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  1) Not everyone drives. 2) They notice it because they're used to getting it for free. Do people notice pay-renting in the US because everyone needs to sleep somewhere? Or do we just understand that using land comes with a cost? It shouldn't cost less to give a place to sleep to a car than to a person.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    >It shouldn't cost less to give a place to sleep to a car than to a person Really? It shouldn't? Beyond the obvious fact that people in the US _need_ cars (it's not an option for most), parking space costs far less to build and maintain than does a home.
    - cozzyd 8y ago
      I don't own a car (like the majority of people who live in my apartment building). A parking spot (including alley space required for egress) takes up 50% of the space of my apartment.
    - eherot 8y ago
      Arguably people need a home more than they need a car even in the most extreme cases.
      - lazerpants 8y ago
        > even in the most extreme cases Not true. A car can function as a home, but not vice versa, so in extreme cases this is almost unilaterally untrue.
    - CalRobert 8y ago
      Why do they need cars? because you can't walk to things. Why can't you walk to things? Because they're so far apart. Why are they so far apart? Because a) parking minimums mean more land is given to parking than the actual amenity, and b) zoning forces single-use and density maximums Why do people want parking minimums and zoning restrictions like that? Because it's annoying to drive through high density. Why do they need cars? on and on and on It's not an option because we built an entire country for 2 ton beings that need 30 feet to move in a circle, rather than humans. Can ants walk across Manhattan? Seriously, look at your standard US "shopping center" and it's almost entirely parking. The lots dwarf the actual buildings.
      - EpicEng 8y ago
maxsilver 8y ago
> For such a capitalist country as the US, the die-hard attachment to free or overcheap parking is really odd. The US is also a country defined by an extreme attention to individual freedom and personal liberty. It's practically a meme that "Americans love Freedom" (using the American definition of 'Freedom'). Limiting parking in any way is, in practice, a very real limitation on a person's freedom to exist and/or move about. This is why parking is given such high attention. Obviously not every single American drives (and I'm not justifying this response, just attempting to explain it) but when you limit roads/parking, you are effectively telling the vast majority of Americans that they should never be allowed somewhere, and they react accordingly. You can think of this as like the American version of how France has major protests/riots whenever their leadership does something really bad/unpopular against the citizens.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  By this logic I should get free hotel rooms when I visit places.
  - maxsilver 8y ago
    You effectively do, in that we pay for lots of private spaces for the general public to use. This is the same logic that makes Public Libraries free to all, even if you aren't a resident of that city or state. Public Restrooms, too, and so on. If your argument is that we should have stronger public housing, to mimic public parking and/or for consistency sake -- I agree 100%.
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      Please tell me where to find these free hotels. What a sucker I've been paying for rooms my entire life.
      - coraltime 8y ago
        maxsilver was not claiming that cities currently offer free hotel rooms as you're implying, but rather that cities already provide adjacent services---suggesting that free hotel rooms might not be a totally crazy idea---and that in general we ought to have stronger public housing. Do you disagree? Why?

CalRobert 8y ago

Just charge for it. That encourages efficient allocation of the resource (land). If the government mandated free ice cream for everyone there would likely be an ice cream shortage. The solution would be to charge more for ice cream, not just try to increase the supply to meet demand (which is basically infinity when the cost is 0)

Gobd 8y ago
I agree with this idea, amusingly the parking lot used to be pay to park then the town made it free. I don't see a problem with charging a minimum, then hourly up to a max, just make sure it's cheap enough, maybe max $8 a day. This would give the town money to use to help the problem, either more parking or better public transit options.
ars 8y ago
It also encourages people to go elsewhere. I needed glasses recently, with my insurance I had a choice of 4 stores. I went to the one with free parking. (Google maps streetview is great for checking that.) Requiring paid parking in a tourist town encourages people to visit a different town.
- safepants 8y ago
  If all your tourist town has going for it is free parking, I don't think it's worth visiting anyways.
- graeme 8y ago
  Choosing a store within a town is different from choosing a different town. All the old style tourist towns with limited parking seem to be doing more than fine. I live in such a neighbourhood, with no parking minimums and paid parking. People still visit.
  - ars 8y ago
    Think about it like this: Why is there paid parking? It's because demand exceeds supply, so they require a fee in order to encourage people not to come. But that means you could have more visitors. Now, if you are maxed out, then good, paid parking makes sense - send those tourists elsewhere. But if more visitors = more money, and that is something the town wants, then adding more parking, and reducing fees is what the town should do. Which is what I said: "It also encourages people to go elsewhere." It boils down to this: When choosing paid parking make sure this is what you want, that you want people not to come. (And I acknowledge that in certain situations it makes sense to want that.) And I know what you are thinking: You'd rather they take the bus or whatever. But think about this: Why do they chose to drive anyway, forcing you have to encourage them not to? Clearly there is something lacking with the bus, to the point that you have to deliberately make driving worse just to induce them to use it.

coraltime 8y ago

I'm not familiar with Sandpoint, but rather than a park and ride, why not a park and walk? Tourists who want to hang out downtown all day could park a half mile or so away and walk. While it's not the expectation in some places, prominent signs and way finding could alleviate any confusion about their being "no parking". This would bring additional foot traffic to downtown adjacent neighborhoods, and encourage people to stay longer.