4 ms·

> There is zero evidence for this. When most people need something, and there is suddenly a much smaller supply of that thing, prices for the now scarce but st

> There is zero evidence for this. When most people need something, and there is suddenly a much smaller supply of that thing, prices for the now scarce but still needed thing tend to increase. That's basically self-evident. If you have evidence that shows otherwise please feel free to provide it. I suspect that if examples showing otherwise exist at all they won't be remotely representative of the situation these cities will face.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> When most people need something, and there is suddenly a much smaller supply of that thing Yes. We have rising, elastic house and stable, inelastic paid parking prices [1[2]]. Due to these regulations, we cannot substitute limited space away from off-street parking towards e.g. housing. [1] http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PricingParkingByDemand.pdf http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PricingParkingByDemand.pdf [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Funnel-plot-for-the-price-elasticity-of-parking-volume-EPV-against-sample-size-for-SP_fig2_331443775 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Funnel-plot-for-the-pric...
- autoexec 3y ago
  The research you link to discusses pricing for parking spaces, but nowhere does it state that eliminating parking spaces doesn't increase the price of what little parking is left. The idea that developers being responsible for providing adequate parking would mean that we can't have adequate space housing is a new argument, but not a compelling one. Clearly jacking up the prices for on-street parking means we'd have more money and more space for other things, but that doesn't solve the problem of there being too many cars on the road or eliminate the need for people to keep and drive cars. While the one paper you linked to suggests that higher prices could help reduce the demand for cars and driving, it also explicitly states that price of vehicle ownership is only one of many variables that has an affect those demands. The availability of viable alternatives to car ownership/use is the one being ignored here. If I will die unless I go to the hospital every week for 6 months for chemo treatment and the only way to get there is by driving, the amount they'll charge me for parking isn't really a factor until it becomes so high that I can't afford to get the treatment I need. The fact that I also can't get to work, the grocery store, the doctor's office, the pharmacy, my kid's school, or the homes of my friends family without a car means that I'm still going to need to own (and still need a place to park) my car even if I could afford to uber my cancer-ridden body to and from the hospital every single week. (this is purely an example, I'm not, to my knowledge, cancer-ridden) You simply can't solve the problem of people needing to own and park cars by only reducing the number of available parking spaces. Reducing the number of parking spaces is something that should be done only once viable alternatives are established.
  - shaldengeki 3y ago
    For whatever it's worth, the person you're replying to took the courtesy of pointing you to some research they're familiar with, and your "it's just one paper" point (or really, any of your points here) would be much more convincing if you responded in kind to that courtesy. On topics like this you can argue from first principles endlessly and never get any closer to the truth. Better to show us some data, I think.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> When most people need something, and there is suddenly a much smaller supply of that thing, prices for the now scarce but still needed thing tend to increase. No one is arguing against the idea that eliminating parking requirements increases (in short-run, first-order analysis) the market clearing price of parking spaces. The contentious part is that the presence of the freedom to build housing without parking requirements (enabling, e.g., housing plus commercial spaces to be built in a space that would otherwise have the same housing plus parking) does nothing to reduce the demand for autos.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > The contentious part is that the presence of the freedom to build housing without parking requirements does nothing to reduce the demand for autos. Why would it? Without alternatives to cars as a means to get people to where they need to go, people will still require cars. As long as people are required to own and drive cars not having enough available parking does nothing to help reduce the amount of cars being owned/driven. In fact, we know that it increase the number of cars on the road. That's how we end up with statistics like "30% of all traffic in urban areas come from people circling around looking for places to park". You can't solve the problem of people needing cars by not addressing the reasons people need cars, and only reducing the number of parking spots for the cars people already need.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Why would it? Because it would both enable and incentivize development patterns where people need cars less. > Without alternatives to cars as a means to get people to where they need to go, people will still require cars. Dense mixed-use development puts more of the places people need to go in places that don't require cars to get to them. (It also mass transit to other places more viable.) Your focussed on alternatives ti cars to get to a fixed set of locations, but a big point of dense mixed-use development is to provide alternative locations. > You can't solve the problem of people needing cars by not addressing the reasons people need cars The reason people need cars is that the places they need to be a far away because of development patterns; one of the key features of development patterns that causes this is...the space use created by parking requirements.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> When most people need something, and there is suddenly a much smaller supply of that thing Yes. We have rising, elastic house and stable, inelastic paid parking prices [1[2]]. Due to these regulations, we cannot substitute limited space away from off-street parking towards e.g. housing. [1] http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PricingParkingByDemand.pdf http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PricingParkingByDemand.pdf [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Funnel-plot-for-the-price-elasticity-of-parking-volume-EPV-against-sample-size-for-SP_fig2_331443775 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Funnel-plot-for-the-pric...

autoexec 3y ago
The research you link to discusses pricing for parking spaces, but nowhere does it state that eliminating parking spaces doesn't increase the price of what little parking is left. The idea that developers being responsible for providing adequate parking would mean that we can't have adequate space housing is a new argument, but not a compelling one. Clearly jacking up the prices for on-street parking means we'd have more money and more space for other things, but that doesn't solve the problem of there being too many cars on the road or eliminate the need for people to keep and drive cars. While the one paper you linked to suggests that higher prices could help reduce the demand for cars and driving, it also explicitly states that price of vehicle ownership is only one of many variables that has an affect those demands. The availability of viable alternatives to car ownership/use is the one being ignored here. If I will die unless I go to the hospital every week for 6 months for chemo treatment and the only way to get there is by driving, the amount they'll charge me for parking isn't really a factor until it becomes so high that I can't afford to get the treatment I need. The fact that I also can't get to work, the grocery store, the doctor's office, the pharmacy, my kid's school, or the homes of my friends family without a car means that I'm still going to need to own (and still need a place to park) my car even if I could afford to uber my cancer-ridden body to and from the hospital every single week. (this is purely an example, I'm not, to my knowledge, cancer-ridden) You simply can't solve the problem of people needing to own and park cars by only reducing the number of available parking spaces. Reducing the number of parking spaces is something that should be done only once viable alternatives are established.
- shaldengeki 3y ago
  For whatever it's worth, the person you're replying to took the courtesy of pointing you to some research they're familiar with, and your "it's just one paper" point (or really, any of your points here) would be much more convincing if you responded in kind to that courtesy. On topics like this you can argue from first principles endlessly and never get any closer to the truth. Better to show us some data, I think.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> When most people need something, and there is suddenly a much smaller supply of that thing, prices for the now scarce but still needed thing tend to increase. No one is arguing against the idea that eliminating parking requirements increases (in short-run, first-order analysis) the market clearing price of parking spaces. The contentious part is that the presence of the freedom to build housing without parking requirements (enabling, e.g., housing plus commercial spaces to be built in a space that would otherwise have the same housing plus parking) does nothing to reduce the demand for autos.

autoexec 3y ago
> The contentious part is that the presence of the freedom to build housing without parking requirements does nothing to reduce the demand for autos. Why would it? Without alternatives to cars as a means to get people to where they need to go, people will still require cars. As long as people are required to own and drive cars not having enough available parking does nothing to help reduce the amount of cars being owned/driven. In fact, we know that it increase the number of cars on the road. That's how we end up with statistics like "30% of all traffic in urban areas come from people circling around looking for places to park". You can't solve the problem of people needing cars by not addressing the reasons people need cars, and only reducing the number of parking spots for the cars people already need.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Why would it? Because it would both enable and incentivize development patterns where people need cars less. > Without alternatives to cars as a means to get people to where they need to go, people will still require cars. Dense mixed-use development puts more of the places people need to go in places that don't require cars to get to them. (It also mass transit to other places more viable.) Your focussed on alternatives ti cars to get to a fixed set of locations, but a big point of dense mixed-use development is to provide alternative locations. > You can't solve the problem of people needing cars by not addressing the reasons people need cars The reason people need cars is that the places they need to be a far away because of development patterns; one of the key features of development patterns that causes this is...the space use created by parking requirements.