2 ms·
It's the opportunity cost of the land being used as parking. Manhattan is one of the few parts of the US where we don't indirectly mandate seven parking spots
by supertrope 1y ago
It's the opportunity cost of the land being used as parking.
Manhattan is one of the few parts of the US where we don't indirectly mandate seven parking spots per car on average. A surface lot ends up costing about $7,000/spot to pave. But at >$1,000,000 per acre garages are used instead. But then that's tens of thousands per spot in construction cost. Underground parking is the most expensive type due to excavation cost. Meanwhile the most convenient parking curbside is offered by the government for free or <$1. Is there something wrong with this picture?
- Aloisius 1y agoWhat opportunity cost is there for existing city-owned curbside parking? Are you going to build on something a couple feet wide on the wrong side of the sidewalk? Or tear down all the buildings then move the sidewalk first? Treating curbside parking like it was exactly the same as large rectangular lots is nonsense.
- theluketaylor 1y agoOpportunity cost of not having protected bike lanes or dedicated transit right of way. Especially in a place like Manhattan improving cycling safety and getting busses out of traffic would be a huge net gain for the city compared with huge amounts of space dedicated to large private vehicles.
- supertrope 1y agoRestaurant tables.
- const_cast 1y ago> Treating curbside parking like it was exactly the same as large rectangular lots is nonsense. Yeah because the parking is already built. But obviously before you build the parking you have a choice - and building "free" parking is a really stupid choice you should never make. You can give that space to building or the road, either will be more productive.
- Aloisius 1y agoThat's quite a hypothetical to use as justification given how long ago lots were drawn up. I prefer to value things based on what is rather than what could be if only we had a time machine.