8 ms·

Here's a better idea: charge market rate for parking on the street, citywide. There's no reason that space should be given away for free. Use the revenue to bu

by whence 12y ago

Here's a better idea: charge market rate for parking on the street, citywide. There's no reason that space should be given away for free. Use the revenue to build some much needed trains.

dsl 12y ago
The problem is bigger than a market inefficiency. San Francisco has been pushing a hard line anti-car agenda, while making no noticeable improvements to transit. MUNI is a disaster being held hostage by unions. Bending to environmentalists to not address legitimate need for parking. Inefficient responses to groups like Critical Mass that breed resentment against bikes. Refusal to address the vagrant problems resulting in crap covered sidewalks. etc.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- r00fus 12y ago
  While it's easy to demonize "environmentalists", it's pretty clear in the SF Bay Area that environmentalists and property owners are in collusion (or property owners are using the environmentalist label to limit supply). Ultimately, the best way to root-cause a policy issue is to follow the money. Someone is making money from a lack of governance.
  - dsl 12y ago
    It is not so much money as it is power. San Francisco has a reverse-Tea Party problem. When all viable candidates for a position are already left of center, the only way to shine is to seem more-progressive and out liberal the other guy. As evidenced by the problems on the right currently - the biggest danger is that as we keep creeping to the extreme left, the "far out nutjobs" are only a tiny step away and seem almost reasonable by comparison.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      The 'left' has vary little presence in current US government (including in San Francisco) on any level. 'Far-left nutjobs' in the modern context refers to anyone to the left of Nixon.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  This is a quite liberal interpretation of facts in evidence. "a hard line anti-car agenda" Seriously? The city has almost half a million parking spaces, nearly all of which are free of charge. There are no congestion charges. "Inefficient responses to groups like Critical Mass that breed resentment against bikes" As opposed to the Critical Mass that the car drivers stage every single day at 4:30pm? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAO20jJHNuI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAO20jJHNuI
jaynos 12y ago
San Francisco is actually doing this on a trial basis: http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/san-francisco-cuts-cruising-for-parking-in-half-with-market-clearing-prices http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/san-francisco-cuts-cruising-...
smackfu 12y ago
I parked at a spot in the Mission where the meter rate on the weekend was $6 an hour.
- drivingmenuts 12y ago
  Sounds like you're already neck-deep in "parking for the rich only". I'd be seriously reconsidering plans to do anything where the parking was that expensive.
  - smackfu 12y ago
    I agree. The main problem there was that the streets with retail businesses were surrounded by residential streets, and the residential streets were unmetered residential parking only. So there were literally not enough metered spots available.
    - dublinben 12y ago
      I'm sure the intention of this scheme is to make you think twice before driving into the city. If you had arrived on foot, you wouldn't have cared how expensive the parking was.
      - guelo 12y ago
        The intention of the scheme is to make scarce parking spaces available by pricing them at the market clearing price.
  - joedrew 12y ago
    Honestly, in a city with good transit like SF, you shouldn't be driving to the places you want to go anyways.
- sukuriant 12y ago
  That ... doesn't seem that expensive to me, coming from someone that lives in Seattle. Then again, I tend to get the day rates, or the late-night rates, which, if memory serves me, are like $15 for the night, while only staying an hour or two for dinner.
mathetic 12y ago
Roads are public goods and more importantly they are built with tax money. They are also specifically built for cars to use and without a place to stop they are a bit meaningless in a city. They might just change this and start charging but that's a pretty stupid idea. Free market is not an answer to everything.
- jacobolus 12y ago
  I recommend you read http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf Personally, I think we’d all be better off if American cities were friendlier to pedestrians, cyclists, and buses, and stopped catering so heavily to automobiles. Devoting huge amounts of space to free/cheap street parking is incredibly expensive and inefficient, compared to just about any other use.
- revelation 12y ago
  I don't get it. None of your points tell us why we would not charge for parking spots. But you seem to have realized that "cars.. are a bit meaningless in a city", that's the first step. Right now, "free parking" is a tax on everyone actually living in the city. They pay more for living because prime space is given away for free to store heaps of steel on it. Moreover, building regulations require new projects to provide parking spots proportional to the number of units, even when many city dwellers no longer own a car. That drastically increases development costs in cities that are starved for housing.
- jeffdavis 12y ago
  "Free market is not an answer to everything." The problem here is one of rationing. There are a limited number of spots; who gets them? In the current situation, the spaces are free/subsidized, but you pay instead by driving in circles. That's a big waste of time and adds to traffic congestion. Maybe that's more "fair" in some sense, but that doesn't make it good. The app in question does either nothing or very little to help ration. It allows people who really need to park, and have the money to pay for it, to be more certain that they will get a space, which I guess is something. But it creates so many bad incentives that it's making the problem worse, not better. The city is in a better position to create market incentives, because they can charge for the entire duration that you're in the space, not just the moment you happen to park. That means people would have no reason to camp out in a space waiting for the price to go up, which means more spaces will be available for useful purposes. It saves time and congestion, but perhaps loses out on some definitions of "fairness". Any other ideas?
hamzaouazzanic 12y ago
I am cofounder of Sweetch, this is exactly our vision. That's why we give you the possibility to donate your money to charities who have a local impact in SF

by whence 12y ago

Here's a better idea: charge market rate for parking on the street, citywide. There's no reason that space should be given away for free. Use the revenue to build some much needed trains.

dsl 12y ago

The problem is bigger than a market inefficiency. San Francisco has been pushing a hard line anti-car agenda, while making no noticeable improvements to transit. MUNI is a disaster being held hostage by unions. Bending to environmentalists to not address legitimate need for parking. Inefficient responses to groups like Critical Mass that breed resentment against bikes. Refusal to address the vagrant problems resulting in crap covered sidewalks. etc.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
r00fus 12y ago
While it's easy to demonize "environmentalists", it's pretty clear in the SF Bay Area that environmentalists and property owners are in collusion (or property owners are using the environmentalist label to limit supply). Ultimately, the best way to root-cause a policy issue is to follow the money. Someone is making money from a lack of governance.
- dsl 12y ago
  It is not so much money as it is power. San Francisco has a reverse-Tea Party problem. When all viable candidates for a position are already left of center, the only way to shine is to seem more-progressive and out liberal the other guy. As evidenced by the problems on the right currently - the biggest danger is that as we keep creeping to the extreme left, the "far out nutjobs" are only a tiny step away and seem almost reasonable by comparison.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    The 'left' has vary little presence in current US government (including in San Francisco) on any level. 'Far-left nutjobs' in the modern context refers to anyone to the left of Nixon.
thrownaway2424 12y ago
This is a quite liberal interpretation of facts in evidence. "a hard line anti-car agenda" Seriously? The city has almost half a million parking spaces, nearly all of which are free of charge. There are no congestion charges. "Inefficient responses to groups like Critical Mass that breed resentment against bikes" As opposed to the Critical Mass that the car drivers stage every single day at 4:30pm? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAO20jJHNuI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAO20jJHNuI

jaynos 12y ago

San Francisco is actually doing this on a trial basis: http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/san-francisco-cuts-cruising-for-parking-in-half-with-market-clearing-prices http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/san-francisco-cuts-cruising-...

smackfu 12y ago

I parked at a spot in the Mission where the meter rate on the weekend was $6 an hour.

drivingmenuts 12y ago
Sounds like you're already neck-deep in "parking for the rich only". I'd be seriously reconsidering plans to do anything where the parking was that expensive.
- smackfu 12y ago
  I agree. The main problem there was that the streets with retail businesses were surrounded by residential streets, and the residential streets were unmetered residential parking only. So there were literally not enough metered spots available.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    I'm sure the intention of this scheme is to make you think twice before driving into the city. If you had arrived on foot, you wouldn't have cared how expensive the parking was.
    - guelo 12y ago
      The intention of the scheme is to make scarce parking spaces available by pricing them at the market clearing price.
- joedrew 12y ago
  Honestly, in a city with good transit like SF, you shouldn't be driving to the places you want to go anyways.
sukuriant 12y ago
That ... doesn't seem that expensive to me, coming from someone that lives in Seattle. Then again, I tend to get the day rates, or the late-night rates, which, if memory serves me, are like $15 for the night, while only staying an hour or two for dinner.

mathetic 12y ago

Roads are public goods and more importantly they are built with tax money. They are also specifically built for cars to use and without a place to stop they are a bit meaningless in a city. They might just change this and start charging but that's a pretty stupid idea. Free market is not an answer to everything.

jacobolus 12y ago
I recommend you read http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf Personally, I think we’d all be better off if American cities were friendlier to pedestrians, cyclists, and buses, and stopped catering so heavily to automobiles. Devoting huge amounts of space to free/cheap street parking is incredibly expensive and inefficient, compared to just about any other use.
revelation 12y ago
I don't get it. None of your points tell us why we would not charge for parking spots. But you seem to have realized that "cars.. are a bit meaningless in a city", that's the first step. Right now, "free parking" is a tax on everyone actually living in the city. They pay more for living because prime space is given away for free to store heaps of steel on it. Moreover, building regulations require new projects to provide parking spots proportional to the number of units, even when many city dwellers no longer own a car. That drastically increases development costs in cities that are starved for housing.
jeffdavis 12y ago
"Free market is not an answer to everything." The problem here is one of rationing. There are a limited number of spots; who gets them? In the current situation, the spaces are free/subsidized, but you pay instead by driving in circles. That's a big waste of time and adds to traffic congestion. Maybe that's more "fair" in some sense, but that doesn't make it good. The app in question does either nothing or very little to help ration. It allows people who really need to park, and have the money to pay for it, to be more certain that they will get a space, which I guess is something. But it creates so many bad incentives that it's making the problem worse, not better. The city is in a better position to create market incentives, because they can charge for the entire duration that you're in the space, not just the moment you happen to park. That means people would have no reason to camp out in a space waiting for the price to go up, which means more spaces will be available for useful purposes. It saves time and congestion, but perhaps loses out on some definitions of "fairness". Any other ideas?

hamzaouazzanic 12y ago

I am cofounder of Sweetch, this is exactly our vision. That's why we give you the possibility to donate your money to charities who have a local impact in SF