5 ms·

I think it has to do with maximizing revenue, not necessarily by tricking drivers, but by using paid/free parking as a way to change driver incentives. One exa

I think it has to do with maximizing revenue, not necessarily by tricking drivers, but by using paid/free parking as a way to change driver incentives. One example would be Downtown Austin. There are streets that are closed down to allow for maximum pedestrian traffic, but this is only at night. During the day, the parking is needed for people who have business in the downtown area. However, to discourage too many drivers, the parking during weekdays is paid. On the margin, this will discourage some potential drivers and they will take alternate methods of transportation. On the weekends, when the downtown non-retail businesses are closed, there is no longer the need to discourage drivers. At this point, you want to encourage retail traffic, which means making parking free. Now, whether all this incentive manipulation is worth it, is another story, but I believe the above is the rationale for having multiple rules. In many cities, there is also street sweeping to consider. I know that is the particular reason that has caught out many of my friends in LA.

VLM 12y ago
>and they will take alternate methods of transportation More likely they simply will not go there, or will visit another location (drive to the burbs, etc). There is another interesting aspect of the parking problem that hasn't been discussed, which is the environmental damage parking regulations cause. If you're not a $250K/yr programmer on the coasts, a $95 parking ticket is an expensive surprise, and equivalent to at least 200 miles of driving. So, if parking tickets are expensive and a uncontrollable confusopoly cost of living, its cheaper / safer / more predictable to simply drive out to the burbs, where theres usually a better selection of businesses anyway. Which wastes a lot of gas. I can afford the tickets, and there's plenty of dying retail downtown where I work, but I don't want to deal with getting tickets, paying tickets, getting towed, I live in the burbs anyway, so the downtown loses a lot of economic activity and the environment loses because of extra driving. But the priority is people aren't driving downtown. Sort of a stealth zoning, this area not fit for retail, but we'll categorize it as retail anyway. This also fits into the "high cost of being poor" concept where I might save $100 on rent on paper by living downtown in a bad area, but if the stealth tax of $95 of monthly parking tickets is applied, plus the hassle, I'm better off in the burbs.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  You have obviously never been to an actual city. Real urban centers are not interchangeable with strip malls. The Continental Club is not found in Round Rock.
  - philh 12y ago
    > You have obviously never been to an actual city. Your post would have been just fine without this.
    - thrownaway2424 12y ago
      Maybe, but I've had my fill of listening to people hold forth on the urban form when they've lived their entire existence in the suburbs.
      - VLM 12y ago
        Its true that a cool attraction with a capacity of 300 (lucky) people exists in a city with a population of 885K. The problem is its an anecdote in a discussion about public policy and lifestyle for 100% of the population, when only 0.03% of the city population can actually visit.
- cheshire137 12y ago
  This sounds right to me. I actively avoid places where I know parking is a pain.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  I lived in a downtown urban area for a while, and probably will again. But you are absolutely right about parking tickets kicking the poor when they are already down. At one point when living downtown, revenue was slow and I had zero wiggle room in my finances. Then my car was totaled by some inattentive teenagers, I lost the gate remote for my parking lot, and I had to park on the street by my building. It was a weekend, there was basically zero retail nearby, so I thought I should be okay. Not so. It turns out there was a sticker on the parking meter below bumper level that was basically invisible that said 2hr max. Two parking tickets later (plus a third fron trying to park somewhere else by my building that should have been fine), I hated cities. I could barely afford to eat (ramen profitable) and only drove the bare minimum, and here was this insane expense when I could least afford it. I moved out of the city and didn't spend a dime there for years as a result.
eli 12y ago
I think probably more to do with managing parking availability and traffic than revenue. If it were just about revenue wouldn't making it paid parking all the time bring in more money?
- jdmichal 12y ago
  That would increase revenue for the municipality, but not for surrounding businesses.
faster 12y ago
I lived in Newport Beach, CA for a year, and quickly realized that the street sweepers were an excuse to write tickets, not the other way around. I'm sure there are places where the streets are actually cleaner after the street sweepers are done, but in Newport beach, they only redistribute sand and money.

VLM 12y ago

>and they will take alternate methods of transportation More likely they simply will not go there, or will visit another location (drive to the burbs, etc). There is another interesting aspect of the parking problem that hasn't been discussed, which is the environmental damage parking regulations cause. If you're not a $250K/yr programmer on the coasts, a $95 parking ticket is an expensive surprise, and equivalent to at least 200 miles of driving. So, if parking tickets are expensive and a uncontrollable confusopoly cost of living, its cheaper / safer / more predictable to simply drive out to the burbs, where theres usually a better selection of businesses anyway. Which wastes a lot of gas. I can afford the tickets, and there's plenty of dying retail downtown where I work, but I don't want to deal with getting tickets, paying tickets, getting towed, I live in the burbs anyway, so the downtown loses a lot of economic activity and the environment loses because of extra driving. But the priority is people aren't driving downtown. Sort of a stealth zoning, this area not fit for retail, but we'll categorize it as retail anyway. This also fits into the "high cost of being poor" concept where I might save $100 on rent on paper by living downtown in a bad area, but if the stealth tax of $95 of monthly parking tickets is applied, plus the hassle, I'm better off in the burbs.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
You have obviously never been to an actual city. Real urban centers are not interchangeable with strip malls. The Continental Club is not found in Round Rock.
- philh 12y ago
  > You have obviously never been to an actual city. Your post would have been just fine without this.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    Maybe, but I've had my fill of listening to people hold forth on the urban form when they've lived their entire existence in the suburbs.
    - VLM 12y ago
      Its true that a cool attraction with a capacity of 300 (lucky) people exists in a city with a population of 885K. The problem is its an anecdote in a discussion about public policy and lifestyle for 100% of the population, when only 0.03% of the city population can actually visit.
cheshire137 12y ago
This sounds right to me. I actively avoid places where I know parking is a pain.
nitrogen 12y ago
I lived in a downtown urban area for a while, and probably will again. But you are absolutely right about parking tickets kicking the poor when they are already down. At one point when living downtown, revenue was slow and I had zero wiggle room in my finances. Then my car was totaled by some inattentive teenagers, I lost the gate remote for my parking lot, and I had to park on the street by my building. It was a weekend, there was basically zero retail nearby, so I thought I should be okay. Not so. It turns out there was a sticker on the parking meter below bumper level that was basically invisible that said 2hr max. Two parking tickets later (plus a third fron trying to park somewhere else by my building that should have been fine), I hated cities. I could barely afford to eat (ramen profitable) and only drove the bare minimum, and here was this insane expense when I could least afford it. I moved out of the city and didn't spend a dime there for years as a result.

eli 12y ago

I think probably more to do with managing parking availability and traffic than revenue. If it were just about revenue wouldn't making it paid parking all the time bring in more money?

jdmichal 12y ago
That would increase revenue for the municipality, but not for surrounding businesses.

faster 12y ago

I lived in Newport Beach, CA for a year, and quickly realized that the street sweepers were an excuse to write tickets, not the other way around. I'm sure there are places where the streets are actually cleaner after the street sweepers are done, but in Newport beach, they only redistribute sand and money.