Try the custom AI to help you find products that Reddit loves.
I'd highly recommend the High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup (RIP) on this subject. Great, pioneering book about how we fail to deal with the huge externalities of personal automobiles.
This had been on my list of books to read for a while:
"Shoup proposes new ways for cities to regulate parking – namely, charge fair market prices for curb parking, use the resulting revenue to pay for services in the neighborhoods that generate it, and remove zoning requirements for off-street parking."
Lots of Vancouverites need to understand the true cost of the government giving away so much land without user fees. I suggest reading the seminal tome The High Cost of Free Parking
>free parking has contributed to auto dependence, rapid urban sprawl, extravagant energy use, and a host of other problems. Planners mandate free parking to alleviate congestion but end up distorting transportation choices, debasing urban design, damaging the economy, and degrading the environment. Ubiquitous free parking helps explain why our cities sprawl on a scale fit more for cars than for people, and why American motor vehicles now consume one-eighth of the world's total oil production. But it doesn't have to be this way. Shoup proposes new ways for cities to regulate parking – namely, charge fair market prices for curb parking, use the resulting revenue to pay for services in the neighborhoods that generate it, and remove zoning requirements for off-street parking. Such measures, according to the Yale-trained economist and UCLA planning professor, will make parking easier and driving less necessary. Join the swelling ranks of Shoupistas by picking up this book today. You'll never look at a parking spot the same way again.
Most parking lots are sized for the 4th busiest day of the year. Which means 360 days of the year it's just a massive expanse of asphalt doing nothing except making people who didn't drive there walk farther.
On the other hand, I'd love to eliminate on street parking all together. Parking is complicated but there's some smart folks thinking really hard about it.
Here's an absolutely crazy book about it.
Yes it is. Lmao. Imagine crying about not being able to park for free. The entitlement. Jesus. People like you don't seem to understand the immense cost our society pays so you can park for "free".
Like free healthcare, it's not free, just somebody is paying for it with their taxes rather than the end user. In the case of a broken leg, that makes moral sense to me. Parking for free? That's entitlement.
A book you should look into: https://www.amazon.ca/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X
Parking in general should most definitely not be free. In fact, free parking is terrible public policy: it drives up the price of rent (more space dedicated to cars means less space for constructions), depresses economic growth by reducing foot traffic, and makes people unhealthy by leading to more sedentary lives
See here: https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X/ref=nodl_
Providing education to the next generation is in everybody's benefit, same with having hospital access and healthcare.
Free parking on the other hand only brings benefits to the person driving the vehicle and, maybe, the place they are visiting. Though we're talking residential parking here, so that doesn't actually apply.
May I suggest this book?
Not that obscure an opinion, it has been making the rounds in urbanist circles for years.
The High Cost of Free Parking is an urban planning book by UCLA professor Donald Shoup. It deals with the costs of free parking policies on society. It is structured as a criticism of how parking is planned and regulated, especially the use of parking minimums and off-street parking requirements. It is influenced by Shoup's Georgist philosophy and recommends that parking be built and allocated according to its fair market value.
Lemme guess, these spots are either free or the hourly toll is too cheap.
There is no such thing as free parking. It cost money to build and maintain parking spaces, and that cost typically gets past on through the resident via either rent or purchase price. You pay for the premium weather you want to or not, but by requiring parking by law, you force others to pay for the premium as well.
If you're interested, I would recommend <em>The High Cost of Free Parking</em> by Donald Shoup
Cite any facts to backup your argument? Where exactly do you think this has "backfired"?
Because I got 800 pages that say you are wrong: https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X
You won't read it but in there it details how (and with the backing of many studies and sources) that controlling and chancing for parking results in less traffic and more economic prosperity. The most prosperous places in the world also have the highest charges for parking.
Last estimates I saw were ~10k for surface and ~40k for structure based off a ton of them built over a few decades in California.
Source is The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup https://www.amazon.ca/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X
Edit: the book also discusses the cost to maintain the parking stalls as well, IIRC it's on the order of $100-200/month. I can find that chapter when I get home.
> If we start charging for parking everywhere in the city neighborhoods will see less traffic, but less people will be interested in going in to check out the stores/restaurants/events.
Or you know, maybe more people will walk/bike/take transit.
Parking is one of the largest subsidies to SOV drivers. Professor Donald Shoup lays it all out in The High Cost of Free Parking.
Sometimes it's good to provide info and let people come to their own conclusions. If you're interested in how parking policy shapes land-use, affordability and opportunity in cities here's a great read. I can lend you my copy if you like. https://www.amazon.ca/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/193236496X
All I'm saying is that if neighbors would like to convert a public street into a private parking lot, they ought to pay for that privilege. I'm not actually opposed to PPDs, I just felt someone should respond to /u/kheszi.
Parking requirements are actually a pretty thorny subject when you look at them close. If you're interested I recommend Donald Shoup's work.
Not true actually. I recommend the book The High Cost of Free Parking. Parking is quite expensive, but it's subsidized massively, as are most things related to car ownership.
There aren't really any places where lots could be built for cities. The best solution is to keep them off the roads and put them underneath the hospital buildings, even though that'll cost even more money to build.
In any case parking isn't a thing the city should be encouraging. This book makes a great case, but building parking is really expensive and already massively subsidized. It also encourages people to drive, and surface parking isn't just a blight on urban areas (inhospitable for people), but contributes significant to Urban Heat Island Effect).
>And if there were fewer people driving, this would be an improvement. I have not been dealing in absolutes.
Then where do you drawn the line? Or is your answer always simply "less cars" no matter that actual level of cars?
>Are we talking about downtown or the region?
Since we are including the people who commute to Vancouver in this discussion, region.
>Because downtown, and in the city of Vancouver those numbers are much smaller
>It largely does, though the Burrard Thermal Station contributes a lot.
To pretend the skytrain has no carbon footprint just because it runs on electricity is simplistic and disingenuous.
>It is false with respect to the transit system as a whole, but with respect to rail services it is true. The skytrain is self-sustaining, as is the WCE. The money loses are buses.
If you have any source to back up that claim I would be interested in seeing it.
>Those factors include a healthy dose of demand for cheapened driving.
Define cheapened. If you actually have any actual source of data to back up your assertion that driving is a subsidized form of transportation in a way transit is not, I'd like to see it.
>They actually are, as presently funded
>Why did transit services go bankrupt across the continent?
That is an...interesting narrative but if you could present any actual data to back up any of that? Since doing so seems not to be your thing, here, I'll help you out.
>Why that necessitates the retention of two enormous viaducts in Downtown Vancouver I do not know.
When it comes down to it, is the reason you support it's demolition because of your anti-car ideology?
> If you are simply seeking to maximize profit, and ignoring external impacts
Or even if you are seeking to minimize external impacts, such as students circling around looking for parking.
> As such they have to try to balance contradictory student needs (cheap parking, unlimited parking).
Yes, because what good is cheap parking if you can't find a parking space?
> Lemme know if your perspective changes after you've finished your upper division courses.
In the meantime, here is a book on the subject for you to read by a former economics professor at UCLA.
If you really want an answer, and aren't just complaining, read this.
There's probably a copy at Norlin. If not, surely someone in the ENVD building has it. It's a prominent book in city planning.
You should read The High Cost of Free Parking to get a better idea on what parking costs. To provide parking (and build for cars) actually costs the city a lot more money than it does to build for other modes of transit. It usually costs around $30,000 per parking space. And in Ottawa, the majority of businesses downtown actually get their revenue from locals visiting on foot than by people driving. Studies (check out the book for more research) find that when you replacing parking with bike lanes or public transit more people choose to bike or use transit, and businesses actually do better!
> The average value of an SF parking space is probably approaching $100,000 and I'd much rather see car space spent on open space and housing.
A studio apartment (~450 sqft) in SF goes for $2500/mo
A street parking spot (~150 sqft) in most of SF is free.
I think you might be interested in this book, you sound like you'd like it. :D
Hah. This article has the gall to cite Donald Shoup while complaining about taking away free on-street parking?
Perhaps they should have a read through The High Cost of Free Parking and then revisit this article.
Yep. Way more than you ever wanted to know about why free parking is bad here: https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X
Brief overview of book here: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html
Excited to see this. Parking minimums are one of the main impediments to walkability. They impose huge, sometime insurmountable financial and logistical burdens on businesses of all sizes. And, somewhat unexpectedly, parking requirements generate traffic by creating urban areas where people are expected to drive and park directly at every destination they visit. A lot of Houston traffic comes not from commuters but from people going on short trips, say to buy some groceries and go to a restaurant. Our current regulatory environment separates out these uses, so you have to drive to the grocery store, park, then to the restaurant, park again, etc., when all of these uses could be more efficiently combined into a singular walkable area.
Parking minimums are one of the biggest hidden subsidies in the entire American economy. The cost of providing parking—a single space in a garage costs over $16,000 to build in Houston—is subsumed into everything you purchase since developers are forced to provide it for free by the city. It's a (significant) chunk of your rent, your food—it even deducts from your paycheck. Meanwhile, these policies have generated a city of concrete, worsening flooding, exacerbating traffic, and reducing the livability and aesthetics of our neighborhoods. I'd highly recommend everyone read <em>The High Cost of Free Parking</em> by economist and urban planner Donald Shoup. It's an exhaustive examination of just how damaging these policies are.
In the long term, Houston needs to repeal parking minimums to survive. Our city's historic method of growth, both in economy and population, has been to annex vast areas. Since the state neutered city annexation powers in the 90s, Houston's only remaining path to continued relevance is developing its existing land. We need to encourage development that generates revenue for the city. Parking lots do the opposite: they pay [next to] no taxes, produce nothing, and detract from the city's attractiveness to outsiders. It makes no sense for the city to mandate excess parking, beyond what the market demands, when doing so removes so much developable land from the city's finite area.
You are undoubtedly and unpopularly correct.
There’s an important book dealing with this we read in Principles of Urban Design: The High Cost of Free Parking
Basic macroeconomics tells us that lower interest rates supposedly results in more spending, borrowing, and thus more economic activity and growth.
But there are some glaring holes in the mainstream economic understanding:
(1) After a transition period of a few months, the economy settles into a equilibrium that isn't much better than before the rate change. If the federal funds interbank rate is adjusted downward by only 0.25 percentage points (known as "basis points"), then there's no reason to think such a tiny adjustment will result in a meaningful boost to the economy.
(2) In fact, with baseline interest rates so low, we are in danger of entering a "liquidity trap" in which people don't even bother saving their money or investing it because the rate of return on investments and savings will be so low, the benefit of investing versus spending it today would be much weaker. Less money will be saved for financial emergencies, retirement, college savings, etc now that the benefit of doing so is reduced.
(3) Also, any boost to growth that results from reducing interest rates can only be sustained by continuing to reduce the interest rates over a prolonged period. A one-off decrease by such a small increment simply will not ripple through the economy in a way that people will appreciate.
(4) There is also the reality that simply making debt and other capital cheaper by lowering rates is not going to translate into new innovations, factories, warehouses, product lines or other new products and investments.
If new growth is the goal, we need to stop tinkering with monetary policy and commit to more Keynesian or Georgist macroeconomic fiscal policy:
Improve our land use policy.
Reduce barriers to entry for upstart minority entrepreneurs.
Make college and grad school significantly cheaper or tuition-free.
Reform the healthcare and health insurance sector so that employees are not tethered to their current employer due to health insurance.
Toughen up our antitrust laws to not have such a narrow definition of "monopoly". Prohibit all exclusive partnerships and other contracts, unless parties to the agreement wish to pay an exclusivity tax.
Implement a land value tax, and make federal block grants dependent on states' adoption of land value tax and reduction of income and sales taxes.
Implement a carbon tax
Implement congestion pricing for major roads and interstates. Incentivize states and cities to abolish free parking and to implement surge pricing and remove the minimum on-site parking requirements in their zoning ordinances.
Minor correction: the book's title is The High Cost of Free Parking.
Someone needs to read "The High Cost of Free Parking".
If anyone wants to learn more check out The High Cost of Free Parking.
It's one of the reasons why I and a lot of other groups in Charlotte will advocate for more housing to be built in the city in addition to more bike lanes, sidewalks, and better public transit. We can't have walkable locations in only small parts of the city - these areas are so highly sought after that if you have a small supply of them, you quickly price out the poor. There's a whole movement that goes hand-in-hand with walkability and bikeability groups called the YIMBY movement that basically advocates for more housing to be built as fast as possible. The other item is that the more car-centric a place is, the more expensive it tends to be - the new apartment complex in NoDa that didn't build parking for their residents averages $200-300 less per month than other luxury units nearby. There is a wonderful book that goes into great detail on this.
One other factor for affordability... A lot of people don't factor in how expensive it is to own a car if its required to live in and move throughout the city, and so one metric that we encourage people to look at is to examine their rent/housing costs and add up their monthly transportation costs. If you are paying $800 to live out in Gastonia, but your commute to Charlotte results in your insurance, car payment, gas bill, and maintenance costs spiraling up to $1000 a month, you're not paying $800/month to live, you're paying $1800/month to live. When you run the math in that manner, and this is something that people in poverty routinely do, you find that it can be immensely more affordable to live in a high-cost area that is closer to your day-to-day needs.
I've talked to individuals on the lower-end of the poverty spectrum that live in the apartment complexes on Central Avenue and while they might pay $1200-1500 for rent, they only have to pay $88/month for unlimited bus tickets, meaning that they still have some funds leftover that they otherwise wouldn't if they owned a car. I'm at the point where I make $2,200/month while living on the edge of East Charlotte and there have been movements where I've recognized that if I owned a car, I might not have made it financially that month.
There is plenty of evidence backing up that this is sound economic, governmental, and health decision.
Is there profit motive in some places? Sure. But you have to understand just how much a parking spot costs to build and maintain in the first place.
Surface parking lots cost, on average, $10,000 per space to build, not including any other costs. This is for all areas, these costs can be doubled or tripled in high cost areas. Then you factor in things like:
Comes out to hundreds of dollars per year per space.
And these are all just for surface lots. If you're in an above or below ground structure you can double or triple these numbers.
If you'd like to know more, I strongly recommend the book "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Donald Shoup, "The War on Cars" podcast, or "Not Just Bikes" Youtube channel.
The High Cost of Free Parking
Oh no! You have to pay to store your 2 ton personal property in a city! What an outrage! Even when you aren't charged for it directly, parking isn't free.
Recomand calduros aceasta carte.
Yall need to read a book sometime https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X
Fantasy? Is your mind really that closed buddy? You realize that much of Europe deals with snow, and has pedestrian friendly cities? Do you have any idea how much more enjoyable life is in these cities?
Ontop of everything I've already said above, cars are just much much more expensive for people. The cost of owning a car is very high, and the roads deteriorate so fast because of traffic.
Seniors can't drive forever, and good public transport is much safer for them. Same for people with disabilities, parents, and hell even people drinking, getting drunk drivers off the roads is another benefit.
I honestly don't even know why you said the groups you said, because in every way, for everyone, pedestrian & public transport focused cities are better.
I recommend checking out videos like Not Just Bikes, or reading research on the subject, like The High Cost of Free Parking.
This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion (despite the book), but I think everywhere should always charge for parking, not just for parking with chargers (although I'm fine with additional charges for the energy and for idle time, especially at fast chargers). Combined with eliminating parking minimums, we can start more effectively using land that's currently forced to languish as unused parking spots.
Indeed. Here's a lovely book written by UCLA's own Donald Shoup on the subject.
This is fundamentally untrue. The changes against parking minimums are not for developers; parking minimums and free parking have enormous externalities. Here is a YouTube video that introduces the topic: The High Cost of Free Parking
If it interests you, the researcher interviewed has an 800-page book on the topic.
If you’re skeptical abt all the people brigading saying parking should always be paid, tagging r/fuckcars, and rambling about public transit:
Yes, they’re an extreme, but there is some truth.
some light reading that should help you understand their argument
TLDR: even if parking is free, you will always pay though tax indirectly
No hay que reinventar la rueda, ya existen soluciones:
I tried to read at least that article but certainly have no time nor energy for that.
What is that subfield called?
Sure, there are many different ways to regulate and there are many different levels of institutions.
But the problem is that you as an individual do not really decide “how to regulate”. Everybody Is keen to regulate as they see fit. But people seldom agree on anything, much less economists. I do not expect markets to be perfect, I expect them to be the best available option. Nobody can persuade the nation that his way is the one true way… Too much diversity (in knowledge, worldview and values) and too many stakeholders (who make money on those inefficiencies). So, we are actually getting in each other’s way.
This brings me to the housing crisis.
No, world population growth has nothing to do with this. You can’t have the problem Americans are complaining about without all over internet without severe supply shortage.
This is easy to see when you look at the usual American city. Yes, you will see that majority of the cities are covered in single family housing zones.
I think we do not have to argue about what would markets choose if they were free, they’d start building up, to build as much real estate as possible on a land plot, as long as there is demand for it and through prices we can see that there is.
So, why not get rid of single-family zoning? Because it would be a political suicide. People support it, people want it, but why? Because this is the mechanism for their real estate values to grow. They are protecting their investments through government.
This is one side of the story. Another one is the mandatory minimal parking requirements, which have been shaping American cities for the past century.
There is actually a really good book about this by Donald Shoup: https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X/ref=nodl_
In a nutshell, government enforced parking requirements have created cities that have more parking than housing.
Well, this has many unintended consequences.
To list some of them: The land is underutilized, buildings are built far from each other, it makes walking unpleasant and incentivizes driving.
And a third problem: Massive investments in roads.
Since Eisenhower, US has become obsessed with building highways.. Building roads and infrastructure for cars. It’s a simple example of opportunity cost. The more friendly your city becomes for driving, the less friendly it is for walking. Not to mention al the funds that go in highway/road constructions and maintenance.
So, to sum it up: US government has been mandating and subsidizing car-dependent sprawl building for decades.
Sure, on an absolutely free market, you’d have other types of problems.. Specifically: too much density and low aesthetic. But there you are.. It’s either this or that.. and a very low chance that the politicians will get it just right.
Sure, some cities and some countries might get it right.. It’s not really about knowing what causes the problem and what might be a solution, it’s about willingness to do the right thing (from every stakeholder). For example, congestion.. What is a congestion if not a shortage of roads? How could there be no shortage when it is free to use them any time of the day? Several cities have realized that and had courage to implement congestion pricing to combat this (Copenhagen for example) and it worked the way any economics book would describe it would work. They have been trying to introduce it in New York for years and it will still take them years to do it…
So, public sector is an apotheosis of inefficiency and slowness.
For me, hoping that the next Government will implement the “right” policies.. it’s a gamble.
And I do not like to gamble.
Instead of us getting into each other’s ways.. I always propose an alternative: To outsource as much as possible to the markets, so that all of us can make their own choices. Not possible everywhere, sure. But I think it’s more of a mindset thing.. Are you trying to find an opportunity in every problem or are you trying to find a problem in every opportunity?
That’s why I proposed an idea of private cities.
Not company towns, which were like additions to the wages workers received. But an actual privatization of city management.
There are a lot of dark areas there and that’s why I wanted to discuss those problems.. To poke around the idea. But instead…
I see no reason why private city managements should not have the same capabilities as public cities.
If people like the way city is managed, then they will risk and invest in the city, by moving there. It may fail, or it may be the best decision.. One city might fail and another prosper. But this is a very normal thing for any sector. I don’t think “protecting” people from this choice is a right decision.
Urban Planning does not lack ideas, what it lacks is cities willing to experiment and change… In my opinion, The market lacks competition.
Good, parking is likely highly mid priced. See. e.g., https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X/ref=nodl_
^Item&nbsp;Info | Bot&nbsp;Info | Trigger
It is a uniquely American viewpoint that housing automatically means cars. Other places that have functioning transit systems and inclusive zoning laws don't have this problem, because their citizens are able to get around without needing to own and operate an expensive piece of machinery.
Personally, I don't own a car. Parking minimum legislation inflates the price of housing because the law requires that my housing be bundled with a parking space that I don't use. This leads to a huge oversupply in parking spots, and this has been shown to be true right here in Denver, especially around transit stations, which have a lot of empty park-and-ride spots.
The advantage of a city is that everything is nearby. In the US, instead, we have mandated that everything is far apart, even in cities. This is a regressive outcome that we need to be focusing on fixing, and part of that is removing parking minimums legislation.
If you are interested in learning more about the politics and consequences of parking policy in the U.S., I highly recommend The High Cost of Free Parking by Prof. Donald Shoup.
I mean, "sometimes"...like at Christmas?
Even if parkings lots do fill up at Christmas, we should be questioning a usage of space which sees expensive investment, environmental harms like, and loss of opportunity (all costs of parking), to be used only a handful of days in the year.
There are other much more efficient ways to manage parking:
Real fiscal conservatives would be all over this.
The book The High Cost of Free Parking is super interesting, and digs into how we end up with so much parking.
The general workflow is something like:
Once the parking lot is in place, even if the property changes to a lower-parking-required use, it's not usually economically feasible to redevelop part of it. Especially since the newly redeveloped part of the property will have its own parking requirements.
This makes things like the city of Kitchener removing parking minimums for tiny homes near LRT stops a big deal.
The folks at Strong Towns write about parking a lot. Apparently Edmonton just removed their mandatory parking minimums, which is amazing news.
Free Parking in downtowns is one of the worst "innovations" of the modern era. (See the book: The High Cost of Free Parking)
You've got the coercion backwards. Car ownership is currently heavily subsidized, forcing people into cars. This coercion is applied along many dimensions, including onerous land use restrictions, but the subsidization of parking is especially well documented: https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X
Those ACS data show that car ownership is highly, positively correlated with income. Most people are not commuters at all, yet still need functional transportation.
The question is whether continuing the current policy of subsidizing high-income, non-resident car owners is on net good for the poor or bad for the poor. We observe the current outcome, but the counterfactual is unobserved. It would be great to randomly assign some cities to less coercive transportation regimes, but until then we have to rely on quasi-experimental methods. Here's one example: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2958224/why%20do%20the%20poor%20live%20in%20cities.pdf
The High Cost Of Free Parking
> It didn't spread out because cars take up room.
Yes it did. Building car parks and highways causes sprawl.
Read anything about the history and causes of suburban sprawl and you'll find out that this is exactly what happened.
You can tell that this is the case because in places like Amsterdam where they didn't do this, people generally don't own cars, and bike everywhere.
Read this for instance: https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X
Or just watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odF4GSX1y3c
I'm all for reducing subsidized parking, but I really do think you're being overly pessimistic about how much parking removal it would take to acheive all your goals.
For the wonks out there, check out the book "The High Cost of Free Parking." Made a lot waves when it came out in 2011.
Undskyld, det meste af det kommer fra mit urban economics fag på min udveksling.
Jeg remser ikke negative ting op om biler. Jeg remser ting op ved biler, som koster andre end bilisten penge, som bilisten ikke fuldt ud selv betaler for uden en skat på kørsel.
Man forsinker andre, fordi andre biler gør at du kommer langsommere frem (når der ikke er så mange har det ikke den store effekt). Jo flere biler der er, jo mere er der tendens til køer. Jeg har et powerpoint slide fra min undervisning. https://imgur.com/a/MxI7c og her https://imgur.com/a/zxGdu. For at opsummere: "congestion" fører til forlænget rejsetid (34 timer pr. pendler om året), spildt brændstof (2,2% af årligt forbrug), forhøjet CO2 udslip (18 mio tons/året), forurening er årsagen til 8.600 "premature" fødsler, hvor den største omkostning er den forlængede rejsetid, idet den rejsetid kunne have været bedre brugt på f.eks. arbejde.
I Toronto er prisen for trængsel estimeret til at være 3,3 milliarder dollars + 2,7 milliarder dollars fra mistet BNP fra tiden brugt i trafik i stedet for arbejde. http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/costsofcongestion/costs_congestion.aspx
Ja en benzinbil forurener både globalt og lokalt. En elbil forurener kun globalt og det afhænger af hvor effektivt og grøn ens energi produktion er. Derfor giver det mening at afgiften på den her front er lidt mindre for elbilen.
Risiko for uheld: Der sker biluheld. Det koster både i skader og sundhedsvæsenet. Skaderne kan spores tilbage til bilerne. Teknisk set hvis nogle biler er sikre end andre og derfor har en mindre risiko for uheld, så bør de have en mindre skat, men man skal også huske at når der bliver reklameret for at en bil er sikker, er den så sikker for chaufføren og passagererne eller alle andre? (nok mest chaufføren og passagererne).
Skade på vejene. Når biler - specielt tunge biler - bruger vejene, slider de dem - går specielt ud over broer. Med tiden kommer der huller og andre skader, som så kræver vejarbejde, som koster penge.
Ulemperne ved trængsel, forurening og biluheld er kort gjort op her i den meget berømte bog, Freakonomics, af Steven Levitt og Stephen Dubner: http://imgur.com/a/QWm4z - her bliver det faktisk understreget at forurening ikke er bilers største omkostning:
"The texas transportation institute estamtes theat in 2000 the 75 largest metropolitan areas experienced 3.6 billion vehicle hours of delay, resulting in 21.6 billion liters in wasted fuel and 67.5 billion dollars in lost productivity, or about 0.7% of the nation's GDP"
"Aaron Edlin and Pinar Mandic in a paper i was proud to publish in the Journal of Political Economy, argue convincingly that each extra driver raises the insurance cost of other drivers by about 2000 dollars. Their key point is that if my car is not there to crash into, maybe a crash never happens. They conclude that the appropriate tax would generate 220 billion dollars annually."
"If you can believe Wikipedia's entry on the carbon tax, the social cost of a ton of carbon put into the atmosphere is about 43 dollars. (Obviously there is a huge standard error to this number, bus let's just run with it.) If that number is right, then the gas tax needed to offset the global warming effect is about twelve cents per gallon. According to a National Academy og Sciences report, American motor vehicles burn about 160 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel each year. At twelve cents a gallon, that implies a 20 billion dollar global waming externality. So relative to reducing congestion and lowing the number of accidents, fighting global warming is a distant third in terms of reasons to raise the gas tax."
Mere vejplads: Alle vejene er blevet bygget for bilister. Derfor giver det mening at bilister betaler prisen det har kostet af bygge vejene for at bruge dem på en måde der sikrer at det går lige op. En gang var vejene faktisk privatejede og man betalte en afgift for at køre på dem, men nu bliver det anset som et offentligt gode. Cliff Winston snakker her (dog kontroversielt blandt selv økonomer) om hvordan toge, lufthavne og veje burde være privatejede: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/10/winston_on_tran.html
Andre økonomer ville mene at mange at problemerne ville kunne løses ved bare at give færre subsidier til veje, lufthavne og toge og samtidigt skabe betaling for vejene.
Den her artikel forklarer noget af det: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/01/the-real-reason-us-gas-is-so-cheap-is-americans-dont-pay-the-true-cost-of-driving/384200/ - se skemaet over omkostningerne.
Andet godt læseligt (ift. parkering):
Interesting point but I disagree.
You're citing Donald Shoup, the author of the paper I linked above. He did the full economic analysis and believes that we should eliminate parking minimums.
He also is very clear that we should charge appropriate prices for street parking.
Eliminating parking minimums is not a subsidy to property developers and property owners. Charging below-market fees for street parking is.
Since you cited Shoup as your primary evidence, in addition the the previously-linked article (http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Trouble.pdf), I'd also check out his book https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X (paper here http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/351.pdf)
[Longer-term, I suspect that self-driving cars are going to make it so that we call cars using our phones. They'll actually park farther away from the denser areas where people live. In that case, I hope we don't cast huge parking lots into concrete when they could be built into things that have productive use.]
Actually, many transit agencies <em>do</em> charge pass holders for parking. Just like hospitals do.
If you want to learn more about why that's a good thing, feel free to read The High Cost of Free Parking
Parking is expensive. This book is a great read on that: http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X
That would be easier. I was looking at http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/193236496X
In another phrasing: "Traffic expands to meet the available road space (Mogridge, 1990). It is generally referred to as induced demand in the transport literature, and was posited as the 'Iron Law of Congestion' by Anthony Downs." - Lewis–Mogridge Position
I'd also recommend reading The High Cost of Free Parking for expanded positions about latent demand in urban contexts.
Sure, but it's all about tradeoffs. Parking is very expensive to construct (on average over $15,000 PER SPACE for structured parking and I've seen estimates that are a lot higher than that) and many cities mandate construction of parking that is much higher than what is needed (even in transit-rich NYC!). Some of the parking requirements are absolutely bizarre. If you have any interest in learning more about parking, I cannot recommend this book enough. The idea of an 800 page book solely about parking probably sounds absolutely insane to you right now, but it is a shockingly compelling read. It will consistently blow your mind and you'll never look at the environment you live in the same way again (if you're an American or Canadian, at least).
Motorists sure think they pay a lot for their roads, but it's not enough when you factor in all costs (including opportunity cost) related to driving. Take parking for instance - our society bends over backwards to make parking cheap and plentiful, and there are huge hidden costs associated. An econ professor at UCLA has written a whole book on the matter. You can see some of the ideas in this powerpoint.
Also, the perceived shortage is due to the fact that the parking is underpriced:
If parking was supplied at the market clearing rate there wouldn't be this perceived shortage. This is what makes it so frustrating when people say "There's too much traffic and not enough parking." The only solution to that is to charge for usage, to which people respond "No way, it's my right to drive and park everywhere without paying." So we end up putting our heads in the sand and carrying on with pointless freeway expansions that reduce traffic by minutes for literally just the first few months that they're open.
It's one of those things that historians will just be like 'wtf was wrong with them? they knew more roads and parking didn't solve the problem but they just kept on building it anyways.'
Free parking is literally one of the worst things ever to happen to cities.
The High Cost of Free Parking, Updated Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/193236496X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_saYUDb65AC042
I recommend reading the whole book if you get the chance
Parking is a low value use of land which discourages the growth of public transit. There is no good reason for LA to be mandating anyone build more parking than makes economic sense.
I refer you to this book for a good description of why the quest for too much free parking just makes cities worse places to live.
And actually, NO, I'm going to completely approve this.
Dallas needs more density and less parking surface lots. Areas with balanced density are areas with focused economic/business/life activity.
Read a book, bro
High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup
Walkable City by Jeff Speck
You haven't answered the question of whether or not the DHA has addressed your issues. What's your motive for wanting to deny requests? What other issues are you envisioning? How can they be addressed?