What a crazy notion! If you adjust parking meter fees to be higher when and where demand is higher and lower at non-peak times and locations, then you might make it easier to find parking, reducing congestion (fewer people circling looking for a spot), and generate revenue that could be used to upgrade non-car options, further reducing congestion for those trips that truly require a car. Sounds like a bad idea to me.
« Matt Sells Out | Main | Transit Up »
Supply and Demand
10 May 2008 10:14 am
Comments (10)
you're also helping to insure higher costs for the poor who happen to share the same resources and don't have the flexibility to change schedules around lower cost schedules.
I'm not sure about that. The poor, like most of us, are pretty crafty. Plus, since their time is worth less in terms of dollars per hour, their schedules may well be more flexible.
Or, alternately, since they're poor, their schedules are inflexible, and they're the group least likely to be driving around san francisco during peak hours.
The poor are not some kind of alien race. It's it's becoming disingenuous to claim that, on one hand, public transport overwhelmingly serves the poor while, on the other hand, complaining that moves to make places more friendly and less traffic congested for that same public transport is unfriendly towards the poor. Did it ever occur to you that the poor people double parking on the street are making it harder for the poor person taking the bus to get to work?
I'm guessing you don't own a car.
Most people don't think about the meter price before they actually start looking for the change to feed it.
Most people don't think about the meter price before they actually start looking for the change to feed it.
Incorrect. I know when the meters are in effect (and thus free) and when they aren't, and I'm more likely to avail myself of street parking when I know I don't have to pay for the meters.
"Did it ever occur to you that the poor people double parking on the street are making it harder for the poor person taking the bus to get to work?"
I assume they are as law abiding as anyone else and aren't double parking any more than anyone else. For someone lecturing me about thinking of the poor as an alien race, you seem to be ignoring your own biases.
I assume they are as law abiding as anyone else and aren't double parking any more than anyone else.
It doesn't matter, actually. What matters is that you're willing to throw the poor bus-riders and pedestrians under the bus in favor of car drivers, rich or poor, who are making the downtown harder on the poor. I can't help but think that your perspective is a bit blinkered: you raise an objection because you're concerned that, somehow, this will hurt the poor, but forget about how the poor are hurt by the current situation already.
The poor aren't stupid. They're just as capable of understanding tradeoffs as anyone else, and the constitution doesn't guarantee cheap parking during peak business hours. We call such things "business expenses," and some parts of the country are more expensive to do business in than others. In the contest between providing better quality of life for the poor in terms of ability to get places quickly via public transport or necessary commercial trips during peak hours and between those who are clogging up traffic by over-using cheap access to parking, I'm going to side with the former group.
"The poor aren't stupid"
I never said they were. Some people, whatever their income level, are not going to be well served by mass transit. For those people parking is a necessary commodity. If you raise the price of that commodity, they suffer a greater impact than those who are wealthy. I'm assuming here that perks like flex-time are not available for most jobs, and if you don't have control over your own schedule, you have no ability to take advantage of peak versus off-peak scheduling to seek out the lower price of a commodity.
Helter:
You could say the same thing about just about anything. Why should the poor have to pay the market price for gas, for example? If we put strict price controls on gas, more poor people could afford it. But this would generate a whole range of problems. Of course, you might argue that we should have price controls on gas and other things. But if not, I don't see a systematic reason why you would oppose loosening the price controls on parking other than that they are there in the first place.
The point is that you use taxes and pricing solutions to control behavior.... The gov't doesn't actually need to keep the money -- you can give all revenue back to the poor if you want... the ones who find alternate solutions will end up better.
Some people, whatever their income level, are not going to be well served by mass transit
Well, cyates beat me to the snarky response so I'll take a serious tact: the drivers can alter their behavior. This does not necessitate taking mass transit- maybe it's driving off-peak, car-pooling, walking or riding a bike, or telecommuting, or (when they are really in a hurry) just sucking it up and paying the higher price. It's up to them to determine the most reasonable way to absorb the cost of the parking.
Right now that choice is made uncertain by the randomness of finding on-street parking in urban areas. One day I find a spot in front of the store, on other days I spend 30 minutes trolling for a free spot. (Some surveys have estimated that more than 30% of traffic in some urban areas may be people just looking for parking and, believe me, the poor are paying the cost of higher traffic and pollution, too)
Comments closed May 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I know you love the idea of higher prices to curb demand, but a pricing solution tends to impact only the poor. So while your various schemes are great for making sure infrastructure is more convenient for the wealthy, you're also helping to insure higher costs for the poor who happen to share the same resources and don't have the flexibility to change schedules around lower cost schedules.
Posted by Helter | May 10, 2008 11:24 AM