Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's been a long time since I've been in apartment that just gave you free parking. In Seattle where the cost was probably close to that $30-40k space for the underground garage, the cost of parking was indeed passed on to the renter. If you wanted a spot, it cost you a cool $275/mo.
The garage was unsuitable for occupancy. Legally, I very much doubt it could have been finished and had apartments added that could have been rented. Even if they legally could, there wouldn't be much demand. I mean, get the price low enough and people will live anywhere.
Before that, a reserved parking spot in a suburban apartment complex in Sacramento was $35/mo. They did have some unreserved/guest parking but that always filled up so you had to park outside the complex and walk back in which was annoying and one of the main reasons we did not renew the lease at that place since in the nine months we were there, we did not make it through the waiting list to get a paid spot.
It depends. The thing is, we don't actually pass the true price of parking on to the users. Only rarely. There are some buildings were they sell the spot outright for the true cost, but most of the time it is built into everyone's price.
Let's use your example of the $275/month parking spot. Let's pretend it costs $30k to build. It'll take over 9 years for the developer/owner to just recoup the price of the parking spot. It doesn't become profitable until about year 10. Real Estate developers aren't waiting 10 years for a profit, so they up the price on everyone else's unit to make up for it. So the parking space user pays $275, and everyone else pays an extra $20, 50, $75 so the developer can reach his target profit margins on time.
Let me be clear here: I am not a math whiz and I screwed up my numbers. You are right in calling me out on this post. I even screwed up the bus fares. It's $2.25 per ride.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
And with CTA farebox recovery of 55%, that means another $20.5 million per day in taxpayer subsidy, if they collect $25,000,000/day in money for bus fares. Which they don't. No idea where you came up with that asinine number. It's actually more like 19,000*2.50 or $47,500, which is just slightly different than $25 million.
But the number of 19,000(trips per day)*$2.25(fare, corrected)=$42,750(money made daily, corrected) is not right at all. That number assumes only one person rides one bus, every trip, for the entire day.
There are approximately 1,000,000 bus rides a day. If every ride is $2.25, that would be $2,250,000 a day. But only 55% of the operation cost is recovered. So it's actually $1,237,500 a day in revenue is generated via bus.
There are 1,865 buses total for the CTA and if 1,000,000 rides are taken on them every day, that means each bus carries an average of 536 people a day.
536 people per day paying $2.25 a ride would be $1,206 per bus, but factoring in a 55% farebox recovery rate, that means each bus brings in $663 a day in fares.
536 people driving 100 miles a day at 25 mpg using 4 gallons in gas with $3.61 in taxes = $1,935 day in taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
More complete nonsense. I wonder how out of touch with reality someone has to be to really think everyone who boards a bus somehow magically boards every bus in operation for the entirety of every route. Probably the same type of person who thinks they collect $25 million in fares. Completely asinine.
Once again, I screwed up the numbers. I couldn't even get the fare correct.
But I would like to point out that, "to really think everyone who boards a bus somehow magically boards every bus in operation for the entirety of every route." has really no bearing on this at all. It doesn't make a difference, a fare is paid whether the person rides the whole length of the route, or half, or one stop.
It's like buying a gallon gas. You already paid the tax for that gallon. Whether or not you use the whole gallon on one trip is irrelevant.
What matters is (given a 55% farebox recovery rate):
You could take 25, one mile trips in a car at 25 MPG and pay less than $1 in taxes for 25 miles of road use.
OR
You could take 25, one mile trips and pay $31 in fares on the bus.
536 people could take 25, one mile trips in a car at 25 MPG and pay $12,100 in taxes for 25 miles of road use.
OR
536 people could take 25, one mile trips and pay $16,616 in fares on the bus.
OR
536 people could take 50, one half mile trips and pay $33,232 in fares on the bus.
OR
536 people could take 100, one quarter mile trips and pay $66,464 in fares on the bus.
If anyone else has problems with my numbers or methodology, feel free to point it out.
If I screwed up some numbers, feel free to show me where I did. Give me the correct numbers, that's cool too.
I will gladly change any factual/mathematical errors I have made.
Feel free to give any equations you worked out yourself.
Perhaps the more relevant issue is "what are you trying to say"?
That mass transit is not economically feasible?
That the cost of mass transit is borne mostly by non-users?
That mass transit doesn't pay for itself much less for the road ?
That more of John Q Public's money is wasted when spent on transit as opposed to his own vehicle?
It depends. The thing is, we don't actually pass the true price of parking on to the users. Only rarely. There are some buildings were they sell the spot outright for the true cost, but most of the time it is built into everyone's price.
Let's use your example of the $275/month parking spot. Let's pretend it costs $30k to build. It'll take over 9 years for the developer/owner to just recoup the price of the parking spot. It doesn't become profitable until about year 10. Real Estate developers aren't waiting 10 years for a profit, so they up the price on everyone else's unit to make up for it. So the parking space user pays $275, and everyone else pays an extra $20, 50, $75 so the developer can reach his target profit margins on time.
Except maybe without parking the developer wouldn't sell any "units".
In addition, who says the allocation is as you claim? What if it is?
The price is what the market will bear regardless of how you are attempting to allocate developer's costs. Following your logic why wouldn't a more appropriate interpretation be more affordable housing for those that did not need a parking space?
I do not see any real complaint here about parking spaces particularly since there is no empirical evidence to support the claim - and even if there were the developer is free to allocate costs as it sees fit with the only constraint being market forces and availability of alternatives.
If the argument is that "some residents are having to pay for things those residents don't need", consider the following:
Should the cost of elevators be borne solely by upper story residents?
Should the cost of stairwells be borne solely by upper story residents with higher and higher floors paying ever increasing prices?
Should first floor residents pay more for an enclosed patio?
Should upper floor residents pay higher utility bills? (e.g., electricity to run the elevator, lights for stairwells, pumps for water, etc.)
There are bigger and more disconcerting legal problems with "units" - mostly because "units" are likely to be condominiums.
"The generous parking capacity required by planners often
goes unused° Studying office buildings in ten California
dries, Richard Willson (1995) found that the peak parking
demand averaged only 56 percent of capacity. Gruen
Associates (1986) found that peak parking demanda t nine
suburban office parks near Philadelphia and San Francisco
averaged only 47 percent of capacity, and that no office park
had a peak parking demand greater than 60 percent of
capacity.3 The Urban Land Institute (1982, 12) found that
the recommendepda rking requirements for shopping
centers provide a surplus of parking spaces for all but
nineteen hours a year, and leave at least half of all spaces
vacant for more than 40 percent of the time a shopping
center is open for busines"
Cherries can be picked. I worked at a suburban office park near Philadelphia which was well over 60 percent of capacity; in fact, sometimes the thing was full. Suburban office parks with empty lots likely have vacant office space as well.
And sticking with the Philadelphia area, certainly the King of Prussia Mall has most spaces vacant most of the time. But then comes Christmas season.... and given the way retail works, anyone who doesn't shop because they can't park during that period is going to be a hit to profit. It doesn't make sense to size a shopping center parking lot for typical demand.
Back to my area: Just last Friday, I tried to meet my wife for drinks at a restaurant. Inadequate parking (probably because the restaurant was constructed recently under an ideologically anti-car planning regime) meant I couldn't.
While I was doing a little research about this topic (cost of "free" parking), I came across a stat that in busy areas with limited parking, about 30% of the traffic is people circling and looking for parking. Of course, I'll never find that link again in a million years, but I did read it, just today! That is certainly a good argument for a need for more parking of any sort.
When all is said and done, I still think that residences should be required to provide at least ONE off-street parking place.
While I was doing a little research about this topic (cost of "free" parking), I came across a stat that in busy areas with limited parking, about 30% of the traffic is people circling and looking for parking. Of course, I'll never find that link again in a million years, but I did read it, just today! That is certainly a good argument for a need for more parking of any sort.
I've read something similar, but I think those busy areas (excluding very high density residential areas) refer to commercial districts not residential districts. Usually even dense residential residential don't require much circling or time to look for parking.
I'd also nitpick on the wordchoice of "need", as I'd use to need to describe something much more dire, the situation is functional as is, just subpar.
I've read something similar, but I think those busy areas (excluding very high density residential areas) refer to commercial districts not residential districts. Usually even dense residential residential don't require much circling or time to look for parking.
I'd also nitpick on the wordchoice of "need", as I'd use to need to describe something much more dire, the situation is functional as is, just subpar.
I once lived in a residential area of Pittsburgh with no off-street parking. It wasn't *too* hard to find a spot near my apt, but that was back in the early 70s when people had fewer cars/household. We seem to be going back and forth in this thread between residential and commercial parking issues.
If you want to nitpick words, let me get started on "flight", "flee" and other similar words used frequently here.
I'm the real sucker in this one.. because I pay gas tax, vehicle registration / inspection fees, income tax, sales tax, and property tax (all of which heavily subsidize roads), but bike to work gas-free.
I guess its time for the whiney drivers to pay up.
Flips quarter.....
Entitled drivers or selfless bicyclists?
I once lived in a residential area of Pittsburgh with no off-street parking. It wasn't *too* hard to find a spot near my apt, but that was back in the early 70s when people had fewer cars/household. We seem to be going back and forth in this thread between residential and commercial parking issues.
Have cars per household increased much since the 70s? I would have assumed car ownership was near current levels by then. I've visited denser areas with no off street parking where finding a street parking space wasn't too hard, car ownership is probably lower than Pittsburgh but the higher density at least canceled it out. Actually, the worst IME is the Boston area as it requires residential parking permits. Good for residents, not so good for visitors. Well if your friends bother to give your a visitor permit it works, but this particular friend didn't bother have it findable.
Quote:
If you want to nitpick words, let me get started on "flight", "flee" and other similar words used frequently here.
Ok, what I meant is what others call "need" I might consider "nice to have".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
