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.
There is no law requiring that property owners give parking away for free. It is just that charging for it could reduce business or is more hassle than it is worth. There are parking minimums for developers and they were created to solve the very problem you are "complaining about". I mean you could have chosen public transit. Who cares that it may not be suitable for the task and probably is slower than driving.
Yes there is no law requiring free parking but there should be. Clearly the parking minimums don't go far enough because there are still places like Manhattan where it is very hard to find free parking. If I don't want to pay for something, why should I have to when others can cover the cost for me?
Well, in many arguments about subsidies or socialized services we see this misunderstanding of what kinds of goods and services should be provided privately or for a fee and what kinds should be subsidized or provided socially.
Schools, police, fire, and the post office are all examples of services for which it makes sense to have a strong, universal public option.
Even local roadways, which facilitate local commerce and allow for the functioning of our schools and emergency services, make sense to provide socially.
But something like an interstate, well the "public benefit" (emergency services, military response) portion is quite small compared to the benefit to private users, so it makes sense to use the market to price the allocation of interstate lane-miles.
With the exception of the police (which work mostly to the detriment of "users"), all of those things benefit private users. Schools benefit students and parents. Fire departments benefit property owners. The post office benefits mailers and mailees. Local commerce isn't some kind of thing different from other commerce.
Even if it were, you stubbornly ignore the existence of substitute goods.
Well, in many arguments about subsidies or socialized services we see this misunderstanding of what kinds of goods and services should be provided privately or for a fee and what kinds should be subsidized or provided socially.
Schools, police, fire, and the post office are all examples of services for which it makes sense to have a strong, universal public option.
Even local roadways, which facilitate local commerce and allow for the functioning of our schools and emergency services, make sense to provide socially.
But something like an interstate, well the "public benefit" (emergency services, military response) portion is quite small compared to the benefit to private users, so it makes sense to use the market to price the allocation of interstate lane-miles.
The "public benefit" IS the roadway.
Where is the misunderstanding?
With respect to "provide socially" perhaps what is meant is "paid for by government"?
This point of distinction is important to recognize.
"Local roadways" are nominally paid for by local government.
Interstate roadways are nominally paid for by federal government (90%).
There is plenty "local use" of interstate roadways. However the interstate system is viewed as benefiting more than just locals. Funding is distributed across a much wider public.
If you can rationalize local government paying for local roads based on "local" commerce then why is it problematic to rationalize federal government paying 90% of the cost of interstate roads on the basis of interstate commerce?
A sidewalk is still subsidized. So you're OK with little subsidies, but not bigger subsidies?
Sidewalks (and bike lanes), like local streets and roads, serve the local public good almost entirely, so there is an argument for those to be provided socially. But, of course, there are limits, and we reach those limits when the public benefit is eclipsed by service to private uses.
The god of LOS, for instance, is one example of how service to private uses can take precedence over service to the public good. LOS puts the movement of vehicles, mostly private ones, above all other users with a disconnect between that priority and the net value to the city and public of that priority.
It's a nuanced, but immensely important distinction that I cannot seem to get you interested in.
As I said to Nei, I don't like subsidies because they make these decisions especially complicated because they distort demand.
But I also recognize the importance of subsidies in serving the public good. I recognize that there are many, many things that ought to be subsidized, like the police and fire departments, EMS, schools, libraries, and the postal service.
So, for example, I'm on board with subsidizing interstates to serve the public good, such as military transport or emergency response. But interstates built only for the public good would be radically different, connecting cities (inter-city) rather than cutting in to them (intra-city) and would be drastically smaller, never more than two lanes in each direction.
But if a person wants something more than that which just serves the public good, then the private market comes in to play. And that's why we have private security, private schools, and UPS, FedEx, and DHL.
If we want our highways and interstates to do more than just be in service to the public good, well, we'd be serving private interests (driving to work or errands or moving goods to be sold on the private market) and, as such, should be funded by cost-recovering user fees (tolls). In that way we only get as much as we're willing to individually pay for, rather than the government pushing down the cost below the market rate and inducing artificial demand.
Last edited by darkeconomist; 03-01-2017 at 11:11 AM..
Schools benefit students and parents. Fire departments benefit property owners. The post office benefits mailers and mailees.
And each of these benefit, at least hypothetically, everyone, blindly and equally. The fire department doesn't give you a different level of service because you are rich or poor. The post office doesn't judge your Forever stamp by your socio-economic status.
But the private market has strong incentives to serve some but not others, or to serve some better than others. UPS can absolutely choose not to serve you because you'd be unprofitable. A security company can absolutely say no to serving an individual.
The god of LOS, for instance, is one example of how service to private uses can take precedence over service to the public good. LOS puts the movement of vehicles, mostly private ones, above all other users with a disconnect between that priority and the net value to the city and public of that priority.
Roads and interstates allow the quick and efficient movement of people and goods through an city. The problem with public transit is that it quite frankly is expensive. You are paying for someone else to do what you can do yourself. To replace the car you would need massive amounts of transit available 24/7 and even then it could never be as fast as a car because public transit by it's nature needs to stop to allow passengers to get on and off.
Quote:
But interstates built only for the public good would be radically different, connecting cities (inter-city) rather than cutting in to them (intra-city) and would be drastically smaller, never more than two lanes in each direction.
Err you have to get far from Chicago before the interstates turns to two lanes and people in town use the interstate system to travel great distances.Like across town without stopping in the loop. If the interstate stopped outside of town it would be 15 miles from the loop to the nearest interstate going west. It would be about 20 miles or so going north or south from the loop a major pain in the neck. Heck the EL itself is dependant on the interstate as it did not go to O'hare or past 63rd street(Chicago extends to 130th!) without I90.
Quote:
But if a person wants something more than that which just serves the public good, then the private market comes in to play. And that's why we have private security, private schools, and UPS, FedEx, and DHL.
FED X and UPS exist because they offer services more then USPS. That being said they don't offer everyday pick up and delivery to residential customers like USPS nor have as many locations or mail boxes. Private Schools also serve the public good(it is illegal for children not to attend school).It is just that outside of vouchers the government does not pay for them but it does regulate them the same as public schools.
Quote:
If we want our highways and interstates to do more than just be in service to the public good, well, we'd be serving private interests (driving to work or errands or moving goods to be sold on the private market) and, as such, should be funded by cost-recovering user fees (tolls). In that way we only get as much as we're willing to individually pay for, rather than the government pushing down the cost below the market rate and inducing artificial demand.
Roads have been public goods since ancient times because the fast, low cost and efficient movement of goods and people benefits everyone. Public transit and trains are rather poor is some categories of movement(like to your door, like available at a moment's notice).
And each of these benefit, at least hypothetically, everyone, blindly and equally. The fire department doesn't give you a different level of service because you are rich or poor. The post office doesn't judge your Forever stamp by your socio-economic status.
But the private market has strong incentives to serve some but not others, or to serve some better than others. UPS can absolutely choose not to serve you because you'd be unprofitable. A security company can absolutely say no to serving an individual.
UPS does not have that option. They must deliver the package. They can choose not to accept a package as can the USPS(it does not accept hazardous materials ect..). However they charge what they charge. What UPS offers that USPS does not have is insurance on the package which is handy for the seller of the package.USPS only offers $5000 worth of insurance for a package. UPS offers $50,000. UPS is global, USPS only serves the United States.
UPS is not more efficient nor is is cheaper than USPS. It just has a slightly different market. Like Fed EX. Likewise public goods like road(and interstates) are often cheaper than the private market for some activities .
Yes there is no law requiring free parking but there should be. Clearly the parking minimums don't go far enough because there are still places like Manhattan where it is very hard to find free parking. If I don't want to pay for something, why should I have to when others can cover the cost for me?
Well what I suggest you do is drive to the nearest mall. The "Problem" you mentioned was a major reason why the State Street(in Chicago) and likewise Time Square declined in the 60ies thru the 80ies. Certain types of retail do not do well without free parking(movie theaters come mind). Some stores actually offer free or discounted shopping at certain lots if you buy something. What happened to both is redevelopment away from business that depend on customers coming in from around town to business that served downtown workers, tourist ect.
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.
