Atlanta Looks For Solutions To City’s Parking Lot Deserts (Rome: buy, depreciation)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

The suburbs are a fine place to go out to eat, if you don't mind the "vanilla" options of Applebee's, the Olive Garden, and Ruby Tuesday.

But if you want more flair, you probably have to come into town. Which a lot of other people would like to do. Thus creating more demand for the limited parking that is available. Thus the price of parking can go up. Econ 101 right there.

I completely disagree. Sure the suburbs have all the chains, but they also have tremendous diversity. Remember, they are vast and are home to 90% of our population. Most of our ethnic rainbow is in the suburbs, not in the city proper.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by primaltech

That's a generality that isn't really true. Today I ate at a non-chain, unique joint in suburban Smyrna, called Taco Cantina- and it was AMAZING. Better than anything I've had recently, anywhere in-town.

(Off topic, sorry.)

Originally Posted by arjay57

I completely disagree. Sure the suburbs have all the chains, but they also have tremendous diversity. Remember, they are vast and are home to 90% of our population. Most of our ethnic rainbow is in the suburbs, not in the city proper.

Y'all did notice the word "probably," right?

[cqholt]

This notion that parking is free is incorrect. On-street parking is laid for by property taxes. Surface lots are paid for by customers as the price of the product reflects the cost to build and maintain the lot. Garages are paid for by passing the costs onto the user in the form of parking fees, rent, lease, or employer subsided parking.

[ATLTJL]

Surface lots are paid for by customers as the price of the product reflects the cost to build and maintain the lot.

In theory. But go out and do a scientific comparative study. I can almost 100% guarantee you will find that comparable restaurants that do not offer free parking do not pass that savings onto their customers. I have never noticed any kind of price differential between restaurants that offer free parking vs. those that do not.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

In theory. But go out and do a scientific comparative study. I can almost 100% guarantee you will find that comparable restaurants that do not offer free parking do not pass that savings onto their customers. I have never noticed any kind of price differential between restaurants that offer free parking vs. those that do not.

I am sure the price is subtle and less than a dollar.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by jsvh

See, you miss out on a lot of things when you are stuck in a car and expect free parking. Going car-free for some trips or all together makes life more enjoyable.

You miss out on a lot more without a car than you do with one, I suspect. MARTA is limited, as we all know.

I suspect using both options is the best of both worlds if you can manage it.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

The suburbs are a fine place to go out to eat, if you don't mind the "vanilla" options of Applebee's, the Olive Garden, and Ruby Tuesday.

Please. Just looking in my immediate area (Cumberland/Vinings), I will say that places like Grub, Canoe, Old Vinings Inn, or even the Thai Diner are far better than Applebee's. Even places like Maggiano's, Stoney River, and Top Spice are chains which are far better.

You need to get out more.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

You miss out on a lot more without a car than you do with one, I suspect. MARTA is limited, as we all know.

I suspect using both options is the best of both worlds if you can manage it.

Miss out on a lot more? How, if a car is 100% necessary, there are services like Uber and Lyft. Owning a car is expensive, someone would not notice how expensive unless they went from owning one to not, then they would notice the difference. Owning a car has been forced onto us by media, society, etc. we think that owning a car is just another required bill, like electricity, water, rent/mortgage.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Miss out on a lot more? How, if a car is 100% necessary, there are services like Uber and Lyft. Owning a car is expensive, someone would not notice how expensive unless they went from owning one to not, then they would notice the difference. Owning a car has been forced onto us by media, society, etc. we think that owning a car is just another required bill, like electricity, water, rent/mortgage.

With a car, you aren't limited to the metro. Yes, you can use Uber/Lyft or a taxi service, but with a car you can do what you want when you want. For me, the expense is worth it for the flexibility.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

With a car, you aren't limited to the metro. Yes, you can use Uber/Lyft or a taxi service, but with a car you can do what you want when you want. For me, the expense is worth it for the flexibility.

Not like there aren't planes, trains, buses, etc. for intercity transportation.
Just remember, that 'flexibility' sits idle for 90% of the time all while still costing you money (insurance, taxes, tags, etc.) With on demand transportation service, you only pay for the time and distance you need it.