Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethanbond | Hacker News Reader

It's not really the same at all to your tax analog. The difference is that Congress has the ability to reduce spending and to cut taxes.

With the car problem, no one entity has the power to devise nor enforce a holistic solution. Of course, with the exception of a fascist overthrow of the state that tears down cities and rebuilds with central planning. The government can't just come and take people's cars away – you have a right to own a car (more or less). You don't, however, have a right to a parking spot, and it takes just a small city committee meeting to affect change.

That's not to say people won't get hurt by this, but it needs to happen for the good of everyone. Suburbia is bad for the earth and everyone on it. We need to start making some tough decisions... 30 years ago.

View on HN

>no one entity has the power to devise nor enforce a holistic solution

Yes there is - the city government that controls the parking spaces, also controls the transit system.

And it controls infinite amounts of money? As I've said in other comments, I'm all for investing heavily in transit infrastructure. If you want a solution that totally ignores the fiscal reality of the world, then yes, I agree, dumping massive amounts of money into public transit would be part of it.

Where is the fiscal reality in grinding a city's economic activity to a halt because people can't get anywhere?

Cities can, have, and do function with fewer cars than most American cities. Reducing parking is the fairest way to reduce the usage and eventually necessity of cars.

And again, it's far more realistic than hoping that a transit authority is going to find a buried treasure chest to invest in infrastructure while the public is investing more and more into cars.

Let's eliminate cars. How does one transport a week's worth of groceries for a family of 5 on public transport? Transportation is more than moving a person from A to B.

If you want a real solution, provide tax incentives for companies to work remotely. If you eliminate commuters in those types of jobs that can work remotely, you solve almost all traffic problems.

Does an insurance salesman really need to travel to an office? 90% of that work is on the phone already and the other 10% could be replaced with video conferencing. I don't need to touch my salesman, I just need to hear what he's saying and read contracts. Unless your job involves handling physical objects, there is zero reason for a commute.

> How does one transport a week's worth of groceries for a family of 5 on public transport?

Carsharing. Or a delivery service, which some supermarkets now offer already.

A family of 5 could have one car for that, instead of two like most American 5 person families

Strap backpacks onto the kids and spouse?

How wacky that so many other countries have already figured this out. And that humans somehow fed themselves for literally thousands of years before cars but suddenly we won't figure out how to purchase food.

Why would you transport a week's worth of groceries in the first place? In cities designed not for cars, most people generally don't "transport" groceries at all, since everybody generally buys groceries very close to home (often on the same block), and the natural time to do it is on the way back from work/studies/whatever, so instead of having an explicit weekly trip, you just buy whatever you need now or for tomorrow, not a week's supply - and that is easily carried (not transported) for that short distance even for a family of 6+.

If you buy something that can't be carried, like a refrigerator, well, then you get it delivered.

Start charging for privilege of driving / parking / owning a car and you can invest the money in better infrastructure. Not that it's a popular solution with the voters, but it is fiscally sound.

> You don't, however, have a right to a parking spot

This is debatable. In some countries there is an old tax for all car owners. They take the money specifically "for your right to have a parking spot for your car". But after you pay the tax, surprise, you realize that there is not a single remaining place with free parking in the entire city... by design. So of course, you are obliged to pay again. The car owner is taxed two times for the same service. Cling, mo' fresh money.

The planned scarcity of park spots is also a source of power and a weapon of mass destruction of high quality employments. If you restrict the access and monopolize the park spots, you can force easily the small bussiness in this areas to flee and make the whole neighborhood into recession. A handful of big bussiness that can build its own private parkings (or, even better, are strong enough to convince the local government to build a big parking for them) will quickly take all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com