Hacker News Reader

Comment by GoatInGrey | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure why what is functionally a $180/month fee is considered "small". I think what we're seeing here is that public services (like roads) are more enjoyable, for those who can still use it, if the lower half of the income ladder is banned from using it.

View on HN

That doesn't make much sense, driving a gas car from Jersey is gonna eat up a couple of gallons of fuel ($10x20=$200/mo), insuring it will be $200/mo, if it's not paid off it'll cost at least $500-600, parking will run easily $500 but likely more. Why is that $180 the straw that broke the camel's back?

The Jersey thing isn’t the issue. Car commuters still commute. Most of the traffic volume are whiny Long Islanders who’d rather cut through Manhattan than navigate the belt parkway and bridges to New Jersey. Also poorly served Queens and Brooklyn residents — I grew up in Queens… my dads public transit time to Lower Manhattan or my mom’s time to Manhattan hospitals was about 2 hours — similar to taking Metro North from Dutchess county or LIRR.

The downside of this stuff that we don’t have data on is how it affects big employers who benefit from car transit and benefit the city as a whole? How many patients are going to avoid NYU, Cornell or MSK in favor of a satellite site not in the city proper, for example?

NYC chased most of the big industries away already in my lifetime, I wonder if this will impact commercial business in the city in the long run.

When I lived in the area, I used to regularly drive in to lower Manhattan after 6PM for free parking because it was cheaper, faster, and more convenient than taking the train from right in front of my NJ apartment. The congestion charge would change that equation.

The parking should've never been free in the first place, that's always a mistake. Even a single parking spot costs many thousands of dollars a year to maintain and own.

> Even a single parking spot costs many thousands of dollars a year to maintain

In what universe is this true?

There are 3 million parking spots in NYC. If each cost $3000/year to maintain (presumably that's "many thousands"), that would be $9 billion/year - considerably more than what's spend on the entire Department of Transportation.

I'd be shocked if a single spot cost even $100/year to maintain.

It's the opportunity cost of the land being used as parking.

Manhattan is one of the few parts of the US where we don't indirectly mandate seven parking spots per car on average. A surface lot ends up costing about $7,000/spot to pave. But at >$1,000,000 per acre garages are used instead. But then that's tens of thousands per spot in construction cost. Underground parking is the most expensive type due to excavation cost. Meanwhile the most convenient parking curbside is offered by the government for free or <$1. Is there something wrong with this picture?

What opportunity cost is there for existing city-owned curbside parking?

Are you going to build on something a couple feet wide on the wrong side of the sidewalk? Or tear down all the buildings then move the sidewalk first?

Treating curbside parking like it was exactly the same as large rectangular lots is nonsense.

> Treating curbside parking like it was exactly the same as large rectangular lots is nonsense.

Yeah because the parking is already built. But obviously before you build the parking you have a choice - and building "free" parking is a really stupid choice you should never make. You can give that space to building or the road, either will be more productive.

That's quite a hypothetical to use as justification given how long ago lots were drawn up.

I prefer to value things based on what is rather than what could be if only we had a time machine.

Opportunity cost of not having protected bike lanes or dedicated transit right of way. Especially in a place like Manhattan improving cycling safety and getting busses out of traffic would be a huge net gain for the city compared with huge amounts of space dedicated to large private vehicles.

Restaurant tables.

So your land use is no longer subsidised?

You can buy a used car that gets 30 mpg city for $7,000. Even with a loan, that's closer to $200/month at today's (rather high) rates, not $500-600/month.

Insurance on that will be on the order of $60/month for an adult safe driver, not $200/month.

Driving from say, Jersey City to the East Village and back every day is going to use about 10 gallons of gas per month @ $3.20/gallon that's $32/month, not $200/month.

Parking is bad though it depends on how long you park for, but that's because that has also been jacked up to only allow the wealthy to drive.

So yeah, $180/month extra would in fact be a lot.

Manhattan is at least as dense as London, and land values must be about the same. The market cost of parking in London far outweighs the cost of the congestion charge, so presumably that's the same in New York.

Seems that renting a square foot of downtown Manhattan land is about $60/year. A parking space being about 200 square foot, that's $1k a month if paying the actual rate, just for parking (let alone the road space)

Seems that $200 a month is small when compared to the actual cost.

Not a fair comparison. Private owners have to pay property taxes and renters have exclusive use.

Never mind that the land value for a curbside parking spot on the side of the road is substantially less simply because you can't build anything on it.

Curbside parking still has opportunity costs. Why dedicate scarce publicly owned space in NYC to subsidize suburbanites, when it could benefit New Yorkers?

> is substantially less simply because you can't build anything on it.

Why? Why can't I put a shed there?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com