Hacker News Reader

Comment by twelvechairs | Hacker News Reader

Or just do what the Japanese do - remove unlimited (and overnight) on-street parking in urban areas and require anyone owning a car to prove they have a private parking spot to house it

View on HN

That would be a good idea, but one of the main impediments is the fact that heavy regulations make underground concrete structures (and hence underground parking lots) very expensive, a lot more than in Europe or Asia, where it's often economical for even 3-5 story residential buildings to have underground parking space. That's the reason why developers push for on-street parking.

I think you're also forgetting the other aspect that allows this which is having readily available public transport.

Most of Japan doesn't have excellent public transport.

Car ownership is less common in most of the places in Japan with excellent public transport.

But I do like that each car legally requires its own parking spot. It is tricky to go to people's homes, because often extra parking is extremely limited or non-existent. It requires specific planning.

The more you subsidize automotive infrastructure, the more public transport will suffer for it.

That's pretty drastic, and would probably only be the best alternative on a densely packed island. Seems like overkill for any other situation.

Price parking appropriately and make people pay for it. If land is cheap, parking is cheap, so not a big deal. If land is expensive, then no freeloading on the streets, which can be put to better use anyways (sidewalks, bike lanes, outdoor cafes etc...)

What do you mean freeloading? Do you know how many taxes do you pay to have a vehicle, gas, etc?

You perhaps pay tens of dollars per month. Is that enough to fully cover all externalized costs of owning that vehicle? No.

The government says yes. In fact, knowing the government, they probably get a huge surplus from my taxes. What makes you say no?

You should look up how your local government pays for the kinds of local roads you can park on.

If you live in the US, there's a very good chance that's coming from the property and sales tax everyone pays, not any tax on your vehicle.

You're leaving your property on public land. How much would that land rent for?

The car registration and gas taxes don't even pay for a quarter of all road-infrastructure-related costs. It boggles the mind to see free street parking in places like NYC, where a more reasonable cost structure would be something like other cities around the world (and Canada) do: divide the territory in parking districts. Locals can buy a discounted annual pass for the district where their main residence is located (should not cost less than $400/month in a place like Manhattan), while elsewhere the rate should be at least $10-12/hour.

> probably only be the best alternative on a densely packed island

So Manhattan or the San Francisco Peninsula?

I suspect the refusal to kowtow to car owners and the density are interrelated. Tokyo is more dense, in (small?) part, because there is far less space consumed by inanimate appliances.

No, it's in very, very large part due to this. You can see it not just walking around, but especially when you go up in one of the tall buildings or in SkyTree tower and look at the city from above: you can't see any parking lots anywhere, and most of the roads are pretty small (there's some large boulevards, but not that many). Compare to any American city that was built up after the rise of the automobile and it's staggering how much space is wasted on cars in those cities.

Covered multi-story parking lots.

And those cost money. That is the crux here. Free parking is frankly insane. It became untenable in Amsterdam as early as the 1960s when most people could afford a car.

If you want trees, a sidewalk and bike lanes something has got to give.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com