Comments on: SF’s Parking Experiment to Test Shoup’s Traffic Theories http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/06/sfs-parking-experiment-to-test-shoups-traffic-theories/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:15:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: it's your world! http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/06/sfs-parking-experiment-to-test-shoups-traffic-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-228271 it's your world! Sat, 03 Apr 2010 03:55:28 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1244#comment-228271 Imagine a world where the costs of running an efficient mechanized transportation system are born entirely within that system. The cost of providing infrastructure for cars and transit and bike lanes are all covered by the charges applied to each one. And prices are set so that the fastest, most comfortable way costs more than the slowest, least comfortable way. The cost difference should reflect the convenience and other things like environmental friendliness. Right now, I can drive to the Mission from the Haight and park for free for at least two hours during the day and all night long. Driving is fast and comfortable and I pay only a few pennies for gas. (Remember sunk costs don't count.) If I take the 33 or do some transfer thing with the N and the 22, it takes me at least three times as long and it isn't very comfortable. The cost for a round trip is $4. A taxi ride would set me back $14 but would require me to wait for the taxi or try and get lucky on Haight Street. So the most comfortable, fastest option is also by far the cheapest. Guess which one I choose? This is out of whack. The price of parking should be set so that I pay three times what I would pay to ride the bus -- $12 and only somewhat less than a taxi ride. Priorities, people. Priorities. Imagine a world where the costs of running an efficient mechanized transportation system are born entirely within that system. The cost of providing infrastructure for cars and transit and bike lanes are all covered by the charges applied to each one. And prices are set so that the fastest, most comfortable way costs more than the slowest, least comfortable way. The cost difference should reflect the convenience and other things like environmental friendliness.

Right now, I can drive to the Mission from the Haight and park for free for at least two hours during the day and all night long. Driving is fast and comfortable and I pay only a few pennies for gas. (Remember sunk costs don’t count.)

If I take the 33 or do some transfer thing with the N and the 22, it takes me at least three times as long and it isn’t very comfortable. The cost for a round trip is $4.

A taxi ride would set me back $14 but would require me to wait for the taxi or try and get lucky on Haight Street.

So the most comfortable, fastest option is also by far the cheapest. Guess which one I choose?

This is out of whack. The price of parking should be set so that I pay three times what I would pay to ride the bus — $12 and only somewhat less than a taxi ride.

Priorities, people. Priorities.

]]> By: Dirty Hippie http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/06/sfs-parking-experiment-to-test-shoups-traffic-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-3993 Dirty Hippie Fri, 06 Mar 2009 07:11:25 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1244#comment-3993 It's interesting to hear this concept actually being pursued, for it was in 2000, when I had a roommate who had a background in city planning, when I was introduced to the idea. At the time that roommate was a strong believer in the idea that the low cost (via the parking stickers) of curbside parking was an insane and unsustainable way of operating, given the high cost of land in S.F. His idea was to actually create more single land, one-way streets to allow for removal of parking and expansion of housing. A bit more extreme than the current proposal but best utilizing the land. Maybe it IS time we decrease out subsidy of the automobile. I know permit prices have gone up since 2000, but so have land costs. It’s interesting to hear this concept actually being pursued, for it was in 2000, when I had a roommate who had a background in city planning, when I was introduced to the idea. At the time that roommate was a strong believer in the idea that the low cost (via the parking stickers) of curbside parking was an insane and unsustainable way of operating, given the high cost of land in S.F. His idea was to actually create more single land, one-way streets to allow for removal of parking and expansion of housing. A bit more extreme than the current proposal but best utilizing the land. Maybe it IS time we decrease out subsidy of the automobile. I know permit prices have gone up since 2000, but so have land costs.

]]> By: Jim F. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/06/sfs-parking-experiment-to-test-shoups-traffic-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-3345 Jim F. Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:50:14 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1244#comment-3345 Hopefully this program will increase the turnover rate of parking in shopping areas so that people don't drive around looking for parking. Also, hopefully people will start to see the real cost of parking. In London, long before they started their congestion charge, they began to control all parking (on-street, public/private garages, and home spaces). They began to limit the amount of parking built and charged a market rate for the rest. Luckily, they had a good transit system that afforded people a viable alternative after parking was limited. After years of this, London was fairly ready for the congestion charge we see today. Hopefully this program will increase the turnover rate of parking in shopping areas so that people don’t drive around looking for parking. Also, hopefully people will start to see the real cost of parking. In London, long before they started their congestion charge, they began to control all parking (on-street, public/private garages, and home spaces). They began to limit the amount of parking built and charged a market rate for the rest. Luckily, they had a good transit system that afforded people a viable alternative after parking was limited. After years of this, London was fairly ready for the congestion charge we see today.

]]>