Ray Delahanty has a slightly different take (“reductive” is what he calls the above). It’s worth a watch/listen if this topic intrigues you.

$200 to Escape Suburban Sprawl for a Day

I drop by Pike Place on a regular basis. Even before the current car ban, it was near impossible to drive through. Pedestrians would flow out onto the street because the sidewalks and inside of the market was packed. Sometimes even due to lines for some of the popular shops. And sometimes it was me blocking your drive because screw that noise, I’m walking here!

This summer with the car ban it has been even more popular and crowded, with fewer shoulders and elbows getting in the way. IMHO, this project has already been successful. Great job, Seattleites! :)

Also new in the area is the rebuild of Alaskan Way. It’s much nicer than ever before, plus the aquarium got a new building.

So long as you don’t die from that fistful of rat poison, correlating to a economy that survives to another day, then yes, you could eat that poison! It would be very bad idea and may leave you maimed, but it would be possible. Furthermore, it’s more poison than you are currently consuming (at least I hope you’re not eating rat poison). I’m not sure why one would but if someone paid you to eat some poison, you certainly could do that transaction and I could say there’s been an increase of rat-poison-eater supply.

Economics may be strange but it’s not a value judgement on what we do. It’s just a way of modeling and understanding how a society handles goods and services. Invoking economic arguments like the tragedy of the commons requires understanding consumption of public resources and what that does to the resources. Parking doesn’t fit the argument because the supply curve does not change over time due to the pressure of strong demand. Parking can be refurbished, unlike a common livestock pasture. Parking supply can be increased by building on infertile land, up, or down, where a common livestock pasture cannot. A common livestock pasture can be consumed to the point where it cannot supply anymore (becoming infertile). A parking spot does not get consumed beyond a point to where it no longer functions as a parking spot.

Parking is not subject to the tragedy of the commons.

In an economic sense, it’s not limited. Land is limited and there are oh so many negative externalities*, but we haven’t paved over everything, there’s more than enough bitumen and agate to level the world, and you can always dig or go up. We are nowhere near close to being unable to build one more parking spot. It’d be a hellscape, but it’d be one with plenty of parking.

• Some more unfun things when building parking: heat island effect, surface permeabilities, strip mining for agate, drilling for bitumen, carbon emissions in moving it all, unfair and unsafe construction practices in this country, and the list goes on.

Parking is not a finite and limited resource. Road surfaces can, and regularly are, refurbished and established. That’s why parking is not a tragedy; it’s not a resource that is lost forever.

I think you do bring up a good point though: who pays for parking lots and street parking when it does need help? Is it only the home owner in front of the street or is it a general fund expense from local sales taxes? Double points if you can answer who is then allowed to park in that publicly-paid parking spot.

Tragedy of the commons doesn’t apply to parking because the parking still exists after exploitation. The public utility must degrade (the parking spots disappear after using them) for the tragedy of the commons to apply.

DrunkEgnineer is correct: in a free market with two prices for the same item, the one with the lowest price will be sold first. There was plenty of free on-street parking, so the paid parking was not preferentially picked.

Parking rules can also be enforced with money and not who owns the private property next to the public property. That is, charge for street parking at the supply-demand equilibrium.

Go Colorado! It’s a lovely place with good brews and views alike.

Meanwhile, California…

Is still fucking it up. Here’s a recent near-screw-up near me: Mike Swire fought highway widening, so asphalt-addicted bullies want him kicked off the San Mateo Transportation Authority Community Advisory Committee.

Just a reminder that good infrastructure is not an engineering problem. It’s a political one.

If Dallas Texas can abolish parking mandates to improve housing and small business, so can you!

Removing roads decreases congestion: Braess’ paradox

Roads for private cars are generally overbuilt and run directly into Braess’ paradox. E.g. Five years after Sepulveda Pass widening, travel times on the 405 keep getting worse.

Not taking advantage of free street parking is crazy. Think of all that extra storage and space in your garage when you don’t have to park in it!

FYI, these are speed cameras, not red light cameras. They’re set such that you’d need to be doing 36+ mph in a 25 mph zone.

The southwest of the US gets really hot for long periods of time. For example, Pheonix Arizona has four months of the year with a daily mean temperature above 30 C and highs around 45 C. Pheonix is also part of the Sonoran Desert, meaning water itself is hard to get. Running a water tap for minutes to fill a cup of mildly cool water is deeply frowned upon.

It’s unpleasant to say the least. Although the heat is not as bad as the rumors I hear about Finnish mosquitoes.

Come to the southwest during summer where taking a shower doesn’t involve the hot water tap.

That’s exactly what they’re called and they’re getting popular. Find a bike bus near you! Bike Bus World

At least Oregon has nature on your side. All kinds of freeway expansions have exorbitant costs because they’ll require blasting away mountains or encroaching the coastline. So far y’all have your heads on straight when the who-pays-for-it question arrives. Meanwhile, here in California cost is no measure as we’re advancing a bill that streamlines widening state route 37 into sensitive wetlands, only for that new pavement be literally under water within 25 years.

Keep up the good fight, neighbor.

NHTSA FARS 2023 ARF dataset reports that 45-54 has a higher accident rate than 55-64, 65-74, or 75+ groups. The most fatal-accident prone age groups are 15-20, 21-24, and 25-34.

Every age group will flunk out, young and old.

We’re already past the “fuck it” phase. 16.7% of fatal crashes involve unlicensed drivers (NHTSA FARS 2023 ARF).

All the more reason to ban cars from cities. It shouldn’t be painful to live in the city and we shouldn’t be forcing people out of it, which in turn causes rural areas to become populated and noisy.