No, the pojnt of charging for parking, is for a company somewhere to make a fat, juicy profit. The company would prefer more people drive, and therefore, need to park.
It can be both, though. People who own land and build parking lots and structures on it will charge however much they can, based on what people will actually pay. If parking is more scarce, and the demand is there (as in, it's a popular place to visit), they'll be able to charge more.
And sometimes city councils restrict the amount of parking that can be built because they want to create that scarcity to encourage people to take transit instead of driving, because they know that the owners of the (fewer) parking areas will charge more, making it less desirable to drive and park.
Wow. Look at the downvotes. Yet almost every parking lot is privately owned, and many cities have even sold management of street parking to private companies.
Do people seriously think that these companies want to charge more, for environmental reasons? Of course not. They care only for profit.
The parent says that the reason the price is high, is because someone is trying to up the price for environmental reasons. What proof have they for this? I'd really like a citation, because instead I see almost all parking being profit based.
If someone is saying it's for environmental reasons, likely they're lying to make more profit.
the city decides things like street parking, minimum parking space requirements, or if you can put up a parking lot, thus deciding the total amount of available space. actual operation of the parking spaces can be offloaded to private entities.
if less space is allocated, it becomes more expensive (scarcity), driving down car use. this is an easy case of pricing in environment and external impacts.
Yes, that can happen. Then another city council gets in, and wants more parking.
The post I replied to said "The whole point of charging for parking" was to force people to, essentially, drive less. This is saying it's the only reason people charge for parking. Clearly not so.
And there is artificial scarcity too. I've seen cities where one company owned almost all the parking lots. In that situation, they controlled pricing entirely.
I've seen a lot more of "doing it for profit", including the city doing it for profit, than for environmental reasons.
That's doesn't mean I support this position or not. Describing reality as it stands is important, one cannot effect change one way or the other, without understanding what is.
> If someone is saying it's for environmental reasons, likely they're lying to make more profit.
And they lie because they get vilified otherwise by people who can't stand the idea that they make a profit.
BTW, whenever someone gives you a reason why they do something, odds are pretty good that you're given the palatable plausible reason, not the actual unflattering one.
It’s expensive to provide parking and in a place like Cambridge. They’ve already stuffed cars in every available nook and cranny.
Did you think they should just let you park in Cambridge Common, Harvard Yard or the Charles River park? Why park at all— just stop your car in the middle of the street.
