Isn't Free Parking a Subsidy for Car Drivers?

[daveklepper]

Based on the Mineta-Bush Philosophy, shouldn't free parking anywhere be illegal?

I walk to my neighborhood supermarket and buy things. The supermarket owns and pays taxes on a huge parking lot occupied by most customers, and the taxes and upkeep of the parking lot are paid by the supermarket and reflected in the prices of what I buy. Is this fair for me? I don't use the parking lot!

I live on a quiet residential street. Most houses have garages but some hold only one car. There are some families with two or three cars. There are always cars parked on the street. The street has four lanes but effectively only two are used because of the parked cars. I walk, bike, and use public transit. Why should my taxes pay for the upkeep of other people's paarking places ANd be reflective of the additional land off the tax roles?

I'l bet a real evaluation would say that free parking is worth far more than two billiion a year that is direct subsidy to car drivers.

[K. P. Harrier]

What is the Mineta-Bush Philosophy?

[spbed]

Well what you say may have some merit. However, where I reside to do any kind of shopping or to get to a bus or train station requires a auto. [:o)]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Based on the Mineta-Bush Philosophy, shouldn't free parking anywhere be illegal?

I walk to my neighborhood supermarket and buy things. The supermarket owns and pays taxes on a huge parking lot occupied by most customers, and the taxes and upkeep of the parking lot are paid by the supermarket and reflected in the prices of what I buy. Is this fair for me? I don't use the parking lot!

I live on a quiet residential street. Most houses have garages but some hold only one car. There are some families with two or three cars. There are always cars parked on the street. The street has four lanes but effectively only two are used because of the parked cars. I walk, bike, and use public transit. Why should my taxes pay for the upkeep of other people's paarking places ANd be reflective of the additional land off the tax roles?

I'l bet a real evaluation would say that free parking is worth far more than two billiion a year that is direct subsidy to car drivers.

[Anonymous]

Then aren't the sidewalks a subsidy for pedestrians? How about bike-paths, parks, etc. I forget the source but someone once said "Taxes is the price we pay for a civilized society".

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Based on the Mineta-Bush Philosophy, shouldn't free parking anywhere be illegal?

I walk to my neighborhood supermarket and buy things. The supermarket owns and pays taxes on a huge parking lot occupied by most customers, and the taxes and upkeep of the parking lot are paid by the supermarket and reflected in the prices of what I buy. Is this fair for me? I don't use the parking lot!

I live on a quiet residential street. Most houses have garages but some hold only one car. There are some families with two or three cars. There are always cars parked on the street. The street has four lanes but effectively only two are used because of the parked cars. I walk, bike, and use public transit. Why should my taxes pay for the upkeep of other people's paarking places ANd be reflective of the additional land off the tax roles?

I'l bet a real evaluation would say that free parking is worth far more than two billiion a year that is direct subsidy to car drivers.

Sure. But, most suburban development in the "car age" has parking included in the zoning and is paid as part of the developement. Upkeep is then paid by the merchants in the shopping center or directly by the merchant if stand-alone business. Similarly, businesses often provide free or subsidized parking to their employees as a perk.

We are an "auto-centric" society, so this behavior is expected, no? If we were "transit centric" then all things, including zoning, would flow from that.

[dharmon]

Not exactly free. Many new housing developments are required to provide the infrastructure to support the develpoment. For instance in FL and CA, the developers are required to provide for the initial cost of paving streets that are to become public thorougfares and often the price of schools and fire stations to serve it. This is often done through a bond issue, the service of which is assessed to the homeowners as a part of the association fees.

Along those lines...I drive to work..pay registration fees, sales tax and gasoline taxes to operate my car .......so why should I subsidize bike trails and mass transit?

[daveklepper]

Fine. All that is good. But a Democratic Society takes care of minorities too. And the car-free non-flyer American Citizen deserves access to the entire country. That has been my point on the Amtrak Funding basis.

Regardless of the figures put forth by Mineta. Long distance auto travel is also subsidized and so should Amtrak

[dharmon]

No one is saying you can't walk or bike across the country. But with the exception of the short haul routes, it might as well be a subsidy for a cruise liner...A vacation...not a efficient means of rapidly moving people in this day and age. Clipper ships were once effiicent also, but I don't see a mass movement to subsidize sail powered vessels.

[daveklepper]

You are being unfair. Generally the elderly and infirm who cannot fly or drive cannot walk or bike across country. Your clipper ship analogy is false, more like running steam trains on dieselized railroads, and there the analogy is a good one, because there are sailboats, including races, that do recreate the past. And like steam trains, they are there for those that can afford them. I think a better analogy is the sound systems and the ramps for the hard of hearing and the handicapped in auditoriums and theatres and sports stadiums, a definite subsidy by the audiences with normal hearing and streingth. Also, despite the fact that they slow down traffic and provide some annoyance to some impatiant dirvers, you can rent a horse and buggy to tour Manhattan if you want, also in Salt Lake City, and I have done so for elderly relatives in both place. Perhaps this is true in other places as well.

[modorney]

Since this is a railroad forum, parking plays a role in commuter railroads. Depending on the situation, free parking is a subsidy for cars, and a penalty to bikers and walkers.

Often, the end point stations have free parking, since land is usually cheap, and the transit system is interested in boosting ridership. And, the close-in stations often have no parking, or charge for parking. The mid-line stations tend to start out with free parking, but over time, evolve to paid parking.

As the area around a station develops, ridership increases, and the land becomes more valuable. Parking garages are more expensive, but the increased ridership and the reduced availability of land often forces the issue. But, when the transit agency charges for parking, it allows private developers an economic opportunity to get into the parking business, too.

Washington's metro does a good job of mixing parking charges and fares, so that walkers don't subsidize drivers. And, the parking fees are zoned, so that early birds, shoppers and students pay less than regular worker commuters.

Other systems, like BART, have mostly free parking, but after the suburban lots fill up at 7 or 8 AM, the ridership plummets. About half a dozen suburban stations have commercial parking nearby, for 3 to 10 bucks a day.

[Overmod]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: Access to a great deal of the 'entire country' for car-free, non-flyer Americans has been provided for many years by private enterprise -- Greyhound Lines et al. Might also mention they serve a whole lot more of the 'entire country' than Amtrak does... what do your purported American Citizens do to get to the station, or from the station to wherever it is in the entire country they're going?

You might say bus lines have been indirectly subsidized by the highway-building 'movement' in the United States, and by tax-supported roads provided by states and localities to serve their needs. But the roads do exist (for those other purposes) and even if Greyhound paid a 'fair' use tax representing a pro rata share of the infrastructure costs, they'd still be wildly closer to profitability than most Amtrak services.

A major question to ask is: What would happen to supermarket revenues (and hence to prices charged per unit to people like you) if the supermarket people didn't provide and pave free parking areas? (Hint: Gelson's in Southern California found their business dropped off dramatically when they didn't provide adequate free 'comp' tickets for adjacent parking decks). Your point regarding free street parking is best addressed by looking at how residents vote for their local representatives (who make the parking decisions) -- note that many locations have special permits so only residents or their guests can legally park on the streets there, and some also have 'selective enforcement' (some areas in Brooklyn being directly observed) to find opportunities to ticket people who 'don't belong' -- it's not very difficult, given Bloomberg's highly integrated ticket-computer system, to find some excuse...

Please, don't ever, ever, ever make the mistake of confusing an incentive with a subsidy. They're operationally different. Likewise, don't confuse what democracies do with what you consider 'fair' -- if you don't like the fact that your neighbors and peers allow street parking, you can always move somewhere where it's banned.

[daveklepper]

I agree with you about Greyhound. But it isn't practical for the elderly and infirm for long periods. That is why I am advocating for the present, until high speed rail becomes economically an investors choice, retention of the core Amtrak system we have now which does connect with Greyhound and other bus systems to serve the country. In fact, I'm absolutely certain if Amtrak long distance service were ended, Greyhound would loose more patronate than they would gain, because the small percentage they get from Amtrak connections would dissapear and not be replaced by picking up travelers on the long-distance routes. Most of the elderly and infirm simply would not be able to travel, and those that would would fly.

[tree68]

The parking is never free. Somebody, somewhere is paying for it. Might be in the cost of your quart of milk, might be in your gas tax, might be in your sales tax, or your property tax. Might even be in the bed tax visitors pay at the hotels, not to mention parking meters and fees.

The question becomes are you getting a fair return on your investment? The examples have already been stated here, be it a grocery store or a commuter rail station.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

You are being unfair. Generally the elderly and infirm who cannot fly or drive cannot walk or bike across country. Your clipper ship analogy is false, more like running steam trains on dieselized railroads, and there the analogy is a good one, because there are sailboats, including races, that do recreate the past. And like steam trains, they are there for those that can afford them. I think a better analogy is the sound systems and the ramps for the hard of hearing and the handicapped in auditoriums and theatres and sports stadiums, a definite subsidy by the audiences with normal hearing and streingth. Also, despite the fact that they slow down traffic and provide some annoyance to some impatiant dirvers, you can rent a horse and buggy to tour Manhattan if you want, also in Salt Lake City, and I have done so for elderly relatives in both place. Perhaps this is true in other places as well.

Yes, I probably am, but then again life isn't fair. My tax dollars already go to to local transport for elderly on special buses. They go to make sure that persons with diabilities have access to public transportation and facilities. The go to make sure I have road to drive on and a place to park my cars. They go to paying for food stamps and a host of other programs which I do not use becasue I have worked hard to provide for my family and future, and to providing grants and foriegn aid to countries I will probably never visit. If there is ever a system of long distance high speed rail that would be great. But to support continued half way funding of Amtrak..life support....to ensure that a few people have an opportunity to take vacations......because these elderly passengers are not travelling by Amtrak cross country on business.... is not what I consider to be a priority. If a no kidding efficient, modern passenger rail system that was funded and then capable of being either self sufficient or recognized as a utility..I'd be all for it. But continuing to support Amtrak in it's current state....as a transportation system..not a luxury..is like saying we need to keep the USS Constitution in a battle worthy condition ...just in case we are attacked by a British Man o' War.

[gabe]

Dave,

Don't take this as a rejection of your overall contention; I might be more sympathetic to your underlying goal than you would suspect. But, if you are going to attack the Bush view of Amtrak, I think it important that you attack actual his reasons supporting his view.

The examples you cite are largely, if not exclusively, local services that individual taxpayers and voters have a much larger say in. Bush's claim with Amtrak is that if people had to pay for it with local money—that they perceive as their own—instead of with federal money—which they perceive as belonging to someone else—no one would support it.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with Bush’s view; but, if you are going to challenge Bush's view, this is where you need to start . . . otherwise it is a big shouting contest.

Gabe

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

Dave,

Bush's claim with Amtrak is that if people had to pay for it with local money—that they perceive as their own—instead of with federal money—which they perceive as belonging to someone else—no one would support it.

Gabe

Excellent point Gabe!

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

You are being unfair. Generally the elderly and infirm who cannot fly or drive cannot walk or bike across country. Your clipper ship analogy is false, more like running steam trains on dieselized railroads, and there the analogy is a good one, because there are sailboats, including races, that do recreate the past. And like steam trains, they are there for those that can afford them. I think a better analogy is the sound systems and the ramps for the hard of hearing and the handicapped in auditoriums and theatres and sports stadiums, a definite subsidy by the audiences with normal hearing and streingth. Also, despite the fact that they slow down traffic and provide some annoyance to some impatiant dirvers, you can rent a horse and buggy to tour Manhattan if you want, also in Salt Lake City, and I have done so for elderly relatives in both place. Perhaps this is true in other places as well.

Yes, I probably am, but then again life isn't fair. My tax dollars already go to to local transport for elderly on special buses. They go to make sure that persons with diabilities have access to public transportation and facilities. The go to make sure I have road to drive on and a place to park my cars. They go to paying for food stamps and a host of other programs which I do not use becasue I have worked hard to provide for my family and future, and to providing grants and foriegn aid to countries I will probably never visit. If there is ever a system of long distance high speed rail that would be great. But to support continued half way funding of Amtrak..life support....to ensure that a few people have an opportunity to take vacations......because these elderly passengers are not travelling by Amtrak cross country on business.... is not what I consider to be a priority. If a no kidding efficient, modern passenger rail system that was funded and then capable of being either self sufficient or recognized as a utility..I'd be all for it. But continuing to support Amtrak in it's current state....as a transportation system..not a luxury..is like saying we need to keep the USS Constitution in a battle worthy condition ...just in case we are attacked by a British Man o' War.

You just pointed out a glaring deficiency in our national defense. The USS Constitution as a mere frigate will be seriously outgunned by a British Man o' War. If the Limies come after us we will be defenseless. Our national past time will be changed from baseball to curling.

You laugh? The Brits have a three decker ship of the line that has been mysteriously kept in tip-top condition. Why else would they spend the money to keep that around?

We need a ship of the line to properly protect ourselves.

Gabe (Hawkins)

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

.... Bush's claim with Amtrak is that if people had to pay for it with local money—that they perceive as their own—instead of with federal money—which they perceive as belonging to someone else—no one would support it.
....

Gabe

Wonder how much Air Traffic Control the locals would buy.
Enjoy
Paul

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

Dave,

Bush's claim with Amtrak is that if people had to pay for it with local money—that they perceive as their own—instead of with federal money—which they perceive as belonging to someone else—no one would support it.

Gabe

Excellent point Gabe!

Thank you.

I must admit, though I have felt that way long before ever logging on to this forum, I probably stole the gist of the wording from you from one of your posts about four months ago.

Gabe

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

.... Bush's claim with Amtrak is that if people had to pay for it with local money—that they perceive as their own—instead of with federal money—which they perceive as belonging to someone else—no one would support it.
....

Gabe

Wonder how much Air Traffic Control the locals would buy.
Enjoy
Paul

I suspect quite a bit. Most cities, which is about as small of a public voting entity that you can get, directly subsidize airports. Currently, Indianapolis is setting up an initiative to spend its own money to considerably expand its airport.

Gabe

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Fine. All that is good. But a Democratic Society takes care of minorities too. And the car-free non-flyer American Citizen deserves access to the entire country. That has been my point on the Amtrak Funding basis.

Regardless of the figures put forth by Mineta. Long distance auto travel is also subsidized and so should Amtrak

..but railroads don't serve the entire country, so how does the gov't provide access to the whole country?

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

You just pointed out a glaring deficiency in our national defense. The USS Constitution as a mere frigate will be seriously outgunned by a British Man o' War. If the Limies come after us we will be defenseless. Our national past time will be changed from baseball to curling.

You laugh? The Brits have a three decker ship of the line that has been mysteriously kept in tip-top condition. Why else would they spend the money to keep that around?

We need a ship of the line to properly protect ourselves.

Gabe (Hawkins)

Well...there goes that theory......I better not get rid of my stock in that musket ball company..just in case....

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

Thank you.

I must admit, though I have felt that way long before ever logging on to this forum, I probably stole the gist of the wording from you from one of your posts about four months ago.

Gabe

You are too modest sir.....and may I add a handsome and powerful man....

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GabeYou just pointed out a glaring deficiency in our national defense. The USS Constitution as a mere frigate will be seriously outgunned by a British Man o' War. If the Limies come after us we will be defenseless. Our national past time will be changed from baseball to curling.

Yeah, but didn't Old Ironsides already the beat the British 6 or 7 times?

[dharmon]

Yeah...so now it's a grudge match....

[gabe]

Wow,

H.M.S. Victory v. U.S.S. Constitution. I would pay good money to see that (minus the casualties of course). Although, it wouldn't really be a contest, as there is no way a frigate could hold a candle to a ship of the line, and the Victory has one a victory or two in its time. Although, the Battles of the Nile and Trafalgar were against the French . . .

Gabe

[daveklepper]

Gabe, I respect your criticism. I guest the best way to tackle the Bush Mineta line is to point out that their view of who and how many and why the riders of long distance trains isn't accurate. Mineta himself has not ridden a train like the Empire Builder or the CZ or the SW Chief or Sunset and spoken with the passengers. If Amtrak shuts down and thus long distance passenger service shuts down, there are going to be many people whose lives will be affected downward, some drastically. Yes Amtrak does serve the entire country, if not directly then via connectin buses. Mineta and Bush attack Amtrak because it is heavily subsidized. Others as well as I have shown there are lots of subsidies. The points I've made are that possibly Amtrak is a lot more important than Bush or Mineta or some readers think. that if it goes down a future more ideal system will be lots more expensive, and that there are parallels in other areas for this type of subsidization.

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Gabe, I respect your criticism. I guest the best way to tackle the Bush Mineta line is to point out that their view of who and how many and why the riders of long distance trains isn't accurate. Mineta himself has not ridden a train like the Empire Builder or the CZ or the SW Chief or Sunset and spoken with the passengers. If Amtrak shuts down and thus long distance passenger service shuts down, there are going to be many people whose lives will be affected downward, some drastically. Yes Amtrak does serve the entire country, if not directly then via connectin buses. Mineta and Bush attack Amtrak because it is heavily subsidized. Others as well as I have shown there are lots of subsidies. The points I've made are that possibly Amtrak is a lot more important than Bush or Mineta or some readers think. that if it goes down a future more ideal system will be lots more expensive, and that there are parallels in other areas for this type of subsidization.

Dave,

I think your points are fair.

My opinion is, I don't mind my tax dollars going toward subsidies from which I will never see a direct or indirect benefit. It happens all of the time; I don’t expect my government to serve me and only me. I am sure I receive some benefits that others do not; so it is more than fair.

What I do mind, is when my tax dollars are being spent and it doesn't appear that they are being maximized. The public perception of Amtrak—as well as my own—is that we are not getting a lot of bang for our buck. I wouldn't mind spending 3x the money on Amtrak if there would be a corresponding benefit. Amtrak—in my view—is a problem because no one is willing to suffer the political consequences to kill it or raise taxes to fix it.

I think either raising taxes to fix Amtrak or killing Amtrak would be much better than what we have now. So, I kind of admire Bush’s plan. He is at least moving it in a direction and—unlike past Presidents—he is willing to suffer consequences of moving it in one direction or the other. Raising taxes and saving Amtrak might be a better direction Bush’s chosen resolution, but I think killing Amtrak is better than keeping it in its current state.

Just my opinion; what do you think?

Gabe

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Gabe, I respect your criticism. I guest the best way to tackle the Bush Mineta line is to point out that their view of who and how many and why the riders of long distance trains isn't accurate. Mineta himself has not ridden a train like the Empire Builder or the CZ or the SW Chief or Sunset and spoken with the passengers. If Amtrak shuts down and thus long distance passenger service shuts down, there are going to be many people whose lives will be affected downward, some drastically. Yes Amtrak does serve the entire country, if not directly then via connectin buses. Mineta and Bush attack Amtrak because it is heavily subsidized. Others as well as I have shown there are lots of subsidies. The points I've made are that possibly Amtrak is a lot more important than Bush or Mineta or some readers think. that if it goes down a future more ideal system will be lots more expensive, and that there are parallels in other areas for this type of subsidization.

Dave,

I think your points are fair.

My opinion is, I don't mind my tax dollars going toward subsidies from which I will never see a direct or indirect benefit. It happens all of the time; I don’t expect my government to serve me and only me. I am sure I receive some benefits that others do not; so it is more than fair.

What I do mind, is when my tax dollars are being spent and it doesn't appear that they are being maximized. The public perception of Amtrak—as well as my own—is that we are not getting a lot of bang for our buck. I wouldn't mind spending 3x the money on Amtrak if there would be a corresponding benefit. Amtrak—in my view—is a problem because no one is willing to suffer the political consequences to kill it or raise taxes to fix it.

I think either raising taxes to fix Amtrak or killing Amtrak would be much better than what we have now. So, I kind of admire Bush’s plan. He is at least moving it in a direction and—unlike past Presidents—he is willing to suffer consequences of moving it in one direction or the other. Raising taxes and saving Amtrak might be a better direction Bush’s chosen resolution, but I think killing Amtrak is better than keeping it in its current state.

Just my opinion; what do you think?

Gabe

Gabe-

That's my view, too. I think the end result will be something called "Amtrak" that has an entirely different business model. It'll probably be flawed, just as the current model is, just in a differenet way, and maybe not as bad. It's interesting to see Bush/Mineta push it the way they are, though.

[Anonymous]

No, free parking is not a subsidy. You pay for it through property taxes not only on your car but on your house as well. Additional revenue is generated by heavy enforcement of "no parking" zones. (I have never understood how New York City people figure out how to park cars- with alternate side of the street parking bans every other day, etc.)

Fuel taxes go a long way towards highway and street upkeep. Just cranking the car causes you to pay your State and Federal government a bit. (The amount varies by state.)

I can understand people wanting AMTRAK subsidies when there is AMTRAK service nearby. I can even understand funding the NEC, where AMTRAK "owns" the rails. When you talk about subsidies for an entire national system, sooner or later you are talking about subsidizing infrastructure improvements... which means that MY tax dollars go to paying a private corporation, like one of the big five railroads, to make improvements on their plant. I don't see that happening.

Erik

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

.... Bush's claim with Amtrak is that if people had to pay for it with local money—that they perceive as their own—instead of with federal money—which they perceive as belonging to someone else—no one would support it.
....

Gabe

Wonder how much Air Traffic Control the locals would buy.
Enjoy
Paul

I suspect quite a bit. Most cities, which is about as small of a public voting entity that you can get, directly subsidize airports. Currently, Indianapolis is setting up an initiative to spend its own money to considerably expand its airport.

Gabe

Don't know, the locals here just defeated a tax increase to pay for badly needed road improvements. Town government defeated a tax to pay its share for the metro to run through it and out to Dulles Airport. If we had to vote taxes to pay for the airport now, I think it would be a cow pasture. The anti tax crowd is pretty ferocious here.
Enjoy
Paul