Parking no longer free on Saturdays in MoCo lots starting 7/8/23

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Touché
You made a very effective argument.

I still disagree with the idea of requiring payment for parking. I don’t think it will discourage driving. I do think it will encourage people to drive further to places that don’t require fees, hurting local businesses in the process.

Moreover, while I agree that it would be great to have better public transportation, especially for the poor who may not be able to afford a car, I don’t think disgruntlement over parking fees will generate a groundswell for increased investment in public transit. I think it more likely that citizens disgruntled over taxes and fees are going to be less likely to support massive spending for public transportation infrastructure.

Finally, parking fees don’t means test. While some people may not be able to afford a car, dependency on a car is not a guarantee of affluence. People may need a car to juggle multiple jobs and family needs. $3 may not seem like much to a DCUM’er, but to somebody struggling with minimum wage to support a family, it may be a burden, but they may not have the leisure time to walk/ride a bicycle to the store (children in tow?) to buy groceries for their family and lug them home.

People struggling with minimum wage to support a family are already highly disproportionately likely to have to take twice as long to walk, ride a bicycle, or take a bus (children in tow?) to buy groceries for their family and lug them home, BECAUSE CARS ARE REALLY, REALLY EXPENSIVE.

If you're concerned about these families, then advocate for making it possible for them to buy groceries, conveniently, without a car.

Yes, cars are really, really expensive, but some are less expensive than others. If you buy a secondhand clunker that was an economy model to begin with, it expands the area you can look for a job. It may be the only way you can juggle getting the kids to school/sitter, getting you to your job, running errands like groceries, getting someone sick to the doctor, etc. Time you have to take walking or biking is time you can’t work. Even the best public transportation is probably less efficient than driving, unless you live in an urban center with gridlock and/or parking shortages.

Buying groceries without a car, is by definition, less convenient. The problem is that with less money, everything becomes harder. People who are well enough off to afford the $3, can also probably afford to pay the sitter a little longer, of have a little extra flexibility in the professional schedule, vs having to punch a time clock as an hourly worker. They may be able to pay for services that a minimum wage worker can’t. You can go to a restaurant, order items for home delivery, have a cleaning lady come by, or have somebody mow your lawn. The cook, waitress, stock clerk, cleaner, or yard worker not only has to do that service for you, they have to do all the services for their own family (although they might not have a yard of their own to maintain, what a break!).

Don’t get me wrong, I support improving public transportation. I think the focus, however, should be on making public transportation better, not on making driving worse. Life is hard enough without deliberately making it harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People need a solution now for their transportation problems. Advocating for solutions in 20 years is good, it will take years to build new infrastructure for metro, more and more frequent buses, running. More bus lines. Families need a quick solution. It’s great that you want to advocate for lower income families who rely on public transportation but we also must maintain an advance roads and parking.

And separately from that when the county decides to charge parking fee, it hurts the local businesses that surround those parking garages. People vote with their wallets. People don’t want to rush through dinner and finish in two hours. So people will go to where they can leisurely shop and eat. That’s where they’ll spend their money.

Yes. So let's start working on solutions now! It will not take 20 years. We can - and should - start right now. There are plenty of things we can - and should - do quickly.

As for where people want to go - people want to go to nice places. Given a choice between a nice place where you have to pay to park, or a non-nice place where you can park for "free", most people will choose nice places. Of course there are people who will cut off their own noses to spite their faces, but we don't have to make public policy around their honestly silly preferences.

Life isn’t that binary. There are lots of nice places where you can park for free. Given a choice between a nice place where you have to pay to park or a nice place where you can park for free, most people will choose nice places with free parking. Of course there are people who will cut off their noses to spite their faces, but we don’t have to make public policy around their honestly silly preferences that will hurt local business

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People need a solution now for their transportation problems. Advocating for solutions in 20 years is good, it will take years to build new infrastructure for metro, more and more frequent buses, running. More bus lines. Families need a quick solution. It’s great that you want to advocate for lower income families who rely on public transportation but we also must maintain an advance roads and parking.

And separately from that when the county decides to charge parking fee, it hurts the local businesses that surround those parking garages. People vote with their wallets. People don’t want to rush through dinner and finish in two hours. So people will go to where they can leisurely shop and eat. That’s where they’ll spend their money.

Yes. So let's start working on solutions now! It will not take 20 years. We can - and should - start right now. There are plenty of things we can - and should - do quickly.

As for where people want to go - people want to go to nice places. Given a choice between a nice place where you have to pay to park, or a non-nice place where you can park for "free", most people will choose nice places. Of course there are people who will cut off their own noses to spite their faces, but we don't have to make public policy around their honestly silly preferences.

Life isn’t that binary. There are lots of nice places where you can park for free. Given a choice between a nice place where you have to pay to park or a nice place where you can park for free, most people will choose nice places with free parking. Of course there are people who will cut off their noses to spite their faces, but we don’t have to make public policy around their honestly silly preferences that will hurt local business

But, as you say, life isn't that binary. There are few places that are exactly the same that have the choice between paying to park or not. People aren't cutting off their noses to spite their faces just because they find some value in the place where it costs a few bucks to park. Maybe it is easier to find spots; maybe you don't have to walk as far; maybe it isn't as crowded; maybe there is a particular store you like at one place. I can think of few times where I have chosen between two equal destinations and the only deciding factor between the two was whether or not it costs money to park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People need a solution now for their transportation problems. Advocating for solutions in 20 years is good, it will take years to build new infrastructure for metro, more and more frequent buses, running. More bus lines. Families need a quick solution. It’s great that you want to advocate for lower income families who rely on public transportation but we also must maintain an advance roads and parking.

And separately from that when the county decides to charge parking fee, it hurts the local businesses that surround those parking garages. People vote with their wallets. People don’t want to rush through dinner and finish in two hours. So people will go to where they can leisurely shop and eat. That’s where they’ll spend their money.

Yes. So let's start working on solutions now! It will not take 20 years. We can - and should - start right now. There are plenty of things we can - and should - do quickly.

As for where people want to go - people want to go to nice places. Given a choice between a nice place where you have to pay to park, or a non-nice place where you can park for "free", most people will choose nice places. Of course there are people who will cut off their own noses to spite their faces, but we don't have to make public policy around their honestly silly preferences.

Life isn’t that binary. There are lots of nice places where you can park for free. Given a choice between a nice place where you have to pay to park or a nice place where you can park for free, most people will choose nice places with free parking. Of course there are people who will cut off their noses to spite their faces, but we don’t have to make public policy around their honestly silly preferences that will hurt local business

But, as you say, life isn't that binary. There are few places that are exactly the same that have the choice between paying to park or not. People aren't cutting off their noses to spite their faces just because they find some value in the place where it costs a few bucks to park. Maybe it is easier to find spots; maybe you don't have to walk as far; maybe it isn't as crowded; maybe there is a particular store you like at one place. I can think of few times where I have chosen between two equal destinations and the only deciding factor between the two was whether or not it costs money to park.

That's up to you, of course.

Places where people want to go are crowded. Places where people want to go, in Montgomery County, are crowded and have parking problems. Places where people don't want to go aren't crowded and don't have parking problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People need a solution now for their transportation problems. Advocating for solutions in 20 years is good, it will take years to build new infrastructure for metro, more and more frequent buses, running. More bus lines. Families need a quick solution. It’s great that you want to advocate for lower income families who rely on public transportation but we also must maintain an advance roads and parking.

And separately from that when the county decides to charge parking fee, it hurts the local businesses that surround those parking garages. People vote with their wallets. People don’t want to rush through dinner and finish in two hours. So people will go to where they can leisurely shop and eat. That’s where they’ll spend their money.

Yes. So let's start working on solutions now! It will not take 20 years. We can - and should - start right now. There are plenty of things we can - and should - do quickly.

As for where people want to go - people want to go to nice places. Given a choice between a nice place where you have to pay to park, or a non-nice place where you can park for "free", most people will choose nice places. Of course there are people who will cut off their own noses to spite their faces, but we don't have to make public policy around their honestly silly preferences.

^^^whooops, sorry, responded to the wrong PP!

Life isn’t that binary. There are lots of nice places where you can park for free. Given a choice between a nice place where you have to pay to park or a nice place where you can park for free, most people will choose nice places with free parking. Of course there are people who will cut off their noses to spite their faces, but we don’t have to make public policy around their honestly silly preferences that will hurt local business

But, as you say, life isn't that binary. There are few places that are exactly the same that have the choice between paying to park or not. People aren't cutting off their noses to spite their faces just because they find some value in the place where it costs a few bucks to park. Maybe it is easier to find spots; maybe you don't have to walk as far; maybe it isn't as crowded; maybe there is a particular store you like at one place. I can think of few times where I have chosen between two equal destinations and the only deciding factor between the two was whether or not it costs money to park.

That's up to you, of course.

Places where people want to go are crowded. Places where people want to go, in Montgomery County, are crowded and have parking problems. Places where people don't want to go aren't crowded and don't have parking problems.

[Anonymous]

sorry, responded to the wrong PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People need a solution now for their transportation problems. Advocating for solutions in 20 years is good, it will take years to build new infrastructure for metro, more and more frequent buses, running. More bus lines. Families need a quick solution. It’s great that you want to advocate for lower income families who rely on public transportation but we also must maintain an advance roads and parking.

And separately from that when the county decides to charge parking fee, it hurts the local businesses that surround those parking garages. People vote with their wallets. People don’t want to rush through dinner and finish in two hours. So people will go to where they can leisurely shop and eat. That’s where they’ll spend their money.

Yes. So let's start working on solutions now! It will not take 20 years. We can - and should - start right now. There are plenty of things we can - and should - do quickly.

As for where people want to go - people want to go to nice places. Given a choice between a nice place where you have to pay to park, or a non-nice place where you can park for "free", most people will choose nice places. Of course there are people who will cut off their own noses to spite their faces, but we don't have to make public policy around their honestly silly preferences.

Life isn’t that binary. There are lots of nice places where you can park for free. Given a choice between a nice place where you have to pay to park or a nice place where you can park for free, most people will choose nice places with free parking. Of course there are people who will cut off their noses to spite their faces, but we don’t have to make public policy around their honestly silly preferences that will hurt local business

But, as you say, life isn't that binary. There are few places that are exactly the same that have the choice between paying to park or not. People aren't cutting off their noses to spite their faces just because they find some value in the place where it costs a few bucks to park. Maybe it is easier to find spots; maybe you don't have to walk as far; maybe it isn't as crowded; maybe there is a particular store you like at one place. I can think of few times where I have chosen between two equal destinations and the only deciding factor between the two was whether or not it costs money to park.

But charging for parking doesn’t enhance other characteristics. Maybe it’s easier to find a spot when you pay for parking, but maybe it’s harder. Maybe there’s a particular store you like where they charge a parking fee, maybe there are 2 stores you like even better where parking’s free. The point is that there are an infinite number of variables to balance and people will prioritize those variables differently. Charging for parking introduces a negative variable into the associated locations. That variable may have minimal importance for you, but other people may feel differently. If you could hypothetically contrive two identical locations, differing only by parking charge, I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who considered it a positive deciding factor. You may only be able to think of a few times you chose between two equal destinations based on whether it cost money to park, but I will generally avoid it whenever possible. Not only do I consider it a pointless waste of money, I consider it particularly galling to be charged for the privilege of patronizing someplace. If they’re going to charge me for bringing them business, I’ll take my money elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But charging for parking doesn’t enhance other characteristics. Maybe it’s easier to find a spot when you pay for parking, but maybe it’s harder. Maybe there’s a particular store you like where they charge a parking fee, maybe there are 2 stores you like even better where parking’s free. The point is that there are an infinite number of variables to balance and people will prioritize those variables differently. Charging for parking introduces a negative variable into the associated locations. That variable may have minimal importance for you, but other people may feel differently. If you could hypothetically contrive two identical locations, differing only by parking charge, I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who considered it a positive deciding factor. You may only be able to think of a few times you chose between two equal destinations based on whether it cost money to park, but I will generally avoid it whenever possible. Not only do I consider it a pointless waste of money, I consider it particularly galling to be charged for the privilege of patronizing someplace. If they’re going to charge me for bringing them business, I’ll take my money elsewhere.

So do. As you say, people make decisions about where to go based on all kinds of things. Not everything has to be for you. If you refuse to go out to eat in downtown Bethesda because you don't want to pay $1-2 an hour to keep your car in a municipal parking garage, well, there are plenty of other places for you to eat, or you can stay home and cook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But charging for parking doesn’t enhance other characteristics. Maybe it’s easier to find a spot when you pay for parking, but maybe it’s harder. Maybe there’s a particular store you like where they charge a parking fee, maybe there are 2 stores you like even better where parking’s free. The point is that there are an infinite number of variables to balance and people will prioritize those variables differently. Charging for parking introduces a negative variable into the associated locations. That variable may have minimal importance for you, but other people may feel differently. If you could hypothetically contrive two identical locations, differing only by parking charge, I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who considered it a positive deciding factor. You may only be able to think of a few times you chose between two equal destinations based on whether it cost money to park, but I will generally avoid it whenever possible. Not only do I consider it a pointless waste of money, I consider it particularly galling to be charged for the privilege of patronizing someplace. If they’re going to charge me for bringing them business, I’ll take my money elsewhere.

So do. As you say, people make decisions about where to go based on all kinds of things. Not everything has to be for you. If you refuse to go out to eat in downtown Bethesda because you don't want to pay $1-2 an hour to keep your car in a municipal parking garage, well, there are plenty of other places for you to eat, or you can stay home and cook.

And so I do. But what has charging for parking accomplished? Do I drive less? No, if anything I drive more. Instead of going to the closest restaurant I like, I’ll drive further to one I like that doesn’t charge parking. The only difference is that the restaurant I would have gone to before they implemented the parking charge has lost my business. It’s good news for my new restaurant choice, but the charge hurt the local business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But charging for parking doesn’t enhance other characteristics. Maybe it’s easier to find a spot when you pay for parking, but maybe it’s harder. Maybe there’s a particular store you like where they charge a parking fee, maybe there are 2 stores you like even better where parking’s free. The point is that there are an infinite number of variables to balance and people will prioritize those variables differently. Charging for parking introduces a negative variable into the associated locations. That variable may have minimal importance for you, but other people may feel differently. If you could hypothetically contrive two identical locations, differing only by parking charge, I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who considered it a positive deciding factor. You may only be able to think of a few times you chose between two equal destinations based on whether it cost money to park, but I will generally avoid it whenever possible. Not only do I consider it a pointless waste of money, I consider it particularly galling to be charged for the privilege of patronizing someplace. If they’re going to charge me for bringing them business, I’ll take my money elsewhere.

So do. As you say, people make decisions about where to go based on all kinds of things. Not everything has to be for you. If you refuse to go out to eat in downtown Bethesda because you don't want to pay $1-2 an hour to keep your car in a municipal parking garage, well, there are plenty of other places for you to eat, or you can stay home and cook.

And so I do. But what has charging for parking accomplished? Do I drive less? No, if anything I drive more. Instead of going to the closest restaurant I like, I’ll drive further to one I like that doesn’t charge parking. The only difference is that the restaurant I would have gone to before they implemented the parking charge has lost my business. It’s good news for my new restaurant choice, but the charge hurt the local business.

You're paying to drive further, to go to a place you like less, because you don't want to spend a few dollars on a place to put your car for a few hours. Well, people make irrational decisions all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The council is so good at figuring out new ways to take our money! This is on top of recently raising property tax rates and the recordation tax, of course.

"On or about July 8, 2023, Saturday payment will be required in garages and lots. Rates and hours requiring payment will be the same as the rest of the week."

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DOT-Parking/FAQ/using-meters.html

Poor drivers. Won't someone think of the drivers?

Poor county council, nonprofits, snd community activists. Whatever will they do without more taxpayer money!!!? We gotta make sure they can eat!

Eh. "Free" parking subsidizes drivers and driving. End driver/driving subsidies.

End lunch subsidies, housing subsidies, electric power tool and car subsidies, solar panel subsidies, etc. etc.

End it all!

That's an unnuanced view of public policy. In the nuanced view, we subsidize behaviors/actions we want to encourage, and remove subsidies from behaviors/actions we don't want to encourage. We want to encourage kids having lunches, people having housing, and clean(er), local energy sources. We don't want to, and don't need to, encourage driving.

Which is why we make parking easier, so that local businesses thrive.

But this is moco, where the county does everything in its power to kill jobs, kill businesses, and stifle economic growth. No surprise.

No, when we make parking easier, we get a lot of roads, traffic congestion, parking lots, and car crashes, none of which contribute to economic vitality or help most local businesses. It's true that car crashes are good for car-repair, tow truck, and car-sales businesses, though.

Fix the problem then. What solution you got so a grocery store run doesn't take 4 hours and you can move millions of people all over the county.

Let me guess,.you have the typical list of really stupid ideas the bike idiots always try to propose.

I'm working on it. What are you doing?

Why should I have to do anything? I pay taxes.

Until there is a solution, I will drive. And you can eat my exhaust.

What a charmer you are.

I live in the suburbs because I chose to live in the suburbs. I WANT to drive everywhere and not have to take 10 hours on weekend to so basic chores because I have to take public train.

That’s what you clowns don’t get. You try to make the suburbs NYC, as if we have the same kind of density that can make public transportation economically viable.

We live in the burbs. Now accept the fact that it requires driving and stop having grand delusions that you can bike, bus, and take trains everywhere. You can’t. No one wants to spend entire days just trying to do two things like going to get milk and sugar and then having to spend 4 more hours to get to Target to pickup cleaning supplies.

Suburbanites drive. Get over it.

Lol, you clearly have never lived in a city dude. I can get milk in 1 minute walk, it takes you a half hour + parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People need a solution now for their transportation problems. Advocating for solutions in 20 years is good, it will take years to build new infrastructure for metro, more and more frequent buses, running. More bus lines. Families need a quick solution. It’s great that you want to advocate for lower income families who rely on public transportation but we also must maintain an advance roads and parking.

And separately from that when the county decides to charge parking fee, it hurts the local businesses that surround those parking garages. People vote with their wallets. People don’t want to rush through dinner and finish in two hours. So people will go to where they can leisurely shop and eat. That’s where they’ll spend their money.

Yes. So let's start working on solutions now! It will not take 20 years. We can - and should - start right now. There are plenty of things we can - and should - do quickly.

As for where people want to go - people want to go to nice places. Given a choice between a nice place where you have to pay to park, or a non-nice place where you can park for "free", most people will choose nice places. Of course there are people who will cut off their own noses to spite their faces, but we don't have to make public policy around their honestly silly preferences.

Life isn’t that binary. There are lots of nice places where you can park for free. Given a choice between a nice place where you have to pay to park or a nice place where you can park for free, most people will choose nice places with free parking. Of course there are people who will cut off their noses to spite their faces, but we don’t have to make public policy around their honestly silly preferences that will hurt local business

But, as you say, life isn't that binary. There are few places that are exactly the same that have the choice between paying to park or not. People aren't cutting off their noses to spite their faces just because they find some value in the place where it costs a few bucks to park. Maybe it is easier to find spots; maybe you don't have to walk as far; maybe it isn't as crowded; maybe there is a particular store you like at one place. I can think of few times where I have chosen between two equal destinations and the only deciding factor between the two was whether or not it costs money to park.

But charging for parking doesn’t enhance other characteristics. Maybe it’s easier to find a spot when you pay for parking, but maybe it’s harder. Maybe there’s a particular store you like where they charge a parking fee, maybe there are 2 stores you like even better where parking’s free. The point is that there are an infinite number of variables to balance and people will prioritize those variables differently. Charging for parking introduces a negative variable into the associated locations. That variable may have minimal importance for you, but other people may feel differently. If you could hypothetically contrive two identical locations, differing only by parking charge, I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who considered it a positive deciding factor. You may only be able to think of a few times you chose between two equal destinations based on whether it cost money to park, but I will generally avoid it whenever possible. Not only do I consider it a pointless waste of money, I consider it particularly galling to be charged for the privilege of patronizing someplace. If they’re going to charge me for bringing them business, I’ll take my money elsewhere.

You seem quite entitled to free parking paid for by taxpayers. Seems odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The council is so good at figuring out new ways to take our money! This is on top of recently raising property tax rates and the recordation tax, of course.

"On or about July 8, 2023, Saturday payment will be required in garages and lots. Rates and hours requiring payment will be the same as the rest of the week."

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DOT-Parking/FAQ/using-meters.html

Poor drivers. Won't someone think of the drivers?

Poor county council, nonprofits, snd community activists. Whatever will they do without more taxpayer money!!!? We gotta make sure they can eat!

Eh. "Free" parking subsidizes drivers and driving. End driver/driving subsidies.

End lunch subsidies, housing subsidies, electric power tool and car subsidies, solar panel subsidies, etc. etc.

End it all!

That's an unnuanced view of public policy. In the nuanced view, we subsidize behaviors/actions we want to encourage, and remove subsidies from behaviors/actions we don't want to encourage. We want to encourage kids having lunches, people having housing, and clean(er), local energy sources. We don't want to, and don't need to, encourage driving.

Which is why we make parking easier, so that local businesses thrive.

But this is moco, where the county does everything in its power to kill jobs, kill businesses, and stifle economic growth. No surprise.

Gee I guess that's why NYC has so many failed businesses - no parking!

Moco isnt nyc. Wow, is stupid are you? Where’s our subway system with the most stops in the world like NYC? Really, really piss poor comparison and logic on your part.

I think we are arguing with a teenager in high school, lol.

Obviously, but density has benefits. Lol. Read some books and get out of your polluting car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But charging for parking doesn’t enhance other characteristics. Maybe it’s easier to find a spot when you pay for parking, but maybe it’s harder. Maybe there’s a particular store you like where they charge a parking fee, maybe there are 2 stores you like even better where parking’s free. The point is that there are an infinite number of variables to balance and people will prioritize those variables differently. Charging for parking introduces a negative variable into the associated locations. That variable may have minimal importance for you, but other people may feel differently. If you could hypothetically contrive two identical locations, differing only by parking charge, I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who considered it a positive deciding factor. You may only be able to think of a few times you chose between two equal destinations based on whether it cost money to park, but I will generally avoid it whenever possible. Not only do I consider it a pointless waste of money, I consider it particularly galling to be charged for the privilege of patronizing someplace. If they’re going to charge me for bringing them business, I’ll take my money elsewhere.

So do. As you say, people make decisions about where to go based on all kinds of things. Not everything has to be for you. If you refuse to go out to eat in downtown Bethesda because you don't want to pay $1-2 an hour to keep your car in a municipal parking garage, well, there are plenty of other places for you to eat, or you can stay home and cook.

And so I do. But what has charging for parking accomplished? Do I drive less? No, if anything I drive more. Instead of going to the closest restaurant I like, I’ll drive further to one I like that doesn’t charge parking. The only difference is that the restaurant I would have gone to before they implemented the parking charge has lost my business. It’s good news for my new restaurant choice, but the charge hurt the local business.

Great, that works for your. And it makes sense as you are not passing on the externalities to us. Taking responsibility, nice!

And no, the change doesn't hurt local biz. Any place that is considering this obviously knows most of their customers can get there without parking. Not that hard to understand champ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But charging for parking doesn’t enhance other characteristics. Maybe it’s easier to find a spot when you pay for parking, but maybe it’s harder. Maybe there’s a particular store you like where they charge a parking fee, maybe there are 2 stores you like even better where parking’s free. The point is that there are an infinite number of variables to balance and people will prioritize those variables differently. Charging for parking introduces a negative variable into the associated locations. That variable may have minimal importance for you, but other people may feel differently. If you could hypothetically contrive two identical locations, differing only by parking charge, I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who considered it a positive deciding factor. You may only be able to think of a few times you chose between two equal destinations based on whether it cost money to park, but I will generally avoid it whenever possible. Not only do I consider it a pointless waste of money, I consider it particularly galling to be charged for the privilege of patronizing someplace. If they’re going to charge me for bringing them business, I’ll take my money elsewhere.

So do. As you say, people make decisions about where to go based on all kinds of things. Not everything has to be for you. If you refuse to go out to eat in downtown Bethesda because you don't want to pay $1-2 an hour to keep your car in a municipal parking garage, well, there are plenty of other places for you to eat, or you can stay home and cook.

And so I do. But what has charging for parking accomplished? Do I drive less? No, if anything I drive more. Instead of going to the closest restaurant I like, I’ll drive further to one I like that doesn’t charge parking. The only difference is that the restaurant I would have gone to before they implemented the parking charge has lost my business. It’s good news for my new restaurant choice, but the charge hurt the local business.

Great, that works for your. And it makes sense as you are not passing on the externalities to us. Taking responsibility, nice!

And no, the change doesn't hurt local biz. Any place that is considering this obviously knows most of their customers can get there without parking. Not that hard to understand champ.

Except in this case it wasn’t the businesses that decided and it wasn’t because parking was scarce. The county decided to charge more just because they could.