This is quite bizarre to me. In city centers, very few if any office buildings in any industry offer free parking. My company in Seattle will subsidize our ~280/mo parking by 100. I have never heard of a building in downtown Seattle charging under 200 a month for parking, even outdoor surface lots are around 200 monthly. Is it not a bit obvious that free parking dramatically encourages driving over public transit? Parking demand must grow as a company grows, while its parking structure generally is fixed. Increasing the cost is the only way to effectively manage the situation.
The alternative from my company versus the parking subsidy is a free unlimited public transit card. Most people choose to take either light rail or bus, and choose their living situations so as to take advantage of those options.
The city center of San Francisco (for public transit purposes) is a small, eastern portion of the Market St corridor, several miles from the site being discussed.
That how it works in one of the IT company in Voronezh. All parking lots are sold at internal auction each month. All money from auction goes to charity.
Its a win win for all. People know that they always able to park. Price for lot goes up every month by itself, because there is less and less free space around office. Charity goes up as well.
That's not really a win-win for all. The low paid cafeteria worker who has to be at work at 5am before transit runs can't afford to outbid the executive that can pay $500/month for a space.... and he doesn't even get a share of the profit from the auction. So he ends up paying $200/month at a nearby garage out of his own pocket... at least if the profits were shared, it would help offset some of his parking costs.
Either the company will need to increase that person's wage or they will find other employment. Don't make parking a special case vs other aspects of inequality.
If you want to alleviate wage disparity, target it directly, not just one tiny symptom.
The example of the cafeteria employee is saying that poor people are disproportionately harmed by increased prices. That's true. I argue that despite the regressive nature of consumption fees, they're important for a well-functioning market. The problems of poverty are important as well, but should not prevent us from using market-based solutions for allocating resources.
If the funds went back to all employees equally then it’s a market-based solution.
This example is conflating the market for charity donations with parking. If I was going to donate $10k/month to charity anyway, I’d bid $5k a month on the parking (not sure how tax would work).
No no no. In Voronez(Russia) there is not even nearly around those sums. Public transport per month cost around $10, highest bet for parking lot around $40-50. So there is no reason to split those money for non-driving workers.
Every 3 month there is a report from company on what have been done for money from parking.
Nope, parent poster said explicitly "Money from auction goes in pool and split between everyone who doesnt park."
I'd like to see the same kind of idea with moving violations. It's wronging the communities they're cited in; it should go back to us, directly. Not to some enforcement arm that buys MRAPS and shit.
There is a reasonable argument that such fees should go to the general fund for the locality, not to some specific department like law enforcement (because of incentives).
But I do not think there is a reasonable argument that the money should "go back to us, directly" rather than going to the local government. I mean, if you REALLY wanted your tax bill to come with two extra lines on it:
> Refund due to collections from legal enforcement: $ -54.36
> Additional charges for operating costs: $ 54.36
...but I HOPE you are bright enough to realize that the net difference between showing these lines on the tax bill and not showing them is meaningless and that there is little benefit to bothering to list it that way.
Actually, due to transparency, I would want the ability to drill that deep into the financials of the county, state, and country I live in. Even if it is a net positive offset by an exact equal negative.
The problem is when government is opaque, we get things like "Govt services are horrible, blablabla". Whereas if funding wasn't in omnibus bills and covered up, we could see "Yes, their performance is low cause they are understaffed and working on a shoestring budget. They couldn't even afford office supplies."
I mean seriously, we value provenance in software with tools like Git. Why not Government and expenditure calculations? I certainly see a value there, regardless the party.
Writing laws such that fines are distributed back to the population uniformly would make the impact easier to understand.
Pooling all revenue, from both taxes and fines, would make budgeting more complex as the tax rate would need to fluctuate with the expectation of fines, including the ones from new legislation. Any new fine legislation would thus be a tax bill by side-effect.
If you want your employees to all be able to have as many nice things as each other you should pay them all the same. If you don't I don't see how a company parking lot is any different than one employee paying more for a shorter commute than another.
They sometimes are, at least in Sweden. And if you are sentenced to a fine in a court for a crime you're convicted of the fine is set to a certain number of "daily fines". The size of each is a proportion of your salary.
I could see a concern that this would either look like a general partnership where the recipients of funds turned out to be liable if someone got hurt on the property, or else need to be a corporate entity of some kind with the recipients as dividend-eligible shareholders, with all the fun paperwork and tax-reporting requirements that come along with that.
By the way I'm not sure about the capitalistic label. The recipients would do nothing to earn the money, did they?
My wife's company just pays people bonuses to take the bus/ride a bike/walk/run/whathaveyou to work. Employees get a small bonus literally every day they utilize alternative transportation. It's not much for each commute, but over the course of a month, it ends up being a few hundred bucks for some people. My wife used to drive to work, but is now riding her bike. I am 99% sure she loves the bike commute so much now that she wouldn't revert back even if the small bonus got taken away.
It's great ! But it's also very saddening that people need incitation from companies to stop driving to work and can't make such healthy, environment-friendly decisions themselves.
Not surprising to me at all. Driving is comfortable and easy, and most American cities have awful public transit and terrible, dangerous bike infrastructure.
I live in Munich now and the difference in urban design is unbelievably stark. Munich is built to handle a variety of transportation modes well. American cities are basically just designed for cars, with other modes being an afterthought.
Driving is awesome, I am way better protected in the event something goes wrong, and I don't have to care about the weather.
This isn't popular here, but I have been indoctrinated by environmental bullshit as a kid and teen and I am done with that. I pay high gas taxes and if that can't more than offset the environmental impact whomever is in charge should be fired for incompetence.
>I pay high gas taxes and if that can't more than offset the environmental impact whomever is in charge should be fired for incompetence.
Edit: comment predicated on the assumption that this is in California, where Lyft is located
No, you don't pay high taxes, and second, political forces are such that gas taxes can not be raised to what they should be to prevent your "firing for incompetence." The politics don't work that way.
Friend, all the money is the world cannot undo environmental damage. Your tax dollars for gas are for revenue, not to offset environmental damage. Accepting this is very important.
If you have any doubts, throw all your greenbacks into a volcano and let us know if it stops erupting.
Just an observation: Why aren't Lyft's employees using Lyft's ride-sharing service to get to work?
I know that's not the point of the article, but if your company owns ~25% of the market share [1], wouldn't it make more sense to instead give your employees "Lyft credits" (or whatever it's called), and have them use the service on a near-daily basis.
Personally, I think Lyft credits would be bad, for a number of reasons.
First off, I'm pretty sure that the value of the credit would be taxable, in the same way that wages are taxable.
Specifically, see IRS Publication 15B Section 2, the sub-section on Transportation (Commuting) Benefits (https://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b/ar02.html#en_US_2017_p...). Lyft credits don't to me appear to be one of the four "Qualified Transportation Benefits" (although paid parking _is_). Nor would it be a de minimis benefit.
(To be clear, I'm talking US tax law, as a US corporation.)
So, if it's going to be taxed, then you (as the Lyft employee) now have something which you _have_ to use, or else you're going to lose money (in that you've paid taxes for a benefit you're not using). That's a pressure that I'd personally not want to be under.
Similarly, I wonder if a permanent discount (all Lyft employees get 50% off) would also be taxable. Since this is all electronic, I don't think it would be that hard to track an employee's Lyft usage, so I don't think the de minimis exception would apply here. Then, come each paycheck, I'd have to remember "Oh, right, I have less money this pay period because I did all those extra Lyfts over the weekend."
Continuing the thought experiment, if Lyft did do this, then I most definitely would _not_ want to work or live near Lyft's offices. The reason is, any time I'd want to use Lyft, I'd be competing with all of the Lyft employees who are also using the service. I could see that increasing the chances of surge pricing switching on. That could maybe be minimized by nudging drivers to congregate around Lyft's office, but that would then deprive other areas of drivers.
Lyft credits don't to me appear to be one of the four "Qualified Transportation Benefits"
Lyft and Uber have already solved this. They've partnered with a bunch of the employee-benefit debit-card providers so that people can use employer-provided commute benefits. The guidelines as I recall from when I saw it announced are that you have to use Lyft Line/Uber Pool and vehicle has to have at least 6 seats, and both Uber and Lyft have tweaked their apps to ensure that they recognize benefit-debit cards and only let you use them on rides that meet IRS guidelines for commute benefits.
Ah! I see, and yes, that would qualify in the "Transit Pass" section, although it's really at least seven seats (the driver can not occupy one of the six seats). More specifically, it's "In a vehicle that seats at least 6 adults (not including the driver)".
That makes me wonder, although the problem is solved from the technological & regulatory sides, how many of those types of vehicles are there. I guess that's why this option is only available in four cities.
California's Parking Cashout law requires your employer to reimburse you what they would spend on your parking if you don't use it. This applies in the (somewhat narrow) situation where you not parking has a direct impact on what the company spends - i.e. they rent a spot in a garage.
When I worked in Santa Monica it was a couple hundred bucks a month - cycling was nicer anyway, too.
You just don't get the spot. In my case I just didn't get the card that enabled access to the garage. It's not applicable where the employer just has one big lot and isn't paying per space, generally.
The story telling and gifs are really outstanding. Congrats to Bloomberg. What's not so nice is ... it's completely not accessible. If you achieve that - hats off
I liked the concise way the story was told - the text was short, to the point, without much fluff. On the other hand, I was actually a bit annoyed by the whole comic thing: why is a comic necessary to present a rather simple idea to an adult - tt felt kind of condescending. The drawings didn't really add anything to the story, and I found the animations distracting. ...now get off my lawn :)
Would alt tags on the images solve that? I'm all for interesting new ways to tell the news (previously worked with the guy at news corp au who was in charge of trying that stuff out)
This is not a very radical idea. It is known that people are averse to losing things they already have (even in exchange for equal or greater benefit). I'm glad it worked out for Lyft without too many ruffled feathers, at least according to the comic. I'm glad this sort of idea continues to get media exposure. It needs it.
An example, it is absurd to me (and most urbanist types) that Manhattan still has free street parking and that all the East River bridges are free. Congestion pricing in Lower Manhattan was on the table during the Bloomberg era, but never made it through. It should have.
Congestion pricing proposals for publicly-owned infrastructure always run into the same problem: taxpayers paid for the building of the infrastructure, they already own it. Charging what the market will bear effectively turns the infrastructure over to the relatively wealthy to use. Making people watch as the rich get exclusive use of the infrastructure every taxpayer paid for never goes over well.
But what if charging what the market will bear means the rich are paying for the cost of the thing and then some?
Anyway, my impression is that opposition to things like congestion fees come more from affluent commuting suburbanites than the poor (who probably already rely on transit anyway).
No, because the point is that cars specifically are Pretty Bad for cities (noise, air quality, inefficient use of space, dangerous) and should be discouraged (and economic incentives work). Mass transit is generally far less bad and should be encouraged by economic means.
NYC sort-of does this by not using zone fares, so long trips from far-away areas (read: poor parts of the city) cost as much as a brief trip through a rich area.
Because of geometry: cars do not scale well in cities. Only so much land to go around, you want (need, really) people to use more space-efficient modes. Supporting cars is particularly expensive compared to other modes because of how much space cars take to move around and park.
The facebook character had the right answer. These companies have products that create more value than running a paid parking lot... why would you trade an employee on a product like that for a few dollars in parking fees.
The point of the article is that by making something scarce free, the company was in effect "rationing by the queue", an inefficient way to handle things. Those unwilling to get there early had a bad time.
Instead they said, "Hey, we were giving the average employee $100/mo in parking. We're gonna keep doing that in the form of cash. But, to fund that extra 100 you're now getting in cash, anyone who wants to use the lot has to pay its market value." In short, instead of providing a "flakey parking availability" they provided cash. It's a lot (a lot... get it?) like selling the lot and giving the proceeds to employees.
This isn't always the best idea (sometimes, similar schemes can be socially unjust), but from an efficiency standpoint, it's hard to beat.
I hear what you're saying about pissing people off, but this should do the opposite. Sure, some folks might irrationally like jockeying for position or be early risers. But the company never intended to say "this benefit is for early risers". The intended it as a benefit to all employees and now it is.
The parking spots were not "free", employees were paying for them with their time, leaving their homes extra early and risking circling the neighborhood looking for extra spots if the lot was full. That time was worth money to the drivers and the growing price of a spot was evidence of that.
As they increased their employee count, the time cost would have increased as well and employees unwilling to spend that time on trying to get parking would take another mode of transportation. From the linked comic it sounds like the employees that spearheaded the program were trying to prove a larger point that cities could raise public transit funds by charging for all parking spaces in a city. I don't think this program was at all about making things more efficient at Lyft.
It was also about making things more efficient at Lyft. Some people really needed cars (mostly because they had kids) but couldn't find spots unless they arrived super early. This change pushed some people to stop using their cars.
yes, I read the cartoon. There's nothing new in it -- these are all well known things (like 100 year old things).
It's not clear that the companies they shopped the idea around to had a shortage of parking.
Queuing costs are costs that the employees who are trying to park are imposing on themselves. A parking fee is a cost that is being imposed on the employees by the employer. It's reasonable for employees to react differently to those costs.
If you're building a widely profitable business (like facebook), the better answer is to just build a larger parking lot. Just like lyft eventually did, and abandoned this bad idea.
Certainly under the prevailing moralistic view on HN that life is too comfortable and people ought to suffer more & have less free time, there is too much parking.
Well, that just argues for a Land Value Tax. If you buy land in downtown SF and want to make that a parking lot, more power to you, but you pay taxes proportional to the unimproved value of the land, and so you pay a lot more with respect to the value you gain than if you were to use it for office space.
Publicly auction public parking spots and allow them to rise unboundedly in price.
These are all economically efficient approaches. Instead of shaming people, we should incentivise non-wasteful behaviour (and I think economic efficiency is a good guideline here).
Land value tax is the ideal end state, but it's difficult for one person to work towards that; doing it on a smaller scale by e.g. getting your own employer to introduce a scheme like this seems a lot more plausible. (Also things like letters to one's representative asking them to remove parking minimums from planning criteria)
(My current company has "free" bicycle parking in the basement with a years-long waiting list; meanwhile many of the spots are unused or have a bike sitting their permanently, and I'm paying for a spot 10 minutes' walk away. Maybe I should start asking them to charge)
Who came up with such a dumb scheme. Bikes consume almost no space. The idea that there is a "spot" for one just seems needless. My buildings bicycle parking is a storage closet with 4 racks. Last time I checked there were a dozen bikes, a few scooters, and skateboards in there.
If you presuppose that Prop 13 could be eliminated, then you probably wouldn't need a land value tax or any parking because all those single family homes would be sold and developed into higher-density uses.
Driving is a pretty minimally wasteful behavior compared to the low lot coverage and building heights prevalent here.
We have a middle class in this country because it's reasonable to participate in productive economic activity while living in housing whose price doesn't completely swallow your productivity. Parking is what makes that possible. It's a fucking great use of land.
(I say this as a carfree renter in an urban high-rise. This is fun, but in no way sustainable - I have no hope of owning an analogous condo, let alone one big enough for a family, and that's as a well-compensated professional. When it comes time for stability and child-raising, it will be imperative to chose a city with enough parking that I can commute from an outer suburb where prices are accessible to mere upper-income salary workers. Far as I can tell, cities with your view of land use only work for longtime incumbents, international oligarchs, and twentysomethings living together like they're still in college).
Other countries have much less parking, yet they somehow manage to have a middle class.
Have you considered that one of reasons for the high condo prices may be that there's too few of them, in part because land that could be used to build a bunch more is taken up by parking lots?
Especially if we're talking about flat parking (not silos), a single spot is taking the place of multiple condos. So you can imagine how much each actually costs, even if you're not the one paying the price.
Absolutely, yes! I'm just not holding my breath for public opinion to turn around on whether condo towers and the developers who build them are good or evil.
>in part because land that could be used to build a bunch more
In minuscule part. Mostly, land is taken up by buildings that are too short.
>a single spot is taking the place of multiple condos
This presumes a building height that I assure you would get laughed out of the Zoning Adjustments Board hearing room.
Each parking space enables timely access to much more square feet of land than any residential construction project would contemplate. (Up to the point where the road network breaks down due to congestion, which is why I think affordability in those cities is probably a lost cause).
> yet they somehow manage to have a middle class.
Probably because their electorates are able to distinguish between mid-rise apartment blocks and Satan, just like they distinguish between single-payer healthcare and the USSR.
There are other countries without the need for a private health insurance market. Yet no one thinks shutting down the health insurance market would be good policy unless combined with a replacement like single-payer.
The same is true for parking. A replacement transportation system would be better, but that doesn't excuse moving us towards a world with no transportation system.
Easy solution. The company could give every employee a $300 raise and the charge $300 for parking. Those who want to keep the spot stay the same. Those who don't, gain $300.
That difference is just a psychological one. The end result is still people with a parking spot have $300 less than people without a parking spot. It doesn't matter which side you call the baseline.
Yes, but psychologically it _does_ matter which side you call the baseline.
Loss aversion is a real thing. People _hate_ losing a thing they have. So if you make parking a reservation system and then give a $300 credit to all employees who don't make a reservation you'll get much less blow-back than if you raise everyone's pay by $300, and then charge $300 to reserve parking.
I think saying it's "just" a psychological difference really undervalues that aspect. After all, the goal is to create market efficiencies _without_ upsetting people. Solving the psychological problem is really the key to keeping people happy with the new system.
The psychological difference is that people react differently depending on whether the fee is seen as "not receiving a bonus that other people got", or "taking a pay cut when others didn't." If that doesn't make sense to you, I highly recommend that you pick up a copy of "The Paradox of Choice," a book that lays out neatly how the human brain can be manipulated by simple restatements like this.
One kink is that the raise would only be ~$180 after tax at typical Lyft employee tax rates and they wouldn't be able to deduct commuting expenses (unless they were over a certain level).
Why not just treat the assigned parking a standard perk (considered in the overhead cost of an employee) and offer a cash bonus to those who elect to not have a spot? That would maintain the perception of the parking being free, while allowing for a reduction in usage based on the same value assessment described in the article.
I think a big issue with parking is that people might not even consider that there are alternatives to driving. The car is just a little too comfy. But if everyone is so far from work that they need to drive to get there, that creates so many congestion and environmental issues. This seems like a real weak spot for our culture.
Am I crazy or is it ridiculous that a ride-sharing company didn't give their employees free Lyft credits to alleviate the situation? You would think that would be one of the perks of working for Lyft. I am also confused as to why it was called free parking. Is employee parking not considered as part of compensation? I've worked at offices before that used public lots and the employer purchased parking passes for everyone.
Also, a bit off topic, but biking is not a panacea for everyone. I tried cycling my 18 mile commute along the PCH for 1.5 years. By the end of it, I was really turned off by biking. I like to play basketball, hike, and go open ocean swimming. I finally quit cycling to work because I had dead legs due to musclr fatigue and couldn't enjoynmy preferred recreational activities.
Also, I sweat very easily. Luckily my office at the time had a shower.
>Am I crazy or is it ridiculous that a ride-sharing company didn't give their employees free Lyft credits to alleviate the situation?
I can totally understand Lyft not offering in-app credits, for a number of reasons:
1: If a Lyft employee is unable to get a Lyft, for whatever reason (like, no drivers nearby, or whatever), then they're gonna be pissed, because they won't be able to use their Lyft credit for an alternate option (where another person could also check other options, like Uber, taxi, calling a friend, etc.).
2: Lyft would probably still have to deduct payroll taxes on the credit paid to the employee. That would really suck for Lyft employees who don't use Lyft enough to use up the credit (by, for example, taking public transit). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
> Am I crazy or is it ridiculous that a ride-sharing company didn't give their employees free Lyft credits to alleviate the situation? You would think that would be one of the perks of working for Lyft.
I'm surprised that/if they didn't have that perk before the parking brouhaha, but even if they didn't, non-parkers got $150/mo just for not parking there, so they could certainly spend that on Lyft rides.
Though considering that a month is around 23 working days, that means they only have a little over $3 per ride, which won't get them to and from work every day in the month... unless they take Line and live within walking distance anyway...
Even though it seemed to work out overall for the company, it seems like employee carpooling via Lyft Line would be a less risky solution, especially at the end of the day when you all can be picked up at the same location.
Not really, if they're free and you just randomly give them out then it doesn't allow the power of the market to sort out who really wants a spot vs. who doesn't really care.
Money isn't consumed, the money paid can be passed out to other employees as raises. Whereas time spent waiting in line is a dead-weight loss. (Ok, it's not a 100% loss since you might be able to do something somewhat fun with that time, e.g. maybe you listen to a podcast while you're sitting in the parking lot. But it's not an ideal way to spend your time, and there's no way for anyone to get their time back)
Maybe not over just parking but because it's really inconvenient/expensive to go into the office--and you need to do so on a daily basis--absolutely. Which not being able to easily park at any time can be a component of.
Gave me an idea of dynamic pricing for public parking, like the surge prices of ride sharing services. Maybe this already exists somewhere?
If there are only a handful spots left, the price would be really high. If a parking lot is not that popular it will automatically be cheaper. Environmentally friendly cars could get a discount.
Instead of reserved parking spots, the spot would know for instance if it's never used during working hours and the prices would adjust to optimize the fill rate of all spots. Residents would get a discount for spots close to home.
I guess most cities have zones with different fees, and often free parking on weekends and nights. This would instead adjust it automatically, maybe even adjust for popularity of a particular group of spots.
Tolls continue to represent an effective way of managing congestion in large cities but it's only if the community will be willing to accept it. Better transportation alternatives need to be provided in addition to the introduction of tolls to appease everyone.
Doesn't the university down the peninsula charge everyone monthly/yearly parking fees to reduce driving and encourage people to take public transit/bike or live on campus?
Most FinDi commuters have to pay for their spots. It's widely used and well known stick to get people to carpool or take alternative means to work.
With so many companies offering employees public transportation passes for commuting, I'd love to see Lyft/Uber create the ability for employers to offer free/reduced fare office commutes (within a determined range). AFAIK the only option they have is to give blanket monthly credits.
My girlfriend is starting a PhD at UCSF, and if they have to commute between 11pm and 6am the school will pay for the Uber/Lyft ride up to a certain amount. I'm not sure how it's facilitated but it's a good idea for sure.
In the City of Melbourne in Australia, most parking that you could use all day is not free. You can either get in by 10am and pay $20 per day, or pay around $100 per day if you arrive after that. There's still heaps of cars in the city.
You need about $250 minimum in credits to make a $12/day commute viable via lyft line. If they gave everyone $250/month in credits, I bet the parking issue would of reduced itself significantly.
Had an idea while reading the story: if I worked for Lyft during that time, I would have created an app that made it simple to rent out your "owned" spot to fellow employees. It would be easier and faster than the Facebook group, with built-in payment.
The cost for the app? Parking space owners have to let me use their space for one workday a year, with a prearranged date of my choice. If everybody signed up, I would have a space almost every day, free of charge.
This program isn't free for Lyft -- @ 1,000 employees and $375/space/month for each of the 53 spaces, the monthly program cost is $35K per month (with the subsidies net of revenue), or 420K a year in cash burn!!!!
IMHO, they'd be better off shutting down the lot and using it as a picnic area / common area for everyone to enjoy.
And there's also the various Marguerite lines (X Express & Limited, Y Express and Limited, and S) that supplement normal service. There're also other things that I've forgotten about.
All of those options are pretty well used, and it shows that for the main use cases, it is possible to "charge for free parking", but I think the important thing is that you do have to have some external constraint.
In Lyft's case, it was a lack of spaces. In Stanford's case, it's a negotiated restriction. Either way, that avoids the "Facebook alternative", where you don't have any outside reason you can point to.
The best example of this is the Stanford Research Park: If you're a Stanford employee who works off-campus (and the Stanford Research Park counts as off-campus), then you don't qualify for the $300 yearly credit, even if you use bus/train/vanpool all the time (see https://transportation.stanford.edu/commute-club/about-commu...).
So I guess the lesson (or at least the correlation) is, you need some external restriction, or else "most" people will drive!
Demand is a fallacy because they compel you to come into the building.
If they allowed everyone to choose to work from home, or from another location, then it would have something interesting to say about it.
But the demand is artificial in that context, forcing people to exist at that office, and yet not allowing them the means to do so with their mode of travel of choice by not providing sufficient parking.
> yet not allowing them the means to do so with their mode of travel of choice by not providing sufficient parking
They also don't provide a runway and hangar space, nor a marina, and probably not a SpaceX landing pad either! People can't commute with their mode of travel of choice!
Jokes aside, even ignoring the broader impacts of more driving and just focusing within the company itself, providing limited free parking is "stealing" from those who don't drive (the company is spending resources/opportunity cost on something they don't use), and even on those who have to drive on certain days (they're pushed to getting to work at ridiculous hours to be able to park). With offices where it is actually feasible to commute by public transport (like Lyft's office which seemed to be ~0.5 mile from the nearest BART station and less from many bus routes) and when working at a transportation company, there are alternatives to driving one's own car, so putting a price on parking encourages people to treat it as the scarce resource it is.
> providing limited free parking is "stealing" from those who don't drive
This doesn't seem right - it assumes that the resources going toward parking would be otherwise spent on employees. If money was taken from employees as a payroll deduction, then "stealing" might apply, but until the money is promised to employees, its not employee money, it belongs to the company. There is no theft that I can see.
Asking me to pay for parking is the same as saying "please don't come here unless you absolutely have to".
And that's exactly what I do - I almost never go anywhere that makes you pay for parking. Downtown, or to visit congested cities for example. Or to small stores on roads with parking meters.
Are those places happier without me? Maybe. Depends on if they value whatever economic activity I would produce over their poor traffic management.
Would I use public transportation? After trying it for a while in a city that is widely considered among the top 5 in the world for public transport my answer is a resounding: NO!
Public transport is horrible, even when it is the best humans are able to make it. I feel bad for those people who have no other choice, and I am determined to never live in a city that requires it.
> After trying it for a while in a city that is widely considered among the top 5 in the world for public transport my answer is a resounding: NO!
Which city, out of curiosity? The cities widely considered to be among the top 5 are pretty universally a pain to get around in a car. Asia and Europe aren't exactly car friendly.
The only city in the world that I've been to that has what I would consider "good" public transport is Hong Kong. In comparison, the NY subway system is dirty, beat up, hot, infrequent, slow, and full of aggressive panhandlers.
The alternative from my company versus the parking subsidy is a free unlimited public transit card. Most people choose to take either light rail or bus, and choose their living situations so as to take advantage of those options.