Articles, Blog

Why parking your car is too cheap

Why parking your car is too cheap


Parking is a nightmare. And look at the price! Crazy, right? But what if I were to tell you that this is,
in fact, ridiculously cheap? Let me explain. London has some of the most expensive land
in the world. Every square foot is precious. In Westminster, one of the richest places
in Britain, the space needed for a single parking spot would cost around £8,000 per
year to rent as housing. But if you’re rich enough to live there anyway,
parking your car for the year costs a maximum of £145. That’s quite a subsidy. No one else gets to store half a tonne of
their property on public land at a bargain price. And that subsidy to motorists is even bigger
in places like New York City where in many places in the centre,
it’s still possible to park for absolutely nothing. Are you crazy?
What are you doing? Hey, hey, you’re stealing my space. George wait, you don’t know who this guy
is… people kill for a parking space in this city. The amount of space given
over to stationary vehicles would fill 13 Central Parks. The centre of global capitalism is literally
giving away use of its valuable land. Not only is it wasteful, it’s actually
suffocating cities. At busy times in city centres up to 30% of
all traffic congestion is caused by drivers looking for a parking space. Cruising for parking is probably
the worst kind of traffic because cars are moving slow,
so there’s a lot of fuel used per mile travelled. And that means a lot of air pollution. And when climate scientists say we have little
more than a decade to stop runaway global warming,
this is really important. Hey arsehole, you can’t park
here, this’s my parking space, I live right up there. The real reason is: local politicians are
terrified. Even in the UK parking is an emotive issue. Nottingham is one of the first cities in the
world that decided to increase the cost of parking and invest the extra money in public
transport. But they still faced a major backlash. For many people the low cost of parking makes
driving into busy town centres much more attractive. It’s barely even a conscious choice, it’s
what they’ve always done. And so, cities themselves have changed
to accommodate the ever-expanding number of cars. And get this: All these cars are barely ever in use. They spend on average 95% of their existence
in a parking space. We need to be prepared that space
is becoming more of a scarce commodity and somehow we’ll have to deal with that. What I think is important to consider is
to never argue against the car, And convince people
that these are actually better. And we really have to
provide the infrastructure and the mechanisms that makes that statement true It’s usually about now that someone says,
if you charge shoppers more to park, even more of them will stay at home
and shop online instead. High streets and town centres are already
reeling. There’s only one problem with this idea,
it doesn’t seem to be true. In 2008, Britain’s transport department examined
evidence from several countries to see if taking away parking spaces, or making them
more expensive, harmed the local economies. The conclusion? It just didn’t. The fact is, it’s not the cost of parking
that kills town centres. … because of the transport infrastructure. For some, doubling or even trebling the cost
of parking won’t make any difference. Look at this row of supercars parked illegally
in central London. A fine of £80 is seen as a price worth paying
to pop into Harrods. Now, of course not everyone can walk or cycle
into town. But restricting parking for the majority doesn’t
mean restricting it for those who really need it. And with all the evidence pointing towards
the need for less parking, and for higher prices, some cities are taking the plunge. New apartment buildings in Mexico City used to need a minimum number of parking spaces. Now it’s a maximum with extra charges
the more they build. And they’ve invested
the money in public transport. In Oslo, the whole city centre is an almost
totally car free zone. Zurich has a maximum number of parking spaces,
so if a developer wants to build a new one, they have to pay for one
to be removed first. And there’s one more, very important thing. Technology is already starting
to change this whole argument. As driverless cars
become more widespread, the need to have your own private vehicle
is likely to drop. And if cars can go off
and park themselves, they don’t need to be left in the street. Just imagine,
all that space suddenly free. You could expand pavements,
build housing, bike lanes, plant trees … anything. Or, of course, we could
just carry on like this. Thanks for watching and click subscribe
to watch more videos in this series.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

42 thoughts on “Why parking your car is too cheap

  1. Filth like the Guardian claim Angela Merkel is a hero, WELL GERMANY DOESN'T THINK SO…. Get ready for prison you treasonous scum.

  2. Great video! We once had an open lecture at our university talking about this exact same thing. I hadn't considered it before, but yes, if you think about how valuable the land is, there is really no reason to pay so little for parking. In his example he took the average m² price of a flat in that area, multiplied it by the average amount of floors and the resulting prices where vastly higher than the price for parking. This is not how you get people to switch to public transport..

    All of this money can be viewed as subsidies towards car owners. It would be interesting to calculate how much money that is for a typical city

  3. I hate driving in the city. I hate parking in the city, even when it's free. It just makes sense to take the train or ride the bike in a dense area where everything one needs is close at hand.

  4. The guardian should put out more content like this instead of trying to overthrow democratic results. I might resubscrive if you do!

    Don't you see the contradiction in emphasising land scarcity in this yet demanding a population increase (via mass immigration) hence exacerbating land scarcity further? Do you not also tgink that increasing the country's population will increase the number of cars and traffic in the country?

  5. What about small towns that don’t really have public transport? My “city” of Fishers, IN (used to be a suburb) doesn’t really have any public transport, so every either uses a car, or walks.

  6. Proposals like this simply make it easier for the rich to drive and park, whereas the people who can only just afford a car, will be excluded.

    So, once again, the Guardian is arguing for a policy that helps make things more convenient for the very rich.

  7. Forget about somebody driving to the city centre without thinking about it, the only reason that's possible in a city of 500k+ is because the people who designed the city gave the road network highest priority without thinking about it. I'm not sure if that Swedish fellow telling us to convince people that other transportation methods are better understands the magnitude of marketing and lobbying powers he's asking us to defeat.

  8. That's why I'm in America. And thats why they are trying to destroy America. England exiled us when we helped Scotland. My ancestor told them to quit taking stuff that belongs to other countries. Then off to the Americas with us. Were not really America anymore. As soon as William and the goons along with the empire drom rome came over I knew America was doomed. Now Mr t could pass anti Semite laws for his handler Mr k. That's the only reason Mr k married Mr t daughter was to keep an eye on Mr t to make sure he doesn't pull a Kennedy.

  9. Mexico city is not a great example of correct use of parking spaces and decent public transport, we mexicans suffer a lot for both things. And, the city is a nightmare for pedestrians and bicycle riders

  10. Utter Pish! London-centric metropolitan nonsense. What about the 90% of the Uk with rubbish or non existent public transport?

  11. Garbage video. Id you mention Global Warming and its coming "running away", then you should have also mentioned how geoengineering is fueling ecological collapse and how the evil fucks in power want everyone in driverless cars that takes them where they want you to go.

  12. i had a car until about 15 years ago, i was using maybe once a fortnight, it was easier to walk within about 5 miles, parking was a nightmare, i found that it was like having a child without the positives

  13. Why don't the council pay more for trams and buses then. As well as putting parking prices up. If they made the bus free and every 10 minutes I wouldn't mind having expensive parking

  14. This is an interesting debate that, more often than not, is intoxicated by person's views on what is "the best transport". I believe there isn't one. It isn't cars, it isn't public transport and it surely isn't bikes. Because, in essence, every person has different needs when it comes to transport. As the West becomes increasingly older, options such as bikes are naturally going to become less of a demand. There is a balance to maintain and that is the difficult part. Besides this, we want to free space in the city, but for what really? More offices? To turn normal cities in to even more dense metropolis? What's the point? Cities need to be balanced between accessible center and green and livable suburbs.

  15. Most people drive because they have to, not because it's enjoyable or cost effective. We don't all live in London where there is good public transport. Public transport is not good enough, not reliable enough, in most places. They are run for profit and not to serve the public. I would love to ditch my car but I wouldn't have a job any more and would be relying on expensive taxis to take me to all of the places where buses do not run.

  16. This guy has obviously never been to Mexico city. Mentions Nottingham – with it's decent tram system as evidence that making parking more difficult or expensive has no effect on the high street. What about all the other towns and cities that don't have an underground or tram system? Self driving cars are a long way off yet. This guy is in a dream world and spends too much time daydreaming.

  17. I’m from Mexico City and we’re not a good example at all, yes the law was changed for maximum parking lots in new buildings, but public transport it’s a hell of a ride (literally, you feel you’re going to end up there) and parking is free in the vast majority of the city, with only a minimum of city blocks charging a very low fee.

  18. Parking is a scam…….lets say there is a starbucks, or a jimmy johns in a city, and you have to pay for a meter, I refuse to pay for parking so I can pay for a busniess; Ill drive to a suburb and gladly give them my money

  19. his argument is assinine. 8k a year for a spot?!?!? A) you are not parked 24/7/365 B) you have no guarantee of getting this space C) you have no agreement with the city/county/ individual who owns the land and lastly, no one would pay such exorbitant pricing.
    Also, along with the lines of a subsidy, what do you call parking tickets? A subsidized method by which the city makes more revenue.

    I am from Pasadena, California home of the world-famous Rose Bowl and Parade and let me tell you how much this city rakes in through permits and parking citations. This from those in the city who can ill afford to get taxed to park their damned automobile.

    Parking is a racquet, simple as that!

  20. They can raise the GASOLINE prices all they want. I have never seen such pathetic knee-jerk SUV abandonment as soon as Gas prices went up $1.00 in USA. If you charge people for parking, they will just pay it & think nothing off it since Americans forget. Raise Gasoline $1.50 & watch the tears stream & amount of available large Automobiles go up for sale almost instantaneously. I would say go snag one, but they aren't even paid for, if they were they wouldn't be sweating the raising gas price. LOL

  21. Parking prices are kept artificially low by government price capping. It's the opposite of a minimum wage because the parking fees are set at a maximum for most government supplied parking. In a free market without government subsidies, the price of parking would be much much higher. Consider this question. If a parking spot saves 0.25 hours of time (15 minutes) compared to the next best option, Then how much is that parking spot worth to someone who makes $200/hr? Answer the price a seller should charge for parking in a free market without government price ceilings is 0.25hourX$200/hr=$50 for the rich person who makes $200/hr. If they less, then the artificially low price results in too much unmet demand and the driver will have to drive around for 15 minutes waiting for a spot and wasting the money.

  22. Or, as happens in my city by the sea overrun by Guardianistas, dedicated buses run full from the universities to the city centre, completely bypassing the stops along the way where I am waiting to get home from work, leaving me to take the exact same journey via two or sometimes three changes of bus. The only days I manage to get home in under an hour are the ones when someone at work gives me a lift in their car – parked half a mile away from our school outside the ever-expanding resident permit zones despite there not being a hint of a parking problem in that part of the city and our school employing over 85 council-paid staff members (they gave us 5 permits to share). Of course, because now to access a reduced fare rate you need to download a mobile ticket, the bus company still gets paid whether they provide an adequate service or not, and get to overcharge me if I have the temerity to not buy a monthly pass and try to pay with coin of the realm. As a non-driver, I'd gladly sign up to your Guardianotopia, if you could reassure me that you had the faintest idea how to run it in a way that didn't just suit you, but everybody else who has to live with it.

  23. You paid for a car. 3 to 4 time the cost. You pay for gas, you pay insurance, maintenance. Pay paid is soon to be law. The parkway is a driveway and the driveway is a parkway.

  24. Please explain Barcelona! where on street parking has been removed in favor of premium below ground parking. Getting people out of cars helps the economy.
    Parking should be more expensive?! I'm not sure the augment holds true, single level parking is generally unused space. Multi story parking if heavily utilized is a gold mine.

  25. Parking should be free, it’s not like somebody is guarding your car either, most car parks you park at your own risk

  26. I agree with this video but I can't see it happening I'm afraid. The UK had a choice, build society around public transport like they've done in much of Scandinavia or build life around the car as they've done in America, it would take a large shift in mentality for it to happen now. Society chose the American way, with their large suburbs and daily commuting. The main difference though is we don't have the wide modern roads they have in their cities, ours are mostly victorian and were never intended for cars. I know people who said it takes 2 hours + some night for them to drive home from work but they still do it. Also if you think the UK is bad then go to Naples, their city layout is largely medieval with these narrow little streets yet they still try to drive up and down them. The whole idea that we're all going to quickly switch to driverless cars is also unlikely too I think. Critics don't seem to understand that people are very possessive about their cars, many people claim to "love" them. They're a social status symbol especially for men and teenagers. They're generally glamourised as well in various films, especially action ones, without showing the reality of traffic.

  27. The government are telling us to use public transport and ride bikes! We'll don't they think that if public transport wasn't t down most of the time we would use it? It's not rocket science

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *