Tragedy of the commons doesn’t apply to parking because the parking still exists after exploitation. The public utility must degrade (the parking spots disappear after using them) for the tragedy of the commons to apply.
DrunkEgnineer is correct: in a free market with two prices for the same item, the one with the lowest price will be sold first. There was plenty of free on-street parking, so the paid parking was not preferentially picked.
Parking rules can also be enforced with money and not who owns the private property next to the public property. That is, charge for street parking at the supply-demand equilibrium.
@pc486@Duamerthrax Parking does degrade though. Lots need resurfacing and sometimes stabilization to prevent sinkholes and garages can collapse altogether. We’re already starting to see serious structural problems with decks built in the mid-late 20th century that are buckling from a combination of age, lack of maintenance, and not anticipating that they’d be filled with oversized SUVs and pickup trucks, many with electric batteries making them even heavier.
Parking is not a finite and limited resource. Road surfaces can, and regularly are, refurbished and established. That’s why parking is not a tragedy; it’s not a resource that is lost forever.
I think you do bring up a good point though: who pays for parking lots and street parking when it does need help? Is it only the home owner in front of the street or is it a general fund expense from local sales taxes? Double points if you can answer who is then allowed to park in that publicly-paid parking spot.
In an economic sense, it’s not limited. Land is limited and there are oh so many negative externalities*, but we haven’t paved over everything, there’s more than enough bitumen and agate to level the world, and you can always dig or go up. We are nowhere near close to being unable to build one more parking spot. It’d be a hellscape, but it’d be one with plenty of parking.
Some more unfun things when building parking: heat island effect, surface permeabilities, strip mining for agate, drilling for bitumen, carbon emissions in moving it all, unfair and unsafe construction practices in this country, and the list goes on.
… but those are all economic limitations too? We are limited, economically, by land and negative externalities.
I think you mean in a pedantic sense we aren’t limited. Like, technically I could eat a fistful of rat poison. It wouldn’t be good for me, but I could technically do it!
So long as you don’t die from that fistful of rat poison, correlating to a economy that survives to another day, then yes, you could eat that poison! It would be very bad idea and may leave you maimed, but it would be possible. Furthermore, it’s more poison than you are currently consuming (at least I hope you’re not eating rat poison). I’m not sure why one would but if someone paid you to eat some poison, you certainly could do that transaction and I could say there’s been an increase of rat-poison-eater supply.
Economics may be strange but it’s not a value judgement on what we do. It’s just a way of modeling and understanding how a society handles goods and services. Invoking economic arguments like the tragedy of the commons requires understanding consumption of public resources and what that does to the resources. Parking doesn’t fit the argument because the supply curve does not change over time due to the pressure of strong demand. Parking can be refurbished, unlike a common livestock pasture. Parking supply can be increased by building on infertile land, up, or down, where a common livestock pasture cannot. A common livestock pasture can be consumed to the point where it cannot supply anymore (becoming infertile). A parking spot does not get consumed beyond a point to where it no longer functions as a parking spot.
Parking is not subject to the tragedy of the commons.
If there is plenty of free on-street parking, then the free-market was working properly.
Tragedy of the Commons.
There was not “plenty” of parking. That’s why the town had to step in and start enforcing the parking rules that were ignore before.
Tragedy of the commons doesn’t apply to parking because the parking still exists after exploitation. The public utility must degrade (the parking spots disappear after using them) for the tragedy of the commons to apply.
DrunkEgnineer is correct: in a free market with two prices for the same item, the one with the lowest price will be sold first. There was plenty of free on-street parking, so the paid parking was not preferentially picked.
Parking rules can also be enforced with money and not who owns the private property next to the public property. That is, charge for street parking at the supply-demand equilibrium.
@pc486 @Duamerthrax Parking does degrade though. Lots need resurfacing and sometimes stabilization to prevent sinkholes and garages can collapse altogether. We’re already starting to see serious structural problems with decks built in the mid-late 20th century that are buckling from a combination of age, lack of maintenance, and not anticipating that they’d be filled with oversized SUVs and pickup trucks, many with electric batteries making them even heavier.
Parking is not a finite and limited resource. Road surfaces can, and regularly are, refurbished and established. That’s why parking is not a tragedy; it’s not a resource that is lost forever.
I think you do bring up a good point though: who pays for parking lots and street parking when it does need help? Is it only the home owner in front of the street or is it a general fund expense from local sales taxes? Double points if you can answer who is then allowed to park in that publicly-paid parking spot.
Parking is not an unlimited and infinite resource? Every parking space is lost walking space, green space, or construction space.
In an economic sense, it’s not limited. Land is limited and there are oh so many negative externalities*, but we haven’t paved over everything, there’s more than enough bitumen and agate to level the world, and you can always dig or go up. We are nowhere near close to being unable to build one more parking spot. It’d be a hellscape, but it’d be one with plenty of parking.
… but those are all economic limitations too? We are limited, economically, by land and negative externalities.
I think you mean in a pedantic sense we aren’t limited. Like, technically I could eat a fistful of rat poison. It wouldn’t be good for me, but I could technically do it!
So long as you don’t die from that fistful of rat poison, correlating to a economy that survives to another day, then yes, you could eat that poison! It would be very bad idea and may leave you maimed, but it would be possible. Furthermore, it’s more poison than you are currently consuming (at least I hope you’re not eating rat poison). I’m not sure why one would but if someone paid you to eat some poison, you certainly could do that transaction and I could say there’s been an increase of rat-poison-eater supply.
Economics may be strange but it’s not a value judgement on what we do. It’s just a way of modeling and understanding how a society handles goods and services. Invoking economic arguments like the tragedy of the commons requires understanding consumption of public resources and what that does to the resources. Parking doesn’t fit the argument because the supply curve does not change over time due to the pressure of strong demand. Parking can be refurbished, unlike a common livestock pasture. Parking supply can be increased by building on infertile land, up, or down, where a common livestock pasture cannot. A common livestock pasture can be consumed to the point where it cannot supply anymore (becoming infertile). A parking spot does not get consumed beyond a point to where it no longer functions as a parking spot.
Parking is not subject to the tragedy of the commons.