The two are related. The whole point of charging for parking is to leverage scarcity to convince people to not make the problem worse and just find alternatives to driving to the doorstop that work well for them.
Do people seriously think that these companies want to charge more, for environmental reasons? Of course not. They care only for profit.
https://news.wttw.com/2025/05/21/final-tally-chicago-taxpaye...
The parent says that the reason the price is high, is because someone is trying to up the price for environmental reasons. What proof have they for this? I'd really like a citation, because instead I see almost all parking being profit based.
If someone is saying it's for environmental reasons, likely they're lying to make more profit.
Did you think they should just let you park in Cambridge Common, Harvard Yard or the Charles River park? Why park at all— just stop your car in the middle of the street.
The T is atrocious. Parking is simply expensive.
if less space is allocated, it becomes more expensive (scarcity), driving down car use. this is an easy case of pricing in environment and external impacts.
The post I replied to said "The whole point of charging for parking" was to force people to, essentially, drive less. This is saying it's the only reason people charge for parking. Clearly not so.
And there is artificial scarcity too. I've seen cities where one company owned almost all the parking lots. In that situation, they controlled pricing entirely.
I've seen a lot more of "doing it for profit", including the city doing it for profit, than for environmental reasons.
That's doesn't mean I support this position or not. Describing reality as it stands is important, one cannot effect change one way or the other, without understanding what is.
And they lie because they get vilified otherwise by people who can't stand the idea that they make a profit.
BTW, whenever someone gives you a reason why they do something, odds are pretty good that you're given the palatable plausible reason, not the actual unflattering one.
And sometimes city councils restrict the amount of parking that can be built because they want to create that scarcity to encourage people to take transit instead of driving, because they know that the owners of the (fewer) parking areas will charge more, making it less desirable to drive and park.
This goes doubly so for all the additional roads you need to get the cars to their parking spots.
Indeed, and to build upon your comment, how entitled can some people be to expect they can just take over random ~10m² spots in a property you do not own and expect that to be ok? It isn't. Those spots ain't yours, and I would love to not have to come across your car.
Are you against renting homes, hotel rooms etc too? Do you object to the vast spaces that hotels occupy?
And if it's public property, well, we all pay taxes and could argue it's collectively owned. Why would it be entitlement?
I could say public transport advocates are entitled expecting taxes to pay for vastly expensive public transport infrastructure projects
If you talk of taxes, then yes, you can argue against tax payers subsiding free parking for people living outside that city
It's one way to put a lot of cars in a small space. Much of the space in a conventional parking garage is lost to the driveways.