Overly cheap parking is a problem for sure, but so is overly expensive parking. The articles you cite say that an 80-85% occupancy rate for parking spaces is most desirable, a figure I've seen before. Say the city determines that for every dollar parking is increased demand drops 10% and at $2 an hour demand is the optimal 80%. That means that the market is most profitable when parking spaces are actually $5 an hour and demand is 50%.

In the closed world of parking spaces $5 an hour is the optimal rate, but in reality this could be disastrous for traffic and business who are now dealing with increased congestion and reduced customers respectively. Taking the ability to set pricing out of the control of the city and placing it with independent/selfish actors might have unforeseen ripple effects on the wider community. Therefore it should well within the city's right as an actor who is responsible to the community to direct the use of its property as best suits the public good.

>> You seem to think that paying for something is somehow inherently immoral, while being lucky and finding it first is virtuous and good. May I ask why?

Of course I don't. Do go ahead and enjoy knocking your straw man though.

I just don't think that applying market principles to parts of what little is left of 'the commons' is an equitable solution, as it prices poorer people out of facilities.

If your concern is for poor people being priced out of the market, the best solution is (obviously) not to destroy the market, but to subsidize poor people. Proper pricing of parking would bring in significant revenues, some of them could be directed to pay for poor people's parking.

I disagree with this statement a lot. I will give you an example, based on trains. In the country where I come from, Poland, trains lines are owned by the government, which makes them incredibly cheap. I know a lot of people who commute long distances to work or study,because the ticket for a 2 hour long journey costs an equivalent of $2-3 USD.

However, now I live in the UK, and despite the standard of living being much higher, and people making a lot more money in general, I know very few people who regularly take trains to go anywhere, because prices are "as high as the market will bear",which makes commuting longer distances very expensive - due to the fact that all train lines are private and they charge whatever they see fit, with higher prices during rush hours, and so on.

And no, the solution is not to subsidize poor people. In fact, I would not describe myself poor, making $30k a year, and I still would not take a train every day, as it would be ruining financially. In Poland, even if I was making a third of what I make here I could afford to commute by train every day, as it is absurdly cheap.

I feel like the same thing applies here. Cheap, publicly owned parking spaces guarantee better opportunities for everyone, and that's how it should be like.

Why?

that just sucks more money from everyone while leaving the situation the same as it was at the start (first come first served).

It's nonsensical

>while leaving the situation the same as it was at the start

No it doesn't. Less traffic, less pollution, faster parking.

And that's just not true if you're giving money back to the poorer folks so they can afford to park again!!

This works if you price people out of the market, not if you price people out and then subsidise them back in, and it's the pricing out in the first place that is my problem with it.

Or are you saying not to give the poor some of the money so they can continue to park, but just as a bit of a bung as an apology for taking away their access to yet another public service?