[ipdashc]

> congestion-solving pricing schemes for something like AWS services act so unable to see parking and road networks as containing the same dynamics

While I do see the irony, I think one of the differences is that nobody needs AWS, but a lot of poor or lower-middle-class people in America have no realistic choice but to drive to places. I'm not against paid parking, but like you said, there is something funny (and sad) about the solution effectively being "reduce demand for parking, unless you're rich enough to not care".

[wonder_er]

The solution isn't to reduce the demand for parking.

It's to dynamically price the parking high enough that there is always ten percent of the parking available.

When there is less or no demand, the price would fall.

Just like AWS services that guarantee certain availability all the time. Sometimes the moment by moment utilization cost can go quite high to accommodate, and it's not to make aws rich, it's to mediate the demand.

Shoup's parking fix would benefit the regular person far more directly than AWS does.

[xg15]

Maybe I didn't completely get the idea yet, but wouldn't those 10% then by definition be priced so high that no one could reasonably afford it? And certainly not people who have trouble to make ends meet anyway.

[wonder_er]

It would be high enough that it would be available for people who needed it urgently.

Perhaps a plumber making an urgent visit, using a company credit card. What a perfect use case to spend a lot of money on expensive parking.

In the greater United States, of the people comprising the bottom 30% of income earners, only 10% of them have a car.

Requiring or supporting any sort of car infrastructure is dramatically regressive to them.

Read shoup's book! He shows that not only is it not regressive to implement policies like this, but it is in fact regressive and harmful to the poor people to not have policies like this in place.