This is an area where ideology can only inform, not determine, a reasonable opinion.
Here are two extremes where opposite ideologies are indisputably correct. Most real situations are between these, and require a more nuanced approach.
First, imagine a rural dirt road with low traffic and low speeds. Now imagine I want to stop to eat lunch. It would be absurd to suggest that it is not appropriate for me to pull over and park the car on the right of way while I eat; it would be a pointless imposition on my freedom to do what I want.
Now, imagine a downtown street with tall towers on every side, full of traffic and flanked by sidewalks full of pedestrians. It would be equally absurd to suggest that I have any right at all to take space from everybody else by parking my car, either in a lane of the street or on the sidewalk. If I want parking, I’m going to have to pay for it. Anything else would be an intolerable imposition on everybody else’s use of the land.
To me, the most important difference between these situations is the market value of the parking. In the first case, the value of parking is low. Demand is low because it is a quiet road, and supply is high because parking is possible at almost any point along the road. In the second case, the value of parking is high. Demand is high because anybody could want to park, and supply is low because there isn’t much road close to any specific destination.
When something has low value, it may be reasonable to allow people to take what they want without charge. When something has high value, it rarely is reasonable to do so.
What I wish we could see is more discussion of just exactly when people should just be able to park at the side of the street and when parking should be paid for, and less blind promotion of specific ideologies. I’m especially interested in the relationship between the parking rules, and the design of the road. Really, whether parking is allowed or not should be considered part of the design of the road. If parking is to be allowed on a typical urban or suburban street, the street needs to be wider to include parking lanes. If not, the street should be narrower, unless the intent is to have more traffic lanes. A similar observation applies to speed limits: it’s not appropriate to build a road for 60km/h and then impose a 40km/h limit on it; on the other hand it’s not appropriate to build a road for 60km/h in a location where 40km/h is a better speed given the nature of the location.
Here are two extremes where opposite ideologies are indisputably correct. Most real situations are between these, and require a more nuanced approach.
First, imagine a rural dirt road with low traffic and low speeds. Now imagine I want to stop to eat lunch. It would be absurd to suggest that it is not appropriate for me to pull over and park the car on the right of way while I eat; it would be a pointless imposition on my freedom to do what I want.
Now, imagine a downtown street with tall towers on every side, full of traffic and flanked by sidewalks full of pedestrians. It would be equally absurd to suggest that I have any right at all to take space from everybody else by parking my car, either in a lane of the street or on the sidewalk. If I want parking, I’m going to have to pay for it. Anything else would be an intolerable imposition on everybody else’s use of the land.
To me, the most important difference between these situations is the market value of the parking. In the first case, the value of parking is low. Demand is low because it is a quiet road, and supply is high because parking is possible at almost any point along the road. In the second case, the value of parking is high. Demand is high because anybody could want to park, and supply is low because there isn’t much road close to any specific destination.
When something has low value, it may be reasonable to allow people to take what they want without charge. When something has high value, it rarely is reasonable to do so.
What I wish we could see is more discussion of just exactly when people should just be able to park at the side of the street and when parking should be paid for, and less blind promotion of specific ideologies. I’m especially interested in the relationship between the parking rules, and the design of the road. Really, whether parking is allowed or not should be considered part of the design of the road. If parking is to be allowed on a typical urban or suburban street, the street needs to be wider to include parking lanes. If not, the street should be narrower, unless the intent is to have more traffic lanes. A similar observation applies to speed limits: it’s not appropriate to build a road for 60km/h and then impose a 40km/h limit on it; on the other hand it’s not appropriate to build a road for 60km/h in a location where 40km/h is a better speed given the nature of the location.