>But even rich people need to shield them from ceo killers, use incredibly bad infrastructure, etc.

CEO killers are not a result of inequality. The only recent example of a CEO killer was a result of being the head of a health insurance company and the motivation was not his comp.

Bad infrastructure is also not a good example. That’s just a result of gov choices on spending.

At least in the US, pulling levers on taxing the middle and upper middle class produces far more revenue than hitting the 0.1%. This is why Democrats nor Republicans will ever provide meaningful cuts for people making $90k-$500k/year.

Inequality causes issues, but infrastructure failures is not one of them.

Wait paying lower taxes is extractive?

And selling golden passports to Russian oligarchs until 2020.

Given how things are being consciously designed (via policies and/or lack of political action), the "people living there already" are just those rich enough to not have yet felt pushed out due to the housing crisis (but give them time). That maybe would be just life, but on the other hand you have lots of other policies that also favor centralization of job creation, development, cultural and entertainment opportunities, etc. So what gives? it's all a big contradiction (not economically, but socially)

That's based on real world times in the european capital I live in. Also the original point was for a city like Oslo.

Even cities with decent public transport have neighborhoods that aren't great for this.

I live in Munich and yet going by car is often the fastest, and only during rush hour it's worse. I generally use my bike though, which is so-so. If was 5min by foot from the subway station (and not 15) it would change drastically.

Also I mean it's not terrible, but 30-45 minutes to get somewhere by public transport is the norm. 5min to the bus stop, bus to the subway, subway then is quick. And by car this is often faster, also more reliable, and no walking in the rain.

> Why would 30 minutes by car become 1.30 hours by public transport.

My city has "great" public transport. It's been appraised multiple times, which I guess means that average public transport must be worse than what I've grown up with. I take 20 mins by car from home (in an outer neighborhood) to my workplace (in a central area), 55 mins otherwise. When you consider roundtrips, it adds up (and if we add a middle stop coming out from work to somewhere else for some shopping, the time counting goes out the roof).

The 30 mins vs 1h30 comparison was assuming a trip from a nearby dormitory city 25 kms away, which is the minimum (insisting: minimum) distance everyone nowadays is being pushed out in order to being able to buy any home at a reasonable price. For example: where my parents live to my work is further away 30 Km: that's 30 min by car and 1h10 by p.t., but that outer city had reasonable prices 15 years ago, not today, so nowadays you would go live somewhere farther than that.

I find that typically people talk about public transport benefits from the perspective of being able to buy a home within the centre that is well connected. Yeah, the subway is great here if you live in a 10 Km radius, but talking about it is out of scope for most.

Unfortunately, America exported our car-privileging planning and policies, so those places that accepted our "expertise" buffed car travel as much as possible - traffic catches up, of course, but that's when the nerfs to public transit come in. It can be a number of strategies come to bear, including poor access to transit nodes, long wait times between service, and disruptions (American trains often have to wait for commercial traffic on rails). I can't speak for London, but if you're unfortunate enough to not live close to certain Washington, DC Metro stops, you're limited to driving to and parking at them, or to commuter options. Both are not ideal, timewise, but save you parking costs and sitting in traffic behind the wheel.

Alewife parking and the T in?

> Don't forget the opportunity cost. Urban land is extremely valuable, so if you're using it for car parking instead of shop, restaurants, homes, or offices you're missing out on a lot of potential income.

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.

In Tokyo there are parking garages that are a multistory cylinder. The car is driven onto a platform in the center, which is an elevator that goes up, and turns like a railroad turntable so the car lines up with a parking spot arranged like spokes on a wheel.

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.

It can be both, though. People who own land and build parking lots and structures on it will charge however much they can, based on what people will actually pay. If parking is more scarce, and the demand is there (as in, it's a popular place to visit), they'll be able to charge more.

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.

Wow. Look at the downvotes. Yet almost every parking lot is privately owned, and many cities have even sold management of street parking to private companies.

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.

The rate doesn't actually matter. Over time and with a large pool of users it all averages out. Whether you charge fast or slow, your EV still consumes the same number of watts per day/week/month to cover your driving. (5A is about 600 watts, which is like having a space heater running: Not a small load.)