This is quite bizarre to me. In city centers, very few if any office buildings in any industry offer free parking. My company in Seattle will subsidize our ~280/mo parking by 100. I have never heard of a building in downtown Seattle charging under 200 a month for parking, even outdoor surface lots are around 200 monthly. Is it not a bit obvious that free parking dramatically encourages driving over public transit? Parking demand must grow as a company grows, while its parking structure generally is fixed. Increasing the cost is the only way to effectively manage the situation.
The alternative from my company versus the parking subsidy is a free unlimited public transit card. Most people choose to take either light rail or bus, and choose their living situations so as to take advantage of those options.
The city center of San Francisco (for public transit purposes) is a small, eastern portion of the Market St corridor, several miles from the site being discussed.
That how it works in one of the IT company in Voronezh. All parking lots are sold at internal auction each month. All money from auction goes to charity.
Its a win win for all. People know that they always able to park. Price for lot goes up every month by itself, because there is less and less free space around office. Charity goes up as well.
My wife's company just pays people bonuses to take the bus/ride a bike/walk/run/whathaveyou to work. Employees get a small bonus literally every day they utilize alternative transportation. It's not much for each commute, but over the course of a month, it ends up being a few hundred bucks for some people. My wife used to drive to work, but is now riding her bike. I am 99% sure she loves the bike commute so much now that she wouldn't revert back even if the small bonus got taken away.
It's great ! But it's also very saddening that people need incitation from companies to stop driving to work and can't make such healthy, environment-friendly decisions themselves.
Just an observation: Why aren't Lyft's employees using Lyft's ride-sharing service to get to work?
I know that's not the point of the article, but if your company owns ~25% of the market share [1], wouldn't it make more sense to instead give your employees "Lyft credits" (or whatever it's called), and have them use the service on a near-daily basis.
Personally, I think Lyft credits would be bad, for a number of reasons.
First off, I'm pretty sure that the value of the credit would be taxable, in the same way that wages are taxable.
Specifically, see IRS Publication 15B Section 2, the sub-section on Transportation (Commuting) Benefits (https://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b/ar02.html#en_US_2017_p...). Lyft credits don't to me appear to be one of the four "Qualified Transportation Benefits" (although paid parking _is_). Nor would it be a de minimis benefit.
(To be clear, I'm talking US tax law, as a US corporation.)
So, if it's going to be taxed, then you (as the Lyft employee) now have something which you _have_ to use, or else you're going to lose money (in that you've paid taxes for a benefit you're not using). That's a pressure that I'd personally not want to be under.
Similarly, I wonder if a permanent discount (all Lyft employees get 50% off) would also be taxable. Since this is all electronic, I don't think it would be that hard to track an employee's Lyft usage, so I don't think the de minimis exception would apply here. Then, come each paycheck, I'd have to remember "Oh, right, I have less money this pay period because I did all those extra Lyfts over the weekend."
Continuing the thought experiment, if Lyft did do this, then I most definitely would _not_ want to work or live near Lyft's offices. The reason is, any time I'd want to use Lyft, I'd be competing with all of the Lyft employees who are also using the service. I could see that increasing the chances of surge pricing switching on. That could maybe be minimized by nudging drivers to congregate around Lyft's office, but that would then deprive other areas of drivers.
California's Parking Cashout law requires your employer to reimburse you what they would spend on your parking if you don't use it. This applies in the (somewhat narrow) situation where you not parking has a direct impact on what the company spends - i.e. they rent a spot in a garage.
When I worked in Santa Monica it was a couple hundred bucks a month - cycling was nicer anyway, too.
The story telling and gifs are really outstanding. Congrats to Bloomberg. What's not so nice is ... it's completely not accessible. If you achieve that - hats off
I liked the concise way the story was told - the text was short, to the point, without much fluff. On the other hand, I was actually a bit annoyed by the whole comic thing: why is a comic necessary to present a rather simple idea to an adult - tt felt kind of condescending. The drawings didn't really add anything to the story, and I found the animations distracting. ...now get off my lawn :)
Would alt tags on the images solve that? I'm all for interesting new ways to tell the news (previously worked with the guy at news corp au who was in charge of trying that stuff out)
This is not a very radical idea. It is known that people are averse to losing things they already have (even in exchange for equal or greater benefit). I'm glad it worked out for Lyft without too many ruffled feathers, at least according to the comic. I'm glad this sort of idea continues to get media exposure. It needs it.
An example, it is absurd to me (and most urbanist types) that Manhattan still has free street parking and that all the East River bridges are free. Congestion pricing in Lower Manhattan was on the table during the Bloomberg era, but never made it through. It should have.
Congestion pricing proposals for publicly-owned infrastructure always run into the same problem: taxpayers paid for the building of the infrastructure, they already own it. Charging what the market will bear effectively turns the infrastructure over to the relatively wealthy to use. Making people watch as the rich get exclusive use of the infrastructure every taxpayer paid for never goes over well.
The facebook character had the right answer. These companies have products that create more value than running a paid parking lot... why would you trade an employee on a product like that for a few dollars in parking fees.
The point of the article is that by making something scarce free, the company was in effect "rationing by the queue", an inefficient way to handle things. Those unwilling to get there early had a bad time.
Instead they said, "Hey, we were giving the average employee $100/mo in parking. We're gonna keep doing that in the form of cash. But, to fund that extra 100 you're now getting in cash, anyone who wants to use the lot has to pay its market value." In short, instead of providing a "flakey parking availability" they provided cash. It's a lot (a lot... get it?) like selling the lot and giving the proceeds to employees.
This isn't always the best idea (sometimes, similar schemes can be socially unjust), but from an efficiency standpoint, it's hard to beat.
I hear what you're saying about pissing people off, but this should do the opposite. Sure, some folks might irrationally like jockeying for position or be early risers. But the company never intended to say "this benefit is for early risers". The intended it as a benefit to all employees and now it is.
Easy solution. The company could give every employee a $300 raise and the charge $300 for parking. Those who want to keep the spot stay the same. Those who don't, gain $300.
Why not just treat the assigned parking a standard perk (considered in the overhead cost of an employee) and offer a cash bonus to those who elect to not have a spot? That would maintain the perception of the parking being free, while allowing for a reduction in usage based on the same value assessment described in the article.
I think a big issue with parking is that people might not even consider that there are alternatives to driving. The car is just a little too comfy. But if everyone is so far from work that they need to drive to get there, that creates so many congestion and environmental issues. This seems like a real weak spot for our culture.
Am I crazy or is it ridiculous that a ride-sharing company didn't give their employees free Lyft credits to alleviate the situation? You would think that would be one of the perks of working for Lyft. I am also confused as to why it was called free parking. Is employee parking not considered as part of compensation? I've worked at offices before that used public lots and the employer purchased parking passes for everyone.
Also, a bit off topic, but biking is not a panacea for everyone. I tried cycling my 18 mile commute along the PCH for 1.5 years. By the end of it, I was really turned off by biking. I like to play basketball, hike, and go open ocean swimming. I finally quit cycling to work because I had dead legs due to musclr fatigue and couldn't enjoynmy preferred recreational activities.
Also, I sweat very easily. Luckily my office at the time had a shower.
>Am I crazy or is it ridiculous that a ride-sharing company didn't give their employees free Lyft credits to alleviate the situation?
I can totally understand Lyft not offering in-app credits, for a number of reasons:
1: If a Lyft employee is unable to get a Lyft, for whatever reason (like, no drivers nearby, or whatever), then they're gonna be pissed, because they won't be able to use their Lyft credit for an alternate option (where another person could also check other options, like Uber, taxi, calling a friend, etc.).
2: Lyft would probably still have to deduct payroll taxes on the credit paid to the employee. That would really suck for Lyft employees who don't use Lyft enough to use up the credit (by, for example, taking public transit). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
> Am I crazy or is it ridiculous that a ride-sharing company didn't give their employees free Lyft credits to alleviate the situation? You would think that would be one of the perks of working for Lyft.
I'm surprised that/if they didn't have that perk before the parking brouhaha, but even if they didn't, non-parkers got $150/mo just for not parking there, so they could certainly spend that on Lyft rides.
Though considering that a month is around 23 working days, that means they only have a little over $3 per ride, which won't get them to and from work every day in the month... unless they take Line and live within walking distance anyway...
Not really, if they're free and you just randomly give them out then it doesn't allow the power of the market to sort out who really wants a spot vs. who doesn't really care.
Maybe not over just parking but because it's really inconvenient/expensive to go into the office--and you need to do so on a daily basis--absolutely. Which not being able to easily park at any time can be a component of.
Gave me an idea of dynamic pricing for public parking, like the surge prices of ride sharing services. Maybe this already exists somewhere?
If there are only a handful spots left, the price would be really high. If a parking lot is not that popular it will automatically be cheaper. Environmentally friendly cars could get a discount.
Instead of reserved parking spots, the spot would know for instance if it's never used during working hours and the prices would adjust to optimize the fill rate of all spots. Residents would get a discount for spots close to home.
I guess most cities have zones with different fees, and often free parking on weekends and nights. This would instead adjust it automatically, maybe even adjust for popularity of a particular group of spots.
Tolls continue to represent an effective way of managing congestion in large cities but it's only if the community will be willing to accept it. Better transportation alternatives need to be provided in addition to the introduction of tolls to appease everyone.
Doesn't the university down the peninsula charge everyone monthly/yearly parking fees to reduce driving and encourage people to take public transit/bike or live on campus?
Most FinDi commuters have to pay for their spots. It's widely used and well known stick to get people to carpool or take alternative means to work.
With so many companies offering employees public transportation passes for commuting, I'd love to see Lyft/Uber create the ability for employers to offer free/reduced fare office commutes (within a determined range). AFAIK the only option they have is to give blanket monthly credits.
My girlfriend is starting a PhD at UCSF, and if they have to commute between 11pm and 6am the school will pay for the Uber/Lyft ride up to a certain amount. I'm not sure how it's facilitated but it's a good idea for sure.
In the City of Melbourne in Australia, most parking that you could use all day is not free. You can either get in by 10am and pay $20 per day, or pay around $100 per day if you arrive after that. There's still heaps of cars in the city.
You need about $250 minimum in credits to make a $12/day commute viable via lyft line. If they gave everyone $250/month in credits, I bet the parking issue would of reduced itself significantly.
Had an idea while reading the story: if I worked for Lyft during that time, I would have created an app that made it simple to rent out your "owned" spot to fellow employees. It would be easier and faster than the Facebook group, with built-in payment.
The cost for the app? Parking space owners have to let me use their space for one workday a year, with a prearranged date of my choice. If everybody signed up, I would have a space almost every day, free of charge.
[+] [-] julienb_sea|8 years ago|reply
The alternative from my company versus the parking subsidy is a free unlimited public transit card. Most people choose to take either light rail or bus, and choose their living situations so as to take advantage of those options.
[+] [-] closeparen|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] obilgic|8 years ago|reply
1. 53 top bidders pay and get their spot.
2. total money collected is shared between everyone who doesn't park
[+] [-] AlfeG|8 years ago|reply
Its a win win for all. People know that they always able to park. Price for lot goes up every month by itself, because there is less and less free space around office. Charity goes up as well.
[+] [-] Grustaf|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wyager|8 years ago|reply
Most likely, there would be legal issues with instituting this sort of structure, so it wouldn't make sense from a liability standpoint.
[+] [-] ballenf|8 years ago|reply
Maybe it smells too capitalistic?
[+] [-] sharkweek|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hycaria|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sfaruque|8 years ago|reply
I know that's not the point of the article, but if your company owns ~25% of the market share [1], wouldn't it make more sense to instead give your employees "Lyft credits" (or whatever it's called), and have them use the service on a near-daily basis.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/13/uber-mar...
[+] [-] CaliforniaKarl|8 years ago|reply
First off, I'm pretty sure that the value of the credit would be taxable, in the same way that wages are taxable.
Specifically, see IRS Publication 15B Section 2, the sub-section on Transportation (Commuting) Benefits (https://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b/ar02.html#en_US_2017_p...). Lyft credits don't to me appear to be one of the four "Qualified Transportation Benefits" (although paid parking _is_). Nor would it be a de minimis benefit.
(To be clear, I'm talking US tax law, as a US corporation.)
So, if it's going to be taxed, then you (as the Lyft employee) now have something which you _have_ to use, or else you're going to lose money (in that you've paid taxes for a benefit you're not using). That's a pressure that I'd personally not want to be under.
Similarly, I wonder if a permanent discount (all Lyft employees get 50% off) would also be taxable. Since this is all electronic, I don't think it would be that hard to track an employee's Lyft usage, so I don't think the de minimis exception would apply here. Then, come each paycheck, I'd have to remember "Oh, right, I have less money this pay period because I did all those extra Lyfts over the weekend."
Continuing the thought experiment, if Lyft did do this, then I most definitely would _not_ want to work or live near Lyft's offices. The reason is, any time I'd want to use Lyft, I'd be competing with all of the Lyft employees who are also using the service. I could see that increasing the chances of surge pricing switching on. That could maybe be minimized by nudging drivers to congregate around Lyft's office, but that would then deprive other areas of drivers.
So too many problems, in my opinion.
[+] [-] mattnewton|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] surfmike|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yeukhon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] CalRobert|8 years ago|reply
California's Parking Cashout law requires your employer to reimburse you what they would spend on your parking if you don't use it. This applies in the (somewhat narrow) situation where you not parking has a direct impact on what the company spends - i.e. they rent a spot in a garage.
When I worked in Santa Monica it was a couple hundred bucks a month - cycling was nicer anyway, too.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/tsaq/cashout/cashout.htm
[+] [-] SilasX|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hazelnut|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dr_hooo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chubs|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adam-fn|8 years ago|reply
(c.f. the vampire in the car, the tongue on the guy reading the book).
[+] [-] Nav_Panel|8 years ago|reply
An example, it is absurd to me (and most urbanist types) that Manhattan still has free street parking and that all the East River bridges are free. Congestion pricing in Lower Manhattan was on the table during the Bloomberg era, but never made it through. It should have.
[+] [-] blacksqr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rgbrenner|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnhess|8 years ago|reply
Instead they said, "Hey, we were giving the average employee $100/mo in parking. We're gonna keep doing that in the form of cash. But, to fund that extra 100 you're now getting in cash, anyone who wants to use the lot has to pay its market value." In short, instead of providing a "flakey parking availability" they provided cash. It's a lot (a lot... get it?) like selling the lot and giving the proceeds to employees.
This isn't always the best idea (sometimes, similar schemes can be socially unjust), but from an efficiency standpoint, it's hard to beat.
I hear what you're saying about pissing people off, but this should do the opposite. Sure, some folks might irrationally like jockeying for position or be early risers. But the company never intended to say "this benefit is for early risers". The intended it as a benefit to all employees and now it is.
[+] [-] xapata|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mahyarm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mreome|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradstewart|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brian-armstrong|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FullMtlAlcoholc|8 years ago|reply
Also, a bit off topic, but biking is not a panacea for everyone. I tried cycling my 18 mile commute along the PCH for 1.5 years. By the end of it, I was really turned off by biking. I like to play basketball, hike, and go open ocean swimming. I finally quit cycling to work because I had dead legs due to musclr fatigue and couldn't enjoynmy preferred recreational activities.
Also, I sweat very easily. Luckily my office at the time had a shower.
[+] [-] CaliforniaKarl|8 years ago|reply
I can totally understand Lyft not offering in-app credits, for a number of reasons:
1: If a Lyft employee is unable to get a Lyft, for whatever reason (like, no drivers nearby, or whatever), then they're gonna be pissed, because they won't be able to use their Lyft credit for an alternate option (where another person could also check other options, like Uber, taxi, calling a friend, etc.).
2: Lyft would probably still have to deduct payroll taxes on the credit paid to the employee. That would really suck for Lyft employees who don't use Lyft enough to use up the credit (by, for example, taking public transit). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
[+] [-] kelnos|8 years ago|reply
I'm surprised that/if they didn't have that perk before the parking brouhaha, but even if they didn't, non-parkers got $150/mo just for not parking there, so they could certainly spend that on Lyft rides.
Though considering that a month is around 23 working days, that means they only have a little over $3 per ride, which won't get them to and from work every day in the month... unless they take Line and live within walking distance anyway...
[+] [-] shahbaby|8 years ago|reply
Seems like the standard formula for a business news article now is to repackage common sense ideas as something new and exciting.
Charged for parking? Let's make a comic about how innovative that was.
[+] [-] ajhurliman|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghaff|8 years ago|reply
Maybe not over just parking but because it's really inconvenient/expensive to go into the office--and you need to do so on a daily basis--absolutely. Which not being able to easily park at any time can be a component of.
[+] [-] jacobr|8 years ago|reply
If there are only a handful spots left, the price would be really high. If a parking lot is not that popular it will automatically be cheaper. Environmentally friendly cars could get a discount.
Instead of reserved parking spots, the spot would know for instance if it's never used during working hours and the prices would adjust to optimize the fill rate of all spots. Residents would get a discount for spots close to home.
I guess most cities have zones with different fees, and often free parking on weekends and nights. This would instead adjust it automatically, maybe even adjust for popularity of a particular group of spots.
[+] [-] TulliusCicero|8 years ago|reply
The main problem with such initiatives is that most drivers reflexively despise them, and will create a big political stink.
[+] [-] tixocloud|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|8 years ago|reply
Most FinDi commuters have to pay for their spots. It's widely used and well known stick to get people to carpool or take alternative means to work.
[+] [-] CaliforniaKarl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brwnll|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] misingnoglic|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryan-allen|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mahyarm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianpan|8 years ago|reply
You might as well "investigate" whether free work shuttles are actually free.
[+] [-] chrissnell|8 years ago|reply
The cost for the app? Parking space owners have to let me use their space for one workday a year, with a prearranged date of my choice. If everybody signed up, I would have a space almost every day, free of charge.
[+] [-] mfkp|8 years ago|reply