Maybe I didn't explain the problem well, or maybe I just misunderstood you.

What if you're parked at home, and there is an unexpected shortage of
spaces?
If you're surprised by an $800 charge for an unusually tight night, you'll
probably be upset and look for other parking solutions, thereby hurting the
market for dynamically priced parking spaces. The point is that you didn't
know how how much you were going to pay when you parked.
Also, if you know that such a risk exists, you would probably avoid parking
there in the first place.

So, here is the bound question rephrased:
-------
What is the best parking solution you can think of?
(A) A system in which the driver gets a short-duration, (say 24h or 10h,
it's the driver's choice) lease for the spot. The price for available spaces
fluctuates, but once you park (i.e. sign the lease), the terms of the lease
become fixed.
(B) A system where available and unavailable prices are fluctuating with no
bound, without the driver's knowledge. (liked a naked short sell, in stock
market terms)
(C) Neither of the above
------

I tend to prefer (A), although I can think of some interesting extensions,
where (1) there is some bounded fluctuation (bounded risk) in the charge for
the parked, and (2) the parked can choose to be notified about good
subletting opportunities, if they appear.

Does anybody know of contracts similar to (1)? I'm thinking of a situation
where the landlord is free to charge more, putting at the stake only his
reputation. Is there a name for this?

Gustavo



----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Foldvary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Would there be a bound to the charge per time?
>
> No.  The charge should be just high enough to eliminate congestion so that
> there is usually a parking space within one or two blocks.
>
> > The parking spaces would be
> > more attractive if they offered some sort of guarantee.
>
> The guarantee is to be able to find a space.
> That is what the parkers would pay for, the highest bidders getting the
space
> during those times.
>

Reply via email to