Residential Parking Permits being discussed again.

vidro3

[quote=Anastasia Beaverhausen]Um...they kinda did...



that's a cathedral in freakin' Pisa, Italy Beave.
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/archives/image/3149/set/search?referring-q=S03i0032v01.jpg

ringrunner

MeredithB wrote: [quote=vidro3]http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/slideshows/park_slope/lg_img/NEIG1711.jpg

They must have been filming a movie and waiting for the trucks to arrive.

We can agree on something!

anastasia beaverhausen

vidro3 wrote:
that's a cathedral in freakin' Pisa, Italy Beave.

So hitching posts were exclusive to Pisa, Italy? Who knew??

vidro3

Anastasia Beaverhausen wrote: [quote=vidro3]
that's a cathedral in freakin' Pisa, Italy Beave.

So hitching posts were exclusive to Pisa, Italy? Who knew??

So because hitching posts were in Italy they must have been in Brooklyn?

anastasia beaverhausen

vidro3 wrote:

So because hitching posts were in Italy they must have been in Brooklyn?

It's a picture of a hitching post. Next time I'll find out the exact longitude and latitude so that you can prove...what point were you trying to prove again?

vidro3

MeredithB wrote: [quote=ringrunner]Car owners have such an amazing seance of entitlement. Why do we get such a "share of the street".

Because the streets were built first for the horse and buggy then for the car.
I would think that in Brooklyn at least streets were mostly built to accommodate trolley cars.

bkchickie

vidro3 wrote: the discussion of permits has to include other parking policy options as well. there is no silver bullet. In several areas of the city they are installing muni-meters and increasing parking meter costs to increase turnover in business districts. That should make it easier for people to find parking in business areas. At present it is very difficult to find a spot in park slope if you are shopping during the day. This idea probably wouldn't make it worse and has a chance of making it better.

how long are the visitor passes good for in Boston?

As far as I know, there are no visitor permits in Boston. You either find a spot that isn't designated as resident parking OR you throw your car in a garage. Because permits are neighborhood specific, you could have a car registered in the city and still not be able to park in a neighborhood different than your own.

What this might do is shift the parking problem from Park Slope to another nearby neighborhood (like Prospect Heights) that doesn't require permits. Brookline (a town surrounded by Boston) doesn't allow overnight or all-day on-street parking because it discovered that it was hosting a disproportionate number of out-of-town vehicles.

vidro3 wrote: You know, any plan will have its flaws. Of course some people will figure out ways to game the rpp system, just like some people game this system. Neither compliance nor enforcement will be 100% with any new program. But we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Agreed.

vidro3

Anastasia Beaverhausen wrote: [quote=vidro3]

So because hitching posts were in Italy they must have been in Brooklyn?

It's a picture of a hitching post. Next time I'll find out the exact longitude and latitude so that you can prove...what point were you trying to prove again?

ringrunner wrote:
MeredithB wrote:
ringrunner wrote:
Car owners have such an amazing seance of entitlement. Why do we get such a "share of the street".


Because the streets were built first for the horse and buggy then for the car.


People had barns for their horses. They did not leave them tied up in front of their house.

We're talking about Brooklyn here Beave. The fact that there is a hitching post in front of a 400 year old cathedral in Italy is irrelevant.

meredithb

I bet there was a hitching post in front of Mooney' s back in the day, when there was a Mooney's.

anastasia beaverhausen

This is irrelevant:



But funny nonetheless.

vidro3

so are you

booklaw

Ringrunner wrote:

Car owners have such an amazing seance of entitlement. Why do we get such a "share of the street". That is why this is a tax, a tax that is earmarked for the MTA.

Actually, it is transit riders who have the amazing sense of entitlement. Why in the world should car owners subsidize the cost of mass transit? Car owners are already taxed in half a dozen different ways, and most of those taxes are not applied (as they should be) to improving roadways, bridges, etc.

Should bicycle owners also be forced to buy expensive registrations, so as to reduce the cost of bus and subway fares? Why not?

Should pedestrians be taxed for the privilege of using city sidewalks, again so as to subsidize bus and subway fares? Why not?

So now, who has the sense of entitlement?

longtimesloper

MeredithB wrote: I bet there was a hitching post in front of Mooney' s back in the day, when there was a Mooney's.

yes, when it was the real old Mooney's on 7th avenue, now, that was a bar!

anthonycm

I'll feel sorry for the fees/taxes car owners pay when the majority of them stop using their car horns as a basic communication device (instead of just emergencies as it was meant to be used), and when it is no longer illegal for me to bust the car windows of those morons that think it's a good idea to have a car alarm in NYC.

For most car owners in NYC, that car is not a necessity. However, it is the pedistrians, bike riders, and mass transit users that have to suffer through the noise and air pollution that cars plague us with.

anastasia beaverhausen

Sorry, but it's not the car owner's fault. If you have a problem with how the taxes that are collected from registration and purchase are spent, take it up with your lawmakers. If you have issues with how much pollution a car produces, take it up with the Federal government. You know...the guys who've raised the acceptable limit as to how much rat shit is allowable in foods? Yeah, they're the same ones who can change laws to demand cleaner, more energy efficient cars.

BACK on topic...I'm curious to see how they propose to permit a specific area...are they going to paint parking lines on the streets?

longtimesloper

anthonycm wrote: I'll feel sorry for the fees/taxes car owners pay when the majority of them stop using their car horns as a basic communication device (instead of just emergencies as it was meant to be used), and when it is no longer illegal for me to bust the car windows of those morons that think it's a good idea to have a car alarm in NYC.

For most car owners in NYC, that car is not a necessity. However, it is the pedistrians, bike riders, and mass transit users that have to suffer through the noise and air pollution that cars plague us with.

Well, shit! let's just get rid of every single car and truck and van in NY and we will all ride bikes everywhere we go, old, young, kids, toddlers, babies, everyone! Cause us car owners are evil evil people!

And, no, maybe it is not a necessity, but, again, since we live in a democracy and people are still, at least for now, are allowed to make their own choices, we still have a right to choose to own a car.

though, I do agree with you about car alarms, who in the world thinks those things actually work?

ringrunner

booklaw wrote: Ringrunner wrote:

Car owners have such an amazing seance of entitlement. Why do we get such a "share of the street". That is why this is a tax, a tax that is earmarked for the MTA.

Actually, it is transit riders who have the amazing sense of entitlement. Why in the world should car owners subsidize the cost of mass transit? Car owners are already taxed in half a dozen different ways, and most of those taxes are not applied (as they should be) to improving roadways, bridges, etc.

So now, who has the sense of entitlement?

The math can be done many ways, but I believe the owning a car is still a bargain. If you add up the costs of creating and maintaining the infrastructure that cars require it is much higher than registration fees and taxes.

I used to go to school on Eastern Long Island, I was always shocked that it was cheaper to own, insure and fuel my own car than is was to take mass transit.

anthonycm

I don't want to be seen as entirely unreasonable. Okay, keep the cars, but outlaw horns. Or at least force a device onto a car that allows it no more than three 'honks' per 24 hour period. I don't mind eventually getting cancer from air pollutants, but I don't look forward to being arrested for attacking some jackass that honks his horn at the car in front of him the second the light turns green. New York is the only city in this country where I've seen people act like this.

Also, Booklaw, by subsidizing mass transit you're helping yourself. if mass transit becomes as expensive as it is to own a car, more people will have cars, making traffic worse and adding to your commute time.

vidro3

booklaw wrote: Ringrunner wrote:

Car owners have such an amazing seance of entitlement. Why do we get such a "share of the street". That is why this is a tax, a tax that is earmarked for the MTA.

Actually, it is transit riders who have the amazing sense of entitlement. Why in the world should car owners subsidize the cost of mass transit? Car owners are already taxed in half a dozen different ways, and most of those taxes are not applied (as they should be) to improving roadways, bridges, etc.

Should bicycle owners also be forced to buy expensive registrations, so as to reduce the cost of bus and subway fares? Why not?

Should pedestrians be taxed for the privilege of using city sidewalks, again so as to subsidize bus and subway fares? Why not?

So now, who has the sense of entitlement?

hahahaha

The only people subsidized more than car owners are probably farmers and oil companies.

"My report, Subsidies for Traffic http://www.komanoff.net/cars_II/Subsidies_for_Traffic.pdf (PDF), established that all levels of government combined spent considerably more building and managing roads in New York State than they reaped from gas taxes, road tolls and traffic tickets. For every dollar expended on the road network by government, drivers kicked in just 65 cents. The other 35 cents -- a cool $2 billion a year -- was paid for out of general revenues, primarily property taxes collected by cities, towns and counties"

[quote=1139 (PDF), a forthcoming article for the journal Transportation Research A, Delucchi writes: The analysis indicates that in the U.S. current tax and fee payments to the government by motor-vehicle users fall short of government expenditures related to motor-vehicle use by approximately 20-70 cents per gallon of all motor fuel. (Note that in this accounting we include only government expenditures; we do not include any "external" costs of motor-vehicle use.)

booklaw

The math can be done many ways, but I believe the owning a car is still a bargain. If you add up the costs of creating and maintaining the infrastructure that cars require it is much higher than registration fees and taxes.

Keep in mind that the infrastructure also serves the commercial trucks that move goods and machinery from city to city, stock our stores, and deliver packages to our front doors, as well as fire trucks, police cars, ambulances and hearses.

I would bet that the heavy trucks do a lot more damage to our roads, and thus require far more maintenance to the roads, than do passenger cars. I do not know this to be true, but I'll bet that consumers who own cars bear a disproportionate share of the cost of building and maintaining the roads, tunnels, and bridges that are used by all vehicles.

They should not also have to subsidize the subway and bus fares of other consumers as well.

whynot_31

...booklaw, you may be right, but the tide is against you.

Society used to believe in everyone's right to have a car ....those days are gone.

Car owning is slowly becoming viewed as an evil (especially in the cities), and those who dirve cars have been deemed "fair game" for taxes and ridicule.

...its kind of like the war that was launched against smokers. Eventually they were taxed and banished to the point where there are now far fewer of them.

I doubt people will give up their cars, but I was surprised when bars didn't go out of business after the smoking ban... there seems to still be a lot of places to drink.

booklaw

i'm one of the many people who were forced (over my dead body!!) to quit smoking some years back.

You're utterly correct. Sob!

longtimesloper

booklaw wrote:

The math can be done many ways, but I believe the owning a car is still a bargain. If you add up the costs of creating and maintaining the infrastructure that cars require it is much higher than registration fees and taxes.

Keep in mind that the infrastructure also serves the commercial trucks that move goods and machinery from city to city, stock our stores, and deliver packages to our front doors, as well as fire trucks, police cars, ambulances and hearses.

I would bet that the heavy trucks do a lot more damage to our roads, and thus require far more maintenance to the roads, than do passenger cars. I do not know this to be true, but I'll bet that consumers who own cars bear a disproportionate share of the cost of building and maintaining the roads, tunnels, and bridges that are used by all vehicles.

They should not also have to subsidize the subway and bus fares of other consumers as well.

So, now we are going to become Big Brother and tell people in NY that they cannot own cars?

And, yes, what booklaw says is partially true, most of the damage being done to roads, etc. is by large commercial vehicles, not a Honda Civic! that is why there are no commercial vehicles allowed on parkways and certains highways and other roads (FDR Drive, etc)

longtimesloper

booklaw wrote: i'm one of the many people who were forced (over my dead body!!) to quit smoking some years back.

You're utterly correct. Sob!

I know the world has made it harder to smoke, but plenty of people still do, who forced you to quit? Did a secret government agency come to your home and take your lighter away?

I quit myself years ago, but before that I was happily standing outside my building puffing away-LOL!

whynot_31

"So, now we are going to become Big Brother and tell people in NY that they cannot own cars?" -- LTS

Yes, that is where I think this is going, at least in the cities.

Regardless of whether its "right", it will have two effects:
1. People who use vehicles but do not need to will have to pay a lot to do so. Perhaps causing less people to use vehicles.

2. People who use vehicles because they need to do so, will have to pay alot to do so ...and will pass this cost on to customers.

The real problem will come if they force people in the 'burbs or rural areas to pay alot ot use their cars ...because if they think the $ is going to the cities they will rebel.

vidro3

This board needs a primer on Political Economy.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LYUDAAAAQAAJ&dq=political+economy&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=iQZ1PBVlyd&sig=pqZQ19DXQ4D4PBgZW1CsWJWBs7E&hl=en&ei=zFAUSsLGF5SS9QS196H_Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA1,M1

See Also:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243

longtimesloper

whynot_31 wrote: "So, now we are going to become Big Brother and tell people in NY that they cannot own cars?" -- LTS

Yes, that is where I think this is going, at least in the cities.

Regardless of whether its "right", it will have two effects:
1. People who use vehicles but do not need to will have to pay a lot to do so. Perhaps causing less people to use vehicles.

2. People who use vehicles because they need to do so, will have to pay alot to do so ...and will pass this cost on to customers.

The real problem will come if they force people in the 'burbs or rural areas to pay alot ot use their cars ...because if they think the $ is going to the cities they will rebel.

I am sorry, but, how is this right? And, car owner or not, how can people think this is right? isn't this America? Where we can make our own choices? What is next, the government telling us how many children we can and cannot have?

whynot_31

I'm playing a neutral commentary role here.

"regardless of whether this is "right""

Car owners are under attack. They are bound to fight back. ...it should be fun to watch and see who wins.

Its highly debatable that America ever was a utopic place of choices and freedom. .....in may some way we are becoming less "free" in other ways more. I'd argue we are losing alot of freedoms/rights in response to our declining world standing.

I am told:
America used to be a place where you would work and be assured retirement.
America used to be a place where you would work and be assured health insurance.

...but I'm not old enough to know have witnessed this first hand (and some posters will tell you I am old!)

meredithb

vidro3 wrote:

"My report, Subsidies for Traffic http://www.komanoff.net/cars_II/Subsidies_for_Traffic.pdf (PDF)

[quote=1139

I got to give you credit, Vidro3, you are good at seeing data the way you want to.

First off, that Komanoff paper is from 1991. IMO, If Mr. Komanoff writes for Streetblog he is automatically anti-car.

Secondly, I do not see where it says that the (supposed) NY or NJ pattern (from 1991) of taxpayers subsidizing motorists holds true across the entire United States?

Maybe I missed it, I just browsed through it.

meredithb

Basically, NYC and NYS fucked up by investing so much in Wall Street and when Wall Street crashed so did NYC and NYS, now they want to make up the shortfall from their bad policy by taxing everything they can.

I say tax the rich, not the poor and middle classes. The rich are already parking in garages, this only affects the poor and middle class. The rich fucked it up, they should pay for it!