Roughly 97% of parking spaces in NYC are free.

whynot_31

Well, currently, wealthy households own more cars than average.

Some are well off enough to afford garages, so I have a hard time worrying about them.

Public transportation is often much cheaper than a car, in part because some view it as an inferior good.

Parking on the street is obvious inferior to a garage, but we are only talking about changes that affect a small percent of the city, and an even smaller percentage of it's residents.

Let's get rid of some the free on street parking in the dense areas first.

boygabriel

agree

cool the kid

Boygabriel said:

This is getting to central question: how much is the city encouraging people to own individual cars beyond the level that they're needed for work or mobility or shopping.

the following question is: should this encouragement be lessened?

I don't see the harm in owning & parking a car on the street that hardly gets used. Plus it's all so individual & unique to specific needs & geographies. I don't think we can determine a blanket "need" for car ownership in the city. For a single person who lives near a subway and commutes to a job somewhere along the subway system, the practical "need" for a car is obviously lower than that of someone with a family who lives and works "off the beaten path". But both people live in the confines of NYC. So free street parking should be (and to a large degree already is) less available as commuting times to the city increase & public transportation becomes less available.

I also think accommodations should be made for reasonable commute times. If a commute is possible by PT & car, but the PT trip takes 3 hrs each way and the car trip takes an hour, choosing to have the car shouldn't be considered a "luxury". Yes it puts the needs of an individual ahead of the masses, but that individual pays a cost to have a car that in part gets funneled back to the city through taxes.

So the short answer to the question is, IMO anyway, encouragement of car ownership should be (and is) inversely proportional to proximity to the city's core and availability of PT options. I.e., the more of a pain in the ass your car is for people on your block, the harder it should be (and is!) for you to have it.

boygabriel

Cool The Kid said:

I don't see the harm in owning & parking a car on the street that hardly gets used. Plus it's all so individual & unique to specific needs & geographies. I don't think we can determine a blanket "need" for car ownership in the city. For a single person who lives near a subway and commutes to a job somewhere along the subway system, the "need" for a car is obviously different than that of someone with a family who lives and works "off the beaten path". So free street parking should be (and to a large degree already is) less available as commuting times to the city increase & public transportation becomes less available.

So the short answer to the question is, encouragement of car ownership should be (and is) inversely proportional to proximity to the city's core and availability of PT options.

For the 801st time, yes, we agree, land usage should be dictated in part by density and public transit options.

cool the kid

Then can we stop using the term "the city" and maybe use a term more representative of the specific areas in question?

boygabriel

Not after we've all repeatedly agreed to the point and everyone seems to get it except for you. If you need it consistently reinforced every time it's mentioned, this isn't a good medium for you.

that individual pays a cost to have a car that in part gets funneled back to the city through taxes.

No, it doesn't. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, car owners do not fully fund their road usage. 50% comes from gas and registration taxes and 5% comes from tolls, and the rest comes from ALL tax payers, not just drivers.

Yes it puts the needs of an individual ahead of the masses, but

Yes, it does, and commute time is far from the only factor in deciding a neighborhood's level of need. Every car on the road creates costs for all of us. ALL costs need to be factored, not just someone's commute time.

whynot_31

Cool The Kid said:

Then can we stop using the term "the city" and maybe use a term more representative of the specific areas in question?

How about "places in which the local community boards favor change"? PWLCBFC for short.

....we want people to have a degree of local control, right?

homeowner

I'd argue that by reducing bus lines, encouraging the use of dollar vans and 3rd party transportation providers, and by not engaging in mass transit planning outside Manhattan, the city and state have indicated clearly that they are encouraging people to solve their own transportation problems through private vehicle ownership rather than discouraging it.

I would submit to you that if a family of four has children that are involved in any activities outside of their neighborhood (which in NYC is not an unheard of thing)a car goes from being a luxury to a necessity. Try getting kid A from Crown Heights to Red Hook ballfields then getting Kid B to BAM for a music lesson within 45 minutes of one another. It just doesn't work. Or even worse, getting Kid A from CH to Aviator fields and Kid B to Manhattan in an hour on public transportation.

Also, while its not true on this board, alot of families of four in this city are 1 parent and three kids. Its not as easy as "You take A and I've got B".

boygabriel

Yes, as we've all agreed many times over, cars will remain a need for some/many people.

whynot_31

I want Homeowner on my side, and will definitely stand by his/her family at the hearing.

(Homeowner - please see my "sure, i'd love some Goldfish crackers" comment on prior page for this to make sense)

Yes, cars bring huge value to those who have them ...that's why they endure all of the current hassles of driving and parking in the city.

Given the benefits homeowner lists, it is unlikely that she would choose to give up her car even if the plan we are discussing is enacted. For his/her, the pros of car ownership simply continue to outweigh the costs, and society should do nothing to deliberately change this equation at this time.

In fact, I'd argue that it would be wrong for society to try to force such a family to give up their car prior to improving its mass transportation system.

Why should homeowner's kids have to live in the suburbs in order to experience the "middle class" music and baseball activities she describes? ....I argue that as a city we'd be worse off if her family left for the 'burbs.

Hence, we are focusing on enacting landuse/parking changes that are small enough that only change the minds of people on the margins of owning a car.

....People we seem to be having some difficulty finding or defining.

cool the kid

whynot_31 said:

In fact, I'd argue that it would be wrong for society to try to force such a family to give up their car prior to improving its mass transportation system.

Why should homeowner's kids have to live in the suburbs in order to experience the "middle class" music and baseball activities she describes? ....I argue that as a city we'd be worse off if her family left for the 'burbs.

Because, in this case anyway, for whatever reason, said family's needs cannot be put ahead of the needs of the community at large (i.e., the world of missed opportunities of usage of their curbside parking spot).

I'm confused as to why in some cases the rights of certain individuals should prevail, and in other cases the rights of the community prevail.

I guess in the context of the thread, a somewhat hybrid solution could be the enactment of a general annual auto ownership tax, with waivers available for people who can demonstrate a "legitimate" need to own a car through various means. For example, people living in areas under a threshold of population density or PT coverage, or people living in areas above said threshold who work in places beyond the reach of a reasonable PT trip.

whyfi

homeowner said:

I would submit to you that if a family of four has children that are involved in any activities outside of their neighborhood (which in NYC is not an unheard of thing)a car goes from being a luxury to a necessity. Try getting kid A from Crown Heights to Red Hook ballfields then getting Kid B to BAM for a music lesson within 45 minutes of one another. It just doesn't work.

In my book, personal car ownership is not a necessity if it's being used to shuttle Little Jimmmy back and forth to Windsor Terrace for guitar lessons, as the guitar lessons, themselves, are a luxury. Also, if a similar, but not as renowned, service is available closer to home, I think it's difficult to define transportation to/from the more remote location as a necessity.

While we're on the subject of getting to and from places, whether they be work, school, etc, I'd like to remind everyone that people do move. They do it all the time when the balance between cost and amenities is no longer in line with their needs/wants.

See also: ZipCar.

whyfi

Cool The Kid said:

Because, in this case anyway, for whatever reason, said family's needs cannot be put ahead of the needs of the community at large (i.e., the world of missed opportunities of usage of their curbside parking spot).

I'm confused as to why in some cases the rights of certain individuals should prevail, and in other cases the rights of the community prevail.

I guess in the context of the thread, a somewhat hybrid solution could be the enactment of a general annual auto ownership tax, with waivers available for people who can demonstrate a "legitimate" need to own a car through various means. For example, people living in areas under a threshold of population density or PT coverage, or people living in areas above said threshold who work in places beyond the reach of a reasonable PT trip.

Sounds peachy, but how would the administration costs for said program be absorbed? By making the people that can't demonstrate a legitimate need pay twice-over? Then we'll just have more Georgia (or whatever) registered cars in the 'hood. I don't see it happening.

whynot_31

CTK wrote: I'm confused as to why in some cases the rights of certain individuals should prevail, and in other cases the rights of the community prevail.

....as are most people, including me.

Hard choices like these is why we empower local community boards to make such decisions. Hopefully they always vote according to what they think their local "majority" wants.

[obviously limits need to be in place. For example, you shouldn't let just the folks living along side the BQE decide to make it a park if the impact is going to be felt citywide. Likewise, they should not be able to violate people's civil rights just because the majority thinks it is a good idea. For example, the majority might vote to ban a specific house of worship in their community. Giving the local community boards power over such issues is a really bad idea in both cases]

Here's a quick example of what NYC and other communities attempt:

Let's imagine the elected community board members of Board 4444 felt that their zone was composed of lots of people like Homeowner and that the imposition of a restriction (like the loading zones I mention) would represent "more pain than gain". As a result, they would vote the proposal down. As we've discussed, one could imagine that the proposal would fair in a community may be less densely populated, and poorly served by PT.

However, if community board 77777 perceived their residents as being really in need of loading zones in order to address double parking that clogged the narrow streets, they would vote for my loading zone proposal, and be willing to give up some parking. As we've discussed, a community in favor of my sloppy proposal might be densely populated and well served by PT.

So to answer your question, "why in some cases do the rights of certain individuals prevail, and in other cases the rights of the community prevail?"

...one scratches their chin and carefully does an analysis of what makes our society work.

Lots of people use the writings of characters like:

Milton Friedman

Ayn Rand

Adam Smith

Karl Marx

Cornel West

Chomsky

etc

who have all written texts that try to explain it.

I advise folks to read 'em all, and avoid falling in love with a favorite so much they can't understand what the others are talking about, and/or end up so crazed that they scream obscenities at random people on the street.

Returning to the topic at hand:

Boygabriel seems to have concluded that WAY TOO MUCH public space is used for on street parking, and that it could be better used.

I have concluded that SOME public space currently devoted to on street parking could be better used.

mrs whynot

I seem to remember that there was once a project to put things other than cars in the "parking lane" Probably sponsored by Transportation Alternatives. So, given the time abailability and favorite hobby of Whynot, I suggest that he build a car-size alternative use to be placed at the curb, moved side-to-side and enjoyed by the Prospect Heights community.

After all why should we the car free not use the space?

whynot_31

Surely, I could think of better uses than these silly people.

crunchy granola headed freaks thinks they are making better use of the spot than a car would....

<p>PARK(ing) Day DC 2009 (1 of 5) from ReadysetDC on Vimeo.</p>

boygabriel

yes!

cool the kid

IDK man

Taking space to be utilized by half the people all the time and changing it to space that can be utilized by everyone 1/3rd the time doesn't seem like a good move. Will these spaces be modular, or permanent? What happens during the 6 or so months out of the year that people don't spend outside?

Seasonal parking is an idea (i.e. turn parking spaces into universal public space for a few months a year), but again, if there are people who need their cars to make a living and there are not adequate private parking options for car owners being displaced, then what? And what about the costs of maintaining said spaces, and the added difficulties of deliveries + added congestion of lost roadway?

Plus unless I'm mistaken, in the first vid anyway, the spots being used are metered. In a neighborhood like Fort Greene or Clinton Hill, w/ somewhat sparse bus coverage and zero train coverage, it would seem to me like thwarting parking would be counterproductive to business owners on major thoroughfares.

I understand the desire for more public space but the goofiness of these granola'd suggestions just seems to undermine the legitimacy of the pro public space advocates. If we're going to get rid of parking it's gotta be replaced w/public space that provides an appreciably higher overall utilization rate for everyone in the city.

boygabriel

you're taking it too literally.

this is an open-ended discussion.

cool the kid

I don't see how I'm taking it too literally. My point was the idea of converting parking spots into park space is a bad one. Nowhere did I imply that that was the only solution being presented or w/e.

boygabriel

Park-ing Day isn't meant to be a literal proposal as to what the city should officially adopt as an alternative to street parking.

whyfi

Boygabriel said:

Park-ing Day isn't meant to be a literal proposal as to what the city should officially adopt as an alternative to street parking.

I propose multi-story domiciles with 12' x 7' footprints.

whynot_31

CTK, are you mistaking the hipsters in the videos for people who make public policy?

While they may vote, I can assure you they are not powerful enough to be feared.

Yet?

cool the kid

In San Fran they are indeed the policy makers.

In certain enclaves of BK it's only a matter of time.

whynot_31

Should we abandon democracy as result?

Afterall, sometimes people vote for things we don't like.

...such as socialism.

Should we honor their vote in those situations?

cool the kid

No not at all

Just saying, be careful what you wish for. We currently have the gov't we voted for.

whynot_31

Over the next 10 years, I think there is going to be a lot of "voting" concerning how much of a priority we give to the private automobile.

....gonna be ugly

homeowner

Will your predictions be as good as these?

I found a list of predictions about what the world would be like in 2000 which was made in 1900.

Prediction #4: There Will Be No Street Cars in Our Large Cities. All hurry traffic will be below or high above ground when brought within city limits. In most cities it will be confined to broad subways or tunnels, well lighted and well ventilated, or to high trestles with “moving-sidewalk” stairways leading to the top. These underground or overhead streets will teem with capacious automobile passenger coaches and freight with cushioned wheels. Subways or trestles will be reserved for express trains. Cities, therefore, will be free from all noises.

Prediction #5: Trains will run two miles a minute, normally; express trains one hundred and fifty miles an hour. To go from New York to San Francisco will take a day and a night by fast express. There will be cigar-shaped electric locomotives hauling long trains of cars. Cars will, like houses, be artificially cooled. Along the railroads there will be no smoke, no cinders, because coal will neither be carried nor burned. There will be no stops for water. Passengers will travel through hot or dusty country regions with windows down.

Prediction #6: Automobiles will be cheaper than horses are today. Farmers will own automobile hay-wagons, automobile truck-wagons, plows, harrows and hay-rakes. A one-pound motor in one of these vehicles will do the work of a pair of horses or more. Children will ride in automobile sleighs in winter. Automobiles will have been substituted for every horse vehicle now known. There will be, as already exist today, automobile hearses, automobile police patrols, automobile ambulances, automobile street sweepers. The horse in harness will be as scarce, if, indeed, not even scarcer, then as the yoked ox is today.

Prediction #7: There will be air-ships, but they will not successfully compete with surface cars and water vessels for passenger or freight traffic. They will be maintained as deadly war-vessels by all military nations. Some will transport men and goods. Others will be used by scientists making observations at great heights above the earth.

whynot_31

I don't think private automobiles are going to disappear anytime soon.

....and until we come up with other realistic options to get people around, nor should they.

I just think that there is going to be lot of fighting over what priority they continue to receive.

BTW,

Prediction #4 is pretty accurate in the US

Prediction #5 is accurate in Japan and S. Korea

Prediction #6 seems pretty good

Prediction #7 seems to have some problems.

idlewild

What priorities besides "subsidized" public streets? NYS would lose a ton of money private owned automobiles bring, just within NYC alone. Where are they going to make up for lost revenue and jobs which are tied into automobiles?