Roughly 97% of parking spaces in NYC are free.

Of course, if you are going to charge people to park their cars on city streets in residential neighborhoods, then the city and homeowners should all charge bicyclists for chaining their bikes to utility poles, garden fences, etc.

That is valuable space, whether it be public or private, and bicyclists should no more be entitled to free usage of such space than are automobile owners.

While we're talking about such matters, all dog owners should be charged every time their dogs take a dump or a whiz on public sidewalks, private gardens, etc.

There should of course be a second charge for depositing plastic bags full of sh-t in homeowners' garbage cans. The cans end up smelling bad, and frequently become bug-infested.

Finally, joggers should pay for the damage their pounding feet inflict on our sidewalks.

Proportionally? I would like the city to return to use by all drivers the traffic lanes presently devoted to taxis and buses.

I would also like to stop paying taxes which are ultimately wasted paying for maintenance, electricity/gasoline and salaries to keep subways and buses running. I have little use for either.

The fact is that we all pay taxes and we do not all use everything that are taxes are spent on. We don't get to pick and choose what we will spend taxes on or for.

Between the costs of license registration and renewal, the grossly excessive taxes on gasoline (compare the price of gas in NJ, where taxes are low, to those in NYC!), and the ridiculous bridge and tunnel tolls, car owners more than pay for the daily rental of the parking spaces their cars sometimes occupy.

And I again respond that too much space and money is devoted to subways and buses, which are used by many but far from all people.

Your insistence upon focusing solely on parking spaces, rather than sidewalks, is totally arbitrary. It's all public space.

Hey, I rarely use Prospect Park these days. Why don't we just pave it over and use it exclusively for free parking; then you can charge for neighborhood street parking (at least in adjoining neighborhoods). That would be very popular with the residents of Staten Island or the Bronx who occasionally drive to Brooklyn; the Park fits your description of "something that less than half of NYers can't even use, EVER..."

What percentage of New Yorkers can afford to and in fact use Lincoln Center? Do you really think it's 50% or more? Let's tear it up and devote the public space to something that all New Yorkers can use... such as thrift shops and 99 cent stores.

You are making an economic argument based primarily on your perception that street parking represents little value to you, and to others who don't own cars. You are ignoring the fact that other aspects of public space are similarly devoted to purposes that are more useful to some than to others.

booklaw said:I would also like to stop paying taxes which are ultimately wasted paying for maintenance, electricity/gasoline and salaries to keep subways and buses running. I have little use for either.

This has to be one of the most short-sighted things I've read on these here boards in a looooong time.

booklaw said:

WF: I'm just making an argument... I understand the value public transportation represents to the city.

I take it that you don't. Take away mass transit, and the city literally can't function. If people are relying on personal automobile transportation instead of mass transit, there's simply not enough room to deliver provisions to your hypothetical self that sits at home.

booklaw said:The point is that we all have to be willing to support everyone's use of various aspects of the city for various purposes... whether we derive any direct benefit or not.

Yeah, fine, but BG's point is that it needs to be proportionate. Personal automobile transportation is exceptionally low density and, in most cases, is a luxury, not a necessity, so it should have a cost befitting that status.

booklaw said:

The same is true of Prospect Park, Lincoln Center, all neighborhood baseball diamonds, soccer fields, arts spaces, museums, etc.

The same what is true?

^^^ Do you think that we're NOT paying for all of the items you mentioned? If so, you are hideously misinformed.

This is a long post. Thankfully, the people on this thread are not easily bored.

I’ll make four general (and highly conflated) observations about municipal, state, federal services and how they are financed and then apply to the above conversation.

First, services that governments provide are paid for either through general taxes (income, property) or user fees of a variety of natures. All city residents pay general taxes through the income tax and property taxes. These general revenues pay for services such as parks. They also pay for the maintenance of property owned by City DOT. (BTW, it is interesting though not per se relevant to my post to note that nationwide, 1/3 of all city land is paved for auto (cars, bicycle, trucks) use.)

Second, services that charge user fees can be charging those fees either to pay for the service or to regulate a scarce resource or both. The DEP charges user fees in the form of water/sewer metering by which you pay more if you use more. The Port Authority charges user fees to both cover the cost of the bridges and also has a peak-hour fees to discourage discretionary trips during rush hours. (A bizarre fact is that prior to the peak-hour fees on the bridges, 10-15% of the peak-hour users were making trips that were not time sensitive. That percentage dropped when the peak hour fees were charged.)

Third, some services are hybrids of direct and user fees. The subways and state parks are two such examples. Both have user fees, but the user fees do not pay for all of the cost. State parks charge a peak-season fee (they are generally free in winter) whereas the NYC subway does not. Other subway systems do - Washington DC.

Fourth, most services have both direct and indirect benefits. Booklaw may never use the subways. But he is very glad that there are 5 million trips made a day by people do. If we all depended on the streets for all of our trips, the city would look pretty much like it did during the last transit strike. Similarly I, a non-auto owner, like the fact that trucks deliver food to my local store. That said, each service provides a different direct/indirect benefit ratio.

Finally, the fee structure, not the type of fee determines whether it is regressive or not. Income taxes are mostly progressive in NYC. One of the Scandinavian countries (I’m not going to look up which one) experimented with fines (a type of user fee) based on income – hence speeding is more costly there the richer you are.

The subject is parking spaces right?



Parking space on city streets is a service provided by NYC. It is one for which there is more demand than supply in NYC making it a scarce resource. The scarcity varies a lot by neighborhood. Parking of trucks to load and unload has direct and indirect benefits to people. I’m not sure that parking of privately owned vehicles (cars or bikes) does, but I’m willing to hear the arguments. My guess is that even if there are indirect benefits of private vehicle parking, the majority of the benefit is directly to the person parking.

Currently the service is allocated primarily to parking, with some places having dedicated loading zones. It is paid for by the general tax. The city’s general tax has a progressive income portion and a regressive real estate portion.

Thus partially progressively, partially not we all pay for a benefit that is reaped (remember indirect and direct) by relatively fewer people and for which there is more demand than product.

My solution



I’d like all city streets to have loading/unloading zones. These could be used by USPS, garbage trucks, Fresh Direct or people dropping off junk in their apartments who will then park their cars. Creating such zones would largely eliminate the double-parked Fed Ex truck blocking traffic. I’m not sure that these need to have fees associated with them, though probably as a matter of enforcement they do.

Most of the spaces would be devoted to parking. If we want bikes off the sidewalks, create dedicated bike parking on the street. But given that parking spaces in most NYC neighborhoods are scarce resources and that there is a very high percentage of the benefit reaped by the user (see above my comment on the low indirect benefit of private vehicle parking), I would toll these.

whynot_31 said:

I hear the formally public Atlantic Yards will feature a gigantic parking lot that will be fee for use. Score one for the drivers!

I think Lincoln Center will implode on its own, as it fails to attract a younger audience to replace the patrons who are dying off. ....the newbies on the UWS may very well vote for a parking lot. Score two!

As a driver, who loves his car very dearly, I hope frigging not!

I'm certain that I didn't say NYC would make good use of the money it would raise from implementing fees for on street parking. In fact, I agree with CTK and idlewild ....a lot of the money might go to waste in the city's hands.

Although taxing something is very effective at increasing it's price, and thus discouraging it's use, I guess I could adapt a position that was tax free, such as a scheme in which parking would be even harder to find:

Parking regulations could be made more restrictive.

We could permanently eliminate spots by creating lots of loading zones like Mrs Whynot suggests.

We do away with tolerating double parking when alternate side regulations were in effect, thus torturing car owners more?!

We could make some more streets into pedestrian malls, that only buses could travel on, like the Fulton St Mall. ....there is no on street parking there.

...even without such changes, I expect $5 a gallon gas in our near future. This might cause even fewer people to drive, and could make the parking situation worse because it is too expensive to actually drive their car. (They may keep their alternate siding their cars in the on street "free" spot for several years before admitting to themselves that they can't afford to drive it anymore.

A likely outcome would be that parking garages would always be full and/or increase their fees. Entrepreneurs could convert some of the stalled condo developments into garages.

Whyfi,

I totally understand your analogy and agree with it, but I think I have a better one.

Let's imagine that we are good capitalists, and we each own a share in an asset. Now, being good capitalists, we want to maximize the value our our asset. However, we have some shareholders that insist that the corporation give it away FOR FREE!

What kind of a good capitalist owns stock in a corporation, but does not want to maximize its value!?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm as charitable as other people. But this isn't a situation in which charity is called for. ...they want to continue t give it away free to people who can afford to pay for it, and don't actually "need" it; the recipients merely want it.

As a result, this isn't a disturbing case of some evil cabal that owns the water supply for some African village and won't give away for "free" to some thirsty, but impoverished 4 year old.

...this is a case in which a small minority of people in NYC own a car, and the majority believes the space the car is occupying could be put to better use, or that we could successfully get some revenue for the use of it.

Assuming one is not disabled, or in Bayside or the other far flung neighborhoods mentioned; this is more like cable TV. No one actually needs it.

When looked at this way, (and taken to the extreme) does the payer of the cable fee have the right to tell owners of the cable company how they should spend the profits?

So what if the money gets spend in ways they do not like ....they could always not have cable (I mean a car....)

We would not attempt to charge drivers if:

a. they lived in a far flung neighborhoods wherein cars to not present such large externalities, and let them continue to park for free.

b. They could show they actually needed a car, and that need could not be met by simply expanding Access A Ride.

I think everyone has the following shared goals:

1. We get some more public space and maybe some revenue.

2. Any such plan to charge a fee for parking that is presently free allows those who truly need their car get to keep it.

....surely we can find some middle ground here; I'm really quite reasonable.

Hyperbole and all aside, seriously we have to look at what the effects of sweeping borough-wide parking regs.

- NYC can't operate in a budget so raising or levying more taxes isn't the answer.

- Resources have to be allocated fairly and proportionately to the part of the population they serve and the taxes they will either consume or generate

- The whole "public space" angle is dubious, it's not like if there were no parking there would be playgrounds and such on the shoulders of every street.

- Area wise, most of NYC is pretty suburban and requires some street parking.

I am a NYer through and through. I have been here for 26 years, literally lived on opposite ends of Queens and have either lived or worked in every borough (including SI!). In Park Slope or wherever this blog dude is from maybe any car that's not a Subaru Outback is some gross misuse off carbon and potential bike routing & park space. But the reality is, most NYCers NEED cars, do not have a private place to park them, and would not be solving any of the city's problems by further enabling an already out of control city & state gov't. City taxes are already amongst the highest in the nation, even if you DON'T own property or use a car. When will we start demanding some accountability????

CTK wrote: - The whole "public space" angle is dubious, it's not like if there were no parking there would be playgrounds and such on the shoulders of every street.

No one is stating we eliminate on street parking.

...but getting rid of enough to establish loading zones in the highly congested areas seems like it would make traffic flow easier by eliminating double parking.

Clearly, some on street parking spots are not worth as much as others ....unlike Boygabriel, I would not lament about the totality of the parking given away for free.

...Instead, I would focus only the most valuable land, and how it could be put to better use.

Idlewild: As an aside, is the dual exhaust Monte Carlo still the unofficial car of NYC? It brings back memories of the old Bensonhurst: Saturday Night Fever!

Idlewild said:

Actually, if it came down to it and money was actually needed for maintaining the roads, I'd levy a per-pound tax. The more your car weighs, the more dime you pay for registration. And you can hit the out-of-staters at all the NYC tunnels, bridges and tolls at the NYS borders. Bikes included. One thing that has always annoyed me is when a fucking big ass Escalade takes up twice the length of a parking space as opposed to a Monnte Carlo.

This certainly wouldn't receive an objection from me... it's just too bad that so many of the vehicles in the city happen to be just visiting from Georgia, Pennsylvania, etc, etc... :roll: