Roughly 97% of parking spaces in NYC are free.

Idlewild said:

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?

Really? Do you have some numbers on the profit generated from privately owned cars? I'd like to see them.

In Reply To WhyFi:

Idlewild said:

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?

WhyFi-Really? Do you have some numbers on the profit generated from privately owned cars? I'd like to see them.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Tolls, parking tickets, registration fees, inspection stickers, insurance, parking meters, automobile dealerships, automobile parts/mechanic shops, parking garages, gas stations, stores such as Costco, IKEA and Fairway who derive revenue from people being able to use their lots, smaller businesses who derive income from automobiles being able to park on the streets (with & without meters) and/or use their drive-thrus. All of whom, either give 100% of their take to NYC or NYS. And certainly all of whom pay taxes from said revenue-because-of-private & non-private-automobile ownership, to NYC, NYS and the Fed. Most of whom make a good amount of (and I'll guess 20%) their income as a result of private &non-private automobile ownership. Or is this not a lot of revenue, in your opinion and you'd still like to see the Books?

whynot_31 said:

Well, there are a lot of auto repair places around that will disappear with car ownership. But we are talking about a slow, decades long trend to come.

I'm not sure government has the responsibility to find jobs or hire those displaced by such market shifts, but I often support re-training programs that train people for jobs in demand, and income support for the unemployed. Even BMW is attempting to break the mold (sp?) by coming out with a dedicated hybrid or all electric (I forget which) dedicated car for city life. Non-polluting, lightweight and not a shit-load of horsepower. My only problem with this is it's BMW and Lord knows how many frigging problems they have with reliability.

For example, I'd think we'd need a lot of bus mechanics if BRT ever becomes a reality in the US.

Are we ok with changes and mechanization that results in unemployment? Will fear of unemployment make us a society of Luddites?

You see, I have nothing against that. So long as the trend is natural and not forced. Or at least not forced from politically correct pressure. If citizens of this great city decide to forgo their horseless carriages, for whatever reason: such as the price of gas, congestion, much improved mass-transit *chuckle*, or bikes, or whatever, then that's just how it is. You can see this happening now with hybrids and the gasoline business.

Even BMW is coming out with a dedicated car for mega-cities. It's either a hybrid or all electric, I forget which, and it's going to be non-polluting, very lightweight and be able to seat four comfortably without making such a huge footprint, in terms of space and carbon. Now, if it wasn't BMW I'd probably put my order in now. But Lord knows their reliability issues with everything but the 3-Series, pretty much sucks.

whynot_31 said:

I'm not sure government has the responsibility to find jobs or hire those displaced by such market shifts, but I often support re-training programs that train people for jobs in demand, and income support for the unemployed.

We come back to this question of when the gov't should intervene. Not to say your oscillation is intentional, but I don't understand why it's fine for the gov't to put mechanics out of work to execute a plan of dubious value, but then hike taxes and devote every resource possible to try and bring people deemed underprivileged into the work force.

For example, I'd think we'd need a lot of bus mechanics if BRT ever becomes a reality in the US.

Numerically the demand would be much lower. For every theoretical new BRT bus there would be 10-15 cars off the road, and thus a proportional drop in demand for mechanics. Plus I imagine the MTA running a tighter ship than the avg Joe, driving down the demand even further.

Are we ok with changes and mechanization that results in unemployment? Will fear of unemployment make us a society of Luddites?

In these economic times, I don't think so. In healthier times, without some revolutionary, high utilization rate new usage for said public space, I'm not sure any initiatives to make car ownership more difficult are worth the effort. The more I think about it, the more a simple congestion tax makes more sense. Public space is important- there are some blocks in the UES that have been completely blocked off for use as makeshift parks for example that people are very fond of, but of course they are only possible w/extensive infrastructure adjustment (i.e., large buildings w/sophisticated delivery & trash efforts). That kind of one by one approach + a congestion tax is the way to go IMO. The congestion tax would also hit people who parked in garages.

Idlewild said:

Tolls, parking tickets, registration fees, inspection stickers, insurance, parking meters, automobile dealerships, automobile parts/mechanic shops, parking garages, gas stations, stores such as Costco, IKEA and Fairway who derive revenue from people being able to use their lots, smaller businesses who derive income from automobiles being able to park on the streets (with & without meters) and/or use their drive-thrus. All of whom, either give 100% of their take to NYC or NYS. And certainly all of whom pay taxes from said revenue-because-of-private & non-private-automobile ownership, to NYC, NYS and the Fed. Most of whom make a good amount of (and I'll guess 20%) their income as a result of private &non-private automobile ownership. Or is this not a lot of revenue, in your opinion and you'd still like to see the Books?

So you don't have any numbers? Okay, that's what I was asking.

IKEA, Costco, drive-throughs, etc - all BS. That's just shifting spending dollars from a closer establishment to a more remote establishment. It's a null at best. If anything, it gives locals an opportunity to spend money out of state, where the collected taxes aren't going to do us any good.

Tolls, registration fees, blah, blah, blah - a lot of that is going to cover infrastructure maintenance, which would be considerably lower with a less taxing load on the road surfaces. Are repairs already paid for, exclusively, by these fees? Not to my knowledge. Will road repairs still be necessary? Of course, but not to the same degree.

So, yeah - I don't think that it's a clear-cut "cars are profit generating" proposition, unless you have numbers that show otherwise.

Uh, you're the one making unfounded claims, so I'll let the burden of proof sit at your feet.

I would hope nobody is calling for the wholesale abolition of private cars from NYC. I can create an infinite selection of scenarios facilitating the legitimate need to have a private car in NYC. Obviously not everyone with a car needs one- there's a very strange but strong car culture within NYC- but I don't think anyone, even BG, feels banning cars completely is needed.

It comes down to, from what I understand, asking the question of the best way to utilize free parking spaces in high density areas. Since the objective is to better utilize the space for everyone in the city, proposals should be looked at from a utilization POV. So far, parking seems to be at the highest (54% of the population x 100% of the time = 54% utilization rate of space). I think that is a % of households so it counts the people who benefit w/o actually owning the cars. I don't think there are many other public spaces that reach those levels of utilization.

A modular approach (i.e., "Parking Space Day" for a few months a year) could work, but at a cost to the city. Additional taxes could be levied but there's just something that bothers me about the gov't looking to incentivize or punish the behaviors of citizens through taxation. IDK, it's complex.

Idlewild said:

Right. Because Common Sense dictates when you see a ton of automobiles roaming NYC streets, parking on said streets and in the lots, the occupants aren't generating any type of positive cash flow for the local, state and federal economy. They're just cruising for chics and any money made is sucked dry from the subsidies going to road maintenance. Oh yes, I forgot, in order to generate "for real" cash, one must stay local and not go outside one's realm, like Ikea, Fairway, Costco or heaven forbid, the drive-thru at McD's or White Castle. You're right, I need to find the Books on this one. Everything you say to counter my arguments needs no leading by example in showing stats to back your arguments, because unlike myself, you have the Truth on your side.

Who says it's common sense? YOU think something is true, so it must be common sense? "The world is flat," was once common sense. If common sense were so dependable, there'd be no need for research.

But let's look at this from another angle. By your rationale, people that DON'T own cars DON'T contribute as much to the economy. That's laughable. My neighbor with a car doesn't spend any more on groceries (per person) at Fairway than I do when I take the subway to Trader Joe's. Do I sit on boxes because my carlessness prevents me from purchasing furniture? Is my $10 lunch at Gran Castillo somehow less economically stimulating than the $10 you spend at the White Castle drive through? Is my unborn child doomed to a naked life, all because I can't drive someplace to purchase clothing?

Is that enough common sense for you?

whynot_31 said:

CTK-

Let's look at the example of Street Fairs, or "Car Free Saturday's"

We are all aware that streets are routinely closed in the summer for block parties, street fairs and the like. Over the past few years, Manhattan has recently begun closing certain avenues every Saturday during the summer, simply to let people bike and hang out.

Vanderbilt Ave in PH is among those roads that are routinely closed on summer weekends.

Although clearly less dense than NYC, Westchester closes a big portion of the Bronx River Parkway every Sunday during the summer for similar fun.

...seemingly, the world has continued to function without much disruption. Because the events have been going on for several years, I'd wager they even have more supporters than detractors.

In these specific instances, the folks who control such things decided that the "gains to society" from keeping these spaces available to cars on weekends, are less than the "gains to society" from closing the road and devoting it to pedestrians, old people with walkers, and bikers.

The question is, "are there additional instances in which society could gain from allotting less space to the automobile, and when and where are these occasions?"

I would say absolutely yes. But only if mass transit is improved greatly. And did you know that when the Vanderbilt Ave. first closed down for the summer fairs, a lot of the merchants brought (or maybe threatened, I hear two stories) a huge lawsuit against Brooklyn Speaks and PHNDC for a perceived loss of revenue and not consulting with them? I like the Vanderbilt Ave. closings. I still hit the businesses and it's plain fun to walk don the middle of the blacktop. I also believe, from seeing the people rummaging around, that the businesses on Vanderbilt probably make more money than they were on regular weekends because of the foot traffic.

WhyFi said:

You didn't?

Nope. Since when does saying losing a ton of money mean anything else but that? You have me inferring that people without cars don't contribute to the economy as much. I never said that, never inferred it. However, if you believe that the statement you quote says otherwise, your prerogative.

I doubt that space would get much use in Jan.

For that matter, Prospect Park seems to be just me a few other crazy dog owners in January, but I would not want them make it a parking lot for the month.

It is difficult to design spaces that are flexible enough to accommodate the public's maximum benefit at any given time.

So of the design choices are inherently inflexible and permanent.

When we allocated so much of NYC to the car over the last century, did we make a choice that is irreversible? I hope not

When we allocated so much of NYC to the car over the last century, did we make a choice that is irreversible? I hope not

I think much of the city's design is pretty much set in stone, no pun intended. Not to mention, the skyrocketing costs of construction & new legal battles make new projects damn near impossible. The 2nd ave line would have been done in like 3 years back in the day, but during that time 2nd Ave would have been an open trench. So it's more realistic to move to work with what we have, rather than redesign the wheel of the car we're all riding in.

Regarding that bike lane fiasco... if you're brave enough to ride through BK at night, odds are you're among the people who don't need bike lanes anyway.

whynot_31 said:

Idlewild,

For example, when the city does major projects for the public (like build a subway line) it often hugely affects private business owners, causing the loss of revenue for months on end.

As a result, the businesses are compensated by the city for thier losses.

I am pretty sure there are no laws that require payment for non-physical taking of property. The article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/nyregion/05second.html on the 2nd Avenue Subway indicates that even for that project there is no compensatory fund for businesses.

Certainly such provisos can be made riders to almost any project or law or policy, but they are not required.

whynot_31 said:

Idlewild,

Yes, the loss of business as a result of things like Car Free Saturdays is very real. The link I posted about the Manhattan closures quotes a storeowner to the effect, and I think the city has some responsibility to businesses in such instances.

For example, when the city does major projects for the public (like build a subway line) it often hugely affects private business owners, causing the loss of revenue for months on end.

As a result, the businesses are compensated by the city for thier losses.

I'm not sure the city should have this obligation if it only closes the street to cars 8x a year though.

...at a minimum, people should be encouraged to patronize the furniture businesses that was just by the closure that allowed them to drink lemonade in the middle of the street.

You may have misunderstood me. I actually believe the businesses on Vanderbilt made more money with the street closings. The foot traffic was pretty heavy at times, and I certainly saw a lot of the outdoor tables filled. But I'm only guessing since I don't have access to their books. I brought up the lawsuit to compare it to the bike lane situation. I don't think I emphasized that part though.