As the MTA prepared to shutter bus routes across the city, I joined with livable streets advocates in calling for the city’s Department of Transportation to turn former bus stops in bike parking spaces, among other non-auto-centric uses. When the NYPD, however, told its enforcement agents to avoid ticketing cars parked in the old bus zones, I was not optimistic that the battle would be won. Today, the New York Post reports that, by and large, DOT will convert the bus stops into parking spaces, thus handing over premium curbside space once reserved for transit to drivers.
According to Rich Calder and Tom Namako’s reporting, 365 of the 600 bus stops no longer in service are being used by drivers searching for more parking space. Although DOT has yet to decide which areas will be permanent parking spots and which will be deemed school or loading zones, no bike parking or pedestrian spaces will be considered. Hopefully, some of the abandoned shelters can be converted to that purpose instead. DOT says the removal of the bus signs and the installation of signs proclaiming the new use will be completed “over the next few weeks.”
35 comments
Why not put bike racks in place of all of them? make them spots, and put bike racks in the sign’s places. Cut a service, offer a way to make an alternative more palatable.
The bus stops no longer in use AND that have a new styled shelter really should be converted to bike parking. Since the structures at least appear essentially the same as the new styled bike parking, this should be a no-brainer.
Turning this space over to the DOT to use for parking is pretty much a nail in the coffin of ever getting these bus routes back, should the funding become available again. Imagine the backlash: “the MTA is taking away our valuable parking spaces for an unpopular bus route — the nerve of them!”
Bike riders need to make responsible use of the considerable public space we’ve already turned over to them. They need to stop at red lights, ride with traffic, stay inside the bike lanes and keep off the sidewalk. When they stop mowing me down in intersections (and riding like maniacs in Central Park), I’ll be more sympathetic to their parking needs. Meantime, chaining a bike to a lampost still works just fine.
While I think that it would have been more prudent to use the old bus stops for bike racks/sharing system, I agree with everything else Kid Twist says.
The same could be said for the cars and trucks that are being “rewarded” with these extra parking spaces!
So you’re saying that bike riders are all children who will do what they’re told if the grownups keep their toys away?
That doesn’t describe most of the cyclists I know, and it doesn’t describe the MTA. Maybe a kid like you doesn’t know any other way to interact with authority, but that’s really your problem, and you should leave street space allocation to the adults.
If you were as intelligent as you seem to believe you are, you’d find a way to rebut me without resorting to name-calling.
You’re the one who calls yourself a kid. I’m just repeating it.
Maybe you don’t consider yourself a kid, and you just took the name for some other reason. So go ahead, be a grownup.
First, let’s assume that the “bike riders” that are causing you grief are representative of all bike riders instead of a small clueless and/or thoughtless minority. So we’re basically saying that everyone who rides a bike is either a troublemaker or an idiot. Now, please explain why the idiots would make any connection between their behavior and the lack of bike parking, and why the troublemakers would care.
oh yea. And we should stop building roads until all car owners stop talking on their cell phone when they are driving. And no more crosswalks till all walkers stop jaywalking.
Replacing the bus stops with parking makes sense in most areas. Increasing parking will reduce congestion because fewer people will have to circle the block looking for a space. But what I don’t understand is what will happen if vans decide to replace some of the former bus routes? Will they put in smaller stops for them or will they just double park like cabs blocking traffic?
You can also read my article on this subject here.
Most New Yorkers don’t have cars – in large part due to the difficulty of finding parking. Increasing the supply of parking will quickly increase the demand for parking as people without cars realize that parking has become easier and decide to buy cars. And then the congestion will be even worse than it is now.
If the former bus stops are converted to parking, they should be converted to short-term metered parking. One cause of congestion is that people who need to load and unload heavy or bulky objects, who need to park near their destinations, usually can’t find curb parking close enough, so they double park. Setting aside space for short-term parking every 2-3 blocks means that many of those cars and trucks won’t have to double park. And installing meters means that the city won’t be giving away even more of its valuable real estate for free storage of personal property, only available to the car-owning segment of the population. (Although at the rates typically charged at meters, the city is still practically giving away space.)
What will happen if bus service is restored? Will motorists whine, as they are accustomed to do, that the bus stops will take away “their” parking spaces, even when those parking spaces used to be bus stops?
Your comments show that you believe the entire NYC is like the neighborhood you live in. This is not true. You also cannot make a generalization that most New Yorkers don’t have cars. There are neighborhoods in NYC that are totally car dependent. What you say about people buying cars if parking is increased is also a myth. Parking is in such short supply in most parts of NYC that adding 600 parking spots will not make a difference in anyone’s decision to purchase a car. For that to happen, you would have to build to or three new multi-level parking garages in every single neighborhood at very affordable rates. (People tried to make the same argument several years ago when the City announced that it would remove inactive fire hydrants to increase parking availability. No one ran out and bought a car because of that either.) What will happen is that people looking for spots will save about five minutes in looking for one and there will be less congestion not more if the spots are converted to parking. They should only remain as no parking zones if the lane is needed to improve traffic flow or as a delivery zone.
Most people who do own cars use parking availablity at their destination as their primary decision in whether they will use it for a trip. If you live in a neighborhood where parking is in great demand, you will also think about if it’s worth it to give up your parking space. If parking is available at both ends of the trip, you will take the car without even thinking about it, unless it is a short trip and you want the exercise.
It makes no sense to put in meters if the surrounding area has alternate side parking. Similarly, it makes no sense to put in ASP if there are only meters around. Did you know that there are some neighborhoods where there is no ASP and you can park there all the time. Putting meters on those streets will mean they just will remain unused most of the time.
Most double parking that causes congestion is from trucks who double park for hours at a time because of not enough delivery zones, not because of an occasional person who double parks to unload or load something in his car. Adding meters in those areas will slightly help the the occasional loader or unloader since meters in those areas will probably be occupied anyway since parking is in such short supply where double parking to load and unload causes congestion.
So I have a question then about your approach to meters. Do you believe all meters should be abolished or that every single parking spot in the city should carry with it a charge? I, not surprisingly, believe that every single parking spot in the city should be charged, either through a residential parking permit or a meter. (See Washington DC for an example of how this does work.) There’s no reason for the city to be giving away valuable real estate for free. Citizens do not have a right to free parking.
Again, every single neighborhood is not like Park Slope and shouldn’t be treated as such. What kind of choice are you giving me? Where did I indicate that meters should be abolished or that every spot should have a charge? Those are ridiculous choices. New Yorkers pay enough in all sorts of taxes, adding parking to that equation would be the final straw for those who are thinking of leaving anyway. We are moving in that direction anyway, a City of the super rich or those in poverty. We do not need to encourage this even more.
As for your generalization of “giving away valuable real estate for free” try taking a trip one day to outer Queens and see all the available street parking. I wouldn’t call that exactly “valuable real estate.” Where do you draw the line? Brooklyn Heights wanted residential permits. What happens if someone needs to visit their doctor? Where does he park? Do you force him to use mass transit? What if they are not able to? How much extra will it cost to provide access-a-ride for those people? If they do use mass transit, how do you get the MTA to increase service when all they are interested in is cutting service and this is not likely to change in the future? When ridership increased in the past few years, service did not increase at same rate making everything more crowded and uncomfortable and more prone to delays.
If unlimited ride cards become limited, ridership could easily drop 10% or more overnight. You can guarantee it if that happens service will be cut at least that.
There are a lot of questions that have to be answered and problems solved before we start making drastic changes like instituting residential parking
(didn’t mean to hit submit yet) and pay on-street parking all over.
I agree with your basic point, but I have some concerns with residential parking permits. In particular, they make things quite difficult for people who rent cars and for overnight visitors. They promote car ownership – by both making it easier for residents to find parking and making it harder for non-owners to rent cars.
I’d rather see market pricing – pricing high enough that everybody willing to pay to park will find parking. And they’d have to use some sort of electronic metering system (linked to EZPass, maybe?), because stuffing dozens of quarters into a slot every night isn’t really practical.
(The one side effect of residential parking permits that I really like is that they can be used to greatly reduce the rate of fraudulent out-of-state registration.)
I’m with Andrew, here, for the most part.
Benjamin believes:
But I’d counter: See Boston for an example of how this paints a nightmarish hellscape of automotive horror, for everyone involved. And — added bonus — once you reach a certain critical mass of car-owners, permit parking doesn’t even make things appreciably easier for residents!
There’s plenty of NYC that’s more DC than Boston, admittedly. (There are bits of NYC that are more Schenectady than DC, even. Parking on my block in the Bronx is downright easy!) But it’s difficult to make a strong argument for those spots as “valuable real estate”, as Allan Rosen points out. And in the most densely residential parts of this city, the areas that need the most help, the parallels to Boston are very strong indeed.
I’m sorry, but I don’t recall having mentioned where I live. (In fact, I’ve lived in several NYC neighborhoods, some with high car ownership rates and some with low car ownership rates.) I’m speaking of NYC as a whole, not of select neighborhoods.
Of course I can – because, in fact, most New Yorkers don’t have cars. Most NYC households don’t even have cars!
There are, but only a few. Most neighborhoods fall somewhere between owning-a-car-is-convenient-but-not-necessary and owning-a-car-is-highly-inconvenient-and-probably-very-expensive. Even Staten Island has about 18% car-free households.
Really? You don’t think that people who are on the fence about whether or not to buy a car (or single-car households considering buying a second car) won’t respond to the increased supply of parking by deciding to take advantage of it? The single greatest reason most New Yorkers don’t have cars is because it’s hard to find parking; the easier the city makes it to find parking, the more of them will decide to buy cars. That’s simple economics.
Any neighborhood where it’s at all difficult to find parking will have a substantial number of car-free households. Some of them will invariably be thinking about buying a car. Even a small increase in parking supply will push them into the car-owning side.
Sorry, that’s simply not the way economics works.
Really? Not a single person bought a car? Incredible!
Until the car-free neighbors notice that parking is now easier to find. Then a few of them will buy cars. Once that happens, parking will be just as hard to find as before, but there will be more cars driving around when they’re not parked, contributing to congestion.
Every business and every home requires deliveries. I’m proposing one bus-stop-length delivery zone every 2-3 blocks. They will be used. And the people using them won’t have to double park and block traffic to make their deliveries.
Exactly. Is that what the city should be actively promoting, by freely giving up space that could be used for a number of other uses?
Why not? If parking is hard to find, then people making deliveries or going shopping or running quick errands will gladly pay rather than spend 20 minutes competing with people looking for places to store their cars for free overnight.
Again, that depends on whether parking is hard to find on those streets. If it is, then people who value their time will use the meters if they’re not staying for a very long time.
Actually, double parked cars are much more common in my experience. But both are a problem. And delivery zones are exactly what I’m recommending!
Wait a minute. Didn’t you just say that “It makes no sense to put in meters if the surrounding area has alternate side parking”? Boy, you change your mind quickly!
You are wrong by concluding that owning a car is not necessary in any neighborhood in New York City. There are neighborhoods such as where I live where not owning a car is an extreme inconvenience. I need one even if it is only just to go food shopping. Taking the bus or walking would mean I would have to go food shopping every single day as opposed to once every couple of weeks, not to mention the extra hours I would be spending and I’m only one person. For a family it would be much worse. Also, the amount of time I would be spending on transit rather than driving would triple for some trips, not mentioning the inconvenience of being forced to rely on mass transit in bad weather when it is often unreliable (not to mention even in good weather.) If you’ve lived in neighborhoods with high car ownership rates, you should know this.
As I stated, they will respond to increased parking supply, but the increase would have to be so much that it means something real. Five hundred spots Citywide is only a drop in the bucket and won’t have any impact on car ownership. And yes, show me one person who bought a car because 500 useless hydrants were removed. That’s like saying adding one train trip a day on the #4 line will increase the number of people on that line by a significant number because people will sell their cars. That won’t happen either. The trains before and after would just be slightly less crowded. That’s all. The change is just too small. You would need a Second Avenue Subway to have that type of impact.
The car free neighbors would not notice that parking is easier and a few of them would go and buy cars. That would be true if parking were the only consideration when deciding to purchase or not. The biggest factor is insurance, not gas and not parking. Then there is the cost outlay, payments, maintenance and other considerations.
True, there needs to be more delivery zones in commercial areas, but merchants don’t want to give up metered spaces fo their customers. They’d rather inconvenience everyone by double-parking and not paying extra for nightime deliveries. You can’t lump in residential deliveries. How often does the average one-family household receive a delivery? It’s only a problem where there are apartment buildings on busy streets. But you want to put delivery zones in even where they are not needed, just because a bus route was eliminated.
Yes I did say that if the surrounding area has alternate side parking, it makes no sense to put in meters. That’s because there probably is no commercial uses nearby. How is that a contradiction to my statement that adding meters will only slightly help people making deliveries where there are inadequate delivery zones, because the spaces will be quickly taken by cars and not be made available to those trucks making deliveries? The two thoughts are not connected.
No, I am not wrong, and the facts back me up. There are parts of the city where having a car is a convenience, but there are no parts where it is a necessity. When congestion pricing was still an active proposal, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign put together a series of handy fact sheets, organized by City Council, State Assembly, State Senate, and U.S. Congress district. You can look through any of them to see, among other things, car ownership rates in each district. Of the 51 City Council districts, the one with the highest car ownership rate is Council District 51 in Staten Island, with only 10% of households having no vehicle. In Brooklyn, the car-heaviest district is CD 46, with 27% of households having no vehicle. That’s right: over a quarter of all households in Lew Fidler’s district have no car.
People buy and dispose of cars every day, for all sorts of reasons, and one of the factors that plays into the decision is how hard it is to find parking. Car owners in any given neighborhood have generally found a certain degree of difficulty acceptable. If parking suddenly becomes a little bit easier to find, then some car owners who were contemplating getting rid of their cars in part due to the difficulty of finding parking will decide to hold onto them, and some non-car owners who were resisting buying a car because it was too hard to find parking will be encouraged by the new parking spaces. Over time, car ownership in the neighborhood will increase just enough to maintain the current degree of difficulty in finding parking – since that’s what car owners are willing to accept.
Most riders on the 4 have no alternative – that is, there isn’t much of a population of potential 4 riders to draw from. But adding a train on the 4 will, over time, attract some riders off of other lines, and may even draw some people to move to areas served by the 4.
I’m suggesting that former bus stops – not existing metered spaces – be converted to loading zones. But stops tend to be on commercial and on high-density residential streets.
Perhaps you are unaware, but in large parts of the city, housing and commerce are found in close proximity. Meters on residential streets can serve people visiting the businesses around the corner. (They can also serve people visiting other people, and if, like most meters, they’re inactive overnight, they can even serve residents who will be moving the car in the morning.)
You say there are no parts of the City where a car is a necessity. With the elimination of the B31 overnight, there is about a mile and a half walk to the closest bus route which runs at 65 minute intervals for part of the night. The only real alternative is a cab. Other remote areas of the City are just as isolated. The question is where do you draw the line between inconvenience and necessity? Apparently you don’t consider a car a necessity if one family doesn’t own one. I would say that 90% car ownership is high enough to consider it a necessity since only 10% are willing to put up with the inconvenience of not owning one and could consist of people who are not able to drive or can’t drive, choosing not to own a car only for those reasons.
The notion that adding one number 4 train a day to the route will cause people to move to the area served by the Number 4 is just plain ridiculous and not even worth discussing.
Yes, we need more loading zones, and bus routes tend to be on high density residential or commercial streets as you stated. However, we are talking about only about the ones being discontinued, in which that may not be the case, and could be the reason they are not highly utilized and were discontinued.
Yes, meters on residential streets could and do serve people visiting businesses around the corner, but they are currently limited to 100 feet from those areas. As I previously stated, extending them any further would cause undue hardship to the residents living there and people may not be willing to pay and still walk far to the business they are patronizing.
Very few people relied on the late night B31 – that’s why it was canceled. (Wasn’t the cutoff something like 45 riders per night?) Those who did can still call a car service, and unless they rode the overnight B31 very frequently, calling a car service would still be cheaper than buying a car.
If 10% of the households in the most car-dependent part of the city manage to survive without cars, then owning a car is not a necessity. Food and shelter are necessities. Owning a car is not. Owning a car is, in some cases, a convenience.
Nobody’s going to make a sudden decision based on a single train. But people’s decisions will be influenced if they notice that a train line has gotten a bit less crowded and a bit more frequent.
I strongly object to the notion that all curbside space should, by default, be granted to motor vehicle owners for the purposes of free storage.
There is nothing in the service guidelines regarding how many passengers are needed to justify overnight service. The number decided for these service cuts was an arbitrary one that was decided. No areas should be cut off from mass transit. The MTA has a social responsibility to provide service.
Regarding your other comments here, I have nothing new to add. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Where you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a “yuppie”? Gee, thanks.
This is awesome. With all the revenue coming in from new parking spaces, the city will take in an extra… what, $150 per year off meters alone! Forget about the tickets!
The purpose now for parking meters and fines is just about revenue. They are cash cows that the City is milking for all they can get. Obviously, that was not their original intention. Meters were originally instituted so residents don’t park there all day and deprive merchants of revenue because their customers can’t park close by. Fines were to punish someone who didn’t abide by the law. Those have all been forgotten today.
Let’s take a fairly typical metered space that charges 25 cents per half hour, Mon-Sat, 7AM-7PM. That’s 50 cents per hour at 12 hours per day on about 26 days per month – for a total of $156 per month, if the space is filled all the time.
That could easily be less than the land alone is worth, even ignoring the costs to the city of maintenance, security, etc.
And most parking spaces in the city are NOT metered, so the revenue collected at meters has to be amortized across free parking as well.
In much of the city, metered parking is so popular that it’s hard for customers to find parking by the stores they want to shop at. How do you propose to solve that problem? I propose either to convert some free parking to metered parking – thereby increasing the supply of metered parking -or to raise the parking rates – thereby reducing the demand for metered parking, as some of the parkers will decide to park for shorter durations or to use a different mode or to shop elsewhere. (No, it’s not a problem that people who aren’t willing to pay the increased parking rates will shop elsewhere, since they’ll be replaced by people willing to pay more to park. Every business prefers customers who aren’t very price-sensitive.)
As for fines, they need to be high enough to serve as a real deterrent. A slap on the wrist isn’t enough. Personally, I think that fines for violations that directly affect non-drivers (parking on sidewalks or in crosswalks, parking in bus stops or in bus lanes, double parking on streets that carry buses) should be doubled.
You obviously don’t drive and probably don’t own a car, because your information is not even correct and you apparently just like to argue since you didn’t even address any of my points.
First of all, you neglect the fact that with muni-meter it is now possible to charge two or three times for the same spot which happens often where there is high turnover and people are always looking for spaces. Someone pays for 30 minutes but leaves after 15, no one else can use that 15 minutes, the City gets to sell the same 15 minutes twice in areas of great demand. That’s one of the reasons they were put in, so your “$156 a month is meaningless.” (Also, most meters are now 25 cents for 20 minutes and 25 cents for 10 minutes in municipal lots.) And what do you mean by “less than the land is worth” and what cost of “maintenance and security” for the parking space? And what cost has to be “amortized across free parking as well”? I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. Parking revenue should not be a line item in the budget like sales tax or property tax. That is the problem when you think of it as a necessary source of revenue with which to run the City. It should be considered like revenue you could use for emergencies but not revenue you must have.
Metered parking was originally just on streets where there are storefronts. In the 1960s and 70s, it was extended as you suggest they do now to residential streets within about 100 feet from a commercial area to increase the amount of metered spaces. They didn’t extend it further, because it was believed that people wouldn’t be willing to walk more than that distance from where they park to get to the commercial street.
So you are suggesting that all residential streets be converted to meters if they are say 600 feet from a commercial area? What are the residential car owners supposed to do whose spots suddenly disappear? There are not enough garages for them to rent and they can’t park at meters for hours on end. So they are just supposed to sell their cars and use mass transit that the MTA is reluctant to increase and is probably too inconvenient anyway for the trip they are going to make anyway. And you don’t think this would drive people to move out of the City decreasing the tax base?
Metered parking not near commercial areas makes no sense at all. Years ago they built a supermarket in my area that had an ample-sized parking lot as well as roof parking. Parking was never a problem. The City decided to install meters all around the supermarket. Guess what? They were empty all the time. No one parked there, but the residents were deprived of parking space. Finally, some elected officials got involved and the spaces were returned to alternate side, and now they are always filled. But your solution is they should have remained metered and unused?
You say fines need to be high enough to be a real deterrent. When was the last time you saw what the parking fines are? No one gets a slap on the wrist. Parking over the allotted time at meters is now $40. You think that is cheap? Some times you get stuck at a doctor’s office and it is unavoidable. I think $40 is way too high for overtime parking. All other fines range between $50 and $110. You think that is too cheap? Not too mention fines that people don’t deserve like someone receiving a ticket when there is still time left on the meter (yes and this does happen) or someone being given a ticket for parking at a bus stop while the car is still moving and hasn’t even stopped yet (I saw this one myself) and you are allowed to stop at a bus stop to let someone out or pick someone up. And there are no evening hours to plead the fines, so plenty innocent people just pay because it is cheaper than losing a days pay. You think that is fair? Should people “suffer that way.”?
And double parking on streets that carry buses should not be doubled. I believe the fine is $110 for that. Double parking should be enforced when it impedes traffic, regardless if there is a bus there or not, not when it isn’t causing any problem. (And no revenue would be lost because there are so many places where it does cause problems and no summonses are given.) Yes, there should be heavy fines for blocking a bus lane. But that is the exact problem I stated. Summonses are not issued to cars or trucks that impede traffic, but just for the revenue. I’ve yet to see any double-parked truck being given a ticket even if they are unloading and blocking traffic for an hour or two. What the City needs to do is require evening deliveries.
You are against parking on sidewalks. Who is the greatest offender here? It’s the police. You will find cars parked on sidewalks in front of every police precinct in the City. Who is going to give them tickets? Why are they guaranteed a parking spot? Why can’t they use mass transit? Judges also for that matter.
You ask me how I propose to solve the problem of enough parking spaces so people can shop if not to increase the number of meters. You can never meet the demand. The answer in this case is to have people leave their car at home and use mass transit. And how do you do that? One way is better routes and service (including improving reliability) and making it more affordable. You do the last by changing the fare structure so it is time-based as I previously suggested. Perhaps someone drives a short distance because taking the bus there and back costs $4.50 and the meter and gas costs a fraction of that amount. (And we’re not talking about people that use the system often enough to by discount cards.) If they can make their entire round trip in about 90 minutes for one fare at $2.25, you don’t think many would leave their cars home and reduce the demand for meters?
You missed my basic point: that the city gives away huge quantities of free space for storage of personal property in the form of motor vehicles (and whatever fits inside a motor vehicle – I can’t store a piano on the street unless I own a car and the piano fits inside it). Much of that space would be quite useful for other functions, but it isn’t available for other functions. Why shouldn’t the city charge rent for vehicle storage – the same way the city would charge rent for storage of any other form of private property on city land? City land is a valuable asset – it shouldn’t be given away for free, and it certainly shouldn’t be given away for free only to the minority of city residents with cars.
Charging for parking everywhere would be good for pretty much everyone. It would be good for non-drivers because they would no longer be expected to subsidize their (wealthier) neighbors with cars. But it would be good for drivers as well, since raising the cost of parking would reduce car ownership rates overall and would make it easier for those with cars to find parking where they need to park. It’s hard to find parking now because parking is underpriced!
Whether you or I consider a parking fine to be high or low is not relevant. What’s relevant is if it dissuades people from parking illegally. Look around Brooklyn – double parking is still commonplace on commercial streets in many neighborhoods. Parking fines are apparently not high enough.
Conventional parking meters don’t make sense for overnight or long-term parking, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no way to pay for long-term parking. Probably the most straightforward approach is an in-car meter – it charges you for parking only when it’s running, so you don’t have to worry about overpaying or underpaying.
The allowance for dropoffs and pickups at bus stops is only when doing so doesn’t interfere with bus service.
The reason I think fines should be higher on bus routes is that I really don’t care much if somebody in a private car delays somebody else in a private car, but I think it’s a big problem if somebody in a private car delays 50 people on a public bus. Issuing the fine only when traffic is actually delayed makes the fine unenforceable – a traffic agent can’t just issue a summons to a double parked car, but has to wait until traffic is impeded, and even then, it’s hard to prove in court that traffic was impeded. The idea should be to discourage double parking so that it doesn’t cause delays – not to wait until the delays have already happened!
Trucks are allowed to double park. That’s pretty stupid, in my opinion, but given that the curb is already fully occupied with cars, what’s the alternative? I’ve proposed an alternative: designate some space at the curb for short-term loading and unloading, and raise parking prices overall to ensure vacant spaces.
I agree that the police are the most prominent offenders when it comes to sidewalk parking, but they’re certainly not alone. Visit the Financial District one day. Most of its streets are very narrow, and trucks often park on the sidewalk to avoid delaying motor vehicle traffic – even though at least 95% of the traffic in the area is pedestrian traffic! That should simply not be tolerated.
Demand is a function of price. As the price of parking goes up, the demand for parking drops, as some people decide not to pay the new price. (This is basic economics – nothing earth shattering here.) That’s the basis for San Francisco’s new SFpark program.
Of course, I have nothing against improved transit service or reduced transit fares – but NYCT can’t afford to improve service or reduce fares right now. If the city charged for parking citywide, then perhaps the city would be in a position to restore the transit funding that it’s cut over the years.
As for me, I drive pretty frequently. I gave up my car a few years ago because it wasn’t worth the hassle of finding parking, but I rent on occasion.
I suggest you read some Shoup.
You know of a car that can hold a piano? Stop being ridiculous. People don’t store cars on the street for the purpose of holding personal property.
You say the street could be used for other functions if cars weren’t stored there. So what are you proposing, turning all curbside space into bicycle lanes or else charging for its use? Again this is totally ridiculous and not even worth debating. You never for a moment consider what effect charging for all parking space would have. It amounts to a discriminatory extra tax aimed solely at motorists. Not only is this totally unfair, it will cause people to leave the City in droves. As I stated before, you will be accelerating the day when the City is for only the very rich and the very poor with no middle class. Is that what you want?
Everyone cannot give up their car. They need it for work, shopping or pleasure. Some people work outside the City and cannot use mass transit to get there. My neighbor works in New Jersey. I guess you want him to move there which he would do if he has to pay to store his car in the City. Some people own a car solely so they can have a social life on Saturday nights when a 20 minute car trip would take 3 hours by mass transit. Are you asking them to give up their social life or do you want them also to move out of the City?
It’s not the amount of the fine that dissuades people from parking illegally, it’s the enforcement. You’ve got the two confused. There could be a $500 fine like the one for horn honking. Does it work? No. Because it is not enforced. A $25 fine that is enforced 95% of the time has a greater effect than a $500 fine that is enforced 5% of the time. All very high fines do is unfairly penalize the few unlucky individuals that get caught. You want to double the fines. You think someone who gets delayed 5 minutes at an overtime meter should pay $80. You wouldn’t think that way if you owned a car.
I agreed with you about the double-parked trucks and already explained why there aren’t more loading zones which are sorely needed. But you plan only involves a few discontinued bus routes. That would not solve the problem and may not even help depending on where those bus routes are located.
What you say about trucks parking on the sidewalk in Lower Manhattan is also non-sensical. Yes it is an inconvenience for pedestrians to have to walk around them, but it can be done. Leaving the truck on those narrow streets rather than on part of the sidewalk would mean that no traffic could get through. But you feel that that is the lesser of the two evils. Try to put yourself in the other persons shoes before you go forming opinions.
I wasn’t suggesting lowering transit fares. I was indicating that allowing a few round trips for a single fare (which would only affect a very small percentage of trips, would not only increase transit usage and may even make up for the lost revenue, but would also get cars off the street. Car ownership isn’t the only factor to be considered when looking at traffic, it is the number of trips those cars generate that are also important, which you don’t seem to understand. (There are car owners living in Manhattan who store their cars in garages during the week and only use them for weekend trips to the Hamptons.)
Let’s try this one last time. The city gives away storage space for free across the city – but only for motor vehicles and whatever can be stuffed inside those motor vehicles. I have a problem with the city giving away real estate for free. I have a major problem with the city offering that free real estate only to owners of motor vehicles.
I can think of plenty of alternative uses of the space occupied by stored motor vehicles, depending on the setting. You mention bicycle lanes; that’s one possibility. Also bicycle parking areas. Bus lanes. Mini-parks and seating areas. Enlarged sidewalks. Enlarged property lots (with the sidewalk shifted into the former parking lane). Additional traffic lanes. The list goes on. None of these is suitable everywhere, and in many locations the best use may be parking – but, again, shouldn’t the people who use that parking pay for it? Real estate is expensive. If the people who choose to park on it don’t pay for it, then everybody else does.
One of the major complaints of car owners across the city is that parking is enforced too vigorously. (Moving violations, on the other hand, are widely ignored.) I guess you disagree with them?
I’ve gotten occasional parking tickets. They make me feel stupid, but I’ve deserved every single one (and plenty more).
Maybe you haven’t been to Lower Manhattan lately, but the sidewalks are heavily congested even when nothing’s illegally parked on them. There is also very little motorized traffic on most streets. A truck parked on the street will, at worst, inconvenience a few people, who will instead have to drive around the block. The vast majority of traffic – the pedestrian traffic – can get through unobstructed. Many streets have parking on one side, restricted to permit-holders. How about eliminating that unnecessary perk and letting trucks park there? And vehicles on sidewalks pose a danger to pedestrians as well – or didn’t you hear about the tow truck that killed a child on the sidewalk near the Triboro Bridge a few weeks ago?
You suggested an effective reduction in the transit fare. It’s not a bad idea, but it costs money.
My concern is not “traffic,” except to the extend that it obstructs deliveries and buses. If drivers get stuck behind other drivers, that’s their problem, not mine. My concern is with allocations of space and proper compensation for that space.
You have a major problem with the City offering free real estate “only” to owners of motor vehicles. Perhaps motor vehicles should also pay “rent” to drive over these streets too? Do you also have a problem with the tax exempt status offered only to religious institutions or is it only the car owners who bother you?
“If the people who choose to park on it don’t pay for it, then everybody else does.”
Again, you are not thinking of the long range effects of such a policy. Any residence without a parking space would be worth less. Any house with a driveway or garage would increase in value. Any charge is just another tax to a specific population. New Yorkers are already overtaxed encouraging the middle class to leave at accelerated rate. What would that do to the economy? Why don’t you say anything about all the political deals which allow selected groups of people to illegally park wherever they want? Selected churches and synagogues where worshipers can illegally park by displaying a note on their windshield. Any policeman or his relative who displays a placard or PBA card while off-duty and go to the gym or the beach. Lifeguards who can avoid a ticket by placing a teeshirt on their windshield, etc, etc. Don’t we all subsidize those people?
I have no problem with parking regulations enforced too vigorously. I do have one when people get tickets they don’t deserve and ridiculous laws favoring the City such as if a parking regulation is missing and two different ones conflict, the one that governs is the one which is more restrictive even if the one ten feet from you says the space is legal, but another one 600 feet away says its illegal. You shouldn’t be required to walk 600 feet when parking to check for signs. The closest one is the one that should govern. But since you don’t own a car, you wouldn’t be aware of the problems motorists already face. Maybe you deserved the parking tickets you received, but at least 75% of the ones I received, I shouldn’t have gotten. In fact, when the City wasn’t so concerned with revenue, I was able to get all of them dismissed. Now it’s almost impossible to get one dismissed. They will just reduce the fine if you are lucky. And they threaten you that if you don’t agree to pay half before the hearing, you will have to pay the entire amount if you opt for a hearing. There seems to be something constitutionally wrong about that.
I also don’t believe moving violations are widely ignored. If a cop sees you doing it, he will always stop you unless he is on a call.
You are also wrong about Lower Manhattan. If a truck suddenly stops in front of you to unload, and you can’t pass and there are cars behind you, you are stuck. You can’t just simply go around the block as you state. I haven’t seen any streets restricted to permit holders, unless you are talking about spaces labeled “Authorized Vehicles only spaces “. Or are you talking about the near the South Street Seaport where the City took public streets and turned them over to a private company for pay parking? I saw that once and it is wrong.
The “effective” transit fare reduction I suggested would not cost more if enough additional people ride to cover the lost revenue in which case it would not be lost.
The fact that your concern is not with traffic shows selfishness on your part. You are saying since you don’t drive, it is not your problem. But it is your problem too because excess air pollution harms all of us just like second hand smoke affects non-smokers. You may not be sensitive to it like I am, but it still harms you.
I think we should all remember the city did away with 100s of metered spaces on Fordham Road in the Bronx to facilitate the SBS (FREE) bus route. So I think re-claiming some of these alternate-side parking spots should be no problem.
SBS is free? That’s news to me.
The Bx12 carries many more riders than a parking lane could possibly accommodate. And, of course, the Bx12 is available to people without cars. Don’t people without cars deserve reliable access to Fordham Road businesses? (Don’t Fordham Road businesses deserve reliable access by people without cars?)