Gothamist: Peak Rate Parking Meter Test in West Village, Brooklyn

drchadwick1

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:47:39 -0500

It should be everyone can park or nobody can park, everyone can drive or nobody can drive, and NOT you can drive or park here but only if you meet a certain income threshold. Your rent or mortgage in the city (or your EZ Pass toll, for that matter) doesn't entitle you to an free chunk of public space in which to park your car. The city has limited space, and the vast majority of New Yorkers (who, again DO NOT OWN CARS) would benefit from taking some of that space back from car use and storage. That's going to make parking more expensive. Drivers impose costs on everyone, and we've been subsidizing those costs way too much, for way too long.

JenChungsBra

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:32:59 -0500

It's not a question of whether it fits anyone's definition of "wealthy." The point is that the government is weeding out certain people from using public services and they're doing so on the basis of who has the most cash.

cool

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:25:11 -0500

Pretty soon, it'll be $3.00/hr.

JenChungsBra

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:11:45 -0500

That's just the beginning. Read anything by the people supporting this and anything about their messiah Shoup and you'll see the intent is to keep pushing it up and up and up.

cool

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:37:20 -0500

How is $2.50/hr considered the province of only the wealthy?

JenChungsBra

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:26:37 -0500

You're putting words in my mouth drchadwick, I never said the space needs to be used for parking. I have no problem with eliminating parking and in fact said that it would be preferable to what the city's proposing to do now. I would also support narrowing streets and eliminating lanes altogether. I think the Mayor's Summer Streets program is great because it affects everyone equally and doesn't exempt the wealthy. It should be everyone can park or nobody can park, everyone can drive or nobody can drive, and NOT you can drive or park here but only if you meet a certain income threshold.

drchadwick1

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:21:02 -0500

#15: I completely agree with you. Bike should not be parked on sidewalks, attached to lamp-posts and such. Sidewalks are crowded as it is. They should be parked in reclaimed parking spaces on the street. One or two on every block could easily accommodate every bike.

drchadwick1

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:18:29 -0500

Because you're not stopping anyone from actually parking there, you're just changing the income level of people who are parking there. Who says that space needs to be used for parking? Driving in Manhattan is the province of the wealthy and upper middle-class. The rest of us (the vast majority of New Yorkers, in case you forgot) would be happy to use that space for sidewalks, trees, bike lanes, etc. This isn't about making parking available to only the wealthy, it's about putting our collective foot down and reclaiming space from cars for people. I also find it hilarious that you're complaining about the city selling space the highest bidder. I thought you free-market types were all about that.

edEx

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:14:32 -0500

Here's an easier solution: CONGESTION PRICING!

thefacts

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:06:17 -0500

#14 - Precisely! How about charging bikes for their use of Pubic sidewalk space? (not the streets, mind you, the actual sidewalk that pedestrians need). Bike racks and lampposts should have similar parking meters to charge cyclists for taking up precious sidewalk space. Ground-floor retail in that part of GV is around $200 sq.ft. Bikes gotta pay something for parking on sidewalks. Licensed street-vendors, street fairs and sidewalk cafes pay thousands per year for private use of the public sidewalk. Why are bikes exempt?

JenChungsBra

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:50:42 -0500

Space is scarce in the city. Why shouldn't people who take up a large amount of it with their cars pay for that privilege? Because you're not stopping anyone from actually parking there, you're just changing the income level of people who are parking there. It would be better to just eliminate the parking than to make it $15/hour, as many of the TA advocates and their asshole buddy Shoup would like, because then the wealthy get to park and others don't. Same with congestion pricing, it just weeds out a certain type of person while leaving others unaffected.

drchadwick1

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:49:39 -0500

@ thefacts: the VAST MAJORITY of New Yorkers do not own cars, and yet we're paying for the few who do. We're paying in vast amounts of public space given over to auto use and storage. We're paying in decreased air quality, increased asthma rates, increased noise, increased emergency response times -- the list goes on and on. Some even pay with their lives when run down by reckless drivers. There's a vocal minority of New Yorkers like yourself who think it's their God-given right to move around in massive, smoke-emitting two-ton steel boxes.

drchadwick1

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:31:33 -0500

People are complaining about 75 cents an hour to occupy 100 square feet of public space? Please.

lagomorph

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:17:52 -0500

If they're looking to ensure that people only use curbside parking for short term parking in order to ensure spaces are available they're going to need to increase the rates to where its cheaper to find a parking garage.

cuntry

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:11:42 -0500

It should be like Miami with special placards for residents in the vicinity, and then lots for others and meters for others. If you don't live here you don't need more than a meter spot.

whitecastlerock

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:31:36 -0500

Let's just line the roads with spikes to deter anyone from driving in the city. If anyone is caught driving, there will be a $10,000 fine. The DOT will then encourage everyone to grow wings and fly everywhere-making this grand metropolis pollution and congestion free.

EricRoberts

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:22:21 -0500

I completely agree with JMH.

JMH

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:11:09 -0500

Space is scarce in the city. Why shouldn't people who take up a large amount of it with their cars pay for that privilege?

thefacts

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:02:34 -0500

#3 is right. NYers pay 9% of their income in State and City taxes - the highest in the nation. But this silly proposal is more than taxes. It is the latest manifestation of the takeover of the DOT by a small clique - Transportation Alternatives - and their 'consultant, Shoup, from San Francisco, who have been espousing this nonsense for several years. What do you expect when the DOT commissioner is a bike-riding hippy from the Village? Call 311 and complain about this San Francisco hippy proposal.

WorksInDUMBO

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:01:18 -0500

I don't see how this is going to cut down on congestion/pollution. All this means is you are getting less for your money. (what else is new)

JenChungsBra

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:56:34 -0500

Once again Mr. Billionaire Bloomberg is seeking to distribute public resources to the people who can afford it most.

kissel

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:32:55 -0500

i know the types of posts this will get on this site, but again we have a city gov't that is literally nickel and diming its residents in every possible way. Why would we possibly want to cut spending in a city that collects more taxes than the majority of the world's nations?! Where the hell does all the money go?

fixilator

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:12:26 -0500

Meter is currently 25 cents for 10 minutes in parts of the East Village -- why would it be more expensive than the West Village's previous rate?

blablanyc

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:06:24 -0500

Please make it stop.