Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ManhattanRailfan t1_jcnpw11 wrote

Reply to comment by Useful-Expert-5706 in This city needs residential parking permits and loading zones by nsmka

Look, I'd love to eliminate street parking entirely, but that's not happening any time soon.

Roughly 30% of traffic in the city right now is people circling for parking. Create a permitting system and you eliminate that pretty much overnight. A lot of people also drive in with the expectation that they'll be able to find a spot on the street, which, depending on the location and time, is very possible. Even if they can't half the time and have to go to a garage, they may consider that worthwhile. (For what it's worth, I live off 2nd Ave in Midtown and there are almost always spots on both 2nd and 1st available). If you make it so commuters know they'll have to pay for the garage every time, they may pick the train instead.

2

jxf t1_jco8eh7 wrote

There is no way that 30% of the traffic in the city is people "circling for parking".

3

Useful-Expert-5706 t1_jcnqt16 wrote

Permitting is fine by me but only if you have to re apply for a permit and the number of permits gets reduced over time regularly. Problem is if you have resident permits, how do you get rid of them after it was such a hard task of getting them.

It's like free street parking. After decades of it how do you tell people they have to pay for it now.

1

angryve t1_jcnwe5p wrote

30%? Yea. Gonna need a source on that one, friend.

1

eyesRus t1_jcoo3nl wrote

The source is Donald Shoup’s The High Cost of Free Parking. It is based on sixteen studies of multiple cities. However, Shoup is careful to note that the “30%” number describes “congested downtown traffic,” not “all traffic.”

In 2006, it was found that on Prince St., on certain afternoons, 28% of motorists were looking for parking. On Saturday, it was 41%. In 2007, it was found that in Park Slope, 45% of traffic was cruising for parking. (These reports are currently unavailable online, but you can email info@transalt.org for copies of them.)

5

ZA44 t1_jcou0y4 wrote

Yea transalt, an organization that would in no way fudge the numbers to make cars look bad LOL.

−3

eyesRus t1_jcp6j6o wrote

Yeah, you don’t generally need to fudge numbers to make cars look bad. It’s fairly obvious that they’re horrible in many, many ways.

Yes, they are a necessary evil for some people. But they are absolutely not necessary for a lot of New Yorkers. This includes many of my friends and peers. My friends drive their kid to swimming lessons. We make the 20-minute walk/scoot instead. Other friends use their car to drive to their upstate house on weekends. We…don’t have a second fucking house.

0

ZA44 t1_jcp99mr wrote

I’ve lived here all my life and most families I know owned cars. A lot of us have family on LI or NJ, use our cars for work outside of Manhattan and generally like to take trips outside of the city. See how my anecdotal experience cancels out yours? As hard as you might try you won’t be able to control other peoples lives.

PS wealth envy is not a good look.

0

eyesRus t1_jcpf7w7 wrote

Like I said, some people need cars. Many New Yorkers do not. This is simply a fact.

Years ago, we did need a car, due to the travel required by my residency (I was expected to be at multiple area hospitals, depending on the day). When I finished my residency, we no longer needed a car, so we got rid of it.

I am not envious of my friends’ second home. I believe no one needs a second home; it’s unnecessary excess in a world of finite resources. This includes my friends, who I overall like and respect greatly. They are extremely decent people, but I disagree with them on this aspect. That’s okay.

0