The MoveNY plan should provide a more robust parking reform plan. We need a residential parking permit system which requires NYC registration and is priced high enough to discourage ownership in core areas. We need variable parking which adjust to demand, real time information on available spaces and we need more metered spots to increase turnover. Additionally, parking should be priced much higher than it currently is, especially in prime central areas of the city. And we should allocate parking for fixed car share services (e.g. car2go), bike share (more Citi Bike), motorcycles/scooters/bicycle corrals and significantly more loading zones.
It looks as though this bill is designed to level the playing field as well as incentivize using public transit over private cars as a way to get around the city. Manhattan is an island that is blanketed with many different options when it comes to transit, and we need to do more to improve the quality and accessibility of that service.
For a long time, public transit has been at an unfair disadvantage in its competition with private transit, both in terms of funding and infrastructure. A case in point is the fact that Select Bus Service buses have to compete with turning and double parked cars, rather than having their own, truly dedicated lanes in which to drive.
This bill would help to tear down some of those barriers to good transit by improving funding and also reflecting the true cost of owning and driving a car in the city. Not only does driving more cause our roads to deteriorate faster, but it also negatively affects our health and that of the environment in which we live. Asthma rates are higher, obesity and heart problems are higher, deaths due to crashes are higher, and these are all health issues that are tied directly to the car.
George objects to the notion that people living here should have to pay as much as the rest of those who drive in from off of the island. The fact is, prices for parking and road services are paid for by everybody, not just car owners. And the amount that car owners pay is far too low, especially when one starts to take externalities like the health issues I mentioned above into account. This plan would not make it impossible to own a car, but it would definitely get people to think more consciously about whether or not to drive or even own a car. In the long term, this must be our goal.
Mayors across the United States and the world are starting to put into place various plans that are heavily informed by Vision Zero (zero deaths and serious injuries due to traffic related incidents). They are also, many of them, confronting the effects of Climate Change, from hurricanes to unseasonably high Summer and Winter temperatures, to Ozone Days, when it is recommended that citizens stay inside due to high levels of ozone in the air, to water shortages due to low snow pack. Manhattan is not immune to these realities, and emissions from cars are a part of the overall reason why Climate Change is happening.
I believe that we are facing some difficult choices, among which is the necessity of giving up our society's love affair with the car. We can no longer continue to drive for every visit to a friend or every errand we have to run. We have no excuse to do so here in NYC where we have so many alternatives. MoveNY has put forth a very thoughtful, thoroughly researched plan that is a compromise designed to address the needs of all those who use the roads and public transit in our city. It gets the job done with out raising the gas tax (though that is something that sorely needs to be addressed). It gives money back to walkers, bikers, transit users and, yes, drivers. This is a small price to pay for making sure that future generations have a healthy world in which to live and raise their children.
Could not respond to your comment at April 14, 2016 - 6:05pm directly Oldbob so I will post it here. I do in fact own a car and a motorcycle, though I typically bicycle or take the subway to work/school in Manhattan (a place I especially avoid by automobile).
The previous law required new constructions to provide a certain amount of parking space per number of units, it's called a parking minimum. The law was retracted in Manhattan south of Harlem, downtown Brooklyn, and more recently a half mile from subway stations across most of the city. It was found that providing parking encourages people to own an automobile, something the city wants to discourage and cannot support. Additionally, parking minimums costs developers despite low demand. Money spent on parking could instead be allocated towards residential or commercial units. More parking is no good for the city.Though I agree that NYC requires more mid-block crossing for pedestrians, I highly disagree that distracted pedestrians are a serious issue in NYC. Virtually all pedestrians do indeed look before crossing, even if just a glance of the eye. A much greater issue is distracted and reckless drivers who are traveling at speed, controlling large heavy objects in a congested area. Most pedestrians who are killed or serious injured in NYC in crosswalks with the right of way. This has been proven through through the quantitative collection of traffic collision statistics.
Times Square doesn't need fences either, its a highly pedestrian oriented area. The city needs congestion pricing to reduce traffic volumes and we need further traffic calming citywide.
Most New Yorkers (including the middle class) do not drive into the Manhattan CBD district on a regular basis.The middle class instead suffers from slow buses, pollution, and increased prevalence of collisions due to congestion.Tolls would reduce congestion in the core and along all paths into the core.
Residential parking permit systems have a lot of problems (witness DC, where there's a vigorous private market for permits) and every time I've brought them up in NYC, I've been told that they'll never happen.Taxing monthly parking fees is a start, but it'll hit garages hard, and keep people cruising for free or virtually free on-street spots. In concert with this tax rise, what is the city going to do that will reduce the cruising behaviors that create ~70% of NYC traffic? I think anything that raises parking prices in the city is probably a good thing, but the focus should perhaps be on-street, not off; the city has way more control there anyway.
A car is a personal choice that has so many impacts on those around you and an extensive network of social costs. To say that you shouldn't share in the cost of your decision is to pass the costs of your personal choices onto the larger public. What is really criminal is that I'm subsidizing your use of an automobile that is one of the greatest sources of carbon emissions in this country, occupies the majority of our road space-both in travel and in parking, all while giving me no benefit. Please start paying your fare share!
We need to reclaim the streets of our city, the free river crossing on the 59th street bridge has taken away the streets of LIC and Sunnyside, and the impacts can be felt as far away as Maspeth, Woodside, and Astoria.
The logic of this proposal is well structured and honest, but it might need to provide some assistance for neighborhoods in Queens near transit stops where people will inclined to treat as their new park and ride lot while taking a train or express bus to Manhattan. Residential parking permits would help people that live in these communities, and could also start to reflect the true cost of free parking in this city.
The MoveNY plan should provide a more robust parking reform plan. We need a residential parking permit system which requires NYC registration and is priced high enough to discourage ownership in core areas. We need variable parking which adjust to demand, real time information on available spaces and we need more metered spots to increase turnover. Additionally, parking should be priced much higher than it currently is, especially in prime central areas of the city. And we should allocate parking for fixed car share services (e.g. car2go), bike share (more Citi Bike), motorcycles/scooters/bicycle corrals and significantly more loading zones.
View this comment in the discussion thread
It looks as though this bill is designed to level the playing field as well as incentivize using public transit over private cars as a way to get around the city. Manhattan is an island that is blanketed with many different options when it comes to transit, and we need to do more to improve the quality and accessibility of that service.
For a long time, public transit has been at an unfair disadvantage in its competition with private transit, both in terms of funding and infrastructure. A case in point is the fact that Select Bus Service buses have to compete with turning and double parked cars, rather than having their own, truly dedicated lanes in which to drive.
This bill would help to tear down some of those barriers to good transit by improving funding and also reflecting the true cost of owning and driving a car in the city. Not only does driving more cause our roads to deteriorate faster, but it also negatively affects our health and that of the environment in which we live. Asthma rates are higher, obesity and heart problems are higher, deaths due to crashes are higher, and these are all health issues that are tied directly to the car.
George objects to the notion that people living here should have to pay as much as the rest of those who drive in from off of the island. The fact is, prices for parking and road services are paid for by everybody, not just car owners. And the amount that car owners pay is far too low, especially when one starts to take externalities like the health issues I mentioned above into account. This plan would not make it impossible to own a car, but it would definitely get people to think more consciously about whether or not to drive or even own a car. In the long term, this must be our goal.
Mayors across the United States and the world are starting to put into place various plans that are heavily informed by Vision Zero (zero deaths and serious injuries due to traffic related incidents). They are also, many of them, confronting the effects of Climate Change, from hurricanes to unseasonably high Summer and Winter temperatures, to Ozone Days, when it is recommended that citizens stay inside due to high levels of ozone in the air, to water shortages due to low snow pack. Manhattan is not immune to these realities, and emissions from cars are a part of the overall reason why Climate Change is happening.
I believe that we are facing some difficult choices, among which is the necessity of giving up our society's love affair with the car. We can no longer continue to drive for every visit to a friend or every errand we have to run. We have no excuse to do so here in NYC where we have so many alternatives. MoveNY has put forth a very thoughtful, thoroughly researched plan that is a compromise designed to address the needs of all those who use the roads and public transit in our city. It gets the job done with out raising the gas tax (though that is something that sorely needs to be addressed). It gives money back to walkers, bikers, transit users and, yes, drivers. This is a small price to pay for making sure that future generations have a healthy world in which to live and raise their children.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Could not respond to your comment at April 14, 2016 - 6:05pm directly Oldbob so I will post it here. I do in fact own a car and a motorcycle, though I typically bicycle or take the subway to work/school in Manhattan (a place I especially avoid by automobile).
The previous law required new constructions to provide a certain amount of parking space per number of units, it's called a parking minimum. The law was retracted in Manhattan south of Harlem, downtown Brooklyn, and more recently a half mile from subway stations across most of the city. It was found that providing parking encourages people to own an automobile, something the city wants to discourage and cannot support. Additionally, parking minimums costs developers despite low demand. Money spent on parking could instead be allocated towards residential or commercial units. More parking is no good for the city.Though I agree that NYC requires more mid-block crossing for pedestrians, I highly disagree that distracted pedestrians are a serious issue in NYC. Virtually all pedestrians do indeed look before crossing, even if just a glance of the eye. A much greater issue is distracted and reckless drivers who are traveling at speed, controlling large heavy objects in a congested area. Most pedestrians who are killed or serious injured in NYC in crosswalks with the right of way. This has been proven through through the quantitative collection of traffic collision statistics.
Times Square doesn't need fences either, its a highly pedestrian oriented area. The city needs congestion pricing to reduce traffic volumes and we need further traffic calming citywide.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Most New Yorkers (including the middle class) do not drive into the Manhattan CBD district on a regular basis.The middle class instead suffers from slow buses, pollution, and increased prevalence of collisions due to congestion.Tolls would reduce congestion in the core and along all paths into the core.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Residential parking permit systems have a lot of problems (witness DC, where there's a vigorous private market for permits) and every time I've brought them up in NYC, I've been told that they'll never happen.Taxing monthly parking fees is a start, but it'll hit garages hard, and keep people cruising for free or virtually free on-street spots. In concert with this tax rise, what is the city going to do that will reduce the cruising behaviors that create ~70% of NYC traffic? I think anything that raises parking prices in the city is probably a good thing, but the focus should perhaps be on-street, not off; the city has way more control there anyway.
View this comment in the discussion thread
A car is a personal choice that has so many impacts on those around you and an extensive network of social costs. To say that you shouldn't share in the cost of your decision is to pass the costs of your personal choices onto the larger public. What is really criminal is that I'm subsidizing your use of an automobile that is one of the greatest sources of carbon emissions in this country, occupies the majority of our road space-both in travel and in parking, all while giving me no benefit. Please start paying your fare share!
View this comment in the discussion thread
We need to reclaim the streets of our city, the free river crossing on the 59th street bridge has taken away the streets of LIC and Sunnyside, and the impacts can be felt as far away as Maspeth, Woodside, and Astoria.
The logic of this proposal is well structured and honest, but it might need to provide some assistance for neighborhoods in Queens near transit stops where people will inclined to treat as their new park and ride lot while taking a train or express bus to Manhattan. Residential parking permits would help people that live in these communities, and could also start to reflect the true cost of free parking in this city.
View this comment in the discussion thread