Man, this is some next level illegal parking. I figured it was just going to be cops pulling up onto the sidewalk but, nope, everyone on the block pulled ALL the way onto the sidewalk. I've been...
Man, this is some next level illegal parking. I figured it was just going to be cops pulling up onto the sidewalk but, nope, everyone on the block pulled ALL the way onto the sidewalk. I've been in some parts of NY where you'd need a jeep to mount the sidewalk and there's a Pontiac pulled up there! Damn, zero shame. Why even have a sidewalk at that point?
I thought trucks with their beds blocking half the sidewalk was bad enough but that's just crazy to see.
There are some weird comments in here that are really missing the point and jumping on the anti-car band wagon. I'm glad they have resolved this problem, but getting rid of cars in general is just...
There are some weird comments in here that are really missing the point and jumping on the anti-car band wagon. I'm glad they have resolved this problem, but getting rid of cars in general is just not possible.
I live 6 miles from the nearest bus stop (in a small town with maybe 3 buses) and 11 miles from the nearest state wide bus stop (only stops in 8 places in the entire state). If I did not have a car I could not live.
I agree that many are missing the point of the article. It's not that cars suck, it's that the NYPD sucks. (Although I would also love to see fewer cars in NYC and cities in general.)
I agree that many are missing the point of the article. It's not that cars suck, it's that the NYPD sucks. (Although I would also love to see fewer cars in NYC and cities in general.)
It's obnoxious for uniformed public servants to park their automobiles on sidewalks meant for pedestrians. The sense of entitlement is beyond words. I question the premise that every patrol...
It's obnoxious for uniformed public servants to park their automobiles on sidewalks meant for pedestrians. The sense of entitlement is beyond words. I question the premise that every patrol officer needs an SUV or in fact a car at all—my city's bike cops are surprisingly mobile and don't cause this problem. They're also more approachable as human beings, which I find establishes a better perception of public safety than a bunch of half-invisible officers exhibiting a full-blown windshield effect.
It's sad that things only changed when a city council member for the district specifically advocated for this. It shouldn't have taken 40 years. But I'm glad that the city actually did something about the problem.
We really need to just end the practice of parking cars on public streets entirely. We don't let people store any other kind of private property on public streets, but storing cars is just the one...
We really need to just end the practice of parking cars on public streets entirely. We don't let people store any other kind of private property on public streets, but storing cars is just the one weird exception. If I want to build a tiny home on a trailer, and just keep it on the street, that's illegal. If I want to buy a shipping container, store that on the street, and use save money over paying for a storage unit, that is also illegal. If I want to build a little pop up walk-up cafe on the street, that's illegal. But if I want to store my two tons of metal and plastic on the street, suddenly that's my god-given right.
Honestly, you shouldn't even legally be able to own a car if you don't have a place to park it. Can't afford a parking space? Sorry, you are simply too poor to own the luxury of a personal automobile, no different than if you're too poor to afford inspection or registration.
I was with you until the end. Are you American? Existing here without a car is difficult at best, and impossible at worst. What an entitled viewpoint. I've recently invested in a cargo e bike to...
I was with you until the end. Are you American? Existing here without a car is difficult at best, and impossible at worst. What an entitled viewpoint.
I've recently invested in a cargo e bike to haul myself, my kids, and my groceries around, but still have 2 cars that are constantly used. Especially in the winter, where I live, it can get to -20F. I can't realistically walk or bike in that weather, especially with kids.
And public transportation? Ha.
Edit: I want to add that all those downsides are things I want to change. I want better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. I want better public transport. I love my own town for allowing me to use a bike the way I do when the weather is nice.
OP's last paragraph appears to describe Japan's approach to parking, which is honestly really elegant. Japanese cities generally lack on-street parking. Many of their residential streets are...
OP's last paragraph appears to describe Japan's approach to parking, which is honestly really elegant.
Japanese cities generally lack on-street parking. Many of their residential streets are extremely narrow, so if there were cars parked on the street, it would quickly become unliveable. Narrowing already narrow streets even further would be disastrous for all road users, especially for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, and wheelchair users.
Thus, their solution was to let the market decide. Basically, Japanese authorities decided that finding parking spaces wasn't the government's responsibility, but individual owners. The government just ensures owners actually do find one. This is done by requiring proof of parking for those who wish to register cars.
The point of this isn't to prevent people from buying cars. The point is to create a demand, and thus a market, for off-street parking.
Those who want a car but don't have their own off-street parking space then need to find a place that allows them to park their car, thus providing a proof of parking, solving the problem.
Since there is money to be made by offering parking places, enterprising people will usually provide them, at a cost, dependent on the cost of land and construction. This ensures land use is efficiently used. In rural areas, parking is very cheap, in big cities, it is very expensive and may dissuade people from owning cars.
This isn't punishing urban car drivers; it's just about having them pay directly for the cost of the parking for their car. In the US, many don't pay for the true market price of parking, as the demand often far exceeds the supply. This is especially true for dense places such as New York, where the price of parking within the Manhattan grid can be even as low as free. At these rates, parking demand can never be fulfilled — there will always be more car owners who wish to park their car than car spaces that exist.
In the Japanese system, every car has its own off-street parking spot. As such, on-street parking, even if it's allowed, is not much used, since residents always have an off-street parking spot. This system works very well, as there is only as much parking available as car owners are willing to pay for — no more, no less.
If there's great demand for parking spaces and that people are willing to pay a great deal for them, then parking lots or garages spring up. If there is too much parking and parking lot or garage owners can't justify owning that land for parking anymore, they sell to people who want to build houses or apartments instead.
It's even feasible to integrate residential on-street parking into the system. For instance, if there are 60 parking spaces on a block, you can designate 30 for residents only and issue 30 parking permits valid solely for that block. Those exceeding the 30 spots would need to find parking elsewhere, thus ensuring availability for visitors on that block.
Honestly, the Japanese system of parking seems like a really elegant way to mitigate (or even completely avoid) a large number of issues people have with parking.
I'm not saying you can't drive. We'll always need some vehicle capacity, if for delivery of large goods if nothing else. But the public roads should be reserved for active use, not the storage of...
I'm not saying you can't drive. We'll always need some vehicle capacity, if for delivery of large goods if nothing else. But the public roads should be reserved for active use, not the storage of private property. If your mode of transportation isn't actively in motion, whether it's a car, a bicycle, or your own two feet, it doesn't belong on the street. Public space is simply to scarce and limited to be wasted on the storage of private property.
Bike lanes, more sidewalk, more trees for the sidewalks... I could go on... But, I don't agree with the OP necessarily - cars are terrible but fine - but in this case the cars are taking up EVEN...
I don't understand how that space would be better utilized than by offering free public parking.
Bike lanes, more sidewalk, more trees for the sidewalks... I could go on...
But, I don't agree with the OP necessarily - cars are terrible but fine - but in this case the cars are taking up EVEN MORE pedestrian space than they already were. Every day, near my place, I see people parking in the handicap spot and the fire lanes because there's limited parking and zero enforcement. There's plentiful parking one lot over and even more in the back lot but that would mean... WALKING! Ah! Better to inconvenience everyone than just me. Meanwhile, I've had buddies who lived in NYC for years without cars because it's one of the few places in the US that you can. You just have to inconvenience yourself.
Housing. Cities devote more area to parking cars than for living in, which is absurd. The US badly needs urbanization: it should absolutely be costlier to live outside of a dense city and commute...
Housing. Cities devote more area to parking cars than for living in, which is absurd.
The US badly needs urbanization: it should absolutely be costlier to live outside of a dense city and commute in with a car than to live in the city. Cities should be designed for their inhabitants, with public transportation, walkability, multi-purpose zoning and plenty of housing. And there should be a severe economic downside to living in a suburb, including higher vehicular ownership costs and higher property taxes.
Did you read the article we're commenting under? The issue of people parking their cars illegally or in ways that block pedestrian access is in no way unique to that block or NYC.
Did you read the article we're commenting under? The issue of people parking their cars illegally or in ways that block pedestrian access is in no way unique to that block or NYC.
One benefit of getting rid of street parking, however, would be that there is then enough 'lane space' to build buffered bicycle lanes in their place, which would allow children and seniors to...
One benefit of getting rid of street parking, however, would be that there is then enough 'lane space' to build buffered bicycle lanes in their place, which would allow children and seniors to also comfortably cycle.
Who says you can't drive? Businesses can still have parking lots. In areas with lots of demand, private businesses can build parking garages and charge accordingly. We're a capitalist economy. We...
Who says you can't drive? Businesses can still have parking lots. In areas with lots of demand, private businesses can build parking garages and charge accordingly.
We're a capitalist economy. We generally rely on markets to provide for most goods and services. Even the most vital of life's needs, food, shelter, medicine, we rely on the market to figure out the right level of capacity. But parking is an exception to this. Drivers just expect parking to be freely provided to be provided to them, anywhere and everywhere. And because it's free, it's wasted, used inefficiently, a classic tragedy of the commons.
No one is saying you can't have parking anywhere you want. I just don't want the public paying for it. Limited public funds should be spending on those modes of transportation that make the most efficient use of space and funds. The public can get a hell of a lot more utility converting every on-street parking space to bike lanes than they can using that space for the dumping of private property.
In New York City there’s no location you can’t access through public infrastructure. Owning a car is also onerous with congestion pricing (~$20-40 roundtrip fee for use of bridges and tunnels into...
In New York City there’s no location you can’t access through public infrastructure. Owning a car is also onerous with congestion pricing (~$20-40 roundtrip fee for use of bridges and tunnels into Manhattan), alternate-side parking (requires you to move your car twice a week during 8-11am), and long term parking (where alternate-side doesn’t apply) costing >$500/month minimum. This is on top of regular maintenance, gas, insurance, and registration costs.
Cars clog up and slow down legitimate car transit (you’re not in traffic, you are traffic), and parked cars lead to inevitable double parking that blocks entire streets off (ask me how many times I’ve dealt with bull horns blaring in attempt to get a car to move). Cabs are stored in garages, and many Uber drivers live in outer boroughs. The streets belong to the people, which are overwhelmingly pedestrians.
NYC has been making leaps and bounds in improving its bike infrastructure, and bikes have plenty of locations on the sidewalk to lock up without impacting vehicle or pedestrian traffic.
This goes without saying that NYC has the largest subway system in America (and the only 24/7 system in the world), along with commuter rails for the entire metro area.
Before anyone points out that the rest of the US is shamefully car-dependent, this article is specific to NYC and in my opinion there is no excuse to needing regular parking spots that can’t already be fulfilled with existing infrastructure. I’m tired of hearing people from Queens complain about how long it takes to drive into the city and find parking when it’s an entirely self-created problem.
The place you visit can provide parking facilities. They can then either charge the cost to you, or bake it in to their other prices. Rather than billing it to the taxpayer.
The place you visit can provide parking facilities. They can then either charge the cost to you, or bake it in to their other prices. Rather than billing it to the taxpayer.
It doesn’t. What it does result in is a couple of multi level parking facilities being built that serve a large area, more walkable streets, and less people driving, since they now have to pay...
It doesn’t. What it does result in is a couple of multi level parking facilities being built that serve a large area, more walkable streets, and less people driving, since they now have to pay market rate for the space.
in theory, yes. But in practice, so many lobbies in the US have their hands in the pot that these laws will be toothless and also incredibly anti-consumer.
in theory, yes. But in practice, so many lobbies in the US have their hands in the pot that these laws will be toothless and also incredibly anti-consumer.
in the description of that video they thank Donald Shoup, and cite as a source his The High Cost of Free Parking: I think the video you linked is actually making @Octofox's point...
It is structured as a criticism of the planning and regulation of parking and recommends that parking be built and allocated according to its fair market value.
I think the video you linked is actually making @Octofox's point...
One upside to on-street parking is that it acts as a traffic-calming measure which makes drivers slow down. That said, most everywhere would do better to replace on-street parking with biking...
One upside to on-street parking is that it acts as a traffic-calming measure which makes drivers slow down. That said, most everywhere would do better to replace on-street parking with biking infrastructure.
This is true, though the same effect can be done with a small concrete barrier; we can use the rest of the space for, say, a bicycle lane or a wider sidewalk or street trees. Trees in particular...
This is true, though the same effect can be done with a small concrete barrier; we can use the rest of the space for, say, a bicycle lane or a wider sidewalk or street trees. Trees in particular create a kind of enclosure on the street that subliminally slows down drivers even more.
Since not all street parking is necessarily in use all the time, it doesn't necessarily calm traffic as effectively as permanent infrastructure. Of course, this depends on the area.
Something about having wheels and its own engine gives a hunk of metal special privileges in large parts of the world. I wonder if parking an RV would be illegal? Just live there.
Something about having wheels and its own engine gives a hunk of metal special privileges in large parts of the world.
I wonder if parking an RV would be illegal? Just live there.
Man, this is some next level illegal parking. I figured it was just going to be cops pulling up onto the sidewalk but, nope, everyone on the block pulled ALL the way onto the sidewalk. I've been in some parts of NY where you'd need a jeep to mount the sidewalk and there's a Pontiac pulled up there! Damn, zero shame. Why even have a sidewalk at that point?
I thought trucks with their beds blocking half the sidewalk was bad enough but that's just crazy to see.
There are some weird comments in here that are really missing the point and jumping on the anti-car band wagon. I'm glad they have resolved this problem, but getting rid of cars in general is just not possible.
I live 6 miles from the nearest bus stop (in a small town with maybe 3 buses) and 11 miles from the nearest state wide bus stop (only stops in 8 places in the entire state). If I did not have a car I could not live.
I agree that many are missing the point of the article. It's not that cars suck, it's that the NYPD sucks. (Although I would also love to see fewer cars in NYC and cities in general.)
It's obnoxious for uniformed public servants to park their automobiles on sidewalks meant for pedestrians. The sense of entitlement is beyond words. I question the premise that every patrol officer needs an SUV or in fact a car at all—my city's bike cops are surprisingly mobile and don't cause this problem. They're also more approachable as human beings, which I find establishes a better perception of public safety than a bunch of half-invisible officers exhibiting a full-blown windshield effect.
It's sad that things only changed when a city council member for the district specifically advocated for this. It shouldn't have taken 40 years. But I'm glad that the city actually did something about the problem.
We really need to just end the practice of parking cars on public streets entirely. We don't let people store any other kind of private property on public streets, but storing cars is just the one weird exception. If I want to build a tiny home on a trailer, and just keep it on the street, that's illegal. If I want to buy a shipping container, store that on the street, and use save money over paying for a storage unit, that is also illegal. If I want to build a little pop up walk-up cafe on the street, that's illegal. But if I want to store my two tons of metal and plastic on the street, suddenly that's my god-given right.
Honestly, you shouldn't even legally be able to own a car if you don't have a place to park it. Can't afford a parking space? Sorry, you are simply too poor to own the luxury of a personal automobile, no different than if you're too poor to afford inspection or registration.
I was with you until the end. Are you American? Existing here without a car is difficult at best, and impossible at worst. What an entitled viewpoint.
I've recently invested in a cargo e bike to haul myself, my kids, and my groceries around, but still have 2 cars that are constantly used. Especially in the winter, where I live, it can get to -20F. I can't realistically walk or bike in that weather, especially with kids.
And public transportation? Ha.
Edit: I want to add that all those downsides are things I want to change. I want better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. I want better public transport. I love my own town for allowing me to use a bike the way I do when the weather is nice.
OP's last paragraph appears to describe Japan's approach to parking, which is honestly really elegant.
Japanese cities generally lack on-street parking. Many of their residential streets are extremely narrow, so if there were cars parked on the street, it would quickly become unliveable. Narrowing already narrow streets even further would be disastrous for all road users, especially for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, and wheelchair users.
Thus, their solution was to let the market decide. Basically, Japanese authorities decided that finding parking spaces wasn't the government's responsibility, but individual owners. The government just ensures owners actually do find one. This is done by requiring proof of parking for those who wish to register cars.
The point of this isn't to prevent people from buying cars. The point is to create a demand, and thus a market, for off-street parking.
Those who want a car but don't have their own off-street parking space then need to find a place that allows them to park their car, thus providing a proof of parking, solving the problem.
Since there is money to be made by offering parking places, enterprising people will usually provide them, at a cost, dependent on the cost of land and construction. This ensures land use is efficiently used. In rural areas, parking is very cheap, in big cities, it is very expensive and may dissuade people from owning cars.
This isn't punishing urban car drivers; it's just about having them pay directly for the cost of the parking for their car. In the US, many don't pay for the true market price of parking, as the demand often far exceeds the supply. This is especially true for dense places such as New York, where the price of parking within the Manhattan grid can be even as low as free. At these rates, parking demand can never be fulfilled — there will always be more car owners who wish to park their car than car spaces that exist.
In the Japanese system, every car has its own off-street parking spot. As such, on-street parking, even if it's allowed, is not much used, since residents always have an off-street parking spot. This system works very well, as there is only as much parking available as car owners are willing to pay for — no more, no less.
If there's great demand for parking spaces and that people are willing to pay a great deal for them, then parking lots or garages spring up. If there is too much parking and parking lot or garage owners can't justify owning that land for parking anymore, they sell to people who want to build houses or apartments instead.
It's even feasible to integrate residential on-street parking into the system. For instance, if there are 60 parking spaces on a block, you can designate 30 for residents only and issue 30 parking permits valid solely for that block. Those exceeding the 30 spots would need to find parking elsewhere, thus ensuring availability for visitors on that block.
Honestly, the Japanese system of parking seems like a really elegant way to mitigate (or even completely avoid) a large number of issues people have with parking.
Many times parking space arguments lead to serious fights and even murder. It is a serious issue.
I'm not saying you can't drive. We'll always need some vehicle capacity, if for delivery of large goods if nothing else. But the public roads should be reserved for active use, not the storage of private property. If your mode of transportation isn't actively in motion, whether it's a car, a bicycle, or your own two feet, it doesn't belong on the street. Public space is simply to scarce and limited to be wasted on the storage of private property.
Bike lanes, more sidewalk, more trees for the sidewalks... I could go on...
But, I don't agree with the OP necessarily - cars are terrible but fine - but in this case the cars are taking up EVEN MORE pedestrian space than they already were. Every day, near my place, I see people parking in the handicap spot and the fire lanes because there's limited parking and zero enforcement. There's plentiful parking one lot over and even more in the back lot but that would mean... WALKING! Ah! Better to inconvenience everyone than just me. Meanwhile, I've had buddies who lived in NYC for years without cars because it's one of the few places in the US that you can. You just have to inconvenience yourself.
Hi from NYC. I haven't owned a car since 2005.
Housing. Cities devote more area to parking cars than for living in, which is absurd.
The US badly needs urbanization: it should absolutely be costlier to live outside of a dense city and commute in with a car than to live in the city. Cities should be designed for their inhabitants, with public transportation, walkability, multi-purpose zoning and plenty of housing. And there should be a severe economic downside to living in a suburb, including higher vehicular ownership costs and higher property taxes.
Did you read the article we're commenting under? The issue of people parking their cars illegally or in ways that block pedestrian access is in no way unique to that block or NYC.
One benefit of getting rid of street parking, however, would be that there is then enough 'lane space' to build buffered bicycle lanes in their place, which would allow children and seniors to also comfortably cycle.
What if you go visit some place in a car ?
Should you just not park there then?
Who says you can't drive? Businesses can still have parking lots. In areas with lots of demand, private businesses can build parking garages and charge accordingly.
We're a capitalist economy. We generally rely on markets to provide for most goods and services. Even the most vital of life's needs, food, shelter, medicine, we rely on the market to figure out the right level of capacity. But parking is an exception to this. Drivers just expect parking to be freely provided to be provided to them, anywhere and everywhere. And because it's free, it's wasted, used inefficiently, a classic tragedy of the commons.
No one is saying you can't have parking anywhere you want. I just don't want the public paying for it. Limited public funds should be spending on those modes of transportation that make the most efficient use of space and funds. The public can get a hell of a lot more utility converting every on-street parking space to bike lanes than they can using that space for the dumping of private property.
In New York City there’s no location you can’t access through public infrastructure. Owning a car is also onerous with congestion pricing (~$20-40 roundtrip fee for use of bridges and tunnels into Manhattan), alternate-side parking (requires you to move your car twice a week during 8-11am), and long term parking (where alternate-side doesn’t apply) costing >$500/month minimum. This is on top of regular maintenance, gas, insurance, and registration costs.
Cars clog up and slow down legitimate car transit (you’re not in traffic, you are traffic), and parked cars lead to inevitable double parking that blocks entire streets off (ask me how many times I’ve dealt with bull horns blaring in attempt to get a car to move). Cabs are stored in garages, and many Uber drivers live in outer boroughs. The streets belong to the people, which are overwhelmingly pedestrians.
NYC has been making leaps and bounds in improving its bike infrastructure, and bikes have plenty of locations on the sidewalk to lock up without impacting vehicle or pedestrian traffic.
This goes without saying that NYC has the largest subway system in America (and the only 24/7 system in the world), along with commuter rails for the entire metro area.
Before anyone points out that the rest of the US is shamefully car-dependent, this article is specific to NYC and in my opinion there is no excuse to needing regular parking spots that can’t already be fulfilled with existing infrastructure. I’m tired of hearing people from Queens complain about how long it takes to drive into the city and find parking when it’s an entirely self-created problem.
The place you visit can provide parking facilities. They can then either charge the cost to you, or bake it in to their other prices. Rather than billing it to the taxpayer.
It doesn’t. What it does result in is a couple of multi level parking facilities being built that serve a large area, more walkable streets, and less people driving, since they now have to pay market rate for the space.
in theory, yes. But in practice, so many lobbies in the US have their hands in the pot that these laws will be toothless and also incredibly anti-consumer.
in the description of that video they thank Donald Shoup, and cite as a source his The High Cost of Free Parking:
I think the video you linked is actually making @Octofox's point...
One upside to on-street parking is that it acts as a traffic-calming measure which makes drivers slow down. That said, most everywhere would do better to replace on-street parking with biking infrastructure.
This is true, though the same effect can be done with a small concrete barrier; we can use the rest of the space for, say, a bicycle lane or a wider sidewalk or street trees. Trees in particular create a kind of enclosure on the street that subliminally slows down drivers even more.
Since not all street parking is necessarily in use all the time, it doesn't necessarily calm traffic as effectively as permanent infrastructure. Of course, this depends on the area.
Something about having wheels and its own engine gives a hunk of metal special privileges in large parts of the world.
I wonder if parking an RV would be illegal? Just live there.
Some cities have basically done this in my area. Parking an Rv is illegal on most streets for "safety" when it was actually backed by NIMBYs.