Does ensuring turnover, so that paying customers have a place to park for when they come in, buy something, and leave, come under "ease congestion"? That's certainly an actual purpose in the rest of the world (including places that have time limits enforced by parking enforcement but not meters.)

Wait, are we still talking about this?

I think the real point though is not that curbside parking is cheaper than a parking lot, but that it should be put to a better use.

And I think some pedestrians get so scared of/startled by bikes because bikes are much more nimble and unpredictable than cars.

http://homepage.mac.com/trorb/BikeTV/iMovieTheater67.html

Happy holidays and may NYC have a $90/year Bike Station (with showers, lockers and bike repair services) at a transit hub near you in '07.

I agree with you that there should be more metered car parking and higher fees, but I guess this debate began when I also stated that bikes (private property) should be likewise charged for use of public space.

Yeah, Greg, time to leave this interesting debate, keep up your efforts, and Season's Greetings to you both.

And, to repeat back to you your own words as I leave this debate:

"So, it makes me question all the other assumptions posted here, since simple math contradicts your most basic assumptions."

I said $200 was for downtown, where I work, not Madison Avenue.

Greg, I was rushing when I did those calculations and I erroneously compared apples to oranges, ie. built indoor retail space compared to street parking. Sory.

Let's compare identical fruits.

Indoor parking in Manhattan is about $500/month, average. Outdoor parking in a lot is about half that, $250.

Curbside parking charges $10 per day ($1/hr for 10 hours),or $300 per month.

And that is only for 10 hours, while the attended vehicles at $250/month get 24 hours of parking and not just 10 hours, and insurance for damages, and less vandalism and an attendant and a reserved space.

A much better deal than metered parking, no matter what keeps getting repeated on this blog.

"The first parking meter was introduced in Oklahoma City in 1935. After a trial run, meters were introduced in New York City on Sept. 19, 1951, to ease congestion — and provide revenue."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/nyregion/21parking.html?ref=nyregion

A metered, on-street parking space is pretty much the best deal in town (aside from free curbside parking space, of course). Why bother renting an apartment anymore? Just buy a Ford Expedition, park it in a nice neighborhood, and live in it. Hell, put a bike rack on the back of the SUV and you never even have to move the truck except for street cleaning.

If you assume a car consumes around 60 sq ft of space (pretty conservative given some of the beastly SUVs I see around), then:

Assuming metered parking is in effect 10 hours per day, 6 days per week (per your own assumptions)

$1 per hour works out to:

$1 / 60 =~ .017 / 100 = 1.7 cents

1.7 cents per sq ft per hour
17 cents per sq ft per day
$1.02 per sq ft per week
$4.08 per sq ft per month
$53 per sq ft per year

Given that many meters charge as little as 25 cents per hour, those figures drop to

.4 cents per sq ft per hour
4 cents per sq ft per day
24 cents per sq ft per week
96 cents per sq ft per month
$12.48 per sq ft per year

Should I do the calculations for the huge amount of free parking I see in many NYC neighborhoods?

0 cents per sq ft per hour
0 cents per sq ft per day
0 cents per sq ft per month
0 cents per sq ft per year

Also, comparing public high demand space to a store front is ridiculous.

$200/sq ft per year is considered a good price for built indoor retail space in downtown Manhattan

However, at $1 per hour, meters charge for the 10 hours/day (9am -7pm average), six days a week, for 52 weeks over $3000 per annum.

That is 15 times the $200.

So, I don't understand why folks on this Blog continue to say that motorists are getting a bargain.

Tiffany's at Fifth and 57th doesn't pay $3000 per year!

So, it makes me question all the other assumptions posted here, since simple math contradicts your most basic assumptions.

However,since cars must feed about a dollar an hour to rent space, would cyclists with their smaller vehicles be willing to pay a fraction of a dollar, say 25¢ per hour, or is bike parking an inalienable right and not taxable?

Just curious, George.

Yes, I agree! I posted this as one example of what form it could take. One thing particularly good about this: it is amazingly cheap compared to pouring concrete and it can be easily removed and experimented with and expanded with small bumpers and could be started tomorrow.

Space taken from parked cars and given over to peds, bikes, trees, or frogs should be celebrated. Frankly, I can't wait for the DOT's press conference on this cause I'll bet alot of folks will show up to thank them and say "I thought I would never live to see this day."

C

But I find the distinction of whether the bikes are parked at the same elevation as the cars, or on a platform 4" higher, to be totally academic. Either way, it is a gain for both cyclists and pedestrians when space is reclaimed from parking, so that the bikes can be accomodated while removing them from the ped's realm.

Can everyone agree on that?

YUP HERE: http://youtube.com/watch?v=mLFqriNaqgI

It's from the half hour film I did this Fall on Portland, OR which I hope to start showing around in its entire-ty. It will blow your minds what they are doing out there....

ALSO: With all the discussion going on about Chicago, another small clip from that same Portland film of crosswalk enforcement actions they do: http://www.nycsr.org/nyc/video-view.php?id=45