Comments on: T.A. Urges Bloomberg Admin to Take the Lead in Parking Reform

By: MKII

MKII — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:04:50 +0000

A few further related initiatives to make New York more livable:

- reduce on-street parking (some streets should only have parking on one side of the street, and others should have no parking at all)

- widen sidewalks again

- convert select streets and areas into pedestrian-only zones (deliveries only at limited hours)

- replace buses with modern light rail systems (quiet, fast, clean, smooth ride) on dedicated lanes so that they do not need to compete with other traffic

- enforce traffic rules properly against automobiles, trucks, and bicycles

- ban horn-blowing (except in emergency)

- ban loud vehicles (for example, motorcycles intentionally modified to make their engines louder)

- tax gasoline much higher nationwide (up to $8/gallon or more) and use the income to improve public transit and for various environmental programs

By: Susan Donovan

Susan Donovan — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:41:31 +0000

That link didn't work, Jeffrey. But I'll try to find it on google.

By: JK

JK — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:42:34 +0000

Green Grass: Agreed that congestion pricing was/is bolder than these parking changes and that one opportunity cost of it failing was top NYC planners were not looking at parking. That helps explain why NYC is behind, and is a reason to believe we can catch up. Only time will tell if SF and Chicago will balk when curbside prices get to a certain level. But both cities are making an explicit commitment to basing prices on curbside vacancy targets, and doing it on a large scale. They are also both speaking explicitly of parking as a form of congestion pricing. Whereas NYC is soft-selling parking pricing as better curb management tool. That's sensible, but it maybe another cost of congestion pricing losing here. (An important note, that should have been mentioned in the piece, is that Chicago's plan can still get defeated in City Council. But if it passes, the private operator will be able to raise parking prices in ways previously thought politically impossible.)

By: Greener Grass

Greener Grass — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:27:24 +0000

I imagine that the fact that SF and these other cities are doing more on parking policy than New York has a lot to do with the fact that NYC had its best planners spending the last two years trying to do more than "get their toe in the water" with congestion pricing. Which place is more ambitious or cutting edge in that light?

I think the jury is still out on the "magnitude" of the effectiveness of small-increment price changes for curb parking in any of these cities, and on the political will to jack prices to transportation-changing levels.

By: JK

JK — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:25:26 +0000

It's hard to emphasize enough the magnitude of the parking changes that San Francisco and Chicago are contemplating. It's potentially transformational, like Velibe, but for parking. When it comes to curbside parking reform, these cities are taking the plunge and NYC is putting a little toe in the water.

By: Jeffrey Hymen

Jeffrey Hymen — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:17:23 +0000

Susan, check out (bottom of page) how the Washington Nationals are pricing their parking lots: http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/was/ballpark/parking.jsp. If fans want to park right next to the stadium, they must purchase parking in advance (less idling) and pay $40. But if said fan is willing to park right off the highway, parking is $25 less.

By: Susan Donovan

Susan Donovan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:49:51 +0000

This would be great for our "game day parking" problem near Yankee Stadium!