Comments on: The Parking Cure Part 2: Do the Right Tests http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/08/27/the-parking-cure-part-2-do-the-right-tests/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John Kaehny http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/08/27/the-parking-cure-part-2-do-the-right-tests/comment-page-1/#comment-55718 John Kaehny Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:51:22 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=4466#comment-55718 Boris, that's a total fallacy. First, federal funds are not supposed to be used for routine maintenance of roads or bridges. So local maintenance is supposed to be from local funding. (small safety exceptions for remarking crosswalks and lane dividers etc.)But, highways and bridges are eligible for federal "capital maintenance" for rebuilding. NYC let its bridges and overpasses fall apart during the 70's,80's and 90's and has received billions in federal funds to rebuild them. Any city not in compliance with the Clean Air Act has to show the feds it is trying by submitting a plan (the State Implementation Plan SIP.) But this has not kept a dime from getting to the city. Boris, that’s a total fallacy. First, federal funds are not supposed to be used for routine maintenance of roads or bridges. So local maintenance is supposed to be from local funding. (small safety exceptions for remarking crosswalks and lane dividers etc.)But, highways and bridges are eligible for federal “capital maintenance” for rebuilding. NYC let its bridges and overpasses fall apart during the 70′s,80′s and 90′s and has received billions in federal funds to rebuild them. Any city not in compliance with the Clean Air Act has to show the feds it is trying by submitting a plan (the State Implementation Plan SIP.) But this has not kept a dime from getting to the city.

]]> By: Boris http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/08/27/the-parking-cure-part-2-do-the-right-tests/comment-page-1/#comment-55700 Boris Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:48:42 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=4466#comment-55700 I've heard that another legacy of the Clean Air Act is the poor state of our roads. Supposedly, New York City can't get federal money to fix roads (including ostensibly non-city roads that carry interstate or state designations) until it meets Clean Air Act air quality criteria. Of course this causes a vicious cycle, as deteriorating roads cause more traffic jams (and worse air quality). Meanwhile, good roads outside of the city mean there is no incentive for better public transportation. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I’ve heard that another legacy of the Clean Air Act is the poor state of our roads. Supposedly, New York City can’t get federal money to fix roads (including ostensibly non-city roads that carry interstate or state designations) until it meets Clean Air Act air quality criteria. Of course this causes a vicious cycle, as deteriorating roads cause more traffic jams (and worse air quality). Meanwhile, good roads outside of the city mean there is no incentive for better public transportation. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

]]> By: John Kaehny http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/08/27/the-parking-cure-part-2-do-the-right-tests/comment-page-1/#comment-55667 John Kaehny Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:30:02 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=4466#comment-55667 Space did not permit, but Larry correctly identified yet another parking problem. "Accessory" parking is supposed to be restricted to residents, employees and customers of a building. But, there is widespread anecdotal evidence that the parking mgmt companies which run both general use "public" parking and accessory parking allow the general public to park in accessory parking. Oversight of this by the Dept of Consumer Affairs appears lax. Space did not permit, but Larry correctly identified yet another parking problem. “Accessory” parking is supposed to be restricted to residents, employees and customers of a building. But, there is widespread anecdotal evidence that the parking mgmt companies which run both general use “public” parking and accessory parking allow the general public to park in accessory parking. Oversight of this by the Dept of Consumer Affairs appears lax.

]]> By: Larry Littlefield http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/08/27/the-parking-cure-part-2-do-the-right-tests/comment-page-1/#comment-55664 Larry Littlefield Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:25:11 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=4466#comment-55664 The liberalization of parking seems to be based on the notion that residential accessory parking will be used by residents to store their cars for weekend use, probably driving out of the city. Rather than attracting cars from outside the area who have the city as a destination. Does anyone make sure the parking is in fact "accessory," that is only usable by building occupants, rather than being used as paid parking? Methinks there is a lot of non-accessory parking going on. And that this would be illegal. That is also the issue at Atlantic Yards. It's an appropriate site for a large gathering place such as an arena, because it sits on a transit hub. But the project also includes 3,000 parking spaces accessory to the residential units. Would the building owner be lured by the lucrative temptation to rent out the paces to non-residents? The liberalization of parking seems to be based on the notion that residential accessory parking will be used by residents to store their cars for weekend use, probably driving out of the city. Rather than attracting cars from outside the area who have the city as a destination.

Does anyone make sure the parking is in fact “accessory,” that is only usable by building occupants, rather than being used as paid parking? Methinks there is a lot of non-accessory parking going on. And that this would be illegal.

That is also the issue at Atlantic Yards. It’s an appropriate site for a large gathering place such as an arena, because it sits on a transit hub. But the project also includes 3,000 parking spaces accessory to the residential units. Would the building owner be lured by the lucrative temptation to rent out the paces to non-residents?

]]>