Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
49 user(s) are online (26 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 49

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (elsquid)




Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#91
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

Hate to break it to you, but Jersey City is not Manhattan and never will be. It's more akin to Queens, with much higher car ownership rates.

If "the parking bullshit" bothers you so much, you can always move right across the river. As long as we keep getting new developments like the one across from City Hall, ensuring that new residents can park their cars without flooding the streets doesn't bother me in the slightest.


It's totally fair to differentiate JC from Manhattan and compare it to Queens—but of course, similar things are brewing in the "downtowny" parts of Queens, with the NYC administration pushing for lower parking minimums in zones with a decent combination of proximity to trains and lower existing car ownership. (That vast multi-boro plan focuses on various kinds of affordable housing, but the aim is the same: allow more housing for people while attracting fewer cars per capita.)

As for "flooding the streets," I had thought you agreed with me on this:

Build more 1:1 off-street parking now to (maybe) mitigate "flooding" of existing street parking space? = ultimately attract greater percentage of newcomers with cars = worsen the "flooding" of existing street DRIVING space.

You end up with a city full of new parking tributaries to the same old little river.

Parking space can be expanded off-street, but driving space is finite.

Have you been to Downtown Newark lately, the land of a thousand barren, looming parking garages? I work there, in a building with a great view of major roads. Have you tried to drive there at rush hour? Talk about flooding! And that's mostly just 9-5 office buildings. I can't imagine having to drive in a more mixed area like DTJC if it had that much parking skulking around in it, feeding in cars at many times of day. The ... horror.

Here's yet another reason why focusing on "saving" street parking space via minimums, instead of saving driving space by lowering them, is misguided:

Street parking is easier for local government to improve and mitigate by other means, besides expansion. It features static spaces and stationary cars and visible city-issued stickers and such—lots of chess pieces to move. As others have mentioned here, you can change the eligibility rules, raise the fees, shift the times—the kinds of sensible mitigation that Candice Osborne is working on. We should do more of that!

But once cars are in motion, eating up driving space, it's all fluid. It's nearly impossible to segregate them, to grant any grandfathered rights, neighborhood-based rights, or whatever. You're all just basically a blob of traffic.

Urban cyclists like me will get more cycling amenities over time; that demand is only growing.

And we're hardy; we'll hold our breath and thread our way through those bigger and bigger traffic jams. But I'll say it again: It's you, the guy who really needs to drive, who will suffer from them the most.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 15:56
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#92
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Suntime wrote:
While i respect your opinion and i myself lived carless for many years (almost a decade) in jersey city, i can tell you that if you have children, you have to have a car in this city. It is a must. If you want to drive out (no pun intended) all of the families from the city, then go ahead and advocate for a carless/car unfriendly policies. Families make good neighbors and are often the folks who are doing great work to improve the city and its services, keep it clean, supporting local business, volunteering. Quality of life for families is important too.

As a single person, i often didn't enjoy not having a car. I often felt kinda stuck. I like to be able to get out of the city on occasion and take road trips to other places, including visiting family and friends. Let's not fool ourselves - this isn't Europe where there is amazing rail service and other public transport that can easily take you to many different cities and even countries with relative ease. The train is great for nyc area and maybe some parts of jersey, but thats about it. I ofen see many people who grew up in a city and rarely left it - i dont enjoy that lifestyle.


I for one am not arguing that YOU can't have a car, or that many parents and others who find they need cars can't have them.

The policies we're talking about aren't designed to drive you out, they're designed so that the new people we attract are more likely to be those without cars.

That's vital for your sake as much as anyone's, because while off-street parking space can be expanded, on-street driving space can't.

As the city grows, we MUST decrease the per-capita rate of car ownership, or we'll just have more and more people competing to drive more and more cars in the same, finite amount of street space—and ultimately, you, the driver, will suffer as much from that as anyone, maybe more.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 13:08
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#93
Home away from home
Home away from home


Exactly. All other measures for walkability/bikeability/livability of cities are great and necessary, with mass transit being especially in need of improvement around here; however, all those measures are undermined when you simultaneously cater to the car.

Monroe: Why make libertarian/choice arguments here? Love them or hate them, parking minimums aren't the free market, they're government regulation.

And much of car monoculture is supported by huge subsidies from the general tax base, from excessive road construction, to virtually free parking on publicly owned and maintained street space, to wars protecting oil dictatorships ...

This is one thing that always amazes me about the empire of the car: How few people realize that it's actually supported by a perverted socialism, a collection of big-gummint/crony-corporate programs, horribly misdirected to encourage the most destructive mode of land transportation.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 11:43
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#94
Home away from home
Home away from home


Developers' last-minute changes are a totally valid concern, and they happen too often.

But in this case:

--The change requested is one that should be made for the good of the neighborhood, Downtown, and the city. It's intrinsically a good thing, and I don't need some giveback in exchange. I don't care if the developer builds a few more units and makes more money. That's even better. Less parking, more density, both good things for a less car-centric city.

--I can see why any developer, right now, would feel free to ask for this late in the process, because the concept, reducing parking minimums, has been gathering steam around the country. I don't love any last-minute change, and maybe there are some more hoops we should make them jump through. Maybe this should be rejected. But I don't see this a something done in horribly bad faith, rather just reacting to something that's increasingly seen as a win-win for developers and urban neighborhoods. So I think we should try to find a way to accept it, if that can be done without too much violence to law and procedure, setting a bad precedent, etc.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 9:46
Top


Re: Parking garages/lots?
#95
Home away from home
Home away from home


Yvonne, sorry, but showing that cars are necessary for some is an argument for preserving some parking, which everybody here agrees with. It's not an argument for creating more.

Posted on: 2016/2/22 21:07
Top


Re: Parking garages/lots?
#96
Home away from home
Home away from home


Sillyscorp, one way to make neighborhood parking available for those who actually need it is to stop giving away street parking for free. $15/yr is essentially free. Raise it to $50 a year, and signal that it will rise again in future, and some of those with suburban car hangovers will give up their cars, making room for you. That was my story in 1998: I had moved from the burbs and a car-centric job earlier, but it took a while to figure out that having a car was now silly.

Posted on: 2016/2/22 18:37
Top


Re: car accident near Holland Tunnel?
#97
Home away from home
Home away from home


At least one dead, per the Jerz.

Turnpike crash

Posted on: 2016/2/22 18:00
Top


Re: Parking garages/lots?
#98
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

I recently heard that it is now estimated that only 38% of newcomers to DTJC are bringing cars. That 61% stat may be dropping faster than some may think, or want.


Where did that 38% figure come from?

It makes perfect sense, and it's exactly what's supposed to happen.

Less parking per capita leads to larger percentages of new arrivals choosing not to bring one, which furthers that trend. It can also lead to established residents giving up cars, as I did years ago when my last one croaked.

Yvonne isn't nuts to drive here. She needs a car for all the reasons she mentions.

And it seems intuitive to her and others that life behind the wheel will get easier (or get harder more slowly) if we add more parking.

But the truth is just the opposite. The more off-street PARKING space we add (an expandable capacity), the more people like me will own cars without really needing them. And when they drive, it will further diminish our DRIVING space—a finite capacity in a mature urban street grid.

Meanwhile, businesses and other institutions will remain tempted to sprawl out along highways and barren stretches of "arterial" roads reachable most easily by car, instead of nestling into each neighborhood in search of walking and biking customers. It's the latter pattern—actually the pattern on which this city was built, before the car—that we need to encourage, for everyone's sake, including drivers.

This is one of the ironies of the pro-parking lobby: They're cutting off their noses to spite their faces. They can make it marginally easier to park their cars, but only by making it harder to drive.

Posted on: 2016/2/22 16:57
Top


Re: Kennedy Blvd. Any chance for light rail since buses are packed?
#99
Home away from home
Home away from home


We also desperately need to raise the gas tax to reflect the true costs of driving (not a local issue, I know).

Regressive? Yes.

So feel free to dedicate it solely to expenditures that benefit the car-owning low-income workers it hits hardest, including projects that improve the roads they drive on so they're not constantly saddled with car-repair costs.

Posted on: 2016/2/19 12:13
Top


Re: Kennedy Blvd. Any chance for light rail since buses are packed?
Home away from home
Home away from home


There's another HUGE reason why these things don't get built.

You've already noted that the car culture is an obstacle because it hangs on to virtually free street parking space, and utterly free street driving space, like grim death, leaving little room for any other mode in existing right-of-ways.

But it also saps the demand, real and projected, for mass transit.

The streetcar companies knew they could could win public and governmental approval for building their systems, and could then attract riders, because the inland alternatives were walking or horse carriages. Even when cars came in, at first they were for only the wealthy few and not much competition.

Anyone who wants more mass transit in JC needs to make hard choices to move us at least a little closer to that environment again at the same time. We have to stop shoveling so much public money into subsidizing driving and private car ownership.

We should start by doubling the residential parking permit fee to $30, and signaling that it will go up incrementally in the future. That would begin to recoup some of the true cost of our massive street parking giveaway of prime publicly owned and maintained land.

But it would also help create a bigger constituency for the mass transit projects that the city actually needs, and increasingly will need, as it grows.


Posted on: 2016/2/19 11:59
Top


Re: Bike Share System
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCishome wrote:
Thanks elsquid. Anyone have any idea how those numbers match up to the projections?

On a related note, is there interconnectivity between the JC and Hoboken systems? It seems to me I saw some of their bikes in our racks (not to turn this into a Sharks vs. Jets thing).


They are in line with some projections I've heard. Citi Bike JC just announced an expansion, and that would not be happening if the numbers weren't at least adequate by their lights. They originally left expansion conditional on adding a decent number of new members.

Hoboken's bike share (Hudson Bike Share) is completely unrelated. Their parking bikes at JC public racks Downtown has become a bone of contention, as has their individual members' occasionally leaving their bikes in inappropriate places in JC, apparently.

But in fairness, having their bikes in JC does give us the chance to jump on them and ride to Hoboken on a day pass. I actually am an annual member of both, and I'll probably do this on occasion.

Posted on: 2016/2/19 10:35
Top


Re: Bike Share System
Home away from home
Home away from home


Stats from 2015, rounded (from the JC launch September 21 to year-end):

53,000+ trips within Jersey City
4,600 members with JC addresses
1,700 of those are new members since the JC launch

Stats are from Citi Bike JC via the mayor's office.

Posted on: 2016/2/18 16:23
Top


Re: Parking Too Close to Crosswalks
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Not to defend him, but your story is suspect, the geometry fails given where the car was parked. It looks like the car parked on the INSIDE of the turn right at the corner, visible in the photo, is the one that would cause a turning firetruck problems.

The last thing I'd want to do is channel Yvonne, but personally I think the marking of parking spots in the Newark corridor eliminated many spots like this one that should have been legal and had meters. It's silly that the whole island of Pino's Pizza has only 2 legal spots on it. Didn't there used to be 3 meters there on Newark?

Resized Image




Not commenting on any other subject here, but I know that intersection pretty well, and in my opinion the illegal parking on the outside of the turn contributes to the turning problems ... which is why it's illegal. A truck could swing wider around the inside vehicle if it weren't going to hit the outside vehicle. Don't know if it would clear that way, but whatever.

Posted on: 2016/2/17 12:55
Top


Re: Proposed Development at 8th Street/Division
Home away from home
Home away from home


Yeah, I heard something was going in the same general area but on the 7th St., but it could be the same project.

Posted on: 2016/2/12 21:02
Top


Re: Proposed Development at 8th Street/Division
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCman24 wrote:
Not a single NIMBY complaint in this thread, but 75% of the thread replies are complaining about NIMBYs.


It's kind of a thing. YIMBYism, pre-emptively taking the chance to support something reasonably worthy that is normally a target for strident NIMBYism, so as not to let the latter have the first 10,000 words on every subject.

Not that opposing various changes in one's neighborhood is necessarily wrong, but it is often louder and more passionate than arguments for those same changes, which can end up in a very unbalanced debate.

Posted on: 2016/2/12 17:52
Top


Re: Proposed Development at 8th Street/Division
Home away from home
Home away from home


This is a block from my apartment, so I'm thrilled for the opportunity to support it and not be a NIMBY.

It's close to the bus lines and a Citi Bike JC dock on Newark, and it takes a scrappy space at the edge of my elegant old neighborhood without razing anything memorable or sticking out like a sore thumb in the middle of it.

All hail urban infill.


Posted on: 2016/2/11 14:39
Top


Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
Home away from home
Home away from home


The understandable, but faulty, argument made in support of double parking in business strips is that it's just overflow from the customers and suppliers who are single parking. Single isn't enough, so we need double. I don't know for sure about every space on Washington, but that's usually not the case.

In Newark last year, the city put in a protected bike lane on Mount Prospect Avenue, and within months the merchants complained that it stopped the "vital" double parking in front of their businesses. The city was prepared to remove the bike lane.

But with some research by biking advocates, it was discovered that while the DOUBLE parkers were, in fact, mostly customers and vendors, much of the SINGLE parking was being taken up by people parking for many hours days at a time (sometimes illegally), employees parking for whole shifts, and other cars unrelated to the vital "quick stops" the businesses were missing. The city put in meters to make the single parking serve the businesses much better, the longer-term and employee parking migrated to spots in the side streets (which wasn't that hard since resident car commuters were away at work during the day). And all sides agreed to keep the protected bike lane.

Hoboken's plan, developed over 17 months, already provided for more short-term parking for quick stops and deliveries, in advance, in response to earlier input from businesses.

Posted on: 2016/2/11 12:05
Top


Re: Serious accident on Newark Ave near 4th/5th Streets
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JC_User wrote:

But just because there are one or two a-holes that might park along a bump out does not mean that implementing the solution is pointless. It's a numbers game. If a bump out reduces these kinds of parking infractions by even a low 50%, and accidents caused by blocked line of sight by 50%, I would consider them worthwhile.

My vote goes to enforcement AND bump-outs.



Agreed. There are many solutions to improving traffic safety, already proven effective in a wide variety of other places. Most of them will work here, but few of them will reach maximum effectiveness in their earliest low-key trial stages. Let's expand and improve them.

Quote:
Candice Osborne included a trial of bump outs in a presentation on parking (http://www.slideshare.net/candiceosbo ... y-parking-recommendations), does anyone know if there has been any movement on implementing the bump out trial?


We're kinda mixing up "bumpouts" and "daylighting," though they're related concepts that are often implemented together.

We definitely have "daylighting" now, I think in three intersections at present. You can see it at First St. and Erie St. outside Torico's ice cream shop. Those use bollards a ways back from each corner, on either side. Their main focus is to block the illegal parking discussed in this thread, thus improving sight lines at intersections.

I don't know if there are any genuine "bumpouts" in JC yet, not the kind you see in Hoboken. Those are the ones where bollards are placed out directly around the corner, and a few feet out into the intersections, to force traffic around them in a more squared-off turn, while the pedestrian crossing is shortened.

The few bollards right at the corner on, uh, Magnolia I think, near the old Brennan courthouse, might qualify as a true bumpout, though I get the feeling someone just threw those up to stop people from hitting stuff on that already-tight corner.

Posted on: 2016/2/3 16:55

Edited by elsquid on 2016/2/3 17:17:50
Top


Re: Storefronts not shoveled
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
On a purely practical level, the sidewalks around here are often so broken and uneven that bobcat would get wrecked. At least the homeowner knows the idiosyncrasies of his walk.



Interesting point.

Posted on: 2016/1/26 18:19
Top


Re: Storefronts not shoveled
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

mpwJC wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
What fantasy world do people live in where the government would properly enforce compliance of said laws?
Fair point.


It's totally fair to distrust either governments or less-responsible owners, especially since neither really does a great job of it in any city. But then what do you do?

That's why I think some combination of one backing up the other might be best.

Posted on: 2016/1/26 17:55
Top


Re: Storefronts not shoveled
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

You could use this absurd logic to rationalize any action, no matter its effort or expense.

The fact is you are taking a legitimate issue (uncleared sidewalks) and transparently using it as a springboard to push some agenda against our "car-biased culture." Which unfortunately has clouded your thinking and rendered most of your post as emotionally fueled nonsense.

The simple, sober approach, without all the theatrics, is simply to petition the City to hand out more fines towards people who are not complying with the law.


I am absolutely relating it to favoritism toward driving, which it absolutely both partially stems from and concretely perpetuates.

But whatever, you're right, it is a legitimate issue on its own.

I agree with more fines, but that's probably not enough. Big, absentee owners—including some you might not expect, like churches—just absorb fines. What is, it, $110? That barely registers with some developer holding a vacant lot for future development.

That's why I think there needs to be some government backup, with billing to recoup the cost of the work.

This stuff needs to get done. It's a safety issue, not some pie-in-the-sky gummint program.


Posted on: 2016/1/26 17:43
Top


Re: Storefronts not shoveled
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

CatDog wrote:
While we're at it, I don't see why the government doesn't wipe my ass for me. Just another example of our car-biased culture.


That's hilarious! I'm sure the elderly people slipping and breaking hips will see the humor.

Posted on: 2016/1/26 16:51
Top


Re: Storefronts not shoveled
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

caj11 wrote:

I suppose there's some merit to what you say, but what about the fact that a car slipping out of control on an unplowed, icy street is much more a potential death machine than an individual slipping on a sidewalk. Both are safety issues, but cars slipping around on an un-cleared road pose a much greater threat to the general public. Hence the need for the government function. It would be nice if the government did both, but I suppose funds are limited.


A fair point, but here's a counterpoint: After a big snow, some of the damage those death machines most easily and most grievously cause is ... running down pedestrians who are walking in the road—because they have nowhere else to walk. Pedestrians are regularly found dead under piles of melting snow, often in places they wouldn't, and shouldn't, normally walk.

Posted on: 2016/1/26 16:50
Top


Re: Storefronts not shoveled
Home away from home
Home away from home


So EMTs can walk, with some difficulty, through 2 feet of snow. Can they walk, while carrying a patient with a delicate spinal cord injury, through our nearly 3 feet, or 5 feet of plow pile? Maybe, maybe not. Can firefighters in heavy gear get in quickly enough to save a life? Maybe, maybe not.

I would agree that government clearing sidewalks could turn out just to be just as ineffective. But does it? How well does Ottawa work?

I'd be happy with any combination of government and private duty, and maybe some more overlap would work best, as some have suggested (including me), with private responsibility backed by tougher enforcement and penalties, plus a government squad for anything that lasts too long.

The point is, they current system leaves far too many people trapped in their homes for days, or risking their lives just walking around. It needs to be improved.


Posted on: 2016/1/26 16:32
Top


Re: Storefronts not shoveled
Home away from home
Home away from home


Yes, we should hold the responsible parties accountable for not shoveling sidewalks.

But here's a broader question: Why is clearing streets (in every city) a government job, to be done with tax dollars, while clearing sidewalks is the responsibility of thousands of property owners?

It's INEVITABLE that some owners will fail to clear sidewalks, so anyone walking gets the shaft. Maybe there will be a fine, which bigger businesses and institutions will just eat. Maybe the city will come and do it later, if they know about it.

But the streets, for cars to drive in? Ohhhhh, that's sacred. We can't leave that to private citizens. The big metal boxes must get through! Make way! Important people driving!!

Before you tell me that it's all about emergency services using the roads, keep in mind that a first responder going to a call at a residence or business HAS TO USE THE SIDEWALK as well as the street.

Nope. That's not it. It's just yet another hangover of our car-biased culture.

Maybe we should change it.

Let's at least tighten up the whole regime of ticketing and fining as much as possible, to where the city basically says, if it's not done by X o'clock, we send a contracted crew and bill you for all the time at niiiice, hiiiigh union combat wages, with plenty of extra charges for equipment, toe-warmers, and bourbon.

Bet we see a lot more action that way, whether it's private or public.

Posted on: 2016/1/26 15:44
Top


Re: Bike JC Winter Party & Fundraiser Wednesday!
Home away from home
Home away from home


This is tonight! Please join us to help us make biking better in JC in 2016.

Here's the Facebook event page

Posted on: 2016/1/20 11:47
Top


Re: Bike Share System
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Is it the same policy with dropping off bikes between separate boroughs?


No, all NYC bikes can be dropped at any NYC dock. People ride them over the East River bridges all the time.

Posted on: 2016/1/19 14:27
Top


Re: Bike Share System
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Does anybody know if I can hop on a Citibike in JC, jump on a ferry, and ride the Citibike and drop it off near my office in Manhattan? It's not clearly answered in the FAQs on Citibike's page (says you can use it on both sides of the Hudson, but doesn't mention picking up on one side and dropping off on the other).


Nope. You're supposed to use JC bikes in JC, NYC bikes in NYC. There is a Citi Bike JC dock near the Paulus Hook (Colgate) ferry terminal where you can drop off your JC bike.

Posted on: 2016/1/19 13:27
Top


Re: Jersey City tries out 'day lighting' to boost pedestrian safety
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

soulman wrote:
[
Actually the bollards on on 3 of the 4 corners, there is nothing in front of the Burger place,(on First) which is what I was referring to earlier.


No, the burger place is on the one corner, the northeast corner, where daylighting would be LEAST useful.

It is the corner that drivers/cyclists have a clear straight-ahead view of when traveling on either north on Erie or east on First. You pass that spot when you've already driven through the intersection safely. It's not a blind spot. That's why it has no bollards.

Forgive me if I'm not remembering where all the bollards are exactly, but that's the general theory. You particularly want to improve visibility for drivers/cyclists heading into a junction.

On the exiting side, bollards and bumpouts still help pedestrian safety, because they give pedestrians a little buffer zone to stop cars from impinging on crosswalks, etc. And actually, looking at my photos now, I can see one bollard on first on the south side, and east of the junction, thus on the exiting side. That may be an attempt to protect the crosswalk—also good.

Posted on: 2016/1/19 10:21
Top


Re: Jersey City tries out 'day lighting' to boost pedestrian safety
Home away from home
Home away from home


Wait ... as I recall, the bollards by Torico's are on both sides of First approaching Erie, and on both sides of Erie approaching First. That's often how it's done.

You improve visibility across the whole intersection for everyone approaching it.

The ones on the southwest corner help people see cross traffic approaching. And the ones on the other two corners improve drivers'/cyclists' view of pedestrians crossing, and of slow or stopped traffic ahead, as they turn OFF one street onto the other.

There's nothing botched about it.

As for the term "daylighting," I believe it's mostly metaphorical; we're improving sight lines, thus "shedding light" at those corners.

Posted on: 2016/1/19 10:12
Top



TopTop
« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 7 ... 13 »






Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017