Browsing this Thread:
3 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49 Last Login : 2018/6/12 15:20 From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
844
 |
Quote:
That's great. I didn't see this when I posted below.
Posted on: 2016/2/11 17:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49 Last Login : 2018/6/12 15:20 From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
844
|
Quote:
Exactly! Its illegal, regardless of it being "institutionalized". What they should be trying to get it short term parking zones - like 15 mins. WITH ENFORCEMENT. That would increase turnover at some of the meters (those in the new "15 min" zones I'm suggesting. I don't think they should push to make double parking "legal" - that's a slippery slope because I don't think you can make it legal only on 1 street. It would likely have to be applied city wide, and not a precedent we should set in this area (many in JC would try to adopt this if Hoboken does it).
Posted on: 2016/2/11 17:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 17:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
JerseyCityFrankie nailed it, well said.
Let's be honest, Hoboken doesn't have a problem with a lack of available parking, it's problem is too many people who have cars. Do I think they should remove existing parking spaces to accommodate a bike lane, absolutely not - that's just stupid. However, it's not like a bike lane is ever going to stop people from double parking, but to a few, it will make them think twice, especially if the police actually enforce the laws that they are being paid to enforce. I don't know if I totally agree with the topic of making double parking legal, that might only lead to triple parking.
Posted on: 2016/2/11 14:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
What do you know ? The stores owners still don't care for it .
Hanging out in front, sitting on chairs, and kids riding on their skooters eating ice cream from Torico's not helping the stores at all. At night it is a different story for the restaurants that have some where to throw out the drunks, and so they sit and wait to throw up on the tables.
Posted on: 2016/2/11 13:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The more I read about this story the more I realize its a story about Double Parking in Hoboken. It is not a bike lane story and has almost nothing at all to do with cycling or bike safety or the rights of the bike riding public. Its funny the Hoboken issue isn't framed AS a double parking issue, the bike lane is the straw man for the real issue at stake- which is that the merchants feel that Double Parking is their lifeline. Without it, they feel their businesses will die. Everyone knows it is illegal and this fact is not mentioned at all in any of the articles I have read about this issue. It is the elephant in the room. The merchants SHOULD be advocating for Legal Double Parking. If Double Parking is their life line then they need to bring it out of the grey area of parking legality and fight for its acceptance as a legal certainty. Then it will be up to City Hall to decide if its a legal tolerable practice. Blaming the bike riders for an issue that centers on illegal double parking is an unfair rap to hang on the cyclists, all they want is a survivable asphalt environment to exist in.
Posted on: 2016/2/11 12:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I will be honest, when I made that comment, I thought this was about actual parking spaces. But once I realized what was going on, it was obvious that it's a distinction without a difference. For all intents and purposes, these are actual parking spaces that will be eliminated and it's a big part of the reason why the business owners are up in arms.
Posted on: 2016/2/11 7:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Hoboken business owners enraged over bike lane placement in redevelopment planThe Hoboken City Council held a special meeting to discuss the Washington Street Redevelopment Plan proposed by T&M Design Group, where the majority of business owners blasted the plan for its placement of bike lanes. Read more: http://hudsoncountyview.com/hoboken-b ... nt-in-redevelopment-plan/
Posted on: 2016/2/11 3:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
Joined:
2016/2/10 20:06 Last Login : 2016/6/29 13:16 From the village/jc!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
2
|
Jersey City has plenty of bike lanes and I haven't seen one single truck or car have any difficulty doubleparking along Columbus, Grove, etc. So what's the problem again?
Posted on: 2016/2/10 20:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Every time I walk around the pedestrian plaza on Newark, I wonder what those business owners who fought against the plaza are thinking now? Before the plaza, I had never seen Newark Ave so lively, the businesses so full of customers. No, business owners do not always know what's best for them. http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewt ... order=DESC&status=&mode=0
Posted on: 2016/2/10 14:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Posted on: 2016/2/10 10:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
Just checked the website title and yes this is JERSEYCITYLIST and not HOBOKENLIST
Posted on: 2016/2/10 4:47
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2014/9/16 19:15 Last Login : 2019/2/27 14:41 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
500
|
Quote:
It's disingenuous to leave out an adjective, but completely acceptable to outright lie about the loss of actual parking spaces? You disappoint me.
Posted on: 2016/2/10 4:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
And thank you for summing up the alternate position of, sure all the research points to you being correct, but F that I'm sticking with my position anyway because who needs to base their opinions on actual data.
Posted on: 2016/2/10 2:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Evidently, many people, as evidenced by the 150+ people who strongly spoke out against the proposed bike lanes. If you actually read the article, you'd see that another huge concern is that these business owners receive deliveries from people who double park, and would have a much harder time accepting these deliveries if the bike lanes went through. Quote:
You clearly haven't understood the point about Two Boots. I never said the owner was wrong to think that food trucks were hurting his business. In fact, I think he's probably right about that. My huge issues stem from: (1) he played a very vocal, active, and I believe instrumental role in getting the food trucks banned, (2) he pretends he had minimal involvement when speaking to people on this forum who are upset, and (3) he pretends this ban is actually a good thing for the residents of Jersey City. It is his (and the others who signed the petition) right to use the government to achieve his ends just as it is the right of others to call him out on it (because it harmed consumers) and boycott him. Similarly, these Hoboken business owners know their business a lot better than you. It is their right to lobby the government for their purposes, and since I don't see how it harms consumers, I have no issue with what they want. If you really thought this was such a bad thing for consumers, you could complain and call for a boycott too. See how that works? It's really not that difficult to understand. Quote: Nope, I've got no need for big government Republicans giving my money to rich dudes for endless Middle Eastern wars, pushing their big government agendas into my pants, or using their big government drug laws to rack up prison bills for the nation and drive up crime by creating career criminals. I'd rather have big government give me health care, and infrastructure. But that's an argument for another thread. Agreed this is an argument for another thread but thanks for confirming I was right about the "progressive" thought process.
Posted on: 2016/2/10 2:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I heard and interview with an urbanist who says if you can't find parking, it's priced too cheaply. It should be raised till there's always at least 1 vacant spot on a block for the person who REALLY needs to park there. Demand pricing works for Uber & the airlines.
But the whole discussion is ridiculous, it's already illegal to double park. Why should striping a bike lane change anyone's behavior, including the cops, who do not get along with the mayor.
Posted on: 2016/2/10 1:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/1/3 19:12 Last Login : 2020/9/30 18:46 From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
2391
|
Hoboken is one of the densest zip codes in the country, with tremendous public transit, which makes it completely absurd that people continue to make parking in Hoboken such an issue. Get rid of your damn car if you live in Hoboken. Unless you work in the far away suburbs (which I don't know why you'd choose to live in Hoboken in that case), or are disabled, why have a car in a place like Hoboken? Where the heck are all these people driving to on a regular basis that it's worth the actual daily headache and cost? Paramus to go shopping, or something? Get a Zipcar once a month or take an Uber even. Or do what most urban dwellers do and take a train to 5th Avenue or Soho, or Century 21, or anywhere, to go shopping. Newport Mall even.
I understand that there will always be some people who reverse commute, or work in industries that are typically located in suburbia (like Pharma, for example) and may still want to live a city life, but isn't the point of living in the urban core, working in the urban core and not having to worry about driving?
Posted on: 2016/2/10 1:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I'll add that Washington probably isn't the best place for a bike lane, partly because of the high traffic, and definitely because of Big Guy's point below about the angular parking.
This is an actually good argument against the bike lane which makes sense. Your argument about the omnipotence of the business owners opposed to it based off of "well they said it would hurt and that's based off of them saying it" is just plain stupid. Quote:
Posted on: 2016/2/10 1:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Quote:
Some business owners in Jersey City were railing against food trucks saying they were hurting business. Were they wrong? Apparently you thought they were. Apparently you know how to run those businesses better than the owners. Or were they right? Maybe you need to get your story straight about whether business owners are infallible. Quote: You, who has absolutely no connection to an affected business owner Quote: So tell me, was I right? Any intention of voting Republican in 2016? Because I highly doubt it.
Posted on: 2016/2/10 1:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
To JCMan8's point about parking.... on the northside of Washington it is angular parking... it makes little sense to only run a bike lane halfway down the street. Obviously from a bike safety view you can't have those combustible engine machines backing into bike paths, unable to see riders pedaling along at 15 or 20 mph. Also curious how many of these riders would obey the traffic signals on Washington. It hard enough to make cars and pedestrians obey the traffic controls.
Posted on: 2016/2/10 1:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You are citing survey data from other cities and trying to apply it to Hoboken. Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds? Especially given Hoboken's acute lack of parking. If you read the article, City Hall was packed with business owners who were strongly against the bike lanes, claiming it would severely harm their business. You, who has absolutely no connection to an affected business owner, are basically responding by saying these business owners don't know what's good for them. And that you, someone with absolutely no stake in the matter, know what's best and the bike lanes should be installed. Do you understand how paternalistic and ridiculous that sounds? I admit I made a leap by characterizing you as a "progressive," but that's because the arrogance and absurdity you are displaying here is a hallmark of "progressive" politics. So tell me, was I right? Any intention of voting Republican in 2016? Because I highly doubt it.
Posted on: 2016/2/10 0:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Business owners (in this case) think a majority of their customers come from cars. Business owners are wrong about that. A majority of their customers come from pedestrians and bikes. Business owners that rail against "argh bikes, liberals, blah blah" end up shooting themselves in the foot by making it more difficult to their customers. Besides, whether or not a bike lane gets made is not someone "telling you how to run your business." Did that help you understand?
Posted on: 2016/2/10 0:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yes, I suppose you are right, and when places like San Francisco and Jersey City banned chain stores, there was no political motive there. Simply a local government making decisions that are "fully within their domain." Please, were you born yesterday?
Posted on: 2016/2/9 23:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
Posted on: 2016/2/9 23:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I lived in Hoboken as a child, double parking is a way of life. No one argue over this, you just moved your car if you were blocking someone.
Posted on: 2016/2/9 22:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Very disingenuous of you. You capitalized illegal but left out the more important part from the article. "Illegal but institutionalized." So yeah, they are removing spaces people park in, in a town that's already almost impossible to find parking in, so they can accommodate bike riders who won't shop and make up the difference. They have every reason to be upset.
Posted on: 2016/2/9 22:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49 Last Login : 2018/6/12 15:20 From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
844
|
Quote:
Um, no. They are only narrowing the wider through lanes that allow space for ILLEGAL double parking. These are not "parking spaces".
Posted on: 2016/2/9 21:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Thank you for so eloquently describing the paternalism embodied behind most "progressive" policies. Who cares if you own a business? I know how to run it better than you. This is for your own good.
Posted on: 2016/2/9 21:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
What a fiasco. So backward.
Posted on: 2016/2/9 21:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
 Geary merchants believe that 54 percent of their customers arrive by car, though the actual number is 22 percent, according to a recent SFCTA survey [PDF 1, 2] of 569 businesses on Geary and 295 businesses on Clement Street. Additionally, shoppers who arrived without cars visited businesses more frequently than those who arrived by car. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/08/01/ ... rking-obsessed-merchants/ Often businesses overestimate how many people arrive by driving. This notion plays out again and again in cities across North America. The reality for a mixed-use retail street is often that the majority of business patrons are people who arrive by walking, cycling and using transit. Moreover, research shows that people who walk and cycle often shop more often and spend more overall than people who drive, who often make large lump sum purchases. This means that by encouraging more people to walk and cycle, a business can also encourage a steadier stream of cash-flow. It is to the detriment of businesses to neglect the need for a safe, comfortable and inviting experience for the majority of people who shop by walking, cycling and using transit. https://slowstreets.wordpress.com/2016 ... ness-case-for-bike-lanes/ In short, the businesses often shoot themselves in the foot by insisting on making is easier for cars at the expense of bikes and cars. Just because you own and run a business doesn't mean you actually know what is going to be best. Research has shown, repeatedly, that making it easier for bikes and pedestrians is better for business.
Posted on: 2016/2/9 21:35
|
|||
|
||||