dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:

That was exactly my point.
Big carfree cities are not realistic. However, carfree neighborhood/area should be created and mass transportation infrastructure should be developed to decrease the reliance on cars.

Agree in full. The ped plaza (and before that, turning Newark Ave. into a fire road through Grove Plaza) is a good start on making the densest areas car-free, at least at some hours.

Neighborhood streets in Amsterdam and other cities in northern Europe, while they do allow cars, often have segments carved out of them that are totally car-free. These serve as short-cuts for bikes and peds. I would welcome that solution for, say, Downtown JC, rather than trying to make whole streets or neighborhoods completely car-free, at least in the near future.

But hey, if you can get my Hamilton Park neighborhood to be completely car-free, I ain't mad at ya!

Closing off the local streets adjacent to schools during school hours would be a great start.

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:

That was exactly my point.
Big carfree cities are not realistic. However, carfree neighborhood/area should be created and mass transportation infrastructure should be developed to decrease the reliance on cars.

Agree in full. The ped plaza (and before that, turning Newark Ave. into a fire road through Grove Plaza) is a good start on making the densest areas car-free, at least at some hours.

Neighborhood streets in Amsterdam and other cities in northern Europe, while they do allow cars, often have segments carved out of them that are totally car-free. These serve as short-cuts for bikes and peds. I would welcome that solution for, say, Downtown JC, rather than trying to make whole streets or neighborhoods completely car-free, at least in the near future.

But hey, if you can get my Hamilton Park neighborhood to be completely car-free, I ain't mad at ya!

manu wrote:

That was exactly my point.
Big carfree cities are not realistic. However, carfree neighborhood/area should be created and mass transportation infrastructure should be developed to decrease the reliance on cars.

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
The problem is JC has done nothing to amend the parking code, permit hours (should be extended), regulating cars parking long-term with improperly registered out of area plates (resident owned vehicles trying to skirt higher insurance rates), and enforcement. This can be fixed NOW without increasing actual parking space realty/building more garages and will greatly improve congestion for parking in many areas of the city. Let's fix what we already have, in concurrence with expanding biking, public transit and car share.

I agree with all of this. Except we don't have to INCREASE parking real estate/garages because the ones we have are not full. We need to do something to "incentivize" their use (and the ideas above including enforcement and extended permit hours will accomplish this, at least somewhat). The mall lot is 3/4 empty most of the time. Even garages around Grove St. are not full. I know this will set people off, but there is PLENTY of parking downtown - it's just not free on-street parking.

If you read what I wrote, I said WITHOUT INCREASING the amount of parking...

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
The problem is JC has done nothing to amend the parking code, permit hours (should be extended), regulating cars parking long-term with improperly registered out of area plates (resident owned vehicles trying to skirt higher insurance rates), and enforcement. This can be fixed NOW without increasing actual parking space realty/building more garages and will greatly improve congestion for parking in many areas of the city. Let's fix what we already have, in concurrence with expanding biking, public transit and car share.

I agree with all of this. Except we don't have to INCREASE parking real estate/garages because the ones we have are not full. We need to do something to "incentivize" their use (and the ideas above including enforcement and extended permit hours will accomplish this, at least somewhat). The mall lot is 3/4 empty most of the time. Even garages around Grove St. are not full. I know this will set people off, but there is PLENTY of parking downtown - it's just not free on-street parking.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Has nobody ever asked the city why we can't implement something like Cars2Go or the car sharing thing Hoboken did?

http://www.hobokennj.org/departments/ ... tion-parking/corner-cars/

For whatever reason, there is a dearth of ZipCar lots in the city and this seems like something that could work out well for getting some people in the brownstone areas to ditch their cars. The only catch is that the city may have to commandeer street parking space for their use.

Sutherland wrote:
My taxes go to the maintenance of the streets that is expected I would use for both parking and driving.

It's further expected that I would park my car in a reasonable proximity to the home I own and on which I pay my real estate taxes.

to control parking the City of Jersey City, limits non-residence from parking to two hours, demonstrating the City's preference for residence parking over non-resident parking.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Has nobody ever asked the city why we can't implement something like Cars2Go or the car sharing thing Hoboken did?

http://www.hobokennj.org/departments/ ... tion-parking/corner-cars/

For whatever reason, there is a dearth of ZipCar lots in the city and this seems like something that could work out well for getting some people in the brownstone areas to ditch their cars. The only catch is that the city may have to commandeer street parking space for their use.

elsquid wrote:
OK, any further comments about which European places are, or are not, completely car-free are dilatory strawmanning.

VERY few places in the world, mostly very small ones, are completely car-free. That's beside the point.

The point is that many cities and towns, large and small, treat cars as a tertiary mode, with bikes, walking, light rail, and other mass transit dominating. Amsterdam is the best big city, but others are also great. Driving laws and enforcement are tough. Separated bike paths abound on bigger arterial roads, while smaller residential streets are relentlessly traffic-calmed, with speed tables and bumpouts at every crosswalk, textured surfaces, deliberately narrow lanes, etc. So you can own a car, and you can drive, but you will drive slower and, within a neighborhood, probably make a couple more turns.

A typical two-way arterial boulevard in Amsterdam has one narrow lane in each direction for cars, a tram track in each direction with boarding islands, two wide cycle tracks a few feet away from the car lanes, and two sidewalks outside that. Many of those streets, 40 years ago, were four- or six-lane monstrosities catering solely to the car. They changed. We must too.

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
The problem is JC has done nothing to amend the parking code, permit hours (should be extended), regulating cars parking long-term with improperly registered out of area plates (resident owned vehicles trying to skirt higher insurance rates), and enforcement. This can be fixed NOW without increasing actual parking space realty/building more garages and will greatly improve congestion for parking in many areas of the city. Let's fix what we already have, in concurrence with expanding biking, public transit and car share.

I agree with all of this. Except we don't have to INCREASE parking real estate/garages because the ones we have are not full. We need to do something to "incentivize" their use (and the ideas above including enforcement and extended permit hours will accomplish this, at least somewhat). The mall lot is 3/4 empty most of the time. Even garages around Grove St. are not full. I know this will set people off, but there is PLENTY of parking downtown - it's just not free on-street parking.

OneSkirt wrote:
The problem is JC has done nothing to amend the parking code, permit hours (should be extended), regulating cars parking long-term with improperly registered out of area plates (resident owned vehicles trying to skirt higher insurance rates), and enforcement. This can be fixed NOW without increasing actual parking space realty/building more garages and will greatly improve congestion for parking in many areas of the city. Let's fix what we already have, in concurrence with expanding biking, public transit and car share.

Fomite wrote:
You car people realize that in Europe there are entire cities that are car free? And they don't even have jet, fresh direct, blue apron, etc.
We should improve public transportation as well. Eventually people who don't absolutely need a car will find it's not worth it.

OneSkirt wrote:
The problem is JC has done nothing to amend the parking code, permit hours (should be extended), regulating cars parking long-term with improperly registered out of area plates (resident owned vehicles trying to skirt higher insurance rates), and enforcement. This can be fixed NOW without increasing actual parking space realty/building more garages and will greatly improve congestion for parking in many areas of the city. Let's fix what we already have, in concurrence with expanding biking, public transit and car share.

The issue the OP has is that because permits in HP end at 5pm, and many new buildings have gone up with fee-based garages, a lot of newcomers are moving to these buildings and street parking their cars after 5 & all weekend instead of paying for the parking in their new shiny luxury building purely because they can due to the limit in permit hours. Just visit the streets around the Cast Iron Lofts - where cars NEVER parked on the street before the building went up. Guess what? Its full of cars now from new residents moving into the Cast Iron Lofts who came here with their cars, but refuse to park in the garage available to them.

Yes, Planning can continue to put lower parking to unit ratios on future construction, and they should. But make residents in buildings with garages USE THEM and not the street. You choose to move to a pricey new apt with a car, you can afford to pay to park it off street at your building.

Sutherland wrote:
That's actually a very interesting proposition. Personally, I would prefer not to drive at all. I worked in Manhattan for 22 years after college. If I didn't absolutely have to have a car I wouldn't. I lived in my brownstone for the first three years without a car. Then circumstances changed and I absolutely had to have a car. Then, since I had a car I started using it more. I hate nothing more than sitting in traffic or even driving to work on a daily basis. The lack of parking only exacerbates my sentiments and frustration with the entire issue.

elsquid wrote:
Any drivers arguing for more parking to reduce competition for it, wherever and however cleverly it's obtained, are only hurting themselves.

Sure, there are ways to increase parking space in Hamilton Park and in JC. But there's NO way to increase DRIVING space. The latter is finite. And the former feeds it.

So when you make more room for car storage, you get more cars in storage. Guess what happens when you try to drive? Those cars come out of their brandy new garages and get right in front of you, and you sit in traffic.

Sutherland wrote:
Again, I disagree with you with regard to the expectation of street parking. It's expected that most constituents would use the roads for both driving and parking. Without that entitlement commerce would come to a grinding halt as would other commerce clause provisions. My taxes go to the maintenance of the streets that is expected I would use for both parking and driving. It's further expected that I would park my car in a reasonable proximity to the home I own and on which I pay my real estate taxes. Therefore, it's a reasonable expectation that I would be parking there. Furthermore, to control parking the City of Jersey City, limits non-residence from parking to two hours, demonstrating the City's preference for residence parking over non-resident parking. Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
[quote]


Also, I'd expect a CPA to understand that availability of street parking was not guaranteed as a result of paying property taxes, unless otherwise stated.

Sutherland wrote:
Again, I disagree with you with regard to the expectation of street parking. It's expected that most constituents would use the roads for both driving and parking. Without that entitlement commerce would come to a grinding halt as would other commerce clause provisions. My taxes go to the maintenance of the streets that is expected I would use for both parking and driving. It's further expected that I would park my car in a reasonable proximity to the home I own and on which I pay my real estate taxes. Therefore, it's a reasonable expectation that I would be parking there. Furthermore, to control parking the City of Jersey City, limits non-residence from parking to two hours, demonstrating the City's preference for residence parking over non-resident parking. Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
[quote]

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
[quote]


Also, I'd expect a CPA to understand that availability of street parking was not guaranteed as a result of paying property taxes, unless otherwise stated.

Sutherland wrote:
Bill, I most certainly do. In fact, I have a BS in Business Administration with a Major in Accounting, a CPA, a law degree and a license to practice in two states. I fully understand supply and demand. However, that doesn't mean that every municipality has to fulfill every demand. There are quality of life issues, capacity issues, and other issues. Municipalities are not businesses selling widgets. Quote:

bill wrote:
Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
.

WOW, Sutherland I'm curious do you have any rudimentary education in economics? Specifically the supply and demand curve?

bill wrote:
Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
.

WOW, Sutherland I'm curious do you have any rudimentary education in economics? Specifically the supply and demand curve?

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Another issue re parking is induced demand. The more parking is made available in buildings or in lots, the more people may believe that car ownership is viable in JC, the more likely they are to own or keep a car, and voila the excess capacity generated by adding parking is soaked up very quickly.

I concur with some of the posters above that the better solution is to improve other transport options, ranging from public transport to car sharing to better bicycle infrastructure -- some of which is already happening, with projects such as the HBLR and Citibike.

This sounds like a logical reasoning, but the facts show otherwise. Most parking decks downtown are only half full! Most surface lots do fill up with people who work here, but if you take a walk through the decks in most of the high rises in DTJC, you will soon find that most of them are mostly empty, or maybe half full. That's why all of them have to resort to ridiculously low rates for those commuting here. While I do think it is prudent to include parking in some developments, the requirement of 1:1 parking to unit ratio (as in the past) is completely unnecessary. Even 1:2 may be too much. For example, among the 10 units in my floor, only three of us keep cars, while the rest do without them. It seems to be a very similar ratio on other floors based on conversations I have had with other neighbors.

Except that if we did away with 1:1 parking, prices would increase dramatically. I would keep 1:1 parking requirements and let the garages entice people to park with low rates. If they're cheap enough then you'll have residents without their own garages that have the ability to acquire permits park in hi-rise garages because it is cheap enough to do so. This is exactly what I do. On the other hand, if we only built enough garage spaces to suit the number absolutely required by immediate residents, prices would start to become similar to NYC, or at the very least Hoboken.

With respect to the prior proposal to "do away with cars", that is nonsensical. Many of us will not live without a car. I had a car when I lived in Manhattan as well. I can't and won't live without a car for a number of reasons - job related commuting, the fact that I have a few large dogs that wouldn't be allowed on public transport, and so on. I don't understand the knee-jerk reaction that some people have that if you want a car you should be evicted to the suburbs. Sensible policies to require adequate garage spacing in new construction and appropriate metering of certain spots to allow for day parking addresses much of the issue.

No one reasonable is saying that we need to do away with cars.

But since you've given many reasons why you and others prefer to have a car, a parking space must be valuable to you. Therefore, it doesn't really make sense to provide much parking real estate for free. This should be monetized like any other service.

Free market, baby.