Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
47 user(s) are online (31 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 3
Guests: 44

scubachris, chilltownboy, Yvonne, more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 (2)


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/16 21:45
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2985
Offline
Quote:

jklm wrote:
Example of a high rise holding out spaces for commercial use for retail/businesses in building. Garage Parking is handed over to an outside company, i.e., LAZ.

110 First Street - 20 spaces for Car Rental company, 6+ spaces for building employees, 6+ spaces for WADLO child/school employees, EV charging station, 20+ reserved spaces, allows daily commuter parking, monthly parking for residents and non-residents.

Un-reserved parking spaces FULL from floor 1-6, 7th floor spotty and half of 8th floor has car rental and employee parking with a few un-reserved parking spaces occupied.

Parking on First Street and Warren Street is mostly people from 110 First and Modera, parking with no permits either because of lack of enforcement of Zone 4 permit parking during the day and they can park legally from M-F 4p-10a overnight and all weekend. So if they drive to work during the day - they can park for free at night and weekends.

No one from this building can claim there are no spaces available, but the parking garage is definitely not empty like everyone seems to say on JCList.


All that indicates is that the building owners are making the best of the under-utilized parking. And local businesses and commuters are getting parking spaces at fire-sale prices - subsidized in part by Jersey City.

I used to rent a similar parking space in a waterfront building for $100/month for ease of commute to downtown Manhattan. No doubt properties near the waterfront or PATH can fill their spaces. Parking lots elsewhere look like the lot at Newport mall.

Posted on: 7/24 19:12
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/28 21:54
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 272
Offline
Example of a high rise holding out spaces for commercial use for retail/businesses in building. Garage Parking is handed over to an outside company, i.e., LAZ.

110 First Street - 20 spaces for Car Rental company, 6+ spaces for building employees, 6+ spaces for WADLO child/school employees, EV charging station, 20+ reserved spaces, allows daily commuter parking, monthly parking for residents and non-residents.

Un-reserved parking spaces FULL from floor 1-6, 7th floor spotty and half of 8th floor has car rental and employee parking with a few un-reserved parking spaces occupied.

Parking on First Street and Warren Street is mostly people from 110 First and Modera, parking with no permits either because of lack of enforcement of Zone 4 permit parking during the day and they can park legally from M-F 4p-10a overnight and all weekend. So if they drive to work during the day - they can park for free at night and weekends.

No one from this building can claim there are no spaces available, but the parking garage is definitely not empty like everyone seems to say on JCList.

Posted on: 7/24 16:17
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/4 12:37
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 469
Offline
I suspect the reason for the free for all in the cast iron neighborhood is that well, the neighborhood was not one to start from. Now that key buildings and streets are being completed/resurfaced, it is a matter of time before street parking rules get established there. I suspect the city is waiting for a critical mass. It won't be pretty when all tenants there suddenly find out new restrictions. I wonder if the developers have negotiated a timeline to have it roll in progressively.

It is amazing the level of developments...

Posted on: 7/24 16:10
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4076
Offline
nickie, you are the typical liberal who call people racist when you whine and cannot get your way. What does parking has to do with racism? Do you think I favor a particular color in a car? You are having a meltdown, so I think you should go to a safe space now.

Posted on: 7/24 15:37
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/3/1 23:49
From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 809
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
A factory conversion to lofts by me has many of the new tenants parking in the street. I talked to a few of the tenants was the parking fees are too high.

Used to have good street parking around here. Not anymore. JCPD has been upping the ticketing frequency due to neighbors complaining about illegal parking (too close to the intersections, etc.).

I also noticed it appears many of the residents of Cast Iron Lofts are using the road below Christ Hospital for parking as well. Cast Iron Lofts has an extensive parking deck. Parking fees too high as well?


Is this only an issue where there is no zoned parking? I thought residents of these new developments were ineligible to get parking stickers. The Cast Iron area is a clusterfuck, there is very little parking control at all, apparently they don't sweep the streets in that zone! The parking on 13th between Monmouth and Coles creates a hazard with the unnecessary 2 way traffic and the street dangerously narrowed.

More broadly, we should just let the market provide parking, and what it cost is what it costs. No one has a right to park their car in Manhattan and it seems to be doing alright. Hoboken is far harder to park than anywhere DT and it's doing alright too.

But if it's true those decks are underused, they should be forced to lower their prices till they're at 90% occupancy, and then let the occupancy rate dictate the price. Holding spots off the market is just stupid.


A zone is not in place around the Cast Iron Loft area, so the residents can in fact park on the street. Its nuts over there. I've talked to the Parking Director a few times about getting a plan for that area in place to mitigate this.

Posted on: 7/24 14:13
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/11/21 17:12
From DTJC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 190
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
A factory conversion to lofts by me has many of the new tenants parking in the street. I talked to a few of the tenants was the parking fees are too high.

Used to have good street parking around here. Not anymore. JCPD has been upping the ticketing frequency due to neighbors complaining about illegal parking (too close to the intersections, etc.).

I also noticed it appears many of the residents of Cast Iron Lofts are using the road below Christ Hospital for parking as well. Cast Iron Lofts has an extensive parking deck. Parking fees too high as well?


Is this only an issue where there is no zoned parking? I thought residents of these new developments were ineligible to get parking stickers. The Cast Iron area is a clusterfuck, there is very little parking control at all, apparently they don't sweep the streets in that zone! The parking on 13th between Monmouth and Coles creates a hazard with the unnecessary 2 way traffic and the street dangerously narrowed.

More broadly, we should just let the market provide parking, and what it cost is what it costs. No one has a right to park their car in Manhattan and it seems to be doing alright. Hoboken is far harder to park than anywhere DT and it's doing alright too.

But if it's true those decks are underused, they should be forced to lower their prices till they're at 90% occupancy, and then let the occupancy rate dictate the price. Holding spots off the market is just stupid.


The parking permit regulations are quite clear: if your building has parking available, you are not eligible for a permit. They are fierce about enforcing that rule. The only possible out from that is the building parking is completely full and spots are not available to sell or rent, then you have to get a letter from the building management stating as much, and you can bring that along with the other requisite materials.

If there is a parking problem of residents parking on the streets when their building has parking available, complain to the Parking Authority and asked for stepped up enforcement of permit parking. But, don't conflate one matter with the other (not directed at you, Brewster!) as that only helps to confuse the matter at hand.

In the end, the real problem is that a bunch of NA old timers are always complaining about parking, and they are almost exclusively focused on that. It's a shame that so many other matters that should be handled with more urgency are getting short shrift because of the usual "OMG... parking! We are losing parking to newcomers".


The ironic thing is, legislation that would have helped this very issue (increased permit enforcement and forcing people to move their cars into building garage space) was shot down by none other than Yvonne. Despite being a disgusting racist herself, she had no problem calling the new rule racist and getting it shot down.

Posted on: 7/24 14:07
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/7/9 7:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2152
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:

Is this only an issue where there is no zoned parking? I thought residents of these new developments were ineligible to get parking stickers.


My block is one of the few that isn't zoned. I understand that is changing in the not so distant future. We are also getting more commuters parking here and taking the bus into Port Authority or walking to the PATH>

Posted on: 7/24 13:29
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4076
Offline
You cannot enforce a rule about parking if the development has 20% parking in the building. Near AC Chevrolet, on Kennedy Blvd that development has 17% parking available as a new construction, so who do you fine? But across the street at St. John's apts there is one to one parking. It is the city and planning office that caused this problem. This is not NYC, the city was wrong to change its policy on new construction.

Posted on: 7/24 13:25
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3201
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
A factory conversion to lofts by me has many of the new tenants parking in the street. I talked to a few of the tenants was the parking fees are too high.

Used to have good street parking around here. Not anymore. JCPD has been upping the ticketing frequency due to neighbors complaining about illegal parking (too close to the intersections, etc.).

I also noticed it appears many of the residents of Cast Iron Lofts are using the road below Christ Hospital for parking as well. Cast Iron Lofts has an extensive parking deck. Parking fees too high as well?


Is this only an issue where there is no zoned parking? I thought residents of these new developments were ineligible to get parking stickers. The Cast Iron area is a clusterfuck, there is very little parking control at all, apparently they don't sweep the streets in that zone! The parking on 13th between Monmouth and Coles creates a hazard with the unnecessary 2 way traffic and the street dangerously narrowed.

More broadly, we should just let the market provide parking, and what it cost is what it costs. No one has a right to park their car in Manhattan and it seems to be doing alright. Hoboken is far harder to park than anywhere DT and it's doing alright too.

But if it's true those decks are underused, they should be forced to lower their prices till they're at 90% occupancy, and then let the occupancy rate dictate the price. Holding spots off the market is just stupid.


The parking permit regulations are quite clear: if your building has parking available, you are not eligible for a permit. They are fierce about enforcing that rule. The only possible out from that is the building parking is completely full and spots are not available to sell or rent, then you have to get a letter from the building management stating as much, and you can bring that along with the other requisite materials.

If there is a parking problem of residents parking on the streets when their building has parking available, complain to the Parking Authority and asked for stepped up enforcement of permit parking. But, don't conflate one matter with the other (not directed at you, Brewster!) as that only helps to confuse the matter at hand.

In the end, the real problem is that a bunch of NA old timers are always complaining about parking, and they are almost exclusively focused on that. It's a shame that so many other matters that should be handled with more urgency are getting short shrift because of the usual "OMG... parking! We are losing parking to newcomers".

Posted on: 7/24 13:15
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4854
Offline
Quote:

MDM wrote:
A factory conversion to lofts by me has many of the new tenants parking in the street. I talked to a few of the tenants was the parking fees are too high.

Used to have good street parking around here. Not anymore. JCPD has been upping the ticketing frequency due to neighbors complaining about illegal parking (too close to the intersections, etc.).

I also noticed it appears many of the residents of Cast Iron Lofts are using the road below Christ Hospital for parking as well. Cast Iron Lofts has an extensive parking deck. Parking fees too high as well?


Is this only an issue where there is no zoned parking? I thought residents of these new developments were ineligible to get parking stickers. The Cast Iron area is a clusterfuck, there is very little parking control at all, apparently they don't sweep the streets in that zone! The parking on 13th between Monmouth and Coles creates a hazard with the unnecessary 2 way traffic and the street dangerously narrowed.

More broadly, we should just let the market provide parking, and what it cost is what it costs. No one has a right to park their car in Manhattan and it seems to be doing alright. Hoboken is far harder to park than anywhere DT and it's doing alright too.

But if it's true those decks are underused, they should be forced to lower their prices till they're at 90% occupancy, and then let the occupancy rate dictate the price. Holding spots off the market is just stupid.

Posted on: 7/24 12:11
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#20
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/6/25 21:17
From Jersey Ave
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 93
Offline
I started riding the PATH in 1982 & back then they were so superior to the NYC subways. Clean, on time, few signal/breakdown problems, & no weekend Journal Square via Hoboken to 33rd Street. It is scary to me now how downhill the PATH has gone. No wonder residents don't want to depend on public transportation. With all those new towers being built in Journal Square in addition to all the new ones downtown, the workday commute has & will become even more of a nightmare.






Posted on: 7/24 12:00
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/7/9 7:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2152
Offline
A factory conversion to lofts by me has many of the new tenants parking in the street. I talked to a few of the tenants was the parking fees are too high.

Used to have good street parking around here. Not anymore. JCPD has been upping the ticketing frequency due to neighbors complaining about illegal parking (too close to the intersections, etc.).

I also noticed it appears many of the residents of Cast Iron Lofts are using the road below Christ Hospital for parking as well. Cast Iron Lofts has an extensive parking deck. Parking fees too high as well?

Posted on: 7/24 9:29
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/7/13 11:03
From Western Slope
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4328
Offline
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
They are half empty because they charge an arm and a leg to rent the spaces. They are not half empty at St. John's apt and Brunswich Towers. St. John's charges very little and it is FREE for Brunswich residents. The fees and or rents are high enough, people are not willing to pay more. If the city ordinance required those spaces to be free for its residents, they would not be half empty.


What on earth are you talking about, if they're half empty, that means the units they're attached to and the rents that include them simply mean people aren't bringing them.

As long as the Yvonne and the corrupt neighborhood associations have so much influence on policy, such a thing would never see the light of day, even in an area where it would make sense like Downtown.

They are empty because either they are not deeded or too high of a rental fee. Also as far as the neighborhood associations are concerned I would hope they have a huge influence in what goes on within "their" neighborhood / community.

Posted on: 7/23 19:27
Get on your bikes and ride !
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4076
Offline
Can you show me where I have that influence, nickie? The previous administrations going back to the 1960s, while I was a child in Hoboken and not JC required parking for all new construction.
Residents will not pay the exorbitant garage fees for parking while the street is still somewhat free. The fact the no one uses these paid garages is the fault of the planning office and our public officials who do not demand parking as a free service for the residents.

Posted on: 7/23 18:24
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/11/21 17:12
From DTJC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 190
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
They are half empty because they charge an arm and a leg to rent the spaces. They are not half empty at St. John's apt and Brunswich Towers. St. John's charges very little and it is FREE for Brunswich residents. The fees and or rents are high enough, people are not willing to pay more. If the city ordinance required those spaces to be free for its residents, they would not be half empty.


What on earth are you talking about, if they're half empty, that means the units they're attached to and the rents that include them simply mean people aren't bringing them.

As long as the Yvonne and the corrupt neighborhood associations have so much influence on policy, such a thing would never see the light of day, even in an area where it would make sense like Downtown.

Posted on: 7/23 17:52
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4076
Offline
They are half empty because they charge an arm and a leg to rent the spaces. They are not half empty at St. John's apt and Brunswich Towers. St. John's charges very little and it is FREE for Brunswich residents. The fees and or rents are high enough, people are not willing to pay more. If the city ordinance required those spaces to be free for its residents, they would not be half empty.

Posted on: 7/23 13:16
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3201
Offline
The thing that is getting lost in this conversation is that most parking decks downtown attached to residential buildings are usually mostly empty. Some of them get filled up with commuters, like the one at Grove Pointe, but if you go into some of these lots at night, you will soon discover that a lot of them are at least half empty. Requiring 1:1 parking is not at all prudent. But, I can see the need for some parking, and I think it is unrealistic to expect people to give up their cars here in JC. This is a situation where letting the market dictate needs, as well as supply, can and should address the problem in its entirety. If a development lacks parking, and that is important to a potential tenant, they will either look elsewhere, or they will have to cough up for parking at a private lot. Developments with parking available will attract those with cars and other vehicles.

Posted on: 7/23 12:28
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/28 21:47
From DT JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 169
Offline
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:

But I'd bet every developer in JC would prefer to build more units and less parking - since most of it goes to waste.


Seems the key to me.... Every developer wants to make more money. And they don't live with the consequences of their poor planning and design.

Instead of just deleting the parking so they make more money, have developers contribute to a capital fund that is dedicated to improving mass transit.

Posted on: 7/23 9:03
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/16 21:45
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2985
Offline
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:

By setting parking minimums for new development, the city is effectively subsidizing that parking out of my tax dollars. Without the parking requirement, the developers could build more units and supply greater tax revenue. How is that any different to your constant complaint about tax abatements?


Hmm, I'd have thought the opposite more likely true. An apartment with a parking space is worth more, it's assessment is more, and consequently it has higher property taxes. A car space uses no city services so on that basis I'd say the owner of the apartment with the car space is subsidizing those without car spaces.


Nope. The pilot (city revenue) is based on number of units x sq footage. The parking space doesn't enter that equation. If eventually those units convert to condos, the parking space would count very little towards a tax assessment, even if the parking was deeded - since it's not considered habitable space.

There is some benefit to the developer for have some available parking, and typically that's an add-on charge to a rental. But I'd bet every developer in JC would prefer to build more units and less parking - since most of it goes to waste.

Posted on: 7/23 8:01
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/28 21:47
From DT JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 169
Offline
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:

By setting parking minimums for new development, the city is effectively subsidizing that parking out of my tax dollars. Without the parking requirement, the developers could build more units and supply greater tax revenue. How is that any different to your constant complaint about tax abatements?


Hmm, I'd have thought the opposite more likely true. An apartment with a parking space is worth more, it's assessment is more, and consequently it has higher property taxes. A car space uses no city services so on that basis I'd say the owner of the apartment with the car space is subsidizing those without car spaces.

Posted on: 7/22 20:02
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4076
Offline
No, previous ordinances required parking and those cars were off the streets. St. John's apts is an example as well as Brunswick Towers both located in Journal Square. It was actually Councilman Fulop that said parking is not required. I lived in downtown for over 40 years, Bright Street had many garages that later became condos.
The biggest complaint from residents are about parking. They come home from work and are waiting over an hour for a place to park. They are competing against new construction without parking because the city officials are saying these people will not have cars. What a silly statement.

Posted on: 7/22 19:09
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/16 21:45
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2985
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
All new construction should have parking that is given and not charged. Then the residents would use those private parking spots and not use the streets. The fact that new development downtown charge exorbitant fees for parking is the reason parking is a problem downtown.


By setting parking minimums for new development, the city is effectively subsidizing that parking out of my tax dollars. Without the parking requirement, the developers could build more units and supply greater tax revenue. How is that any different to your constant complaint about tax abatements?

Posted on: 7/22 18:52
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4076
Offline
All new construction should have parking that is given and not charged. Then the residents would use those private parking spots and not use the streets. The fact that new development downtown charge exorbitant fees for parking is the reason parking is a problem downtown.

Posted on: 7/22 18:36
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/16 21:45
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2985
Offline
Seems a few of you parrot the talk when it comes to deregulation and cutting out red tape...but where do you think Trump stands on the issue?

Why not let the market decide how many parking spaces are needed? You think we'll need more parking in 10-20 years with uber, ridesharing, and self-driving vehicles?

Posted on: 7/22 16:32
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4098
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Don't like cars? Don't get a car. I don't see this happening anytime soon.


So JC revolves around your likes and dislikes? Where is the tolerance to other people's needs. I know people who drive to work because that is the only way to get there. This is not NYC with subways and buses.


You missed my point, Yvonne. I'm pro insisting on parking spaces in new developments, not anti.

Posted on: 7/22 15:41
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 15:38
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2918
Offline
New Jersey is a driving state, and Jersey City is a driving city.

Neither of these facts are changing this century. People who don't like cars better move to NYC if they are unhappy.

Posted on: 7/22 13:40
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4076
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Don't like cars? Don't get a car. I don't see this happening anytime soon.


So JC revolves around your likes and dislikes? Where is the tolerance to other people's needs. I know people who drive to work because that is the only way to get there. This is not NYC with subways and buses.

Posted on: 7/22 12:53
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4098
Offline
Don't like cars? Don't get a car. I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Posted on: 7/22 12:33
Print Top


Re: Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/28 21:47
From DT JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 169
Offline
I'd certainly love to see us move to a less car-centric world. However, with NJ / JC's inadequate mass transit system (Jitneys, NJT, PATH, HBLR) and crumbling commuter infrastructure (PA bus terminal, Amtrak's Hudson tunnels, Penn station tracks, etc.) I don't support this kind of extreme approach.

It would have the effect that only those wealthy enough to own cars and parking spaces will be able to get around easily at will, which strikes me as an “equity" issue worthy of careful consideration.

And I don't think problems with ride share are fully appreciated yet. What happens if large numbers start using ride share to commute? Ten of thousands of (driverless?) cars carrying a passenger or two, instead of mass transit trains and buses carrying thousands. And where do all those ride-share cars park at non-rush hour times when they're not needed? And who pays for that?

Without adequate transit infrastructure in place to handle the additional load this doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I'd need to see PATH, NJT (and AMTRAK and MTA....) improve their games first. I'd be much more amenable to initiatives that restrict freedom of mobility when well functioning alternatives are in place.

Posted on: 7/22 12:14
Print Top


Can JC kick it's parking addiction?
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/16 21:45
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2985
Offline
Thought-provoking article.

https://www.curbed.com/2017/7/21/16008 ... exico-city-urban-planning

Quote:

This week, Mexico City took a big step towards making housing more affordable and transit more efficient. Did it pass a new budget that funded new apartments, or propose a new expansion of the public transportation system? Nope, it simply eliminated parking minimums, the city regulations that impel builders to add a required amount of parking spots for every new unit of housing they create.

“It’s a 180-degree change in the approach toward parking,” Andrés Sañudo, a local planning consultant, told Streetsblog.

The biggest city in North America decided to limit the number of parking spaces allowed in new developments, and push policies that help convert existing spaces to different uses. The connection between affordability, transportation, and small patches of asphalt may not immediately seem apparent. But extensive studies by planners and researchers show quite the opposite. Cities—and renters—pay a big price for parking.


Mexico City just eliminated parking minimums, which may help North America’s largest urban area reshape itself into a more affordable, transit-friendly city. Shutterstock
Parking’s true price
Mandating parking not only wastes tons of valuable city real estate but it also bundles housing and parking together, making it impossible to pay for one without the other. This functions as a powerful force that not only shapes how cities look and function, but increases rent and housing costs.


One study of U.S. rental data found that forcing developers to add parking spots for new buildings contributes to 16 percent of the cost of an apartment, a cost passed down to renters. Writing in the journal Housing Policy Debate, researchers Gregory Pierce and C.J. Gabbe found that it’s not just a cost issue, it’s an equity issue. Urban dwellers who don’t own or use cars are in effect forced to subsidize parking spots for others, without any choice in the matter. The average cost of parking per renter was $142 a month, Pierce and Gabbe found, a price that is mostly paid by the urban poor.

Imagine how much easier it would be to make your rent payment if you could shave 16 percent off of your housing costs for an amenity that you don’t use. Nationwide, the researchers discovered, renters without cars end up subsidizing parking by an incredible $440 million a year. “While many households might have chosen to pay for on-site parking in a free market, this proportion is surely lower than what has been mandated,” write Gabbe and Pierce.
....

Posted on: 7/22 6:21
Print Top




« 1 (2)




[Advanced Search]





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