T-Bird wrote:
That would be a long-term investment that may have limited utility ten to twenty years out and would be a terribly inefficient use of space. Population growth won't necessarily come with car ownership rates equal to those of the past.

Millennials have demonstrated less interest in driving and car ownership than previous generations. The nature of transportation is changing. Continued growth in ride sharing and an embrace of autonomous driving vehicle technology could put a significant dent in car ownership, especially in urban areas. Why would you invest in a fifty-year asset that could very well be a white elephant in fifteen or so years?

There is plenty of parking downtown - you just don't always get it free.

RichMauro wrote:
I can't understand why--with the tax revenue that surely should be pouring in--the city can't build a number of centrally located low cost or no cost parking desks for residents.
Population increase looks to be a situation which will continue as long as NYC rates stay high and developers continue their building spree. A facility that can hold as many cars as the JSQ lot behind the Loew's would give so much relief to an area. Just imagine what five of them might do to help with parking difficulties.

RichMauro wrote:
Even so, Hoboken has a couple of municipal lots that allow people to get off the streets and curbs . Some of the large apartment buildings down by the water have great parking complexes attached to the living areas at very reasonable fees. These efforts help to make the "miracle mile" habitable. Jersey City needs to do the same before the situation becomes intolerable. Even North Bergen has some great arrangements which keep cars off the streets. Why is Jersey City dragging its feet on such a serious situation?

MDM wrote:
Quote:

RichMauro wrote:
I can't understand why--with the tax revenue that surely should be pouring in--the city can't build a number of centrally located low cost or no cost parking desks for residents.

Hoboken did something like that in the early 2000s (but it wasn't low cost). It was an automated parking garage that would stow your car using a lift system. The original plan was to not have attendants. It was to be 100% automated.

The system when it was first implemented kept making headlines of having destroyed people cars. One example I remember is some poor guy's trunk opened up and the lifting system caught it and launched his car off the lift, dropping it down multiple stories.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/nyr ... -a-garage-goes-wrong.html

https://hoboken411.com/archives/87561

RichMauro wrote:
I can't understand why--with the tax revenue that surely should be pouring in--the city can't build a number of centrally located low cost or no cost parking desks for residents.

Sutherland wrote:
Dude, pack up your SUV and your wife's van and move to Maplewood or better yet Whitehouse Station!!

Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
[

Dude, you are making a fool out of yourself: those two specific examples (Mazda CX5 and Acura RDX) are VERY short by SUV standards. In fact, they are both shorter than the average mid size sedan, certainly shorter than a Ford Fusion.

I am not trying to argue or defend the ownership of SUVs (people can own whatever they choose!) but your stance just comes across as petty and misguided when your justifications are based on misconceptions.

You can keep spouting your crank, but it is nothing more than shaking your fist at the sky: you will accomplish nothing because your argument and logic are not based on facts, just feelings and misconceptions.

Sutherland wrote:
Dude, pack up your SUV and your wife's van and move to Maplewood or better yet Whitehouse Station!!

Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
[

Dude, you are making a fool out of yourself: those two specific examples (Mazda CX5 and Acura RDX) are VERY short by SUV standards. In fact, they are both shorter than the average mid size sedan, certainly shorter than a Ford Fusion.

I am not trying to argue or defend the ownership of SUVs (people can own whatever they choose!) but your stance just comes across as petty and misguided when your justifications are based on misconceptions.

You can keep spouting your crank, but it is nothing more than shaking your fist at the sky: you will accomplish nothing because your argument and logic are not based on facts, just feelings and misconceptions.

bodhipooh wrote:
[

Dude, you are making a fool out of yourself: those two specific examples (Mazda CX5 and Acura RDX) are VERY short by SUV standards. In fact, they are both shorter than the average mid size sedan, certainly shorter than a Ford Fusion.

I am not trying to argue or defend the ownership of SUVs (people can own whatever they choose!) but your stance just comes across as petty and misguided when your justifications are based on misconceptions.

You can keep spouting your crank, but it is nothing more than shaking your fist at the sky: you will accomplish nothing because your argument and logic are not based on facts, just feelings and misconceptions.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Sorry, but if parking spaces are in short supply, as you suggest, a $15 a year residential permit does not help. Make the permit $1,500/year and surely demand will not exceed supply.

Punish local car owners while developers are getting zoning variances allowing them to provide less onsite parking, forcing more people to park on the street? That's ass backwards.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Sorry, but if parking spaces are in short supply, as you suggest, a $15 a year residential permit does not help. Make the permit $1,500/year and surely demand will not exceed supply.

Sutherland wrote:
In my earlier post I made it clear I was distinguishing between bigger SUVs mostly crossovers like the Acura RDX, Mazda CX5 etc and the huge SUVs like Hummers, utility trucks, vans etc.

But your need to defend your position on the SUV thing, suggests you should probably move to Montclair or Maplewood.
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
[

Thankfully, you are not in charge of public policy. Here is the problem with your stand: some SUVs are so compact as to be smaller than most mid-size sedans. Heck, of the top 10 SUVs sold in the US last year, almost all are about the same length as a Ford Fusion, with only two being about a foot longer.

Monroe wrote:
JC gives out zoning variances allowing builders to short parking in their new structures, then JC residents complain about lack of street parking.

A solution is available, don't give out those types of variances.

srs7191 wrote:


I agree with you that most people own a larger vehicle than they need, but I don't see how it's a "suburban mentality".

Every major US city that I have visited is rammed full of SUVs. All of Hudson county, Newark, NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Wilmington, DC, Boston, LA, and Vegas - full of SUVs.

I mean, I lived in Hong Kong for three years, which doesn't even have suburbs in the American sense (even its "suburban" areas are more dense than most US cities) and that city had plenty of SUVs.

I'm originally from the UK, where SUV ownership is much lower - not because people don't want them, but because people can't afford them. They're a status symbol, and where do you see the most SUVs in the UK? The place where more can afford them - London.

RichMauro wrote:
Quote:

heights wrote:
Along with the annual fifteen dollar fee for resident zone parking stickers how about we apply a digital process that reads plates and adds a surcharge for a proximity parking tax. The closer you park to your house the more you pay for the privilege ? It is similar to resident parking permits but on a temporary basis.

Here we go again.
The municipality allows wealthy corporate interests to disrupt the lives of ordinary people and other people step up to offer solutions that will infringe on rights that they had (free, available parking) prior to these disruptions.

Why should people offer costly solutions to problems that the administration creates?--doesn't make sense.

heights wrote:
Along with the annual fifteen dollar fee for resident zone parking stickers how about we apply a digital process that reads plates and adds a surcharge for a proximity parking tax. The closer you park to your house the more you pay for the privilege ? It is similar to resident parking permits but on a temporary basis.

Sutherland wrote:
Anyone who voluntarily wants to own a huge car is free to pay to park it in a garage somewhere if they want. But owning a huge car in a city is ridiculous. It's a very, very suburban mentality. And it exacerbates the parking problem. And it's just plain out stupid.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
1) Is public parking a problem?

Jersey City - Yes

Red Bank - No (per Monroe)


2) Annual cost of a resident parking permit

Jersey City - $15

Red Bank - $1,000

bodhipooh wrote:
[

Thankfully, you are not in charge of public policy. Here is the problem with your stand: some SUVs are so compact as to be smaller than most mid-size sedans. Heck, of the top 10 SUVs sold in the US last year, almost all are about the same length as a Ford Fusion, with only two being about a foot longer.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Car density, yes - permit fees, no. New Brunswick is another good example. If you actually spent time in your car at those locations, like I have, you would immediately agree. Or you can look at their municipal websites to see the chatter about parking issues and challenges.

The original point is JC's very low parking fees are not helpful with respect to parking or having to constantly navigate around double parked cars.

Other than Front or Broad Streets there is no parking issue in Red Bank; like many suburban towns people complain if they have to walk a half block to a store or restaurant. Comparing JC parking to Red Bank parking is absurd.

Uuuuhhh yeah...and why is that? Put your thinking cap on. Like I mentioned before, compare the costs of acquiring a residential permit. If Jersey City charged what Red Bank does, it would not have the parking issues it has today.

Free or nearly free parking isn't really free if you spend a lot of time looking for a space or are sitting in traffic, taboot. That is, if you consciously valie your time, like I do.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Car density, yes - permit fees, no. New Brunswick is another good example. If you actually spent time in your car at those locations, like I have, you would immediately agree. Or you can look at their municipal websites to see the chatter about parking issues and challenges.

The original point is JC's very low parking fees are not helpful with respect to parking or having to constantly navigate around double parked cars.

Other than Front or Broad Streets there is no parking issue in Red Bank; like many suburban towns people complain if they have to walk a half block to a store or restaurant. Comparing JC parking to Red Bank parking is absurd.