6 ms·

100% agreed. This is a trivially solvable problem, and the only thing standing in the way is the fact that politicians are terrified to upset the small minority

100% agreed. This is a trivially solvable problem, and the only thing standing in the way is the fact that politicians are terrified to upset the small minority of people who currently benefit from free on-street parking. We're currently giving away huge amounts of the most valuable real estate in the country, and we need to reclaim it for publicly beneficial uses including bus lanes, bike lanes, and designated loading/unloading zones.

booleandilemma 7y ago
I’m all for anything that will get bikers off the sidewalks.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  You don't see too much of that in Manhattan, because the sidewalks are so crowded with pedestrians that they're terrible places to be on a bike. But yes, in general, creating safe, protected bike lanes is an excellent way to increase safety for everyone. I've heard people complain about cyclists on the sidewalks in locations that lacked bike lanes and had speeding motor traffic, and the cyclist clearly felt unsafe riding in the road, hence the sidewalk was the least bad option. You can't be too mad at someone in that situation. It's like yelling at a pedestrian for walking on the side of the road on a road that lacks sidewalks (all too common in the suburbs). If you haven't made any accommodation for the cyclist at all (and increasingly, e-scooters, e-bikes, etc.), then don't be mad when they pick the lesser of two wrongs.
  - bogomipz 7y ago
    >"You don't see too much of that in Manhattan," Uhm ... except for almost every single food delivery person. This has been an issue for a long time now as well: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/city-increase-fines-delivery-cyclists-ride-sidewalks-article-1.1086475 https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/city-increase-fines-del... And more recently with electric bikes as well: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/04/19/confronted-with-facts-de-blasio-still-insists-e-bikes-are-dangerous/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/04/19/confronted-with-facts...
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      Delivery cyclists tend to only use the sidewalk for part of the last block when that's the only way to get to their destination. They're definitely not using the sidewalk for the entire trip; that's way too slow. Especially not on e-bikes!
      - bogomipz 7y ago
        They use it for a block in each direction - coming and going. Now multiply that by the number of delivery drivers and the number of deliveries and its actually quite constant, especially below 14th st. It's most certainly not necessary as they could just easily dismount on the street in front of the building. And yes often it is e-bikes and these are now the preferred delivery bike.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    Well, in my commute before I moved closer to work, I had to cross a bridge, with sidewalks on each side of the bridge. One of the sidewalk is a bike lane, so completely separated from the road; I'd walk on the other sidewalk, as many other people do as it's between a subway and a tram stop. But then nearly everyday, there would be cyclist that couldn't be arsed to take their bike lane, preferring to zigzag between pedestrians.
nemo44x 7y ago
It’s not being given away. They pay taxes to live in the city and at 3% it’s not cheap. I live in the city and think having a car is ridiculous in many parts but let’s remember that the citizens are paying a lot of tax. Forcing everyone to use a garage is elitist as they run over $600/month.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Those of us who live in the city and don't own cars are paying those exact same taxes, except we don't get free parking in return for them. It's absolutely being given away. You pay those taxes regardless of whether or not you have a car. And it's not unreasonable to expect that if people want to have a car they should pay the actual cost of doing so. Why should the rest of us subsidize those people?
  - jshaqaw 7y ago
    That’s what collective governance is. I live in NYC. I’m sure the bulk of my taxes subsidize some form of “those people” of whom I am not a part. It’s called a community. I don’t bike and yet I support I infrastructure for bikers. As for cars, I sympathize with many people I know who have cars and need them to reverse commute or to take care of elderly parents in the burbs etc... The rich have garages. On street parking is a pain but viable for the middle class. Let’s admit there are two valuable sides here. It doesn’t mean we don’t ultimately weigh one claim as more worthy but let’s not be cartoonish.
    - bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
      Cars already have their own bike lanes: roads. Why do they also get free parking? Also, if we want make things equitable, shouldn’t we give cars and bikes the same per-person square footage or per-person-mph square footage? Why does the fact that cars are bigger give their owners the right to more free space?
      - jshaqaw 7y ago
        Because some people need them. Because adding $7000 per year is a straw which breaks a middle class family in the city. Because a vibrant city needs middle class families and wouldn’t work as just an enclave for the very rich, the very poor, and 20-30 year olds without family responsibilities. I’m not saying these reasons trump alternative uses for the streets but they are real.

booleandilemma 7y ago

I’m all for anything that will get bikers off the sidewalks.

CydeWeys 7y ago
You don't see too much of that in Manhattan, because the sidewalks are so crowded with pedestrians that they're terrible places to be on a bike. But yes, in general, creating safe, protected bike lanes is an excellent way to increase safety for everyone. I've heard people complain about cyclists on the sidewalks in locations that lacked bike lanes and had speeding motor traffic, and the cyclist clearly felt unsafe riding in the road, hence the sidewalk was the least bad option. You can't be too mad at someone in that situation. It's like yelling at a pedestrian for walking on the side of the road on a road that lacks sidewalks (all too common in the suburbs). If you haven't made any accommodation for the cyclist at all (and increasingly, e-scooters, e-bikes, etc.), then don't be mad when they pick the lesser of two wrongs.
- bogomipz 7y ago
  >"You don't see too much of that in Manhattan," Uhm ... except for almost every single food delivery person. This has been an issue for a long time now as well: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/city-increase-fines-delivery-cyclists-ride-sidewalks-article-1.1086475 https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/city-increase-fines-del... And more recently with electric bikes as well: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/04/19/confronted-with-facts-de-blasio-still-insists-e-bikes-are-dangerous/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/04/19/confronted-with-facts...
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Delivery cyclists tend to only use the sidewalk for part of the last block when that's the only way to get to their destination. They're definitely not using the sidewalk for the entire trip; that's way too slow. Especially not on e-bikes!
    - bogomipz 7y ago
      They use it for a block in each direction - coming and going. Now multiply that by the number of delivery drivers and the number of deliveries and its actually quite constant, especially below 14th st. It's most certainly not necessary as they could just easily dismount on the street in front of the building. And yes often it is e-bikes and these are now the preferred delivery bike.
- baud147258 7y ago
  Well, in my commute before I moved closer to work, I had to cross a bridge, with sidewalks on each side of the bridge. One of the sidewalk is a bike lane, so completely separated from the road; I'd walk on the other sidewalk, as many other people do as it's between a subway and a tram stop. But then nearly everyday, there would be cyclist that couldn't be arsed to take their bike lane, preferring to zigzag between pedestrians.

nemo44x 7y ago

It’s not being given away. They pay taxes to live in the city and at 3% it’s not cheap. I live in the city and think having a car is ridiculous in many parts but let’s remember that the citizens are paying a lot of tax. Forcing everyone to use a garage is elitist as they run over $600/month.

CydeWeys 7y ago
Those of us who live in the city and don't own cars are paying those exact same taxes, except we don't get free parking in return for them. It's absolutely being given away. You pay those taxes regardless of whether or not you have a car. And it's not unreasonable to expect that if people want to have a car they should pay the actual cost of doing so. Why should the rest of us subsidize those people?
- jshaqaw 7y ago
  That’s what collective governance is. I live in NYC. I’m sure the bulk of my taxes subsidize some form of “those people” of whom I am not a part. It’s called a community. I don’t bike and yet I support I infrastructure for bikers. As for cars, I sympathize with many people I know who have cars and need them to reverse commute or to take care of elderly parents in the burbs etc... The rich have garages. On street parking is a pain but viable for the middle class. Let’s admit there are two valuable sides here. It doesn’t mean we don’t ultimately weigh one claim as more worthy but let’s not be cartoonish.
  - bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
    Cars already have their own bike lanes: roads. Why do they also get free parking? Also, if we want make things equitable, shouldn’t we give cars and bikes the same per-person square footage or per-person-mph square footage? Why does the fact that cars are bigger give their owners the right to more free space?
    - jshaqaw 7y ago
      Because some people need them. Because adding $7000 per year is a straw which breaks a middle class family in the city. Because a vibrant city needs middle class families and wouldn’t work as just an enclave for the very rich, the very poor, and 20-30 year olds without family responsibilities. I’m not saying these reasons trump alternative uses for the streets but they are real.