Roughly 97% of parking spaces in NYC are free. - Page 3 — Brooklynian

Roughly 97% of parking spaces in NYC are free.

13»

Comments

  • Idlewild said:

    I never said any of those things or inferred likewise.

    You didn't?

    Idlewild said:

    NYS would lose a ton of money private owned automobiles bring, just within NYC alone.

  • WhyFi said:

    You didn't?

    Nope. Since when does saying losing a ton of money mean anything else but that? You have me inferring that people without cars don't contribute to the economy as much. I never said that, never inferred it. However, if you believe that the statement you quote says otherwise, your prerogative.

  • whynot, I'm a bit too buzzed to be 100% lucid, but those temporary events don't really affect car owners.

    IIRC, Summer Streets closes primarily commercial streets. Park Av up to CP is mainly office buildings and stuff. Vandy is primarily commercial as well. Both are primarily metered commercial parking. The question I have is, is there value in removing parking on say, the strip of St Marks between Classon and Franklin for example? No more crowded than Vandy; maybe a little less foot traffic but not much less car traffic, and probably more permanent parking people. Are non-car owners clamoring for the space occupied by cars there, and if so what are they itching to do with it, especially in say, the middle of January?

  • I doubt that space would get much use in Jan.

    For that matter, Prospect Park seems to be just me a few other crazy dog owners in January, but I would not want them make it a parking lot for the month.

    It is difficult to design spaces that are flexible enough to accommodate the public's maximum benefit at any given time.

    So of the design choices are inherently inflexible and permanent.

    When we allocated so much of NYC to the car over the last century, did we make a choice that is irreversible? I hope not

  • As if on cue, Gothamist just published this piece:

    http://gothamist.com/2011/03/27/bike_lanes_theyre_for_valet_parking.php#photo-1

    As one might expect, bike lanes are used primarily during the day. However, there is a increased demand for valet parking at night.

    Could some areas have regulations wherein there was no parking during the day to allow for bikers, yet allow parking in the lane at night?

    ...of course, all of these regulations become a pain in the butt to enforce. Hence, DOT often does one thing or the other, instead of allowing space to be flexible.

  • When we allocated so much of NYC to the car over the last century, did we make a choice that is irreversible? I hope not

    I think much of the city's design is pretty much set in stone, no pun intended. Not to mention, the skyrocketing costs of construction & new legal battles make new projects damn near impossible. The 2nd ave line would have been done in like 3 years back in the day, but during that time 2nd Ave would have been an open trench. So it's more realistic to move to work with what we have, rather than redesign the wheel of the car we're all riding in.

    Regarding that bike lane fiasco... if you're brave enough to ride through BK at night, odds are you're among the people who don't need bike lanes anyway.

  • Idlewild,

    Yes, the loss of business as a result of things like Car Free Saturdays is very real. The link I posted about the Manhattan closures quotes a storeowner to the effect, and I think the city has some responsibility to businesses in such instances.

    For example, when the city does major projects for the public (like build a subway line) it often hugely affects private business owners, causing the loss of revenue for months on end.

    As a result, the businesses are compensated by the city for thier losses.

    I'm not sure the city should have this obligation if it only closes the street to cars 8x a year though.

    ...at a minimum, people should be encouraged to patronize the furniture businesses that was just by the closure that allowed them to drink lemonade in the middle of the street.

  • whynot_31 said:

    Idlewild,

    For example, when the city does major projects for the public (like build a subway line) it often hugely affects private business owners, causing the loss of revenue for months on end.

    As a result, the businesses are compensated by the city for thier losses.

    I am pretty sure there are no laws that require payment for non-physical taking of property. The article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/nyregion/05second.html on the 2nd Avenue Subway indicates that even for that project there is no compensatory fund for businesses.

    Certainly such provisos can be made riders to almost any project or law or policy, but they are not required.

  • mrs whynot said:

    I am pretty sure there are no laws that require payment for non-physical taking of property. The article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/nyregion/05second.html on the 2nd Avenue Subway indicates that even for that project there is no compensatory fund for businesses.

    Certainly such provisos can be made riders to almost any project or law or policy, but they are not required.

    So, the risk that the city will take away parking in front of your business or house is an uncompensated, unmitigated risk?

    Homeowners and business owners have no right to expect the city to compensate them for lost parking spots, and there presently isn't even an expectation that it will happen?

    I mean, with the 2nd avenue Subway project, I kind of see the logic:

    ....the businesses were warned for decades beforehand that the MTA was going to do this project, and they could have used this time to adapt. People who bought along 2nd Ave hopefully got their property pretty cheaply because buyers were willing to pay less. I also am able to see clear gains to the city as a whole. ...so, in my mind, the pain incurred by them is justified by the gain that will be experienced by us all.

    I can also "get on board" this same justification when it comes to making on street parking into lanes for BRT.

    ...and though I see bike lanes as valuable, I continue to argue that if we are going to lose a lane of parking that it be "flexible" to accommodate bikes preferably only during the high demand period.

    Ditto, Loading and garbage zones.

    However, I continue to find "banning parking just to so people reach the conclusion that it is too much of a pain to own a car in the city" to be premature, and showing naivete.

    Perhaps the lesson is that people need to know who they are electing to the City Council and their Community Boards stands on such things?

    ....because what they are deciding actually has the potential of affecting their lives. The trite bumper sticker says "Democracy is not a spectator sport"

  • whynot_31 said:

    Idlewild,

    Yes, the loss of business as a result of things like Car Free Saturdays is very real. The link I posted about the Manhattan closures quotes a storeowner to the effect, and I think the city has some responsibility to businesses in such instances.

    For example, when the city does major projects for the public (like build a subway line) it often hugely affects private business owners, causing the loss of revenue for months on end.

    As a result, the businesses are compensated by the city for thier losses.

    I'm not sure the city should have this obligation if it only closes the street to cars 8x a year though.

    ...at a minimum, people should be encouraged to patronize the furniture businesses that was just by the closure that allowed them to drink lemonade in the middle of the street.

    You may have misunderstood me. I actually believe the businesses on Vanderbilt made more money with the street closings. The foot traffic was pretty heavy at times, and I certainly saw a lot of the outdoor tables filled. But I'm only guessing since I don't have access to their books. I brought up the lawsuit to compare it to the bike lane situation. I don't think I emphasized that part though.

  • Cool The Kid said:

    The 2nd ave line would have been done in like 3 years back in the day, but during that time 2nd Ave would have been an open trench.

    Um, really? Maybe I'm misreading you, but when exactly do you think "back in the day" was? Cause this particular project was first proposed, and approved, in 1929. Re-approved again first in 1945, then '67. Digging/construction actually began in the early 70's. So when "back in the day" would the 2nd Ave Subway have been built easily and on time, let alone within "three years"?

    Either I'm misreading your point, or you're using an utterly terrible example to make it.

  • Idlewild,

    Yes, I misunderstood you.

    It would be great news if the businesses on Vanderbuilt actually made money as a result on those weekends.

    But I still ponder my partner's assertion that in virtually all instances, the city has no legal obligation to compensate folks for their losses as result of what it does to a public street.

    Although we are aware lawsuits can be brought over ULURP violations, this seems a poor strategy to rely on.

    The affected party's seem to be only able to organize people sharing thier point of view and then voting the offending city council, community board and mayor out of office next election.

  • I believe the Vanderbilt closings were initiated by PHNDC and Brooklyn Speaks as sponsors. All the City did was grant the permit. Hence the lawsuits against them. As far as Second Avenue goes, I would agree that morally the city & state may owe businesses on that corridor some breaks. Mostly tax breaks if I had anything to do with it, but legally, I don't believe so, And we all know how upright, chaste and moral City Hall and Albany are.

  • Idlewild said:

    Nope. Since when does saying losing a ton of money mean anything else but that? You have me inferring that people without cars don't contribute to the economy as much. I never said that, never inferred it. However, if you believe that the statement you quote says otherwise, your prerogative.

    Do you actually make sense to yourself?

    You say that "NYS would lose a ton of money private owned automobiles bring," as an example, you specifically list "stores such as Costco, IKEA and Fairway." Which I then rebut with,

    WhyFi said:

    My neighbor with a car doesn't spend any more on groceries (per person) at Fairway than I do when I take the subway to Trader Joe's. Do I sit on boxes because my carlessness prevents me from purchasing furniture? Is my $10 lunch at Gran Castillo somehow less economically stimulating than the $10 you spend at the White Castle drive through? Is my unborn child doomed to a naked life, all because I can't drive someplace to purchase clothing?

    So, where's the "ton of money," that NYS is losing in this, your own example? How is NYS losing money by me not DRIVING to Fairway when I walk to the corner store, instead?

  • Cool The Kid said:

    When we allocated so much of NYC to the car over the last century, did we make a choice that is irreversible? I hope not

    I think much of the city's design is pretty much set in stone, no pun intended. Not to mention, the skyrocketing costs of construction & new legal battles make new projects damn near impossible. The 2nd ave line would have been done in like 3 years back in the day, but during that time 2nd Ave would have been an open trench. So it's more realistic to move to work with what we have, rather than redesign the wheel of the car we're all riding in.

    This is a rather goofy generalization and gross oversimplification.

    The idea that we can't modify public planning and priorities, land usage, or even what to (re)devote various strips of SOME preexisting asphalt to, is bullsh-t (See Times Square).

    Regarding that bike lane fiasco... if you're brave enough to ride through BK at night, odds are you're among the people who don't need bike lanes anyway.

    The PPW bike lane isn't a fiasco by any reasonable defenition of the word.

    It's actually a well-planned, well-researched, well-presented-to-the-community-following-proper-laws (as the the judge will verify), well-executed public project.

  • Just to clarify: All of the bike lanes, not just the PPW one, were put in place after DOT obtained the approval of community boards.

    Two things could result:

    The so-far quiet majority of car owners could make sure that they control the various community boards in the future.

    Or

    Those in favor of changes in how we alott public space could retain control of community boards, and have the present trend continue.

    As CTK recently stated: we have the government we voted for.

  • ntfool said:

    Um, really? Maybe I'm misreading you, but when exactly do you think "back in the day" was? Cause this particular project was first proposed, and approved, in 1929. Re-approved again first in 1945, then '67. Digging/construction actually began in the early 70's. So when "back in the day" would the 2nd Ave Subway have been built easily and on time, let alone within "three years"?

    Either I'm misreading your point, or you're using an utterly terrible example to make it.

    Back in the day like, 1929. As the city developed, huge infrastructure projects became more and more expensive and impossible to break ground on, esp WRT the city & MTA's growing budgetary problems

  • Boygabriel said:

    The PPW bike lane isn't a fiasco by any reasonable defenition of the word.

    I believe that he was referring to the Gothamist article linked above - valets at a restaurant parked cars in a bike lane. A cop car sat idly by.

  • Whyfi is correct.

    In that instance, can everyone agree that a more flexible use of that lane makes sense?

    I.E. Something along the lines of bikers during the day, valet at night.

    Note, endorsing flexibility is not the same as calling the bike lanes a fiasco.

    But maybe the DOT can be smarter?

    Maybe the community boards can be REQUIRED to make the DOT smarter as a result of greater participation by a greater variety of interests....

  • You can't close major bike lanes at night.

    For bike infrastructure to work it has to be a network of well-connected lanes.

    It doesn't work if some of it closes. If nobody ever rode on those lanes at night you could entertain the idea, but I assure you, the Kent Ave lane is used 24 hours a day.

    For future reference, any major bike artery to or from the Williamsburg Bridge will probably break the threshold for "partial usership" to "constant usership".

    Oh yeah, and private businesses shouldn't use public property to valet park their patrons cars. Bike lane or no.

    You have lots of customers who just have to be able to drive to you (despite being near many buses and a subway), invest in a parking lot.

    Since when do you get to use public land to subsidize the space you need to operate your business at a profit?

  • Your thresehold for flexibility is only if there is NO use at night?

    One Chinese delivery guy on a bike should be more priority than the valet business?

    I disagree.

  • Do you want to play semantics games or did you really not understand my point, especially considering it's a major artery to the most-biked bridge in the city?

  • And FYI, pretty much any reasonable option I can think of gets precedence over damn VALET PARKING for use of public space.

  • What makes a delivery dude on a bike any more worthy of a use of public space than someone parking their car? Either way the space is dedicated to usage beyond the realm of large swaths of people in the city, and both uses are using public space to generate private profits. People biking over the bridge can use the JMZ too, so by that logic there shouldn't be bike lanes either. So what are you talking about?

    Never mind the utilization rates...

    Neither use is more or less morally reprehensible than the other.

  • whynot_31 said:

    One Chinese delivery guy on a bike should be more priority than the valet business?

    I disagree.

    What's the criteria for the favoritism? If one business relies upon the intended use of the lane to support themselves (Chinese food delivery), why should the intended use of the lane be eschewed in favor of another business? It doesn't make sense, even if you take the occasional late night commuters out of the picture (and they shouldn't be taken out of the picture - note the two-way bike traffic that would put some riders in to an oncoming traffic lane).

  • Whyfi-

    yup.

    BG-

    I continue to believe that arrangements could be made that would better accommodate better groups. For example, by making the regulations more flexible.

    If I was tsar, I would listen to the two sides:

    1. That of the Valet company and the restaurant's.

    2. That of the bikers.

    I would then look at the value that each brought to my kingdom, and the utility or "gain" that each experienced by having use of the space, and then (finally) proceed with adapting the use ...or not.

    In the real world, I hope that the struggling democracy I live in would collectively go thru through a similar process: It should look at such situations and without having a preconceived favorite side. It should be interested in learning more.

    Although we may not want the police to use discretion, they do. In this instance the police seem to have decided that the bike lane was not the best use of the space.

    As you are aware, it is very difficult to get unpopular laws enforced. If the pro-bike community moves too quickly in getting its lanes, and does not appear as reasonable, it will lose the police and the public as its allies.

    [I would like the public to be in more in charge of the police, so that they have less discretion but I will not digress into dreaming of the distant future]

    Staying in the present, I hope she doesn't mind me using her as example again, but here goes some good advice:

    Folks like Homeowner

    and her 3 kids are, and should be, very valuable to this city.

    Don't lose them as allies in your attempt

    to Repurpose Public Space

  • I am scandalized! You're telling us that the bicyclists left the bike lane and rode into oncoming traffic in the wrong direction, and that a police car was present but did not arrest the vicious hooligans?

    The only possible explanation for that gross deriliction of duty is that the venue was probably paying the cops to remain on premises, and hauling the bikers off would have left the valet-parked cars defenseless against further attacks by unscrupulous bikers!

    One hopes the cops at least got some good exercise applying their nightsticks to biker flesh.

    As for the integrity of the bike lanes, it ain't gonna happen until we see fewer fat cops riding in squad cars, and more fit cops riding bikes.

  • Cool The Kid said:

    What makes a delivery dude on a bike any more worthy of a use of public space than someone parking their car? Either way the space is dedicated to usage beyond the realm of large swaths of people in the city, and both uses are using public space to generate private profits. People biking over the bridge can use the JMZ too, so by that logic there shouldn't be bike lanes either. So what are you talking about?

    Never mind the utilization rates...

    Neither use is more or less morally reprehensible than the other.

    I don't know why we're talking about a bike delivery guy.

    *I* and many other public, tax-paying citizens traveling via vehicle use the Kent Ave bike lane at all hours.

    It is a public road.

    Private parking for a private business isn't even in the same realm as this, let alone a reasonable alternative for the land use.

    We're not talking about temporary loading or unloading for business, or the three parking places that some hotels and apt buildings claim out front. We're talking about stretches of road for a damn restaurant parking lot?

    Give me a break.

  • booklaw said:

    As for the integrity of the bike lanes, it ain't gonna happen until we see fewer fat cops riding in squad cars, and more fit cops riding bikes.

    Is saying "when cops ride bikes" another way of saying "when pigs fly"?

    Cops are sometimes called pigs, afterall.

  • whynot_31 said:

    CTK-

    yup.

    BG-

    I continue to believe that arrangements could be made that would better accommodate better groups. For example, by making the regulations more flexible.

    If I was tsar, I would listen to the two sides:

    1. That of the Valet company and the restaurant's.

    2. That of the bikers.

    I would then look at the value that each brought to my kingdom, and the utility or "gain" that each experienced by having use of the space, and then (finally) proceed with adapting the use ...or not.

    In the real world, I hope that the struggling democracy I live in would collectively go thru through a similar process: It should look at such situations and without having a preconceived favorite side. It should be interested in learning more.

    Although we may not want the police to use discretion, they do. In this instance the police seem to have decided that the bike lane was not the best use of the space.

    As you are aware, it is very difficult to get unpopular laws enforced. If the pro-bike community moves too quickly in getting its lanes, and does not appear as reasonable, it will lose the police and the public as its allies.

    [I would like the public to be in more in charge of the police, so that they have less discretion but I will not digress into dreaming of the distant future]

    Staying in the present, I hope she doesn't mind me using her as example again, but here goes some good advice:

    Folks like Homeowner

    and her 3 kids are, and should be, very valuable to this city.

    Don't lose them as allies in your attempt

    to Repurpose Public Space

    Excellent advice, however it might be misdirected.

    My general experience has been that bike advocate groups are usually very sensitive to the fact that a city has to be home to many different lifestyles. It's frequently people fighting bike lanes, traffic calming, pedestrian islands, or HOV lanes for public transit who refuse to acknowledge all forms of transportation and other lifestyles besides car-owners.

    I also hope that as tzar you'd listen to your public planning advisers, the DOT, and some kind of small business advocate who might argue why it's just so necessary for a restaurant to use public space as a private parking lot.

  • Bike groups should be very afraid of losing their perception as "moderates".

    I see them becoming arrogant as a result of a few victories.

    ....I see a "Cars are still needed" side organizing, for the first time.

    If you want, I will take a picture of the most edition of Reclaim; I subscribe.

    BG- Are you aware of the work of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign? It is very well research, thoughtful, and tedious. ....and flexible.

  • Boygabriel said:

    I also hope that as tzar you'd listen to your public planning advisers, the DOT, and some kind of small business advocate who might argue why it's just so necessary for a restaurant to use public space as a private parking lot.

    I think that, as tsar, he'd only have to listen to his lawyers that would advise him of the potential legal liability of adopting less-than-intuitive usage rules that would put physically vulnerable users in harms way.

  • Whyfi-

    I would weigh said liability against the taxes I would lose from the restaurant and the valet company. Afterall, a Tsar has to stay rich and powerful.

    His ability to rule his people is tapered by their ability to revolt.

    ....the reuse needs to be popular.

    Let's not kid ourselves, this is far from a perfect democracy. As a result, you may need to have your re-use be so popular that it can withstand not only voter challenges, but those of business interest$.

    ....Work bikers. work.

    schmooze.

    .....appear as moderates, or watch your victories disappear at the next election.


  • whynot_31 said:

    Bike groups should be very afraid of losing their perception as "moderates".

    Among people who actually give them a fair shake and recognize their moderation? Yes.

    Among people for whom no amount of hand holding will get them to accept that alternate visions of transportation policy exist? I'm not so sure.

    People like Mrs Wienshall or the economics blogger from the New Yorker have already lost any standing they had as reasonable moderates, and THEY should be the ones concerned with coming off as extremists or ignorant, rather than transit advocates having to pander to them.

    So caution both sides, I'd say.

    I see them becoming arrogant as a result of a few victories.

    Knowing people who work in the bike & pedestrian department of DOT, being a member of most advocacy groups, and an active member of the NYC biking community, I feel pretty comfortable saying that I haven't caught any whiff whatsoever of a broad sense of entitlement or predetermined "victory".

    The general feeling seems to be one of slow and steady success so that all modes of transportation can coexist for the greater good.

    ....I see the other side organizing, for the first time.

    Good, because for the first time they have to. Up until quite recently the primacy of the individual's right to unobstructed car ownership and use was an inalienable right in this country.

    .If you want, I will take a picture of the most edition of Reclaim; I subscribe.

    Are you aware of the work of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign?

    No, actually.

  • Reclaim is the magazine of Transportation Alternatives

    The Tristate Transportation Campaign is good friends with Time's Up, Transportation Alternatives, DOT and the MTA.

    http://www.tstc.org/

    TSTC works to create more sustainable, equitable and transit friendly communities in downstate New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and beyond. We conduct advocacy, education, coalition building and legislative work that results in safer roads, livable communities, and more attractive walking, biking, and transit routes.

    See your PM box for more info

  • Oh, yes, I get reclaim. Sorry, I thought you were talking about a pro-car group or something.

  • whynot_31 said:

    Whyfi-

    I would weigh said liability against the taxes I would lose from the restaurant and the valet company. Afterall, a Tsar has to stay rich and powerful.

    Indeed. In this case, unfortunately, it would take approximately 4.2 metric fuckloads of meals eaten by customers using valet parking to overcome one lost lawsuit. Alas, it's not meant to be.

  • WhyFi said:

    Indeed. In this case, unfortunately, it would take approximately 4.2 metric fuckloads of meals eaten by customers using valet parking to overcome one lost lawsuit. Alas, it's not meant to be.

    You may be confusing how I personally wish the world would work, as opposed to how I perceive the world as working.

    My message is push the opposition, but appear reasonable.

    Lawsuits are simply a part of doing business in NYC. ....I would not fear them as tsar, whether they came from the pro-bike forces or the pro-car forces.

    ....popular support is what is needed.

  • whynot_31 said:

    You may be confusing how I personally wish the world would work, as opposed to how I perceive the world as working.

    No, I'm not.

  • cool.

    then the task maybe as simple as convincing the politicians (or tsars) that the threat of harm from a bike lawsuit outweighs the perceived risk of loss of tax revenue.

    As well as convincing them 24/7/365 bike lanes are the best use for the space.

    BG wrote: Up until quite recently the primacy of the individual's right to unobstructed car ownership and use was an inalienable right in this country.

    Yes, I think they should have to fight in order to keep the spaces.

    Let's slowly but surely reclaim space for pedestrians, bikes, etc. .....my caution is against going too fast, and remembering to fight the media depicting you as crazed, spanex, speeding bikers where possible.

    P.S. I'm not say that we should do nothing until everyone is happy. Everyone will never be happy. Alliance building is not the same as waiting for consensus. Consensus will never happen. This is NYC

  • Boygabriel said:

    I don't know why we're talking about a bike delivery guy.

    *I* and many other public, tax-paying citizens traveling via vehicle use the Kent Ave bike lane at all hours.

    It is a public road.

    Private parking for a private business isn't even in the same realm as this, let alone a reasonable alternative for the land use.

    We're not talking about temporary loading or unloading for business, or the three parking places that some hotels and apt buildings claim out front. We're talking about stretches of road for a damn restaurant parking lot?

    Give me a break.

    A person's parked car is just as "private" a use of public space as someone on a bike. In either case it's public space being designated for a use that is only relevant to a small part of the population. The subjective difference is that you agree with bike usage on public streets, but disagree w/car parking on public streets.

    Because guess what... all the cars parked on commercial streets are "turning public space into private parking lots" too. The difference w/this restaurant being that their usage of public space was illegal, and thus should be dealt with accordingly. However, the objective legitimacy of the usage of roadways for private parking or private cycling are not worlds apart.

  • (you) disagree w/car parking on public streets.

    No, I don't. Another dumb mischaracterization of my position. At this point I can only assume you do it on purpose or due to laziness.

    Either way: not helpful.

  • Folks seem to be really upset that this was a Valet company using the spots. I must say I picked it as an example, simply because I came across it on Gothamist.

    While I agree (under present law) they should have been ticketed, I don't this example is completely off base in showing that there are situations in which bike lanes may be best used in a flexible manner that allows parking.

    For simplicity, let's imagine that patrons of local businesses decided to park their car in the bike lanes. If done well, I think bikers and pedestrians could gain FAR MORE SPACE than they have already.

    We have made enough progress that the politicians and DOT now allow avenues in Manhattan, the Bronx River Parkway, and Vanderbuilt to be "flexibly used" to allow for no cars.

    ...you do know I am not going to be the first to propose that bike lanes be similarly flexible, right?

  • Yes, I'm particularly irked by a restaurant claiming public land for their customers. I'd be pissed if they claimed street parking spots or the turn lane in front of the restaurant (funny how they didn't use that turn lane, huh?)

    Anyway-

    You do understand hesitation bike advocates might have at *already* being asked to make bike lanes flexible, as the current ratio of road space to bike lanes is 100:1, and that's only after a very recent effort by the city over the past 5 years or so (note: bikes have been used in the city for approximately 80,000 years).

    you know?

    In a theoretical idealized situation, yes, everyone must be willing to make sacrifices and be flexible when reasonable.

    But on the practical level, is it already time to start asking major bike arteries to be occasionally converted back to space for cars?

    Probably not.

  • What you perceive a major artery, the majority may perceive as a green painted, wasted strip of asphalt.

    especially in the winter

    or at night.

    Perhaps you could come with some use for the spaces during those times that was non-car?

    Think about lending the space to residential and commercial trash, my friend.


  • Boygabriel said:

    (you) disagree w/car parking on public streets.

    No, I don't. Another dumb mischaracterization of my position. At this point I can only assume you do it on purpose or due to laziness.

    Either way: not helpful.

    So as whynot suggested, would you be open to said restaurant renting out that section of bike lane on busy nights? Or are bike lanes untouchable? The only issue with said usage is that it wasn't legal, and IIRC the restaurant was appropriately ticketed.

    You said on the prior page that eventually bike lanes will go from partial to complete usership (utilization). I disagree. I know professional bikers ranging from cyclists to messengers who stay inside during the winter. Even the most "hardcore" bikers only use bike lanes for a fraction of the year, whereas people park cars year round. Even if bikers chose to ride through the winter, they'd be subjecting themselves to potentially serious injuries due to perpetually icy conditions. So I don't see why bike lanes can't or shouldn't be modular/seasonal.

  • whynot_31 said:

    I don't this example is completely off base in showing that there are situations in which bike lanes may be best used in a flexible manner that allows parking.

    Again, while 'flexible,' may increase usage, it also creates confusion and that's the last thing that you want when you're in the vulnerable position of mixing it up with automobiles. This does not change whether it's bike lanes that allow for parking during certain times or, even if the proposal were the other way around, traffic lanes that are bike only during certain times.

  • So "protect" the bike lanes from cars during low use periods with trash.

    Imagine the support you would get from the "common man" if they could walk down a clean sidewalk, unclogged with trashbags.

    Even in the dense areas, residential trash is only picked up twice a week.

    Commercial trash is picked up every night.

    ...we've trained them to sort their trash, could this be harder?

    BTW, I think I see some nipple in photo I posted above.

  • A bike lane is a road used by a vehicle for exercise, commuting, commerce, congestion reduction and traffic calming reasons.

    A bike lane's value is not a fleeting concept, only relevant the moments of a day that there is bike tire rubber on green-painted asphalt.

    That's not how transportation networks are conceptualized and executed.

    Almost nobody drives down my street between midnight and 6 am.

    Can I block off the road and have quiet street parties every night? There are still another 5999 miles of road for drivers to use elsewhere in the city.

    When it snows 12" or more can I go sledding on the BQE, since it's too dangerous for people to be driving anyway?

    Get it?

    Like highways and roads, bike lanes aren't just segments of asphalt to be evaluated in 1/8th of a mile or 60 minute segments of time, or as your anecdotal experiences with bikers dictate.

  • BG-

    I hope someday the majority of the people someday understand the bike lane as you do.

    ...but I fear you may be -at best- an early adopter.

    Reducing our city's reliance on the automobile will be a painful, gradual thing.

  • Boygabriel, the problem is you want it both ways. If bikes are just another transportation option, then bike lanes aren't necessary as bikes can legally use any portion of the existing street grid for transportation. If bikes are somehow different enough that a separate transportation system is necessary, then evaluations must be made of the level of usage to determine where bike lanes should run, when they should be operational etc.

    Why shouldn't we be asking if there are other uses for this valuable real estate during times when they are underutilized in the same way that the determination was made to have street fairs or closures during the summer of roadways to bring more foot traffic and commerce to local businesses? In my mind, if we can close Vanderbilt Avenue to car traffic once a week during the summer, then we can discuss closing bike lanes during the winter when fewer people ride on them or late at night or sharing them with trash two days a week, etc.

  • I hear you, but I'm also encouraged by polling, and by slowly shifting attitudes in our city and this country.

    I'm also encouraged by forward-thinking leaders and elected officials who have the courage to push us forward and deal with some our biggest, most ignored problems.

    As generations shift, so too do lifestyles and values.

  • homeowner said:

    Boygabriel, the problem is you want it both ways. If bikes are just another transportation option, then bike lanes aren't necessary as bikes can legally use any portion of the existing street grid for transportation. If bikes are somehow different enough that a separate transportation system is necessary, then evaluations must be made of the level of usage to determine where bike lanes should run, when they should be operational etc.

    Why shouldn't we be asking if there are other uses for this valuable real estate during times when they are underutilized in the same way that the determination was made to have street fairs or closures during the summer of roadways to bring more foot traffic and commerce to local businesses? In my mind, if we can close Vanderbilt Avenue to car traffic once a week during the summer, then we can discuss closing bike lanes during the winter when fewer people ride on them or late at night or sharing them with trash two days a week, etc.

    Should we open the discussion to allow cars to drive on the sidewalks at night?

  • homeowner said:

    Boygabriel, the problem is you want it both ways. If bikes are just another transportation option, then bike lanes aren't necessary as bikes can legally use any portion of the existing street grid for transportation. If bikes are somehow different enough that a separate transportation system is necessary, then evaluations must be made of the level of usage to determine where bike lanes should run, when they should be operational etc.

    No, the problem is that you guys are trying to treat this as some black & white issue where somehow, through logic games, we're going to figure out whether bike lanes are legitimate, or whether there's some singular, objective standard by which all public space use can be completely determined.

    The truth is that it's a complicated, ongoing discussion. City-wide. Sometime use-per-person-per-squarefoot is the metric. Sometimes it's "what's acceptable for the widest number of people?". Sometimes it's "what future problems are we going to face, can we mitigate them now?".

    Why shouldn't we be asking if there are other uses for this valuable real estate during times when they are underutilized in the same way that the determination was made to have street fairs or closures during the summer of roadways to bring more foot traffic and commerce to local businesses? In my mind, if we can close Vanderbilt Avenue to car traffic once a week during the summer, then we can discuss closing bike lanes during the winter when fewer people ride on them or late at night or sharing them with trash two days a week, etc.

    Yes, like I just said to WN, and I will repeat as often as you'd like me to: in theory everyone has to be flexible.

    However there are 500 miles of bike lanes over the whole city. Cars have 6,000 miles of road to use over the same area, and a high percentage of that to park on.

    Also, bike networks only function when they're interconnected and can offer people ways to efficiently traverse the city.

    So, on a practical level, is it really time to start discussing rolling back the bike network that's still very much in progress and was just begun (by historical standards)?

    Um, maybe? At best?

  • Boygabriel said:

    A bike lane is a road used by a vehicle for exercise, commuting, commerce, congestion reduction and traffic calming reasons.

    A bike lane's value is not a fleeting concept, only relevant the moments of a day that there is bike tire rubber on green-painted asphalt.

    That's not how transportation networks are conceptualized and executed.

    Almost nobody drives down my street between midnight and 6 am.

    Can I block off the road and have quiet street parties every night? There are still another 5999 miles of road for drivers to use elsewhere in the city.

    When it snows 12" or more can I go sledding on the BQE, since it's too dangerous for people to be driving anyway?

    Get it?

    Like highways and roads, bike lanes aren't just segments of asphalt to be evaluated in 1/8th of a mile or 60 minute segments of time, or as your anecdotal experiences with bikers dictate.

    The problem with your analogy is nobody, or close to nobody is looking to use said spaces as you propose. There are a couple million car owners who would indeed like to utilize the space appropriated for bike lanes- as they have been for decades, and as the city has partially been designed to accommodate and take advantage of through metering. Much of your arguments fall apart during the off-times of bike lanes; i.e. a bike lane most likely exacerbates congestion problems during off seasons by taking up road space that could have been used for more car lanes.

    A modular approach would enable a compromise that would best serve everyone. But like I said, you feel that using public space for private parking is

    a terrible use of public space [which] gives way too much priority to car ownership.

    so naturally even a compromise would be unacceptable. IOW, all efforts should be made to make parking on public space as expensive or difficult as possible, if not outright illegal. If you want to argue the legitimacy of allowing cars in the city, come out and say it; but don't oscillate between whatever enables you to deflect the most easily.

    The irony of it all being that your opening argument/sentiments about private parking could be made to a very legitimate degree against bike lanes...

    Hence the real ideal lying in a modular medium.

  • BG-

    While you see my strategy as "rolling back", I see as advancing your cause.

    The goal is for you to continue to get more space for pedestrians and bikes, despite the opposition organizing, right?

    ....so, get more bike lanes in more places by giving the locals something in return.

    Convince them they will not just LOSE space for cars in exchange for a small percentage of their constituents and stakeholders (less than % of the city commutes by bike?) riding their bikes through their hood.

    You are correct in that the answer will not always be trash.

    In some instances you may get it passed by stating they can park during off hours there.

    In some instances you may not get a bike lane at all, but might get a loading zone or bike parking.

    In some situations you may want to hold your ground 24/7/365.

  • I'm sure there are lots of problems with my analogy. It was an afterthought to my main point, which you didn't address:

    A bike lane is a road used by a vehicle for exercise, commuting, commerce, congestion reduction and traffic calming reasons.

    A bike lane's value is not a fleeting concept, only relevant the moments of a day that there is bike tire rubber on green-painted asphalt.

    (modular) is not how transportation networks are conceptualized and executed.

    IOW, all efforts should be made to make parking on public space as expensive or difficult as possible, if not outright illegal.

    No, for the 832nd time this is not what was advocating. It's how your simpleminded approach to this discussion makes it appear to you.

  • And yes, thinking about it there shouldn't be any problems with blocking a street off at night when there's no usage. The city shuts down various major avenues for parades and stuff, so a small party on a block hardly anyone is using is no big deal. Proposing to block off significant portions of many streets all the time for parties is another discussion.

  • A point by point critique and advice as you requested:

    Boygabriel said:

    A bike lane is a road used by a vehicle for exercise, commuting, commerce, congestion reduction and traffic calming reasons.

    there are other ways to excercise, calm traffic, reduce traffic and clam traffic. Nice green medians with exercise equipment, for example.

    The gardens on Broadway on the UWS (72nd st - 125th) are quite nice, and serve all of these purposes.

    If the bikers are too annoying, I'll appease the old ladies and achieve "anti-car" goals while giving bikers no benefits. ....try me.

    A bike lane's value is not a fleeting concept, only relevant the moments of a day that there is bike tire rubber on green-painted asphalt.

    If the public perceives it as an unused strip of green asphalt, you are screwed, regardless. As a tsar, I will give you five minutes at the community board mtg, because the lanes are unused in the community next door.

    (modular) is not how transportation networks are conceptualized and executed.

    The public does not define a bike as transportation. They define it as recreation. Until this changes, tread carefully.

  • (modular) is not how transportation networks are conceptualized and executed.

    In the case of bike lanes, it should be. What is so bad about a bike lane being closed down at night/during the winter to be used for street parking? In cases like Kent Ave obv exceptions could be made, but if the goal is max utilization for the majority of the public, what's wrong w/the modular approach?

  • ....so, get more bike lanes in more places by giving the locals something in return.

    People actually get lots of things in return. Primarily safety, which my guess is why the PPW lane has so much public support.

    I understand what you're arguing, but there are other approaches I'd consider as well.

    54% of New Yorkers support bike lanes, and I'd image this number will continue to grow as the public benefits become more apparent, people get comfortable with the ones in their neighborhoods, and the exaggerations peddled by groups like Mrs. Weinshall's are exposed for the falsehoods they are.

  • Boygabriel said:

    No, for the 832nd time this is not what was advocating. It's how your simpleminded approach to this discussion makes it appear to you.

    Well done - I was trying to think of a way of broaching that, but everything I was coming up with was far less polite.

  • Cool The Kid said:

    (modular) is not how transportation networks are conceptualized and executed.

    In the case of bike lanes, it should be. What is so bad about a bike lane being closed down at night/during the winter to be used for street parking? In cases like Kent Ave obv exceptions could be made, but if the goal is max utilization for the majority of the public, what's wrong w/the modular approach?

    As I've mention a few times - nothing, other than people dying.

  • Cool The Kid said:

    And yes, thinking about it there shouldn't be any problems with blocking a street off at night when there's no usage. The city shuts down various major avenues for parades and stuff, so a small party on a block hardly anyone is using is no big deal. Proposing to block off significant portions of many streets all the time for parties is another discussion.

    What you're proposing (dramatically closing bike lanes late at night or during bad weather, right?) is wildly out of proportion to the effect on car travel that closing major avenues a couple times a year, or a few blocks here and there, have on a system of 6,000 miles of road for cars, vs what happens when you close off bike lanes on our 500 miles of lanes.

    Cool The Kid said:

    (modular) is not how transportation networks are conceptualized and executed.

    In the case of bike lanes, it should be. What is so bad about a bike lane being closed down at night/during the winter to be used for street parking? In cases like Kent Ave obv exceptions could be made, but if the goal is max utilization for the majority of the public, what's wrong w/the modular approach?

    I've already addressed this repeatedly. In very recent posts on this very page. I'm not repeating them again b/c you can't be bothered to read close enough.

    Try harder.

  • When you two are done calling people who could be on your side "simpleminded" and implying that we are "indifferent to bikers dying", please take a moment to respond to my suggestions and critique above.

    Homeowner,

    you still have some of those goldfish crackers?

    I'd like some. BTW, nice van. Can I get a ride home?

  • whynot_31 said:

    When you two are done calling people who could be on your side "simpleminded" and being "indifferent to bikers dying", please take a moment to respond to my suggestions and critique above.

    Which suggestions? Multi-use/part time bike lanes? Already responded to a number of times.

  • It was more directed to BG, but you'll do.

    (what appears below is an improved version)

    whynot_31 said:

    A point by point critique and advice as you requested:

    A bike lane is a road used by a vehicle for exercise, commuting, commerce, congestion reduction and traffic calming reasons.

    there are other ways to excercise, commute, get around, facilitate commerce, reduce congestion and clam traffic.

    There are buses and subways.

    There are nice green medians with exercise equipment, for example. The gardens on Broadway on the UWS (72nd st - 125th) are quite nice, and serve all of these purposes. If the bikers are too annoying, I'll appease the old ladies like those on the UWS and achieve "anti-car" goals while giving bikers no benefits. ....try me. ....better yet, try the community board.

    A bike lane's value is not a fleeting concept, only relevant the moments of a day that there is bike tire rubber on green-painted asphalt.

    If the public perceives it as an unused strip of green asphalt, you are screwed, regardless. As the tsar of the local community board, I will give you five minutes at this community board mtg, because the lanes are unused in the community next door.

    (modular) is not how transportation networks are conceptualized and executed.

    The public does not define a bike as transportation. They define it as recreation. Until you are able to change this perception, tread carefully. ....or I'll just regard you as a tiny subset of my voters.

  • Goldfish AND Teddy Grahams for you! :D

  • thanks.

    I'll be back in about an hour. I have to go walk my dog in the park. I love car free spaces.

  • Frankly, I think we should do away with all bike lanes and go directly to the Shweeb. Its a better concept in our climate in that it can operate year round, it doesn't require bike ownership or storage, and it allows for faster pods to push slower ones resulting in no traffic jams. Plus they could be retrofitted to allow for storage space to transport things like bags and groceries.

  • whynot_31 said:

    It was more directed to BG, but you'll do.

    (what appears below is an improved version)

    ...and what kind of response are you looking for? Golf clap? Sage nodding?

  • Boygabriel said:

    What you're proposing (dramatically closing bike lanes late at night or during bad weather, right?) is wildly out of proportion to the effect on car travel that closing major avenues a couple times a year, or a few blocks here and there, have on a system of 6,000 miles of road for cars, vs what happens when you close off bike lanes on our 500 miles of lanes.

    Speaking from a biker centric view, yes, bike lane closures can be "dramatic", but it's not as though once a bike lane is closed a road is unusable. There could even be daytime and night time bike lanes, w/the night time lanes shrinking down to reflect the lower traffic. Said lanes could even be made in the curb-bikelane-parked car-moving car setup to ensure the safety of bikers. More importantly though, as I have been asserting from page one, when you take off your bike centric glasses and look at city centric ones, said closures wouldn't at all be a big deal. You're talking about disruptions of less than 1% of the population of NYC for maybe half the year. Hardly a crime against humanity.

    Boygabriel said:

    I've already addressed this repeatedly. In very recent posts on this very page. I'm not repeating them again b/c you can't be bothered to read close enough.

    Try harder.

    I keep repeating the same points and asking the same questions because you don't answer them the first time, and embark on more and more fallacies and exposures of your bias w/each post you make.

    Here...

    No, the problem is that you guys are trying to treat this as some black & white issue where somehow, through logic games, we're going to figure out whether bike lanes are legitimate, or whether there's some singular, objective standard by which all public space use can be completely determined.
    - funny you say this, as a few pages ago you were chiding me for harping to long on the point that the city's variance in density & design mean discussions about square footage have to be tackled at a block by block basis

    The truth is that it's a complicated, ongoing discussion. City-wide. Sometime use-per-person-per-squarefoot is the metric. Sometimes it's "what's acceptable for the widest number of people?". Sometimes it's "what future problems are we going to face, can we mitigate them now?".
    Strange that now the tone of the convo is "complex" and exploratory; your declarations in the first post seemed pretty absolute.

    Yes, like I just said to WN, and I will repeat as often as you'd like me to: in theory everyone has to be flexible.
    As I said, much of the response has been to the tone you set in the first post of the thread, and the backpedaling from said post throughout.


    However there are 500 miles of bike lanes over the whole city. Cars have 6,000 miles of road to use over the same area, and a high percentage of that to park on.

    Right, and for the trillionth time, on that 6000 miles are millions of cars either in motion or parked, vs at most a couple thousand bikers during a few points during ideal weather days. Why you give equal weight to both has been my fundamental question throughout the thread

    Also, bike networks only function when they're interconnected and can offer people ways to efficiently traverse the city.

    So, on a practical level, is it really time to start discussing rolling back the bike network that's still very much in progress and was just begun (by historical standards)?

    Um, maybe? At best?

    Questioning the execution of the bike lanes isn't necessarily a calling of their scaling back. Many of the questions have centered around the simple question of the best way to execute said bike lanes to best serve everyone in the city. Considerations such as the traffic patterns and size of the biking community, as well as ways to best compromise between the needs of bikers and drivers on roads have been thematic to many of the points made by people you've disagreed with. So I'm not sure where this sentiment is coming from.

    Just to summarize again,

    - drivers outnumber bikers by a factor of thousands even during peak biker seasons in NYC

    - car traffic is much less variant, and thus much higher utilizing than bike traffic

    - unless I'm mistaken, the essence of this discussion is to figure out how to best serve the most people possible with the public space of the roads... I think anyone who doesn't see that utilization rates are a central component to the analysis of how to best do that has a gross misunderstanding of how to best serve the city

  • The cheapness of insinuating those against bike lanes are pro-cyclist-death is cheap and silly.

    I bike, and have had my share of serious bike accidents + ER visits. Guilt shouldn't be a driving force behind policy, as one can be guilted into doing anything.

  • Cool The Kid said:

    A person's parked car is just as "private" a use of public space as someone on a bike.

    Using a parking spot removes the possibility of anyone else using the same spot - usually for a long time. Using a bicycle or automobile in a travel lane only uses the space for a very brief period of time. They are not analogous. For the same reason parking is not analogous to using a public park or using public transit. Only at the upper ends of usage does one's person's use of parks, transit or travel lanes displace another's. At almost all times (perhaps standing and stopping are exceptions) parking a car removes the possibility of use of the spot from everyone else - car owners and not alike.

  • Point taken mrswhynot. But my underlying point is, parking space or bike lane, it's public space that is unusable to people who don't have cars or bikes. So I'm still at a loss as to why bike lanes are such better uses of space. I mean it's not like one can camp out in a parking spot for more than a day at a time, so while parking spaces (in dense areas) are not as transient as bike lanes, when looked at over the span of a broad area & some period of time, is private parking that much more limited?

  • It seems that this thread has two main topics. The first was the original topic which I will summarize as "what should the space now devoted to parking private cars in public spaces for free be used for?" The second is harder to summarize, but is something like cars v. bikes and somewhat more generally how should we-all move around this city we all live in? I'm not going to try to take on this second topic in this post.

    On the first, there have been a ton of ideas thrown out - loading zones, garbage collection spots, bike lanes, benches, pedestrian ways, grass, picnic benches, houses, play streets, parking cars, parking bikes and I hadn't even gotten around to my solar panel/windmill proposal. Some of these are more obviously useful year-round and others are daylight/season specific. Some require structures, others enforcement.

    A big problem is people's various methods of quantifying usefulness. For instance if about 1/2 of all households own a car, is a single parking spot useful for 4 million New Yorkers? Of course not. A single parking spot is useful for exactly one car at a time or about 2.54 people (average NYC household size) per day. (In some neighborhoods, people move their car more than once a day, in others, they only move their cars when alternate side of the street parking rules demand such a move making it more like once a week...)

    But let's not nit pick, let's go with 2.54 people/day use a parking space. A parking spot on a yearly basis is useful to 2.54*365= 927 people.

    You can use that comparison for one-day events or year-long uses.

    Being that I am not measuring the utility of parking v. the utility of biking, the question is: are there other uses that would serve more people? The bike lane on PPW displaced a couple of dozen spaces. If someone has the exact numbers, please let us all know. But so the train of thought is complete: let's say the PPW lane displace 36 parking spaces, it affects 36*2.54 people = 91 people/day. Do more than 91 people bike down it a day? I think so. I think that is true in the winter and will be true in the summer. Again, if someone has the counts, let us know. But assuming my math is correct, is the bike lane a better use of the space than the parking spots? Yes.

    Still with me?

    How about a loading/unloading zone? How many people get a delivery on my block every day? A lot. Today the bulletin board listed that 50 apartments had packages in the lobby for pick-up. 50*2.54= 127 people. And my block has a lot of multi-dwelling buildings on it. So, a loading/unloading space that would knock out 3-4 spaces (enough for two trucks) would probably be worth it.

    Would the same math hold on every street? No. If every street in Prospect Heights had a bike lane (knocking out about 1/2 of all parking) the number of bike riders might not equal the number of parking spots *2.54. But on a limited number of streets - enough to create the type of safe bike network that would allow wimpy riders like me to bike to work - it could easily. Probably in any season.

    Similarly, on some Bensonhurst streets, double parking isn't a problem and loading zones wouldn't be a benefit.

    Using the parking spots for kids to learn to roller blade would be a great use in the summer daylight hours, but a lousy use in winter nights. Could there be streets with no parking on weekends in the summer? Sure.

    Feel free to apply the math to the rest of the uses...

  • damn all the Whynots are smart and wordy

  • Cool The Kid said:

    The cheapness of insinuating those against bike lanes are pro-cyclist-death is cheap and silly.

    If this is in reference to my comment, it is yet another example of you not being able to read thoroughly enough to maintain context in a conversation.

  • mrs whynot, that's a great analysis, and exactly the kind of analysis that has to be done (and most likely is done) when evaluating a parking displacing bike lane (or any new usage). If we assign subjective weighting (i.e. "free private parking is a terrible use of public space"), w/every advocacy group making their case we get back to square one. So I think some kind of objective utilization (and cost/environmental impact) analysis is the only fair way.

    I am seriously considering starting an engineering political party.

  • Thank you. Not perfect, but a start.

    If you expand your party to urban planners too, we can come up with all sorts of fabulous measurement tools. E.g. the BTU/DU l-cy efficiency of various vehicles (that would be British Thermal Units per dwelling over the life cycle of various vehicles).

    This is probably why there are no Presidents who are also professional planners. (The Mayor of Minneapolis and former B.P. of the Bronx, yes.)

  • If we can utilize the talent of some programmers, we could even do some kind of projecting simulation.

    "Sim City: Public Space Utilization Edition"

  • Whynot is horrified that there are others who speak my language.

  • didn't read any replies :p too lazy to dig through them all.

    My only beef is with out of town plates and upstate plates(I know way too many folks with bungalows and vacation homes upstate lol). They have friends or relatives or hell their old address to use cheaper rates for insurance which isn't fair!!

    They should just make it residential parking permits and paid for a fee, a reasonable fee. Only way to get the parking permit is if your car is register and insured here.

    they should have like guest parking spots without permit every few blocks. so if out of towners do come they could use the spots and locals won't abuse it. forcing those jack asses to pay for local insurance rates.

  • ^^^ That's actually a fantastic idea. The out-of-staters bug the shit out of me, too, and I think that having to pay real insurance rates would dissuade some of the frivolous car ownership. Also, it's hard to argue against getting some of the under-insured cars off of the streets.

  • Not to mention people with out of state tags actually having to pay NY fees for the NY roads they use.

  • BG, you'll like this - http://thecityfix.com/transport-2050-the-european-commission-transforms-transportation/

    The European Commission has released a roadmap, Transport 2050, for what they feel to be necessary changes in infrastructure.

    One of its key goals is to eliminate conventionally fueled cars in cities [by 2050]
    The initiative also includes encouraging a shift towards public transport, walking and cycling,
  • I thought getting cars off the road wasn't goal?

    Can you guys make up your minds?

  • Sure, when you start making sense - wtf are you on about?

  • Cool The Kid said:

    I thought getting cars off the road wasn't goal?

    Can you guys make up your minds?

    Was that meant to be a real discussion or should I respond with something equally mindless?

This discussion has been closed.