I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases the number of available parking spaces. If that's the case, Storbeck improperly challenged the basis of Cassidy's cost-benefit scrutiny. The value (intrinsic and extrinsic) of bike lanes isn't in question; rather, Storbeck seems to take exception to the fact that these bike lanes are being constructed and rarely used. On the other hand, for anyone who has driven in NYC, parking is always difficult, no matter where you are. Whenever I drive around, I just accept the fact that I will be paying $30 per hour for a garage.
Yes, switching over to bicycle transportation is an outstanding idea. However, the change has to be, in a manner of speaking, bootstrapped. There's absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues.
I don't much care for cycling; I did it for years when I was in school, had enough of it, now I prefer motorbikes. But it's a gross overstatement to say that there is no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently being underutilized; you're completely ignoring network effects. If the cause of under-utilization is lack of cycle paths that cover enough of the journey (i.e. there would be too much navigation of hazardous traffic), it's self-evident that more cycle paths would be justified.
The question then becomes whether or not under-utilization is caused by lack of cycle route coverage. I think it's pretty reasonable to believe that many people used to car transport think cycling through the traffic to be dangerous, and would look more favourably on it if there were separated dedicated lanes.
(If parking is available for 30 USD, then it appears that parking is not actually difficult in NYC. It is expensive, not difficult.)
>(If parking is available for 30 USD, then it appears that parking is not actually difficult in NYC. It is expensive, not difficult.)
That's the key takeaway. When property is at a premium, parking is also at a premium, by necessity. As someone who lives in a city, I like cheap parking as much as anybody else. But cheap parking is just city-subsidized parking.
The distinction is that it's private parking for $30 USD per hour. Municipal parking is provided by the taxpayers, just as the bike lanes are. They're switching out municipal parking for bike lanes when the bike lanes are underutilized.
"Underutilized" is a pretty iffy measure when comparing parking to bike lanes. Let's say 10 drivers can park on one side of a city block. Their cars will be parked for an average of 2 hours, and will carry 1.5 passengers. The parking is heavily contended for 14 hours. Given these rough estimates, 105 people will benefit from the parking each day. How many cyclists need to use that same land per day to be considered properly utilized? 200? 500? The fact that a bike lane isn't congested doesn't mean it's underutilized relative to parking.
And let's not forget that bike lanes are a public good, while parking spaces can be (and are) provided by private businesses. For that matter, the city could provide public lots or garages that are off the road. Parking does not need to be curbside.
The point is that parking is something which can be provided privately, and which should, in theory (I know that, especially in economics, this doesn't necessarily mean in practice), cost approximately the same. Bike lanes, on the other hand, cannot be provided privately.
Isn't there some sort of city council that decides this sort of thing, rather than a sole executive? Most public works projects don't go through a referendum from what I've seen, which would be impractically unwieldy.
Parking is easy in NYC, from my limited experience, as long as you have a fat wallet. It's extremely difficult if you're trying to be cheap, but that's only to be expected.
>I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases the number of available parking spaces.
Just FYI, I'm pretty sure that's not an appropriate use of "libre". "Libre" is more along the lines of "liberty" or "freedom", not "available" or "unused".
>There's absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues
This is incorrect. Aside from the network effect, the (under)utilization of an existing bike lane is not necessarily indicative of the expected usage pattern of a new bike lane. Imagine applying this argument to bus routes. Just because the 32 from Manhattan to the Bronx is underutilized, does that mean that a new route 44 from Manhattan to Long Island would also be underutilized? (Obviously my examples here are made up.)
I'm well aware of the technical distinction between "libre" and "available." I should have said that Cassidy's belief is more in line with "libre," rather than gratuitous. A viable argument could be made that decreasing parking spaces infringes on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private parking. It's admittedly weak, but it's something to consider.
As for your support of the network effect, it's not the government's position, by executive decree, to encourage change. They are representatives of the people, and to that end should cater to the majority, with the judiciary acting in its role to protect the rights of the minority.
Considering your bus example, I admittedly have no understanding on how bus routes (or for that matter, bike routes) work. Certainly there's empirical research suggesting that the route would be used, but the trade off is that adding a new bus route does not result in taking away something else (aside from resources, but resource allocation is entirely different).
> I'm well aware of the technical distinction between "libre" and "available." I should have said that Cassidy's belief is more in line with "libre," rather than gratuitous.
Did you mean "gratis"?
> A viable argument could be made that decreasing parking spaces infringes on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private parking. It's admittedly weak, but it's something to consider.
That's not just weak. There is no right or freedom that entitles one to public parking. There's nothing "libre" about public parking.
> As for your support of the network effect, it's not the government's position, by executive decree, to encourage change. They are representatives of the people, and to that end should cater to the majority, with the judiciary acting in its role to protect the rights of the minority.
It most certainly is the government's job to encourage change. The role of the government is not simply to be the enforcer for the masses. A large part of the government's job is to maintain a prosperous nation. Sometimes that requires change that the majority doesn't necessarily support. There are probably relatively few meaningful things that the government does with the support of >50% of the population. Rather, there are a lot of things that please some significant minority of the population. e.g. Bob gets a new connection between two major roads, Joe gets a new bike lane, Sue gets lower taxes on groceries, and Mallory gets a Hybrid car subsidy.
> Considering your bus example, I admittedly have no understanding on how bus routes (or for that matter, bike routes) work. Certainly there's empirical research suggesting that the route would be used, but the trade off is that adding a new bus route does not result in taking away something else (aside from resources, but resource allocation is entirely different).
Public land use is an exercise in resource allocation. The idea that parking should take priority over bike lanes is an opinion. It comes down to estimating what will be best for the city, both short and long-term.
> A viable argument could be made that decreasing parking spaces infringes on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private parking.
A viable argument could be made that governments which don't provide free helicopter rides infringe on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private helicopter services.
It will be bootstrapped here - the bike-sharing program will be injecting 10,000 bikes into the system as of next spring/summer.
And I defy anyone to spend time on a major non-recreational cycling route (Sands Street, 8th Avenue, the Williamsburg Bridge, Prospect Park West) when the weather is pleasant and state that the infrastructure is underutilized. Were it the ghost town that Cassidy and Weinshall claim, the DOT would not be putting in pedestrian safeguards (bollards, the wall at the bottom of the Williamsburg Bridge).
This debate has raged for the better part of this year, and the notion of Prospect Park West residents sitting with golf clickers counting cyclists in the dead of winter and claiming the paths are underutilized is ridiculous.
Here's what I don't understand at all about Cassidy's argument.. is there a single free parking space in the city that's been displaced by a bike lane? Every bike lane I've seen and ridden on is right next to a bunch of parked cars.
Secondly, as far as increasing while they're currently under-utilized, I'd say that there's an argument for increasing to the point where there's a solid network over most of the city (which we're about at now). It's hard to say oh we don't need a bike lane on the UES because the west side lane isn't always full of bikers. Additionally, during rush hour those lanes certainly are utilized, I'm never the only one on a bike on a given block's length of bikelane during rush hour.
Even if free means what you posit, it comes to the same: market pressures that make building parking garages so lucrative will provide the need if street parking is replaced by bike lanes. Also, reread the part about how creating a viable cycling path network, which is safe for the cyclist throughout, will attract many more cyclist to the road, as it has in other cities. The current number of cyclists in NYC is not nearly the potential number of cyclists if a good network of paths existed.
Sorry if you mistook my post for me taking a side. I wasn't. I was just pointing out a peculiarity I noticed in the article. I'm actually for increased bike routes, as that will decrease the number of people injured in bicycle v. motor vehicle collisions. This is my personal view, though.
However, there's a massive distinction that we have to realize: garages are privately-owned, whereas parking is municipally-regulated. The city is switching out public parking for public bicycle paths, and I don't necessarily know if this a net positive economically.
Parking garages are not lucrative. The cost to build a parking garage runs $20k-30k per parking space. Building one underground adds an additional $10k/space. In contrast, a parking stall on a flat slab is going to run only a few hundred dollars (in Denver, the cost for thick slabs you can park semis on runs about $800/parking stall).
They do get built, though, so they are profitable enough apparently.
It's funny, neither article nor any comment mentions the subways in NYC, which are excellent. That would seem like the no-brainer choice for navigating Manhattan; it certainly is when I visit. That this guy must visit Manhattan locales by cars is... I dunno, perhaps being too picky? Anyways, if people want to keep doing it, parking will surely pop up at prices the market can bear.
$30K is not very much when you consider that a parking space in a dense urban area can charge $300-$400 a month, even while competing with free street parking. At $300, that's $3600 a year, or about a 12% return on your investment just from the cash flow alone (and the value of the space will rise over time as well.)
Double digit returns on a relatively low-risk investment aren't exactly bad.
Yes, switching over to bicycle transportation is an outstanding idea. However, the change has to be, in a manner of speaking, bootstrapped. There's absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues.