Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007
San Franciscans Hurl Their Rage at Parking Patrol
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS - 07 Jan 2007 02:56 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/06/us/06parking.html?em&ex=1168232400&en=42d119d4 5aa50bbf&ei=5087%0A
San Franciscans Hurl Their Rage at Parking Patrol
By JESSE McKINLEY Published: January 6, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 5 - It bears the hallmarks of a classic urban scourge: back-channel sales, assaults on enforcement officials and even death.
As the demand for parking spots grows, the city's regulations become increasingly complex.
It is the price of parking in San Francisco.
Burdened with one of the densest downtowns in the country and a Californian love for moving vehicles, San Franciscans have been shocked in recent months by crimes related to finding places to park, including an attack in September in which a young man was killed trying to defend a spot he had found.
More recently, the victims have been parking control officers - do not call them meter maids - who suffered four attacks in late November, and two officers went to a hospital.
Over all, 2006 was a dangerous year for those hardy souls handing out tickets here, with 28 attacks, up from 17 in 2005.
All of which has left officials in this otherwise civilized community scrambling to explain, and solve, "parking rage."
"It's hard for me to understand people reacting in such a hostile manner," said Nathaniel P. Ford Sr., executive director of the Municipal Transportation Agency, which oversees parking. "Clearly, this is a working person simply doing their job. I've gotten parking tickets, and I sort of slap myself on the wrist and pay the ticket."
People in the field say abuse is common, often frightening and, occasionally, humiliating. In November, an officer was spat on, another was punched through the window of his Geo Metro, and an irate illegal parker smashed the windshield of another officer's golf-cart-like vehicle.
"Just driving down the street, you get yelled at," said Lawanna Preston, staff director for Local 790 of the Service Employees International Union, which represents parking control officers.
The officers are city employees but not in the Police Department.
"They can't even eat lunch with that uniform on, because people approach them and curse at them," Ms. Preston said.
About 75 officers demonstrated on Friday at the Hall of Justice asking for more protection.
(snip)
editor@netpath.net - 07 Jan 2007 05:43 GMT Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS quoted the New York Times:
> "Just driving down the street, you get yelled at," said Lawanna > Preston, staff director for Local 790 of the Service Employees > International Union, which represents parking control officers. > The officers are city employees but not in the Police Department. > "They can't even eat lunch with that uniform on, because people > approach them and curse at them," Ms. Preston said. Comes with regime illegitimacy. Just like being an "Iraqi" police officer or soldier for what every Iraqi knows is a puppet government run by Bush.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
Furious George - 07 Jan 2007 06:51 GMT > Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS quoted the New York > Times: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > officer or soldier for what every Iraqi knows is a puppet government > run by Bush. Actually it is just a few *ssh*les who think they can push around the parking control officers. But they don't have a better parking plan.
The last time I checked San Francisco was a democracy. The parking control officers have legitimacy.
> No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com Jack May - 07 Jan 2007 07:04 GMT > Actually it is just a few *ssh*les who think they can push around the > parking control officers. But they don't have a better parking plan. > > The last time I checked San Francisco was a democracy. The parking > control officers have legitimacy. Elections in SF are as valid as elections in an insane asylum. You just get crazy people running the place and the city descends into chaos.
Furious George - 07 Jan 2007 08:12 GMT > > Actually it is just a few *ssh*les who think they can push around the > > parking control officers. But they don't have a better parking plan. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Elections in SF are as valid as elections in an insane asylum. You just get > crazy people running the place and the city descends into chaos. Yes, I agree totally. Pushing around a parking control officer because you are frustrated about something they have no control over is crazy.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 07 Jan 2007 16:18 GMT > > > Actually it is just a few *ssh*les who think they can push around the > > > parking control officers. But they don't have a better parking plan. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, I agree totally. Pushing around a parking control officer because > you are frustrated about something they have no control over is crazy. Screw that "he's just doing his job" justification. That's what the nazi guards said. And that's what our child-torturing troops in iraq say.
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 07 Jan 2007 16:20 GMT Someone wrote:
>> > > Actually it is just a few *ssh*les who think they can push around the >> > > parking control officers. But they don't have a better parking plan. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >nazi guards said. And that's what our child-torturing troops in iraq >say. It's not everyone can get a job being "first mate" at Greely's finer bath houses, faggio. =))
 Signature gpstard (gpsman@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:" (Message-ID: <1167151218.287827.24230@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>) Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident?
"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie.
: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash.
: http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy": Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event. Message-ID: <Xns970A68202F1C5joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6>
Fred G. Mackey - 07 Jan 2007 16:37 GMT >>Yes, I agree totally. Pushing around a parking control officer because >>you are frustrated about something they have no control over is crazy. > > Screw that "he's just doing his job" justification. That's what the > nazi guards said. And that's what our child-torturing troops in iraq > say. So enforcing parking laws is tantamount to engaging in a holocaust or torturing children?
And of couse, any US troops torturing children in Iraq are NOT following orders and in the very rare cases where "torture" (and I use the term very loosely) has been found, those that perpetrated it have been or are being brought to justice.
Of course, if you're talking about terrorists blowing up children, they might well be following orders. It's quite telling that you refer to those people as "our". You would side with terrorists.
Clark F Morris - 07 Jan 2007 18:45 GMT >> > > Actually it is just a few *ssh*les who think they can push around the >> > > parking control officers. But they don't have a better parking plan. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >nazi guards said. And that's what our child-torturing troops in iraq >say. Do you believe that someone should be able to park anywhere they please whenever they please? Have you ever considered using public transportation where feasible and appropriate? Somehow, I don't see a place to park as a human right even though most of my travel is by automobile.
Hypocrisy Alert - 08 Jan 2007 06:05 GMT Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS a lover of gay kid porn spewed forth this crapola all over the landscape in rec.autos.driving:
> Screw that "he's just doing his job" justification. That's what the > nazi guards said. And that's what our child-torturing troops in iraq > say. <grin> Thanks for the new .sig, traitor judy! :)
 Signature Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS supports the troops again: "Screw that 'he's just doing his job' justification. That's what the nazi guards said. And that's what our child-torturing troops in iraq say."
Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (A.k.a: LBMHB/lb-VH/am/POA etc...) 1/7/2007, 1118 hours.
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y7c5ah Message ID: 1168186680.432376.36280@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com
Bo Raxo - 07 Jan 2007 09:37 GMT > > Actually it is just a few *ssh*les who think they can push around the > > parking control officers. But they don't have a better parking plan. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Elections in SF are as valid as elections in an insane asylum. You just get > crazy people running the place and the city descends into chaos. And yet people from all over America come here to spend their vacations, and so many people move here demand for housing is (pardon the pun) through the roof.
Now where do you live? Some bumfuck little place nobody would want to visit, and nobody moves there?
San Francisco is a world class city, but please, we're glad to have morons like you avoid our fair city.
As for the parking rage, city planners bear much of the blame. They somehow think that if they keep making it harder and harder to find a parking spot, people won't drive their cars. And they keep being proven wrong.
The latest such move was the new Nordstroms at the revitalized SF Center on Market. It opened a few months ago, a huge increase in retail space, and do you want to know how many additional parking spots were added with the tens of thousands of feet of shopping complex?
Zero.
As a result, the nearby Fifth and Mission garage is now stuffed to capacity and the situation just keeps getting worse.
Along with no parking, they keep tearing down freeways and dumping more cars on to city streets. And then complain that there are too many cars on city streets, with a response of making parking worse. Utterly wacky.
Fred G. Mackey - 07 Jan 2007 16:04 GMT >>Elections in SF are as valid as elections in an insane asylum. You just get >>crazy people running the place and the city descends into chaos. ...
> As for the parking rage, city planners bear much of the blame. They > somehow think that if they keep making it harder and harder to find a > parking spot, people won't drive their cars. You've just agreed with the first part of his statement ("crazy people running the place").
> And they keep being > proven wrong. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > cars on city streets, with a response of making parking worse. Utterly > wacky. And there's the rest of it: "city descends into chaos".
Bo Raxo - 08 Jan 2007 00:53 GMT > >>Elections in SF are as valid as elections in an insane asylum. You just get > >>crazy people running the place and the city descends into chaos. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You've just agreed with the first part of his statement ("crazy people > running the place"). No, I criticized *one* part of the city's government for having poorly chosen goals resulting in unwise policies in *one* aspect of city planning. That's hardly "crazy", nor it is an indictment of the entire city government.
Perhaps you aren't aware that city governments do more than plan traffic and parking issues. This city is about to announce a free citywide wireless internet access plan. It has a highly innovative plan for helping the homeless, called "Care Not Cash". It is conducting human trials of a potential HIV vaccine. Replacing light industrial districts south of Market with new housing developments that include 16% below-market-rate units to help lower income people become homeowners. Creating incentives for developers to build environmentally friendly buildings.
But oh, you'd rather think the place is "crazy". Ever been here? It's the best city in the United States. What claim to fame does your home town have? Did they found the United Nations there - oh,wait, no, that was San Francisco. Is your city the most popular tourist destination in North America? Nope, that would be San Francisco again.
> > Along with no parking, they keep tearing down freeways and dumping more > > cars on to city streets. And then complain that there are too many > > cars on city streets, with a response of making parking worse. Utterly > > wacky. > > And there's the rest of it: "city descends into chaos". A lack of parking is the equivalent of descending in to chaos? Oh, hilarious. More envy from someone who no doubt lives in a dusty little place that people don't move to, don't spend their vacations in, unlike my city, but instead some place from which they only want to escape.
Fred G. Mackey - 08 Jan 2007 01:41 GMT >>>>Elections in SF are as valid as elections in an insane asylum. You just get >>>>crazy people running the place and the city descends into chaos. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > chosen goals resulting in unwise policies in *one* aspect of city > planning. That's hardly "crazy", It meets many people's definition of "crazy".
> nor it is an indictment of the entire > city government. Okay, it is only one part of gov't., but you'd think the mayor and city council might notice and attempt to do something about it.
> Perhaps you aren't aware that city governments do more than plan > traffic and parking issues. This city is about to announce a free > citywide wireless internet access plan. Arguably "crazy".
> It has a highly innovative > plan for helping the homeless, called "Care Not Cash". Arguably "crazy".
> It is > conducting human trials of a potential HIV vaccine. Replacing light [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > town have? Did they found the United Nations there - oh,wait, no, that > was San Francisco. You say that as if it's something to be proud of.
> Is your city the most popular tourist destination > in North America? Nope, that would be San Francisco again. LMAO - I'm not going to get into a pissing match over whether my hometown is better than yours. I know it is and I have no need to try to convince everyone else of that - besides, I wouldn't want a whole bunch of a.sholes I convinced on the internet moving there :-)
Look, I know there are some good things about SF, but frankly to deny the chaos created by bad policies is to remain intentionally blind - which is your right. If it makes you happy, that's wonderful.
> > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > A lack of parking is the equivalent of descending in to chaos? 3,000 tickets a day (or was it 6000?) and people attacking parking enforcement officers isn't symptomatic of a descent into chaos?
> Oh, > hilarious. More envy from someone who no doubt lives in a dusty little > place that people don't move to, don't spend their vacations in, unlike > my city, but instead some place from which they only want to escape. Heh - I not only love where I'm from, I love where I live now and I wish people would stop moving to both places. I just don't feel the need to brag about the very dubious distinction awarded my current place of residence as the best place to live in the US. (but oops, I guess I did anyway).
San Francisco didn't even break the top 100, nor did it break the top 10 of best big cities to live in.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com - 08 Jan 2007 03:30 GMT > >>>>Elections in SF are as valid as elections in an insane asylum. You just get > >>>>crazy people running the place and the city descends into chaos. [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > San Francisco didn't even break the top 100, nor did it break the top 10 > of best big cities to live in. Maybe that has something to do with housing prices, which are regulated by supply and demand. Also SF has the dubious destinction of not having the greatest weather.
You can avoid publicizing where you live now, but people will figure it out with or without the internet, and you know very well you cannot stop anyone from moving there.
A lot of people are moving to FL and the weather is great, but it fast is becoming a not so great place to live for a variety of reasons. Things change over time.
You and Jackie Baby just don't like SF's supposed liberalism and anti-car mentality. But I doubt if that makes it insane unlike Jackie Baby's incessant lying.
They physically attack the traffic enforcment agents in NY and a lot of other cities, like Miami, Tampa, and St Pete. It is just that it doesn't happen as often as it doen in NY or SF, but it does happen, esp Miami. Miami Beach has a much worse parking problem then a lot of other cities.
Take care, Randy in Palm Harbor, FL
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 08 Jan 2007 02:50 GMT Someone wrote:
>> >>Elections in SF are as valid as elections in an insane asylum. You just get >> >>crazy people running the place and the city descends into chaos. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >place that people don't move to, don't spend their vacations in, unlike >my city, but instead some place from which they only want to escape. Interesting. I've known more people to move from the Bay area into the area I reside in than vice-versa. Granted, the sample is small (two versus zero), but that's the observation.
Having spent some time out there last January, I can say I don't blame them.
 Signature http://www.last.fm/user/dwpj65
Clark F Morris - 11 Jan 2007 20:55 GMT >> > Actually it is just a few *ssh*les who think they can push around the >> > parking control officers. But they don't have a better parking plan. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >cars on city streets, with a response of making parking worse. Utterly >wacky. The interesting question is whether any highway solution could work for a dense downtown. Robert Cote once claimed that the purpose of commuter rail was to move the parking spaces to the suburbs and there is a lot of truth to that. Unless the freeway lanes added are for traffic not terminating in San Francisco, all they will do is exacerbate the congestion in the central business district by adding more cars. Also given the hostility toward I-710 shown by those living near it, I doubt that through freeway lanes connecting the Golden Gate Bridge with I-280 and US 101 would be popular. While San Francisco Muni is better than what is available in much of the country, it has gone through a period where reliability was not good. I believe that more could be done to make it more useful than it currently is. Every 1.6 passengers carried into the CBD by transit is a car that doesn't have to be parked. Finding ways to cut the cost of adding transit service, especially reserved right of way transit, is the cheapest way of providing access to a dense CBD. It is not necessarily the best way of providing access to an area like the Silicon Valley employment centers as they are currently laid out.
While George and others are correct in saying that a majority of families and people want single family dwellings on decent size plots, there are large numbers of people willing to pay good money to live in moderate rise (3 - 6 stories) apartments and condominiums. In some areas like San Francisco they do it because of access to good transit and other urban amenities. In other areas such the area north of Highway 102 (4 lane limited access) around exits 2A and 2 in Halifax, Nova Scotia, I am not quite certain what the reasoning is. Transit access to downtown stinks being only via circuitous routes and not that frequent. The buildings are not close to where the major cultural or entertainment areas are. My guess from the number of these buildings is that 10 - 20 thousand people live in them since there are at least 50 of them in a two to three block wide strip that is about two miles long. Those more familiar with the area could get closer to the actual figures. I am basing it on what I see from the highway and the big box centers at exit 2A. Things are a lot more complicated than supporters of either road transportation or public transportation think they are.
George Conklin - 11 Jan 2007 22:57 GMT "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> While George and others are correct in saying that a majority of > families and people want single family dwellings on decent size plots, > there are large numbers of people willing to pay good money to live in > moderate rise (3 - 6 stories) apartments and condominiums. Then they should supply their own parking and not place a burden on the public as a whole. Besides, most commutes are NOT to downtowns anyway.
rshersh@gmail.com - 11 Jan 2007 23:16 GMT > "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Then they should supply their own parking and not place a burden on the > public as a whole. Besides, most commutes are NOT to downtowns anyway. Again Conk, yuo have NO idea what you are talking about. Does that statement include, SF, Manhattan, Newark? Places like Atlanta, Portland, OR, Seattle, Chicago. Boston?
Just like you like to think no one uses rail, you are wrong on this one too. Just because Raleigh is sprawling like crazy and there are no decent ways into the center of town in the mornings and evenings, and there is no decent mass transit, doesn't mean other cities are like that.
How about this Conk: a sprawl tax on developments in places like Raleigh that have been built in the last 25 years. You want to build a mega office or residential developmet on cheap property in Northern Wake, you are going to pay for the privelege.
If you don't want to pay, the govt seizes your property and tears it down. I would be in favor of that. Conk sprawl COSTS. You are just too damn stupid to realize it and you resort to your damn lies and phony stats. And don't tell me for a minute about property rights. How about everybody else's rightd that have been trampled on for the last 50 years.
Developers buy up cheap property, build mc mansions, apt complexes, and office complexes, and the residents are left to provide the infrastucture.
Take care, Randy
George Conklin - 11 Jan 2007 23:22 GMT > > "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > statement include, SF, Manhattan, Newark? Places like Atlanta, > Portland, OR, Seattle, Chicago. Boston? Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb to suburb. That is just for starters.
rshersh@gmail.com - 11 Jan 2007 23:51 GMT > > > "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb to > suburb. That is just for starters. Nice figure Conk, not withstanding you probably made it up. 85% huh? Only 15% of commuters go to Newark or Manhattan. Manhattan has a population of around 1.5 million, it more then doubles every day. Just like your "proving" no one uses subsidised transit.
That is probably the reason Penn Station and the Path trains are running empty.
Take care, Randy
George Conklin - 12 Jan 2007 00:09 GMT > > > > "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Nice figure Conk, not withstanding you probably made it up. The figure is cited in J. John Palen's textbook, "The Urban World."
Sancho Panza - 12 Jan 2007 03:28 GMT > > > Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb > to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The figure is cited in J. John Palen's textbook, "The Urban World." That figure would seem to be buttressed by this report:
The New York Times January 12, 2007 In Traffic's Jam, Who's Driving May Be Surprising By WILLIAM NEUMAN
It's a common enough thought among city drivers inching through traffic: Everyone around me came from the suburbs, making my life miserable. But it's wrong, because more than half the drivers who crowd into Manhattan each workday come from the five boroughs.
That is only one fact about traffic in New York City that may surprise some people. For example, 35 percent of government workers drive to work, many because they have free parking. Also, one in five drivers entering the busiest parts of Manhattan are only passing through, on their way somewhere else.
Finally, many drivers say that they simply prefer the convenience and solitude of their own vehicles and have found ways to get around the worst congestion.
By examining a wealth of data collected by government agencies, a detailed and often surprising portrait of traffic in New York City emerges.
"There's a lot of myths, and when you look at the data, the myths go pop, pop, pop, one by one," said Bruce Schaller, a transportation consultant who has studied regional traffic patterns. . . .
One of the most prevalent beliefs to crumble beneath the data might be called the suburban myth, the notion that suburbanites make up a majority of the commuters who drive to work in Manhattan.
Census data show that more city residents than suburbanites drive to work in Manhattan every day, according to Mr. Schaller. He estimated that 263,000 people in 19 counties in and around New York City drive regularly to jobs in Manhattan below 60th Street. Of those, 53 percent, or 141,000, live in the five boroughs, Mr. Schaller said. The greatest numbers are from Queens, with 51,300, and Brooklyn, with 33,400. About 23,900 auto commuters live in Manhattan, while 17,400 are from the Bronx and 15,200 from Staten Island. The suburban area with the most auto commuters to Manhattan is Nassau County, with 22,091 people driving to work in the borough, followed by Bergen County, with 19,975.
When plotted on a map, the data make a striking picture, showing that some of the densest concentrations of auto commuters are from the outer fringes of Queens and Brooklyn, where access to subways is limited.
"The concentration of auto commuters is in areas that don't have direct subway service," Mr. Schaller said. "So the travel time advantage of driving is greater than it is in the rest of the city." . . .
An annual survey conducted by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, an association of government agencies involved in transportation planning, recorded 810,000 vehicles (not including buses) entering Manhattan below 60th Street on a single weekday in 2003. That figure has increased fairly steadily over the years, largely in line with changes in the city's economy and population. The 2003 count was 6 percent greater than 1993, when 760,000 vehicles were recorded, and 24 percent greater than 1978, when there were 649,000.
The number dropped after the terror attack in 2001 but has been rising since. Partial data released from the 2004 count show a total of 815,000 vehicles entering the area of Manhattan covered by the survey.
This data help bust another myth. "A lot of people say, 'It's those Jersey drivers,' " said Jeffrey M. Zupan, a senior fellow for transportation at the Regional Plan Association, a group that studies development and transportation issues. "But when you look at the numbers, the Long Island sector is by far the largest sector where cars are coming from into the city."
According to the 2003 data, 110,000 vehicles entered Manhattan through the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels the day the survey was taken. An additional 63,000 were recorded driving south on the West Side Highway, and perhaps half of those might be considered to have come from New Jersey, across the George Washington Bridge, Mr. Zupan said.
Many other vehicles entering from the north come from a more dispersed area, including the Bronx, several northern counties and Connecticut. The largest number of vehicles, however - 326,000, or 40 percent of the total - entered Manhattan over the East River crossings, with their drivers mostly from Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island.
Mr. Schaller uses data from a computer model developed by the transportation council to estimate that about 80 percent of the vehicles in the hub-bound tally had destinations within the Manhattan core.
The model therefore suggests that almost one-fifth of the vehicles that entered Manhattan in the 2003 count, or about 156,000, were just passing through the borough. For many drivers, Manhattan is simply a place between here and there.
"The shortest way, distance-wise, is always to go through Manhattan," said Erick Lawson, a commercial diver who lives in Somerset, N.J., and frequently works on underwater construction jobs in Queens or on Long Island.
Early in the day, he often enjoys a smooth drive, well before the morning rush, through the Lincoln Tunnel and across 34th Street to the Midtown Tunnel. His homebound trip is a different story.
"It's almost always a disaster," Mr. Lawson said, explaining that he frequently drives home across the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and through Staten Island to avoid Midtown.
Mr. Zupan pointed to data that show that while the overall number of vehicles entering during a 24-hour period has generally been rising, the number of vehicles entering from 7 to 10 a.m. has remained fairly steady.
"You can't squeeze any more vehicles between 7 and 10 on the bridges and tunnels," he said. "So that's constant and the growth we've seen is in off-peak travel." . . .
A study conducted last year for the Partnership for New York City, a business group, cited 2000 census data that showed about 35 percent of government workers in Manhattan drive to work, compared with 14 percent for those who work in finance. Kathryn S. Wylde, the president of the group, said that many city workers drive because they can park at no charge using parking placards obtained through their agencies.
The morning rush is dominated by cars carrying people to their jobs. But later in the day, the mix of vehicles on the streets of Manhattan includes more drivers who venture out for other reasons.
rshersh@gmail.com - 12 Jan 2007 04:02 GMT > > > > Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb > > to [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > But later in the day, the mix of vehicles on the streets of Manhattan > includes more drivers who venture out for other reasons. I think it kills Conks number. NYC gas a population of about 8 million, Nassau and Suffolk have a pop of about 2.5 million, Northern NJ has a population of about 3.5 million. I also know that there is something of a reverse commute. Also people go from LI to NJ.
But the shear volumes, the huge numbers are people using transit to NYC from the suburbs. Remember the NYC subway carries 3 million plus a day. We had this in another discussion. There always will be people that will drive their car, no matter how much it costs or what the problems are. But 85% going from suburb to suburb commuting. I think that is very high.
Just off the top of my head it looks like less then 1 million people drive to Manhattan. That means if Manhattan grows to 3 million during the day, less then one third use their own cars. You know that Manhattan would not be possible were it not for transit.
Robert Moses wanted the LM and MM Expwys for through traffic and through trucks. Would NYC have been better off? When everything is considered I doubt it.
Take care, Randy.
George Conklin - 12 Jan 2007 13:02 GMT > > > > > Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb > > > to [quoted text clipped - 142 lines] > car, no matter how much it costs or what the problems are. But 85% > going from suburb to suburb commuting. I think that is very high. Actuallly it is 88%....
> Just off the top of my head it looks like less then 1 million people > drive to Manhattan. That means if Manhattan grows to 3 million during [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Take care, Randy. George Conklin - 12 Jan 2007 13:01 GMT > > > > Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb > > to [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > But later in the day, the mix of vehicles on the streets of Manhattan > includes more drivers who venture out for other reasons. Of course the joke is that people ought to live where they can walk to work. Even in Brooklyn, that has long been totally impossible. Manhattanites want a second avenue subway so they don't have to walk 2 blocks to Lexington Avenue (becuase they want less crowding they say). So, a couple of hundred billion $ for 2 blocks. It all makes sense to planners.
rshersh@gmail.com - 12 Jan 2007 20:44 GMT > Of course the joke is that people ought to live where they can walk to > work. Even in Brooklyn, that has long been totally impossible. > Manhattanites want a second avenue subway so they don't have to walk 2 > blocks to Lexington Avenue (becuase they want less crowding they say). So, > a couple of hundred billion $ for 2 blocks. It all makes sense to planners. You Conk are an idiot and a fool. If you think the Lex can handle all of the east side transit for ever and ever, you are really delusional. But I suppose you would support double decking the east side avenues to move more cars and trucks. And lets double deck the the Bklyn Br and quadruple deck the Willy B and the Manhattan Br. I am sure all of those hings would come in under your figure of a couple of hundred billion.
You certainly don't know anything about NYC when you post idiot stuff like this.
Take care, Randy
George Conklin - 12 Jan 2007 22:54 GMT > > Of course the joke is that people ought to live where they can walk to > > work. Even in Brooklyn, that has long been totally impossible. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You Conk are an idiot and a fool. If you think the Lex can handle all > of the east side transit for ever and ever, you are really delusional. Oh my. That is how things are decided in NYC....blasts of hot air.
rshersh@gmail.com - 13 Jan 2007 00:06 GMT > > > Of course the joke is that people ought to live where they can walk > to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > Oh my. That is how things are decided in NYC....blasts of hot air. Righto Conk and you have plenty of that. Again there is plenty of evidence that you know nothing about NYC, appearently you are proud of you ignorance.
Take care. Randy
George Conklin - 13 Jan 2007 13:41 GMT > > > > Of course the joke is that people ought to live where they can walk > > to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Righto Conk and you have plenty of that. Oh dear, you keep proving my point...... You know nothing.
Jack May - 12 Jan 2007 00:11 GMT > Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb to > suburb. That is just for starters. They had a story on the Network News a few weeks ago that 6.3M people per day and climbing do a reverse commute from NYC out to the suburbs (I think they said Connecticut) where the jobs have moved with a move out of NYC.
I suspect a lot of those people will eventually give up the 45 minute rail commute and realize it is time to move out of NYC and move close to their job. They intervened a young woman that wanted to live in NYC for the night life.
George Conklin - 12 Jan 2007 01:32 GMT > > Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb to > > suburb. That is just for starters. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > job. They intervened a young woman that wanted to live in NYC for the night > life. Somehow public drinking does not appeal to me. It leads to too much violence.
Clark F Morris - 12 Jan 2007 13:20 GMT >> Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb to >> suburb. That is just for starters. > >They had a story on the Network News a few weeks ago that 6.3M people per >day and climbing do a reverse commute from NYC out to the suburbs (I think >they said Connecticut) where the jobs have moved with a move out of NYC. Given that the total population of the 5 boroughs is only 8 million do you see a possible flaw in your statistics? I might believe .63M but 6.3M, that would be over 2/3 of the adult population.
>I suspect a lot of those people will eventually give up the 45 minute rail >commute and realize it is time to move out of NYC and move close to their >job. They intervened a young woman that wanted to live in NYC for the night >life. George Conklin - 12 Jan 2007 15:50 GMT > >> Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb to > >> suburb. That is just for starters. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >job. They intervened a young woman that wanted to live in NYC for the night > >life. There was a TV story a few months ago that commuter trains used to return from Grand Central empty. Now there are quite a few people leaving the city each day for a job. But as for numbers, none were given, although there were photos of semi-full trains leaving the city during the so-called rush hour.
Sancho Panza - 12 Jan 2007 16:27 GMT >>> Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb to >>> suburb. That is just for starters. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you see a possible flaw in your statistics? I might believe .63M but > 6.3M, that would be over 2/3 of the adult population. It is definitely more than the entire adult working population of the city.
Jack May - 14 Jan 2007 02:44 GMT >>They had a story on the Network News a few weeks ago that 6.3M people per >>day and climbing do a reverse commute from NYC out to the suburbs (I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you see a possible flaw in your statistics? I might believe .63M but > 6.3M, that would be over 2/3 of the adult population. Counts of people for transit is typically once for each boarding. They may count car trips the same way, but I don't know. So 6.3M people on transit is at most 3.15 people making a round trip with is 6.3M people as defined by transit statistics. If a person is getting off and back on in mid route for some reason, that person is counted as four people.
I understand some transit agencies count the bus to and from the train is sometimes counted as six people for a bus on both ends of the trip.
The emphasis of the story was the rapid growth of the reverse commuters following jobs as they move out of NYC. It seemed to be a major recent trend in NYC according to the story.
Jack May - 12 Jan 2007 00:33 GMT >> "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> Again Conk, yuo have NO idea what you are talking about. Does that > statement include, SF, Manhattan, Newark? Places like Atlanta, > Portland, OR, Seattle, Chicago. Boston? You have anything to support your bizarre statement that most of the jobs have not moved out to the suburbs.
rshersh@gmail.com - 12 Jan 2007 01:19 GMT > >> "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You have anything to support your bizarre statement that most of the jobs > have not moved out to the suburbs. Righto, Jackie Baby, with your history of DAMN LIES and tortured numbers you can pull amything out of thin air and say anything you want. You can quote any source you want and NOBODY believes you. Remember you are the one that said there is no growth in Miami Dade Metrorail. You lied about that and you lie about everything. Crawl back in your cave and quit your damn lying.
Take care, Randy
George Conklin - 12 Jan 2007 01:36 GMT > > >> "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Take care, Randy The figure on commuting comes from J. John Palen "The Urban World." The figure is that only 22% of the commutes in the NYC area are into the city. So I was off 3%, but even fewer than predicted going into the city. "Today's suburban commer is much more likely to commute to another suburb than to the central city. Three-quarters of of suburbanites who work now work in the suburbs. " (6th ed, p. 162).
Baxter - 12 Jan 2007 02:30 GMT - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > than to the central city. Three-quarters of of suburbanites who work now > work in the suburbs. " (6th ed, p. 162). So? Downtowns still employ more people per square mile than anywhere else in the region.
Jack May - 14 Jan 2007 02:48 GMT > Righto, Jackie Baby, with your history of DAMN LIES and tortured > numbers you can pull amything out of thin air and say anything you > want. You can quote any source you want and NOBODY believes you. > Remember you are the one that said there is no growth in Miami Dade > Metrorail. You lied about that and you lie about everything. Crawl > back in your cave and quit your damn lying. I was repeating what CBS reported on their national news, so all you comments are about CBS News. E-mail them about how you think they are lying
pigsty1953@yahoo.com - 14 Jan 2007 03:44 GMT > > Righto, Jackie Baby, with your history of DAMN LIES and tortured > > numbers you can pull amything out of thin air and say anything you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I was repeating what CBS reported on their national news, so all you > comments are about CBS News. E-mail them about how you think they are lying Nope, my comments are about YOU and your use of phony numbers and DAMN LIES, and numbers taken out of context. No one else on any on the lists we post at comes anywhere near the crapola and LYING you do. As I said, crawl back in your cave.
Randy
Baxter - 12 Jan 2007 02:29 GMT  Signature ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> "Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You have anything to support your bizarre statement that most of the jobs > have not moved out to the suburbs. Misleading. The fact is downtowns are still the largest job centers in the region. Given any size area you want to name, the area that includes downtown will have more jobs - and they will be good jobs too.
Clark F Morris - 12 Jan 2007 02:52 GMT >"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Then they should supply their own parking and not place a burden on the >public as a whole. Besides, most commutes are NOT to downtowns anyway. Given that the condos / apartments have lousy public transportation access, there obviously is adequate parking provided with these dwelling places. George, please read more carefully.
Jack May - 12 Jan 2007 00:29 GMT .
> The interesting question is whether any highway solution could work > for a dense downtown. Yes there is a very good solution which is expensive but cheaper than transit. You remove all the stop lights on existing primary streets so flow is continuous. About ever mile or so you have and under pass or over pass to cross that street. The interchange is turning off of a street and going around the block to get on to another road sort of like a freeway interchange.
These type of "interchanges" exist now in several places but they are not widespread. I was told by engineer that did the analysis for Santa Clara county that the approach is the cost effective way to increase capacity they had ever analyzed.
The large increase in capacity from eliminating the high traffic stop lights would probably greatly reduce congestion, pollution, gas consumption, and CO2 at lower cost than transit
Robert Cote once claimed that the purpose of
> commuter rail was to move the parking spaces to the suburbs and there > is a lot of truth to that. Unless the freeway lanes added are for > traffic not terminating in San Francisco, all they will do is > exacerbate the congestion in the central business district by adding > more cars. As I said above, the solution are the existing roads in the central business district.
>While San > Francisco Muni is better than what is available in much of the > country, it has gone through a period where reliability was not good. > I believe that more could be done to make it more useful than it > currently is. A lot of the people say that and none of their "solutions" are more than worthless tiny tweaks instead of new concepts.
Every 1.6 passengers carried into the CBD by transit is
> a car that doesn't have to be parked. Finding ways to cut the cost of > adding transit service, especially reserved right of way transit, is > the cheapest way of providing access to a dense CBD. In SF, over and over again the cost is incredibly high. What you said is totally wrong and shows you do not understand the problem or the serious inherent, unsolvable problems of transit.
> While George and others are correct in saying that a majority of > families and people want single family dwellings on decent size plots, > there are large numbers of people willing to pay good money to live in > moderate rise (3 - 6 stories) apartments and condominiums. In some > areas like San Francisco they do it because of access to good transit > and other urban amenities. You just said transit is bad in SF now you say it is good. Which is it. Transit is not heavily used in SF because it does not meet the needs of enough people.
In other areas such the area north of
> Highway 102 (4 lane limited access) around exits 2A and 2 in Halifax, > Nova Scotia, I am not quite certain what the reasoning is. Transit [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > complicated than supporters of either road transportation or public > transportation think they are. So what, just another one of you wild guesses totally with out any basis for your guess. Totally worthless.
rshersh@gmail.com - 12 Jan 2007 01:43 GMT > . > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > county that the approach is the cost effective way to increase capacity they > had ever analyzed. Righto Jackie Baby, righto. I can see those all over Chicago and SF, and especially NYC. I mean Manhattan real estate is sooo cheap and construction costs are sooo very low, I am so sure they will appear immediately if not sooner. Every mile or so you have a bridge crossing. Yepper, I could see that in NYC or Boston. I guess there is sooo very much undeveloped land and construction costs are sooo very low out there in SC County, that I am sure it is a good ideal for them.
And lets not forget the homeless that will take up residency under those bridges. I am sure the local citizenry will appreciate that.
And lets not forget the supreme effeciency of having to go a mile out of your way to get across the street, and oh, yes it will be great for pedestrians in the rain and snow. When do they start building Jackie Baby, I am waiting.
And when they are all done we can shut down all forms of subsidised transit. Just close it down, the day construction is completed. I mean everyone in the United States has a vehicle right Jackie Baby. Everyone wants to be zipping along, oh lets say Fifith Ave what, 40 or 50 mph and there will be NO truck deliveries because that might interfere with your system. Now how do you get across? Oh yes there are bridges every mile, thats what 14 or so blocks. This I have to see.
As I said in another post Jackie Baby, crawl back in you cave and quit your DAMN LYING.
Take care, Randy
> The large increase in capacity from eliminating the high traffic stop lights > would probably greatly reduce congestion, pollution, gas consumption, and [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > totally wrong and shows you do not understand the problem or the serious > inherent, unsolvable problems of transit. Jackie Baby IT IS YOU that does not understand ANYTHING, and you prove it again and agin. Sy why don't you quit already. I am sure your idea will be quicky accepted in places like SF. Just like it would be quickly accepted in Chicago, Boston and NY. And the costs for your grand idea of a bridge every mile will be cheap? The ROW costs alone will; be through the roof. Something you don't have any comprehension of. I guess your supreme stupidity is showing again. For the third time, pklease crawl back in you cave.
> > While George and others are correct in saying that a majority of > > families and people want single family dwellings on decent size plots, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > So what, just another one of you wild guesses totally with out any basis for > your guess. Totally worthless. Jackie Baby, you should not be calling anyone worthless as you prove over and over again with you damn lies and preposterous ideas that you are completelly worthless, now, again, crawl back in you cave.
Take care, Randy
Jack May - 14 Jan 2007 02:51 GMT >> > On 7 Jan 2007 01:37:07 -0800, "Bo Raxo" <forensics@earthcorp.com>
> Righto Jackie Baby, righto. I can see those all over Chicago and SF, > and especially NYC. If you had ever learned how to read, you would have seen that I said this approach has been implemented in only a very few places.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com - 14 Jan 2007 03:41 GMT > >> > On 7 Jan 2007 01:37:07 -0800, "Bo Raxo" <forensics@earthcorp.com> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you had ever learned how to read, you would have seen that I said this > approach has been implemented in only a very few places. Can;t figure out why, Jackie, Baby, can't for the life of me figure out why. Do you really think it will ever become wide spread. Maybe in your fictional universe, but not in the real one. Again, you make a huge fool out of yourself for even suggesting something that could not and would not be used in any urban area.
Take care, Randy
Sancho Panza - 07 Jan 2007 23:26 GMT >> Actually it is just a few *ssh*les who think they can push around the >> parking control officers. But they don't have a better parking plan. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Elections in SF are as valid as elections in an insane asylum. You just > get crazy people running the place and the city descends into chaos. But they sure eat well.
Sancho Panza - 07 Jan 2007 23:26 GMT >> Actually it is just a few *ssh*les who think they can push around the >> parking control officers. But they don't have a better parking plan. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Elections in SF are as valid as elections in an insane asylum. You just > get crazy people running the place and the city descends into chaos. But they sure eat well.
Sancho Panza - 07 Jan 2007 23:27 GMT >> Actually it is just a few *ssh*les who think they can push around the >> parking control officers. But they don't have a better parking plan. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Elections in SF are as valid as elections in an insane asylum. You just > get crazy people running the place and the city descends into chaos. But they sure eat well.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com - 08 Jan 2007 01:07 GMT > > Actually it is just a few *ssh*les who think they can push around the > > parking control officers. But they don't have a better parking plan. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Elections in SF are as valid as elections in an insane asylum. You just get > crazy people running the place and the city descends into chaos. Jackie Baby, I think you are insane. I know you are a know nothing and a habitual LIAR, so why should any one believe anything you happen to post. You, like Conk cannot stand being quiet, so you pop your insane, lying head up every once in a while to say something about which you know nothing about. See the post downthread about how you are so wrong about SF.
I think San Jose, which is where I believe you reside, is a dirty, dusty backwater that would be even moreso were it not for Stanford and the Silicon Valley development. I know the likes of you add absolutely nothing to its environment.
Take care, Randy in Palm Harbor, FL
editor@netpath.net - 09 Jan 2007 03:15 GMT Furious George quoted me:
> > Comes with regime illegitimacy. Just like being an "Iraqi" police > > officer or soldier for what every Iraqi knows is a puppet government > > run by Bush. and replied:
> Actually it is just a few *ssh*les who think they can push around the > parking control officers. But they don't have a better parking plan. > The last time I checked San Francisco was a democracy. The parking > control officers have legitimacy. You really don't get it, do you? Regime illegitimacy can coexist with the form of democracy; just look at the Iraqi insurgency now - where the "Iraqi" government is seen as illegitimate by enough Iraqis to keep a strong insurgency viable. And revolt against a regime seen as illegitimate almost never starts with an attack on the ruler seen as illegitimate; it starts with attacks on the peasants he's hired to do his fighting - as the "Iraqi" army being targeted by the peasants of Iraq well knows from the attacks now focusing on its members and not Bush's quisling "Iraqi" president. Same pattern in American Revolution. It wasn't King George III who got attacked; it was all the Brit peasants he sent to do his fighting.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
RuleOfLaw - 07 Jan 2007 09:25 GMT > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/06/us/06parking.html?em&ex=1168232400&en=42d119d4 5aa50bbf&ei=5087%0A > > San Franciscans Hurl Their Rage at Parking Patrol
> Burdened with one of the densest downtowns in the country and a > Californian love for moving vehicles, San Franciscans have been shocked [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not call them meter maids - who suffered four attacks in late > November, and two officers went to a hospital. And such is life in self-proclaimed ILLEGAL ALIEN "SANCTUARY CITY" San Francisco, California.
What goes around, comes around.
theresa - 07 Jan 2007 21:31 GMT > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/06/us/06parking.html?em&ex=1168232400&en=42d119d4 5aa50bbf&ei=5087%0A > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What goes around, comes around. London's parking cops have also been getting trashed since the city began charging people to enter, and enforcing every little violation.
Eeyore - 08 Jan 2007 05:19 GMT > > What goes around, comes around. > > London's parking cops have also been getting trashed since the > city began charging people to enter, and enforcing every little > violation. Eh ?
Can you be more specific ?
Graham
theresa - 09 Jan 2007 22:55 GMT > > > What goes around, comes around. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Graham You have to pay 7 pounds (I think) to drive into the city. I think they use stickers or those automatic toll boxes on the dash. In any case, they've beefed up parking enforcement to check to see if everyone has paid, and a news show I saw on this portrayed the officers as under the gun since most are pretty mad about the new(ish) requirement
Eeyore - 10 Jan 2007 05:39 GMT > > > > What goes around, comes around. > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You have to pay 7 pounds (I think) to drive into the city. It's called the 'congestion charge'.
> I think they use stickers or those automatic toll boxes on the > dash. It's done with number plate recognition. Not the above at all.
> In any case, they've beefed up parking enforcement to > check to see if everyone has paid, and a news show I saw on this > portrayed the officers as under the gun since most are pretty > mad about the new(ish) requirement Parking attendants play no role at all in policing the 'congestion charge'
Graham
editor@netpath.net - 11 Jan 2007 05:31 GMT Eeyore quoted Theresa:
> > In any case, they've beefed up parking enforcement to > > check to see if everyone has paid, and a news show I saw on this > > portrayed the officers as under the gun since most are pretty > > mad about the new(ish) requirement and replied:
> Parking attendants play no role at all in policing the 'congestion charge' Then expect angry Brits to start attacking whatever DOES police it. Just as - angry about all the traffic cameras there - rampant attacks, with apparent impunity, on traffic cameras there is now endemic. Typically, the camera head either is firebombed or the lens spray painted black - and, despite being in a heavily-traveled area, police find no witnesses almost any of the times.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
milou - 11 Jan 2007 12:58 GMT > Then expect angry Brits to start attacking whatever DOES police it. >Just as - angry about all the traffic cameras there - rampant attacks, >with apparent impunity, on traffic cameras there is now endemic. >Typically, the camera head either is firebombed or the lens spray >painted black - and, despite being in a heavily-traveled area, police >find no witnesses almost any of the times. In UK, these cameras are there uniquely for raising revenue. A favourite trick is to have speed cameras on motorways where there are speed restrictions because roadworks. This can be justified during the day to protect workmen and slown down heavy traffic, but hey, at 3 am, deserted motorway, workmen sound asleep at home, get fined £60 ($ 115) for driving at 45 mph?
John F. Carr - 12 Jan 2007 01:35 GMT >In UK, these cameras are there uniquely for raising revenue. >A favourite trick is to have speed cameras on motorways where there >are speed restrictions because roadworks. After a motorists group forced the release of a secret study showing an increase in accident rates associated with automated enforcement in motorway roadworks, automated monitoring at such locations will be limited to a "your speed is ___" type of display.
 Signature John Carr (jfc@mit.edu)
Doug - 11 Jan 2007 23:29 GMT Opening scene from "Cool Hand Luke".
|
|
|