Fortune Favors The Bold

One of the non-transpo reporters at the Times writes an article about parking lots, and starts off just as horribly wrong as any of the usual suspects.

“EVER since the car muscled out the horse and garages supplanted stables, New York City has had a conflicted relationship with the automobile. In recent years, the car has been on the losing side. Whether it is the addition of bike lines or pedestrian plazas, a push for congestion pricing or rising tolls, the once-exalted automobile is under siege.”

Again, this is just the opening paragraph. Let’s pick it apart:

• I would understand mentioning the “car vs. horse” conflict farther back in the piece, to illustrate the context of evolving transportation. However, as an opening sentence to an article, it’s a dud. How is the obsolescence of horse travel primarily relevant in the year 2012? It’s not. Unless your interests are primarily “FUCK YEAH CARS!” It’s like, hey, Yankees fans, remember Bucky Dent? Let’s talk about the Montero trade, because we’re winners.
• I have a difficult time believing that everyone at the Times never made it past remedial-level social studies classes, but let’s drop some knowledge: Horses were never the transportation of the masses. They were used to haul freight but they were the personal conveyances of the extremely rich. No one on the immigrant-loaded Lower East Side had a personal stable. But the Dakota did. And the Dakota was always a mansion. Personal automobiles at first became an option for those who could afford the luxury of chauffeuring… then, after many years, opened up to an entirely new market in the middle class. Prior to that, the middle and lower classes either took trolleys or the subway - or, most likely, walked to most places. This is relevant because the audience of Times readers who use cars nowadays didn’t have the entitlement of personal travel options when the horse became obsolete. It’s not their victory. Thus it invalidates the following point that New York City, as a whole, has had a conflicted relationship with personal travel. It’s quite the opposite… NYC has a conflicted relationship with accommodating the fairly novel and stupid demand that everyone, across the entire demographic spectrum, gets their own 2-ton personal automated carriage, plus enough open road space to drive it without delays or congestion, plus affordable, available parking in at least three or four places for all.
• The next sentence indicates the author hasn’t seen NYC in a long time, or taken his head out of his ass. The claim that “cars are on the losing side” doesn’t seem to resolve with the reality that almost every street is open to car travel, that every address in NYC has curbside vehicle parking or access, that low-cost or free parking is provided on almost every street in the city, that the city spends hundreds of millions yearly on roadway construction and repair, that the most extensive and connected (by far) rapid transportation network in the city belongs to cars, and that the vast majority of public space in city streets belongs to cars. Is all of this true for pedestrians? Is any of this true for any other type of non-pedestrian travel?
• Some people with cars feel that the existence of bike lanes on some roadways puts them “under siege”. Those people are assholes.
• Some people with cars feel that the existence of pedestrian plazas on some streets puts them “under siege”. Those people are also assholes.
• Congestion pricing neither limits car travel nor makes it more expensive (two guys in a truck sitting in traffic for half-an-hour costs more than any congestion pricing proposal). It simply alters the equation of convenience for a lot of travelers, discouraging peak-hour vehicle use and encouraging more efficient, balanced use of the streets. How childish is our society? People were FURIOUS that they’d even think of such a thing. “Fascist Bloomberg strikes again!” But why wouldn’t the Times instead take the position that “Traffic is a problem and something needs to be done”? That is what a reasonable person would think after surveying the situation. The Times instead suddenly thinks they are a tabloid, instead taking the position of the screechy ignorant greedy slob who refuses to take any personal responsibility for broken neighborhoods and transportation chaos. 
• Also, congestion pricing never happened. The drivers won that battle. How are they under siege, again?
• Are rising tolls a problem for most vehicles? If you are from Jersey and you are driving into New York (when, frankly, your transit options are universally better), then yes, it’s a problem. The rest of everyone else? You’re not under siege because there are few places where there are intracity toll charges. There probably should be MORE tolls. 
• The majority of people in NYC do not benefit from car accommodations, anyway. Drivers, as a victim group, are a minority. The majority of people are not served well by the government’s - or the media’s - priorities on transportation. So it’s unconscionable that the Times would act as if this paragraph speaks for all of us. It doesn’t. That’s so far from the truth that it should be stricken from the record of journalism fact. 

Just to show how misinformed the author is about the topic, the fourth paragraph begins:

But many people still keep cars in Manhattan

Manhattan has a car ownership rate hovering around 20%, and only 5% of people who work and live in Manhattan commute by car. I believe that we should do anything to help out automobile owners that doesn’t disenfranchise the other 80% of us. But that’s a difficult thing to do considering that the city is already overrun by cars - and that they are a significant cause of transportation costs, delays, injury and death in NYC. More than their fair share. We need balance. The Times wants more parking spaces instead.

Or, more accurately, a very few extremely wealthy newcomers to Manhattan want more parking spaces instead. The article is mostly about how the costs and inconveniences of city parking make it unappealing to people who expect it. It hardly makes the case that it is impossible or that it was ever reasonable for the median income residents in any neighborhood south of 110th Street. It ends with this: 

 “If you are designing for the super-rich, you have to find a place to put their cars.”

When I design for the super-rich who are complaining openly to a newspaper about their inconveniences in life, I have to find a place for my foot up their asses.