UWS Council Members Want Residential Parking Permits, So Neighborhood Doesn’t Become a Parking Lot for Out of-Towners

Local City Council members Mark Levine and Helen Rosenthal are proposing a bill that would create residential parking permits for people in some neighborhoods, so they have priority to park in street-parking spots.

With congestion pricing seen as more likely to pass the state legislature this year, drivers may have to pay a toll every time they go below 60th Street in Manhattan, raising the possibility that they’ll simply park their cars on the UWS to avoid the fee.

“As momentum continues to build for the creation of a desperately needed congestion pricing program to fund public transit, now more than ever, the City needs to address the prevailing issue of suburban commuters dumping their cars in our neighborhoods, only to transfer to the subway on their way downtown,” said Council Member Mark Levine in a statement.

The bill would allow the city to designate up to 80% of people parking in non-metered spots be from the area. The full press release about the bill is below, and we last wrote about this idea here:

Today, City Council Members Mark Levine & Helen Rosenthal, co-chairs of the Manhattan Delegation, and Council Members Keith Powers & Diana Ayala, renewed their call for the City Department of Transportation (DOT) to create a residential parking permit (RPP) system in Northern Manhattan, covering all areas north of 60th Street through Inwood, as designed in their legislation introduced last year, Int. 848-2018.

Neighborhoods in the northern half of Manhattan increasingly face the crowding and congestion of suburban commuters leaving their cars on local streets in order to transfer to the subway–a problem that will be severely exacerbated with congestion pricing on the horizon.

The bill, introduced by Council Members Levine, Rosenthal, Powers, and Ayala seeks to address this problem by requiring DOT to designate specific areas and neighborhoods where a residential parking permit (RPP) system would be implemented, and to determine the days and times when permit requirements would be in effect. Under the proposed law, DOT would be able to reserve up to 80% parking spaces on designated residential blocks for people who live in the neighborhood, leaving the remaining spots for non-residents. The legislation also specifies that no RRP zone would be implemented on streets zoned for commercial or retail use. While 85,000 parking spots in commercial areas across the City are metered, 97% of on-street spaces are free, disproportionately benefiting 27% of New Yorkers who use their cars to get to work.

The program is designed to give local residents priority for on-street parking in residential areas and to discourage park-and-ride commuters. New York is one of the only major cities in America that does not have some version of an RPP.

In addition to this legislation, the bill’s sponsors are calling for the following protections to be implemented in the rules-making process, including requirements that DOT:

· Hold public hearings with community boards before implementing RPP in a neighborhood;

· Ensure permits are only issued to individuals holding a New York State driver’s license and whose primary residence is in NYC;

· Ensure permits are attached to specific license plate numbers; and

· Limit the number of permits issued to one per licensed driver.

“As momentum continues to build for the creation of a desperately needed congestion pricing program to fund public transit, now more than ever, the City needs to address the prevailing issue of suburban commuters dumping their cars in our neighborhoods, only to transfer to the subway on their way downtown,” said Council Member Mark Levine. “Whether you live in Washington Heights or the Upper East Side, parking in Manhattan is an incredible challenge. With congestion pricing finally on the precipice of becoming reality, we can’t afford to continue as one of the only big cities in America that doesn’t have a residential permit system–this policy is long overdue and urgently needed.”

“As we prepare for the implementation of congestion pricing, we must ensure that neighborhoods surrounding Manhattan’s central business district do not become parking lots for drivers seeking to avoid a toll. Residential permit parking will help us do that, and is a long overdue step toward a more sensible street policy for New York City. Municipalities across the country have implemented such a system, and I am proud to work with Council Members Levine and Powers on this issue,” said Council Member Helen Rosenthal.

“As the city engages in next steps on congestion pricing to ease traffic and fund the deteriorating subway system, this is a timely opportunity to secure residential parking permits for residents,” said Council Member Keith Powers who represents parts of the Upper East Side. “Permits will ensure residents have first priority as parking spots outside the proposed zone become more valuable. Thank you to Council Member Levine for a continued focus around traffic and parking.”

“Undoubtedly, congestion pricing will reduce traffic in Manhattan’s Central Business Districts and bring the city much-needed revenue to improve our transit system. However, the plan is likely to exacerbate the prevalence of suburban commuters parking their cars in Northern Manhattan neighborhoods. In order to mitigate this influx, DOT must implement a residential parking permit system that will prioritize our city’s residents first,” said Council Member Diana Ayala.

NEWS | 101 comments | permalink
    1. W. 80th St. Block Association/Billy Amato says:

      We at the West 80th St. Block Association supports this bill for Resident Parking 110%.
      We also support Tow-away for Non-resident Vehicles from W. 60th St. to all of Northern Manhattan with-out resident parking permit.

    2. Steve says:

      If we have to have congestion pricing, we should have this too – maybe congestion pricing should cover all of Manhattan with an exemption or discount for Manhattan residents (like the discounts on the TBTA bridges for people who live in the Rockaways ad Staten Island)so our neighborhoods don’t turn into parking lots for commuters!

      • David says:

        Please bring back the NYC non-resident withholding tax for suburban folk that work in the five boroughs, and take advantage of city services, without paying for the privlege.

    3. RPote says:

      I’m fine with this, so long as the permits are either free or a (LOW) one-time fee.

      Penalizing the people in the UWS without extra expendable income just because people not from our neighborhood abuse our free parking is unfair and ridiculous.

      • Scott says:

        The permits won’t be free. The model from other large cities is that they range from $25 to $50 annually, bad news for the car haters who want the city to charge $5000 a year for these permits.

      • Josh says:

        I think the fee doesnt even have to be that low… I think most drivers without expendable income would not balk at, say, a $200/per year fee (can be paid monthly if needed) because the time and money saved by RPP in terms of looking for parking would far outweigh this amount. The gas savings alone of not having to circle the block could cover this fee. This is what I estimate I pay annually for gas at NYC prices just for circling for parking.

        • sam says:

          You are wrong. Most residents will balk at a mandatory annual fee that is not nominal (eg $25-$50). $200 is a lot for many people. And, frankly, most of the spots on the UWS are currently taken by UWS residents. The purpose of the RPP is to alleviate bridge and tunnel folks who will use the UWS as a parking lot if there is a congestion pricing toll for driving below 60th street

          • Josh says:

            People actually will balk at any price – hack, people would complain about having to put a sticker in the window even if it were free. But with the right education program – making the benefits known, people wont balk as much.

            A RPP program will free up more spaces on the street, even before we take into account people trying to avoid the congestion cordon. It will also lower our insurance rates, because more vehicles will be insured in the city since people illegally registering their cars at their summer homes will have to join the city pool. More spaces, and lower insurance rates, could easily repay a higher permit cost in savings. Any RPP should be, at worst, revenue neutral, and at best, revenue creating within reason. San Francisco is $110 annually.

    4. js says:

      BTW on weekends, when weather is good, it is now common to see SUVs with NJ plates parked around 120-123rd/LaSalle etc – so they can bike in Manhattan.

      Yes they are driving in, parking – and biking.

      • Wendy says:

        I don’t see anything wrong with that JS; they will be spending money while they are here biking around. But I could see instituting some kind of payment system required for out of town plates – not the typical usury of the UWS meters, but something reasonable that brings in revenue to the city from visitors. What about the dozens of doormen and other store/business/supermarket workers who drive to the UWS daily and park their cars on the side streets? I see them every day parking up here. Somehow they manage to finagle leaving work for 40 minutes to alternate-side park their cars, or to continually go out and feed the meters That’s a much worse problem, and it won’t be solved by limited parking south of 60th Street. They’re already driving in and parking up here all day long. Perhaps put a limit on the # of hours non-permit holders can park in one spot?. If Congestion pricing becomes a reality, then parking permits for UWS citizens is a must. I wouldn’t mind paying a nominal fee if I knew I would have an easier time finding a parking place. (I use my car for work.

        • David S says:

          I see no reason why the “dozens of doormen and other store/business/supermarket workers” can’t gt to work via public transportation; subway/bus coverage in the UWS is among the best in the city. As for “feeding the meters”, that’s illegal. If it’s a two-hour spot, the motorist is obliged to move their vehicle once the two ours are up. The NYPD should be enforcing this.

          • J says:

            There are workers who are coming in from “transit-desert” parts of NYC. Also from LI, Westchester, NJ etc. with long commutes. Some work late/night shifts and cannot rely on public transportation. Some carpool.
            In my building, several of the maintenance staff carpool from Yonkers.
            In the building in which I work, cleaning ladies are coming in around 5:30 and working til midnight – some of them carpool in.
            If housing was affordable, no doubt they would welcome living here, being able to walk to work or a short bus ride. But as we know, rich folks/luxury real estate has taken over Manhattan….

      • chrigid says:

        Time for an article about this?

    5. Juan says:

      I think congestion pricing is a bad idea. The bridge and tunnel tolls already help to serve this purpose – tolls should be added to the east river crossings, with potential exemptions/discounts for NYC residents.

      However, if it is going to happen, this plan is absolutely necessary. The area just north of the congestion zone is going to become a huge traffic zone as people try to avoid paying the fee. Parking should be prioritized for neighborhood residents. Tickets for non-residents should be large enough that they will not want to risk getting ticketed.

      This will also help financially because the numerous neighborhood residents who try to save money by registering their cars out of state will now be forced to register their cars in NY. I had a car and street parked for six months and was always amazed at the number of people who were clearly residents who had non-NY plates.

      Everyone loves to complain about the city council but I want to compliment them for trying to pro-actively deal with some of the potential consequences of congestion pricing and help residents.

    6. Leon says:

      Too bad some of the many empty store fronts in the neighborhood can’t be turned into parking spots! This would be a lot better than them sitting empty with their doorways serving as homeless shelters.

    7. Teacupsugarqueen says:

      How does it work when you have a car withnout of state plates but live in Manhattan. We are residents and hopefully qualify for a permit. Your thoughts?

      • Josh says:

        If you live in Manhattan and have out of state plates you’re committing fraud, so I wouldn’t expect you to benefit from this.

        • SMH says:

          Is it against the law to live in two places? I don’t think so. We own 4 businesses in NYC, we pay plenty in personal and business taxes with all of the BS taxes as business owners and choose to relax elsewhere. Who amongst us would not take advantage of a lower insurance rate if it’s legal?

          • George G says:

            Your insurance policy requires you to pay a premium based on where you keep your car most. And if you are a NY resident for tax purposes, you need to register your car in nY.

          • Steve says:

            It’s not legal, it’s fraud. And, if your insurance company finds out you lied about where you live to get a cheaper rate, they might decide not to pay your insurance when you need it…

          • Josh says:

            It’s not legal. Your car is required to be registered where you spend the most time or over 180 days per year. If you relax in PA, going there every single weekend for Saturday and Sunday, registering your car in PA is called fraud.

      • Juan says:

        Register your car here like the rest of us. Or pay for a garage.

      • David S says:

        You could register your vehicle at your NYC address. Problem solved!

      • Cato says:

        If you live in Manhattan your car should have New York plates.

      • SMH says:

        I’d like to know this as well. Have a weekend place, car has PA plates, I have PA license and live on the UWS. Hopefully we can provide proof of address another way.

        • Kenneth says:

          You also avoid paying NYC auto insurance rates by doing this. Check with your insurance company about the downside of misrepresenting your garaging location.

        • UWS for life says:

          SMH – based on what you say, you are supposed to have a) a NY license (not PA) and b) car registered to NY, not PA. Since you spend over 50% of your time in NYC, you are a NYC resident and need to pay taxes, vote and have a drivers license in your state.

          So, NO, I hope there isn’t another way to prove residency…you can’t have it both ways!

          • Anon says:

            But what about people who spend mpst.of their time at their country home and have an apartment on th eUWS? Would they get resident stickers, perhaps for a higher fee? Just curious, this isn’t my situation

          • SMH says:

            So judgmental… we live 50/50. Taxes filed in NY. Insurance company knows we are 50/50. We pay State Farm pa for renters insurance on our NYC apartment. Jeez….I am a law abiding citizen born in Lenox hill hospital raised in NYC. I’m allowed to have two residences!

            • Cato says:

              — “I’m allowed to have two residences!”

              Of course you are. Just don’t ask those of us who can barely afford *one* to subsidize you with a local parking space. If you want the privilege of parking on the UWS, you should pay the costs.

    8. Ish Kabibble says:

      Love this idea.

    9. CongestionParkingConcerned says:

      How do we voice our support for this? Are there places to call./email to help this bill get passed?

    10. Chris says:

      I’m all for it, assuming it’s free to (tax-paying) residents.

    11. L. S. says:

      Manhattan is my second home. I would want an exemption for living here over 60 years!

    12. Clyde Frazier says:

      What if out-of-towners want to come in and shop or go to restaurants? This will hurt small businesses! We don’t need any more micro-management of our lives. I have an idea: how about the City Council take a “time-out” and not pass any laws that impinge upon our freedom for a year???

      • Scott says:

        Metered spaces and private garages. Why is this so hard?

      • Jay says:

        They can take the train, just like everyone else.

        • W70 says:

          Sure, they can take the train. And residents can take the train, too. Thus, we don’t need the city to provide low-cost parking spaces.

        • Sue says:

          I work with people who have to be in at 6am from far away places. Others get off at 1am.

          Sometimes public transportation is just not an option.

    13. Bill Williams says:

      This should have been done decades ago but reserving the spots is the wrong way to go. Instead there should be a 1 hour parking limit for non-residents. It’s very simple to have agents mark the tires. They do it in many other cities. Cars that overstay are ticketed and towed.

    14. David says:

      Will this permit be linked to a specific car? For those of us who rent and borrow, a permit for the person not the auto would be best.

    15. Mike Coleman says:

      Give these working people from out of Manhattan a break. Soon Manhattan will cease to become a reasonable destination. We’re punishing the very people who support our borough. If you live in Manhattan and are a true global warming liberal, you should not own a car. Leave driving to the working, contributing adults from out of Manhattan.


      Just in case anyone was seeking clarity about this “block association” –

      Copied directly from the Website:

      “The West 80th Street Block Association is privately owned and operated not-for-profit private associaition. It does not accept any kind of donations public or private and it is a strictly owned by a botherhood menbers-only non-public private association.
      The West 80th Street Block Associaition is privately funded by other private souces that can not be revealed what-so-ever.”

      Glad this was cleared up for everyone. Got it now??

      • Chuck D/West 80th St. Public Block Association says:

        Wow. I’ve read that sentence like 10 times and still don’t understand what is going on…

    17. Walter W Brown says:

      Long overdue.

    18. JeffS says:

      I still want to know who authorized TLC to institute a $3.00 congestion charge to all southbound rides once they’ve crossed 96th Street, and to ALL rides commencing south of 96th St., no matter where they’re headed. A ride commencing on 100th Street and ending just 10 blocks south now costs close to $10.00. That’s a terrible burden on seniors or anyone with mobility problems.

      • diane says:

        I was shocked by the cost of a recent (short) taxi ride. I had NO idea it had been instituted. Has this surcharge gotten any media attention?

        The taxi driver said he had no choice on the surcharge, it was added in automatically by the meter. He also said it had cut down on the number of rides he had each day.

        I’m a senior who’ll have to wait in all kinds of weather for upwards of 30 mins for the bus to go to doctors appts. I can’t afford to take cabs now.

        So the surcharge is a lose/lose for drivers and seniors. Who wins with this?

        • Cato says:

          — “So the surcharge is a lose/lose for drivers and seniors. Who wins with this?”

          Simple. DeBlasio and the other income-redistributors. Given the geographical boundaries and the oppressive amount, this “surcharge” is nothing but a relatively-large tax for living below 96th Street.

          Brave new world!

        • Sue says:

          It did get a lot of media coverage. The ironic thing for me is that I almost never take cabs. Took 2 this week right after this went into effect!

          Honestly can’t remember the last time I took a cab. Probably sometime in the fall.

    19. The Krams says:

      I don’t understand the rationale of people who want Residential Parking passes to be free (other than everyone likes free stuff). Why should anyone have access to some of the most expensive real estate space in the world for nothing? It just encourages use. Give discounts where due, but not free overall.

      • Mark P says:

        Agreed. Just make all parking paid.

      • Christine E says:

        As an UWS resident and an occasional car renter, I am happy to buy a bundle of parking permits, or buy permits at the time of rental. They have to figure out a way to accomodate rentals by residents.

    20. Kim says:

      What if you live in the UWS but rent cars when you need a car? You won’t be able to park your car? The need to put in a license plate is a problem that EZPass used to have until recently. Don’t make the same mistake again by requiring a license plate.

      • Janine panchok-Berry says:

        They have resident parking in Boston and it works so well. Here’s how it works: (I) residents register car in state with local address; (II) resident pays nominal fee to get permit sticker for personal car to be parked within reasonable radius of home; (iii) resident gets temporary permits for their visitors or rental cars to park on street for 2-3 days; (iv) non-residents can park on street for 1-3 hours before being ticketed (cops chalk the tires of non-resident cars).

        • UWSmom says:

          In the Boston example, the car renter needs to get these temp permits from someone with a full permit???

          They really need a better solution for people who rent cars occasionally. I already am driving around for 45-60 min sometimes, looking for parking late at night with a car rental, that I have to pick up the night before the trip or keep overnight because the rental office is not open. That search time will only get worse under a permit system. I am a legal neighborhood resident but would not have a right to park under the contemplated permit system.

          The permit system as contemplated makes car owners a priviledged class. That should not be so. It should be the opposite, if we truly care about economic equality and the environment.

      • Mark P says:

        Excellent point. Make parking accessible to all – who must pay for the privilege.

    21. MCB says:

      Parking on 67th St. between CPW and Columbus is shocking!!!
      The gratuitous spots on the southern side given over totally to The Press (ho ho)(NYP plates) who work at NBC…Ha!! Those spaces enable owners to go to Lincoln Center, the movies, etc. and also to work, but not as reporters! The cars never have to be moved!! That should be taken care of first, and then on the northern side, spots should be given to people who live on the block by permit and a small charge, plus also given to staff who work in the residences on the block, if they show a certificate of employment,which must be reissued every 3 months (but for no additional $) We on this block are suffering. The NYP ABC big shots must have paid someone off for all those spaces because ABC employees are saying it’s only the top people (not reporters) who got the plates. Just reporting the word on the street but cannot verify myself. Check it out!

    22. Landis Olesker says:

      Hurray! It’s long past time for residential parking permits. I have a couple of caveats however: (1) Why make only 80% of the spaces subject to permitting and not all? How will an 80% rule be enforced? (2) Why permit suburban New Yorkers to benefit from this policy? Drivers from Westchester are just as bad, from a local point of view, as drivers from CT and NJ.

    23. Josh says:

      This idea is insane. If we are implementing congestion pricing in order to reduce car traffic in Manhattan, why are we simultaneously implementing a huge new giveaway of public space to people who want to store their cars in our neighborhood? The article says 97% of residential spaces are free and only 27% of people in New York use their car to get to work. We should eliminate free parking in Manhattan and charge a market rate for people who want to store their private stuff in public space.

    24. JC says:

      Stupidest idea ever! So the doormen, porters, and other building staff who commute in from NJ or other parts of New York aren’t going to be able to park their cars near the building anymore?

      Don’t even get me started on congestion pricing. Just another tax with money being thrown down a bottomless hole of mismanagement.

      • SMH says:


      • Jj1987 says:

        Oh I feel so bad for the doormen who take up 2 spots so they can save a parking spot for one of their tenants or other staff members.. So often that I drive around and see a doorman park their motorcycle taking up a whole spot. Thanks but no thanks, take the train now.

      • Adina says:

        Agree. This also makes it onerous for non-Manhattan residents to visit the museums, parks, shops— and doctors and hospitals. Public transportation is not realistic or feasible for many people and paying fifty dollars for a few hours of parking is insane. This is just another way for Manhattanites to pretend the other boroughs and suburbs don’t exist.

      • your_neighbor says:

        Why should the NJ and LI resident doormen and porters be treated any differently than the people who come into our neighborhood, park their cars all day and travel to their midtown/downtown jobs? They can take mass transit just as easily as many of my co-workers who live outside of Manhattan.

    25. Viviaj says:

      Will the permit be linked to a specific car?
      What would happen to us residents with NY state drivers license, who don’t own a car but rent from rental car companies or use one of the car sharing apps (like zipcar for example).

    26. lilly says:

      just what nyc needs, more money from taxpayers it doesn’t need to do its job. this is all built around the idea that nyc needs more money to fix the subways. what nyc is to stop wasting money and over regulating every aspect of our lives. all they want is another pathway to parking tickets which is even more revenue on top of the permit. don’t fall for it.

    27. Cato says:

      Residential parking permits should be based on the car’s registration, not the owner’s residence or driver’s license.

      Too many Manhattan residents evade paying New York taxes on their cars — even when they keep those cars in Manhattan — by registering them out of state. If you want the privilege of a Manhattan parking permit, you should support Manhattan, New York City and New York State by paying the taxes that go with it.

      • Scott says:

        “Residential parking permits should be based on the car’s registration, not the owner’s residence or driver’s license.”

        Washington DC, Chicago and Boston demand local car registration AND proof of residency, and the system seems to work very well for them.

    28. The W. 80th St. Tree Fund says:

      We think this is a fantastic idea. We totally agree with the W. 80th St. Block Association. This has been going on successfully in Boston for many years and the annual Residence fee is $25 also this has been going on in San Francisco and their annual residence fee is $125 a year.

    29. Larry K says:

      Wonderful idea. For those who avoid NYC or NYS taxes by claiming out of state residency/license plates should NOT be entitled to RPP benefits. Pay rightful taxes and fees that pay for your police, fire, garbage pickup, etc. services and then you can benefit!!

    30. AC says:

      This idea is flawed!

      100 cars and only 10 spots available. You’ll be paying for a permit and then end up parking in a garage. Another NYC pay scam.

      Get rid of the citi-bike and bike lanes, and restore all the parking spaces that were removed. And get rid of this congestion pricing.

      • JC says:

        Right on AC!!! I totally agree with you!

      • Jay says:

        Why should the entire city subsidize the parking of your personal vehicle?

        Bike lanes and citibike are here to stay and the neighborhood is better off because of it. Time to get used to the new reality.

    31. Wendy says:

      One law triggers the next law without resolving the initial problem. PUBLUC TRANSPORTATION in NYC is broken, inefficient, unreliable and not accessible to a many people such as those with young children, elderly, incapacitated , needing to carry supplies etc.
      Make the PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION worthy of ridership and people will use it. And don’t pretend that the fees on cars will raise the funds. There has been money, redirected to other projects . First, first-class public transportation, then you can determine the need to further limit cars.

    32. Ken says:

      Best comment so far: Josh, #23. And if you think this will make it any easier to find a free parking space, I have a bridge downtown you may be interested in.

      • Scott says:

        Fortunately, we have solid evidence that it will help open up spaces. Most if not all large cities have this system in place and no one is saying “let’s do what NYC does!” So, when someone predicts it won’t work, I have to assume they’re either ignorant or have an agenda. I think I know which one.

    33. westsidegal70 says:

      Wow. I guess so many UWSiders are client change deniers. Either that or hypocrites.

      • David says:

        “Client change denier” – really?
        Again, someone has forgotten to proof-read their comment

    34. Eric says:

      By “non resident” are we also talking about people who live in other parts of town whose taxes are also paying for the streets?

      • Josh says:

        Yes, but instead of paying the congestion charge, would park on our UWS streets instead.

    35. Dorothy Parker says:

      Don’t mind paying a fee for resident street parking. In fact, it might make it easier for UWS residents. I need my car to commute to Westchester every day or I wouldn’t bother keeping one. Hoboken and Jersey City have had resident parking stickers for years — even NJ is ahead of us.

    36. js says:

      Seems ironic that people are driving in and parking in order to bike

    37. Rochelle says:

      Yes! I’m all for Residential Parking permits for people who live in the neighborhood, have NY drivers’ licenses and whose cars are registered at local addresses..

      Too many people who live here register their cars at upstate and out of state addresses to take advantage of lower insurance and tax rates. Unfair.

    38. Lorene Farnsworth says:

      Absolutely. It’s ridiculous any other way. I had to sell my car for a dollar to my uncle because I just could not handle the stress of parking anymore. Of course people who live in the neighborhood should have priority parking, I don’t pull into someone’s driveway in Iowa just because it’s convenient to where I want to go, why are we any different? What are we getting out of it?

      • huhwah? says:

        Point being that that driveway in Iowa’s is someone’s personal property: purchased, maintained and taxed because it is owned by said Iowan.
        An UWS New Yorker, who owns a private vehicle, frequently for transport to and from a second home, and yet expects free, untaxed and available private parking in the public space?
        Also… ’cause, well, circling for parking contributes to global warming!
        Well. Jeesh.

      • Ken says:

        This “Iowa driveway” comment sums up the disconnect in a nutshell: car owners view the curbside space as their private property. It isn’t. There are many higher social uses for it than the free storage of private property — uses including temporary loading zones and getting garbage off the sidewalks.

    39. MikeDNYC says:

      That suburbanite commuters would flood UWS parking spots due to congestion pricing isn’t anywhere near as likely to happen as our city reps think. Commuters will find there are scarce few open parking spaces at any time ever now.
      They’ll give up trying and fast.
      Also, resident parking permits are just another cash grab by the city. Leave us alone already.
      Last, the cost of short cab rides in our eighborhood just went up by about 20 percent becuase of congestion pricing.
      I don’t like any of this.

    40. ML says:

      I support this but only for cars that have New York state license plates . I see cars parked on my block with out of state plates from New Jersey and other states. If anyone falsely claims to to live elsewhere to get cheaper insurance than they don’t deserve a parking permit.

      • Setting the rules straight says:

        ML – The permits will be issued to only who have a New York State license’s (One per House-Hold) and the address must match the New York City address on their block. As of today, the plan is to charge an annual $25 a year fee for the permit. That will be charged to your easy-pass. The alternate side parking will remain in effect for the residence cars and resident parking will be on certain hours/daily (not-weekend). This should stop the out-of-town resident for dumping their cars on a daily basis. Tow-away will also be introduced to this plan.

    41. Billy Amato says:

      Hold on folks…. There will be many town halls at CB7 for this program and don’t get your panties in a bunch! All this has to be planned out yet. It’s not scheduled to go into effect until the start of 2021.
      But this is a fabulous idea and long-overdue and also has proven itself to be very successful in Boston and San Francisco. Better yet this way we can get rid of the people who are making an annual salary $250,000 and less. In 10/15 years the Upper Westside will be the new Beverly Hills!


        According to your logic you will be gone, too.
        We can’t all have rent controlled basement studios.

      • Billy's Bakery says:

        “Better yet this way we can get rid of the people who are making an annual salary $250,000 and less.”

        Seriously, what is wrong with you??

    42. Wendy Walker says:

      And someday they might charge pedestrians for merely walking below 60th St. Aren’t our streets public domain? And if so, why should anyone be paying (yet again) for something owned by the public? That’s why we pay taxes.

    43. George G says:

      Congestion pricing is a proven benefit, as is residential parking priority, which it’s necessary partner. But by the way, it can be expected that the prices at garages will also go up as demand increases on the UWS.

    44. Shirley Ariker says:

      It’s an excellent idea. Neighborhoods in Boston have a percent of designated spaces. People also park more mindfully because the spaces are marked. Even now parking spaces are often taken up by people who park for the day–as we can tell by their out-of-state plates.

    45. Stefan says:

      I love it, but make sure that the permits are not free. Parking on the street is not a right and car owners should be charged for the privilege.
      BTW, I own a car that is parked on the street.

    46. Christine E says:

      The multitude of commments indicate that permitting will be complicated to implement and potentially unfair to various groups. Perhaps the easiest solution is to add more metered parking overall and especially in the affected areas of the congestion pricing border zones. That way users pay directly for scarce resources.