Local Board Considering How to Replace or Modify Curbside Parking Spots; Meeting Tuesday

An image from a short film about the madness of parking on the Upper West Side.

Community Board 7 will hold a forum on Tuesday, October 29 to consider what to do with the “acres of public real estate” currently used for curbside parking. The meeting will take place from 6:30 to 8:30 at St Paul and St Andrew’s Church – 263 West 86th Street (between Broadway and West End Avenue).

Hundreds of parking spots in the neighborhood have been replaced with other uses in the past few years — for bike lanes, Uber/Lyft/Juno drop-off spots, and other uses — and the Community Board 7 Transportation Committee has already proposed eliminating all free curbside parking in the neighborhood.

“The forum will cover different possible uses of curbside space including: various parking options, street seats, bike corrals, pedestrian friendly opportunities, dedicated bus lanes, and other potential uses. Please come with an open mind and with questions for the panelists,” according to the flyer from Community Board 7.

Speakers will include Charles Komanoff, who “‘re-founded’ NYC’s bike-advocacy group Transportation Alternatives in the 1980s, co-founded the pedestrian-rights group Right Of Way in the 1990s,” and has designed the financial model for the congestion pricing law that will take effect after next year. Howard Yaruss, the co-chair of the transportation committee, is also a board member at Transportation Alternatives.

The other panelists include:

Ed Pincar, the Manhattan Borough Commissioner at the NYC Department of Transportation.

And Rachel Weinberger, Senior Fellow for Transportation at the Regional Plan Association, a nonprofit focused on the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut metropolitan region.

NEWS | 107 comments | permalink
    1. Adam says:

      Anything that relieves congestion and takes cars off the road is a good thing. It’s so difficult to get around this city, traffic is terrible everywhere, pedestrians are dodging cars left and right. City needs to be more pedestrian friendly. If you want to tool around by yourself in your car and park for free move to the burbs.

      • David says:

        Yeah, lets take away the freedom of choice for people who have to use a car. Maybe if people stop looking at their phones and pay attention to lights, then we can all live in harmony.

        • Jay says:

          There are plenty of parking garages around.

          This has nothing to do with your choice. It has everything to do with making the lives of most people in Manhattan better by devoting less public space to private vehicles.

          • Paul says:

            Parking garages on the UWS routinely charge $700/month. By definition that rebuts the claim that there are “plenty.”
            And ending street parking will drive the cost of garages even higher.

            • Rb says:

              If you can’t afford to live here then don’t. Lots of free parking in the suburbs.

            • Christina says:

              Well, that’s the price one pays to have a car in the city. Having a car in the city is a luxury in more instances than not. It’s a choice and there are consequences for that choice. It’s a predominately a pedestrian city.

            • Paul says:

              The claim was that there is “plenty” of garage space. Which is clearly not true.

              And telling a teacher who reverse commutes and is going to be hit with an 800/month increase in her living costs that “If you can’t afford to live here…” is precisely the kind of self-entitled behavior you accuse car owners of displaying.
              The fact is that people who live here and own cars can afford to live here under the rules that were in effect when they moved in and today. Changing those rules will force some out, most likely middle income residents.

        • Arjan says:

          Taking freedom of choice away? Driving itself is a privilege, as is parking.

          If you’re looking for unlimited freedom to do what you want to do NYC is the wrong place. So many people packed together you cannot just do what you want, you need to be considerate of others. So if you want to live in NYC, your freedom will be limited.

        • Stephen says:

          David, potentially you get an extra travel lane on the road. How is that not an improvement?

        • LL says:

          It is true that people cross the street looking at their phones. People also cross the street with no regard for stop signs. However I have lost count of the number of times I have crossed the street and have had to jump back because a car is making a turn. I do not know how to resolve this but I am seriously thinking of only crossing in the middle of the street.

          I have no use for cars in Manhattan. Some do of course. But for most residents?

      • CCL says:

        Where will all the demolition and construction trucks go? Oh. Where the cars used to be parked. Wonderful. That will make the quality of life so much better.

        • Josh says:

          I think you’re being sarcastic, but if we remove parking and construction trucks move into those spots instead of double parking, that really does make the neighborhood much better. Less congestion, less air pollution, less noise pollution, quicker response times for emergency vehicles.

          • CCL says:

            This is a joke, right? Construction and demo trucks are already in spots so they’ll just take over the whole street. Talk about noise. Double parked trucks have to move at least.

      • Michael says:

        If less congestion was the issue, maybe the door shouldn’t have been opened to allowing virtually every car to become a cab. Stand on a corner one day and just count the passenger cars that don’t have a taxi license plate. You can spend a while before you run out of fingers and toes.

      • Jim says:

        Pedestrians dodge far more cyclists than cars.

    2. Dr. Ideaman says:

      I don’t think any of those alternatives are necessarily better than parking; some are clearly worse.

      But the street parking shouldn’t be FREE. It should generate revenue to fund street maintenance, subway repairs, and to building penal colonies for scofflaw, renegade cycling terrorists.

      • geoff says:

        Agreed, with surge pricing. All payments made electronically and, ideally, through a smart phone app, like ParkNYC.

        Register your car in the app, pay remotely, when time runs out, add further payment remotely, buy as much time as the app allows.

        All app allowances determined centrally by civic authority.

        Sitting in your dentist’s office, worried your meter payment is about to expire—no more. An alarm warns of impending expiration, simply add more money.

        Lying in bed, suddenly remember your meter payment is expiring. Add remote payment, roll over, go back to sleep.

        Best thing for drivers since sliced bread.

        • debrim says:

          This is, by far, one of the most rational & unique suggestions I’ve seen.

          I don’t drive. I DO recognize that some people NEED to have access to a personal vehicle. And I do agree with those who say that parking garages are INSANELY overpriced.

          But, IMHO, there are an inordinately large number of people who “keep” a car, but TRULY don’t need one. And/or people who could certainly afford parking garage fees but choose to use free street parking instead.

          Seems to me that your idea would have a beneficial effect on (if not fully solve, since I doubt any possible method COULD be 100% perfect) all of the major problems.

          Good thinking!

        • dave says:

          I mean, the simplest way to implement would be to put in the same Bloomberg-era meters we have everywhere but allow you to buy 48 hours of parking for a few bucks.

          • David S. says:

            Well, no. Parking at a public spot (even one that’s paid for) for an unlimited duration is exactly what we _don’t_ want. And “feeding” a meter once the maximum time has expired is illegal as well. I’m definitely an advocate of available street parking on the UWS (and in NYC as a whole), but if you own a car (as I do), you should have off-street parking for it (as I do). The motorists who drive around for hours looking for a free spot, or who double park for hours on end during street cleaning times are contributing to the congestion and pollution problems in our city.

      • Stuart says:

        By the same token, since cyclists are riding in the streets, they should also be held responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the roadways. How ? By charging annual fees for licenses and registrations, and equiping bikes with EZ Passes. I am waiting for the outcry from cyclists when they are forced to pay a toll to ride over the East River bridges…

    3. Sid says:

      I’d love to see parking spots reused for building garbage receptacles so we don’t have pile ups of garbage on the sidewalks.

    4. Scott says:

      Where are our residential parking permits? Why do a loud minority of bicycle truthers get to dictate policy?

      What exactly are you doing about this, Mark Levine?

      • Sid says:

        Car-owners are actually the minority. In Manhattan alone, 75% of households do not own cars.

      • Arjan says:

        Hi Scott. Cyclists “dictating” policy? I don’t know I’ve you’ve been outside recently, but clearly car is still king!

        • Scott says:

          As it should be. We’re licensed, insured, pay fees to the state and are accountable for our actions — unlike the gran fondo brigade racing down Riverside Drive. And I bike too, so I see both sides very clearly.

      • Josh says:

        Car owners are the minority in the neighborhood. 85% of UWS residents do not drive to work. Yet half of every side street in the neighborhood (two parking lanes on streets that are four car widths wide) is dedicated to parking. I would love for our streets to reflect the way the vast majority of UWSers live – and whatever bubble you live in, the majority of us are not drivers!

        • Paul says:

          The majority of us want family and friends to be able to visit. We throw parties, host card games, have people come for dinner, etc. Residential neighborhoods aren’t easily reached by mass transit from outlying boroughs and suburbs.

          The majority of us also understand that we bought or rented based on a status quo that shouldn’t be needlessly disrupted.

          • Lynn says:

            Why not permits for those that own or rent? Everyone else pays a space fee (high) from a kiosk!

          • Mike says:

            That’s such a cop out. My wife and I both have friends and family that visit from out of town/other states. They drive their car to the closest commuter rail line/bus station and park, often for free, and take that in to the city, then switch to the subway to get to our apartment. If they’ve never been here before and are uncomfortable with the subway we’ll go meet them at Penn Station/Grand Central/Port Authority and bring them back with us on the train.

            Most of my out of state friends take Greyhound. After factoring in tolls and gas, it’s actually cheaper than driving into the city and parking.

    5. VERONICA says:

      Howard Yarrus, a board member of Transportation Alternatives is the co-chair of the Transportation Committee?

      Of course, no conflict here.
      Lets have more of this.
      Thank you Community Board 7

      • Josh says:

        Agreed the conflicts of interest here are huge. Everyone who receives valuable free street parking from the city should recuse themselves from this debate.

    6. Leon says:

      I don’t have a car but I don’t really understand all of this anti-car sentiment. People of all wealth levels use cars for various purposes. In fact, those who park on the street most likely tend to be the least wealthy car owners.

      I think it is a good idea to require residence stickers and charge a nominal fee for parking in the neighborhood so that local residents get top priority and people stop registering their cars out of state. Though I do not know where this would leave people like my doormen who drive in from NJ and likely could not afford to pay for a lot every day. But eliminating more parking spaces just to stick it to car owners is not a good idea.

      • Sid says:

        The median income of level of car owners in NYC is generally much higher than the income level of non-car owners.

      • Josh says:

        This isn’t about punishing anyone, it’s about using our limited public space to create the most public benefit. Street parking is public space and it should benefit the community as a while, not just the minority that own cars. That means, at a minimum, street parking should generate revenue that can be used for everyone. This does NOT mean a “nominal fee for resident parking” which would just make the lives of car owners easier while making it more difficult for everyone who doesn’t own a car but does host the occasional visitor. Ideally, streets should be used to reduce congestion and make it easier for people to move around the city. We should learn form the massive success of the 14th St busway. We should fight the rat problem with the only method that actually works – getting trash off of our sidewalks and into dedicated on street containers. There are so many ways that we could be using this public space – a massive free parking lot is a massive waste.

        • Fed up says:

          Josh, Seriously? What value do you see will be gained from prohibiting cars from parking on side streets? Avenues are already heavily metered. What else can be put on side streets in residential neighborhoods? More Citibike stands? more Uber drop offs? more construction containers? Citibike seems to be doing just fine. Uber and other black cars area the main congestion issue anyway.
          THis is nothing more than another revenue grab by Community Board 7.
          I am an UWSer for 42 years. I have owned a car, gave it up, needed a car, gave it up and once again need a car. I do not understand why no one seems to get it that some people do need a car and cannot afford $700/month to house it is a garage. Garages are disappearing and therefore less parking available and rising rates. Maybe the city should think about municipal parking garages. A concept seen in many other cities. To obliterate street parking is punitive.

        • PQDubya says:

          The streets themselves are also public land – lets close them down too, tear out the asphalt plant grass and trees and let the Unicorns roam and graze freely

      • Arjan says:

        I guess the anti-car sentiment comes from the 89 pedestrians and 26 cyclists getting killed by motorized vehicles in 2019 up to now. Not to mention the noise and air pollution they cause.

        I don’t know the specific situation for your doorman obviously – but a functioning mass transportation could offer a solution. It’s amazing and very sad that the regional transportation in the tri-state area is so poor. Looking at what happened with the 14St bus way it is clear that there are too many people adhering to the (very bad) status quo, for nonsense arguments.

        • Ed says:

          What is the basis for a correlation between automobile-caused pedestrian and bicyclist deaths and the fact that cars are parked along streets? Reducing traffic, not parked cars, would have a much greater safety impact, I think. In fact, reducing the number of parking spaces could result in more cars circling streets with drivers focused on the curbs rather than the road ahead of them.

          • Mike says:

            Reducing parking will reduce cars. There are plenty of people who don’t need a car but keep one will get rid of their car if they can no longer park it for free..

      • Bruce UWS says:

        Pause for a moment. What is the problem?
        Street Parking is not “free”. Car owner Residents
        do Pay NYC resident taxes as well as NYS car registration. How many people will suffer in some way from this badly conceived proposal to eliminate parking?? Let’s get a number from the DMV of resident car owners in this area. Than ban all non-residents from parking!! Or, figure out how to provide those that live
        here with “Free” parking. I’m still not sure what is being solved by this proposal!!

        • Josh says:

          It is free, because resident taxes are paid by all, not just people who park on the streets. Also, DMV registration fees do not actually fully cover the bureaucratic costs to fund the DMV itself. People who park in garages pay for their parking spaces. Those of us who park on the street, myself included, are parking for free. And parking tickets dont count either.

    7. Max says:

      This is a golden opportunity to set up universal metered parking on every side of every street at all times. Imagine a world in which the price of metered parking floats up and down along with demand, allowing at least 20% of spaces to remain available for use. Can’t afford the current demand-driven price? Plan to arrive outside of peak hours or don’t use a car at all.

      Imagine all the money that will be brought in by such an arrangement. Imagine all the cars that will no longer be stored in the streets for free on a full time basis. Imagine all the cars that will no longer be cruising the streets in search of free parking spots.

    8. Heather H says:

      Why can’t we just have designated resident only parking from 6pm -7am like other cities. I really don’t understand why this is so difficult.

      • your_neighbor says:

        Sorry, I can’t get up that early, can you make that 5pm – 9am-ish?

        I don’t use my car all that often and keep it garaged about a 40 minute bike ride away. If I have somewhere to drive I bring it in the day before. Resident evening/night time parking would be great, even for a fair fee.

        I also like the idea of 24 hour metered parking everywhere to open up street spots for family visitors who drive in from out of town because every time we lose parking spaces, garage prices increase.

        For years and years I have seen people just move their cars from one side of the street to the other seemingly never using their car. Sometimes they’ll open their trunks and it is used like an additional closet.

        There are some very good ideas in this comment section, hopefully people bring them along to the meeting.

      • Josh says:

        I don’t own a car, but my parents do and they occasionally drive in to visit me. Where would they park in this scenario? The streets are owned by all and should benefit all.

        • Sid says:

          So we need to prevent progress for the occasional parental visit? You or they can pay the day rate for a garage, which is a cost that should be incurred with travelling in a transit-rich area, just as gasoline should.

        • Woody says:

          So you would like an accomodation given to occasional visitors and users of street parking? That reasoning doesn’t jibe with the complaints voiced by many about the accommodations made for cyclists re: infrequently used bike lanes. Can’t have it both ways.

        • Noah says:

          What’s wrong with parking at a suburban transit station and getting into the neighborhood the way the rest of us do?

    9. Another ridiculous idea by people that don’t care about citizens except for their votes. You want to eliminate more parking after citibike and the new loading/unloading spots have already made it difficult to find parking. Eliminating parking, unused bus lanes, construction, citibikes every other street, loading/unloading spots is adding to congestion not decreasing it. Our elected officials are clueless, especially Deblosio. These socialists are going to make me move very soon.

    10. Ivan Stoler says:

      Some years ago, the NY times had an article that said that 30% of the traffic in De Blasio’s neighborhood was due to drivers looking for parking. Imagine the increased traffic if more spots are removed.

      • Arjan says:

        I heard from a reliable source that traffic is caused by people driving their car! The best way to eliminate traffic, is to stop driving :O

      • Stephen says:

        As discovered on 14th St, traffic falls, people take other transport solutions.

    11. Danard says:

      I am all for less cars, more bikes and less congestion. The problem is that public transportation is TERRIBLE. We need to fix the transit system so people can get around without a car or bike! Then we can eliminate spots, implement congestion pricing etc. etc.

    12. NativeNYer1972 says:

      Residential cars aren’t what’s causing traffic congestion in Manhattan. Its Ubers, Vias and the thousands of double parked delivery trucks. Penalizing car owners in the name of easing congestion is unfair.

      Regarding the acres of public space, how does adding more bike racks make it any fairer to NYers. Not everyone can or wants to ride a bike or pay to use Citibikes.

      Is there a shortage of space for people to sit on the UWS that “street seats” are proposed? I have no problem finding a bench to sit on at almost every corner of my neighborhood.

      This is nonsense to hear so many people complain that car owners should move to the suburbs if they want a car or that parking isn’t a right. I sort of think it is! Parking on the street requires effort and patience and often unfair penalties. Its far from free.

      I use the subway, ride my bike and (gasp) drive my car when I need to work or leave the island of Manhattan.

      This seems to be a combination of anti car/pro bike zealots and a cash grab by the city. I’ll be at the meeting on Tueas. I may even drive there.

    13. UWSer3 says:

      I don’t own a car and I’m not particularly “pro-car” and would love to see less on the roads, but my neighbors who do own cars are really not contributing to traffic congestion. Generally they use their cars to leave the city not drive to work or to run errands around the city. It’s people driving in from outside the city, and Uber and Lyft, who are responsible for the congestion. Commuters are driving into the city, parking in our neighborhoods and then jumping on the subway to work. Residential parking permits would allow residents to park in their own neighborhoods and would raise some revenue. Most car owners I know are in favor of permits.

    14. ST says:

      Notice how CB 6 takes care of it’s district while CB 7 has given the UWS up to outside interests? And how about CB7’s famous habit of holding big public meetings in venues too small for all the stakeholders to attend, or even more famously holding meetings where innumerable members of the community speak against something and then the board totally ignores them like a mini dictatorship.

      • Josh says:

        People who store their cars on the street are a minority of UWS residents (~15%). Reallocating space to other uses is not a dictatorship, it’s local democracy functioning as it should.
        Running important decisions through a process where only the people who can take hours to show up and speak disenfranchises everyone else. If we had more democracy and stopped giving a veto to whoever has the time to show up and yell at a meeting, we would have reformed street space a long time ago.

    15. Steve says:

      I use my car for work. If I didn’t have it, I would have to quit. I would love to use a garage but can’t afford it. I would have to leave my home. What about my family here? Why should working people like myself be penalized all of a sudden? I’ve been parking here since I could drive.

      • Josh says:

        Rich, poor, everything in between – everyone pays for the subway.
        Nobody pays for street parking. It doesn’t matter how rich you are. I’ve seen a Ferrari parked for free on Riverside Drive. Is that fair?
        If we want to help low income car owners, we could charge them a reduced rate for parking. But if we are concerned about low income car owners, why aren’t we even more concerned about low income subway riders?

      • Josh WITH A CAR says:

        If you paid, say, 250 or 300 per YEAR to get a residential parking permit and then found it easier to park on your block, would that be worth it? Totally is for me. I cant afford an off street spot either (and off street in the UWS in most garages is only $700 on paper – all monthly parkers get a discount on that except for SUVs and luxury cars), but a $300 annual fee for a night time permit that would make it easier to park would be a big benefit. And to the person who wanted to know where their doorman would park – they can park on the street during the daytime hours without a permit, and the overnight doorman would park on the avenue where the meter turns off at 7pm. The world wouldn’t end, just the status quo. But any change scares some people that they are against anything. Even if it would actually HELP them. Human nature. Go figure.

    16. DenaliBoy says:

      I do not have a car-I have a bike. However, the greatest fear I have walking in the evening is being hit by a bike not a car. Many of my fellow bikers tend to disregard traffic signals and have a cavalier attitude toward pedestrians

    17. Lynn says:

      Looks like I’ll be parking in Philly and getting my car when I need it. This is asinine. I’m expected to pay 4K plus maintenance and can’t park? Hmm time to make Florida Blue!

    18. Tony Adams says:

      Does anyone know how many of the cars parked curbside for free are owned by residents? That is a stat I’d appreciate. With that in mind, I wonder what the impact would be if it was decided that only residents could park curbside for free. Other communities have curbside parking reserved for residents. Might be a good first step to eliminating noisy and dangerous cars without disadvantaging residents.

    19. Viv says:

      I have narrowly missed being hit by bicycle riders who pay no attention to traffic lights or pedestrians.Previously, the culprits were only delivery men, now there is an onslaught of racing riders.
      Conversely,I have narrowly missed knocking several riders off their bikes as they speed by my opening taxi door without looking.

      • Josh WITH A CAR says:

        Just to point out, the fact that you are opening your taxi door without looking is on you. If you hit a cyclists with the door, or a cyclist crashes into a door you have opened, you are the person at fault, not the cyclist. At least according to New York State traffic law. You would be financially responsible for any of the cyclists medical bills as well as any damage to his or her bike or property. You can also be given a traffic ticket by the NYPD. I would suggest always looking for cyclists BEFORE opening your door, in your car or in a taxi, because traffic law specifically states that no driver or occupant of a car shall open their door when doing so will in any way impede traffic. So watch out for that. It could cost you a pretty penny on your car insurance premiums or through civil court, or both.

    20. Adina says:

      Cyclists are unlicensed and untaxed. They do not pay the tolls and fees motorists pay to keep up roads. They do not have to use the bike lanes paid for by the motorists and taxpayers yet they have no qualms aboutdisplacing thousands of working New Yorkers who use their cars on a daily basis. This new fiction that cars freely use public space is the double speak of a new generation who seem to only have room for those who think as they do. This used to be a city that valued freedom and individuality. Live and let live. I’m afraid that city is no more.

      • Christina says:

        That’s why we have public transportation. And an extensive one at that. If people live outside the city, there’s the LIRR, MetroNorth, NJ Transit, Amtrak, Bud lines to and from the city and outer areas, and ferries! Then of corse once in the city there is The MTA subways and buses! We have more modes of transportation than most cities, if not all cities in this country! It’s not a complete necessity to travel by car! Oh and we have Cabs, Ubers, Lyft and what ever other car services available. Use them all!

    21. Tony Adams says:

      To all who feel that getting cars off the streets will make our community more pedestrian friendly, I offer my agreement, but I’d be a happier pedestrian if we got dogs off the sidewalks so that I didn’t have to dodge dog feces and urine. That, to me, is an infliction worse than automobiles. With this in mind, I’d like to know the stats: do more of our community residents own dogs than own cars?

    22. bloomie says:

      Smaller cars, folks. Smaller cars.

    23. Melz says:

      I have a car. I am not rich. My car is extremely instrumental in how I make a modest living. I need to park on the street. I can either afford my health insurance of $800 a month or I can park my car in a garage. I’m a born a raised city girl. Please don’t suggest I should move to the suburbs. I’m very tired of being bossed around by bicyclists. I dodge them on the sidewalk, I dodge them as I cross the street with a green light and they run red lights, right in front of police.
      I would gladly pay a reasonable fee for a parking permit. A parking permit that would be for an honest NYer, not the people who drive in from the burbs, park and then take a bus or train the rest of the way.
      Please stop being so close minded about people with cars. You don’t know me and you know my situation and why I need a car.I am very respectful of pedestrians. I am very careful.

    24. SM says:

      I’m really tired of cyclists claiming the high road. Let’s examine the facts.

      1: Who pays for what?
      There is a claim that car owners are getting a free ride. The reality is that car owners pay registration fees, license fees, tolls AND gasoline taxes (which, by the way, is the funding that is used for keeping the roads and infrastructure maintained).

      Cyclists pay ZERO. They use the roads for free. In fact, tax payer dollars are used to modify the roads for cyclists which they then use WITHOUT ANY COST.

      In effect, cars are subsidizing every cyclist who are free loading off the car owners.

      Is this fair?

      Get cyclists to pay their fair share of to use the roads and pay for the upkeep. This can take the form of an annual registration fee for each bicycle.

      2 – Curb side parking is free
      First of all, car owners pay the above costs so it is not “free”.

      But, I think it is fair to have a resident permit fee which is not minimal or punitive … somewhere in between would be palatable for car owners.

      This will have the following benefits:
      – direct revenue for the city
      – generate revenues by reducing the scofflaws who register in other states but park in the city without paying license and registration fees
      – make all the out of state car owners pay for parking (generating funds for garages). On a purely unscientific basis, I observe somewhere around 10% of cars parked on the UWS having non-NY plates
      – reduce greenhouse gases by decreasing the time car owners spend circling blocks looking for parking

      3 – Cyclist deaths. While every death is unfortunate, blaming drivers all the time is wrong. There was the example of the cyclist in Brooklyn running a red light and getting hit by a truck. It is tracked as a cyclist death, but it was clearly the fault of the cyclist. Similarly, a cyclist was killed as he waited at a light by a car involved in an accident. Again, unfortunate, but NOT a cyclist death.
      I would like to see how many of the deaths were TRULY cyclist deaths (defined as a cyclist being killed BY FOLLOWING THE RULES OF THE ROAD).

      Aside, why do cyclists wear headphones when your ears (besides your eyes) are the most important sense for your safety?
      And finally, be collaborative in using the infrastructure. Example: on Fifth avenue, the citibike rack is placed in a proper way on the sidewalk without either impeding pedestrians or taking up valuable street space. Works for everyone.
      Instead, on CPW, the racks are placed on the street causing loss of space for no reason.

      Second example: On CPW, there was not reason to remove 400 parking spots. It would have been easy to put the bike lane on the inside like it is on Columbus, Amsterdam and numerous other streets in the city. Total over reaction.

      The CB7 intent is wrong and causes disproportionate harm to residents without any commensurate benefits.

      There are better ways to solve the problem as outlined above.

      • Josh says:

        Dalerjon, 10, was hit and killed on Oct. 5 by an unlicensed driver while biking steps from his home in the Kensington neighborhood. The boy’s 14-year-old sister knows her brother is gone, but his 5-year-old sister keeps wondering when he is coming back.
        Dalerjon was taken to Maimonides Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. Mr. Mejia, 29, was later arrested and charged with driving without a license, failing to exercise due care and failing to yield to a pedestrian.

        If he is convicted, the most severe punishment he would face is a three-month jail sentence.

        I know you think you see bikers breaking the law all the time and drivers never do. You facts don’t support your biased view. Cars kill. We would be a better city if we had fewer cars.

        • SM says:

          That’s not what I am saying.
          We all live in a big, bustling, cosmopolitan city. Unfortunately, accidents happen and they always will.

          Point I was trying to make is that the statistics do not differentiate between who is at fault. They should so that it is clear that there is blame on BOTH sides – i.e., drivers and cyclists.

          The narrative right now is that it is always the driver.

          If the statistics are clarified, it will become clear to everyone that there need to be checks and balances on drivers AND cyclists.

          Not only drivers.

          This is what will make it safer … right now, because drivers are blamed for everything, cyclists are allowed to do whatever they want without penalty or blame.

          And I agree – the driver penalty is not enough. There should be more accountability.

      • Lunabee says:

        you have the best comments of all and I completely agree.
        If it is revenue they want they should license bicycles. They have gained bike lanes on my tax payer dollars and I do not ride a bicycle anymore. Bicyclists could also use a training class to understand they need to follow motor vehicle rules of the road. And anyone who walks, rides or drives with headphones on should be served with a violation.

      • Josh WITH A CAR says:

        Just a couple clarifications:

        #1 – registration and license fees fund only the costs of the DMV. Not a penny of that goes to roads. Just bureaucracy.

        #2 tolls only go to fund the bridge/tunnel being used. In the case of congestion pricing, cyclists dont add to congestion, and actually switching to cycling is a wanted change to lower congestion, so no toll would be charged.

        #3 gas taxes most definitely go to road upkeep, but they do not nearly cover all road upkeep. Therefore, a large amount of taxes from the general fund are used for upkeep as well, which is paid by all residents. Therefore, pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers are all contributing to the taxes that fund the roads.

        #4 some of the 26 cyclists who have died most definitely have caused their own demise. However, one of the examples you quoted, the one who died while waiting for the light and was hit by a car that was involved in another crash is most definitely a cyclists death by your definition because he was doing everything right, and obeying the law. It was the driver who went through a red light at more than twice the speed limit who was breaking the law. Had there been a parking protected bike lane there, the cyclist would have been protected by parked cars there and would be alive today.

        #5 lastly, the 400 parking spaces on CPW are being removed for the bike lane without changing the other lanes on CPW. If they were to make it a parking protected lane like they did on Columbus, they would have to remove a travel lane on CPW to do so. So, the choice was either shrink CPW to one lane and save the parking, or remove the parking and keep the travel lane. Either way, drivers would complain, so they based their decision based on the data they collected by doing traffic studies.

    25. Robert McNamara says:

      Why should it always be cars vs. bikes? Let’s have trees. Trees will keep us alive, not idling cars honking their horns, or bikes, some with engines, speeding the wrong way and on sidewalks. Trees. I vote for trees. Else, leave the space empty. What’s wrong with some empty space in the city.

    26. Lillian says:

      Rather than eliminating parking for the many residents who rely on their cars, why not offer residential sticker parking as many large cities do?

    27. Localyokel says:

      This will kill pied a terres and second homes in the country, and further isolate the city.

      • Jamie says:

        The city seems to be reaching a tipping point around density. Benefits of density are clear up to a point, less and less clear after that. Policy can mitigate some of the problems, but after that tipping point, is often trading one problem for another – seems to be the case here. Removing residential parking will not improve traffic flow, and certainly will not result in a utopia (as other point out, other vehicles and stuff will immediately fill the void). Like all politics in the 21st century, this issue is oppositional – in this case, the righteous vs the automobile. Like other posters here, I own a car, street park, but use a bike to get around the city (or subway). I think residential permits are a logical and sensible step – yes, parking spaces are a public resource that should be paid for, with the resulting funds used to make improvements to the city for the benefit of all. Removing street parking for “cars” (there will still be plenty of vehicles in those spots) will cause a whole new set of problems with very questionable benefit to residents of the neighborhood, and for some residents, very obvious harm.

    28. Michael 10024 says:

      I am forever surprised (I should’t be) at the realities some commenters live.
      Fact is, we have a road infrastructure problem on the 100+ year old upper west side. CB7 has 200k+ residents (according to 2010 census). Some people need their cars daily. Double parking because of delivery trucks is creating unmanageable road congestion. When congestion pricing finally takes effect in 2021, starting at 61st street (?), our communities could become parking nightmares every morning. Residential parking permits are a must and yes, there should be a fee to pay for responsible administration of same. Every apt building above a certain size should have loading and unloading zones to alleviate double parking of delivery trucks. Anyone whose building tracks package delivery statistics (many do), the increase in the last 5 years is boggling. Are we now in a situation where parking garages should be treated like a public utility in the face of these changes? Maybe so.
      I ride the subway daily, multiple lines, in both Manhattan and Brooklyn. All is all, even with problems, I still move much faster than surface transport. When I do have to take a bus, I work around only Select services as they do move quickly cross town. I have little doubt that the subway improvements are on schedule to meet the rollout of congestion pricing. Andy Byford, MTA Pres seems like a wise hire from interviews Ive watched/read.
      So instead of the anecdotal bitch comments, lets practice some solution advocation because bottom line, change IS needed.

    29. PQDubya says:

      Dont know why cyclists are revered and catered to so much. Every day I have a close encounter with a cyclist – messengers, delivery guys and the citi bike riders who ignore traffic lights, and drive the wrong way down the one way streets.

    30. Bill says:

      Where are medallion owner drivers supposed to park? No one cares about cabbies anyway. Uber and lyft; over 150,000 cabs. One corrupt company destroyed this great city.

    31. Rod says:

      We got a car a few years ago out of necessity (work and aging in- laws out of the city) knowing full well the parking challenges and costs We assumed responsibility for this and recognized it was part of the “joy” of living in NYC. Not sure what other people expect when they get a car but at some point you need to suck it up and deal with it. Or, sell your car. Or, move out of the city. Or…

    32. Chrigid says:


    33. JP says:

      I HAVE to have a car to get to work. I am an older engineer and my job is in Bergen County NJ where there is NO mass transit option. There are no jobs in NYC for my skill set and, yes by choice, I could not even imagine having to live in NJ (ever!).

      After taxes for 2 states and NYC, gas, insurance, car payment and $250/month for EZPass, it is beyond affordable to add another $700 for parking.

      Sure, it would be nice if those who have cars and only use them a few times a week or less, would reconsider their options but, we live in a very self centered society right now. For those of us where a car crucial to our livelihood, it can be really distressing to keep feeling trapped every time some self centered interest group gets all indignant for what they think should happen to benefit them.

      Tell me to get another job? Well, try doing that when facing age discrimination. Tell me to move? I can’t even afford that since my rent is stabilized and rents where I work are as expensive as in the city.

      As Heather H says “Why can’t we just have designated resident only parking from 6pm -7am like other cities. I really don’t understand why this is so difficult.”?? At least that will help those who HAVE to have cars for work. I would pay for a permit.

      • Carnival Canticle says:

        1.Fact:Some people do need cars for work.
        2.Fact:Some people want cars for the pleasure of getting out of town quickly in a familiar vehicle.
        3.Fact:Street parking is becoming less and less viable.
        4.Fact: Garages on the West Side are expensive.
        5. Possible solution: City-owned garages and lots that charge less than the going rate for monthly parking and earn revenue for the city. AKA Municipal parking.
        The question is where. The far West Sixties used to be lined with open lots and garages at relatively reasonable rates. They have been replaced by dozens of high-rise apartment buildings. Result: more congestion, less parking for car owners.
        One big multi-level garage like the one at the urban mall on the FDR Drive at 116th St (and at several local hospitals) would help counteract the loss of street parking. Surely the city owns a piece of property on the UWS that could be used for this purpose.

    34. Deb says:

      Here is my idea :

      Everybody walk.

      No cars of any sort.
      No buses.
      No bikes.

      Wake up earlier and walk.

      • John says:

        I walk now instead of taking a filthy bus or train 2 miles each way from work, just have to look out for all the outlaw bikers.

    35. UWSWasp says:

      Going back to our beloved Seinfeld episode over the parking space, we must keep our alternate side parking. Vote the numbskull CB7 members out of office.

    36. js says:

      To reduce traffic/ congestion, how about if able-bodied folks reduce ecommerce usage?
      See NYTimes article

    37. UWSer says:

      I am a huge proponent of resident-only parking permits. It would solve a multitude of problems, including bridge-and-tunnel people driving around the neighborhood looking for parking, city car owners registering their cars out of state, raising more revenues for the city, rewarding city residents for paying a city taxes, keeping the neighborhood from turning into a parking lot for people commuting into midtown. Today, I saw someone park on a side street and then jump out of their car to hail a taxi and speed away, undoubtedly to midtown where it is impossible to find street parking. Why is this tolerated???

    38. Bill says:

      What you will be doing in taking the parking spots away is make people who can’t afford to have a garage to drive around longer polluting while they try to find a spot. You will also create more stop and go traffic, again creating more pollution ……I guess bikers (I bike too BTW) don’t care about the air we breathe…..What a terrible and ill thought out idea…

    39. Maddi says:

      Everyone has a selfish comment. Our neighborhood needs to be livable and the transportation committee doesn’t care at all about that. How about favoring the residents that pay the taxes for once. Small fee for an annual resident pass to park on the street. Two hour limit for everyone else, Give us who have lived here and helped this neighborhood grow some benefit.

    40. ABrown says:

      While the argument that less parking results in people driving around longer to park is true, that’s only in the short term. Over time people will get rid of their cars because they don’t want to be driving around as much so lets please toss that one out. The following argument will be what about the people that drive for work…I just moved my car this morning and let me tell you the majority of people with cars aren’t working and are just moving their cars for street cleaning only to have to move it in two days.

      With that said, while I would prefer fewer parking spots, I’m happy to keep it as is as long as we strictly enforce street cleaning rules. Right now it is too easy for residents to work around the street cleaning 1. double park 2. sit in their car waiting 3. go to a different time zone early (sadly I did that this morning). I would love to see much stricter punishment and policing of the actual cleaning. This would benefit all residents 1. still free street parking 2. streets are actually cleaned and the lives of those with cars parking for free are made much more difficult 3. Overtime is that some cars would come off the road and that benefits both parties.

      ENFORCE STREET CLEANING RULES and everyone wins!

    41. Eliot Weinstein says:

      Stop punishing car owners!
      Parking in a garage is very expensive, so only the rich could afford it. This discriminates against the retired, disabled, and the elderly who often own cars. They are the ones that can deal with the constant alternate side parking as it requires lots of time sitting in the car for 1.5 hours, waiting for the street cleaners to go by.
      The free spaces are being taken away from us and constantly shrinking as it is.
      While biking is important, the riders don’t need to be such car haters. I imagine the reason many people have cars, are not to drive then around the city, but to escape the city. It’s a strong sense on freedom and independence.
      The for-profit Citi-bikes should have never been allowed to take up parking spaces. They should have used spaces that are more practical and less in demand. The spaces on the sidewalk near the curb between the trees are not used for walking, not used for anything, and would gave been a better choice.

      The city should have come up with safer bike racks, so bike owners can safely store their bikes without fear of getting them stolen. Why spend all that money renting a bike with a time limit, vs owning your own bike. Perhaps corporations and stores could provide better bike storage for their employees and customers.
      Stop punishing car owners! Stop making it harder to live in NY! Stop taking away our joys and freedoms.