By Alex Israel
A proposed Community Board 7 resolution requesting a city study on curbside usage was sent back to the Transportation Committee during the December full board meeting. The resolution, which had been amended from a prior iteration and approved by the committee in November, was met with a mixed response from the full board and the community.
“This is a perfect instance of how the community board actually does work with community input,” said Transportation Committee co-chair Howard Yaruss, who introduced the resolution with some context on the committee’s decision to reconsider their earlier position.
The first resolution urged the city to “discontinue the policy of providing free parking for private cars” and consider “more productive and equitable uses of curbside space.” This resolution was adopted by the committee in May, but was not brought to a full board vote. Instead, the committee opted to host a public forum on the matter, inviting speakers from city agencies and non-profit organizations.
Based on the testimony they heard from these experts—as well as local residents—the committee toned down the language of the resolution before presenting it to the full board during Tuesday’s meeting. “We decided that we don’t know what to do,” Yaruss said. “We see these problems—we see traffic, we see double-parked cars all the time, we see problems people have with navigating the street—and we would like to know if something can be done.”
The amended resolution removed language overtly opposed to free parking and toned down the suggestion that all alternative curbside uses are inherently more productive. But for many, this update was not enough. Board members questioned the language used throughout resolution, ultimately voting to send it back to the committee for revisions. The full text of the resolution as presented is below:
The following facts were taken into consideration:
- A congestion pricing plan was passed by New York State which will impose fees on cars that travel south of 60th Street. This may increase congestion of non-residents looking to park on streets north of 60th Street within CD7 in order to avoid driving into the congestion zone,
- City owned street space next to curbs is a precious commodity. This huge amount of City owned land should be used to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
- Free parking for privately owned cars strongly encourages private car use over mass public transit, thereby
creating traffic congestion, pollution, environmental degradation as well as unsafe conditions for pedestrians, cyclists and other users of the street. It exacerbates economic inequality by directing limited City resources to private car owners.Community Board 7/Manhattan requests that the City assess and analyze the policy of providing free parking for private cars and consider whether there are more productive and equitable uses of the curbside space, including, but not limited to: paid residential parking permits, meters capable of surge pricing and the best practices of other major cities.
For both the board and the community, discussion of the resolution was heated—and split.
Many were angry at the prospect of losing free parking. “The city is biased, and I’m not sure that an objective evaluation would be made,” said a woman, who was met with applause from the crowd. “The thought that this privilege is in jeopardy is very upsetting,” added a man who has lived and parked on the Upper West Side for 22 years.
A community member speaks to the board.
Others opposed to the resolution felt it still contained some bias, citing the text of the third bullet point (as well as Yaruss’ recent op-ed) as proof the committee was still in favor of eliminating free parking.
“To sell this resolution as only asking for a study is disingenuous and misleading,” said Jay Adolf, a board member. He suggested the removal of that section altogether, receiving support from other members, including Yaruss.
Those in favor of the resolution believed an evaluation of alternative curbside uses was a necessary challenge to the status quo, and this resolution accomplished the bare minimum in calling the city to action.
“I’m pretty confident that our current system is not the best possible solution,” said Transportation Committee member Richard Robbins, calling out statistics linking emissions and accidents to motor vehicles. “Doesn’t it make sense for us to ask the [Department of Transportation] to examine a system that was implemented in 1950 to see if it still makes sense for the 2020s?” he asked in defense of the call for a study.
“It’s always the case that in situations like this, people with a vested interest in the status quo show up,” said Sara Lind, Co-secretary of CB7 and a member of the Transportation Committee, addressing the vocal opposition. “This board is meant to represent every single resident of this district,” including the 76 percent of Upper West Siders who do not own cars and might not even know this conversation is on the table, she added, in support of the resolution.
“Just because we gave a massive subsidy to the auto industry 70 years ago in the form of our public space for free parking, doesn’t mean we need to make that same mistake over and over again,” said one local mom, who also identified herself as a physician, and brought up the various health problems linked to cars. “Change is inevitable,” she said, urging the board to pass the resolution. “You all are our leadership—be leaders.”
After more than an hour of back and forth—which included several ‘friendly’ amendments, various semantic suggestions, and a call from the crowd for Yaruss’ resignation—the accepted revisions became too difficult to follow, and a motion to send the resolution back to committee passed with 28 of the 38 members in agreement.
Potential edits to the resolution will be discussed during the next Transportation Committee meeting on December 10th at 7:00 PM at the Board Office (250 West 87th St). Non-committee board members and the public are welcome to attend.
“the best practices of other major cities”
Thank you. That’s all they need to do here.
The full board correctly recognized the bias in the supposedly toned down request for study which was in essence a trojan horse invitation to the city in an attempt to eliminate cars. In addition many of the “facts’ in the resolution are completely unsubstantiated. For example there is not one bit of evidence that:
“Free parking for privately owned cars strongly encourages private car use over mass public transit, thereby”
This may be true in suburbia but it is not true on the UWS. Car owners ride MTA and bike and the small percentage that use their cars daily are reverse commuting to areas that are not well served by mass transit.
Concerns about traffic, safety and pollution are also unfounded as it is not UWS residents causing traffic or major accidents, it is people travelling through our neighborhood.
Car owners have finally organized but we invite all of our neighbors to join us and end the vitriol at
http://www.commonsensestreets.org
Many people have no idea that this resolution was even being voted on last night We are interested in a real dialog with CB7 and our local politicians and treating each other as neighbors not villains. We need to take a local approach to issues of traffic, safety pollution etc. What is good for NYC is not necessarily good for the UWS and vice versa.
New Yorkers are famous for saying that “New York City is unlike any other city,” but now we have Upper West Side exceptionalism! If you believe the car owners last night, every car parked on the UWS is 15 years old, has 170,000 miles on it, and is only used once a month to visit the owner’s disabled aunt in the furthest Bronx. In reality, there is no doubt that the availability of massive amounts of free parking contributes to car ownership and use, as well as increased levels of pollution and congestion due to cruising for spots and idling to hold onto “your” space during street-sweeping hours. The fact that car owners are so fearful of even a study of the issue proves that eliminating free parking would be a game-changer on our streets.
John, keep your logic straight if people need to “hold on to their space” that certainly limits car use. It doesn’t encourage it.
There is also not a single study that supports your contention that “free” curbside parking on the UWS encourages car ownership or use.
If you’re really worried about emissions from idling then there is a simple solution that doesn’t require “study”. Cut alternate side parking in half. Of course if you’re really worried about climate change then I would highly recommend a trip to China.
The point is that there are solutions to congestion, pollution and safety that don’t require us to vilify our neighbors.
Thank you Tag. Most residents on the UWS have no idea that there is a CB7 much less that this proposal is underway.
This whole process seems like a few enthusiastic ideologues got control of a supposedly democratic organization that almost nobody knows exists.
Living near 96th street and West End we see the huge problems caused by flow to and from the highway and not local residents. If I thought that street parking would end the through traffic and make our streets safer for pedestrians I might support it. But this seems like something which just hurts locals like us who can’t afford a new private garage “tax” without solving any problem.
Have said it over and over again. If you can’t afford to live here, then don’t.
Separately, shouldn’t the simple fact that 76% of UWS residents don’t own a car answer this debate? How is it that close to 100% of the available space is used for 24% of the population??
RB according to the NYC study May 2019 76% of New Yorkers do not and will never use a bike. Can we now rip up those bike lanes?
The actual number of households on the WS with cars is actually 30% and that means that the number of residents that use cars and depend on cars is even higher. In addition many residents don’t begrudge people parking on the street. So the numbers may be much different than you perceive.
This isn’t about improving traffic, per se. This is about letting the majority of the public (those who don’t own cars) enjoy the benefits of their tax dollars instead of it going towards parking private vehicles.
— “This is about letting the majority of the public (those who don’t own cars) enjoy the benefits of their tax dollars instead of it going towards parking private vehicles.”
This is a great idea. While you’re at it, please help the majority of the public who don’t have school-age children enjoy the benefits of their tax dollars instead of those taxes going towards schools that they don’t use.
And, while we’re doing that, how about helping the majority of the public who don’t live in, say, Brooklyn, enjoy the benefits of their tax dollars instead of those taxes going toward Brooklyn, where they don’t live.
And how about street lights? Why should people who don’t go out after dark have to pay taxes toward those? Turn them off!
And, wait, what about city hospitals? I’m grateful to be able to say I’ve never used a city hospital, and I’ll bet that many other taxpayers can say the same thing. Why should our tax dollars be used to support something we don’t use (and hope never to use)?
You see where I’m going with this, I hope…
We all benefit from street lights, hospitals and good schools.
Tell me how I benefit from subsiding your private parking.
You see where I’m going with this?
Tell us how on the UWS you plan on enjoying your tax dollars in the street?
Can I expect a refund check from you on my tax dollars that go to Public schools since I have never used them? What about my Federal and State tax dollars that were used to build bike lanes that only 0.06% of New yorkers use to commute and only 150,000 New Yorkers use once a month or more. A number that has not grown in over 6 years. This is according to the NYC Gov report: Cycling In The City: Cycling Trends in NYC May 2019 Which also said that 76% of New Yorkers do not or are physically unable to ride a bike. Using your logic we should immediately start to rip out these lanes so that the majority of us taxpayers can enjoy that space as well.
Tag Gross says:
“I hardly think all of us benefit from Public Schools.”
No need to say anything more…
I’ll take public schools, hospitals, etc over a spot for you to parking for free anyway. I know most folks in the neighborhoods would agree.
Jay: I hardly think all of us benefit from Public Schools. New York has many free opportunities from schools to parks to libraries to cultural institution. We elect to take advantage of them or not. All of them actually require tax dollars. Curbside parking requires no additional tax dollars.
Allowing curbside parking also enables a vibrant and diverse community because Artists, Photographers, Musicians, families, seniors, tradesman etc etc in short the working people that turned the UWS around and made it what it is are able to stay here when they would be forced out with the gigantic expense of a garage.
No one wants a garbage corral under their window and no one wants unnecessary parklets under their windows either especially when we have two amazing parks no more than two blocks from any resident. Truck Loading and unloading zones were tested and have failed.
Now if you would like to improve Mass Transit etc I would suggest that instead of increasing the economic burden on those that can’t afford it that you turn to the billionaire developers and the tax breaks they receive from the city.
The last thing this neighborhood needs is the DOT doing anything here. They are largely responsible for the traffic problem with one bad change after another aong with the coty and the 200K Ubers they allowed on the road.
Can anyone quantify the amount of tax dollars that “go towards parking private vehicles?”
Because, you see, parked vehicles don’t wear out road surface.
Help us out, Jay.
No, Jay, it’s not false. Look at the streets that need repaving and see where the problems are. Unless they’ve been torn up by con ed or another utility, they’re not in the areas where cars park
Oh, and the City’s budget for road resurfacing is about $17/person. 16.99529 of which is unrelated to parked cars.
Completely false, Paul.
The weight of thousands of vehicles coming and going out of parking spots every week certainly causes road deterioration. Not sure why you are trying to deny that fact.
Jay, routine cars don’t damage roads, let alone parked ones. Road damage is caused by trucks, routine weathering, snow plowing and the damage caused by repeated digging by Con Ed, etc.
Your time spent reading the article and posting your comments is worth more than the tax burden you’ve been forced to bear from road damage caused by the parking cars, for your entire life.
How do you get in and out of those parking spots? Help us out, Paul.
I’m sure you can find a number for how much DOT spends on repaving roads on the DOT website. I’m also sure that it’s not insignificant.
It’s free real estate used to store the private assets of a minority of users, real estate that could be put to better use, such as garbage containers so we dont have bags upon bags of garbage encroaching on sidewalks, or loading zones. There are numerous productive ways the space could be used that isn’t a gift to people who chose to have cars here.
The cost of an annual residential parking permit in Boston is $25.
I fear CB7s Transportation Committer would be seeking a fee far greater than that.
Question for Sara Lind:
Please tell us I’m wrong.
Yes their plan would call for exorbitant fees. Some of Ms. Lind’s comments at the meeting were disturbing not only for their ageism but also for their hysterical nature, invoking the future of her children as being in peril due to UWS residents parking their cars on the street.
“The cost of an annual residential parking permit in Boston is $25.
I fear CB7s Transportation Committer would be seeking a fee far greater than that.
Question for Sara Lind:
Please tell us I’m wrong.”
For what it’s worth, Hoboken, NJ (much closer & just across the water) has a residential parking permit program which charges $15/year for first vehicle in a household, $30/year for second vehicle, and $90 for each vehicle afterwards. There are 15,000 permits and 10,000 spaces, and there is typically no parking available in the permit zones (which cover most of the city). My view is that the city knows how many spaces exist and should auction the permits at a clearing level and then turn over all of the revenue to CB 7 to be used for community improvements. This would ensure that no one gets a permit without having a space and would ensure that our community gets the benefit of the incremental revenue generated from the parking permits (less administrative costs).
I’m a car owner who strongly feels that street parking should only be for residents and workers in those buildings. When I lived in San Francisco in the 1980s, a system of residential parking permits was introduced. The first car cost a small annual fee, a second car cost a larger fee. You had to be a SF taxpayer to qualify. A lease on a rental apartment did not qualify if you paid taxes somewhere else. WAY before the internet, you could go to City Hall and get a 2 week permit for your guest or commercial vehicle working in your apartment. I forget how long these permits could be renewed, but certainly for a couple of months. We would need a system (not needed in my old San Fran neighborhood for regular building workers (doormen, etc) to have permits also. A system like this would be fair to those of us who pay taxes in New York. It seems simpler than we make it. If you pay taxes in NY, you get preferential treatment and entitlement to street parking.
I agree. 100%
I agree – it really isn’t that hard. Charge $100 or so a year. You must either have a car registered with an NY address (so the streets won’t be full of cars registered out of state) or be able to prove employment in the neighborhood. Maintain enough metered spots for people who are visiting, particularly on weekends.
It seems like the two (often overlapping) groups that run everything around here are those who are envious of those who have something that they don’t, and those who want to help the less fortunate who don’t always actually want the help they are being offered.
100 dollars a year would be too cheap. A 5 by 5 by 5 storage unit runs more then 100 a month.
I would not be happy unless the city charged at least 2,500 to 5,000 a year for permit still less then Garage my garage charges 7,200 a year.
We lived on Lafayette Park in San Francisco in the ’80s as well and this system worked so well. Fair, easy and not expensive.
Keep neighborhood residents’ cars in spots where they rest quietly and keep out loud noisy polluting commercial vehicles!
“ If you pay taxes in NY, you get preferential treatment and entitlement to street parking.”
YES. Closed case.
— “ If you pay taxes in NY, you get preferential treatment and entitlement to street parking.”
Should be modified to add “… AND register your car in New York State, …”
Why give preferential parking even to New York taxpayers if they dodge contributing their fair share of costs by registering their cars at their brother-in-law’s cousin’s uncle’s office in New Jersey or their vacation homes in Connecticut or Vermont?
Put otherwise, if you really need to keep your car on a New York City street, you should acknowledge that the car “lives” in New York City and register it there.
Along with this goes the automatic assumption on my part that you must register your car in NYC. No one with out of state plates could qualify and never could in the San Francisco system.
I am a 25 year resident of West End Ave. It is clearly not the car owning and parking residents of the UWS causing the traffic and congestion. It is the non residents and commercial vehicles. It is quite obvious.
This is precisely why residential zone parking should be instituted and enforced. Too many people with out of state license plates are taking up spaces on the UWS. Some are commuters, but many are residents who skirt the law by registering their cars out of state to take advantage of lower insurance rates. Let’s force those people to either register their cars in the city, or move them to metered spaces. I would be more than happy to pay an annual fee in return for a resident parking sticker.
It looks to me that this group of activists is hell bent on taking things from people under the guise that the wealthy are benefiting. They do this instead of doing things that really need to be done — for example, what have they done to get the MTA to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act by installing elevators in all our UWS subway stations, and then keeping them working? The answer is nothing, nothing at all, despite the fact that the MTA is continually violating this federal law every time it renovates a station without installing working elevators. Or how about the lousy curb cuts we have? Has the committee focused on the fact that 70% of the intersection curb cuts are not in compliance with legal requirements? Oh no. Instead, they manufacture a problem and then suggest a ridiculous solution, the net impact will be to benefit no one — especially those who most need help — and instead pat themselves on the back for having struck a blow against the wealthy. When in fact the wealthy use cabs, radio cars, or high cost garages. If they cannot do their jobs in a reasonable way, and this certainly suggests that that is the case, then let’s get rid of them and replace them with people who have good judgment and are not simply political wannabees making believe they are performing an important function. There are lots of important things for them to do, but those are being ignored. This is so very disheartening.
About “Or how about the lousy curb cuts we have? ….70% of the intersection curb cuts are not in compliance with legal requirements?”
You are absolutely correct! Many years ago, this writer, a mobility-scooter-user, was encouraged by a CB7 official to document the bad UWS curb-cuts!
I did so, photographing each and creating a list of each location with ratings from terrible-to-troublesome. I recall giving same to CB7 at one of their public meetings.
And what happened? Pretty-much nothing! Some cuts, like the one on the northwest corner of W.70th/Broadway, had some crude lumpy asphalt patches, which a scooter can handle but which are problematic for a senior-citizen pushing a walker.
ATTN CB7: If you believe I am wrong please reply on WSR showing which “cuts” were indeed fixed properly.
Step one is letting the Borough President and our Council Members who we are watching and CB7 must listen to our voices or we will vote accordingly. Believe me none of these politicians want to take on this issue if it costs them votes. Yes residential parking permits. No don’t kill street parking for some random fringe agenda.
The bike lanes that virtually no one uses cause the traffic and congestion
Exactly. Thank you, T. Not only do they go unused, they cause more congestion than I have ever seen living in this City for over 35 years. The few times I have seen the lanes used are by Citibike riders, who rarely come into the UWS.
Just got home from CPW and saw 3 cyclists almost broadsided by cars in their rightful car lanes because a shredding truck was in the bike lane and they swerved around it into traffic. Meanwhile the cyclists almost smashed into pedestrians who were trying to cross and couldn’t see them coming from behind the shredding truck. Whatta dangerous mess.
I’ve lived on the UWS for 30 years and Citibike, what are you trying to say?
We need to require all new buildings to have garages. We need to have buses run more frequently
if they want to stop people from out of the neighborhood from parking uptown when they do that congestion parking they should simply issue resident stickers and give tickets to the non residents. It all can be free. It hardly matters anymore as I can never get a spot for even a few minutes near my house WEA 87th
It pains me when I spend 30 mins circling the neighborhood looking for a spot only to walk down my block and see at least 1/3rd of the parked cars with PA and NJ plates. I don’t see what the big deal is with paid parking for residents – I’m sure it wouldn’t be too bad financially and the amount of time saved would be well worth it. I’m sure there would also be some kind kind of income based system for people that can’t afford to pay for parking.
Many of those with out of state plates are actually your fellow UWS’ers committing insurance fraud, using a country home as their “primary residence” for insurance, while actually spending most of their time in NYC.
Stop the insanity.. it’s not the wealthy who are parking their cars on the streets. Those who are wealthy take private cars, Ubers and also park their vehicles in pricey garages. Its the common person who uses the parking spaces in the neighborhood. We are not the ones causing congestion.
All this will do is help all the delivery trucks find a space easier and cause even mores issues. Who will police and ticket those who do not have a resident permit? I can foresee those with resident permits searching even harder because those without one will park there anyways. The frustration for residents will be even worse!
Just for fun this morning, I counted all the luxury cars parked on one block in the 90s between Columbus and Amsterdam on my way to work. The count was as follows:
4 BMWs
4 Mercedes Benzs
2 Acuras
3 Audis
1 Porsche
1 Maserati
I probably missed a couple too.
Hey Jay: Congratulations you counted cars parked at metered spots!!!! In other words those cars were paying to be there! DOH! Columbus and Amsterdam are metered parking and a lot of commercial loading zones as well! They likely commute into the neighborhood.Exactly our point!
Easily enforced by the Meter men and women who already patrol the streets and avenues.
Non-drivers seem to forget that NYC drivers pay year round for the privilege of using their vehicles for work and/or play. Over 20% of the MTA budget is funded by bridge and tunnel tolls. The State gets revenue from registration and license fees. Making it more difficult to maintain their vehicles in NYC would be unfair and counter productive. The City should issue resident parking permits to residents whose City taxes and traffic/parking tickets are paid up. This might also reduce “out of towners ” from driving in and parking on UWS streets to avoid congestion pricing.
I had a car because I had young children to take to baby sitters and to school and for me to go to work, then pick up the children, and go shopping, to be able to check up on my parents, visit siblings and go for short outings in the summer with ALL the getup children need. It was so difficult to find parking in my neighborhood due to all the customers who would come to the bars, that eventually I let the police take the car, sell it, and keep the money I owed in tickets (God forbid I had to run to the bathroom while waiting for parking, because I came back to a ticket!) So, like so many others, I cannot afford to park in a Parking Lot, nor pay for taxi’s every day, especially with the congestion parking starting on 94th street to get to 88. Yes, I take public transportation daily, but we have another car and still wait hours to be lucky enough to find a parking somewhere near where I live, still struggling with all the cars that are in free parking spaces still in the bars and gyms and stores and restaurants (by license plates are out-of-towners), and not on the avenues paying metered parking. We work so hard to keep our apartments in the UWS and I think it’s an abuse to have to pay for the parking.
I think a city is about people, not cars. I always feel bad for people with asthma in the summer when people sit in cars with the a/c on at curbs, idling their engines. I myself am tired of being bullied by cars honking their horns for fun.
Seriously? You are worried about people with asthma when trucks spew fumes and dust from demolition grinding all day? And cars are the problem? And what about dogs in restaurants, hotels, stores? Asthma my asthma.
I agree that if you own a car that is registered and insured at a UWS address you should not have to pay any additional fees to park your car on our streets.
The problem of congestion was created by the city by issuing 250,000 Lyft and Uber permits and the influx of delivery trucks and out of state cars looking to park in our neighborhood.
On another matter of concern, I would like to bring to my fellow readers attention that car break-ins are occurring again on RSD in the vicinity of 92nd Street.
I was told by the police that most people are not reporting it to them since they have been lead to believe that their insurance rates will increase. Your rates will only go up if you report the incident to your insurance company!
By not reporting it to the police and having them file a report, the crime goes unreported.
There should be absolutely no free parking. A 24 dollar fee per day would be a good start and a decrease in property taxes to off set the addition tax would be appropriate.
I’m an Upper West Sider and car owner. I watched most of the CB meeting online and I have to say I am disgusted and ashamed of the behavior of my neighbors. The resolution was just calling for a study! I can’t believe people in this supposedly progressive neighborhood are going so crazy over the mere idea of exploring rethinking how we use our public space. Yes, some people need cars for legit reasons and can’t afford parking lots, but the resolution is asking about permits and meters and many options- not total elimination of all parking. The facts are that we have limited PUBLIC space and we should think about how to best use it for all- not just the minority of us that have cars. Human safety, protecting our environment, and making this a better community to live in require us to be open to new ideas and policies.
Samuel, you didn’t watch the same meeting that the overwhelming majority of the Board watched because they concluded that the resolution was not just calling for a “study”. They recognized just how biased it was. The resolution also mentioned numerous facts that were simply not accurate or untrue.
Solutions to reduce traffic, noise, pollution and improve safety are self evident to anyone who actually lives in the neighborhood and it doesn’t involve parklets and garbage dumps placed under our windows.Studying ruses designed to eliminate cars is not a way forward to actual solutions and vilifying neighbors as you just did isn’t either.
It is time that CB7’s Transportation Committee leave their bubble and start listening to a large group of its neighbors.
I thank god there are sane people who volunteer their time to be on the community board and who care about making streets better and safe for all of us instead of preserving their own feelings of entitlement. I don’t know if you went to Trump University, but you don’t get to make up your own facts and science. Experts testified on a panel in front of this committee to the effect that free parking encourages private car use, so I have no clue what you are talking about. Numerous urban planning experts would agree. If CB7 actually listened to their neighbors (who overwhelming don’t have cars) instead of a tiny but loud group of car obsessed people, then we’d have a lot more bike lanes and complete streets instead of the mess we have now. I’m a car owner who is grateful to the Transpo committee for getting this issue on the agenda. Stop fearing studies people!
Thank goodness for Tag Gross and the grassroots group amassed to counter the fringe car-hating crazies. Trucks are the major congestion, polluting and noise culprits. And ill-designed bike lanes.
Everyone should just take a long deep breath and look at the whole picture. Unintended consequences of snap-decisions are already more dangerous to everyone.
This proposal is utterly ridiculous. It’s evident that these are people who don’t know how to drive. It’s another scheme for the city to collect money. I don’t see the benefit in this. I’m totally against it.
the future of manhattan is less and less cars. resistance is useless.