By Alex Israel
The third time was the charm for Community Board 7, who after several months of back and forth has passed a resolution in favor of a study on the city’s current parking and curbside usage policies. In anticipation of congestion pricing, CB7 is looking to the Department of Transportation to advise on potential new uses for the curb—a decision that has prompted debate within the community.
The resolution has gone through several iterations since its inception. A version first passed through the Transportation Committee in May 2019, was then toned down in November (following a public forum hosted by the committee in October), was next referred back to committee during the full board meeting in December, and was then refined further in committee later that month.
On Tuesday night, it made its way back to the full board with its most neutral language yet, incorporating many of the suggested revisions from December’s full board meeting. While it initially called for the elimination of free street parking for private cars, the text now avoids categorizing free parking as inherently negative, and instead asks that the city advise on the most beneficial uses of curbside space.
“We understand that it’s controversial,” said CB7 Chair Mark Diller, who introduced the revised resolution, addressing a packed room of nearly two hundred members of the community (“record attendance for our community board,” he guessed) during February’s full board meeting.
“Community engagement is what a community board is all about,” Diller said, thanking the attendees in advance for abiding by a strict one-minute speaking limit during the public session.
Transportation Committee co-chair Howard Yaruss kicked off the discussion, assuring the 62 members of the community who signed up to speak that the latest resolution was “meticulously drafted over many months” with input from hundreds of members of the community.
“All we’re trying to do with this resolution … is just hear from the city—the city that controls the streets,” he said. “What can be done to help us improve the streets?”
The full text of the resolution is below:
Our community currently suffers from traffic congestion, rampant double parking particularly due to growing e-commerce deliveries, significant “cruising” for parking and a substantial number of injuries to street users.
Congestion pricing is scheduled to be implemented in approximately one year and community residents and business owners have expressed concern about the impact of this new policy.
How we use our curbside space has remained largely unchanged for many decades while our City has changed dramatically. This City owned land should be used for the greatest good for the greatest number of people, with a particular focus on the needs and concerns of the residents and businesses of our community.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT Community Board 7/Manhattan requests that the City: (1) assess current policy regarding parking and curbside usage, (2) advise us as to whether there are policies that could provide greater benefit to the community, improve traffic flow and promote safer streets, including, but not limited to, paid residential parking permits, metering with surge capability and strategies learned from studying the practices of other major cities, and (3) conduct studies both before and after the implementation of congestion pricing to establish its effect on the community.
Once again, Upper West Siders remained split on the issue.
Most of those against the resolution oppose it because they believe, despite any softening of language, that the proposed study will lead to the elimination of free parking spaces.
One woman described how losing parking might make it difficult to visit her sick mother on Long Island. “This isn’t a luxury—for many of us it’s a necessity,” she said.
“As a car owner I feel a little bit under attack,” said one local man who echoed her fear of not being able to visit a loved one.
Several community members said they were hesitant to support the study because they were worried about inherent bias from the board.
“[The study] must be unbiased with no foregone conclusions,” said one. “Don’t make a difficult situation even worse.”
“I am for a study, but not this one,” said another.
Those in support of the resolution felt the study as proposed was warranted, and welcomed its findings.
“I don’t see any downside in getting more information,” said one Upper West Side resident of 40 years, summing up the general consensus of supporters.
“It’s the 21st century … let’s not put our heads in the sand, let’s proactively plan for the future,” added another.
“There are a lot of great things that a public space can be used for,” said one local mom, who said she hopes her daughter can grow up in a “different kind of city with different priorities.”
When it came time to deliberate, CB7 members who shared testimony were split along similar lines.
“It disturbs me when certain people in certain organizations rail against ‘free parking spaces.’ It’s not free. We all pay taxes in the city of New York,” said Jay Adolf. “A municipality’s job is to provide services,” he added. “It’s time to stop demonizing car owners.”
“I don’t think what’s written is perfect,” said Elizabeth Caputo—a sentiment echoed by other board members regarding the resolution’s language. But she and several others said she believed it was still important to “get something done” before congestion pricing takes effect.
“The only place you have free parking is on the monopoly board,” joked Sheldon Fine. “The city has its own bias; we need an answer to our problems,” he said, implying that perceived CB7 bias should not deter support for the resolution.
When it came time to vote, the split was less even, with 22 voting in favor of the resolution, 12 voting against it, and three abstaining.
“As a committee, whatever you think our own personal views are, there is nothing here that implies that we’re going to take away cars, or parking, or anything,” closed Howard Yaruss.
“Right now we have problems. And we would like to improve the situation.”
I urge car owners and other residents of the Upper West Side who are concerned about how the policies of this Community Board and elected officials have and will continue to negatively impact us to join us:
http://www.commonsensestreets.org
commonsensestreets@gmail.com
Until this study is completed, if it is even done there should be an immediate moratorium on eliminating parking spaces for any reason. Once the impact of congestion pricing can be assessed and the needs of residents can be addressed then Residential Parking should immediately be taken up.
The new loading zones on West End Ave should also be immediately removed. The West End Avenue redesign was supposed to accommodate double parking. That was one of its sales points. These zones are not being used and simply encourage commercial traffic and the pollution they cause.
While we aren’t thrilled with the result this has brought together the community and galvanized us to fight the outside lobbying groups that have been dictating policy here for far too long.
Thanks to all especially Tag Gross who put in so much work to get the other side of this issue on the radar.
Absolutely!
And here’s the thing: the alleged “grassroots” movement that started this is a well funded group of organizations that have well over 30 employees, receives millions from a multi millionaire who has openly stated that he wants passenger cars banned from the City. And they have been working on this for about 12 years, spending millions on staff salaries, organizing and multiple organizations and websites.
The real grassroots movement here? It’s the opposition to this which Tag Gross organized in 2 months.
If the loading zones are not used: make trucks use them by NYPD enforcement!
Can you clarify what you mean with “these zones are not used and encourage commercial traffic”? How can zones that are not used encourage commercial traffic?
Your moratorium should also prevent any further construction of loading zones/bike Lanes/city bike docks? So you’re saying that all normal street improvements (yes, I see those as street improvements) should come to a halt? Even when it has nothing to do with the preemptive measures taken to prepare for congestion pricing? Business as usual should just continue.
Heard of climate change and the contribution that driving a car makes to it? Heard of all the traffic casualties made by cars in cities? Heard of all the asthma caused in children by fine particular matter from your car’s exhaust?
Just realize that cars are an unwanted phenomenon if you’re living in place like the UWS and accept that if you choose to put your own interests above the interests of the community, you should pay for that, not get subsidized free parking!
Just stop fighting for your lost cause.
A policeman said these spaces are for handicapped, not delivery, which makes no sense because the spaces are available only from 8-6 weekdays; people are not just handicapped between those hours!
Arjan: Where is your ability to understand that people are different? If you don’t like the neighborhood you moved into, then you can move out of it. But for many of us, this is our home and these proposed changes cause the following detrimental effects on the UWS:
1. No one will want to do business here. Scores of stores, restaurants, groceries, are already closed in the neighborhood, never to be reopened again, but rather to be replaced by luxury housing. To wit, 200 Amsterdam entry point is close to 3 million dollars. There is no garage. It means that people will be using chauffered cars, further taking away parking. And by the way, there are several limousine stands in our neighborhood. I have never, not once, seen a limousine stand at one of these reserved places. As far as the truck reserved parking on WEA, I have never seen a truck parked in those areas. Maybe one. The usual scenario is that delivery trucks on WEA double park, as if there were cars standing in those areas, but they can’t stand in those areas because parking is prohibited until 6PM. It is ridiculous. And your animus towards the trucks who disobey is to have the police punish them? That will only hurt area business. But I guess your opinions do not consider the damage that will be done to our community and our individual lives because you have different values. You are not the only person in the world, on the UWS. I hope you have some ability to think of others. All the best.
Gaia, thanks for responding to me.
That limiting parking for cars is bad for businesses is a persistent myth. When the 14th Street busway was implemented business owners were cited that it would be devastating to their business, but in the end there was no negative effect. Business owners in the city consistently seem to over estimate the number of customers frequenting their business by car.
You’re stating that there are frequently trucks parked along the loading zones on WEA as if those spots were taken by cars, but in fact they are empty (I’ve seen this a couple of times as well). But you disagree that the police should fine those trucks for not using the loading zones and blocking lanes? Because that would badly impact business owners? I’m sorry, but I don’t get it. If the loading zone is there and available, and they choose not to use is: yes, let them get fined (indeed my opinion).
If you’d read my other reactions you’d see that I definitely care for the well being of everyone in the neighborhood – their health, their safety – all negatively impacted by the omnipresent cars.
About values: if having free parking in front of their place is so important, I’d urge them to seriously consider if their values really match with city life, or if they evolved into suburban values.
I have ties to the community going back to 1959. The fact is that car ownership has never been a bar to moving here or living here or owning or operating a business here.
Your notions of what is and is not “an unwanted phenomenon” or “suburban values” come from a place totally foreign to the facts and the lives of 70,000 residents of this community.
Please stop trying to dictate your value system on others. It is antithetical to a free society.
Why do car-haters love TRUCKS? They are noisy, smelly and much worse polluters than cars. Trucks will take over the empty spaces where cars park now. Don’t get it at all.
I don’t love trucks, they are dangerous and polluting as you say yourself. But I don’t think there is a good alternative for trucks to get goods into the city, making they are kind of unavoidable. So then you better create proper facilities for them so that they don’t have to park in road lanes (or bike lanes for that matter)
Live here a long time too. And if spaces were available, commercial trucks would line the street all day.
Talk to contractors in every brownstone, building on the street? Constant construction/renovations during the day in various and different buildings. You are joking, of course.
So happy when cars are quietly parked in spots in front of my building so commercial trucks can’t bang and clang all day near my home.
No, it’s not a widespread problem. I’ve lived here a really long time and never once been bothered for more than a couple minutes by what you describe.
If it’s so much of a problem, why don’t you go outside and actually talk to the contractor (gasp). Maybe you’ll get results.
Sounds like you have an issue with the way things are now. So, would you like to explain exactly how a study personally affects you?
Trucks don’t all idle, but good try. They all do make lots of noise. Private renovation grinders can’t be cited for idling either. But they spew toxic waste into the air and are incredibly loud.
You must live on an incredibly isolated quiet cul-de-sac if you think this is a supposed problem. It’s ubiquitous on side streets.
Here’s an easy way for you to make money if there are so many commercial vehicles idling on your street. Supposed problem solved!
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/environment/idling-citizens-air-complaint-program.page
You keep confusing loading and unloading delivery trucks with commercial vehicles which take up residence in parking spots, not double parked, making noise and polluting all day.
Why are so many people against a study that provides more information? Is it the fear that the study will show that there are better purposes for curb usage than parking?
I’d say that’s pretty anti-social, putting your personal interests above the societal interest.
Additional to that: what’s the problem with residential permits? I never can park my car in the street where I live because it’s filled with cars from NJ, Pennsylvania and even Florida, Arizona, and California: so much for paying your New York taxes…
I think everyone who owns a car and lives on the UWS should be at least in favor of residential parking permits. We can have of course discussions on how high the permit fee should be and whether you want to use that fee to discourage car ownership in general.
The whole approach of free-parking proponents looks an awful lot like the NRA tactics: prevent any concession, no matter how small or reasonable it is, because once you give in you’ll find yourself on a sliding scale and your “rights” will be broken down further.
I’m in the camp for residential parking permits and I don’t even own a car here. The fee doesn’t need to be such that it discourages car ownership. Just as long as proof of residence is required, you’d filter out all the out of city/state cars. Or at least limit those without permits to something like 2hr parking. Then the city can just run tow trucks and collect towing/impound fees all day.
and the city would be happy to do so, ticketing and towing is ridiculous in this neighborhood.
As a non-car-owning UWS resident who occasionally rents a car, I resent the idea of residential permits that give space and/or monetary preference to UWS residents who park and drive and spew fumes in the neighborhood 24/7 vs UWS residents who do so rarely but still need to park. As do the people who work, shop, visit, and provide services to the neighborhood.
Residential parking permits will make it more difficult for stores to get customers, businesses to have employees, and UWS residents to get needed services (plumber, anyone?).
If you live on the UWS and you own a car, you are not special or a protected class.
If you need to park a vehicle, you should pay for parking. Period.
Residential permits on the non-commercial streets; metered parking on the commercial streets. AND permits should clearly identify the vehicle so that they can’t be sold.
The reason is because Deblasio has already stated that he wouldn’t allow it to happen. The issue here is that the resolution is biased against car owners. While I agree that permits is a good idea, it’s a dead end.
Exactly which one of the three requests is biased? To me they are as neutral as they come. Just providing potential alternative to the current free parking situation does not automatically make it biased against car owners.
I am all in favor of doing your homework. But I think a lot of people would have been more supportive if they made it clear that completely eliminating street parking was not an option being examined. Unfortunately, there are some extremists who are pushing this agenda, so it has put fear in the hearts of rational people who are OK with incremental change.
Even though they are not a huge portion of the population, there is a very significant number of people who depend on street parking for work, visiting sick family members, etc. The fact that they might have to go cold turkey on this in the not-too-distant future is very frightening to them. The slippery slope has already begun as spots are taken away for Citibikes and delivery truck parking.
So yes, please move forward with the study, but make sure that totally (or almost totally) eliminating on-street parking is not an option.
Full disclosure – I do not own a car and virtually never have someone who does own a car visit, so my suggestion above is not for my own benefit.
At no point did any of these proposals mention that street parking would be eliminated. So, why fear something that was never proposed?
Let’s be honest here… too much public property is being dedicated to a few people who want to park on the street for free. It’s about time that some of these spots should be used for everyone else.
Let’s be honest here… too much public property is being dedicated to a few people who want to [send their kids to school] for free. It’s about time that some of these [school buildings] should be used for everyone else.
Let’s be honest here… too much public property is being dedicated to a few people who want to [ride their bikes] for free. It’s about time that some of these [bicycle lanes] should be used for everyone else.
Let’s be honest here… too much public property is being dedicated to a few people who want to [read books] for free. It’s about time that some of these [library buildings] should be used for everyone else.
And so on….
You can make that comparison and that’s what’s done in politics:
– is it worthwhile to sacrifice some road space to create bike lanes?
– is it worthwhile spending money on libraries instead of on something else?
The evaluation is done for the greater good – so if on a population scale the investments are worthwhile. The above questions are answered with yes.
A similar question can (and luckily will be) asked:
– is it worthwhile utilizing the amount of curb space for on street parking as currently done?
We’ll see about the answer to that question, but judging from the fierce opposition of UWS drivers to only asking this question in a study, they already know the answer…
Are you really comparing public schools and libraries to free parking for your private vehicle?
I hope you are joking.
Including that option in the study should give an overview of those negative effects you’re talking about. From there it should come forward that completely eliminating street parking has a too large negative effect on the current UWS inhabitants and such a thing cannot be done without proper compensation for people that will be negatively affected.
Rather than just blocking the complete study I’d understand if they would ensure that the study is actually executed unbiased. If the study would be performed by TransAlt I would totally get the opposition, but it seems that the city will be executing the study.
You can accuse the city of a lot of things: but being anti car is definitely not one of them. Just look at how much cars are facilitated and which priority they get throughout the city!
Those of us who were watching the Transportation Committee as it went through the process of drafting this resolution know that Howard Yaruss’ claim that the resolution was “meticulously drafted over many months” is absurdly insulting.
It was knocked out in about 15 minutes at the Transportation Committee meeting in December after the full Board rejected the Committee’s prior efforts.
And before the vote was taken Yaruss and other advocates admitted that the resolution is flawed and poorly drafted.
It’s obvious that the Community Board just got tired of this and voted to move on.
The idea that street parking should be free because we pay taxes does not take into account that only a small minority of households in our neighborhood own cars. Why should non-car-owning households — who also pay taxes — foot the bill for households that own cars? By that logic, shouldn’t non-car owners get some benefit from the curbside?
The study hasn’t reached any conclusions. It may not eliminate many parking spots. But I do hope that it creates a system whereby car owners have to pay something toward parking. Many of the speakers last night who opposed the study complained that they can’t afford $600 a month to park their cars in a neighborhood garage. Yes, parking is an expensive commodity! All the more reason it should not be given away by the city. I am sure that there are some people who need their cars for legitimate reasons and who cannot afford to pay. It seems to me that those people could be accommodated under any new system much like the way people with disabilities are given preferential parking.
I could have responded to any of these statements but I chose yours. We ALL pay taxes. Taxes are used for public needs. I know not everyone “needs” free parking. But my taxes go to many things that I do not need. I do not need bike lanes, don’t ride a bike. I do not want my taxes to go to schools, I never had children. etc etc. So, everyone needs to step back and understand that there really are different needs. Our neighborhood is becoming dangerously close to being unaffordable for the middle class. And I still would like one person to tell me a rational public use for curbside space.
Friends live on 55th and Ninth across from the Alvin Alley school. A bike lane was recently added to the curb side. The street has become a one lane street. There is no room to pull over and drop off a passenger without blocking the street. No room to unload a car, of any type without blocking the street. How does that serve the community? A line of cars beeping horns to get through to the west side highway.
What does a bike lane have to do with publicly subsidizing private parking?
I’ll go ahead and answer that for you… nothing.
The idea that street parking should be free because we pay taxes does not take into account that only a small minority of households in our neighborhood own cars. Why should non-car-owning households — who also pay taxes — foot the bill for households that own cars”
I don’t own a bike. Why should my tax dollars subsidize bike lanes? Why should i foot the bill for households that own bikes?
I don’t have a car why should i pay taxes sp people can have cars parked on the street?with that logic, I don’t have a child why should i pay taxes for others’ kids school?
Because if those people riding bike wouldn’t have bike lanes they would start driving, polluting your air and harming your health.
The idea that [schools] should be free because we pay taxes does not take into account that only a small minority of households in our neighborhood [have school-age children]. Why should non-[school-kids] households — who also pay taxes — foot the bill for households that [have children]? By that logic, shouldn’t non-[school-kid households]get some benefit from the [school facilities]?
* * * Yes, [school] is an expensive commodity! All the more reason it should not be given away by the city.
And so on….
You do get a benefit from educating the population even if you do not have children using it. If you do not want to pay for education, you better not be caught using the services of doctors, nurses, bankers, tradesmen, etc. When you are 70 and need a home healthcare worker, you will likely want one with a minimum of education. That costs money. The entire population benefits from an educated population. Libraries contribute to educating the public and providing services above and beyond lending out fiction.
Municipalities provide services for residents. That is their job. Libraries, Schools, Parks all cost tax money and are free and they are not used by everyone. Now let’s look at the numbers.
The actual percentages of people on the UWS that live in households with cars is 35%. That is the data from the Census.
The percentage of New Yorkers that cycle is 24% including people on a bike maybe once a month and only 1.8% cycle to work. This is from the NYC study Cycling In The City 2019.
So with your logic, let’s go ahead and use those numbers and get busy ripping up those cycling lanes because so few people use them. Why should the majority be paying for this! Hey I like your idea, I’m ready to deduct the costs of the public schools that are in my taxes as well as a myriad of entitlements that I have never used.
In addition, the Transportation Committee continually votes their approval of luxury buildings with no parking while affordable parking has been torn down. Three city owned garages on the uWS were recently closed.
Bill,
Please post a link to your census data of 35%. This report from NYCEDC https://edc.nyc/article/new-yorkers-and-their-cars says LESS than 25% of UWS households own a car. Many/most of these use a garage, so the number of UWS households using the street for car storage is actually very small minority.
It’s not hard Eagle Eye you go to of all places. The US CENSUS WEBSITE!!!! Then use their fact finder tool.
There is also ZERO data that supports the claim that many /most use garages. In fact garages are disappearing and being torn down, Three city owned garages were closed in the last two years and guess what? CB7 and the Transportation Committee members regularly vote for new construction with no garages.
The city charges user fees for a myriad of services that are also supported by taxpayer dollars. That cannot have escaped your attention. If you are one of the minority on the UWS who own a car, you should have to pay something to park it on the street.
Why do people continue to claim that curb side parking is free?
Car owners pay ALL the taxes that other NYC residents pay PLUS:
license fees
registration fees
tolls
gasoline tax (used to pay for road upkeep)
fines (traffic violations, parking, …)
Cyclists pay NONE of the above (especially not fines despite the fact that cyclists are by far the biggest population that run red lights, ride the wrong way, etc.)
PLUS cyclists are given a bail out by tax payers who foot the bill for all the bike lanes. BTW, I’m sure you are all aware the fiasco on the east side of CPW where the parking spaces were taken away … unused 99% of the time … great use of space, right?. There was an easy solution to accommodating both cyclists and cars.
So everyone stop saying curb side parking is free. Only cyclists are getting a free ride.
BTW, I am very supportive of residential permit parking … it will get rid of scofflaws (NJ plates) and out of state drivers who are truly getting a free ride.
Almost none of what you’ve written here is true.
Also, you don’t seem to realize how these taxes and fees go to different sources, who don’t maintain our local road.
Can you elaborate on what is not true without making a blanket statement?
Are you saying car owners DON’T pay all these fees … i recognize that not ALL the fees are used to pay for car related expenses, but certainly some are? Are you saying gasoline taxes ARE NOT used for road upkeep?
Are you saying cyclists DO pay fees/fines/tolls/… ??
What exactly are you trying to say?
For instance: last year the NYPD wrote more moving violation tickets to cyclists than to trucks, although trucks ignoring traffic rules provide a much larger risk than cyclists ignoring traffic rules (43 road deaths caused by trucks last year vs 0 caused by cyclists).
This is just one example of how mixed up the priorities are.
It’s amazing how NYC seems to be the only city in the country where this issue is even being discussed. All the other big cities solved this issue long ago with a permit system. They’re happy with it and no one’s proposing studies on how to eliminate the automobile.
The anti car crowd lives in a fantasy land. What do you think is going to replace the car? Mass transit is at capacity in NYC. Try getting on the subway at rush hour. Buses are too slow for distance commuting. The commuter rails to the suburbs are at capacity. I competitively cycle and don’t see hardly anyone out commuting the majority of the year here. 75% of cyclists in NYC are wealthy white men. Why are we subsidizing them for their weekend warrior rides? If you are that worried about global warming, you need to go to China, India and Africa where the majority of the world’s polluting is coming from. And when the parking spots disappear, it’s going to be the homeless camped out in tents like in Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles. If you don’t believe me, go take a trip there and see what’s hogging up those parking spots.
Missy, I’m not sure if you’re serious or not. If not, forgive me for taking your comment serious.
LOOKING AT INDIA, CHINA OR AFRICA FOR CARBON DIOXIDE EMMISSIONS?!?! The US emitted 5.2 million kiloton of CO2 in 2014 (most recent numbers I could find quickly) vs 2.2 for India and 10.3 for China (which for a large extent comes from manufacturing stuff that we buy from China, so it’s basically CO that we’ve exported to China).
So no, don’t look and point at others. The planet is literally burning (Australia, California) and here we are on the UWS trying to secure our “right” to park our cars, on of the major contributors to CO2 emissions.
If reading this makes you feel bad, I’m sorry, but I cannot make it any prettier.
The earth needs carbon. So much melodramatic hysteria. Cali and Australia wildfires caused by environmentalists not allowing excess brush to be cleared. Climate change (weather) has been happening before humans and will continue after humans.
@Arjan
So judgy. Not attractive. People can disagree with you and not be bad people. Yeeesh. Don’t pretend to care about our health. Worry about your own. Laissez les bontemps roulez. Et les voitures.
Thank you, Alex Israel and WSR for this story.
Not everyone can attend these meetings.
You’re helping me stay informed on an issue dear to my heart. Appreciate it.
In five years free parking will be gone. Figure out how to deal with that. Like the 14th street car ban, all your predictions of doom will prove to be invalid. The NYC DOT will do what it will do. They know free parking is absurd. Free parking is not a right. Your cars drive up the expense of EVERYTHING. The only cars left on the street will be of those who have demonstrated that the car is a last resort. Period. Enjoy your free parking while you have it. C’est la vie.
If you own a car, park it in a garage. That should be factored into your car ownership cost. It is not right that car owners get to monopolize a section of the street, which everyone, including non-car owners pay for with taxes. Streets should be used for moving traffic and loading/unloading, not for parking. If you can’t afford garage space, you can’t afford a car. For the time we owned a car in the city, we paid for a garage space. Public transportation is the best way to get around town. If you need a car to get out of town, rent one. It is not your right to park for free on city streets.
Trucks don’t just load and unload. They will squat in the vacant spots left by banned cars and idle or grind renovation trash or saw lumber or bang plumbing supplies and metal flashing. They will take over the street and make life miserable for those who live and work in their homes during the day. Cars are quiet and stay parked for the majority of the day and night.
Everyone seems to agree that the best compromise is parking permits by neighborhood. A great solution which worked easily and well in San Francisco and other large cities.
@CLL who is this “everyone?” I find residential parking permits offensive and detrimental.
In addition to the fact that the pavements under curbside parking spaces is subsidized by everyone’s income and real estate taxes, car owners pay state and federal gas taxes and are charged mandated fees by service stations for old tire and motor oil removal.
I am responding to two different quotes: (1) “The West End Avenue redesign was supposed to accommodate double parking. That was one of its sales points.” Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I do recall one of the talking points for the bike lanes down Columbus Avenue was that the delivery trucks would/could park on the “side streets”to deliver goods. Guess What?- They don’t! These trucks are the problem, double parking opposite one another, and so often creating only one lane for other vehicles to move down the avenue. So,in my view, the original cause of the CONGESTION we experience from 96th to 86th Streets (and often further down)are the bike lanes, which are NOT as heavily used as are the motor vehicle lanes. Why are the trucks that double park not given tickets? I was once told even if they were, the companies have insurance to cover them so the drivers don’t pay attention to the congestion their truck double parking causes. But, I ask again, why aren’t they given tickets, anyway? (2) “The percentage of New Yorkers that cycle is 24% including people on a bike maybe once a month and only 1.8% cycle to work. This is from the NYC study Cycling In The City 2019.” And while I’m asking, why aren’t bike riders who ignore the bike lanes (except for delivery riders) also given tickets?? Lastly, A taxi ride from @ 96th to 86th St. use to cost @ $5.00 with a tip; affordable when time is of essence and buses are not visible. Now the cost can be $7.00 BEFORE Tip, not so affordable. What hath these bikelanes wrought? Peace.
This is a total sham vote! I’m guessing that less than 1% of the thousands of residents of the UWS even knows about this entire issue to express their opinions or concerns. How about putting something on a voting ballot that people can actually see and hear about. Moreover, CB7 Board is filled with a bunch of mostly ill-informed self-interested nitwits – why I stopped going years ago. Moreover, there are thousands of non-residents like doormen and other workers who need to park here daily, along with residents who may work out of the city and need cars for their commute and I am one of them.
Considering the % of car owners to non-car owners, I imagine the ballot would shake out more or less the same as this CB7 council vote.
How did people get to New Jersey to see their sick relatives before free parking.
You assume that this is only about street parking.
Assume it’s taken away, what happens to the cost of a garage?
The “experiment” the anti car people want will increase living costs for as many as 28,000 UWS households.
And for the first year of the discussion this group was omitted from the conversation.
Interesting but no. I would estimate (and I am happy to have the “Study” show actual figures) that 80-85% of neighborhood car parking spaces are on non-commercial streets (if that is defined as the numbered streets, minus cross-streets, plus CPW, WEA, and RSD), and of the remaining 15-20%, at least 50% is unavailable at various times due to commercial, school or other zones. So your proposal gives 80-85% of spots to resident car owners, at a sizeable discount (because heaven forbid we discourage car ownership), and 8-10% of spots to everyone else who wants to park a car, including resident non-car owners who are the majority of the UWS.
For all the people who have a car in order to commute to a job – I empathize. But you may consider living closer to your job. It would benefit the environment (less emissions) and, perhaps, your personal life (less commute time means more time with family, friends, to work out, to sleep, etc.). And it would free up housing in this neighborhood for people who are working here or who would otherwise like to spend more time on the UWS versus yourself. A win-win.
For all the people who have a car in order to visit family afar, or volunteer somewhere else, or take the occasional trip out of town… guess what, I rent a car or I take a car service when I want to do that. You can too! You don’t need to own a car 24/7 if you are not using it daily!
Frankly, I would like a study on resident car USE. As in, how often does an UWS car actually leave the UWS, or Manhattan, or anywhere relatively reachable by public transport? If the answer is less than X trips per week or Y days per month then maybe we should revoke the car license, or at least make the car ineligible for resident permit. Some cars just sit.all.day/week/month on UWS streets, with the car moving only for time limits or street sweeping. In the meantime, rats run rampant and other cars circle for hours looking for parking spots. Street parking of an infrequently used car is not the highest and best use of public space. And ownership of an infrequently used (or perhaps any) car should not be sacrosanct in an urban environment.
Over the years I’ve known many residents of the UWS who drive to the suburbs for work while their spouses have equally responsible jobs in Manhattan.
May these couples stay?
This is my family: I take the subway to midtown, my spouse drives to a non-Metro North accessible office in Westchester. Please advise on where we should live.
fwiw, half the cars parked on my block seem to have CT/NJ plates. I would happily pay for a residential permit, as every other city in the country seems to offer.
I’m trying to understand where this angst and anger towards parking has suddenly become such a huge issue for the UWS?
I’ve been living here for 20+ years … life is good. Why has parking become a hot button issue when there are so many other critical problems to solve (retail vacancy, homelessness, etc.)?
Like others have said, everyone subsidizes something (I personally subsidize various things that I don’t use through the way my taxes are deployed). So what?
Car owners pay a lot of other fees which contribute to maintenance of the roads, infrastructure, etc. Maybe not 100%, but definitely some %.
Is CB7 the only one looking to eliminate parking? What about the rest of CBs in the rest of NYC? What are they focusing on?
In short, so many other problems to solve … why is parking such a big issue suddenly (and please don’t respond with climate change, cyclists, these types of issues … there are MUCH bigger causes of climate change than cars parked on the UWS).
The answer is a phenomenon called AstroTurfing.
There’s a “movement” to ban cars from the city, and a very rich guy on the UWS who s pushing it (he says cars get in his way and make him feel unsafe as he bikes. Seriously. I’m not making this up).
So around 2006 he got involved with a group called Transportation Alternatives. It went from 3 employees to 30.
And he founded and funded a couple of blogs, hired experienced tabloid journalists,
And he founded at least one local activist group called “Streetopia.”
And the journalist he pays interviews the activists he pays and duly reports on their great deeds. while the two top people on the committee that pushed the resolution are on the Board of Transportation Alternatives, and at least one other is getting his campaign contributions as she prepares to run for office.
Were the Koch Brothers or the Mercer family doing this kind of thing in our community it would be a scandal.
Name names. There needs to be an investigative journalist to do a major story on this. Are people afraid to lose this oligarch’s funding?
Wow. Now it’s clear why those bike lanes went in so fast on CPW when no other urban government projects have ever gotten such fast results in the City.
Follow the big money! An oligarch dictator rules the UWS.
If only he cared as much about small businesses, homeless encampments, rising crime and scaffolding as he does about bicycles.
More importantly, how do we stop him from ruining and dividing our lovely neighborhood?
Like I said earlier, this “we are subsidizing free curb side parking” argument is flawed … we all subsidize stuff we don’t like. That’s how it is in a community.
Seriously, how do we stop this one man crusade?
you know what no one talks about? how when on cold alternate side days the car owners will sit in their cars idling. it’s awful
I see so many New Jersey plates using free parking and New Yorkers are being punished with higher taxes and less available parking. Free city parking should be only permitted to those paying city taxes.