A resolution to end free curbside parking on the Upper West Side last year has been withdrawn, but the fight over curbside space rages on, and the next debate is set for Tuesday.
Community Board 7 will debate whether to call for a study of curbside space at its monthly meeting on Tuesday. The board’s transportation committee voted for the study in December in a heated meeting. Some opponents worried the city would come out with a biased study that would result in the loss of parking.
The Community Board meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. at Congregation Rodeph Sholom (7 West 83rd Street), but the parking debate will start at 7:45 p.m., according to a notice posted on the Community Board website that also includes the text of the resolution:
CB7 Full Board
February 4, 2020
Procedures for Transportation Resolution re Study of Curb UsageA revised resolution from the Transportation Committee relating to a call for a study of curb usage will be presented at the CB7 Full Board meeting on Tuesday, February 4th, at Congregation Rodeph Sholom.
Please note that Congregation Rodeph Sholom requires that CB7’s entire meeting be completed and all Board and Community members be out of the space by a set time. We must adhere to these limits.
Since this will be the second full Board meeting at which a version of a call for a study will have been presented, and there has been significant public comment at the December 2019 Full Board meeting as well as at the November and December 2019 Transportation Committee meetings, the following procedures will be employed at the February Full Board meeting concerning this resolution.
• The text of the proposed resolution will be available upon entering the meeting room.
• The Full Board will take up the Transportation resolution no earlier than 7:45 pm, so members of the public interested only in this resolution may plan ahead.
• To the extent feasible, priority will be given to those wishing to comment on the resolution who have not provided commentary or testimony at a previous meeting.
• A total of 50 minutes will be allotted for public comment.
• To the extent practicable, speakers “for” and “against” the resolution will be called in alternating sequence.
• Each speaker on this resolution will be limited to 1 minute of comments.
• No more than one community member may cede time to another speaker, and both speakers’ sign-in slips must be presented at the same time.
• At the end of the time allotted for public comment, any individuals who signed up to speak will have their names recognized and recorded in the minutes.
With thanks in advance for a productive discussion and meeting.
Mark Diller
Chair, CB7Transportation Committee, Meg Schmitt and Howard Yaruss, Co-Chairpersons
Re: Request to NYC DOT for Study on Curbside Usage.
Our community currently suffers from traffic congestion, rampant double parking particularly due to growing ecommerce 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.
Committee: 10-0-0-0
One would think that a study made necessary by the impending start of congestion pricing in the adjoining area would call for an assessment of the impact of congestion pricing on us.
Such a resolution would be appropriate and unobjectionable.
Are the same people who proposed ostracism of thousands from the neighborhood because they own cars, with the same motive, using congestion pricing as a cover for their effort?
The wording of the proposed resolution leaves little doubt.
To CB7: Pass a resolution asking for a study of the impact of congestion pricing on us.
“(3)conduct studies both before and after the implementation of congestion pricing to establish its effect on the community.”
Isn’t this exactly what they did?
Hard to take you seriously when you apparently didn’t even read the resolution. That, and the ridculous hyperbole about ‘ostracism’. No one is being ostracized; however, people are beginning to re-think whether car owners should be allowed to free-load on a public good. Apparently you’re feeling the burn.
Don’t need a study. The results are already known. Congestion pricing will be a huge net benefit for most UWS residents. With congestion pricing funding, the MTA will be able to install elevators, improve signaling so that more trains will be able to carry people and there will be better bus service.
The only negatives will be for people who drive their cars into the congestion zone.
Again, 75% of UWS’ers DO NOT OWN CARS. Done subsidizing free parking for those who choose to own cars. Much rather utilize the space for something productive, such as loading zones, garbage receptacles, etc.
Hey Sid guess what? 76% of New Yorkers will never bike. That means only 24% bike at all and that includes everyone who gets on a bike on occasional weekends for a ride in the park. No matter how many bike lanes they have built riding is flat. NYC is not a biking city. It is not Amsterdam and it never will be. Here’s the data”
https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/cycling-in-the-city.pdf
I totally agree with you Data.
I have been saying this for years… This is not a bike friendly city no matter how many bike lanes you build.
Garbage receptacles are not a productive use of curb space, and would immediately degrade adjacent property values by 30%. You always mention them though. Are you selling large, ugly, vermin-attracting garbage receptacles or something?
If you can afford in new york city to own a car and own or rent an apartment or house, you can certainly afford to pay for your parking, whether in lots, garages or by fee on the street.
Um, that is ridiculous. A lot of people are pushing their budget to live here, especially as the commute from all suburbs has continued to lengthen making that a less viable option.
“Again, 75% of UWS’ers DO NOT OWN CARS. Done subsidizing free parking for those who choose to own cars”
Sid, with respect, it is possible that a majority of UWSers might not have children but that does not mean that those of us who chose not to be parents should not do everything we can to support our schools.
This is the nature of living in a society. You support some things you don’t have use for knowing that others will support things that you care about, even if they disagree with your choice. Living with your neighbors is not about picking a la carte just the things that you approve of.
I don’t want garbage collection bins (smelly and rat-infested) or loud loading zones under my window which looks over an UWS side street. Please stop this madness.
76% of New Yorkers don’t bike! 1.8% use bikes to commute. Why am I paying for those bike lanes?
Refer to the NYC Cycle study from 2019.
The number of commuting NYC’ers is closer to 5%, and the bike lanes are created with federal grant dollars, not tax funds.
The Census Bueau report as of 2017? 1.8% of UWS commuters use their bikes. Indeed, just as many ride in car pools.
It’s one thing to bike from Chelsea, or the Village, or Flatiron. But the length of an average bike commute in Amsterdam or Copenhagen doesn’t get a resident of W 90th street out of the UWS.
Actually, it’s 3.1%. Compared to 6.7% that used a car… I’d say that’s pretty good.
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/79500US3603806-nyc-manhattan-community-district-7-upper-west-side-west-side-puma-ny/
Noisy, toxic trucks will take over the spots that quiet parked cars now fill. NO!
There are many UWS residents for whom a car is a necessity for one reason or another. Public transit doesn’t address everyone’s needs: it’s a lowest common denominator that doesn’t work that well, assuming there’s even service heading in the direction one needs to go. These same people are also not rich enough to shell out $700 or $1,200 a month for a garage spot. What are we supposed to do? Leave?
All that said, it’s ludicrous that parking is simply free. It’s a municipal service, and we should be paying for it. Those who don’t use it (the non-drivers or those who use garages) shouldn’t be paying for it. Those who do use it must pay. It’s that simple. There’s no reason why 100% of the currently free curbside parking can’t be turned into 24/7 parking meters. That’ll surely purge the vehicles of those who simply store them in the street year round, while allowing a path forward for others who actually need their cars.
As for pricing, there are many ways to skin the cat. A simple solution is to average the cost as $24/day/space. Charge more during the day and less overnight. This will give garages some much needed competition, and will likely drive many cars off streets and into the newly affordable garages. Market economics is the American way; there’s no need for us to buck the trend.
There are many many services that are free in NYC. Libraries, parks, schools are all free and actually require massive tax dollars to operate. Why am I paying for bike lanes that only 2% of New Yorkers use to commute, only 24% use at all and 76% never use!
Libraries and schools benefit everyone. Your publicly subsidized parking spot only benefits you.
When you say that people that use garages or don’t have a car shouldn’t “subsidize” free street parking, then by that same logic the NYC tax collected from people that choose/afford to send their children to private schools or don’t have children/school age children shouldn’t go toward public education. The use of street parking will naturally decline as more and more people in the city don’t even learn how to drive……I’m one of those peoples. My family and I utilize mass transportation and car services when necessary.
Garbage receptacles = free rent for rodents. No way.
So you think a self-contained receptacle is worse than the current system of throwing bags of garbage on the sidewalk?
this will only divide the UWS even further. You think there are less middle class people living in the UWS now? Just wait, the remaining 25% who can not afford garages and who need our cars to get to work, or visit elderly relatives will no longer exist. Something I’m sure a lot of you would appreciate. All for the sake of the 75% to get their amazon packages daily and keep our brownstone foyers packed to the gills on a daily basis. You are punishing your neighbors who have come to depend on this parking. get rid of the parking and you are getting rid of the middle class on the UWS, something that is already dying. This feels very Trumpian. An elite few calling the shots for the masses. Go door to door and ask your neighbors. I guarantee you, ones who don’t even have cars would balk at this, for their friends/relatives who rarely visit etc. Also, because a lot of the neighbors around here are kind and actually CARE for their neighbors who own a car and can’t afford to park in an already inflated parking spot. Shame on you. my goodness, you’re talking about replacing the parking for garbage??! Sid, walk in someone else’s shoes. You are the worst type of person. You are only concerned with your packages and your garabge. go to the store and shop for yourself. save the environment if you care so much about it and stop supporting Bezos.
Again,
Stop punishing the UWS – even the 25%. There’s a better solution.
I am middle class and my family made the move to get rid of our car on the UWS, understanding it is unsustainable, wasteful, bad for the environment, unsafe, and noisy as hell. Do you really think there’s a cabal of “UWS Elites” commenting on WSR to take away your parking spot? WHy are you depending on a free government hand out?
We need a car to visit elderly parents that are no near public transport and we cannot afford a garage. Our elderly neighbors across the street drive a 20yo car. Either one of us drives around more than once a week at most. What a condescending insensitive view to not consider the thousands of situations that people living in this neighborhood find themselves in!!! I hope you never run for office.
Clearly your family does not need a car. Do you think that because your family doesn’t need a car, no one does?
So you decided you didn’t need a car anymore and therefore everyone must get rid of their cars,
and you don’t think you’re “elitist?”
With luck, we’ll all reach the point where we don’t need (or can’t use a car anymore). I’m no more than a few years from that point myself.
But I’m not going to say that if I don’t need one then you have to get rid of yours too.
That is the height of arrogance.
There are 28,000 households with cars and 70,000 people in those households, that’s 35% of the area’s population.
And what makes anyone think that people who don’t have cars themselves don’t welcome the opportunity for friends and families to visit them? Or need places to park when renting or borrowing a car? Or even care in the slightest if some of their neighbors have cars on the street?
Why would we want to further subsidize the delivery services that are undercutting our local stores?
Who will take ownership of the communal garbage receptacles on your block? And how far are you willing to walk your garbage given that our side streets are, on average, 600 feet long?
a) your math is certainly dubious here.
b) My friends and family know not to drive into NYC.
c) who said anything about undercutting the business of our local stores? Stop putting words in my mouth.
d) Your building normally brings the garbage to the curb. I’d prefer the bags of garbage to be kept in garbage receptacles instead of having bags laying out in the street for rats to munch on.
Yes let’s have giant eyesore trash cans lining our streets because that will help the rat problem. Eyeroll.
Receptacles are cleaner and better looking than piles of garbage bags that currently line our streets.
NYC doesn’t have to be unique, cities around the world have figured out how to do this. Take The Hague, Netherlands, which has installed 10,000 collection points like the one in the linked picture over the past 10 years. They bins keep the trash below ground and are collected by the sanitation department at regular intervals. This system replaced one where trash was just left on the street in bags (sound familiar?). https://zwdg.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/EG_containers_TheHague06-1024×683.jpg
a) “My math” is Census Data. It’s not math, it’s data and it’s 100% spot on. 70,000 UWS residents live in homes with cars.
b) I honestly can’t think of a single person who is living a full life who fits your description here.
c) who said anything about undercutting the business of our local stores? Facilitating easier and easier deliveries for Amazon does exactly that.
d) I’d prefer that Sanitation and building managers do a better job of coordinating the process, but a return to metal cans will create noise and dirt problems that everyone will regret.
Paul, census data is good. Please provide a link to this data. What is the census definition of the Upper West Side? Thanks.
I want a study of sidewalk congestion, both in midtown and the Upper West Side. As the subways and buses become more crowded, sidewalk space will be at a premium. We need to find better uses for our sidewalks. Perhaps residents should pay a monthly fee for using the sidewalk.
And if you believe this, the idea is just as crazy as outlawing curbside parking.
Thanks for your comment!
Plus, I just wrote a play called “Parking Problems,” in which the main character enjoys a long rant “seriously suggesting” charging for the use of sidewalks.
I imagine even this absurd notion will seem
tame – or even acceptable – within the next few years.
All the best,
Nevets K.
**APPLAUSE**
What Deb said
CB7 should be applauded for at least tackling this issue with some recognition of the impact of cars on this city. Free parking leads to more driving, more congestion, more injury and more negative externalities.
It neither equitable nor sustainable to cling to free parking for privately owned vehicles as an inalienable right. It is a terribly inefficient and ineffective use of a limited public resource (street space) with tremendous potential for better serving the entire public.
Some people need cars, most don’t. Owning a car is fine but don’t count on parking in a public space being free.
Thank you.
Chuck, I hope you are not as selfish with your loved ones as you appear to those who do not see life the same way you do. I have a car, because I need a car. I have relied on the city and the neighborhood and been an excellent citizen: paying taxes, following laws, helping neighborhoods and being a solid community member. I’m growing older, and it is isolating. A car makes my life more viable, both as to chores, and as to companionship. To say nothing of minor disabilities that are alleviated by owning a car. It is inappropriate to be so judgmental. And to be sure, banishing middle and lower income folks from the ability to keep their cars without taxing them to death, or prohibiting them altogether, will actually destroy the neighborhood, which has been in economic decline for several years. To wit, you can’t walk on Broadway without seeing store after store closed for year after year. Many people cannot walk around to do their chores, nor use the horrid public transportation, often not accessable. Thus, all who will be prohibited from parking or even being able to keep their cars, will NOT BE DOING BUSINESS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!! And to say nothing about the horror of congestion pricing which will brutally damage our neighborhood. All cars who can’t pay 12$ to go below 60th Street will go north, will clog our street, and not leave space for garbage, parklets, or delivery trucks. By the way, these are empty! All the time!! There is also limousine parking in our neighborhood which is horrid, since I have NEVER seen a limousine in these reserved parking areas. This is another sign that the proposed banishment is a detriment at best, and catastrophic, at worst, for the neighborhood. Please. Take some compassion training and hopefully, you will realize that people are different from you and also entitled to live a free life, based on what they have relied on in terms of services.
There is carnage but if you study the cases it’s almost always people who are paid to drive (trucks, buses, cabs) and people driving through the neighborhood on their way home.
Curbside parking actually slows this traffic. Indeed, when the City addressed the first “boulevard of death,” – Queens Blvd. – it added a lane of parking as a means of traffic calming.
Most on the UWS also don’t ride bikes – certainly not the elderly and disabled – so on the basis of this argument, why are curbs, a public space, being used for bikes that most of us don’t use and that is arguably making the neighborhood more dangerous?
I’ve seen plenty of elderly and disabled people biking on the UWS. A man in my building (70+ years) rides a citibike, and I know a woman who uses a cane and rides a bike. You should look at the stats of citibike — millions of rides per year, and way more members on the UWS than there are car owners!
Your math is certainly dubious here.
If we are not allowed to park cars on the street, than neither should you be allowed to park bikes on the street or sidewalk – fair is fair.
This makes absolutely no sense.
No one is saying we should get rid of roads for cars to drive on. Only people are suggesting that the majority of the road shouldn’t subsidize private parking. There’s no logical reason why poor families need to pay for the parking of those better off.
NYC makes over $500M per year from parking tickets. So what exactly does free parking cost the city?
And I never said bikes can’t use the road, just no free (subsidized) parking cluttering up the sidewalks.
And no more subsidized phone charging or playgrounds while we’re at it.
Al, no one “parks” their personal bike on the street overnight.
The city makes plenty of money ticketing bicyclists and from renting space to Citibike.
Free parking costs us all a lot between the maintenance to the roads and the extra car emissions, amongst other things. I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument why those less fortunate need to pay for your parking.
Huh?
I think you are trying to deflect because you don’t have an answer.
Those trucks you complain about are double parked because there is no space for them to park while making deliveries. Once that space is opened up, they can park, turn their engines off and not block lanes so that traffic can move more efficiently. The number of trucks will stay the same.
But. It’s okay for exhaust spewing awful idling noisy trucks? Why? They are way worse than cars. Give me nice quiet cars in parking spots along the street rather than opening up the street for more trucks. This makes zero sense.
Poor families pay taxes? You’re joking right?
Your elitism is showing. I know you have company on this blog…
Yes, poor pay taxes. Do you?
Can someone please tell me who to speak to to get on the list for a giant garbage receptacle to put in front of my apartment? So exciting that it would be there 24/7 instead of just some bags for a couple of hours. I wouldn’t want a car anymore to leave the city for an August vacation instead I would just sit home with the window open enjoying all the smells and observing all the new animals and their activities.
Right. Sign us all up for the garbage bins in front of our windows! Who thinks of these ridiculous ideas? Friends of Rats?
San Francisco had stickers for residents to park and it worked great. Pay for a monthly sticker in your neighborhood. City gets money, nice quiet cars can park.
If we’re concerned about the impact of congestion pricing, what about setting aside streets for resident parking permits, at a nominal fee, for those residents who need cars and can’t afford garages? And provide meters to accommodate non-residents, for longer than 1 or 2 hours.
Seems like an awful lot of demands coming mostly from those who don’t pay property taxes. What’s next of the list, further publicly subsidized rent? Remember it’s New York “City”, not New York “Town”.
I figure I’ve paid over $100,000 in property taxes to the city in my years here. And now I’m told my “free” parking space is a crime against humanity that must be abolished.
I noticed in that absurd temper tantrum at Grand Central Station the other day, one protestor held up a sign saying “ban all cars.” That’s who’s pushing this debate — millennial authoritarians fresh out of some Bolshevik sociology course at Oberlin. It’s motivated by begrudgery and revenge, not a desire to free up “valuable public space” for which they can’t offer any useful alternatives.
But yeah, what about those underground garbage chutes. Imagine a crew of men working every day for a year jackhammering the street to make this a reality.
Curious that no one has proposed a logical solution that is successful in other cities. i.e. All residents get a tag enabling parking for those who have cars. Residents get a temporary tag for visiting relatives, friends, to be used for 24 hours. Resident tag can be free or a modest annual fee. Result: No suburban stealing of spaces, No commercial stealing of spaces. All win.
I don’t quite see how the proposed removal of free parking will reduce double parking, why street cruising is a problem and how parked cars add to pedestrian injuries (which create a barrier between said pedestrian and oncoming vehicles).
If the ultimate reason for this is double parking, it’s fairly simple to enforce regulation or loading zones pertaining to package delivery, which is to say keep it to the Avenues, no standing in the streets. Or compromise with loading zone designations on each street between each avenue (effectively reducing something like 10% of available spaces). Either way, Joe Schmoe with his uhaul isn’t going to change his behavior since he needs to get as close to the place they’re moving into, Amazon drivers are notoriously overworked, ringing doorbells at 10pm around the neighborhood to deliver packages aren’t going to give two of anything for parking rules and when has FedEx, UPS or the delivery truck ever cared for double parking? They have a budget line item for expected parking tickets to be paid and frankly the city makes over $500M a year in these tickets, so I can’t see them being very motivated to accommodate these issues.
I think if the parking charge was for a significantly beneficial service to the community, say funding our education system to provide more liveable wages for teachers to afford rent in our area, or addressing the homeless crises, or heck, enforcing the takedown of sidewalk sheds, then I can see an otherwise punitive measure against a sizeable chunk of the residents of our neighborhood to be meaningful. And the notion of free parking on the streets is ridiculous, it’s a significant cost of time to find a space that doesn’t have you up at the crack of dawn to move your vehicle for street sweeping. Ultimately I’d like to see if the study will result in people actually reducing their cars on the streets or if they will just pay it because they have to and still need their car as per of their livelihood, not their luxury.
Two thoughts.
1) Why is there not more clamor for construction of publicly (or privately) funded multi-story parking facilities?
2) In the same way that buildings are required to maintain their own sidewalk frontage, shouldn’t buildings be given the option to purchase curbside space to be used for either: free parking for residents, free parking for building staff, paid public parking, loading and delivery zones, garbage receptacles, and/or open space?
I need to use my car for work—if I could take mass transit I would but it’s not the reality. I love living on the UWS but I will have to move if I can’t park here. Residential parking permits are an idea but, like everything else, I’m afraid the city will implement an exorbitant price I just can’t afford.
Someone mentioned this but I’m someone who has elderly grandparents who need constant care/to be driven to chemo/doctor appointments. They can’t take mass transit and rely on me and my car.
Doing away with curbside parking would be chasing people like me (and many of my neighbors!) out of a community we love.
So lets have a conversation about subsidies.
In my pre-war building, there are a huge number of rent-controlled apartments. Single people occupying large 2-br apartments for rent of less than $1,500/month. Market rent is easily over $5,000/month. We also have families with young kids living in 1-br apartments, paying $4,000/month. A good number of the rent-controlled tenants own homes in Long Island. Some live mainly in Long Island and keep their place here as a pied a terre, because at that rent, why not? Others are here during the week or winter, and in Long Islands for weekends and summer.
Are we really going to begrudge “subsidized” parking but ignore these absurd housing subsidies?
Yes.
Owning a car is not a right.
If you don’t have a car, you shouldn’t even have a say. This conversation has no bearing on your life. Who cares if you’re subsidizing street parking for people who can’t afford it? You also subsidize food stamps, education and a variety of other services for people in need. People need their cars. But yes, let’s continue making Upper West Side an out-of-touch haven for Upper Middle Class coastal elites.
With your logic, if you don’t own a gun you should have no say about gun control? Is that your position?
Huh? Not talking about delivery trucks. Talking about trucks that idle all day with construction renovation grinding, plumbing. HVAC, etc etc. They would take the spots where cars now are quietly parked. It would ruin the quality of life completely.
Delivery trucks are NOT the problem. Nor are cars.
Consider small business owners, I’m a photographer who can’t possibly afford a storefront, I work from home and rely on my car for work.
Going to and from gigs, and having clients come to meet with me, parking is vital. Does anyone care how eliminating parking would be detrimental to small businesses?
Most people that I know with cars have them for work and to leave the city on the weekends. We’re not cruising around congesting the streets. That one is on Uber & Via.
Assuming that everyone with a car can afford $600 per month for parking is ridiculous.
People who can afford parking spots, already have them, it’s much easier. It’s no fun street parking, but it’s a necessity for many of us.
I’m tired of hearing people complain about losing small businesses on UWS, affordable housing, yet screaming that $6k per year for parking garages is the solution.
Street parkers, small business owners, middle class families are the one’s who will suffer. This proposal only stands to make living in NYC & the UWS even less affordable.
Don’t we pay taxes for the use of our streets as residents? Why would we want our streets lined with garbage bins distracting from our beautiful UWS architecture?When garbage is collected it is gone. The receptacles will remain. Not pretty!Have you ever taken public transportation to visit your family in an outer borough like Staten Island? Impossible. Manhattan is a unique environment with both population and commerce that demands a unique solution to thrive. There has to be a better way.
What is there to study and spend more of our tax dollars on no nothing, political appointed study groups.
Guaranteed to take eons of time, getting payment for a nonsense topic.
Leave the parking spots alone and the UWS.