Details of the Mayor’s Residential Parking Permit Proposal

RPP_signs.jpgPotential residential parking permit stickers, curbside regulations, and David Yassky.

Here are some more details about the residential parking permit program proposed today by Mayor Bloomberg and DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan:

  • A residential parking permit (RPP) plan will be included in the congestion pricing legislation that will be introduced in the City Council and State Legislature.
  • Though details still need to be worked out by the legislators, neighborhoods and Community Boards will have the choice to opt in to the program and propose their own curbside regulations and zone boundaries. Borough Presidents, Council members and DOT will also be involved in the process. "Community Boards will make the determinations and balance the various interests to form the most reasonable plan," DOT Commissioner Sadik-Khan said.
  • The proposed community-driven process would look something like this, according the Mayor’s press release: "Beginning in the fall of 2008, residents can petition for the
    establishment of an RPP zone in their neighborhood by submitting a
    request to their Community Board on a form that will be available on
    the DOT web-site. The Community Board will then be required to hold a
    public meeting. The Community Board’s approved plan will be submitted
    to the Borough President and the local City Council member, who will
    both be required to approve the plan before it is implemented."
  • Curbside regulations will vary from neighborhood to neighborhood but would likely be limited to very specific times and places. So, for example, if a neighborhood is worried that they’ll become a park-and-ride location, only vehicles with permits would be allowed to park during a specific period of time during morning rush hour. For example:
rpp_sign2.jpg 
  • The RPP program will specifically be aimed at discouraging park-and-ride activity and to help residents secure parking in "neighborhoods that face pressure from large facilities like sports arenas," Bloomberg said.
  • There could be "a small fee" for permits to help cover the administrative costs of running the program but the Mayor said that would be up to the legislators. "With oil at $108 a barrel and gasoline approaching $4 a gallon, $10 a year for parking isn’t going to make that much of a difference to most people who can afford to have a car in the first place," Bloomberg said.
  • New York City’s RPP plan is being modeled on successful programs up and running in Washington D.C., Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and London.
  • The RPP program will not go forward if congestion pricing is not passed.

The Mayor’s full press release can be found after the jump:

20080312_7248.jpg 

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Department of Transportation (DOT) Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan today announced that the congestion pricing legislation that will be introduced in the City Council and State Legislature in the coming weeks will include a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program. The program is designed to give local residents priority for on-street parking in residential areas and to discourage park-and-ride activity by commuters. It will be tailored by neighborhood to address specific needs, and restrictions will vary based on neighborhood parking patterns. The announcement of the program follows a dozen community parking workshops held by DOT in 7 neighborhoods between November 2007 and February 2008. The announcement was made in Boerum Hill, a neighborhood where the program could hold great appeal to residents. All neighborhoods will have the opportunity to consider opting into the RPP program including communities where interest has already been expressed such as Brooklyn Heights, Long Island City, and the Upper East and West Sides of Manhattan. Joining the Mayor and the Commissioner at today’s announcement were Councilmember David Yassky and President of the Boerum Hill Association, Sue Wolfe.

"This is a promising and proven parking management strategy that together with congestion pricing will help us achieve one of the key goals of PlaNYC – cutting down on pollution-creating traffic and creating an environmentally sustainable transportation system for New York City," said Mayor Bloomberg. "A number of other cities, including Washington D.C., Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, have long had successful residential parking permit programs. We are confident that it will succeed here too."

"Congestion Pricing is vital to the future of New York City and a Residential Parking Permit program will help to ensure that neighborhoods are not overrun with commuters looking for parking before they get on a subway to enter the pricing zone," said Commissioner Sadik-Khan. "The Residential Parking Permit program will give parking priority to local residents while also balancing the need for some visitor and commercial parking."

The RPP program is designed to address concerns that congestion pricing will entice commuters to drive into neighborhoods just outside the pricing zone, park their cars for the day on a residential street, and then take the subway or other transit into Manhattan to avoid paying a congestion fee. Recent studies by DOT show that many of the neighborhoods that border the congestion pricing zone are already at or near on street parking capacity. Comments and feedback from residents at the community parking workshops helped to shape the RPP program being introduced today.

"Parking is a huge headache for residents in Downtown Brooklyn neighborhoods and residential parking permits will be a real step towards making daily life a little easier," said Councilmember David Yassky. "I applaud Mayor Bloomberg and his Administration for giving this approach a try."

"We’re pleased that DOT is creating a residential parking program. They’ve listened to people in neighborhoods like Boerum Hill, who are impacted by drivers who don’t live here – circling our streets, polluting the air and placing our pedestrians in jeopardy," said Sue Wolfe, President of Boerum Hill Association. "People should use the terrific public transportation system that we as New Yorkers are very lucky to have and Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to improve that system and reduce congestion should be enacted."

Under the program, residents with a permit displayed on their vehicle will be able to park in an RPP designated space all day. For instance, cars without a permit for a particular zone will not be able to park in RPP spaces during a set 90-minute time period (e.g. 10-11:30 a.m.) each day. In this instance, RPP spaces could be restricted to one side of the street to provide some parking for visitors during the 90-minute RPP time period. The timing of this 90-minute period could be adjusted depending on neighborhood characteristics, but these 90-minute periods would restrict out-of-neighborhood cars from parking for long periods of time. Visitors coming to the neighborhood to shop, use neighborhood services or conduct other business will only be restricted from the RPP spaces during the 90-minute period, but will have access to more spaces at other times of the day. DOT will issue annual permits to residents who are able to show proof of vehicle registration at an address within the permit area.

Under the proposed bill, beginning in the fall of 2008, residents can petition for the establishment of an RPP zone in their neighborhood by submitting a request to their Community Board on a form that will be available on the DOT web-site. The Community Board will then be required to hold a public meeting. The Community Board’s approved plan will be submitted to the Borough President and the local City Councilmember, who will both be required to approve the plan before it is implemented.

Residential parking permit systems are already in place in other major U.S. cities, including Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle, and have been shown to be an effective way to manage parking. RPP in New York City would offer priority to those neighborhoods just outside the congestion pricing zone. The program will be closely monitored to see how well it works.

52 thoughts on Details of the Mayor’s Residential Parking Permit Proposal

  1. This plan should be enacted regardless of the fate of congestion pricing. What’s the rational for tying it into something with an unlikely future right now?

  2. Ten dollars per is going to cover the administrative costs? I find that hard to believe.

  3. “the congestion pricing legislation that will be introduced in the City Council and State Legislature in the coming weeks…”
    This legislation must pass both the Council and the Legislature in 19 days. It’s going to be introduced in “the coming weeks”?

  4. The hour and a half makes sense – it’s like alternate side everyday. The low price also makes sense because it lowers expectations about actually getting a parking spot.

    My favorite part of residential permits is that it gets rid of the people who register their car and pay insurance out of state.

  5. For some reason Bloomberg seems to have lost his mojo to come up with this wishy-washy proposal. I think:
    1. Every neighborhood, now. Why leave it up to the notoriously NIMBY-prone community boards?
    2. Only NY registered cars owned by city residents (and tax payers) are eligible.
    3. $10 is laughable. When a garage even in the furthest parts of the city is $50 a month (or $600 a year) charge more and use the funds to pay for mass transit.

  6. $10 per year is a giveaway of public land.

    The city should create individual, numbered spaces and issue annual permits to the highest bidders.

  7. @Dave: Wouldn’t the NIMBY attitude be just as likely to work in favor of RPP in this instance?

    The NIMBY position is, I want RPP in MY neighborhood, so I have an easier time finding parking near my house. But I don’t want you to have RPP in YOUR neighborhood, so it’s easier for me to park when I drive there.

    But under this setup, I (my community board) only get a voice in the first half of the equation: whether RPP comes to MY neighborhood. It’s like the prisoner’s dilemma: The worst situation for me is if I vote no for my neighborhood and you vote yes for yours. So I end up voting yes for mine.

    In other words, NIMBY here = most neighborhoods if not all get RPP, and people welcome it more because they feel invested in the decision.

  8. DOT heard loud and clear that RPP was critical to neighborhoods that were concerned about car commuters avoiding the congestion charge by parking elsewhere and then riding the subway to Manhattan.

    So, this announcement is an important step on the road to congestion pricing and fully funding the MTA’s $29.5 billion capital plan.

    BTW, I’m blogging all month on congestion pricing and related issues over at http://switchboard.nrdc.org/

    I read streetsblog all the time, and hope some of you will enjoy what we’re up to over at NRDC’s blog.

    Rich Kassel, NRDC

  9. It will be very interesting to see this play out at the community board level. The release talks about ‘neighborhoods’ deciding that they want this, and then going through the process at the CB level. What constitutes a ‘neighborhood’? What determines its boundaries? Who has standing to represent a neighborhood? Obviously there are strong civic orgs in some places that will push for (or against)this, but not in all places that would benefit.

    And will it fly at the CB level if it creates a schism within the district – if, say one neighborhood wants it but another within the same district doesn’t?

  10. I was there and the Mayor just pulled the $10 figure out of his hat, so to speak, as a start, which will be further hashed out in the legislature.

  11. I should clarify the $10 figure. The Mayor said “$10” in a kind of off-the-cuff way. I don’t think the Administration has a specific fee in mind right now and it would be up to the State Legislature and City Council to determine whether there should be a fee at all. The Mayor seemed to make clear that he would like to see the administrative costs of the program covered by a fee, however. I only printed the $10 figure because it was part of the quote in which the mayor was juxtaposing the cost of parking against the cost of oil and gas. I thought that was interesting.

    All taht being said, I personally think the cost of RPP’s should be more in line with market rates for parking and should account for the value of public space that could be put to other uses aside from car storage. And, as Donald Shoup advocates, I’d love to see parking fees being plowed back into local streetscape improvements, particularly for the retail corridors whose merchants will, no doubt, be concerned (rationally or not) that RPP’s will have a negative impact on their customers ability to drive in, park and shop.

  12. Most interesting thing about this may be seeing the effect of the first real empowerment of community boards beyond “advisory” gesturing. The prospect may bring many new people to participate in them – especially the traffic & transportation committees. You can dismiss CBs as NIMBY venues, but it’s a lot better than having no community role. I suspect most people on this list don’t remember NY before them.

  13. RPP is an inducement to key legislators to pass congestion pricing. The 90 minute “Resident only” period is intended to keep parking as flexible as possible for visiting parkers while discouraging all day and long-term parking. Ideally the 90 minute period will come during peak periods (usually lunch hour)on nearby commercial streets. That way it will also discourage cruising by motorists seeking to avoid paying meters. The opt-in process is really smart because it means DOT does not have to expend political capital on RPPs. They can spend that installing variable priced metering and vacancy targets on nearby commercial streets. All and all, this seems like a smart way of doing RPPs. (Incidentally, RPPs are cheap in all US cities.)

  14. OK, this is a carrot for neighborhoods outside the Zone that have good access to transit. These are also neighborhoods that stand to benefit mightily from improvement of transit. But now what does the Bloomberg Administration have to offer neighborhoods that are far from transit? Express buses aren’t enough to swing them I’m afraid.

  15. 1) is the williamburg section of Brooklyn near the the williamsburg bridge section excluded from the park and ride scam from the new tax scam ?

    2) if the state city gov or the dot commissar will take of or dawn any neighborhood from the program is the new law binded to restrict tahm to do it witout the local community approval?

    3) is any financel back pay to the neighborhoods businesses and residential from thelocel community’s like williamsburg downtown Brooklyn WHO will suffer from all the traffic and park and ride from all over?

  16. Aaron, high RPP fees are not going to happen. To make them truly meaningful from an externality or market, or vacancy perspective they’d have to cost a couple thousand dollars. (Look at what the nearest garage costs) Don’t get distracted by theory. If RPP happens, the key point is what the neighborhood parking plans devised by DOT and the CB look like. They could be great or not much better than the current dysfunction. What the opt in plan doesnt reveal is exactly how those plans will be devised. This is where livable streets advocates have a chance to be heard, especially in places like CB 7 Manh, and CB 2 and 6 Bklyn, where there are a lot of them.

  17. When I lived in Seattle they had RPP in my neighborhood with a 90 minute limit and it worked extremely well. I was able to find parking in my neighborhood in the night and I could go other places for dinner/shopping/etc. If I recall correctly the RPP fee was ~ $12 /year. Another wonderful side-effect is that you won’t be able to get a RPP with a bogus North Carolina plate!

  18. I poke my head in, only poke, because I hate the new tax to park in front of my house even more than I dislike CP.

    Two days before the Mayor flipped off his $10 figure, DOT was briefing Council members saying there would be NO fee.

    When I asked them the cost to implement this plan in just ONE Community Board, they admitted that they did not know.

    Given that they are opning this program to EVERY nabe in the City, regardless of park n ride possibilities, the cost of this program could run into the tens of millions of dollars. But since DOT is pulling this stuff out of their keister as they go, we won’t know WHERE this money is coming from.

    Thought number one: It will probably come directly from the already speculative sum of revenue to be netted from CP, thereby diminishing the pool of money even further.

    Or it will come from teachers, cops, firefigheters, youth and seniors—-because this Mayor is not raising taxes —if they call them taxes, of course.

    There has GOT to be a better way to raise revenue for mass transit, reduce congestion and clean our air than these half baked, cost heavy plans.

    Lew from Brooklyn

  19. Lew you see things from such a self-serving vierwpoint that I have to laugh.

    IT IS NOT A TAX…IT IS A USER FEE

    How much does the city pay to pave, police and clean your beloved parking spaces…paid out of all our taxes for the car-owning minority. How much goes to maintain the East River bridges? Toll ’em to pay for their upkeep and maintenance.

    Given that parking spaces sell for $250,000 and rent for up to $1000/month in Manhattan the city should charge A LOT for these permits.

    For too long the car-driving minority has been subsidized by the city’s taxpayers. I know there will be a lot of people wanting the status quo, but it’s tiem car-owners pay their fair share.

    I heartily applaud Bloomberg for this and hope hope hope this and CP and East River bridge tolls all go through.

  20. Lew,

    I can’t imagine that any of the neighborhoods in your low-density, suburbanish part of Brooklyn would ever need or want RPP’s. You won’t have to pay to park in front of your house. There are lots of other neighborhoods, particularly in N. Brooklyn, where RPP’s could be incredibly useful.

    As for DOT pulling stuff out of their “keisters:” Another word for it is “innovation.” I’m incredibly happy to see our DOT finally experimenting and trying new things (well, new for NYC, at least). I know that people in government are often unfamiliar and uncomfortable with innovation but, Lew, the status quo of NYC surface transportation isn’t working. This is simple small stuff. Let some neighborhoods try it out outside of your own district. Let’s see if it works.

  21. Mr. Fidler,

    If you can think of another way to discourage drivers who are going to the Nets arena from cruising around the neighborhood – just in case they can find a free parking space – I’m all ears.

    You supported Atlantic Yards. Now you need to help find a solution to the traffic problems brought on when you site a 19,000 seat venue in a low rise residential neighborhood.

  22. The great thing Lew is that your community board does not have to choose RPP! That’s right. Your community has a choice. So, if everyone in your neighborhood hates RPP. Fine. You won’t get them. You are arguing against giving your constituents a choice. You are ramming the no RPP position down their throats. That doesn’t seem to square with your posts here.

  23. Any discussion about whether these parking permit programs will affect streetcleaning schedules?

    On a policy level: why go through the trouble of enacting a controversial policy (RPP) when eliminating an annoying one (streetcleaning) would reduce much more traffic?

    On a personal level: My neighborhood has streetcleaning four times a week (twice a week each side of the street), so I often park in the neighborhood next to ours where streetcleaning takes place only twice a week. It would be a real pain if I couldn’t park there anymore.

  24. “You supported Atlantic Yards. Now you need to help find a solution to the traffic problems brought on when you site a 19,000 seat venue in a low rise residential neighborhood.”

    Remember what I said about Soho. It isn’t part of the CBD, despite being at the center of the transit system, according to its affluent residents. It is a “low density residential neighborhood.”

  25. I never thought I would say this but I don’t trust our government. After seeing what happened with Atlantic Yards, the corruption I wouldn’t trust them to administer this. If you allow them to sell parking permits or put tolls on the bridges they will promise you the world, low fees/tolls, and within a year or so they will be raised and raised. In this case I think capitalism should win. If you care enough to park your car, find a legal spot. The city shouldn’t sell permits to park. They are taking away our rights and we will pay and pay and pay for it in the future.

  26. Council Member Fidler,

    Have you also spoken out against the State Vehicle Registration “Tax” and the State Vehicle Inspection “Tax?” What about the subway and bus “taxes?” The zoo and aquarium “taxes?” $10 is a laughably low fee.

    And don’t worry about the cops and firefighters and other city employees. I’m sure they’ll continue to park for free at the fire hydrant in front of my house, displaying their photocopied and expired phony placards.

  27. “The great thing Lew is that your community board does not have to choose RPP!”

    I’m afraid I don’t share JKs enthusiasm with this clear expansion in the powers of the community boards with regard to transportation policy. I consider it somewhat of a surrender of NYC planning authority with regard to a pretty important area of concern. Balkanizing decision making in this manner can only lead to a weaker administration of the city planning policy.

    And with regard to Minerva’s trust conerns, why would anyone trust their community boards more than NYC? Because they entertain the neighborhood Yentas for four hours once a month?

  28. First, to Dave—-believe you me, i pay my fair share of taxes. I object to new taxing of things in life that ordinary NY’ers do that will increase the cost of living in this City to the point htat only the rich and the poor will be able to live here.

    The out of their keisters remark was meant to say the two following things: ONE-DOT and the Mayor are giving answers to elected officials as they think it will sway their votes….differnt answers to different electeds, depending on the viewpoints being expressed
    SECOND-they really are not thinking these things through. How can they NOT have a cost estimate for a major new program before they suggest it?[and with no EIS yet].

    Anyone who has seen my alternative plan—like it or not—knows that I am not afraid of innovation. But innovation must be soundly and throoughly thought out. I have not yet seen one comment answering my question about the costs and ehere it will come from. The hardst part of being a legislator is choosing from among many good ideas knowing that you can only responsibly fund one or two….so you cannot talk about this ina vacccum that does not consider capital funding for mass transit, teachers, cops, firefighters, youth and seniors and aprks….

    The issue of choice is bogus. Because you get to choose for your neighborhood…and I get no voice in that choice. We are still one City, and neighbors shouldnt get to decide that other neighbors may not come into their neighborhood.

    Finally, this fly by night plan does not work to silve the problem which congestion pricing itself has created: park and riders. It gives HALF a nabe parking priority and creates fierce competetionfor the other half of the spots. The program will never allow more than one side of a street on any given block to be permit parking only. Which means the other side will be gobbled up by park n riders early in the moring. Except on days when there is alternate side street parking to begin with0—-then there will be no spots at all.

    Again, goi back to my proposal which raises triple the amount of money for mass transit on a regional basis with a broad based non-regressive fair tax on regional business of one third of one percent of their annual payroll. If we builda better transit system, which we can only do with real dollars, people will be more inclined to use it. forcing them into a system that lacks capacity will only make it worse…and the ones forced will surely not be the rich.

    Lew from Brooklyn

  29. Lew,

    I think you’re misunderstanding the plan.

    BOTH sides of the street will have the 90-minute regulation at the same time. In park’n’ride neighborhoods, this will likely be midday, so non-residents won’t be able to park during the morning rush hour and leave their cars all day.

  30. The $10 would not fully cover the plan of course, but I’m sure they are to some degree assuming that additional money would come from ticketing/towing non-residents who park illegally. That’s where the real money would be.

  31. I am very disappointed to see this program which is possible to begin in this fall. I am living in Stamford, Connecticut and currently go to the city at least once a week for church, gathering with friends, good restaurants and shopping. If this program is really passed and started, I will avoid going to Manhattan and other places that require charges if going to NYC is not necessary.

    This is conflict to one of NYC’s programs of Free Parking on Sunday/holiday in order to attrack more people to shop in NYC. Believe that many people will also avoid going to NYC because of the charge. Mr. Mayor, do you know how much I have been enjoying free parking on Sunday and going to NYC? Your program is asking “outside” people to stop going into NYC. I already need to pay for the tolls from other state(s). It will be too much for me to pay for tolls, the new charge and recent high rates of gasoline. It doesn’t mean that I have a car so that I have to pay for more charges. A car to me is a necessary tool for going out. You might ask us to take trains/subway/buses but this is not convenience to people from other states. There are less trains running during the weekend and evening hours so that I cannot stay in the city for long and need to worry about the returning time. In short, I will not have fun in the NYC anymore. Please understand.

  32. The whole point of RPP is to avoid park-n-riders. They have it in other cities near transit hubs (such as SF, Seattle) and it works very well at discouraging people from using the side streets and riding from train stations. It’s a good system and people who are in Park and Ride heavy neighborhoods (including leafy ones that happen to be near NYCT/LIRR/MNRR stations) would probably be delighted to have it.

  33. Unlike the London Plan, Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, as it stands now, would include the same $8.00 charge for two wheeled motor vehicles. Scooters, motorcycles and mopeds would have to pay to enter the coverage zone. This is a completely wrongheaded flaw with the plan. Scooters and other two wheeled vehicles are part of the congestion solution, not the problem.

  34. “I object to new taxing of things in life that ordinary NY’ers do that will increase the cost of living in this City to the point htat only the rich and the poor will be able to live here.”

    “the poor” ? This is what you think of the majority of New Yorkers, those that ride transit and live in rentals? That explains a lot. I’m not going to disparage the actual poor by saying I’m insulted. But I suppose I could get into character and read about your parking-perked-out Infiniti with a rush of projected class envy, Lew.

    This is the way people used to talk about SUVs, by the way, before the vehicles were recognized as embarrassing. It was claimed that critics were just jealous, that they weren’t opposing the surging popularity of the vehicles (encouraged by idiotic subsidy) on actual principle. No, it was because they simply could not afford to enjoy the glory of driving a gas guzzling, hastily modified pickup truck around America’s cities and suburbs. (uh…) And yet, here we are in 2008, and it is obvious to almost all that the SUV saga was a seriously stupid environmental wrong turn. On top of that it shortened rather than extended the American automotive age, by making our auto companies even more irrelevant when their one trick ponies ran out of gas. (How’s your Infiniti? Is it the “crossover”?) Most devastatingly, the harmless lil’ SUV fad contributed to a jump in oil consumption that provoked a new (and terminal?) crisis. Oops.

    That fall from grace is spreading to all personal autos in New York, and it’s pretty freaking awesome. You think we’re all poor because we walk, bike, and ride the train, that we do it out of poverty rather than responsibility and convenience? Well don’t get too comfortable in your silvery superiority complex. Congestion pricing or not, the unpaid consumption of the country’s most valuable space by cheaply-made and pathetically short-lived rolling hulks of metal is not long for this world. If it’s not reckoned with now, you might regret spitting at the chance to pay a fair price.

  35. Thank GOD.

    I’m so sick of those bridge-and-tunnel plebeians parking their econo-boxes on the nice streets for 24 hours.

  36. Some thoughts…

    I completely agree with Minerva (#29). They are taking away our rights.

    The $10.00 estimate does seem very low… But they don’t even know what the RPP plan will cost to start up, maintain and police!

    What do you do when you have out of town friends/family visit?

  37. Minerva,

    In what sense of the phrase does giving away a valuable public resource to private interests constitute the “free market”? If we were really going to ensure that “capitalism should win”, as you suggest, shouldn’t the city get out of the parking business altogether? We could sell off all the curbside parking spaces to private interests and let them lease out at market rents. That would truly be capitalism, right?

    What you seem to be proposing is the free allocation of scarce resources to a privileged few — a phenomenon more typically associated with communism or socialism, not capitalism.

  38. Chau,

    Please read the article before posting. The regulation is only for about 90 minutes in the morning, Monday through Friday.

    “The man who can read but does not has no advantage over the one who cannot.”

  39. Many here are talking about an RPP program like it’s a complicated thing with a lot of administrative costs, and that it will cost the city a ton of money.

    The RPP has a lot of complicated, costly, 21st century components.

    1) Putting up signs.

    With the increased costs of steel, this might be prohibitively expensive.

    2) Printing stickers.

    Stickers are expensive! Just ask any 8-year-old girl.

    3) Mailing the stickers to residents who apply on the DOT website or by 311.

    Stamps are 41 cents… alas!

    Oh, also, the parking attendants are going to need more sticks of chalk to mark the tires of the cars that are parked in RPZs.

    Oh dear. I’m glad they haven’t looked at how much the program will cost. This is probably because they know that it will INCREASE revenue to the city. (Parking tickets to people who stay overtime!)

  40. #37 “Unlike the London Plan, Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, as it stands now, would include the same $8.00 charge for two wheeled motor vehicles. Scooters, motorcycles and mopeds would have to pay to enter the coverage zone. This is a completely wrongheaded flaw with the plan. Scooters and other two wheeled vehicles are part of the congestion solution, not the problem.”

    We also have a shortage of organs from young, healthy people. Encouraging motorcycle and scooter riding would help alleviate this shortage.

  41. 1. The park-and-rider argument is bogus; parking is difficult enough already in every neighborhood that there is no way that drivers looking to park in these CP-adjacent zones would try it. Once maybe but then they would give up.

    2. Lew your proposals would lose us the $350 million in Federal Funds. It would take a lot of other taxes to cover that, eh?

    3. By letting the CB’s implement RPP we are opening the system up to a the input of NIMBY=types and to a mass-confusion of different rules block-by-block. Mayor Mike find your mojo and implement ONE RPP plan for the ENTIRE city with consistent rules.

    4. I still push for two-way tolls at every crossing into Manhattan, including the East and Harlem River bridges.

    5. Is Brodsky’s stupid taxi increase bill dead yet? If it passes I for one would DRIVE throughout Manhattan because it would be cheaper than round-trip taxi fares. A lot of dumb ideas have been discussed but this one takes the cake…the clearest idea of a tax on the poor and miidle-class yet proposed.

  42. 3 quick factual corrections:

    My plan would lose the money only because they didn’t move on it. It would have qualified on VMT measure. Just as I am sure that a larger amount of Fed aid would be available than the one shot CP revenue for constructing the Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel, removing 1 million trucks from our streets per annum.

    I am not reading the plan wrong. At no time will there be more than one side of the street restricted to permit holders per day. Where there is alternate side of the street parking already in place, on those streeets, it will be on the opposite side. That is actually the way they are proposing this.

    And Doc, shocking as this may be to you, the heavy cost of the program is not the stamps and stickers and signage. It is the personal that will review each and every application ion the smooth bureaucratic style that we do things in this City to be sure that the person requesting the permit actually qualifies for it. Unless you think they should be sold to just anyone, in which cae what is the point.

    And I havent heard ANYONE here disagree that before proposing sch a plan, they should have SOME clue as to what it would actually cost.

    Lew from Brooklyn

  43. The IBO estimates is will cost $20 per permit in admin costs. (No direct link to doc, go to their site and look at recent reports, Budget Options for NYC, March 2008 P. 58.)

    I happen to like the RPP opt-in, which is based on lots of experience elsewhere with gaining public support for parking changes and traffic calming. A citywide policy would be a lowest common denominator policy or it won’t pass council. Also, big differences in land use should be reflected in local parking plans.

  44. “And Doc, shocking as this may be to you, the heavy cost of the program is not the stamps and stickers and signage”

    That was jmc, though I think he has a point. That New York city car owners can not afford (or do not want) to pay for a residential parking permit program like Boston’s is a joke. Most of them, who don’t share your easy access to parking anywhere in the city, are chomping at the bit to pay $10 a year (or ten times that) to free up spots near their homes. Your opposition to residential parking permits is, in several ways, eccentric.

  45. This website for Seattle has a pretty good outline of their program (which has been in operation for a while), the requirements for it, and the qualifying process. They actually have a more complex and bureaucratic system than we’re proposing, but even then it’s pretty simple. New York has 311 now and a decent website, it should be pretty easy to implement.

    Some community councils (boards) there even allow for the assignment of guest placards for a $35/yr fee. Not all of them do, however.

    I’d probably be against this due to fraud/placard concerns, but if it’s done in a way that’s bar-coded and perhaps assigned on a day to day basis (for example, you could buy this permit online for a particular car + date and print it out for a fee) then maybe it could be a good idea. This same technology could be implemented to prevent placard fraud.

    I might be getting ahead of myself there though.

    http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/parking/parkingrpz.htm

  46. The Seattle website has a pretty good justification for the creation of RPZs:

    “About the RPZ Program

    Curb space is part of the public street system, and as such it is a public good that is available for all people to use. To restrict the use of curb space for just some people to park requires a compelling reason. The Residential Parking Zone (RPZ) Program was created to help ease parking congestion in residential neighborhoods while walking a fine line to balance the needs of all people to be able to use the public streets.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

How Parking Permits Can Improve the Politics of Walkable Development

|
Residential parking permits are often referred to as “hunting licenses” because while they grant permit holders the privilege of parking on the street, there’s usually no limit to how many permits can be issued. If there are more permits in a neighborhood than available on-street parking spaces, there’s still going to be a parking crunch […]

No Parking Slope

|
The B67 bus veers around a double-parked van blocking a car parked in front of a fire hydrant as a Bugaboo-pushing nanny strolls by Councilmember David Yassky and Transportation Alternatives director Paul Steely White calling for more sensible parking policy this afternoon in Park Slope, Brooklyn. Every drivers knows that it can be nearly impossible […]

Seattle’s Plan to Woo Neighborhoods Into Adopting Smart Parking Prices

|
Seattle has a housing affordability problem. One way to address that is to reduce the amount of parking required in new residential buildings, lowering construction costs and increasing the number of apartments that can be built. But it’s politically difficult to reduce parking requirements because current residents who own cars worry it will make parking more scarce. As long as […]

Sadik-Khan: Many Initiatives Are Under Way…

|
Today’s Crain’s Insider, available to subscribers only, reports on the next steps for the Bloomberg Administration’s broader Long-Term Sustainability Plan now that congestion pricing has cleared its first hurdle in Albany: 7.30.07 Crain’s NY Business The Insider by Erik Engquist and Anne Michaud GREEN PLAN Closer to home NOW THAT the Legislature has passed a […]

Q&A With Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan

|
Streetsblog interviewed DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan at 40 Worth St., Monday, June 18 Janette Sadik-Khan: Four days. Streetsblog: Left in the legislative session? JSK: Yeah, well, maybe four days left, maybe more days. August in Albany. What can be better? SB: (Laughing) So, let’s start with something other than congestion pricing. How was your trip […]