I thought it was a productive discussion that actually could have used a couple more drivers. I was definitely in the car-owning minority at my table.

Between the last meeting and this one, the consultants had collected some data about parking, the most surprising of which was that nearly 50% of the cars on the street overnight were not registered in the local neighborhood.

The idea of permits for local employees didn’t fly very far either; nobody thought that was a good idea. The idea of charging cars without resident permits only $8 for daily parking in the Harlem zone was not welcomed either; the consensus was that $8 was too cheap. The issue of whether the permits should cost more than the cost of administering the program ($75-$125) wasn’t really addressed. A majority of the people at the table thought that the permits should be limited in number in order to reduce cruising, but that was not a heavy debate topic. Another point was

Personally, I came away with some serious reservations about RPP. Considering only about 15% of the neighborhood households have a car, why should we start selling curb space for parking, and only for parking? I can envision a future where making cuts in parking spaces (for wider sidewalks, neckdowns, or loading zones) will be more difficult to enact because RPP-equipped drivers will feel entitled to curb space (“I’ve been paying for parking in my neighborhood for years, and DOT just took away all the spots in front of my building!”). In addition, it will be politically difficult to reduce the number of permits over time, which seems like it would be one of the goals of the program. People will complain to the tabloids, for example, that their 80-year-old grandmother lost her parking permit. A shrinking program, I foresee, will become by default seniority-based RPP, which is ridiculous.

In general, I thought the prepared materials didn’t provide an adequate answer to my favorite question: “Please describe in detail the problem that this solution is meant to address.” Is the problem increased congestion caused by park-and-ride? Is the problem that residents can’t find convenient free parking? Is the problem that curb space is given away for free to a minority of neighborhood residents? Is the problem that neighborhood locals feel their streets are being used for the benefit of CBD workers, and they’re not getting anything back? Let’s figure out what exactly the problem is, then come up with solutions to address it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/nyregion/25pricing.html?ref=nyregion

If anyone at that table owned a car, they didn’t fess up or make demands for accommodation.

Having said that, there are still PLENTY of reasons that streetsblog readers should go to the next sessions. It was easy to contribute, and consultants for the DOT really seemed to be listening. Get out there and speak up!

Thanks!

The key features distinguishing the four alternative plans in the workshop materials are:

1) Participation by local employees, or not,

2) Whether to apply “resident-only” rules one, eight, or 24 hours a day, or every other day;

3) whether to allow non-residents to buy one-day parking permits that would confer resident-like parking privileges for $8.

A referendum, in which each Community District (outside the CBD) gets to choose whether to be “auto-oriented” or “pedestrian- and transit-oriented.”

“Pedestrian- and transit-oriented” districts get higher prices for metered parking, and resident-only overnight parking with a fee of $15 to $25 per month. The additional revenues stay with the community district for allocation by the Community Board, over and above what other Community Boards receive. They would pay for complete streets programs, better paving, improved sidewalks, better parks, extra transit station improvements, and other things.

These districts would also get cycle tracks, slower light timing except on the widest arterials, one-way patterns designed to discourage through traffic, traffic calming, longer crossing times, bicycle racks, etc. An all out effort would be made to get kids to walk, or bike, to school.

On commercial streets, there could be extended sidewalks, cycle tracks, and delivery loading zones rather than on-street parking. Some streets could become bus-and-delvery only, as I’ve suggested on 5th Avenue.

Parking requirements could be reduced, though as I mentioned they barely exist. Meanwhile, restrictions on public parking facilties could be liberalized in commercial areas. Curb cuts would be restricted, as in many of the “contextual zones.” Drive-through windows would be prohibited in such districts, and auto repair and fuel sales limnited except in industrial areas. And the zoning would be enforced (yuk, yuk).

In auto-oriented CDs, on-street parking would be free, meters would be removed from commercial streets. Anyone could park there, for free, first come, first serve.

Street crossing times would be the bare minimum. Trucks permitted more widely. All streets timed for 30 miles per hour. There would be no exclusive bus lanes, and no bike lanes other than those needed for those passing through the area.

Curb cuts would be permitted on any lot without restriction. So would paved over parking pads in front yards. Drive throughs would be allowed on all commercial streets. So would service stations. Parking waivers would be removed, and surveys would repeatedly fine post-1961 businesses (possibly hundreds or thousands) that did not meet the parking requirement.

That would shift the debate, eh?

You probably aren’t personally interested in this, but your co-workers may be interested to know that the key issue distinguishing the 4 proposals that the workshops consider is whether to give parking permits to “local employees” as well as residents.

I was thinking about going to the one tonight, with the caveat that I don’t live in Harlem, but I do work there, but I am having second thoughts after reading the post. Making a nutritious dinner at home seems more worthwhile.