Uptown neighborhoods looking to reform on-street parking policies

The streets of Clifton Heights, University Heights, and Fairview (CUF) are becoming more congested each year. As the University of Cincinnati (UC) enrollment increases, it has become a struggle to provide enough housing units and places to store automobiles.

This growing population shines light on a problem CUF has struggled with for more than 30 years. It is hard not to notice that Cincinnati’s urban core is on the up-and-up, and the work that organizations like the Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation (3CDC) and OTR A.D.O.P.T. are doing in Over-the-Rhine is making the area more attractive to young professionals, artists, students, and even some older suburbanite emigres. And this is a trend that seems poised to continue as gasoline prices continue to rise.

Proposed parking reform plan for uptown’s Clifton Heights, University Heights and Fairview neighborhoods. Image Provided.

The increased interest in downtown will soon spillover into CUF which itself has many benefits – ample green space (Bellevue Hill Park, Fairview Park, and tree-lined streets), a variety of restaurants and nightlife, unique cafes, beautiful houses and of course its proximity to UC, Findlay Market, Over-the-Rhine and the Central Business District. An influx in residents means more people, more cars and tougher competition for car storage in a neighborhood proudly built in an age before automobile parking was mandated by law.

It was with all of this in mind that the CUF Neighborhood Association (CUFNA) trustees formed a committee in the summer of 2010 to develop solutions to the parking problem. The committee, made up of longtime residents, landlords, students, new residents, and business owners, has worked for the past year-and-a-half to develop a plan to serve the parking needs of both residents and visitors alike.

The committee’s proposal is similar to San Francisco’s metered parking program, and calls for a market-based approach to allocating on-street spaces. It is envisioned that this will provide residents with greater certainty in parking while allowing better access for shoppers and visitors. The plan, which would ensure the constant availability of parking spaces, is projected to pay for itself and provide a substantial new source of revenue for either the City or a specific neighborhood improvement district.

The parking proposal calls for the introduction of priced monthly permits or smart-metered shorter term parking for the roughly 3,000 on-street spaces in Clifton Heights, University Heights and Fairview. The city’s Department of Transportation & Engineering (DOTE) would then be responsible for setting permit and meter prices each month to target an 85-90% occupancy rate.

The prices, advocates say, would be skewed in favor of neighborhood residents and would ensure that some spaces are always available when they are needed. Currently, residents and visitors alike can spend up to an hour circling not only on weeknights, but throughout the day as well.

Preliminary numbers indicate the revenue from permit sales alone could pay for around-the-clock enforcement while still generating a surplus of between $50,000 and $200,000 annually. San Francisco and Washington, D.C. have proven the popularity of such programs. With increasingly congested streets these cities began to set market forces on the efficient allocation of on-street vehicular parking.

Advocates of the idea say that they are still working to get the city’s support, but hope that progress can be made on the reforms sometime in 2012.

  • Aaron Watkins

    This would be a nightmare.

    • Anonymous

      Why do you think this would be a nightmare?

    • Aaron Watkins

      CUF is made up of a lot of students, and many of these students are part of UCs co-op program, often signing leases, leaving town, and subleasing places for very short periods of time. And if this plan were to pass, I would have to buy a permit every time I move, or transfer it when my sub leaser moves in? It would be an enormous hassle, and since when is parking an issue in CUF? Maybe around Calhoun or McMicken, but that is a limited area and is getting parking garages in the next year.

    •  “since when is parking an issue in CUF?”

      For the last 30 years or so?

      Maybe I want to live where you live 🙂 Near my apartment friends visiting me have to circle for up to half an hour. I’ve had people give up on parking anywhere near my house and just go home. I’m on Chickasaw BTW, and not next to Calhoun at all.

  • Jeffrey Jakucyk

    It’s an interesting concept.  I’m not sure about having so much be permit-only, but that’s all in the details.  What is important though is that the excess revenue generated by this should be returned only to these neighborhoods where it’s generated.  That’s one of the best ways to sell such a system.  The money doesn’t necessarily have to be used for transportation projects, but things like streetscaping, trees, small business incentives, or whatever would be good.

    • Anonymous

      I feel that the money from purchased passes should go to: maintenance and continued use of the pass system including street maintenance, for the next five years budget lots of money for the to improve any major flaws found in the system. Basically I feel the money should be spent to improve the efficiency of where the money came from.

    • I do think it is a good idea to use residential permit parking on densely populated urban streets like these. Often times these homes were built without any, or very little, parking and this allows for the neighborhood to retain its character while also making it appealing to those unable to go car-free.

  • Anonymous

    So do we vote? What needs to be done to either pass or reject this idea? As a resident of the area I would enjoy being able to freely use my car and not have to worry about finding a parking place. What is the price, only the costs of the pass so like 20 dollars a year?

    • There is no vote or anything on this yet. The next step is that the DOTE needs to hear the proposal and study it further. From there it would seem likely that a neighborhood vote would be needed in order to make it happen, but it just isn’t there yet. I’m sure your respective community council will keep you up to speed on that.

  • Anonymous

    I feel that the money from purchased passes should go to: maintenance and continued use of the pass system including street maintenance, for the next five years budget lots of money for the to improve any major flaws found in the system. Basically I feel the money should be spent to improve the efficiency of where the money came from.

  • Zachary Schunn

    First, as a CUF resident who attends neighborhood association meetings (though I admittedly just started) and frequently reads local news including on this site, in the Business Courier, Enquirer, Local 12, etc., I am amazed how I haven’t heard of this.

    Now, imagine how someone like me, who is actively involved in the neighborhood, feels about not getting a chance to comment on this new parking system.  Then consider how many other residents and students will feel about being shut out.  This is going to be a mess.

    What is the city going to do?  One day send a letter to CUF residents that says, “to better manage parking, we’re going to require you to buy a permit to park in front of your own house”?  Can you imagine the backlash this will cause?

    For much of the neighborhood (especially where I live on Foulke), parking is NOT a major problem for residents.  It is mainly only a problem in areas where residents don’t use the correct spaces; ie, when someone on the south side of campus has a party and suddenly there are 10 spots taken up by cars for one residence.  Further, commuters to UC often use residential parking spaces instead of paying to park in garages.  This causes the problems.

    What’s the solution?  It’s not to make people PAY for residential parking spaces, which most people feel come with a house (I know they don’t, but most people feel that way).  It’s to make UC, CHCURC, and other developers provide ample parking.  CHCURC is adding 750 spots with the new U Square development, so that should help.  But the truth is UC has grown by over 7,000 students in the last 6 years and (to my knowledge) has not added one parking space to support that growth.

    I’m not trying to make this sound rant-ish.  In fact, I would support this plan if permits to residents were free–say–limit 2 per household (with additional permits costing extra).  But to say that residents will now need to pay to park in front of their own residences because UC can’t meet their parking demand?  When long-time residents I’ve talked to largely feel that for decades UC has been slowly forcing them out of the neighborhood anyway?

    It’s just my opinion, but I see a MAJOR backlash over this once the public at large learns about it.

    • Anonymous

      Additional parking as in parking garages? That could be an option but I enjoy parking on the street that I live and personally find parking areas to be a waste of space when streets were made to hold parked cars. But I understand that as it sits now in my area on the South side of campus there is no regulation in place to determine who can park on a street and who can not. The streets are maintained by the public and are the rules are enforced by the public, not the individual home owners. I like that we have a choice whether or not to have a pass so that homeowners with out cars or those who do not care to have a pass do not have to pay for the pass. Also, there are lots of apartments in the area, landlords will be able to include parking as part of the rent.

    • Zachary Schunn


      Agree with you on many points.  But I want to add a few things:

      Parking garages are not my favorite thing either, but as long as people still drive they are the most efficient land use for parking.  I’m not talking about garages in residential areas, I’m talking about in UC’s buildings and in new apt. complexes.  It is my understanding that some of the new apartment complexes are getting variances on parking, putting the strain elsewhere.  In a perfect world, this parking wouldn’t be needed.  But it is and it should be up to the developers (including UC) to provide it.

      I’m not so much against the plan, just against the cost.  If the cost was next-to-nothing or free for residents it’d be okay.  But my fear is long-time residents will see this as a ploy by UC and developers to avoid building additional parking.

      (Business 101:  Don’t provide something for free to people, then suddenly start charging them without their input.  Case in point:  airline fees.)

      I do, admittedly, have a personal stake in this since I live on a street often ignored by CUF and the city, though we are included in the plan.  I have almost never had difficulty finding parking on my street, but now I will need a permit for not just myself but also any out-of-town visitors.  Maybe, at the least, we should only include high-demand parking areas, and, again, only if those residents are informed and give their okay to the plan.  But leave all the rarely-traveled dead-end streets like mine out of it.

      Yes, for the renters and the people without cars this plan is fine.  But, as seems to be the case in CUF, the long-time residents are ignored.  IMO.

    • Matt Jacob


      You say parking garages are the most efficient land use for parking, but you’re laboring under the assumption that we need to have as many cars as we do now. If done similarly to OSU’s system, there will be less car usage by students who don’t really need them in the first place, and services like Zipcars will fill the gap when they need to borrow one. The most efficient land use is no parking (or as little as possible) period. 

      Oh and trust me you want to be included in the permit zone, because even through there aren’t parking problems on your street now when this system happens the freeloaders will make a parking problem on your street. It’ll be well worth the $20/year. I’d definitely fight for 1-2 free permits per home, but I’m not sure this system would work without everyone contributing.  

    • Zachary Schunn

      “The most efficient land use is no parking (or as little as possible) period.”

      Totally agreed.  But I don’t think limited driving through forcing residents to pay for spots is a good idea.  What you said above about UC buses (which ARE free for students), UC/Metro program (it used to be free but UC has had trouble getting Metro to front costs for it), etc. I all agree with.  I wouldn’t be on this site if I wasn’t as pro-public transit as I am.

      But I work in the area and talk to long-time residents often, and trust me when I say they are NOT going to go for paying for parking in front of their own houses.

      “Oh and trust me you want to be included in the permit zone, because even through there aren’t parking problems on your street now when this system happens the freeloaders will make a parking problem on your street.”

      My street is extremely inaccessible to the rest of campus and CUF.  We’ve never had problems during any event… highly, highly doubt it will happen anytime soon.

    • Joseph Keller

      I live on Taylor Street which is off of foulke (zachs street)…I NEVER have trouble with parking and I’ve lived there for 5 years as a renter. I am also a UC student who walks to campus everyday. It takes 15 minutes to walk to campus everyday while going up a hill. This will not make more people park on my street. In all honesty, it looks like foulke is a dead end as it is so why would they continue onto my street. The only places around riddle that have problems with parking are at the top of the hill.

    • Why should taxpayers be subsidising thousands of “free” spaces on public streets? Why should “longtime residents” expect handouts from the City just because they’re used to them? Parking spaces are a commodity that people are consuming.

    • Zachary Schunn

      I see your point.  However, these “longtime residents” are taxpayers, too… paying property taxes and local income taxes that, among other services, go to maintain streets.  For as long as I can remember, when someone buys a property there has always been an implied assumption that they are gaining right to the parking in front of that property… almost like an implied easement.

      Now, I understand that this is meant to protect those property owners, but I am afraid the cost is going to be a deterrent to many (such as myself) who have never had trouble parking and now find they must pay for passes for themselves, visitors, etc.The more I look at this, the more I see how many different groups it will be difficult to please all at once:The UC commuters, who as students can’t afford $10/day (or whatever it is now) to park in a garage, and thus park in residential neighborhoods.UC apartment renters, who can’t find space near their apartment and thus must use a residential street.  (This is why I spoke out against developers’ variances in the area.)

      UC renters in houses, some of whom are here for 3 or 4 months at a time or move several times a year before and after co-ops.

      Longtime residents who, rightly or wrongly, feel that UC has overtaken their neighborhood.

      And visitors, who likely will need to pay to park when they get here.

      The more I fathom this plan the more I fail to see how it’s going to help any–let alone all–of these parties.

    • Trying not to be “that guy” in the comment thread, I disagree with you so much I don’t know where to start.

      This could of course be a very long and interesting conversation 🙂

    • Ian

      It’ll be impossible to please everyone at once — but the fact is, not everyone is pleased right now. There IS a parking problem in Clifton Heights, and I feel like residents should have first dibs at the spots, whereas now they have to fight with commuters and visitors. In my opinion, the commuters can park in the UC garages – that’s what they’re there for. They chose to drive 5 miles to campus instead of looking at public transit options, so they can live with the consequence of that decision. Getting the commuters off the residential streets would go a long way toward solving the problem.

    • Anonymous

      I agree with you on this: It will be impossible to please everyone.

      The people most obviously affected negatively by this change are the commuters who will no longer be receiving a “free lunch” so to speak. I have no problem with that since they contribute little to the neighborhood beyond supporting restaurants in the area. I do think this means that UC will need more parking capacity though. I believe parking passes already sell out, so if all of the commuters who park free cannot do that anymore, they will need more spots or have to stop accepting so many people living off campus. But then they need to have more dorms on campus as they are already placing students into UPA and Sterling McMillan for booking too many on-campus students. I guess the solution is build another parking garage (where?) and actually open up Scioto and Morgens Halls (which have been delayed year-after-year). Maybe more than that is required too.

      The people most likely to win are the long-time residents who are active in CUFNA. Their voices will be heard and they will most likely be coming out ahead in this scenario. If a long-time resident is not active in the community and their voice therefore never gets heard, personally I think that is their own fault.

      Will there be some people who fall in the long-time residents list who get screwed by this? Probably. You believe you will be harmed by this change and so I realize there are probably others as well.

      My brother lives in a dense area of Pittsburgh that has permitted parking. He gets one pass for living in the neighborhood and a visitors pass he can purchase every year for $10 (I think). If the CUF permit zone allowed people to buy visitors passes that could only be used from 4pm Fridays through 6am Mondays as well as weeknights, I think a lot of the problems about having friends visit would be solved.

      Does it suck you may have to spend $30/year to get a couple on-street parking passes? Yes. But I also think that is part of the price to pay for owning a car and living in a dense neighborhood. There are trade-offs for living in less dense neighborhoods and part of that is easy parking. Living in a dense neighborhood is beneficial for public transportation, but is not convenient for cars. Perhaps giving a 2 year “free period” where residents can get passes at no charge as long as they provide proof of residence would make it a little easier to transition to the change and prepare?

    • Zachary Schunn

      Nate:  Totally understand you don’t want to be “that guy.”  Actually I’m a little afraid I’ve become “that guy,” lol.
      Ryan:  I like your 2-yr free idea.  In fact, even 1-yr free would probably be enough for me to get behind it.  I might bring that up next time I’m at CUF NA.  There are people like me who are getting a little screwed, but that’s life.  Worse things have happened.

      As you say, it might force UC and others’ developers’ hands, anyway.  Which would be a good thing since the problem has largely come from the increase in UC students in the area.  I’m not trying to point the finger at UC, but I do wish they would do something more concrete about their lack of parking.

  • Matt Jacob

    Ohio State does this exact same thing and it works pretty well. They use it to ensure that the off-campus streets are used by the people living on the streets and force the commuters and university workers to park closer to the highway on west campus and take the campus bus(free) to the rest of campus. You have to prove your residence in order to get a permit by showing a utility bill or some other form and I think they are yearly, but might also be available for like 6 months. There are multiple permit letters throughout the off-campus area, so whichever one your home address falls into is the one you get and it only works for your street and the ones directly next to it. It’s been a few years but I think permit parking is only in effect during the day and after like 5 or 6pm it’s anyone’s to get. They also make you clear certain stretches during football games. 

    The permit parking allows them to pay for sweeping the streets once a month, enforcement, and I believe they also use it to supplement police patrols of the area. The biggest criticism is predatory towing practices during the 1 day of the month that everyone has to move it for sweeping and during football games. I mean these towing companies make bank off college kids who don’t responsibly move their vehicles, but it’s usually their own fault for not following the rules. 
    It definitely promotes walking and using the public transportation. COTA buses (Columbus’s bus system) is free with student ID, which is something that UC and Metro should definitely learn from if they don’t already. If you want a car so bad, pay for it; if not walk and use public transportation then rent a Zipcar when you need it. I believe this system is very progressive in the way it approaches the transportation needs of the university ecosystem. 

  • I’m a bit confused. According to the map, the majority of “public parking” is on UC’s campus. Is that currently public parking or for students and faculty only?  As some one who no longer lives in the area but who still enjoys visiting and eating in the area, this scheme looks intimidating and frustrating (just like historic Newport). I’m used to parking on side streets when grabbing a bite some place along W. McMillan or Calhoun.  Since the metered spots along McMillan are usually occupied, I guess that would leave just the nearby UC-owned lots, which look pretty small.  In short, I could see this plan hurting local businesses, especially those that aren’t quite on the main drag, have limited parking, and rely on patrons being able to find street parking (Murphy’s comes to mind, though I do see metered spaces around it’s location).

    On the other hand, this would probably force more UC commuters to buy UC parking passes (I’m afraid to ask what those cost these days–they were very pricey a decade ago), which would make life easier for residents and could even convince more commuters to move within walking distance and become residents.  Of course, then Corryville and other surrounding neighborhoods will probably follow suit to deal with the commuters fighting over the reduced number of free spaces.

    Either way, it looks to be the end of free parking for people visiting Clifton, potentially even visiting friends in Clifton. As a once poor college student who still avoids paying to park when possible, this saddens me a bit.

    Why not have more metered spaces in the residential areas, but make it so that residents can park in the metered spaces for free–sort of mixed-use?  Put a two hour limit on them, even. This would at least make unused spots available to visitors on busy nights, for a price.

    • Zachary Schunn

      I could get behind your meters idea, but I feel it could take decades for the city to recover the upfront costs of meters if residents get passes to use them for free.

    • Anonymous

      Guests are allowed to park in the UC lots. There is an hourly rate, but only cardholders are allowed entrance during busy times in many garages. Obviously having a parking pass in a garage is way cheaper than paying an hourly rate, though I am not sure what these rates are.

  • Anonymous

    I am a little skeptical about the CUF Neighborhood Association. Back in the day, CUFNA would not let students become members of the organizations, and it created bad blood between the student body and the long-time residents. This is essentially why the Heights was created, if I am not mistaken, to give students a voice in the community they reside in.I believe the rules for CUFNA have changed and they now accept new residents to participate fully (I believe you need to live in the neighborhood for 1 year and go to meetings before becoming a voting member). I also am sure there are plenty of people in CUFNA leadership that encourage student participation and embrace those residents.

    That being said, I wouldn’t put it past CUFNA to devise a permit system that works against the student residents in the neighborhood and works in strong favor of the long-time residents. Despite my skepticism about CUFNA, I do think there needs to be some sort of permit system in CUF. I have personally driven my car to campus and parked there to go to class. For two years I had to park my car on the streets south of campus because my apartment didn’t offer parking spots. So I am aware of the problems associated with parking south of campus.

    One proactive step I think CUFNA could take to gain my trust is to work with the UC Student Government and pitch the plan to them as well. I am sure that Alan Hagerty, Undergraduate Student Body President, and others in Student Government would be able to provide constructive criticism and ensure that student’s needs are met with the new plan.

  • Anonymous

    One thing that is necessary is to prohibit companies like Uptown Rentals and Gaslight Properties from just getting permits because they are the property owners, and then going around and selling them to students (either directly selling them or by “including” them in leases). Allow students living on permitted streets to apply directly for permits with a copy of the lease for their apartment. The system also needs to make the permit only applicable to a single vehicle. If the permit is a window cling, ensure that the license plate number is directly on the permit to keep people from selling them to the highest bidders. I also think it is important to allow permit holders to have access to temporary visitors passes for weekends and nights. Maybe the system should limit the number of times you can request a visitors pass each month, but there needs to be a way for students to have guests park on a permitted street.

    Maybe these are simple things that are obvious to DOTE, but I think they are also very easy things that could be taken advantage of if not addressed properly.

  • Zachary Schunn

    My apologies to Randy for kind of over-taking the comment thread here, lol, but as an uptown resident for nearly 6 years this issue is very important to me.

    I just came up with an amendment to the plan that I think would limit my own cost concerns, and ease some others’ concerns about co-ops, etc.

    Instead of tying passes on a yearly basis to particular parking spaces, why not just tie them to license plate numbers?  You buy a pass for a one-time fee (which should be low, since they can’t be too expensive to make), and you can keep it as long as you need it for your car (or until you change your license plate # for some reason).  If you sublease, you keep your pass for when you return and your sub-lessor buys their own pass.

    This gives financial incentive to those who remain in the area (which I’m sure CUF NA will like), and precedence can be given to those who show longest proof of residence (again, I’m sure CUF NA will like this).

    Anyone who buys a pass reserves the right (but not the requirement) to buy ONE visitor’s pass.

    This one-time pass idea also prevents CUF from having to send out renewal letters and make new passes every year, and thus limits some of their expenses with the program.

    I would love to see Corryville get on board, too.

    Any thoughts?

    • No worries. You all can take over any comment section you’d like as long as the feedback is this constructive and interesting. Great ideas…glad to help facilitate the conversation.

    • Anonymous

      The only thing I don’t like about this is that students could always have access to passes for life. This means if someone lives on Chickasaw for one year they can get a lifetime parking pass. They decide to go to graduate school at UC, but live far away and they keep their pass. Then they land a job in the surrounding UC neighborhood (say at Deaconess) and they continue to park on Chickasaw for free.

      To me, that doesn’t seem fair to the new residents on Chickasaw every year. This is why I think a yearly registration fee would be acceptable. A simple $20/year or so. This keeps people from parking there every day for class, and also allows the current residents the opportunity to park a lot easier.

      Imagine if a company like Uptown Rentals had a parking lot. They give residents a pass that never expires. What are the residents going to do when they leave that company? They are going to continue using the parking lot even if they have to walk a bit further from another location they would pay for.

      It doesn’t seem like a lifetime pass for long-time residents would be possible. If it is, and you can provide some way of doing this without simply putting trust in people to do the right thing, I would be all for it. I just don’t see that being possible.

    • Zachary Schunn


      I thought of that after I posted it.  It’s a very major issue, I agree, and kind of defeats the purpose.  Annual passes really do make the most sense.

      I still think administratively it makes more sense to tie the pass to a license plate, and not a particular space, as it’s going to be hard to track which space is which.  And that helps UC students that move every 3 or 4 months.  Just require that someone show proof of residence to get a pass.

      I still also don’t like the idea of forcing residents to pay for parking when it’s the “freeloaders” that have caused the issue in the first place.  But I honestly can’t think of a better solution.

      I’ve been convinced.  If the cost is minimal I could get behind it.

      Good discussion.  And thanks again to Randy for facilitating it.

    • Anonymous

      how would $20. a year for a pass  keep people from parking on Chickasaw every day for class? – cheapest parking around! 

    • Zachary Schunn

      ^You would need to be a resident to buy a permit.

  • Having lived on Victor for 10 years and now an investor, I’d be all for a permit system.  I’d also like to see stricter enforcement of street cleaning.  It’s been a joke for too long.  No cars get towed and the sweeper goes down the middle of the street.  Bureaucratic waste at its worst.

    • Street cleaning is a complete joke most of the time. And the actual street on Victor is falling apart, its like the city doesn’t recognize Victor. Almost all of the manholes have collapsed and cause huge potholes!

  • Anonymous

    I am so glad to read Tyler’s article and appreciate all that he says and even more, I love seeing all of this thoughtful dialogue from the rest of you about the issue of parking in CUF. I have been trying to work on this issue for some time, since I think there is something wrong with the system if my neighbor, who has lived in the same house in the neighborhood for 50+ years and is a second shift nurse at Christ hospital, often cannot park anywhere near her home when she returns at 11:30 pm and walks blocks and blocks from where she finally finds a place for her car. The safety issues are all to well known.
    I am  a 22 year CUF homeowner, tax paying resident. I do think those of us paying city real estate taxes ought to have some sort of “privilege” when it comes to parking one car in front of our house. I decided 10 years ago to spend $80. a month for a delapitated garage space to guarantee that i would always have a parking space  within view of my home.

    I do have trouble understanding the “need” of most UC students to have cars if they live in this area.  Very inexpensive Passes for Metro bus services and a completely free UC bearcats shuttle to help students not have to walk a maximum of 5 blocks to the campus?!  Will someone help me understand why UC students who live in CUF need cars ??? please!!!

    • Zachary Schunn

      ^I had a car to travel home on weekends (parents live in Hamilton).  If there was a good bus line or light rail up to Hamilton, I may not have kept my car.  Regardless, it sat around unused except for 2 or 3 times a month.  I know many other students who kept cars for the same reason… to travel home on breaks.

      As my graduated friends began moving away from Clifton, I started using my car more and more, and now it’s pretty much essential for my job as a real estate agent.  Really wish I didn’t need a car as much as I did, but Cincy is just waaayyy too behind on public transit for me to get away without one.

    • Anonymous

      Thanks, Zachary, this has been my intuition – that most of this “car glut” in CUF are truly unneeded except for 2 or 3 days a month – and they would disappear if the parking permits were expensive enough – and if you can afford to have a car, insurance and gas to use a car 2 or 3 days a month, a pricey parking pass won’t be a problem. It must be very hard to only use your car 2 or 3 times a month and have to move it every 14 hours, as the city code requires for cars parked on the street in non-metered locations, to avoid a parking ticket – but of course, most students don’t do that and the enforcement is abysmal… thus, the major part of the problem: unused cars filling the streets for free.

  • I live on Victor and have been for the past 2 years. I recently graduated and finding parking is a huge pain. I get home from work a little before 6PM and at that point parking is dwindling. On the weekends its near impossible. I shouldn’t have to drive 8 blocks away just to park and then have to walk. 

    I lived in Chicago for my Co-Ops and they have parking permits. Some places are resident parking only with a pass at all times on the weekdays. Other places have temporary parking, you buy a daily pass and write on there the time you parked. it lasts for 24 hours and after that it is expired and you either have to place another 1 day pass or move your car. There are no “assigned” spots, just certain streets that say “Everyone with pass B parks here”

    That system I think would work very well to weed out the people who shouldnt be parking on the streets because they commute