While renewing my resident parking permit online, I noticed that the City now limits residential parking permits to four per person. Not per household, per person. (Prior to this policy, a city worker told me there was no stated limit.) So at a time when the City Council has incentivized developers to maximize new multifamily housing units without requiring parking, the city allows a household of two to park up to eight cars on public streets.
Cambridge once had (still has?) a vision of reducing the number of vehicles. It expanded Blue Bike locations and created safe bike lanes by eliminating parking, which are steps in the right direction. But look at any street where new four- and six- and eight-story buildings are being built and there’s no on-street parking to spare. Even adding two cars per new household is a completely predictable disaster.
If developers aren’t required to provide parking, then the City should increase capacity for on-demand rental cars and incentivize their use, since cars sit unused 95% of the time. There’s no shortage of creative solutions the City could pursue, but permitting four cars per person isn’t one of them.
Sarah Hill, Franklin Street, Cambridge
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Great insight Sarah. If not ban multiple outright, at least jack up the price for permits 2-4…no reason to allow insanely below market price for Cambridge parking permits beyond the first one…
The limit to four residential permits was instituted in response to particular bad actors abusing the street parking system to run a car rental service. Cambridge residents have about 1 car per household on average with about 1/3 having no vehicle, about 1/2 having 1, only 2.8% having more than 2. See https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/FactsandMaps/profiles/demo_neighborhood_profile_2023.pdf. According to the open data portal, the city issued about 38,000 resident permits in 2024 vs about 48,000 total households living in the city. The residents of new large apartment buildings are likely to own fewer cars than the average Cantabrigian for various reasons. I support the city doing more to manage curb space & disincentivize car ownership. But this limit is reasonable for its intended purpose of just trying to prevent a few bad actors from abusing the system and very cars would be taken off the street by lowering it.
Enabling construction without requiring a minimum parking requirement is just going to drive up the price of an off-street spot (aka reward those property owners that have an off-street parking spot). It is already showing up in pricing.
It strikes me that by eliminating hundreds of on-street parking spaces, the city is discriminating in favor of those who own driveways or who can afford to pay parking garage fees. Might creating an artificial shortage of parking spaces be a way for developers to come after zoning restrictions on mammoth parking garages next? `
Simplex, no one is building parking garages when there are a bunch of existing parking garages sitting mostly empty.
Raising the cost of parking permits, with needs-based exemptions, is a good way to both reduce cars and traffic and help the City’s budget.
@Simpleximus there is a large percentage of Cambridge residents without a car. Want to have a car and drive? Sure. Feel free to pay for off-street parking. I on the other hand can come up with much better use for our shared public space than personal storage for heavy metal boxes that spend 95% of their time sitting in one place.
Cheap or free parking harms cities by encouraging excess driving, wasting valuable land, raising housing costs, and making streets less walkable, congested, and polluted.
It encourages more driving, congestion, and pollution.
It raises housing costs by forcing costly parking structures that get baked into rents.
It wastes valuable land that could be housing, parks, or businesses instead of asphalt.
It acts as a regressive subsidy from non‑drivers and low‑income residents to frequent drivers.
It hurts walkability and street life by prioritizing car storage over safe, pleasant public space.
As for discriminating against people without driveways, what about discriminating against people who don’t drive? Many people can’t afford cars. Making parking more available means that the most vulnerable members of our community are paying so that others can drive.