The Village of Oak Park | 123 Madison St.  Oak Park, IL 60302 | village@oak-park.us

Main menu

STAY CONNECTED

Parking Pilot Program

A comprehensive proposal for specific changes to parking rules to be tested in a designated pilot area is moving closer to a final recommendation for Village Board consideration.

The Transportation Commission presented its proposed plans at a public meeting on Mon., Jan. 29, 2018 at Brooks Middle School. Hosted by the citizen volunteers on the Transportation Commission, Village staff and consultant Dixon Resources Unlimited, the changes discussed incorporated feedback gathered since the concept of a pilot area test was first presented to the public on Nov. 9, 2017.

The Transportation Commission will meet at 7 p.m., April 23, 2018, for one final review of information before making its final recommendations to the Village Board for consideration. Residents are invited to review the April 23, 2018 presentation video below and share their comments prior to the meeting.

The goal of the pilot program is to test a range of options for simplifying and standardizing the Village’s residential parking system that could offer insights into parking issues throughout the community.

Information on the Transportation Commission, including meeting agendas and minutes, are posted on this website - just click here.

April 23, 2018 Presentation of Final Recommendations


Please limit Commenting to the April 23, 2018 final recommendations presentation...

Comments

Submitted by Tom on

I'm all for updating the current situation where I am unable to park near my house at any time during the day because there are NO restrictions on the 800 block of Scoville, while parking is restricted on every other block around me. If the village would like to make some money, have the people from out of town pay for parking and littering in front of my house while I can't park at all.

And let's do this the smart way. FIRST, institute parking regulations on the side streets to limit commuters from parking in residential areas. Give us residents and tax-payers a break. After you get the the commuters to park off of the residential streets on into regulated parking areas, THEN start charging a competitive rate for parking. Don't scare people off right away.

Submitted by Greg on

Not a lot of positive responses here. I grew up in a town where you bought a city sticker and you could park where you needed throughout the town. How about we try that?

Keep the no parking from 8-10 am but, for God's sake, if the parking enforcement person or whomever is writing the tickets sees the vehicle is licensed to the residence it's in front of have some common sense and don't write the ticket. There is something going on.

Too many of the people proposing the rules and these new rules don't live here. Do we really need to hire consultants to make Oak Park more like Chicago? Save money, no consultants, no meters, less employees, more business.

Submitted by Maggie on

Please, please do not change how Pleasant St. is already (especially from Harlem to Home). I live in a building and barely can find parking in the Y2 zone as it is. If you allow guests to park overnight on Pleasant between Harlem and Marion, that will make it impossible for residents to find parking. Also, please leave the 4-hour parking, from 9-5 as it is on Pleasant between Harlem and Maple. If you change these systems, which are already working for many of us, you’re going to make it stressful and unbelievably frustrating for all the residents who live in buildings in that area. Please don’t make it unaffordable or any more impossible for middle class people to be able to live in Oak Park.

Submitted by Marc Anthony on

Oak Park you wild and crazy town. Nay.

Submitted by Amy on

I fail to see how any of the new proposal improves parking for Oak Park residents or visitors. Back to the drawing board.

Submitted by R. Duchene on

Oak Park may welcome tourists but it is not friendly to those who live within its boundaries. The overnight ban doesn't allow guests or family members to stay late and enjoy the dinner, TV show or even the holiday. I have tried to get a sticker but find it an impossible task. Why when I pay high property taxes should I also pay to have guest come visit me. As to the extension of parking times to 8:00 PM, all this does is encourage village residents to shop and dine out in other towns where parking is not as restrictive or costly. There are plenty of times I would love to stop in a shop but don't because of the difficulty of finding a parking spot or the cost. ENOUGH!!!!!

Submitted by Mary A Earle on

No homeowner/condo owner should have to pay a dime in order to park in front of their own homes/condos. Talk to the village assessor. The property taxes are driving all but the most fortunate away from this once wonderful village.Services are already sub-par. Don't ask us to pay,again, for the privilege of living here

Submitted by Adam Freilich on

I think that the current Oak Park signs are clear enough without the need for broader parking standardization. With the new proposal there will be a two hour increase in parking meter fees, which is a hassle and a deterrent to dining in town. I could not imagine being a resident who has to park on the street full time without having a personal garage in this town. The onus of moving a vehicle to avoid parking violations will surely increase when electronic license plate monitoring begins.

Submitted by Helen Brooks on

In so many words, this pilot proposal says, "You want to live in Oak Park? Then put your money where your car sits!" Chicago residents (although their parking issues may be many) do not have to contend with paying nearly $600 per year in parking permits alone that Oak Park residents do; in addition to the rising cost of the vehicle sticker.

It is still unclear as to how this pilot "solves" any of the parking problems other than providing more revenue to the Village. Many areas in Oak Park already have parking confusion with the current signage.

Perhaps a better solution would be to invite residents of the highly affected areas to be part of the Transportation Commission and allow them to be true stakeholders of the process.

I am afraid that, with rising property taxes and rising costs just to have a vehicle in Oak Park, that only the wealthy will be able to afford to live here. Eventually, this affects the thriving diversity that Oak Park seemingly enjoys.

Submitted by Longtime South ... on

Do not change the current overnight parking rules. We want our neighborhoods to remain safe, and there is no reason the current rules won't work for all residents. I would suggest some kind of exemption to the 3-night limit for residents in a situation like Dave Miller, but that kind of thing doesn't come up that often and you can easily check the validity of such a request by looking at the building permits that the Village manages.

Submitted by YSemi on

Parking in OP is already next to impossible. I’m paying $540 a year to have the chance to be able to park in my permit zone... and I can’t about 2 times a month. These unnecessarily complicated restrictions will only make my life worse. No thanks! Make parking easier, not harder!

Submitted by Bob Stigger on

The fundamental reason for incomprehensible parking regulations is the insufficiency of on-street parking capacity in the Village to accommodate all the vehicles that folks desire to park there. The only mathematically valid solutions are to reduce the number of cars, build more streets, or create more off-street parking. Reducing the number of cars is the obvious solution but the voters won't stand for it because Oak Parkers are only "green" until it inconveniences them. More streets is a non-starter. More off-street parking is expensive and requires demolition of existing structures to create space, which the voters won't abide. Adjusting parking regulations and signage is just window-dressing which doesn't address the fundamental problem and therefore will create as many problems as it solves. In the absence of political will to address the underlying problem of too many cars in too little space, no stable solution is feasible.

Submitted by Amy Shannon on

Although the changes would improve one issue --no more fear of getting a ticket for parking in front of one's own house for a few minutes from 8-10, I fear it would create another, equally annoying problem. I am not sure why one would want to just validate all the 8-10am parking bans without review. I for one would be happy to see my street open to parking all day. I would certainly prefer that to worrying that I had over-stayed the 3 hour limit.

Submitted by Robert Larson on

Increasing the required time to feed meters from 6Pm to 8PM is a terrible idea for both restaurants and consumers. This idea is very short sighted. It will add another reason for people NOT to eat in Oak Park restaurants. The piddly extra revenue will be lost in tax revenue from the restaurants.

Submitted by Lilia Cruz on

Madison st big problem for our business, the village doesn’t care about us..
No orgaments Christmas, no plants in summer and now parking meters !!!
Please check what we need in Madison 26 years Rebozo, working so hard to bring customers. You just paid attention to Lake Ave, Marion Ave., oak Park Ave, and this is it !!! Please no meters Now help us with the construction from the hospital !!!!

Submitted by William Dieber on

Currently parking on north side of Randolph from Oak Park Ave to alley is not allowed at anytime. Your map seems to suggest some parking will be allowed. Because of traffic flow and proximity of condo building to street, the no parking status must be maintained

Submitted by Robert Larson on

Increasing the paid meter parking from 6pm to 8pm is a bad idea and I am against it. The piddly increase in revenue will be more than offset by the lose of tax revenue when the restaurants lose business due to an additional tax imposed on people eating dinner in Oak Park.

Submitted by Chris C. on

This feels like it adds complication to parking where it could otherwise be avoided.

Standardizing time limits helps, but those already paying for a 24 hr. permit for the city, shouldn't keep paying for parking in their own small village for non-overnight periods.

Having parking follow someone while they are in the village (pay for 3 hours, doesn't matter where you are) is beneficial to reducing the nickel dime effect some may feel when making multiple stops, similar to what Chicago did.

New signs can help reduce confusion but once we add the zone information, then what are we really reducing? A single sign? I don't see how on my street, it improves anything. Visually it assists to some degree.

Additionally, rules such as having to park in a guest spot instead of your permit area, when you have a rental when your primary car is in service, takes away from guests and lowers parking inventory which is counter-productive to the intent of the city to properly manage available parking inventory.

Submitted by Bonnie on

Extending the parking meters to 8pm instead of 6pm is a terrible idea. I will no longer be interested in going to dinner in downtown Oak Park or continuing my membership at a downtown Oak Park gym if I am forced to pay the meters every time I want to take advantage of one of these facilities after work. Our taxes are already astronomically high. Figure out how to use tax dollars more wisely instead of soaking residents with yet more unreasonable costs to live here.

Submitted by Allan Bernstein on

Why are you doing this to OP residents. You are making things more complicated not simplifying anything. Repeated complaints to the
Village about employee parking on the 500 block of North Humphrey have been largely ignored by the village. The parking on the block is being taken by businesses on Chicago Ave. Stop making things worse and preventing residents, guests, contractors etc are being inconvenienced at best. The answer to our problems are resident only parking which could be simply by sticker or guest pass. Why reinvent the wheel. Keep it simple!

Submitted by Sarah W. on

There is nothing in this proposal that I actively support and MUCH that I don't like, including extending metered parking time until 8 p.m. and the other ways that this proposal increases the expense and hassle of parking around the Village. But I am most vehemently opposed to allowing commuters to park longer on residential streets and to the de-facto end to the overnight parking ban. This will fundamentally change the character of residential streets in Oak Park. The other commenters have it right-- if we wanted to live in Chicago or Berwyn, we would. Instead, we choose to live here. Listen to what the taxpayers of Oak Park are saying about this proposal's many shortcomings and do not implement a plan that will change Oak Park for the worse.

Submitted by Ann Goddeyne on

It is already impossible to park in the village Every lot is taken away Now you want to make it harder for guests to park when they visit Parking is expensive We are not Chicago and live in Oak Park because we chose to live in a village not in a congested suburb where we can drive and park in our village I will shop elsewhere

Submitted by Marge Greenwald on

Do not increase meter parking from 6 to 8 pm. You will drive even more business away from our restaurants. As is many prefer to go elsewhere for lunch. It is essential that we do not undermine our restaurants at dinner.

Submitted by Dave on

I for one will have little interest in coming downtown upon the extension of pay for parking hours. This will result in lost business and ultimately lost revenue for the Village.

Submitted by leesa on

It is a challenge to coordinate so many different wants and needs within one village, but I for one appreciate the overnight parking bans and think the quieter night streets and ability to not deal with car alarms and closing doors etc. all night is one of the reason many choose the suburbs over the city. While I have sympathy for apartment dwellers and condo owners who lack many spaces per unit, I think it is inherent on renters or condo buyers to figure out the parking situation and whether or not it meets their needs before signing a lease or purchase contract. When I lived in Chicago, I saved money on rent by renting an apt with no parking. When i needed a car, I ponied up $250 a month to park 6 blocks from my home. It was not the city's worry that I was a young female walking 6 blocks at night. For my next apartment, I paid more in rent to find a space with parking. Condos in the city typically command a $30,000+ premium per parking space. No one owes people who choose to choose to own a car (or cars) free parking in another location when their building does not provide parking. Oak Park is a suburb. People move here and buy here because it is a suburb. Quit trying to make it into the city. When a new high rise or condo building goes up, there should be more than one parking space per unit.

Submitted by Carla on

Because of the overnight parking ban, I had to wait 7 months after moving to Oak Park to bring my vehicle to this village. In that 7 months, I had to wait for the privilege to pay for a lot spot to open up near my apartment. For 7 months, I had to take the L to work downtown at night, because I didn’t have my car, and almost got mugged twice. All because the rules of this village, where I live and pay taxes, wouldn’t let me have my car.

Why does this village, which currently has an apartment and condo boom, not let people park overnight on the street? If you pay $70/year to register your vehicle with Oak Park, you should be able to legally park overnight on the street.

Again, this issue is a self-inflicted wound that makes it hard to have a car in a suburb.

As an aside, citizens call the quarterly fight for parking permits “The Hunger Games” because it pits neighbors against neighbors for the privilege of being able to park near their home — when they should be able to just park on the street. It’s embarrasing and I have personally talked two friends out of moving to Oak Park because of the obsurdity of the overnight parking ban.

Submitted by Melody Robinson on

This new proposal is very confusing and I think to have to pay pass 6pm is nuts. This is way to confusing and unnecessary for Iak Park residents and business owners. Moving after three hours or being charged three dollars per hour instead of the usual one dollar. Sounds like this is all about money. And not the convince of Oak Park residents at all. This proposal is way to complicated and not really far to Oak Parker’s.

Submitted by Meg K on

No for the parking pilot!

In regards to the changes in permitted overnight parking I strongly disagree. The current restrictions in our Z6 zone is 9pm to 10am. Even with that restriction we find ourselves not able to always get a space because other people are parked in the permitted spaces. We usually get home between 9 and 10 pm (note after the current restrictions). This change will make it impossible for us to ever park near our building in the permit area that we pay for. If the proposed open parking form 8pm-2:30am on permitted spaces goes through that will have huge negative consequences for myself and most of my neighbors. There simply needs to be stricter enforcement seeing as there are the same 4-5 cars that park in this permit zone every night of the week with apparently little consequence. Those tickets alone would make up the new proposed 6-8pm revenue.

Submitted by tom on

Congratulations Oak Park! You've outdone yourself. I thought
the parking situation couldn't possibly get worse but, it has. I know we live close to Chicago but do you have to emulate their mayor in myriad ways to not only restrict parking but, where it is allowed, to put the squeeze on its residents? We already can't park in front of our own houses without fees, stickers, passes or risk being ambushed with fines. Again , congratulations parking committee "geniuses". Your work has to be voluntary as I can't believe your getting paid for coming up with this ragtag plan.

Submitted by Barb on

This proposal is way too complicated and could easily be made less so as well as not making it more costly for residents who already pay plenty enough in taxes.
Residents should not have to buy a permit to park in front of their own homes and should be exempt from the 3 hour limit. The new technology should be able to identify the plate number as belonging on that block once the village sticker is purchased. Nor should there be a charge for overnight parking for residents when needed.
As for guest passes, residents should be able to purchase for a reasonable fee, a pass to be used multiple times for persons either working or visiting. Having multiple paper passes is a waste of everyone's time. For extended stay guests those plate numbers can be registered with the village in addition to showing a guest pass.
For long term caregivers and Nannies, those plate numbers could also be temporarily registered to that address with documentation from the home owner. No fee should be over $50 one time for any of the above passes
I disagree with extending the meter parking to 8pm. And lastly, the process for appealing a ticket in the village is a nightmare and rarely worth even trying.

Submitted by Liz on

So this means that overnight, unlimited parking might come to OP? With a permit/pass, any street can be parked on?
I strongly disagree with this. It leads to crowded, dirty streets (even with the occasional street cleaning). My job takes my to various Chicago neighborhoods where cars are always parked on the street. It has a very different (and worse) feel than OP has now.

Submitted by Fay on

Currently my neighbors and I pay $135.00 per quarter for overnight parking passes (135 x 4 =$540..) almost $600.00 a year to park on the street near our homes where we pay property taxes. It is not only uncovered street parking, but it is not even designated parking, which means if we are relegated to park on the side streets we have to pay an additional $7.00 per incident after the first 3 times we do so. This is an exorbitant, unnecessary expense for homeowners and it is an added hinderance to living in Oak Park. I discourage anyone who ask about living in Oak Park. I highlight the peacefulness and stress the ridiculous encumbrance that parking is for all who reside here.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Like
*Permit/Passe Matrix. 30-day Free parking per plate/year.
*Pay by plate e-pay system.
*standardized parking times.

Serious Concern
• Pay Dynamic Pricing parking rate increases after 3 hrs.
o Why would we want to limit the time somebody spends in OP?
o This approach is cost prohibited, low-income persons which include, seniors, single mothers, people of color, etc.
• Two senior and assistant living locations will be affected.
o This might have a negative impact on the amount of time people have visitors, which is crucial in reducing isolation and improving quality of life.
o The new cost might also affect how much and how often somebody may get visitors.
• Parking structures are not readily available nor conveniently accessible in some areas.
o The ones I am aware of are 1 mile away on Lake & Marion north of the pilot area.
o I would like a map with all the parking structures in the proposed area.
• Not everyone has a smartphone. How will these nice people pay by plate?
• This might deter low-income person from coming to Oak Park.

Need Clarification
• On-street Parking: what happens from 6 am – 8 am?
• What is the estimated revenue?
• How will revenue be allocated?
• Why are the proposed change only affect South of South Blvd. to Harrison? I believe these are the areas that have the most apartments and lower-income residents.

Recommendations
• Do not use Pay Dynamic Pricing
• If you want people to use public garages, consider giving them an incentive and make it truly convenient. I know there are at least three parking structures on Lake and two parking lots on Marion North of South Blvd. which are about 1 mile away, this is not convenient. I do concede that I may be unaware of other parking structures within the pilot area.
• Update PDF with a clear and legible copy.

Submitted by YR on

This proposal needs some work! I have listed what I like, things I am seriously concerned about, areas that need clarification and recommendations.

Like
Permit/Passes Matrix
30-day Free parking per plate/year.
Pay by plate e-pay system.
standardized parking times.

Serious Concern
Pay Dynamic Pricing parking rate increases after 3 hrs.
Why would we want to limit the time somebody spends in OP?
This approach is cost prohibited, low-income persons which include, seniors, single mothers, people of color, etc.
Two senior and assistant living locations will be affected.
This might have a negative impact on the amount of time people have visitors, which is crucial in reducing isolation and improving quality of life.
New cost might also affect how much and how often somebody may get visitors.
Parking structures are not readily available nor conveniently accessible in some areas.
The ones I am aware of are 1 mile away on Lake & Marion north of the pilot area.
I would like a map with all the parking structures in the proposed area.
Not everyone has a smartphone. How will these nice people pay by plate?
This might deter low income person from coming to Oak Park.

Need Clarification
On-street Parking: what happens from 6 am – 8 am?
What is the estimated revenue?
How will revenue be allocated?
Why are the proposed change only affect South of South Blvd. to Harrison? I believe these are the areas that have the most apartments and lower-income residents.

Recommendations
Do not use Pay Dynamic Pricing
If you want people to use public garages, consider giving them an incentive and make it truly convenient. I know there are at least three parking structures on Lake and two parking lots on Marion North of South Blvd. which are about 1 mile away, this is not convenient. I do concede that I may be unaware of other parking structures within the pilot area.
Update PDF with a clear and legible copy.

Submitted by Concerned Oak P... on

Please give an executive summary of all the proposed changes in bullet point format. These changes are numerous and we need a clear explanation about each of the changes. Thank you.

Submitted by Roger French on

I cannot see how this proposed achieves any of the stated goals. It is still much too complex. We need a complete rethinking, not a list of minor tweaks. And, we need to dramatically reduce costs and fees. Thank you.

Submitted by Lynn G on

The diagrams were unreadable even on my large screen laptop; the colors of the streets could not even be deciphered. Answer me these 2 questions: I would like to have guests try to park near my condo on Oak Park ave and Washington for a dinner party. Where and for how long can they park on each evening of the week? My family member from out of town needs to park near my home for a week. What do I need to arrange to help them do this and where do they put their car and how many times a day must they move it elsewhere? It is a nightmare to decipher the answers to these 2 basic questions after listening to this presentation.

Additionally say no to extending parking fees to 8 PM in metered areas! Restaurants and businesses need out of town customers to not choose other towns to frequent and in town residents need to be given a break on the constant parking expenses to simply eat or shop locally in the evening . I am also opposed to metered parking on Madison. For heaven sake, this new plan does nothing for me other than wring out more money from my empty pockets to simply reside here.

Submitted by Barry Jung on

Permits are a way to regulate and organize parking -- they should not be a disguised tax. The permit fees should only reflect the cost to administer the program and yet they have increased dramatically over the years -- way out of line with the inflation index. $540/year is a tax not a fee. Reduce the fees as part of this revision and include a discount for seniors 65+ as you currently do with village car stickers.

Submitted by Tom CLINTON STREET on

Hi,

I understood what the village wants to do to Madison street!

I couldn't read the grid very well. or was that to make a decision by the residents more difficult???

Are they going to turn our street and others like it from 8 to 8 like Madison street?

I am Strongly Against the VILLAGE SELLING OUT OUR AMENITIES (RESIDENTIAL Street PARKING).

I can't imagine why the VILLAGE feels they can change parking on residential streets that have been in place for about a 100 years or for at least the 63 yrs I have lived on them.

Is $16,000.00 not enough for OAK PARK TAX and heading HIGHER since 1978 that I have been an owner.

The village thinks the residents are ignorant so why not!

Next they are going to charge our children to ride their bikes on the front sidewalks!

Submitted by Jerry Capozzoli on

HI all, I live on one of those streets and think the 8-10 rule is fine I dont want to have my mother in law have to pay every time she visits this is crazy. It's a residential street and it is already an inconvenience having to wait till 10 am to park in front of my home and what you are proposing Permitted Parking is just another way the city wants to charge its tax paying residents for parking on streets near bus/train stops. Stop reaching into our pockets!!!! If you want to fix something eliminate parking on Garfield because its a hazard everytime I come out of my alley with cars parked up and down that street - serious blind spot. If you can't eliminate the parking on garfield at least make it a one way street. Another big issue is all the left hand turners from Garfield to Oak Park Ave its a serious congestion problem, Maybe if its a one way then you could have both lanes to create a left hand turn lane onto Oak Park Avenue and East from Garfield. Look for ways to improve traffic flow and stop looking for ways to reach into our pockets we get enough of that from district 97 and 200

Submitted by South Oak Parker on

Yes! I've seen far too many accidents pulling out from the Alley onto Garfield. Also agreed with making Garfield one way (and Harrison could be one way, which frankly could open up much more parking on that street, there could be angled parking on one side vs parallel, more cars would fit).

Submitted by Jerry on

I think this is just wrong keep it where it is at I have no issues finding parking in OP metered parking from 8-6 is perfect that is regular business hours this is only for the city to capitalize on people eating out in OP after 6pm

Submitted by S Grove on

It seems as though the comments above radically oppose the parking pilot and this is an obvious no brainer for the transportation committee not to move forward with the pilot. I agree with everything above - don't open zone parking for commuters, if you rent / buy with limited parking, know what you're getting in to before signing, don't raise the meter parking to 8 pm, give us guest passes for guests and workers (don't make this so difficult).

Submitted by South Oak Parker on

I live south of 290 and noticed we would not be included in the "pilot" program. Thankfully. Because we actually do not have an issue with daytime parking being a problem on our street. The issue we suffer from is cars being allowed to park on Garfield blocking visibility when exiting the alley. There have been many accidents, I'm surprised that has not been addressed. But these proposed rules are not only confusing but also frankly a slap in the face to everyone in OP already being hit with massive tax increases. It's like a tax to park in front of my own home. Honestly, there's really no justification for morning parking restrictions in South OP. It's very frustrating, in fact. With our taxes and parking stickers this is ridiculous. Would we be getting meters on our street?! What we do need is a solution to problems parking near businesses (and esp those businesses near residential, such as Pleasant near Marion). You are pricing everyone out of Oak Park. I recently discovered a tax bill from three years ago that was about $1,000 lower (for half the year, and that with winning appeals). The rate of tax increases and now the proposed parking money-grabbing is far more steep than anyone's raises, if they even are getting any...plus we all have to deal with health insurance costs rising. I suggest widening streets where possible (Madison?) and making angled parking rather than parallel, you'll double the capacity. And how about building garages. As hard as it is to park in Forest Park it's still easier and cheaper than Oak Park so that's where we shop and dine.

Submitted by Tiffany Martinelli on

I live on a block with no parking 8-10am and this already causes me enough grief with guests, caregivers and workers- now I can't have anyone visiting or my own car in front of my house for more than three hours?? That's not right- I understand the need to try to reduce commuters parking but there should be an allowance for those of us living here!! I also do not agree with increasing the meter time to 8pm- will most definitely cause a decrease in business downtown in the evening.

Submitted by Desseree on

This is crazy, why can't you leave the parking the way that it is? There is so many things that is wrong with the Pilot parking. Why are you extending the time from 6 to 8 pm, it doesn't make since I know more money in your pocket. Here is another outrageous plan to have cars move once a week to the south side of the street. Does anyone how the are going to get all of those cars on one side and on top of the that you extended the time. This is ridiculous, when it comes to cleaning the leaves of the street, which takes up more parking space, because it take forever before someone comes to remove them. The have already eliminate 2 blocks on both side of parking on Washington need Marion for a street light, when they could have put a four way stop sign that lights up when pedestrian need to cross, but that was to simple. Now you are going have open parking until 2 a.m. so the visitor to park. Well i guest the resident don't count. I already park two blocks away I guess I will be parking four blocks or more. I can't even park in front of my apt building any because the the new street light. Thanks Oak Park what a way to treat the residents that live in Oak Park. Yet every year the parking permits go up more and more but I can't even park in front of my apartment. WOW

Submitted by Toni on

This is too confusing. This is a ridiculous proposal for residents in Oak Park. Oak Park needs to look at the parking situation and provide more parking for residents and guess without being charge extra to park in the village. Taxes are high enough. Rent is high too. Don't need to pay more money for additional restrictions. MY VOTE IS NO ON PARKING PILOT PROGRAM!

Submitted by Stevan on

The 8am-10am restriction on 700-800 S Grove works well. We have managed to avoid tickets during the past few years. Change it to 3 hr parking and we will be paying tickets yet again - and so will people visiting us. Yet again, we will be swearing at No Park, IL.

After 6pm free parking also works. Doing away with that is simply mean-spirited.

Submitted by Mark on

I totally agree with the comment from S. Grove above. The parking pilot program should be scrapped given my perception of lack of community support, the many problems outlined in comments above, and the complexity of the proposal. The presentation of the pilot I viewed had unreadable text and the map was of a really bad quality. Would like to see the video include the perceived need and how the proposal addresses the need. Save the current policies of "no on street overnight parking" for residential areas with the feature of buying affordable overnight passes for guests. The current policy works just fine for residential and it is critical for controlling overnight parking, maintenance and snow removal.

Submitted by Kathleen on

I am opposed to virtually every aspect of this pilot. The terms are confusing, and make parking in this Village even more costly and inconvenient for both visitors and residents. And the fact that I, or my guests, would be restricted from parking in front of my home during the day is unacceptable. I also believe this proposal would further damage Oak Park businesses.

Pages