In today’s TAB there is a story about a proposed pilot project to lift the winter parking ban in some neighborhoods where on-premises parking is tight. As someone who lives on such a street, I am very interested in seeing if they can make this work. For the last decade I have scratched my head over the fact that there is a parking ban in effect in these neighborhoods with smaller lots (many having no driveways), even when there is no snowfall, or if the streets have been cleared adequately (which they generally are quickly in my neighborhood.
Also, currently a ticket for violating the overnight ban is a measly $5, which does not sound like a deterrent (and it’s not to me, tho I rarely defy the ban and have never been ticketed)
Highlights of the plan:
- A permit would cost $100
- The ban would still be in effect for snow emergencies (as it should be)
- Permit would be granted “to a specific vehicle at a specific site” – that does not sound much different from current parking permits, but I would like to know if there is a difference
Alan Ciccone, chair of the PublicSafety and Transportation Committee, is running in a contested race for Ward 1 Alderman vs Alison Leary. If he can help make this work, perhaps it will mitigate the confusing and troubling (to me) comment against bike lanes he made during the recent debate.
(Edited- Scott Lennon pointed out my error- Allan Ciccone, Sr is running for Ward 1 Alderman, Allan Ciccone, Jr. is the current Alderman supporting this parking proposal).
Thoughts on the winter parking ban?
A few points of correction:
Allan Ciccone, Junior is proposing this. Allan is a Ward 1 Alderman At-Large. Allan’s father Allan Ciccone, Senior is running for the Ward 1 Ward Alderman seat against Alison Leary.
Other than that, I am intrigued by the winter parking ban relief proposal and I support it.
Classic bureaucratic approach. First, the current rule of thumb for any financial transaction is the cost per transaction is between $8 and $14. Call it $10. That $10 is collecting data, processing the data, collecting payments, processing payments, processing errors/reprocessing, bounced checks/invalid credit cards, collection efforts, etc. etc. We’ve lost $5 for every $5 parking fine. And that doesn’t take into consideration that the “collecting data” part requires travel and human effort which is not the case in typical financial transactions.
So the bureaucratic approach is to turn a loss line into a profit line, admitting that the fine on a no-snow day is silly. Folks, we pay property tax, we pay fuel tax and excise tax — in theory, as Ronald Reagan might say — that’s my road and my City. Why put up with these new approaches to supplement City revenue?
I will admit I am skeptical of the $100 part of the proposal, and why that fee needs to exist versus the regular parking permit fee of $25 annually. Why not just let the existing permits for the streets included in the pilot stand?
Thanks Joshua- I made the correction -Scott Lennon, with whom I communicated about this, pointed out my error also.
By the way – Scott confirmed via Alan Ciccone JR that the pilot will include all of Ward 1. The references to Nonantum in the TAB article had me confused.
Doug Haslam — I’m sure they see the $100 as replacing the $5 pool. If they took a step back, they’d find the $5 was costing money as well as opportunity costs for the administrative team and systems so there was nothing to replace. Someone should lay out all the City fines and question whether they provide value and if they do, are they costing more than the fine. This one adds zero value, just cost
Doug, for those of us not paying attention, can you provide a link to Ciccone Sr’s confusing comment on bike lanes, or perhaps highlight it in a separate post?
Adam,
First, my comment is now out of place on this post as I got my Ciccones mixed up, so my bad there, and I don’t want to veer further off topic beyond answering your question:
The comment is in the debate seen here (at the 7:35 mark):
http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2013/09/watch-alison-learyalan-ciccone-sr-debate-right-here/#axzz2gZjtWAF7
“Making bicycle lanes gives a bicycle false security”
Only “confusing” as I fear it muddles the debate on bike safety- more to my point- while it is a good discussion point,I don’t think he is discussing current bicycle lanes vs an even safer version (separated from traffic on the other side of parked cars), but rather bicycle lanes vs no bicycle lanes- and I can’t agree with that.
Now, back to enjoying the prospect of a winter slightly freer from stress….
I think we need a new bylaw stating that if two people with the same name want to be on the same government body, one of them has to change their name in order to avoid confusion 🙂
mgwa — Could be easier if all 24 used internet names, like Ward_Smarty, TaxFan and ImaSpecialGal.
Seconded, mgwa
I think the parking ban should be completely eliminated in the entire City. The ONLY time it needs to be enacted and enforced is during a snow emergency. This ban penalizes the people who have no place to park in the tight neighborhoods like Nonantum. The police have far better things to do than ticket cars parked on the street when there is not a flake in sight. I know it raises revenue for the City but at a cost much higher than they get in return. It also encourages neighbors, especially those that don’t like each other, to rat out their neighbor that parks on the street. It also makes it difficult when a family has visitors. And then there is the problem with full time nursing or hospice care. I could go on but you get the point. End the parking ban everywhere!
If I can be contrarian … I can see the argument for doing this for houses/units built before the winter parking ban was instituted (anyone know what year that was?) that have no off-street parking. But making it generally available would only make it easier to own more cars, and encourage/reward developers who are trying to cram as many units as they can onto a given plot of land. It could also tend to drive up rents so that there will be less market-affordable housing, for example, if an apartment that comes with one parking space now can buy more parking spaces, the demand for that apartment is expanded to couples/families with two cars.
Would the winter permit be available to households with two cars who want three cars? Three cars who want four?
And it would be rather ironic if it were applied to Newtonville if the Austin Street development ends up with limited parking. The rationale for that was to attract residents who were car-less or getting by with one car per family. Opening up on-street parking year round would sort of defeat that purpose.
I lived in the Lake for years and felt NPD was pretty loose about enforcing the overnight ban when snow was not an issue. Even during snowstorms of minimal impact, they did not go hog-wild with tickets.
That being said, I think it’s silly that a City resident would have to pay $100 fee for a permit. You own a home or rent in Newton, you’re paying enough already. Paying $100 for the right to fight for parking when there’s no snow on the ground is foolish.
Good idea, somewhat.
I do, however, give kudos to City for not making these tickets their little cash cow like Brookline has… What are they up to now, $40 ticket for overnight parking?
Enough with the enforcement bureaucracy! End the ban, and only issue tickets during actual snow conditions, if and only if the cars are interfering with snow removal. Requiring permits is a nuisance, creates alot of administrative overhead to issue and keep track of permits and discriminates against out of town visitors.
Developments like Austin Street with limited parking are a stupid idea. People who commute to work (outside of the bicyclable radius) need cars, even people who regularly bicycle to work need cars for longer trips and in the wintertime. It’s just a horrible fact of physical reality that not everything is in walking distance. Some folks on the urban planning boards in newton are in denial of that. The end result of limited parking developments will be either reduced occupancy/lower rents or overflow parking on the streets. Neither is desirable.
It’s getting to the point where the city of Newton should be renamed “Nanny” instead.
This is a great idea if all the money from permits and tickets goes directly toward the snow removal budget. The snow removal budget is so unpredictable that we should roll it over every year so that we don’t strain the city budget in big snow years. We should be able to bank monies during dry winters. After a while we should be able to afford more sidewalk plows and snow melting equipment. Newton would become the safest city during the winter.
I wonder about “to a specific vehicle at a specific site.” Does this mean that our specified parking spot could be 5 blocks away? The winter parking ban has been a headache for us since we moved to West Newton 8 years ago, but I’m not convinced this seems like a real solution.