As many of you know, I’ve long been a proponent of market-pricing currently underpriced public assets. As one example, the demand for prime parking spots in Newton Centre (and other villages) indicates that the meter fees are too damn low. Raise the rates to the point where there is about 85% occupancy and all sorts of good things flow: higher turnover, less congestion, &c.
But, the flip side is also true. Public assets can be priced too high, which is what we’re seeing at the MBTA lots in West Newton and Auburndale now that the MBTA has imposed a $4 fee. The occupancy rates are ridiculously low. As a result, the T isn’t making any money. And, empty parking lots serve no useful function.
The key, though, is that there is nothing inherently wrong about a $4 rate for parking convenient to the commuter rail in areas where prime parking is not abundant. (One only slightly misguided observer thought $10 per day might be right in West Newton.) There is a market for parking in West Newton and Auburndale. The problem for the MBTA is that in both places, there is much cheaper parking than $4 that is still within reasonable walking distance of the stops (one stretches to call them stations). To guide commuters back to the pay lots, the answer isn’t to lower the rate on the lots. Instead, the city needs to better manage the market for parking, with higher rates — at least for long-term parking — and restrictions on long-term parking where pay parking just doesn’t make sense.
On a separate note, the fact that the Washington St. lot in West Newton is owned by the T shouldn’t restrict its use to long-term parking. There is plenty of short-term parking demand there and properly priced meters would generate much more than $4 per day per space.
@Sean – When you refer to “prime parking spots” in Newton Centre are you including the big lot between Langley and Beacon or are you referring to the street parking directly in front of shops on Centre, Beacon, Langley, etc? I regularly park in the lot during the day time for short term parking (under 1 hour) and except during holiday season I would estimate the late morning/early afternoon capacity in the area of no more than 70%. On the other hand, the on-street spots which are short term (1 hour maximum) are typically filled up. You do, of course, realize that people occupying the short term spots are subject to over limit ticketing if they exceed that one hour even if they continue putting money into the meter, and the parking enforcement officers are quite adept at catching up with folks who overstay their welcome.
Sean, I think you’re toying with us a bit on this one. Short term parking benefits business in that it generates a turnover in the area and thus increases customer traffic. Price a parking space too high such that you have 85% occupancy, you have discouraged 15% of the potential customer-base. Further, some businesses thrive on 50 cent and 3 dollar profits. Items priced low like pizza and coffee aren’t going to sell well if the price of parking is high. Further you have two other impacts: (1) avoidance of the fee which will bring cars further away, parking in front of homes, or those like me that will roll the dice and risk a ticket in a calculated cost gamble and (2) the community impact of raising costs for those that can least afford it. The impact that some would be delighted to see , i.e., less gas consumed through more alternative transportation, might happen but only at the cost of what I mentioned
Great to see you back, love your posts. Bring Chuck back!
Sean, Maybe you can pull some revenue by pricing increments of parking higher for time periods greater than 45 minutes? Meaning the price is n cents for each increment up to 45 minutes then 50% higher for increments greater than 45 minutes?
When the price for parking jumped to $4 at the Auburndale stop, the lot emptied out, and all those people parked on Central Street over the bridge and surrounding streets in front of homes and businesses. The employees of one business in particular can no longer park where they have for years. They have just as much right to park there considering they work in the building, the business owner pays the city in taxes the right have the business there, and now it has been hugely disrupted by people looking to avoid paying $4 a day. (Instead of walking, they’re still driving their cars, just walking 200 feet further). And yes, it is personal when my wife can no longer find a place to park so I’m left driving every single day spending $10 in gas to drop her off. So yes, it is personal. Big surprise – raise the price and you get less people participating. I say lower the price and get these people off our streets.
I no longer shop in West Newton Square (Sorry Mike, Gary, Joanne, Ken,). I would only run into those places for ten minutes at MOST, always fed the meter with my handy quarters and the over aggressive ticketing cost me over $200 last year. Believe me, I was trying! But as one owner told me, they are really aggressive there. One minute over and you’re tagged. Forget it. I’ll stay home.
For the full picture on parking and why Sean continues to talk about “market pricing,” what that means and how it might apply to Newton, come to the League of Women Voters’ Forum, May 17, 7pm at the Library.
Jason Schrieber of Nelson/Nygaard will give the over view–he’s a professional parking planner who has worked on plans to increase business vitality and reduce municipal needs for parking structures in such places as Needham, Salem, and out of state.
Candace Havens, Newton’s Planning Director and a former parking manager in California, will talk about Newton’s parking regulations and how various experiments have worked so far in Newton.
And Matt Cuddy, a parking maven in his own right, will talk about the parking recommendations of the Transportation Advisory Committee, which the mayor adopted in January, 2012.
details at http://www.lwvnewton.org