Let me begin by saying I was never opposed to the idea of eliminating parking along Walnut Street in Newton Highlands. I just wanted the decision to be made wisely.
But if the data presented to analyze this decision is indicative of the way we are making parking policy decisions in Newton then wisdom is being shortchanged.
For starters, take a look at slides #8 #9 #10 and #11 from the presentation given to the Traffic Council prior to its 4-1 vote to permanently end Walnut Street parking between Beacon Street (near Whole Foods) and Forest Street (near the fountain)
In particular, on slide #8 (reproduced here) you’ll see that overwhelmingly respondents in a city-conducted survey said they park on Walnut Street and then hop aboard the MBTA Green Line. Only a small fraction of the Walnut Street parkers were residents. Zero percent worked in the Newton Highlands.
Now take a look at side #7. (below). This slide indicates that this survey was conducted by placing a flyer on the windshield of more than 40 cars that were parked along Walnut before the parking was restricted. From there, recipients were asked to go online and complete a survey (data from which was used to complete the charts on next four sides).
A
nd how many people completed this survey?
Ten.
Really?
Ten respondents?
That’s all?
Really?
Ten?
Now I’m not a psychometrician but I know that, statistically speaking, there is no way that the results of a sample of ten people (in an online survey no less — how do we know one person didn’t vote ten times?) should have ever seen the light of day in this presentation (let alone take up 5 of 17 slides). It’s just not large enough.
Let’s hope that’s not what convinced two of the council members who voted yes to approve this decision. And let’s hope that’s not the method being used to make other important decisions.
Look around the city. Parking regulations are confusing at best. Try getting though West Newton Square without hitting 4 traffic signals. Why are the traffic signals not coordinated on major north/south arteries in the city? There’s a weak link in the city department that oversees these decisions. Everyone defers this person despite his continued over reliance on very poor and often inaccurate data.
I happen to like Walnut w/o the parking but don’t have a personal investment.
Much more compelling were the slides showing the huge increase in bicycling and the corresponding decrease in crashes. Plus, road speeds for cars did not increase significantly. These studies were done with those in-road ropes, and the data was cited by several people in the audience.
@ jane, the issue is that it’s NOT one person, or one department. Until this year, decisions about parking, signal location, roadway design and such have been scattered throughout city departments, and parking was overwhelmingly the concern of the 24 Aldermen.
@ad: I’m all for the benefits to bikers and reassured about the traffic speeds.
But as a member of the Newton Highlands Area Council who voted in support of testing a parking ban on Walnut Street provided that the city first did a study to find out who the drivers were that were using those spaces, I’m very disappointed.
As someone who has come to admire our city’s increased focus on making data-driven decisions, I’m pretty disillusioned to think the someone thought a 10-person sample was even worth discussing.
“Now I’m not a psychometrician but I know that, statistically speaking, there is no way that the results of a sample of ten people (in an online survey no less — how do we know one person didn’t vote ten times?) should have ever seen the light of day in this presentation (let alone take up 5 of 17 slides). It’s just not large enough.”
I am a statistician and I completely agree. Not only is the number too low, it’s also a low proportion of the number who were given flyers. This leads to a biased sample – those who care the most are most likely to reply.
It would have been best, if possible, to have someone stationed on Walnut St. on a couple of mornings, approaching parkers and asking them a few questions.
Thank you for sharing the slides, Greg. I missed the first part of the meeting. I agree. The survey was informal, to say the least. Perhaps the outcome was not considered important enough in the decision to invest further resources. It’s a small population to begin with, and they apparently got a 25% response rate (with as much data integrity as on-line blog polls!) Still, I would bet the survey reaches the right conclusion. Does anyone think it’s wrong?
Why people park on Walnut Street has little to do with the safety of Walnut Street. In this item, the traffic council wasn’t out to architect a complete parking solution for Newton Highlands; it was looking to make the arterial road safe. No matter why the street is lined with cars, I heard consensus that the old conditions were unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. In addition to testimony, I see data that supports that in the number of crashes, and I see data that shows reduced crashes and an increase in cycling activity with the parking ban. If displacing parking created large-scale problems elsewhere, it should have become evident by this trial, right?
Give me a break Greg. That 10 person response represents everyone who had a flyer on their window. You know it. I know it.
Sorry, Ad, but I’ve been there, done that. One person with a big fat book full of a lot of regulations that do not pertain to our community has been at the center of many of these parking/traffic issues. Maybe the city departments drag him out to make their case, but he’s more than willing to do so.
BTW, we’re probably on the same side of the issue. Parking on our main arteries is very unsafe for everyone. These roads weren’t built to handle 2012 traffic/biking/parking.
Jane, Traffic Council very recently discussed West Newton Square and work is scheduled to begin soon. The traffic engineer explained that most the sensors on signals in West Newton Square are broken, among other things. See the presentation on TC37-11. Retiming and repairing these signals is apparently not a trivial task. The city was short on staff until a few years ago and has a lot of catching up to do.
Which regulations do you think do not pertain to our community?
I’m not a statistician, but a 25% response rate strikes me as pretty good.
What the survey does is confirm what previous analyses has shown: Walnut St. has been used almost exclusively for commuter parking. Not by people who patronize the stores. Not, surprisingly, by the folks who work in the stores. This was not the first public meeting on this topic.
With a handful of exceptions, the neighborhood recognizes the street is safer. The speed and crash data look good. Based on reams of data worldwide, speeds will likely go down a bit when travel lanes are narrowed and bike lanes are striped. There is no evidence that the parking ban has had a negative impact on businesses or their employees. There is likely going to be some migration of parking to the side streets. There has been a surfeit of opportunity for public comment (and maybe more if the Traffic Council decision is appealed).
To call this an unwise decision is, frankly, unfair to the folks involved and based, ironically enough, on insufficient data.
Sean and Adam: Twenty-five percent response is fine if you have a large sample. But no way 10 respondents is any kind of sample. Heck it’s not even an aldermen quorum. And yes Adam, I write this knowing full well how inaccurate web polls are. Ten respondents: It’s a joke. (I take those polls down).
I get it, for you guys, the end justifies the means.
For me, the city shirked its responsibility and then tried to pretend otherwise.
Why does it matter?
It matters to me because we have lost a one time opportunity to collect information that we no longer have access to.
Merchants in Newton Highlands say foot traffic is down. Many “assume” that has to do with the closing of Bakers’ Best. But were the folks parking along Walnut also visiting Highlands businesses and is this also contributing to a decline in visitors to Highlands businesses?
We can guess. But we shouldn’t have had to guess. We could have known.
Again, maybe we would have known this and still decided to eliminate parking.
But we could have known. Now we can’t.
One more thing. Sean writes…
How do you know that commuters aren’t patronizing stores? How do you know that they’re not using the bank? Stopping at Lincoln Street Coffee on their way to work and at O’Haras after? How do you know they’re not getting their haircut? Nails done? Taking advantage of the unique wine selection at Walnut Market? Picking out eyeglasses? Going to the chiropractor?
Whoops…. we could have known. In fact we could have added such a question to the survey. But now we can’t.
I don’t know if you can say a 25% response rate. It states >40 were placed on windshields. 50 is greater than 40 but so is 100 and which could mean it was 20%, 10% or even less. And there is no guarantee that the respondents were actual the parkers and not the residents who live there and found these on their lawn. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what the city was aiming at when asking the question. Who knows, maybe Sean responded 10 times. 🙂 Just kidding…
Another questions come to mind: When were these flyers put out? At 10 AM I would think there would be more people parking there who are using the train. At 8 PM, I would think that more people could repond as being residents.
The “data” from this is completely useless and means absolutely nothing. It is very disappointing that this counted for 30% of the information presented to make a decision.
Personally, I don’t care if there is parking there or not. As someone who often drives down Walnut and turns left onto Hyde, I am concerned with the speed in which other drivers pass me on the right while I am waiting to turn. Speeds in general have increased with the removal of parking. Hopefully with a marked bike lane, drivers will be more aware of speeds but I am not holding my breath.
Greg, if you or someone at NHNAC had communications with someone at the city and were promised a certain type of survey, that’s between you and said official. If this came up at traffic council at the previous meeting and they promised to do a particular type of survey, but did not, you’d be entitled to be angry. Just because you wrote a letter doesn’t make it so. Also, if you listen to the audio, you’ll hear a bit about someone doing observations in person and counting how many plates were from Newton (the audio isn’t clear) Probably still not what you wanted.
You’re concerned about something other than safety on Walnut Street — the health of the business district. I don’t mean to trivialize this, but I don’t think the burden is on traffic council to show that the parking several blocks away is definitely unrelated to commercial activity in the center, either directly or indirectly. Did the NHNAC deliver on its business parking survey? What were the results? It did not seem to be part of the TC discussion.
Greg, that’s an unfair characterization of what I said, don’t you think? You’re focused on one facet of this issue. There are many others. (Trying to be nice here… did I question your sincerity? Can we disagree without being flip?)
Actually Adam, no disrespect was intended, but it’s easy to lose site of what’s fair when it favors your outcome. For example, that was a pretty dubious call that resulted in Lebron James fouling out during game 4 Sunday but it didn’t trouble me too much, given that it helped me achieve what I wanted.
Yes, the NHNAC was very specific in requesting data and I’m disappointed that didn’t happen. But I’m stunned that such a clearly insufficient study was presented by the city to help the traffic council make its decision (5 of the 17 slides…and several of the other 12 slides were just photos). More than this specific event, I worry that such faulty data analysis might be employed in other matters.
Anyway, off to watch game 5. Let’s hope James fouls out again, no matter what the data says.
I go to that area all the time. Rarely do I have a problem finding parking that isn’t a few blocks away. Those spots on Walnut were almost always gone by 9 am. Commuter spots. Free commuter spots.
As someone who commutes, I rarely use the surrounding businesses (except for an occasional coffee).
You don’t see any free commuter spots in most villages. Why are we protecting the ones in Newton Highlands Greg?
Put in the bike lanes. Try something new.
Greg,
You’re latching onto just one piece of a much larger puzzle. It would be good criticism if were not accompanied by the rhetorical flourishes. Credit the city for going beyond the normal course of business to try and understand the problem. And, press city staff to improve the next time around.
I don’t know if it’s your intention, but you’re falling into a complaint that is quite common with people who don’t like change in the city: the process wasn’t good enough. The process is never going to be “good enough.” We’re dealing with human beings, human beings with a lot of demands on their time. Has the data collection and process been commensurate with the scale of the project? Absolutely. We’re talking about a relatively short stretch of roadway that has been studied and discussed to death. Could it have been better? Sure.
How do we know that commuters aren’t spending time and money in Newtonville after their commute? Because that’s not what park-and-riders do. More importantly, if there had been a concern that removing that parking would have a negative impact on business, you can bet your sweet something that the businesses would have been motivated to collect data and protect the parking. You know why they didn’t? Because businesses know their patrons and how and where they park.
I don’t mind if you want to give me the business, I ask for it. But, you owe Adam an apology for the ends/means crack. He’s a guy who works very hard and thoughtfully to improve our neighborhood and the city.
@Adam: If Sean says you don’t deserve it, I believe him. I withdraw my end/means crack.
@Sean: I’m married to a commuter who conducts a lot of business (Starbucks, CVS, Brookline Bank, dry cleaners, tailor, Newtonville books and the thrift shop/Asian grocery until it moved/closed) in Newtonville before and/or after getting off the train. That’s only one person but I suppose she could go online and vote nine more times.
And, I think you know, I like change. As I’ve said here and elsewhere, I was never opposed to removing
trafficparking along this portion of Walnut Street. I’m an infrequent bike rider and I avoided that stretch of Walnut before because it never felt safe. I’d use it now. And visually, the neighborhood benefits from no cars there.But while I like change, I hate incompetence. This was incompetent.
Wally suggests:
On my honor, not more than three responses are mine.
No dog in this fight, but ten responses is, in technical parlance, statistically laughable.
Brandel:
Thanks. That has always been my point.
*are*
Greg,
You’re forgetting that removing parking doesn’t just potentially subtract commuter shoppers, it also potentially adds bicycle shoppers, for a net increase in shoppers.
The parking on Walnut Street is fixed. And, by its very nature, commuter parking is very low turnover. Even if many of the commuters are also shoppers — and your wife is almost certainly the exception — there is a fixed volume of shopping generated by that right-of-way used for parking. There are only 40 spaces, with very little or no turnover.
The bicycle use on Walnut Street has a theoretical limit, I would imagine, but it’s a lot higher than 40 trips a day. And, bicycle use is growing. Make it easier to bike on Walnut and we’ll create a whole new class of potential patrons for Highlands businesses.
I attended most of the meeting last week (was waiting for a discussion about Crystal Lake) and remember a very long discussion about the cars on Walnut Street, with maybe a minute, if even, spent on the survey results. They also, apparently, discussed this a few months ago and maybe even before?? To be fair, the survey results seemed to be a tiny part of the discussion. Maybe they could have skipped the survey results entirely, but somebody did make the effort to place a survey form on all the cars that were parked along the street one day, so I think it was still interesting enough to spend a few seconds on what those folks had to say. I studied statistics for years, and nobody there said that this was a statistically significant sample – it was just part of public input. I remember that most of the time was spent listening to what the public had to say and the Chair reading a bunch of emails that he had received about the subject. I highly doubt that the survey results were the main reason for anybody’s vote. Don’t know you, Greg – did you attend any of the meetings where this was discussed, and were you opposed?
@Al: As noted above, I’m not opposed.
I still don’t understand why you are so “stunned”, Greg. Are you saying that the City should not have put surveys on the 40 or so cars that park on Walnut Street? Or that when 10/40 came back, that should not have presented the results as part of the discussion? Not sure what is the NHNAC is, or what they asked for, or what the City promised to do for them, or why the NHNAC didn’t collect and present their own data. For our Crystal Lake request, we didn’t get to “ask for” the City to do anything special, but we did get an intelligent and lively discussion.
Oh – it must be the Newton Highlands Council…
@Al: Yep. The Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council is an official elected body under the city charter.
I wasn’t at the meeting and I haven’t been all that involved in this particular issue, but I believe that our traffic department has the technology to check RMV records to see where cars parked on the streets are registered. This yields some very interesting information about who is parking where and possible why. Does anyone know whether that was done here?
*possibly*
Um, thanks for the
apologywithdrawn remark, Greg.Not sure how I missed this, but yesterday you wrote:
So let me get this straight. Even if the TC had given priority to your request and, in addition to whatever plate analysis that was done, conducted a statistically sound survey on who was parking in those 40-or-so spaces and reported back at the scheduled meeting last week, you’d be dissatisfied because it was the wrong survey to begin with.
@Adam: Dissatisfied? Nah. I would have shrugged and viewed it as a lost opportunity but noting more.
That’s different from my concern that clearly unscientific data was a centerpiece (5 out of 12 slides) of a formal document (presented presumably to inform the Traffic Council’s decision prior to voting) created by a city that has now prides itself in making data-driven decisions.
Again, my concern is with the process not the decision. I’m not opposed to eliminating parking along this portion of Walnut Street.
Sean said,
“You’re forgetting that removing parking doesn’t just potentially subtract commuter shoppers, it also potentially adds bicycle shoppers, for a net increase in shoppers.”
A net increase in shoppers from bicyclists? You not only drink the koolaid, you’re drowning in it.
Terry scoffs:
Over 80 bikes a day travel on Walnut St., and the numbers will only go up with bike lanes. People who bike don’t need coffee? Lunch? Banking services? Stuff from CVS (if there were one in the Highlands)?
It’s a real blind spot not seeing bicyclists as members of the community and potential business patrons.
Many policy decisions gets made based largely on public input from whoever shows up to speak at a public meeting. That’s about as unscientific a measure of public sentiment as you could devise.
In this case it sounds like there was some additional very imperfect data based on a small survey that was also added to the mix and it was just one more factor in the decision.
A little feedback on how to improve future surveys is fine. The last thing I’d like to see though is a requirement that in depth, large scale, scientifically defensible, studies or surveys be required before making simple decisions on things like whether or not to have parking on a portion of Walnut St.
@Jerry: Permanently eliminating 40 parking spaces should not be viewed as a little or simple decision. More to my point, if decisions are going to be made based on public imput, tea leaves, dart boards, horoscopes or whatever, then go for it. Just don’t pretend that it’s being driven by data if the data is lame.
Remember, this doesn’t appear to be something just “added to the mix” it’s 5 of 12 slides prepared by the city presumably for the purpose of helping inform the traffic council just prior to its vote.
Sean- Of course bicyclists are members of the community and potential business patrons. Of the 80 bicyclists a day that you mention, how many are bicycling in December, January, February, March and on inclement weather days the rest of the year? How many are on a training/fitness ride and not stopping to shop? Our community should encourage non-automobile transportation, but let’s not gild the lilly.
“A little feedback on how to improve future surveys is fine. The last thing I’d like to see though is a requirement that in depth, large scale, scientifically defensible, studies or surveys be required before making simple decisions on things like whether or not to have parking on a portion of Walnut St.”
Besides the fact that this is not a minor decision, there’s plenty of middle ground between what was done and an expensive in-depth, large scale study. There are small scale, fairly inexpensive ways that a survey of parkers could have been done – even just having a couple of city employees speak asking a few questions of parkers on a couple of different days would have been a big improvement. And, as Greg said, it’s also in the presentation – if you have junk data, don’t make lots of slides of it and pretend it’s anything more than it is.
Terry,
The math is not on your side. There are options for commuter parking on side streets, so eliminating the 40 parking spaces does not eliminate 40 commuters. And, seriously, how many of them are stopping to shop? Maybe (Mrs. Greg notwithstanding), a handful get coffee in the morning on a regular basis.
Removing parking will add bike trips to the corridor. So, for many fewer than 40 lost commuters, you get net new bicyclists. Over time, that number is likely to grow such that the average daily use (which accounts for cold-weather months and inclement-weather days) will be meaningful and some percentage of those will be folks who will stop by on the way somewhere else or — fasten your seatbelt — actually make the Highlands a destination because it’s safe to bike there.
Gilding the lily? Don’t think so. It’s a stretch to think that significant business has been lost by taking away the parking. All I’m saying: whatever small amount of business has been lost is or will be offset by new business on bikes.
Jerry, word.
Greg, the people making the decision heard the presentation given in person, and they were present for a series of meetings on the topic. They weren’t just looking at the charts from one meeting as you are. Just because there were 5 out of 12 charts does not necessarily mean it was dwelled on or considered important. Indeed, some people actually present at the meeting seemed to take away a different impression.
Criticize all you like, but perhaps before calling people incompetent, you should try attending the meetings or at least considering the full context.
@Ted – The TC did use RMV records for people parking prior to the trial parking ban and found that ~60% of the people parking lived within Newton.
On Statical Data – The NHNAC also did an informal survey and 100% of the respondents were opposed to the removal of parking on Walnut street. Of course with only two respondents (and being a scientist myself) it would have been laughable for me to present this information during the meeting. It was interesting though that 50% of the respondents did work in the Highlands (Opps, went back to the numbers).
It has not been mentioned that two people attending the meeting did object to the parking ban having homes on Walnut and not seeing a means to have visitors and workman visit their homes. I think Sean has mentioned that finding commuter spaces on adjacent roads is easy but for those who have actually looked at the parking restrictions we do not even have spaces for people working in the village. One of our businesses has reported paying over $2500/month in parking tickets for his employees.
Two other agenda items on the recent meeting’s agenda was for handicapped spaces for in front of peoples homes. Clearly this would not be possible now but the disabled and elderly are also constituents that we need to hear as we address these issues.
Thankfully, there appear to be some new ideas about accommodating parking and the Highlands may be able to participate in some pilot programs to see how this works.