Prompted by an interesting discussion about appraisals on my post about Jay Ciccione’s comments about on-street parking, I’ve come to the conclusion that I may have conceded too much regarding the impact on home values of removing on-street parking. Whatever value is lost removing parking will be partially or wholly offset by the value of having bike lanes in front of the house and the direct and indirect safety benefits that flow therefrom.
Understandably, there are going to be some people who feel that their property is less valuable to them without the on-street parking. But, appraisals are not based on homeowners’ personal feelings about their properties. They are based on how the market views the property and its attributes and amenities. And, homeowners do not universally prefer parking in front of their homes over bike lanes.
Do we live in a time when more prospective homebuyers looking at homes on busy corridors would prefer a bike lane off their driveway rather than some parking spaces? Are we headed there? While I would obviously prefer that the answers were yes, I’m not sure. But, I doubt that the answers are definitively no.
I would prefer parking instead of bike lanes in front of my house. I entertain a lot and have people over for the holidays. Many of my friends are older and do not want to walk a long way to come to my house. They park right in front of my house when they come. I think inviting people to your home and then having to tell them they can not park in front of your home is a negative. People should be able to park on your street to come to your house.
“Whatever value is lost removing parking will be partially or wholly offset by the value of having bike lanes in front of the house and the direct and indirect safety benefits that flow therefrom.”
You are kidding, aren’t you Sean?
The value of having bike lanes (and their safety benefits) in front of our houses increases our homes value and the practical utilization of our homes?
Your density arguments and your bicycle arguments have shown that you are totally out of touch with homeowners (taxpayers).
You are so out of touch with Newton homeowners…
Terry,
You need to get out more.
We are discussing this issue because a group of people who live on Walnut St., wholly unprompted by us bike nutjobs, asked the city to remove the parking from in front of their homes. Given the alternative between parking in front of their homes and a bike lane, they chose a bike lane. No question, it wasn’t every single homeowner/taxpayer, but more than enough to prompt the city to do what they asked. Are they out of touch with themselves?
Before the city took up the parking/bike lane issue on Beacon Street between Langley and Hammond St., I did some house-to-house canvassing. As you’d expect there were those who wanted to hang on to their parking. But, there were also those who said clearly that they would prefer bike lanes. Living breathing homeowners. Who preferred bike lanes. Over on-street parking in front of their homes.
I enjoy the over-the-top hyperventilating as much as the next guy, so, by all means, don’t let the facts get in the way of your entertaining broadsides. But, the world is changing. I just might not be quite as out of touch as you suggest.
Sean, Where’s you usual economic analysis where we evaluate the benefit of our city taking slices of roads that could generate some income through parking fees and have a cost in that road that can accommodate biker lanes are roads built extra wide in the first place? I’m seeing opportunity costs (revenue loss), maintenance cost, real estate cost as well as a portion of the original road costs. Would you be willing to buy a medallion similar to the dog park tags to use this amenity?
@Sean – I attended the Walnut Street meetings and the residents wanted to have parking removed for safety. At the first meeting I recall that some folks wanted a parking ban and did not want bike lanes. I think you misinterpreted the comments since it was not a choice between parking and bike lanes but parking and safety. If bike lanes are added to Walnut we may be hearing from the same folks saying the sight lines along Walnut do not permit adequate warning of a bike coming over the hill and have a new safety issue.
@GG — Concerns are always understandable, but I think they are largely unfounded.
The speed limit along much of Walnut Street is what, 25 & 30 mph? Most cyclists cruise along at 20mph tops, or less (slower moving than vehicular traffic).
Cyclists cresting a hill will be going slower as they have just a pair of legs — not 200+ horsepower — to propel them. They’ll be visible pretty early on — an adult on a bicycle is probably 5 1/2 to 6 feet tall — taller than many compact cars, if shorter than a SUV.
I do understand the concerns, though. There is a safety issue for cyclists that might be hit by an inattentive driver turning or pulling into/out of a driveway. That happens with or without marked bike lanes, but maybe a marked bike lane will be a visual reminder for drivers that they share the road.
@dulles – I agree with your points and do not believe that this would necessarily become a safety issue. Although it could take one inattentive individual one foot, in a car or on a bike to set the stage for individuals opposed to bike lanes in front of their houses to raise the safety issue. That said, my key point was Sean’s misrepresentation of what the residents wanted to further his goals.
I think the issue is not bike lanes in a particular location, but the proliferation of bike lanes required to afford cyclists separate lanes continuously throughout the city. If they exist only in certain locations, then they still have a problem elsewhere.
There is a cost to re-marking all the streets, which is not a good idea in tight fiscal times. There is a loss of on-street parking for visitors to homes. There is a reduction in space on the street for motor vehicles.
And there is still a safety issue even if a cyclist is in a marked bike lane. Drivers, especially those who are texting or talking on cell phones, may easily not notice the small profile of a cyclist in the lane, and also they frequently veer as they are using the device. I once collided with a car many years ago whose driver simply didn’t notice me on the bike.
All this to accommodate what seem to be relatively few users seems illogical.
Groot,
Whatever residents’ initial preferred combinations were, by the last meeting it was clear: the choice was between parking or no parking and bike lanes. No parking and no bike lanes was very clearly not an option. The large majority of residents chose no parking and bike lanes.
Now, whether they view the bike lanes as an amenity or an inevitable by-product is a fair point. But, at the very least, they don’t view the loss of parking as a property depreciating hardship.
Regarding hyperventilating broadsides:
Yes Sean, I absolutely need to get out more. Join me sometime for a pint and get me out of the attic!
I do have a knee jerk response and general acid reflux to evangelicals of any shade, be they for density, biking or hair-weaves. We need a healthy skepticism to the data and rhetoric of evangelicals who believe they are “on the right side” of issues that they have taken to heart as moral imperatives.
Time for a beer! You ride your bike, I’ll walk, and if you buy I’ll listen to the sermon.
@Sean. My recollection of two meetings I attended with residents of Walnut Street and adjacent roadways is that they were concerned almost entirely with safety and congestion issues. Bicycle lanes were incidental to the discussion and were raised only because of state requirements that they be added in certain instances where on-street parking is banned.
The two referenced meetings were the February meeting of the Newton Highlands Area Council and a Traffic Council meeting in March.
Bob (and others),
I apologize if I suggested that it was the goal of the Walnut Street neighbors to create bike lanes. The safety concerns of the neighbors motivated their request. The removal of parking creates an opportunity to satisfy a long-standing goal of the portion of the community that bikes or wishes to bike to have bike lanes.
Whatever the initial motivation, the choice came down to parking or bike lanes. Clearly, the neighbors (or most of them anyway) thought parking was causing them to enjoy their property less.
Now, I will still contend that having a bike lane in front of your home is an amenity. Fashions change and what is or isn’t an amenity and the value of amenities change. Remember when having a sauna was something you put on your home listing? Some people — and more of them over time — will go to an open house, see a bike lane in front of the house, and think that’s pretty cool.
Of course, they will have had to park around the corner if they drove to the open house.
In regards to the alledged depreciation in assessed home value – those homes that do not have a driveway and rely heavily upon on-street parking, would it not be wise for the City to somehow subsidize and waive certain lot dimensional setbacks in order to accomodate enhanced participation in bike lanes? Car 54 to Alderman Ted – you out there?
Residents who live on or near major arteries see more accidents than you might expect. It’s upsetting to hear the sound of even a relatively minor accident – an accident in which the car is totaled and injuries are minor. It’s another matter to witness a serious accident that results in serious personal injury. For whatever reason, the official accident reports are not accurate. The Walnut St. residents are right – it is simply not a safe roadway when you combine parking, biking, and driving. Sorry, Sean, but it’s really not a biking issue – it’s first and foremost a safety issue
As a resident who doesn’t live near Walnut St., I’m concerned about the diminished emphasis on maintaining the aesthetic quality of life in Newton in the last 15 years or so. I may be one of a handful of people who didn’t move to Newton “for the schools”. The location was perfect and I wanted to live in a place that valued excellent architecture, gardens, parks, etc. The increase in cars parked along Walnut St. all day lessen the appeal of the village. Thanks to John Rice and his cohort of gardeners, the village area is much more aesthetically appealing in the last several years and the city’s policies should support these efforts.