Parking, Zoning, Development. Those three items are probably the most reliably hot-button issues at the municipal level (OK, dog parks).
So forgive me if I think it’s great news that Newton is trying to manage one of them, parking, in a more comprehensive and rational way than most Massachusetts cities and towns.
The big item on the docket this week–besides the storm water and sewer stuff I mentioned last week–is the release of the Draft Parking Management Plan. Have a look. I think it’s pretty good. It’s a lot more comprehensive than what you’ll learn from reading the Austin Street update, which is also worth a read (but at 2 pp won’t take long).
My hope is that Newton can pilot parking management via meter rates, which treats time at a parking spot like other commodities, and prices by demand–the popular spaces would rent for a little more than the less popular ones. This will make the value-conscious (read: folks planning to park a longer time, like commuters or employees) think twice about filling prime spots in favor of the cheaper back-of-the-store (or back at home) spots, and leave the 15-minute spot in front of the pharmacy open more often.
This has been tried successfully in San Francisco, Boulder, and in some parts of Manhattan (we are willing to pay for a $7/hour spot in front of the Modern if we are only staying an hour. Since the prices rose, we always find a space in front of the Modern). More details here (scroll down to the Parking resources).
Right now, we are making too much parking “free” or very low-cost rather than making more parking available. When parking isn’t available, it hurts business. When parking is too cheap, it hurts the environment by creating more paved spaces, adding parking costs to all other services–including the rent on apartments, the cost of goods in stores & restaurants/ Maintaining public parking spaces while recouping too little of the cost to do so also means that tax dollars go into subsidizing parking.
Making parking more rational–and hiring a manager as the plan advocates–will also mean that the Aldermen can spend a lot less time discussing it, and can instead focus on bigger and more important issues.
Your link didn’t get me to the draft parking management plan. It goes to the LWV page, which lists documents but doesn’t seem to link to them.
Found it at
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=57049
Very interesting.
As a business owner in 2 villages, it is clear to me that one of the biggest sources of parking demand is workers. Although I’m sure it varies from village to village, my educated guess is that 25-50% of parking spaces in and around village centers are used by workers. I can’t completely say this plan woefully neglects this aspect, but their solution is just ridiculous.
“Employers provide perks to their employees, such as by providing transit passes, bicycles and bike facilities, walking shoes, ride matching, alternative work scheduling, shuttles to remote parking areas and transit stops, guaranteed rides in emergencies, and priority parking for carpoolers.”
Especially considering that most of the businesses in the villages are small retail shops this appears to be pure fantasy. “Alternative Work Schedule”?? No reason workers can’t help customers from the comfort of their own home or decide that people should do their shopping at 9PM. “Shuttles”!!!. You expect the small business owners to pony up for personalized shuttles? And where exactly are these mysterious parking havens? And how quickly do you think an employee would quit if you gave them a pair of walking shoes and told them to start hoofing for a few miles.
I’m curious if they’ll try any of these options at City Hall where parking is just as difficult.
Steve,
That’s not the only place that the issue of employee parking is addressed. If you read through the document, I think you’ll find suggestions that you find feasible.
I love the upper class bias in our parking plan, not even Mitt Romney is this bad. It claims that the solution to our parking “shortage” is to price “value conscious” (e.g employee’s of local businesses or commuters taking mass transportation) out of the market so that there will be plenty of parking for those who can afford it.
Parking is very similar to the newton school system. The schools are subsidized by the majority of people in newton who do not have children actively in schools. They do this because it makes the city as a whole a more desirable place to live. If the schools where instead funded 100% by tuition, few parents would be able to afford it, enrollment would decline precipitously, and there would be a rapid drop in property values. The drop in value would almost surely be greater than the present value of the now greatly reduced property taxes. And so it is economically sound for everyone to pitch in to maintain good school system even for purely selfish reasons.
The same thing will happen when newton adopts a “Rich people only” strategy for the village centers. Overall customer traffic will fall, businesses will find it difficult to attract customers and employee’s, and eventually the property values will decline to match the reduced value of the “stranded” real estate. After the businesses die off, even the rich people won’t bother visiting anymore.
The solution to Newton’s parking problems is clear. Strict enforcement of the existing minimum parking requirements, with no waivers granted. This will ensure that each incremental development has adequate parking for its purpose, and that it will not interfere with other nearby users. The parking problem is the result of people seeking free lunches, and the zoning committee providing them.
It would be interesting to see how many of the people involved in the development of this parking strategy were also involved in the decision to reconfigure Newton Centre? Does any one know??