One of the bigger challenges in Newton’s older village centers, parking is also key to village vitality. Learn how we can use our parking resources more wisely while making the best use of the proceeds with Parking Benefit DistrictsA library forum on April 23 will explain some of the cutting-edge ideas used in cities across America to unlock the potential of public, on-street parking by using the marketplace to set pricing (called “dynamic pricing”), ensuring optimal space vacancy rates while returning funds to the business district.
Who: Jessica Robertson, planner at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), and developer of the ParkSmart Initiative; Sean Roche, editor of Newton’s Parking Management Plan
When: April 23, 7-8:45 pm
Where: Druker Auditorium, Newton Free Library
Sponsored by: Newton Free Library, League of Women Voters, Newton
Greetings from London, where the $17 “Congestion Charge” during working hours has had the impact of pushing the riffraff onto the insufferable Tube and making it that much easier for the Bentleys, Rolls Royces, and Mercedes to cruise to and fro’ at full speed (often trying to knock me off my Barclays’ Bike, I might add).
Funny how these “marketplace solutions” always end up benefiting the filthy rich.
“In a business district, meters charging market rates for on-street parking would help ensure that some parking spaces would always be available”…for those who don’t have any concerns about money.
Agree with Michael. … “for those who don’t have any concerns about money.”
The new technology employs a dynamic pricing model that can adjust prices at different times of the day to reflect demand such as there may be a cheaper rate when demand is low in the morning, and a more expensive rate when demand is higher in the afternoons. (Elite parking times.)
The meters could also potentially allow payment via license plate number. This could possibly adjust price based on vehicle type or emissions. (Higher for cheaper, older cars. Great)
Michael, yes but in most cases the funds raised are poured back into services that benefit all users, so better tube and buses (and buses can go faster due to less congestion).
Yes there will always be folks willing to pay for access, if the money is truly invested in other options, bike, walk, transit (which cost a whole lot less per person moved) then that lower income person who works in the central city wont have to own a car that costs then 10k+ a year. This system can also be used to move freight better by incentivizing them to do deliveries and pickups at off hours (NYC has a pilot going toward that end)
There is also a lot more to parking coordination than congestion charges, and dynamic pricing.
This should be good!
Loved this statement from Michael: “Funny how these “marketplace solutions” always end up benefiting the filthy rich” Are you advocating for socialism or communism?
Lucia, I guess you’re trying to belittle me with that comment, but I’m now in The Hague, headed to Copenhagen tomorrow, and let me be the first to enlighten you: the quality of life in Continental Europe is far, far superior to the United States in just about every respect – and it’s almost exclusively due to democratic socialism.
“Then why don’t you stay there?” -ed.
Anyway, could you imagine someone advocating for socialist roads? Or a socialist public education system? Or a socialist public library system? Oh wait, we already have those things in Newton. How ’bout that!
Pay attention to what the marketing words actually mean. Yes but (always a good place to take notice) the funds raised (from the wealthy who of course need easier access, because …) will benefit the lower income person (by getting them out of the way) and the lower income person won’t have to own a car (because we have decided they are better off without one and we want to help the environment by making that lower income person use other transportation so we can have our cars and park them easily.)
Because helping the wealthy live easier lives also makes it easier for them to become more wealthy and we all know that wealth trickles down to help all. Not
There is a lot more to parking coordination, but dynamic pricing is the one actually mentioned in the post and in the Austin Street Proposal “By using the marketplace to set pricing called dynamic pricing” Just using the example of different meter prices, lower in the afternoon and higher in the morning, the policy would be biased against the elderly and young mothers or fathers who find it easier to shop in the morning, which is one of the reasons it is a peak time.
This city can’t decide what it wants to be. Sometimes it says it wants to support diversity economically and in every other way. But at other times it continues to make it more difficult for economic diversity. Residents who can only afford to rent homes without off street parking have to pay $25/day from 11/15 to 3/15 every year if they park on the street. The residents who can qualify for affordable housing in the new Austin Street Project cannot rent a parking place so they must be able to use the steep steps to the commuter rail, walk to the T or have a job within walking distance.
The city needs those plans developed to coordinate all facets of the village centers,such as making the commuter rail and the T accessible, providing enough parking for everyone the same price, repairing roads so riding bicycles is safe transportation, and not having discriminatory practices. Then build up the village centers.
Yes, I was being a bit snarky with the comment. But what solution would work for both rich and poor? Free parking everywhere?
Parking is not free, there are costs associated with maintaining the space and lost opportunity costs from the space not being used for something else (like housing or parks or shops or….).
Getting more people onto mass transit would increase the availability of parking – and why is mass transit seen as only for poor people?
Not snarky, confrontational. As usual. Where is there anything advocating free parking?
Not being snarky either, but Marti you should try and attend the event on April 23. Should be an enlightening presentation.
If the business owners in these business districts want barrels full of tulips, spic-and-span sidewalks, gas lamps, CCTV, or some other amenities above and beyond what the general fund has allotted, then why don’t they pay for it themselves?
I’m sure if I sat down and thought about it, there are some dandy things that I could propose for our street, but unfortunately we don’t have any parking meters or gumball dispensers to cover the costs.
The districts’ parking spaces are on public property and should be financially accessible to all citizens, all of the time – whether it’s Joe the Plumber in his rusty old Accord or Sheldon Adelson in his purple Rolls Royce. I think both can afford the current fixed price of 50 cents per hour or whatever it is.
If there are times when the spaces are all filled up, then the latecomers should be prepared to walk a couple of extra blocks. All of the latecomers – not just the ones who can’t afford to pay $5 per hour peak-pricing.
As for public transit, from where in Newton can you efficiently take public transit to a shopping district for short errands? Those are very narrow corridors indeed. As I’ve mentioned here before, my wife and I have tried to take the 52 bus to our nearest business district, Newton Centre, and beginning from the time that we were done with our eating and shopping, the return trip (wait time plus transit) took two hours…for my wife that is (I gave up after an hour and just walked home). So I hope nobody’s pretending that variable-rate parking in Newton business districts would somehow encourage public transit usage.
Actually, the more I read about Parking Benefit Districts, the worse they sound. Was somebody in Newton genuinely snookered into believing that this was a good idea?
From the sound of it, the ultimate goal of these programs (e.g. in Pasadena) is to increase the value of the adjoining commercial properties through beautification programs that steal money from the parking meters. Is that somehow a goal that we should be devoting our resources to achieving?
And if the program really works out, the business owners themselves will see their rents rise.
Let me guess: this is being promoted by a couple of real estate investment trusts, right?
Thankfully, these silly schemes seem to be pretty much outlawed by the Commonwealth.
I will still drive to a place where parking is easy and free as opposed to having to parallel park and pay to do it. I know it costs me gas and wear on the car, time, etc., but I have never before lived in a place where businesses (and schools!) did not have places for users to park. And I very seldom carry cash, much less a stack of quarters (Cambridge).
I also remember many times in our younger days when having to pay to park could have made the difference in whether we could eat out, buy what we wanted.
I will go to Brookline Booksmith rather than Newtonville Books because I can pay using my card an park in a slanty-space in a lot, rather than messing with the meters.
And I hate, hate, hate the traffic interruptions caused by people blocking lanes while they get into, out of, or wait for meter spots on the street. They move unpredictably, usually eschew using signals, and block my view of cars and pedestrians moving out into traffic.
Shouldn’t there also be a place to pull in for a just minute or two to pick someone up, drop the off, grab your carry-out food without having to find a metered spot? I know that there is “live parking” (as opposed to what kind??) over by the train stop in Newton Centre. That is rather handy. Could we get a couple of those on Walnut? Washington?
Wouldn’t enforced time limits and ticketing suffice? Is there a guide to street-parking etiquette that would let me know when and how it is acceptable to block lanes, wait for spots, and cause minimal interruption to traffic?
If we must pay, make it easier- cash or card. Keep the rate low, and constant. No need to punish people for their schedules. Designate more handicapped spots, and make it clear that no payment is needed for cars with HC plates or hangers. Dynamic parking should take into account when rent and house payments are due, too– Free parking on the 1st, cheaper on the days around it.
I tried to put money in the Austin Street meters and several times during after-school Starbucks emergencies this winter. When the meters did not work, I was unsure whether parking was free due to the inaccessibility of the meters, or if I was not supposed to park there because of the snow piles. No tickets, at least, and I went much more often because I didn’t have to pay.
I realize that this makes me sound like a suburban curmudgeon. Oh, well. I’m good with that.
Beautifying our village centers and making them more pleasant places is a legitimate goal. PBDs could also fund pedestrian improvement, new sidewalks, traffic calming, improved lighting, etc. in the communities where the revenue is generated, which parking meters do today, in a far less structured way, at the whim of future Councillors. At least, I think that’s the idea.
Dynamic parking pricing doesn’t necessarily mean unaffordable pricing. But it does mean that the flat rate of 50¢ is arbitrary and unlikely to encourage turnover at peak times, as well as commuter or employee parking in premium spaces. Newton can’t compete with the free, endless lots of Framingham. If 50¢ is really driving people away, maybe there are times of the day where it does make sense to provide short-term free or near-free parking to encourage people to shop off-peak?
What does success look like? If such a program works out, those unwilling to walk a few blocks might not be complaining about lack of parking driving or find themselves driving in circles searching for their favorite space (thus creating more traffic). Businesses might be more likely to have spaces open in front of their shops, improving their business.
But couldn’t this also be achieved with 30-minute/1-hour/2-hour parking limits?
I’m troubled by the concept that revenue should somehow stay in the business district where it’s generated.
I live on a street with a lot of rich people (except me) and big houses (except mine). In keeping with this hyper-localization of revenue apportionment, I propose that we start earmarking a share of property taxes (say, one-fourth) exclusively for improvements to the street from which it’s collected.
Also, I know this might be too much to ask for, but my wish is for schools to be funded on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, so that the rich neighborhoods can start offering AP Mandarin and derivative-trading classes in the 4th grade. It’s never too early; together, Sheldon Adelson, Jim Davis, and hangers-on like me can make this happen.
Adam,
What problem are you trying to solve with PBDs in Newton?
Well said, Adam. Those who favor free parking should read Donald Shoup’s “The High Cost of Free Parking” – http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf
Who’s advocating free parking?
Paul: To have supply meet demand.
Michael: I imagine only some portion of the funds are earmarked by district. Should Waban profit from Newton Center’s meters?
Not one thing has been said about free parking except by those wanting to create a smokescreen around a bad idea.
“I will still drive to a place where parking is easy and free as opposed to having to parallel park and pay to do it.”
But yes, I do realize this post is more about variable and dynamic pricing – and here I also agree that the luxury spots should be priced higher (except for mobility impaired). Appropriate pricing promotes turnover and availability – which is good for business and customer choice.
I mentioned free parking because I never have lived around fee parking until moving here. It is off-putting on first encounter.
I read the linked article, and have googled a bit, too. I get the demand issues; I don’t like the idea of making folks pay when there is not a good alternative to driving (too far to walk, need to bring home a week’s groceries, no viable public transportation options, etc.).
But, I am resigned to it.
Not trying to smokescreen anything.
Paul, oh sorry, you said PBDs. I dunno, it’s not my program. Go April 23 and find out!
“Luxury spots should be priced higher.” So now parking is separated into luxury and ?what “poor people spots?” Parking is a first come first served process. It should cost the same for all as it a city street. Who makes the decisions of which spaces are for the wealthy? This whole thing is ridiculous!
Adam, you asked:
I guess when you phrase it in that direction, my (irrational) response would be heck no, we’re not going to let those rich people steal from us even more than they already do!
But if you were to ask:
I would give the correct answer, which is that costs and revenues should be shared equally by the entire community. e.g. Waban shouldn’t get more money per pupil for its schools than (say) Thompsonville just because household tax collections might be higher there.
We all equally own the spaces, whether they be on Walnut St. or Langley Rd.
@Michael, if you were to ask:
*I* would give the correct answer, which is
Waban’s Meters ? What meters ? Come to Waban all yee poor and impoverished. Enjoy shopping here with free parking ( except at the MBTA lot) !
Adam- was using the term loosely as interchangeable with dynamic pricing.
Do we have a supply issue?
Paul, many people seem to think so, at least for parking where they don’t have to walk very far (read: one block from village center)
This reminds me of the time my wife changed the color of the bedroom walls from white to blue and it took me three months to notice!
Although to be fair to myself, I’ve only ever seen Waban from the perspective of the Newton Conservators’ recommended Aqueduct Walk (one of the nicest walks in Greater Boston if I may say so).
You go, meterless Wabanites!
Michael-You had mentioned that if the businesses want to have flower boxes filled with tulips then revenues need to be generated by charging for parking. I would like for you to know that in Newton Highlands the merchants all contribute $35 each to fund the flower pots that are placed in front of the stores in the Spring time. The Arthur English Garden at the top of Lincoln Street is also cared for by volunteers. You had mentioned that the 50 cent an hour parking rate is a fair rate for the very rich and the very average. I wanted to tell you that in my 30 plus years experience in Newton dealing with the public and their spending habits I found that the richer the customer and the blacker their Amex card the cheaper they were and the more demanding that they were to deal with. I had a literal billionaire’s wife and daughter who used to come into my store regularly and they used to beat me up on the price of a $5 stuffed animal regularly. I used to dread seeing them walk in the door.
Adam,
I’m not aware of village centers where people think parking is a problem- but there are people who are very concerned about losing existing parking.
If you could share which village centers you’re talking about, that would be great.
Alison, you’ve got it backwards. Michael said “If the business owners in these business districts want barrels full of tulips, spic-and-span sidewalks, gas lamps, CCTV, or some other amenities above and beyond what the general fund has allotted, then why don’t they pay for it themselves?”
“The districts’ parking spaces are on public property and should be financially accessible to all citizens, all of the time”
Since it’s been mentioned by Lucia, “Parking is not free,” and Nathan, “The High Cost of Free Parking,” how does that rhetoric play out in Waban? It seems they have free parking and are doing just fine. I also didn’t know we are “competing with free parking in Framingham.” Really, you think shopping in Framingham is drawing folks from Newton? Better take another look.
When Adam says, “If 50¢ is really driving people away,” he is starting with a false assumption, as is people are complaining about not having enough parking “To have supply meet demand,” or even that “they don’t have to walk very far (read: one block from village center)”
Marti, I was responding to Carry’s comments about driving to find free, ample parking, as well as complaints about lack of parking in Newtonville and Newton Centre that are too numerous to count. Notice also that I said ‘if’. Not making any assumptions at all, but I think you are. It’s a discussion. Go to the forum.
I think Carry brings up a good point in that a lot of people will be scared away by parallel parking spots with complex pricing schemes. Why should people worry about some newfangled variable-pricing parking schemes trying to take advantage of them, when a big chunk of the city’s neighborhoods can make it relatively efficiently to the Chestnut Hill Mall, Natick Mall, or Legacy Place?
If there were ever a solution desperately searching for a problem, I’d say this would be it.
Plus I think everyone ought to be troubled by:
1) the idea that individual neighborhoods should somehow be allowed to collect and spend neighborhood-based revenue collected under the authority of the city,
2) the quasi-privatization of public property for the benefit of a few commercial property owners, and
3) the implications of implementing prohibitive pricing schemes in an effort to make something economically unattractive to the majority of people (unless that something is environmentally or socially destructive).
Adam,
Let’s be real clear. People aren’t complaining about not enough parking in Newtonville. They just want to keep access to what we’ve got.
The city’s formal position is that the Austin St lot is not fully utilized at peak times, remember?
Yes, there’s always parking, just not always where people want it to be. Newton Centre, for example — yes, the city’s position is, and studies show, that there’s always excess capacity, yet people circle around looking for spaces. Everytime a new business opens, especially restaurants, it’s a struggle over parking and waivers. And of course, there’s an opportunity cost when folks insist a prime lot remain vacant so that there can be excess parking. Of course, as businesses close and village centers become less active, parking is in less demand. That’s not progress. The idea is that if parking were managed in new and creative ways, opportunities might open up to better use our city resources, generate tax revenue, and revitalize village centers. No, Michael, that doesn’t mean you must take every idea to an extreme.
@Marti-I do not have it backwards. This is what Michael said “If the business owners in these business districts want barrels full of tulips, spic-and-span sidewalks, gas lamps, CCTV, or some other amenities above and beyond what the general fund has allotted, then why don’t they pay for it themselves?” My point was that in Newton Highlands the merchants do pay for their barrels full of flowers themselves. There was a former alderman was responsible for installing parking meters in Waban at one point and it did not go over well. She was not re-elected after that. I won’t mention her name.
@Carry-Do you realize that Newton is a city with over 80,ooo people living in it and that doesn’t include all the visitors. You had mentioned that you aren’t accustomed to paying for parking and that you are from the South I believe? I am curious what the population was of the town that you hail from?
Adam,
It’s not really all that creative though. Just raising prices on parking at peak times, increasing financial barriers to parking access thereby reducing demand. The additional revenue is nice, but it’s a highly regressive tax policy to put in place. People with less means either spend money they can’t afford to park, or they are the ones that are forced to alter their schedules to park in village centers.
Given that the data doesn’t suggest significant parking problems in Newton, why would we want a highly regressive parking policy that hurts low-moderate income people in their pocketbooks or in their schedules?
@Alllison- Not sure of exact numbers, but the locations include Tucson, SLC, Phoenix suburbs, suburban Chicago, Houston, Ft. Worth, and Murfreesboro, TN (pop. 73,000 when we arrived, 117,00 when we moved).
Of those, only metered parking was is the heart of downtown in the larger cities. Lousy or no public transportaion, too.
Like Carry, I prefer to drive into a space rather than parallel park. I buy things and give my business to places where I can park without a problem. I find myself going to the Chestnut Hill Mall more and more because I drive around that Newton Centre parking lot, circling, and can’t find a space. Driving around in circles is a waste of my time, would rather go to a parking lot.
Results from SFPark (sfpark.org), San Francisco’s pilot program in dynamic parking pricing:
“By adjusting prices:
— Average meter rates dropped 11 cents an hour, or 4 percent, to $2.58.
— Average garage rates dropped 42 cents an hour, or 12 percent, to $3.03.
— The goal of having 60-80 percent of parking spaces occupied occurred 31 percent more often.
— Blocks were full – no parking spaces available – 16 percent less often.
— Average time spent hunting for parking decreased by 5 minutes, or 43 percent.”
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SFpark-called-a-success-will-expand-throughout-5568645.php
Nathan-
Your post is pretty misleading if you read the actual report. Average rates went down, because they dropped prices at undesirable times or in undesirable neighborhoods which didn’t get used that much. Prime spots at prime time were raised to as much as $6 an hour.
Overall, parking revenue more than doubled, meaning people were paying more than twice as much for parking than they used to. That’s in addition to some being forced to change parking behavior if you don’t want to pay $6 an hour.
The greater availability is nice, but is happening precisely because it’s pricing people out of the market.
Paul, Nathan’s link is not misleading. It’s exactly on point. Pricing changes behaviors. Assuming that somebody is priced out of the market or somehow starving as a result is a bit of a leap. It might mean parking further away, or in long-term spaces for long-term parking or maybe alter their timing to save a few bucks and make opportunities for business.
If this is about preventing employees from parking long-term in prime public spaces because it takes away spots for potential customers, why don’t employers just tell their employees not to park there? (And yes, I know of local businesses who do just that.) Something just feels – off – to me about a plan that jacks up the price of the “best” public spots at the most desirable times, basically shunting the less well-off (and, ok sure, the cheap) to distant spots (or simply to some other shopping destination with cheaper, available parking.) A private garage, sure. But a public space?
Paul,
I won’t speak for others (especially mobility impaired), but I would gladly walk a block for a cheaper parking rate – a rate that is cheaper than the flat rate that traditionally is applied across an entire business district. If I’m in a hurry or shopping during rush hour, I’ll be willing to pay more for taking the prime spots and contributing to congestion.
Tricia – it’s not that easy. In many villages, it’s hard for employees to find places they can legally park more than 2 hours. I know that in Newton Highlands, for example, residents on Lincoln St. have fought changes to the 2-hour parking limitation even though the street is very wide and having cars parked there wouldn’t be a hardship.
I don’t know if the Councilors (nee Alderpeople) have looked into the possibility of parking permits for employees of village businesses that would exempt them from the 2 hour limitation – that might be one way to free up parking closer to stores.
Adam,
His post suggested prices went down, not up. It did not clarify if those meter rates were what people. Paid or were just available. It wasn’t clear at all from his post that actual parking costs were more than double before the pilot occurred.
That is why it was misleading.
No need to get extreme, no one is claiming that anyone is going to starve. The facts are that its a regressive policy to address parking, and will disproportionately impact lower income residents of the city. You may be OK with hurting lower income residents for improving parking spot availability- that’s certainly your right. But that is exactly what the policy is.
Does dynamic parking mean that if there is no demand, or very little, parking is free? I believe it should. If there are no cars parking, there is little business for our locals. Encouragment by free parking in those circumstances makes sense. City support for our businesses and activities is more important than covering the “costs” of pavement when no one is there.
There are many spots around the city that are empty and wide open for hours at a time. As a tool Parking Meters are a sledge hammer when a velvet glove would work better.
Terry, the concept is flexible enough to cover that situation, and I think what you suggest makes a lot of sense. But that is given a fixed parking supply, of course. I could also see taking some parking off-line on nice days and putting in outdoor seating or bike corrals.
@Carry-I was wondering if you have noticed Newtonians to be more aggressive and unfriendly than the people in the other towns/cities that you lived in or are they the same as the other places?
If I can’t find a spot in a local lot, then I walk a block. The grocery stores all have lots, so that’s not really an issue. For people like Lassy who value parking convenience, as she mentioned, there’s always Chestnut Hill Mall and Chestnut Hill Square. The only real parking concern – as opposed to a convenience – appears to be for the people with mobility issues. Maybe I’m just missing something here, but I can’t remember having park more than a block from a village center.
“having to park”…
I’ve been reading a lot about smart parking. The places it tends to work best are in big cities with good transit systems, both buses and trains, that are compact, congested with limited parking available. If Newtonville, and the rest of Newton, had a good transit option, with more bus routes that ran on time, an accessible and punctual commuter rail or a T stop, it would have at least one thing that made sense. But without the problems of limited parking, compact urban environment and congestion from circling while looking for parking, it is an aggravation for shoppers and a waste of money. In spread out Newton, there are too many free parking options too close for the parking turnover to raise revenue for our small businesses. The meters cost millions to buy and install, and more to manage, plus there have been problems with people knowing the price of parking at the time and with reading about parking availability on their smartphones while driving.
Austin Street Partners are using the concept of smart living by unbundling parking from housing, valet parking with lifts, and smart meters. But without first creating the transit options to attract renters, it doesn’t work.
With all this talk about parking problems in our village centers doesn’t it seem just a little odd to be entertaining even greater density and more cars with the approval of additional housing projects, accessory apartments, 40b projects, pocket housing etc etc . They are happening all around us and we accept it!! It’s called urbanization. Density Is The Problem ! Is that what we really want for ‘the Garden City’???
Donald Shoup’s quote on Boston.com: ““High prices for housing and free prices for cars? Sounds like Boston has its priorities switched around.” Newton, also. http://fw.to/I84eoHQ
Like.
Any tips for where to find free parking in Boston? I drive my car to Boston only when necessary due to the high price of parking.
Jane, many of the residential areas in Boston have free parking for residents, as described in the article. San Francisco, by contrast, charges residents 30 cents a day to park on the street.
But I understand that doesn’t apply to your (and my) driving into Boston. Which might be a good thing, if it provides an incentive to carpool or use the T.
Jane, the garage under Boston Common is a good, reasonable place to park. At least until the high priced parking advocates raise the rates there too. It basically costs a fortune to park most places in Boston. There are times when taking the T works fine, but when I go in for dinner, to the theater and some other things, I need to be able to pay for the parking and for the outing.
Nathan – I agree! The high price of parking in Boston has been a great incentive to take the T and for all of the problems with it this winter, I’ve found it to be far less stressful than driving and at $1/ride the price can’t be beat ;). Marti, I also find the Common garage to be the best value and convenient to restaurants and the theatres when we go out for the evening (in less than comfortable shoes). At one point, my son lived near Symphony Hall and though the parking was free, after two years he had what we affectionately referred to as an urban car.