Here’s a simple, but profound change we can make in Newton: put the burden on residential parking proponents to justify using city right-of-way for car storage.
There is growing awareness that, of all of the uses of the city right-of-way, residential parking is the least beneficial. The availability of residential parking on public streets encourages more car ownership and more driving and reduces the space available for earth- and neighborhood-friendlier modes like walking and biking.
New policy suggestion, as we move forward with Complete Streets in Newton: let’s not put the burden on bike and pedestrian advocates to justify removing legacy on-street residential parking. Where there is a choice between bike lanes and residential parking or wider sidewalks and residential parking or traffic calming and residential parking, let’s put the burden on proponents of on-street residential parking to demonstrate why it needs to remain. The fact that some people currently use a street to park is no evidence that parking is a good use.
For any piece of street we look at, we shouldn’t ask whether or not we should remove on-street residential parking, but start the analysis from scratch. What’s the case for on-street residential parking in the first place?
Sounds elitist and snooty to me.
Mike,
I agree. Favoring the occasional parked car over cheaper, more egalitarian forms of transportation does sound elitist and snooty.
I agree with Mike Striar. You’re assuming that all residential on-street parking is for extra cars that families don’t need, which isn’t true. The parts of the city where people are most likely to need on-street parking are also places with little access to public transit.
And are you willing to say that people therefore shouldn’t be able to have guests who can only reach them by public transit? Because banning residential parking on side streets would do just that for the many of us with short driveways and no garage. It would also mean no visits from mobility-impaired guests.
I’m very much in favor of making Newton bike- and pedestrian-friendly. But the majority of streets that would be most affected by this are quiet side streets that are already safer for bikes that the busy streets that are getting bike lanes.
I agree with Sean. If you add up all the legal street parking in the city we have far more than we need. Look at streets like Waltham street, on which I bike nearly every day. Technically the street is built for on-street parking, but it is rarely used. It’s particularly wide AND there is plenty of on-street parking on the various side streets. Why not use that streetscape more efficiently, create protected bike lanes and even widen the sidewalks to encourage pedestrian traffic. The same can be said for Beacon Street between Washington Street and Waban Square. It’s a very wide street with on-street parking that serves no real purpose.
If more people walked or biked into West Newton, the parking there could be used more efficiently and for the people who truly need it (elderly, disabled, etc). But if we have an attitude that pits pedestrian and bike access AGAINST that parking, then we end up in an unnecessary conflict.
What you’re proposing has already happened in some of the main traffic routes, which is great. However, I agree with others here that this policy should only apply to major routes, not to side streets.
Residential on-street parking is a necessity in many neighborhoods. The many residents living in homes with no off-street parking are already treated as second class citizens on clear nights from November to April.
It’s suggested policies like this one, pitting those with large lots and ample off-street parking against those without, that are adding to the divisions in Newton causing distrust of some councilors, candidates and the proposed charter. That’s why it’s “elitist and snooty.” Thanks Mike.
Would well in Waban but create unburdened costs in Nonantum. If applied selectively to certain villages, it would be crystal clear that the elites are controlling the house for their own benefits.
If anything, the winter parking ban needs to be reviewed.
Building on all the comments here, there is no “one size fits all” answer to balancing parking and bicyclist/pedestrian needs on Newton’s streets.
There are many routes that have limited need for expansive on-street parking and that would benefit from bike lanes, wider sidewalks, expanded planting strips or stormwater management, and so on. Other streets, particularly in neighborhoods and especially in places where there is limited off-street parking, have a clear need for on-street spaces. In fact, the removal of on-street parking without making other streetscape improvements can sometimes increase vehicle speeds and reduce the comfort of sidewalk users.
That’s why “Complete Streets” is about using all the tools in the toolbox together, combined with local community insight, to provide customized solutions for different locations.
For places where on-street parking and better bike/ped accommodations would both benefit a neighborhood, there are some good options available. One compromise is to alternate parking from one side to the other, and introduce a bendy double-yellow line. This is called a parking chicane. It gains back 7-8 feet of roadway space, it reduces traffic speeds, and it still provides a reasonable amount of parking (often well more than 50% of the original with careful planning). If the speed of the street is slowed as we’d like, crossing the street to a parking space may be only a little inconvenient, providing ample spaces for special events.
This is one (and only one) tool in the toolbox that we can use to make our neighborhoods more neighborly, improve access to our village centers, and provide a safer environment for everyone, including drivers. The more we work together, the better our solutions will be.
I think improving public transportation would be an important first step to discouraging car ownership. I love to walk or bike, but that’s not always realistic for certain neighborhoods or families with kids. We need better, more frequent busses that people can use for things like running errands, getting to parks, etc, if we want our community to be less reliant on cars.
The winter parking ban effectively means that you can’t have a car if you don’t have an off-street spot for it. So I’m unclear what Sen is arguing here.
(Yes, since we have a tandem driveway, we do park on the street overnight a few times a week. But our street is 3 car widths wide without snow, so the half dozen cars on it any given night are no big deal)
Meredith, Marti, and Mike,
I encourage you to re-read my post. I very clearly did not say that we should get rid of all on-street resident parking. I do say that residential on-street parking is, generally, the least productive use of city right-of-way. Given that it is such a non-productive use, its proponents should have the burden to prove it’s necessary.
That does not mean no more on-street residential parking, but hopefully lots less.
Almost any proposal to build bike lanes, sidewalk improvements, or traffic calming in Newton predictably runs into resistance from elected officials and residents who insist on protecting the status quo for parking (aka car storage) It’s time to rethink those priorities.
@Mike, Meredith and Marti, I don’t think the class warfare charges are justified. The intent is not to reprioritize on-street everywhere, only in focused areas:
It seems to me this corresponds (respectively) to arterials, village centers, and very limited application on side streets where traffic calming devices may be useful. So yes, there could still be plenty of cases where on-street parking is the right answer, let’s just not make that assumption everywhere. How is that elitist?
It’s elitist if one side has to prove itself worthy, rather than starting with an open mind.
Ideally, the question is not “who deserves the use” but “what would work best overall for the most people. Let’s start the process with an open mind and the assumption that all residents’ needs should be taken into account. Let’s agree that pedestrians, bicyclists, strap-hangers, and drivers all have legitimate needs; that some people use the mode of transportation that they do out of necessity (whatever that mode may be); and try to come as close to consensus as possible.
When one side has the burden of proving itself, it’s hard to have a conversation rather than an argument, since you’re starting with one side already on the defensive and an “us vs. them” atmosphere. For a productive planning process, it’s best to bring everyone to the table with open minds – that way, people are more likely to see creative solutions and be more willing to compromise.
Marti,
By your definition, the current practice is “elitist” in favor of parking. It’s advocates for bike lanes that have to make the case for removing parking, not the parking advocates who have to make the case for retaining parking. The presumption (and the bureaucratic inertia) is largely in favor of parking
If we’re going to have a coherent transportation policy, we have to have a hierarchy of uses. There is growing awareness — locally, nationally, and globally — that there is too much parking and that too much parking has serious negative consequences. There is absolutely no reason to start the conversation (as it relates to a particular street) with no prioritization. Using the right-of-way for parking should start at the bottom of the list.
That said, if there are particular areas where on-street parking is a real necessity, the process should take that into account. But, know that all around the world, as bike use increases, safe bike routes become a necessity, across the economic spectrum.
I think what’s informing your comments (and Mike’s and Meredith’s) is the sense that bike advocacy, in general, is elitist, you’re going to have to substantiate the charge. Creating a network of roads that is friendly to alternative modes is a transportation justice issue. It’s a whole lot cheaper to ride a bike than take a car.
Lets add to the discussion enough parking for the MBTA stations. Commuters (many of which don’t live in Newton) continue to get creative and park on residential streets that were not meant for free long term daily parking. Many neighborhoods in Waban and Newton Highlands over the last 20 years have changed and become free commuter parking. Take the train, but PAY for the lot. (Yes, I know that the lot fills up by 8:30 AM, however many neighborhoods have commuters parking for free starting at 6:30 AM.
Newton Mom,
Before we add yet more parking to the system, why isn’t the answer to commuter parking on residential streets either to ban parking there altogether or to charge for it?
If it’s interfering with better uses, than we should ban it. Let commuters figure out other ways to get to their trains. If it’s not interfering with better uses, why would we create more parking and make some money for the city?
Sean,
What was VERY interesting is that some Alderman want commuters to park in the neighborhoods! Some of the Alderman feel that streets are public and anyone can park there for as long as they want. These particular Alderman feel that we should not be like Cambridge and Somerville and have resident only parking. My thought was that these Alderman must not live on streets that are affected. While I believe in public parking, I also don’t believe in taking advantage of residents who want to live in a neighborhood and not a parking lot. In our neighborhood, before this started to happen, kids played outside and had a blast, but now with the cars there is less room and the non-residents SPEED on the small side streets.
I chose to live near the MBTA, and I paid a higher price for the house so that I can commute into Boston without paying for parking. Had I purchased a house in Natick or Framingham and drove into Newton and parked in my current neighborhood, I would have a different house (larger).
The parking affects the way that the snow plows plow the neighborhood (no longer can they plow the whole width), and often times my garbage isn’t collected because a commuter parks in front of my barrels in a large SUV.
Of course on election day, I can use my vote and vote for someone who shares my views.
@Sean: I never said nor meant to imply that bike advocacy is elitist. However, making it difficult to own a car in Newton is, because many of the people who have least access to public transit are the ones who also have to park on street, and this is most likely to be true for people at the lower end of Newton’s income range.
I am very much in favor of increased biking and walking, and grew up dong a lot of both. I also am someone who cannot bike and on many days cannot walk more than a block or two, and fall in the gray area where I don’t qualify for or need handicapped parking but do need to be able to park close to where I’m going. That is why I don’t think either side should be required to prove themselves worthy in planning discussions. Let’s start by assuming all have legitimate needs and then discuss each situation without presuppositions. It doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game.
NewtonMom, if restricting commuter parking outright wasn’t possible/desirable, finding a way to collect revenue on it and turn it back to neighborhood improvements would at least ease the pain.
Meters don’t really work in the neighborhoods, but new technology-based solutions might be worth exploring. For example, license plate registration and pay-by-app, rather than resident stickers.
Newton Mom,
First of all, glad you’re not Natick or Framingham Mom!
I’m not a big fan of the park-and-ride model, either. If we want to promote Green Line use by people outside the neighborhood, we should provide bus or other service to the stations. Or, we should extend the lines. Using neighborhood streets for free park-and-ride storage is rarely good policy.
If we are going to promote park-and-ride, then commuters should pay for their parking. The city councilor you refer to is right. The streets in front of houses don’t belong to the owners of those homes, the streets are public assets. But, it’s bad transportation to give those public assets away for free. Providing for neighborhood non-car needs can be a much better use.
If you’re going to suggest that on-street parking be available for residents, but not for commuters, you’ve lost me. Some free residential parking among paid spots makes sense. But using streets as car storage for some, but not all is just bad policy. You don’t get the other uses (bike lanes, kids playing in the streets, &c.). But, you make it harder to get to the T.
Meredith, I completely agree about the need for more mass transportation options, and hope that new ideas emerge that will augment traditional MBTA service.
While Sean focused on the “parking/bike lane” tradeoff, careful assessment of on-street parking would also allow improved placement of stops for buses or the kinds of neighborhood shuttles that run in Waltham and Lexington.
We’re fortunate that we can make these kinds of tradeoffs, where denser cities and towns closer to Boston simply don’t have have the street space.
Sean, I have read your post several times and while I agree with the Complete Streets design of roadways, I find your verbiage lacking any awareness of prescient and on-going problems of perceived fiscal inequality in Newton. You use the terms “residential parking” and “burden” without any delineation. It reads that you are putting the burden of proof on a minority instead of on the majority. That’s a hard row to hoe.
It’s not elitist to advocate for safe bike lanes, safer streets, traffic calming, wider sidewalks and shorter pedestrian crossings. I do. I also have ample off-street parking at my home but realize not every Newton resident does. This post sounds more like us vs them than a more inclusive advocacy for complete streets for all – us and them.
Sweeping statements, such as “There is growing awareness that, of all of the uses of the city right-of-way, residential parking is the least beneficial” and “Here’s a simple … change we can make in Newton: put the burden on residential parking proponents to justify using city right-of-way for car storage,” lead readers, who aren’t on your wave length, have no other place to park at their home and who already feel the threat of being underrepresented, to perceive this proposed policy as handing them yet another burden.
Mike Halle added nuance by commenting, “there is no “one size fits all” answer to balancing parking and bicyclist/pedestrian needs on Newton’s streets,” and “The more we work together, the better our solutions will be.” and “This is one (and only one) tool in the toolbox.”
Adam, in your comments, “The intent is not to reprioritize on-street everywhere, only in focused areas:” and “It seems to me this corresponds (respectively) to arterials, village centers, and very limited application on side streets where traffic calming devices may be useful,” you further describe what Sean was trying to say but again these are your perceptions and these explanations are not in the post.
Meredith provided a good explanation of why the post itself, without comments adding further explanation, is seen as elitist. “It’s elitist if one side has to prove itself worthy, rather than starting with an open mind.”
.
.
Marti,
I appreciate the feedback on my posts. I’ll try to better next time.
As Adam points out, there is a status quo. And, the burden is on the people arguing for removing on-street parking. I want to shift that burden. It has nothing to do with majority and minority. In my experience, though, bike advocates are rarely in the majority in Newton.
Since the publication of The High Cost of Free Parking, by Donald Shoup, the economics of parking have become better and better understood. And, the growing consensus is that we have too much parking and that too much parking has really, really bad consequences. Among the worst affected by the surplus of parking are those for whom transportation takes up more and more of their household budgets. Too much parking leads to sprawl, which leads to the less well off living farther and farther from their jobs, which requires a car and its expenses, and which costs valuable time.
In addition, especially someplace like Newton where there is limited right-of-way (our streets are narrow), there are competing uses: car travel, bike travel, car storage, kids playing, pedestrian crossings, &c. From a macro level, if there are competing uses, car storage is the least beneficial use. Neighborhood-by-neighborhood, there may be exceptions, but generally car storage, especially free car storage, is not a good use of the right-of-way.
You are right to point out the inclusiveness of Michael’s post. (I can attest that he generally is inclusive in his real-world approaches, too.) And, yes, if we can work together, that would be great. But policy execution often involves making hard choices. I’m suggesting that the framework for making those hard choices be shifted.
Finally, I reject the notion that the only way to be sympathetic to the less well off is to make sure that there are a full range of car-centric options. Other cities are finding that transportation equity means more alternatives to the expense of buying, maintaining, storing, and driving a car. Consider that the person who needs an on-street parking space may need a car because Newton has done a crappy job of providing safe bike accommodations.
The “who gets to park on my street” discussion is as polarized as the leaf blower issue. Both would be great fodder for a Mayoral candidate debate!
For winter over-night street parking I see three options:
a. No over-night street parking
b. Anyone can park on the street overnight
c. Resident only parking
Our current model of “no over-night parking” is NOT the elitist option! If we opened up all streets to “anyone can park wherever” then people are going to fine they can’t even park in front of their own house during the day in some areas! That’s my situation now. Then people are going to want more “resident only” stickers, which some parts of the City already have them–and that is the ELITIST model prevalent in Brookline and Boston.
‘Our current model of “no over-night parking” is NOT the elitist option!” Of course it’s elitist. It only affects neighborhoods with less affluent residents. The people in favor of the ban have no idea what stress this law puts on some Newton families. Plus, I had to move my car on a few 80+ degree days in early April — come ON, Newton.
Also, the idea of being able to walk or bike everywhere reeks of privilege. For instance, I my small home has no bike storage. I’m fortunate enough to be able to walk to a supermarket, but I can’t do a full grocery shop and I’m stuck dragging my kid for a relatively long walk for a pair of little legs. (Too old for a stroller, too small to keep up with me) Some people in other neighborhoods are NOT walking distances to a supermarket. I live near express buses that don’t even run on Sundays and the commuter rail which doesn’t go near places to run errands. Some neighborhoods are lacking even more in the public transit department. Some people also have to commute to places where they have to rely on a car. I think Sean lives in an unrealistic little bubble where it’s just him and his bike.
Okay, everybody, take a deep breath and re-read the headline and the post. I did not call for the elimination of on-street residential parking. I simply proposed that, during consideration of how we allocate the right-of-way, maintaining the status quo not automatically be the default starting point.
I would think that those attacking my position might at least acknowledge that our current car-centric infrastructure and policies are not good for us locally or globally. It’s going to take some tough transition to wean us off the automobile, but we need to start. Parking is a good place to begin.
To repeat, I did not call for a ban on on-street residential parking. Please be kind enough to respond to what I wrote, not your worst fears about what I might be thinking.
Thanks.
Sean is correct. he never did call for a ban on on-street parking and he must have known that his willingness to raise the issue of reducing automobile use would produce a lot of discussion and some kick back. That’s what a good post is supposed to do.
I’m still trying to figure out why parking a car on the street because there is no on-site parking is being called “car storage.” This seems to be a deliberately biased and misleading term.
Newton is a relatively large city and the public transportation is by and large oriented for commuters to go in or out of Newton, not for locals to get around doing daily tasks.
Please do think of all those who because of health and other life conditions cannot walk or bike to get around.
The strength of blogs like this is to bring up issues and start discussions, as Bob Burke suggests.
We also see the weaknesses of going much beyond that. This is an imperfect medium for understanding each other, finding workable solutions, and getting things done. Few of the world’s problems have been solved in a comment thread.
I hope Transportation Advisory Group meetings and other face to face civic discussions can help bridge some of these gaps, bring in well meaning people with many different viewpoints, and help Newton improve its streets and streetscapes for everyone.
@Tara
Transportation geeks often refer to “parking” as “car storage” because that’s exactly what it is. Parking is the biased term. It does not acknowledge the cost of the land or other potential uses.
“Car storage” isn’t specific to particular neighborhoods or public streets (garages, private lots and driveways are car storage also) It doesn’t matter if there’s on-site space or not, a car is being stored there. I believe traffic engineers even use the term to describe long turn lanes where queuing takes place. I don’t see the term as biased, only an acknowledgement of the choice to use space to store cars and the associated opportunity cost, especially where space is so valuable —
whether for parks, landscaping, sidewalks, housing, tax-generating buildings, bike lanes or even more pressing uses for cars, like (gasp!) additional travel lanes or short-term parking for business customers.