The Newton City Council will consider new parking rules when it meets Monday night that –if I understand them correctly — would not allow you to park at the same meter, the same block or even the same city parking lot — twice in the same day.
So, for example, let’s say you parked in the Newton Center Langley parking lot one morning to have breakfast at Johnny’s Luncheonette. Then later that afternoon, you return to Newton Center to take your kids to J.P. Licks. Under the new rules, you could be subject to a parking ticket if you parked in the Langley lot in the afternoon because the proposed rules say you can’t return to the same block or city lot on the same day.
Here’s another example: Let’s say you’re visiting your elderly Aunt Sylvia who lives on a street in Auburndale that has a time restricted two-hour limit. Under the proposed new rules, after two hours you would need to move your vehicle “beyond the nearest intersection,” which I interpret to mean to a different block or street.
But not only that: Let’s say you went to run some errands for dear old Aunt Syl and bring her back her some Epson salts and a replacement cable for her iPad. Upon your return, you would need to park at least a block away — even if there was a parking space available right in front of auntie’s house.
Here’s one more: You’re waiting for an eye doctor’s appointment in Newtonville and have parked at a one-hour meter. After waiting a half hour, it becomes clear that the doctor is running late and maybe you ought to run out and feed the meter.
You can’t. Once you’ve parked in a space for the maximum allowed time, you can’t feed the meter to add extra time. You will need to move your vehicle to another block. (Actually under existing rules perhaps you weren’t supposed to do this either, but who doesn’t?)
Here’s the city’s current overtime parking regulation (Chapter 19, Section 190)
“No person shall park a vehicle for a longer consecutive period than the limit specified and between the hours specified on any of the streets or parts of streets designated as parking meter zones in which parking meters and parking meter spaces are to be established pursuant to the traffic and parking regulations”.
…and here’s the new one (#38-18) which the Public Safety committee passed 6-2 and will go before the City Council on Monday.
“No person shall park a vehicle within a designated metered parking space or in a parking space within a time-restricted area for a longer consecutive period than the time limit specified or beyond the hours specified. Vehicles must be moved to a location beyond the nearest intersection or to a location outside an off-street municipal parking lot upon or before the expiration of the posted time limit, and may not return the same day.”
[Read more here, toward the very end of this very long agenda, including information about the rules in some neighboring communities.]
As I understand it, the city is looking at changing the current rules in order to improve turn over of parking spaces by making the rules clearer and enforcement manageable.
The goal is to make it easier for all of us to find a space when we need it to go shopping, meet a friend for coffee, stop at the post office, or visit an ATM.
Really, it’s a well-intended attempt to solve a genuine problem.
But in a city where the current transportation mix is still mostly car-dependent, I believe we need a more holistic approach to parking management – including perhaps congestion pricing – that will encourage turnover of the highly desirable parking spaces without preventing users from returning to the same destination on the same day
I could understand it if it were, say, within 2 hours. But to lose access for the whole day is ridiculous.
Do Aunt Syl’s Epson salts come in a toner cartridge ☺
Haha. Gotta love autocorrect
I’m missing something – the docketed item doesn’t include an explanation of the problem it’s trying to solve. Given that the Tab doesn’t cover city council business anymore, maybe someone on Public Safety can explain the reasoning behind this here.
Suggest that City Council just consider changing the last 7 words of the proposed new language to something like “and may not return for 2 (3?) hours” or “and may not return for 2 hours unless otherwise posted” and I think that we will have something clearer and better overall than the confusion that we have now.
???? Huh?!
As Jane says, what’s the problem being solved? Whatever it is it sounds like the cure is worse than the problem.
I’ll add my voice to the “what problem is being solved?” crowd. I should think restaurants in village centers (and their patrons) cannot be amused by this proposal.
Or we could work on improving public transportation, walkability, and cycling infrastructure so that fewer trips need to be taken by car.
I think they are trying to prevent employees in Village centers hogging the meters all day. I’m not advocating for this solution, just commenting.
Absolute craziness! Hope the Newton Chamber is opposed.
@Lucia “I think they are trying to prevent employees in Village centers hogging the meters all day. I’m not advocating for this solution, just commenting.”
That is a likely reason but agree CC needs to define the problem they at are trying to solve. There are at least two parking lots in Newton Center that offer all day parking. Personally I seldom have an issue finding a parking spot in NC on a Saturday which would presumably be the highest demand day
Bummer
I’m surprised that these new parking rules were passed in committee. They create problems for residents that are unnecessary, annoying and even burdensome to those with physical disabilities and others with mobility issues. I can’t imagine why these restrictive regulations would be legal.
The most parking demand in Newton Centre comes after 6pm when all the restaurants are busy… and the parking is FREE. Terminating meter fees at 6pm in Newton Centre costs the city hundreds of thousand$ in lost revenue. That kind of mismanagement is clearly an issue. Maybe Councilors should address that first, before making up problems to solve.
These restrictions were approved by Councilors Ciccone, Auchincloss, Cote, Downs, Markiewicz and Lipof with Councilors Noel and Grossman voting no. Apparently the law department gave its approval.
The proposed language states “vehicles must be moved to a location beyond the nearest intersection or to a location outside an off‐street municipal parking lot upon or before the expiration of the posted time limit, and may not return the same day”, unless the proposed ordinance is revised to include “unless otherwise posted.”
Sgt. Babcock stated that a driver must remove their vehicle from a parking lot and not to another parking meter to allow turnover.” And “to avoid citations.” He then stated that the Police Department has received complaints from residents and commuters regarding the current ordinance evidently without explaining what the complaints were concerning.
Call or email city councilors if you have problems with these new restrictions.
This seems like it would only have a negative impact on Newton Center. It’s difficult enough for business owners to survive! Newton Center is popular not just because it has a lot of options, but also because people know that they can find parking (unlike West Newton Center for example). If this passes, then people like me who might park in the morning to get a coffee and then later to run an errand, would be going elsewhere.
It would be interesting to try this out on all those spaces around city hall first! Install meters, force city employees, just like small business owners, to have to feed meters (and now drive off to a different location in order to not get a ticket) and let’s not forget to keep the library lot for patrons of the library.
Call our city councillors? Why? Common sense cannot be learned.
Far easier to just shop and dine in other towns. There are plenty of drugstores, restaurants, bookstores, salons, etc in Waltham, Watertown, Needham, Brookline and Boston. Easy peasy.
Call our city councillors? Why? Common sense cannot be learned.
Far easier to just shop and dine in other towns. There are plenty of drugstores, restaurants, bookstores, salons, etc in Waltham, Watertown, Needham, Brookline and Boston. Some even provide free bags! Easy peasy.
But turnover dosn’t solve the problem of scarcity. What are they thinking? Forcing people to move before they are ready to move just discourages people from coming to begin with – If a meeting with your lawyer, dinner with friends or visiting your aunt is likely to go over time, you may just decide to find another lawyer eat somewhere else or not visit your aunt. Who is responsible for this idea?
@Elmo – I, for one, don’t want to punish local business owners for something out of their control. That said, I hope and expect that they will protest this proposal, which is bad for everyone.
Wow, this would be so bad for business owners. They should be outraged that this is on the table. I wouldn’t want to hurt local business owners either, but if I wanted to go out for lunch and then take a little walk afterwards, this would certainly make me think twice about going to Newton Centre!
I just got the City Council Newsletter, and amending the overtime parking ordinance is on the agenda for this coming Monday evening.
One note on the parking districts, at least in the Auburndale district residents can get two visitor passes from the Newton PD to allow guests to override the two hour limit on their street. I can kind of see the rational for the limit on resident streets since there’s a solution for resident guests, but the metered parking restrictions seem like overkill if the limit is really going to be hours for the entire day. Curious as to what the specific situations are that were triggering complaints.
So this morning on my way to work, I stopped at Keyes in Auburndale Square to pick up a prescription, parking in a 2-hour spot on Auburn St. Later in the day, I stopped at Tom’s Pizza, parking on the same block. If this ordinance passes, I’m supposed to drive past the open spaces near Tom’s and park a block away because I went to the drugstore in the morning? How exactly does that make things better for anyone?
I too think this is a bit silly, but I have seen it before and might be able to shed a little light on the potential motivation.
When I lived in San Francisco, there was a similar rule (for street parking; public lots aren’t a thing). The motivation was enforcement — apparently people would move themselves inches forward and claim that it was a new spot, since there weren’t lines/markers/numbers to reference. Traffic enforcement would chalk tires, and folks would move just enough that the chalk didn’t line up. A block became the minimum logical division for street parking, and the 24-hour limit prevented people from cycling back and forth between two blocks all day. None of that really explains lots or metered parking, of course.
I imagine the goal of time-limited parking is to prevent folks who live or work in an area from hogging a valuable commercial/retail-oriented spot all day. And maybe that’s a fine goal. And maybe the use cases so many folks have mentioned above wouldn’t actually get cited. But the new wording, while perhaps intended toward that goal, definitely has issues.
If this is indeed to prevent employees from parking for the duration of their shift, where are these employees supposed to park?
@MMQC: totally fair question, but probably more related to the two hour limit itself than this modification.
Lots of potential responses though, none of which are perfect: take public transportation, have businesses dedicate space to employee parking, have businesses rent spaces elsewhere, etc.
A comment from Andreae Downs on Facebook: “Employee long-term parking at meters. And a loophole in the ordinance that did not allow enforcement of the unmetered time limits on residential streets. Until we have a better tool (such as demand-based pricing), we have the blunt tool of time limits. It’s not great, but the current system can be appealed into meaninglessness”
This is indeed a blunt instrument and as such will have many unintended negative consequences as most blunt actions generally do. Both local businesses and residents will suffer as a result.
Elmo, these ridiculous restrictions have only passed in the public safety committee and go to the full council on Monday. Letting our city council know the what voters think might have an effect on how the vote will go in the full council. I would rather be proactive first and reactive if need be. But if this passes, I will go where it’s most convenient for me when I have multiple things to do.
I would like to know what types of complaints were made to the police by residents and commuters and why the result is to punish those who live and run businesses here. This is nuts!
Another comment from Andrea Downs:
But metered parking is only a fraction of the available parking. And the most convenient. One reason it can be hard for customers to find a space is that employees arrive early and feed the meters—including those who admit to living near theD line! This is one incentive to instead take long term meters or park further from the center. The city is also working to make private lot space available via apps (and zoning)
Plus some comments:
So, in other words, this ordinance will adversely impact the people who can least afford it. A blunt tool indeed.
And when you “cure” the problem of long term employee parking, who will be wanting to work in Newton? And what businesses will want to stay if they can’t attract employees?
This really can’t be good for local businesses!
This has been a persistent issue for years for Newton’s youth outreach workers. They are Master’s level clinicians making pitiful salaries doing tireless and thankless work supporting Newton’s riskiest kids. Yet they get slapped with parking tickets for doing their city-funded jobs. There has to be a better way!
And just to add, these clinicians have never successfully appealed any of their parking tickets, and the city has refused to grant them any kind of parking pass (like those with Senior Center stickers get) or immunity.
Is this something that has to be done at a city-wide level or could it be applied to specific areas as-needed? From Andrea’s comment it sounds like there are some legitimate situations for this if employees are feeding the short term meters instead of long term parking that’s further away. In those cases where they just want closer parking instead of need then it makes sense to throw some additional restrictions to keep the intent of short term meters. On the other hand if they’re feeding the meters because there legitimately isn’t any other option then this isn’t going to help. Preferably the city could address those problem areas specifically like what was done with the parking districts instead of applying a hammer on every lot.
So, this is indeed a blunt instrument. It just seems like the net effect will be to make folks’ lives more inconvenient.
I have written to my other ward councillors (John Rice and Deb Crossley) asking them to vote against this when it comes up before the full council, and I have asked Andreae to reconsider her position.
I suggest that the commenters write to their councillors if they feel the same way.
Be sure to remember to write to all 16 of the councilors who are elected citywide. They are supposed to represent everyone in Newton, not just the people who live in their wards.
This is really pathetic. And of course it dumps mightily on Newtonville, the city’s dumping ground. I used to rent in the Orr Building, which had parking, but that’s gone. I now rent in a nearby building which only has a few spaces, not enough. Sometimes I find a 12-hour meter on Washington St., but there aren’t enough. And it’s going to get a lot worse when more of Austin St. is gone.
I *never* park in a 2-hour metered space; those are for shoppers. But ALL of the streets within 4-5 blocks of the train are 2-hour limited. So realistically there are no options except to park on a side street and move it a couple of times per day. In the past few months the city has gotten MUCH tougher about enforcement, too; this may be how Ruthanne wants to balance the budget. So where am I supposed to park now?
There could be more 12-hour meters if they replaced some more parallel parking spaces with angle parking, but that goes against the current car-hating grain. Councilor Downs, for instance, is one of those fitness and bicycle buffs who detests all things car, and wants to make it impossible for motorists to use the city. By driving to work, I’m evil in her mind. This goes along with another plan to change zoning to set a MAXIMUM, rather than minimum, number of parking spaces per house. New McMansions will (if this goes through) be prohibited from having more than two spaces. So no SUVs for the kids, and no visitors in the winter.
These are the same lame-brains who think that cars will be obsolete in 2025 because we’ll all just call for self-driving Ubers. After all, private car ownership only exists because we hate taxi drivers, right? That’s our city council and planning department at work.
I’m not going to renew my lease next winter –my business is clearly not welcome in this city any more.
And there I was thinking we are doomed to smart growth philosophy.. seems this philosophical train wreck is about to be tested in Newton!
You know, I have to say that I’ve felt pretty disappointed by our current City Council and Mayor so far. I don’t feel that they have the best interests of the majority of their constituents in mind. But….I hope to be proven wrong. The jury is out for me about the current School Committee.
Good to see you on V14, Fred. We disagree on some things but in this mania over punishing drivers by passing laws before other transportation options are readily available, we agree including this parking fiasco and limiting the number of cars per home built.
I live within easy walking distance to Newtonville Center. If I lived in a more suburban area of Newton, I would need a car to get anywhere and so would my children.
As for self-driving cars, people are not confident enough and they are not safe enough yet to be mass marketed. Tesla just suffered a major setback when it revealed a fatal crash while on “autopilot.”
I’ve heard back from several Councilors (I emailed my ward councilor and all the at-large ones) saying that at tonight’s meeting, it will be sent back to the Committee for revision.
Every single city counselor should be fired. Do not vote them back in. Newton is no longer Newton. These are the most ridiculous parking bans I’ve ever heard of. We currently have one hour parking in front of restaurants. Absolutely absurd. There is no commonsense left in the city. Newton center is a ghost town. The drugs and alcohol are in Freeview at the high schools and no one does anything about it. The quality of life in Newton is the lowest it’s ever been.
predictable. I’m sure it’s not the first time.
As for the rumored zoning changes, if we are talking about preventing snout houses with three garages, I’m in favor. It’s hard to believe any McMansion isn’t going to have enough driveway to park an extra couple of SUVs.
#NewtonProblems.
Adam,it wasn’t about snout houses (which should be banned; that they exist is because of a rather loose reading of the zoning law). It was about getting people to stop using cars, forcing people to use bikes and (almost nonexistent) trains to go everywhere instead. This came up at the Newtonville charette this past winter (well, it was supposed to be past by now). So they want to cap parking spaces, and allow new units without parking, or buildings without much.
So snouts would be okay if there are only two garage bays and no outdoor spaces. Because these planners love ugly.
April 5, 2018
Dear Newton Parking Deciders:
I’ve worked in Newton Centre since 1996.
It’s a nice village, with some interesting shops and restaurants.
Since I’ve worked here (later morning through evening), my experience is that it is a hostile area to park in, whether you work here or come here to shop or dine:
The parking ladies have an awful job.
The city has budget lines for paying parking meter ladies.
Let’s bag those positions. Let them do something more interesting and useful for the city for their salary, other than walking around putting tickets on cars. What an incredible waste of human talent and resources.
Remove all the meters in the City; a total waste of time, money, meter maintenance, and employment of people for a task the city doesn’t need.
If the city needs the cash, bill me and other people who work in the Centre some reasonable yearly fee for whatever the city needs money for.
This will eliminate me wasting my time putting quarters in the meters during the day, as well as the city’s time with personnel managing parking hearings and parking department time managing billing for tickets, etc. Another huge waste of time.
Let people park where they want for as long as they want, less the need for handicap parking, blocking driveways, crosswalks, etc.
I wonder what would happen if these changes were implemented? The world would fall apart? The city will go broke? People will mourn the loss of the poor parking ladies who get harassed for giving out tickets 30 seconds after the meter expires?
The village of Newton Centre could grow in to a much more welcoming community of people interested in making the city friendlier, kinder, more humane, more intelligent, and wiser.
All best,
Alan Albert