The following message was shared with Village 14 by City Councilors Andreae Downs (ward 5 at-large), Jake Auchincloss (ward 2 at-large), and Andrea Kelley (ward 3 at-large)
Mid-day on Friday, Julia Malakie sent every member of City Council a survey on the library parking lot project. We have chosen to self-publish our answers here.
First, some history:
- The library lot has not been maintained since its creation in 1991. It is clearly in need of it.
- The Library Trustees voted to accept solar car ports over the lot on condition that the lot be expanded from its current state of 181 spaces, as peak demand at the library is high. The lot is shared by City Hall visitors, and vice versa.
- The expanded lot would be between 206 – 217 spaces, depending on whether pedestrian walkways are included.
So, whether or not solar carports come to the library, the lot needs maintenance and the Trustees want more car spaces.
The city’s Capital Improvement Plan estimates the changes to the library lot will cost from $750–800,000. At this week’s Finance Committee meeting, the city asked for an additional $175,000 for the lot’s design.
Ms Malakie asked councilors: “Is there an upper limit to how much additional spending you will vote to approve in order to actually build it? If so, what is that amount?”
She further stated that our answers should be a matter of “opinion” that would not require research, i.e., calling city employees for background information.
But our approach is first to do our homework as best we can. Here’s what we found in an afternoon of calling city officials and online research:
Currently, surface parking spaces cost between $5,000–$10,000 each, including the cost of the land. For a lot of 217 spaces, this pencils out to $2.17 million (upper limit, budgeting conservatively). Given that the lot is currently graded and owned by the city, perhaps the lower number is better—$1.1 million. Remember, the city’s estimate ranges up to $800,000.
But there are other considerations. Ms. Malakie’s second question refers to this: “What is the maximum amount of additional spending you would approve for a plan that does not eliminate flooding risk?”
The lot did flood in the 1990s during intense rain. The cause, according to city engineering, was the city’s deferral of needed dredging of the City Hall and Bullough’s ponds. When the ponds fill with silt, the water will back up to the parking lot. It is one reason that the CIP now includes dredging these ponds every decade or so.
The design funds voted out of Finance, and pending before the Council Monday night, include impervious pavement and bioswales, which would mitigate rainwater flowing off the lot and into the ponds. In other words, city engineers are already thinking about how to lessen this risk. In the era of climate crisis, however, risk is always present.
Impervious pavement or blocks and bioswales are more expensive to construct and design than non-engineered green spaces and pavement. And we would expect our colleagues to also take that into account when assessing the cost of the expanded parking lot.
Finally, Ms. Malakie asked “If/when the additional parking spaces are no longer sufficient to satisfy increased demand, would you support some combination of free spaces and demand-sensitive metered spaces to promote turnover (e.g. something like the 85% occupancy/15% vacancy rate target considered optimal)?”
Council is currently considering delegating control of the price of parking at meters to city staff, while retaining control of parking policy. This is a commonly-used tool to allow the city to charge the lowest price possible to attain a policy goal—best practices are about 85% occupancy.
We are considering this tool for currently metered areas with high demand, like Newton Centre, as well as areas of low demand, like Upper Falls (where the price of the meters could be lower).
But there are other concerns with the library lot. First, there’s a lot across the street (City Hall). There’s also street parking, much of it in front of residences. Council to date has been reluctant to meter in front of homes. If we meter the library lot, but not the city lot—you see where this is going. Before weighing in on metering one lot, we would need to have a larger discussion with our colleagues about metering or other parking restrictions in the entire area. It’s a conversation we would enjoy, and we’d hope that a fair outcome would be the result. But we haven’t heard all sides on this yet—and one reason for putting this discussion on Village 14 is to start to gather some information from the public.
Questions we need answers to include:
1. Given the number of elderly and very young visitors to the library, do people prefer walkways in the lot, or more spaces?
2. How do people feel about paying a meter to visit the parking clerk’s office? The treasurer? Elections?
3. Should city employees, who work in these buildings, also pay parking meter fees?
We will be looking for your responses in the comments.
By the way—we are governed by the Open Meeting Law. We cannot have sidebar conversations with our council colleagues on matters before us, except in groups smaller than a quorum (which the Law Department has set, for safety’s sake, at 4). So we will not be responding in the comments section to any colleague’s comments on this post.
Thank you for sharing this. I would hate to see meter parking in the library lot because I hate to add any impediments to using the library which I consider an important public resource.
On the other hand, I think it would be reasonable to require city employees to get parking stickers at a relatively small annual fee. many of us work places where we have to pay for parking and given that they might well be there all day, I think it would be reasonable to charge $50 or so for an annual parking sticker.
Walkways would be prudent given the combination of drivers + young children walking simultaneously through that lot.
How do the solar panel influence the flow of water onto the lot?
I think my colleagues meant to way “pervious” pavement [not impervious]
Did Julia send this to the council in her capacity as a city council candidate? In her role with the tree conservancy? Something else?
I’m only going to respond to one aspect of the above post:
There are certain resources that the City owns that should be treated differently. The PUBLIC library is one. (The City already removed one public library so this is it.) Adding meters to a public library, which is an essential resource for people of lesser income, is a bad idea and one that this city should not entertain. We understand the parking problem, but I think if funding were spent to improve walking to the library then possibly more people would walk. The pathways through the garden in front of City Hall are horrendous; spend money there and make it more pleasant to to walk through and to get to the library. When we are talking about metering the public library, and Newton Center, we are basically imposing an obstacle to the public library to be equally used by residents of all income levels. Some cannot afford books (books are expensive and hardbound books even more); some cannot afford to have their newspapers delivered to their homes every day; some cannot afford multiple computers, and so on.
The same can be said of the congregation pricing in NC: some will have no trouble at all popping more money into the Passport system, and paying fines for overstaying by even a minute. To others, it will be a burden that may even require them to miss work, and lose a half a day’s salary. Many will choose to patronize Wegmans and “The Street” and other places where parking is free and people are encouraged to spend time. Where they’re encouraged to spend time, and their money, they will.
The thinking also is counter-productive to the entire question the City is engaged in nowadays: “affordable” housing and “affordability.”
There are many other solutions to the issue of congestion; this should not be one.
Demand-based pricing for parking is a tool to manage parking in the most efficient way possible, and I support it for shopping areas and areas near T stops. The goal is to meet the occupancy levels using the **lowest price** possible. Someone in a hurry—of any income (and the lowest income folks don’t drive, sorry), will be happy to find a spot even at a slightly higher price. Someone planning to stay the day will find parking further away—there are free, all-day spots within blocks of our highest-demand areas—if the cost of the multiples of hours they plan to spend is too rich for their budget—or inclination. Parking and driving thus becomes a more conscious choice rather than the automatic way to travel. Fewer people cruise for parking, meaning traffic is lighter and emissions reduced. But we understand that the Library and its surrounds are a special case, which is why we solicited input. @Rick, I recall that the solar carports don’t change the drainage of the parking lot. And yes, we meant “pervious pavement” costs more.
@Andreae “there are free, all-day spots within blocks of our highest-demand areas”
Well, there used to be, in Newton Centre, but over the years they have turned into 3 hour spots, so now, when I work at my office in Newton Centre, I compete for spaces with everyone else in the parking lots. I guess the people along Laurel and Crystal Street didn’t want the Hoi Polloi parking along their street for the day any more. Further away is not worth the time, I’d rather pay the ticket ( I get paid by the hour )
@Rick I agree that the whole area needs a closer look. Traffic Council tends to take a street-by-street view, but after years of that, we clearly need to look more holistically. Think of this as a first step.
Some thoughts. I agree with Jane that the library should be as accessible as possible to all. However, free parking at the library means that more people can drive to City Hall, which uses up that “social good” resource at the library for those that truly need it. City Hall desperately needs a transportation management program for its employees. Newton can lead by example and show the real benefits of TMA.
Alternative options at the library include free short term parking (either specific spaces or smart meters that allow, say, one hour free). Parking meters are an inconvenient and visible expense for those who use them, but for the huge majority of customers/visitors the cost of that parking is negligible compared to car expenses or housing. (Employee parking, especially for lower wage workers, is a higher proportional cost.)
I would also note that parking fees are better received when at least a portion of the money goes back to the local business district or institution. “Your parking fees go to improving the library grounds and early reading programs”, or other great causes, takes some of the sting out.
The antidote for “if parking isn’t free, people will go elsewhere” is to create awesome places people love, and put them near each other. Newton’s villages are perfect for this vision. There are plenty of thriving main streets across the US and the world: they offer things people want, including food, goods, and experiences that aren’t available on Amazon. As for libraries, we often go to Watertown, with their parking meters, because their children’s section is amazing.
I also feel that the Newton Free Library, including its parking lot, should be a place of fond memories and community building. It should be safe and green and beautiful and fun. The city has decided that solar carports will be part of this vision, so work around that constraint. Hanging gardens using rainwater. Sculptures that make photo memories. Walkways that make the journey safer. More places to sit and read. Infrastructure that is good for the planet.
Everything the City does should be a showcase for best practices and good design, for the benefit of the broadest expanse of the public. Our public institutions serve everyone. We set the example. Let’s not dream small.
So my question is: Why is Waban Square the only shopping village in Newton to avoid parking meters?
The Newton Library parking lot needs an update. I don’t agree with the meters. But one of my pet peeves is going to the library in the winter on a Saturday morning during story hour, and there is limited parking because the snow takes up spots. And I am willing to park along the back, however city owned trucks and cars are in those spots! I don’t want to waste gas and circle the lot, but I want to be able to park and use the library. And since I don’t have a Village Library open the hours that the Newton Public Library is open, I am limited.
In the summer, there are many people who hang there reading to cool off. I don’t think we should punish people who are using the library to cool off (who don’t have A/C, or who don’t want to turn on their A/C) and ask them to pay for parking.
While I don’t want to do a tiered space (first five spaces each aisle has a meter and the rest are free), I don’t know of too many people who abuse the parking lot and walk to a bus/train.
I always wished that the library wasn’t in such an isolated location. Its location kind of forces people to drive there unless you live in that neighborhood or if you’re a cyclist. Not a lot we can do about it now, but if Four Corners is built up and essentially becomes a new village, maybe there could be a way to sort of “connect” Four Corners enticing people to walk since it’s only a half mile to the library making the area a better destination.
I will also add that it’s frustrating to see the same City employee cars taking up prime parking real estate day after day. There’s one with a bunch of bumper stickers that I see every day parked on the street by the library pretty much every day and it always bugs me that they’re there all day and they take up a spot that maybe a family could use to get to the library easier. Even though I like the bumper stickers the driver has.
Parking is an issue in a growing city, and encouraging green forms of transportation should be a policy goal (protected bikeways on main streets and needed improvements to the Newton commuter rail stations would be a nice start).
I’m lucky to live within walking distance of the library (and walked there this Sunday).
But I cringe at the thought of charging for attending Newton’s most democratic institution, the “Free” library. I don’t want any family to avoid a trip to the library — or to limit the hours they spend there — because of the cost of parking. Period. The only public transportation that reaches the library, as far as I know, is the unreliable 59 bus.
Oh also: Green the DPW fleet and school buses
Changes that make it more expensive, difficult or risky for elderly folks who can still safely drive but can’t walk distances or bike, to use City services, is, i think, rather inconsiderate, to say the least. After a certain age, walking any distance becomes much more wearing, and even impossible, and, even if you are able, biking entails a much, much greater risk to your life. While many are fortunate to be able to afford to pay for parking, there are others for whom it would be a burden and who would probably just stay home, rather than attempting to walk to the library or risking their lives by biking to read a book
Let’s add to the conversation that there is a bus shelter in the SB direction but not one in the NB direction. Maybe some of that $175K ought to be spent on a bus shelter in the NB direction.
Andreae, Andrea and Jake, thank you for putting this post together, and giving people a chance to weigh in on the parking questions! I’m sorry I didn’t realize this was here sooner. There are so many topics I may have to do installments.
I do think you comparison to the $2M or so cost of creating a parking lot is not apt. We already own the land. The parking lot does need repaving. So I think the appropriate comparison is the cost of repaving the lot we have, with whatever should be used (permeable asphalt or impermeable, and Josh Morse has said permeable has to be kept unclogged, and doesn’t work if the water table is too high) with the cost of a plan with the drainage improvements and/or parking space increase. How much taxpayer money are people willing to spend for either or both of those?
I haven’t heard anyone claim that anything done to Library lot drainage will eliminate the need for City Hall pond dredging, and I doubt it will, since storm drains from other areas converge into those ponds. It’s a low area, and it seems like we’re trying to develop a better drainage plan for the Netherlands, but perhaps the $175,000 will buy us answers.
Meanwhile, Chris Markiewicz’s recent newsletter noted that there’s a $400K item in the CIP for drainage improvements at Lyons Field in Auburndale, but that is not funded, nor was his docket item for an engineering study there. Which is more urgent, Lyons Field or the Library lot? Where has flooding been more of a problem?
Re free vs pay, I’d prefer the keep the lot free for reasons people have stated, and because I’m someone who will walk three blocks to avoid feeding a meter. But it seems inconsistent to be willing to price-ration in village centers but suddenly, here councilors are worried about older people and people with children and it not being on a transit route. (It actually is on a bus route, as someone else mentioned.) For most people in Newton, and not in Newton, it’s no more practical to get to Newton Centre or Newtonville by transit than it is to get to the Library by transit.
I actually think the best approach could be some combination of free 10-minute spaces for people just dropping off or picking up items, pay-station metered parking for people who want to be sure of getting a space but stay for hours, and free parking for most of the lot, for people who are willing to come at off-peak times or wait for a space. For perspective, I think it was Presidents Day I drove around and looked at the Library parking lots in Wellesley, Watertown and Waltham. By the way, Wellesley’s lot has great trees, and Wellesley still has a branch library or two, but I’ll leave branch libraries for another comment. I can’t paste a table, but here’s a link to a JPG on my Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AN-rSLhqBOFTXIeum7BSFEGUp9EBCHmQ/view?usp=sharing
I do think it’s unrealistic to think the added spaces in the proposed plan, with or without walkways, won’t be quickly sucked up by people from near and far who realize it’s suddenly easier to park at peak times. And we will be back to the current state of affairs, with more asphalt, more cars, more car trips, and less tree canopy.
@Julia: Did you survey the council in your capacity with the Tree Conservancy? As a candidate? Or something else?
@Greg, just in my capacity as an interested resident, and I’ve been questioning the escalating promises and plans being used to persuade the Library trustees to go along with the solar since last year.
https://village14.com/2018/12/10/deja-vu-on-library-parking-lot-trees-and-solar-carports-but-theres-more/#axzz5q2Zr3J5n
https://village14.com/2019/01/07/fuller-revises-plans-for-solar-panels-on-city-properties/#axzz5q2Zr3J5n
I know this may sound like an odd request but I wonder if they could erect a basketball hoop on the southwest corner of the lot. for kids. Perhaps designate a few spots which would ordinarily be used for parking as recreation. Or perhaps I’m just being nostalgic since I used to shoot hoops there when I was a kid on Saturday and Sunday mornings when I was a kid back in the 1970s.
@julia I don’t find your response convincing. You used this information in a post written on your candidate blog (http://www.juliamalakie.org/blog/how-much-will-city-spend-to-convince-library-trustees-to-replace-parking-lot-trees-with-solar-carports).
That post was dated June 1, this one is dated June 2. It suggests that you asked as a candidate and that you used the information as part of your campaign.
Greg and Chuck – why do Julia’s motives matter? Why not address her comments, esp: “And we will be back to the current state of affairs, with more asphalt, more cars, more car trips, and less tree canopy.”
From Newton’s recently adopted Climate Vulnerability Action Plan:
Heat
Recommended actions focus on improving buildings for the health and comfort of occupants, and on reducing heat and heat island impacts. Many Green Infrastructure/Low Impact Development strategies in the flooding section will also reduce heat impacts by reducing paving and expanding green space.
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/17/Newton%20CCVA%20and%20Adaptation%20Action%20Plan.pdf
To file under actions speak louder than words.
@lucia It actually does make a difference, especially in how the city councilors respond. If it’s a political request it means their information will be used for a very specific purpose. She did use it in a political context, but even after doing so told us that she asked for it as a constituent. Is this the kind of counselor she is going to be? One who plays loose with definitions?
On the parking lot issue, however, just one more thought. There’s been a lot of negative reaction to the idea of meters. Today I happened to be at both the Brookline library and library in Lexington. I parked at meters in both locations and at least in Lexington, I didn’t notice any free parking. I think Brookline has some sort of parking, but I’m not sure if that is free or paid.
If we move to meters we can use it in any of a number of ways. We can make it free for the first 15 minutes or even for the first hour, then paid for up to 3 hours. We can offer long-term meters or permitted spots to city hall employees, we can vary pricing depending on time of day, etc. If it’s all free, then we have no way to control demand or turnover.