While most of us are focused on the upcoming election, the city council overwhelmingly passed a new parking meter program. The Tab’s Julie Cohen in her Oct 22 title: Newton Businesses Flabbergasted by Possible $3.75 Parking Meters, (a major click bate title) includes both quotes from business owners, business leaders and city councilors – some against, some wanting to wait and see and some for.
An excerpt:
Outraged over the newly approved ordinance allowing the Department of Planning and Development to raise parking meter rates up to $3.75 in high-demand parts of the city, area shop and restaurant owners worried the move could be a “business killer.”
Some councilors originally wanted the limit raised to $5, but decided on $3.75 – the same Boston charges in the Back Bay (Newbury Street), higher than anywhere in Brookline and more than Cambridge charges in Harvard Square. In lower-demand areas of the city, meter prices could decrease.
The new plan “absolutely is the worst decision in the wrong direction,” said Jamie Kaye, owner of the Station Diner in Newton Centre, by email. “I guarantee ‘high-demand’ areas will quickly become low-demand areas because no one wants to be nickled and dimed to death trying to park.”
According to Jake Auchincloss, one of the councilors who voted to cede the council’s authority to set rates to the Planning Department, $3.75 was a compromise for in-demand areas. He pointed out via email rates in some village centers could decrease.
“We passed the first step in a much smarter approach to parking, which looks to optimize for availability and convenience of parking in our village centers by allowing for demand-based pricing. Reduces congestion, too, if implemented well,” he said.
If the City Council approves $1.5 million to replace all 1,100 street parking meters and add more kiosks to municipal lots, the rates could change by the spring. Each of the meters has a wireless cellular connection where fee amounts can be updated remotely, allowing Planning Department staff to increase or decrease the fees according to the demand.
Linda Gulman, owner of Indulge!, a candy shop in Newton Highlands, said she hopes the meter rates will not increase.
“In my opinion this will not make shoppers leave earlier than planned – this will force them to shop elsewhere where they don’t end up paying so much for parking. There are many more areas for them to go: Chestnut Hill Square, The Street, Wellesley, Needham and more,” she said via email.
…
Linda de Valpine, owner of Greentail Table in Nonantum, said that a $3.75 fee for in-demand parts of Newton seemed too high for an area outside of Boston, but had a nuanced opinion about raising prices in general.
“Perhaps it is reasonable in very high-demand areas to have higher rates – i.e. Newton Centre where people do circle around looking for parking spots,” she said. “However, in Nonantum, I think the higher parking rates would be a deterrent.”
Asked whether she thought higher meters could drive customers to shop in areas outside of village centers with free parking, de Valpine said, “Not necessarily. Nonantum has very unique retail, food, and service-oriented businesses which [offer] goods/services … not easily replicated in a mall setting.”
Greg Reibman, president of the Newton-Needham Regional Chamber, said via email that, “variable-price parking has been successfully employed in many communities and can make parking easier for those who need it, while reducing traffic congestion and emissions for everyone.
“If the prices are too high, we’ll know about it because we’ll see a lot of empty spaces. And if it’s too low, we’ll know that too because we’ll see the situation we see now, with cars driving around in circles looking for a place to park,” he said.
Reibman added that the chamber would be “watching closely but we believe this an idea worth exploring.”
no no no no no
Julie got this ALL WRONG.
The vote was about allowing for variable pricing in high-traffic areas. This means that prices, at some points in time at some locations, may go up, while at some locations at some points in time it may go down.
This is about managing the demand for parking so that it gets utilized by the people who need it most when they need it. This is not about making it more expensive to get your cup of coffee or to pick up your prescriptions.
This is to make it so you aren’t sitting in the Newton Centre parking lot stalking out a person walking to their car just so you can snag it. And frankly, if the lot is that parked up, then you’re going to be paying more for your space. The goal is to encourage you to, in that situation, look elsewhere for parking. It will also allow for higher turnover so businesses can get additional foot traffic.
A properly reported piece would not only have pointed this out, but would have spoken with businesses in other communities that have implemented this type of program.
Her title was definitely dubious but in the article itself she took comments from those with varied opinions about this type of parking program. I appreciate her including various perspectives rather than picking a side and just presenting that.
Chuck, are you just unhappy that this wasn’t an article that just agrees with you and the majority of the city council? Because that isn’t journalism that’s opinion. I realize that many so-called journalists have resorted to including their thoughts along with reporting the news – that doesn’t make it right!
What Chuck said. This article mischaracterized this program. Frankly, I don’t think the reporter understood how variable price, on demand parking works and probably explained it inadequately to the business owners she quoted.
The chamber will be releasing a statement soon and I will share a link.
@Marti this isn’t a matter of agreeing. She portrayed this as a parking increase and it’s not. She jumped on the $3.75 number and made it appear as if parking was just going to be that expensive. It’s not, that’s flat out wrong.
This is from Brenda Noel’s email to constituents:
“Did you know 30% of the traffic in Newton Centre is people driving around looking for a place to park? On-demand parking pricing aims to solve the problems created by charging too much or too little for curb parking. If the price is set too high and spaces remain open, nearby stores lose customers, employees lose jobs, and Newton loses tax revenue. If the price is too low and no curb spaces are open, drivers who cruise to find an open space waste time and fuel, congest traffic, and pollute the air.”
This is a program with goals that is NOT just a price increase. Now, if you wanted to ask whether the investment in parking meters is something we should be doing now, or whether this program would address the actual goals, those are good conversations to have. But the way this is written is just wrong.
Here’s the chamber’s statement about this program.
Chuck, Julie’s first sentence says, “ Outraged over the newly approved ordinance allowing the Department of Planning and Development to raise parking meter rates up to $3.75 in high-demand parts of the city, area shop and restaurant owners worried the move could be a “business killer.”
I agree that in her article, she did not go into the intricacies of how and why the parking prices would vary and the reasoning behind the final decision made by the city council but on Oct 7, but the council did vote for an “ordinance allowing the Department of Planning and Development to raise parking meter rates in high-demand parts of the city.” Between then and October 22, she interviewed various business owners, business leaders and city councilors whose quotes she includes in her article.
Obviously a point can be made that she misunderstood and perhaps mischaracterized how this varied pricing would be determined and asked the wrong questions but only those interviewed know how the policy was presented. Without further knowledge there is no way to know whether she misunderstood the policy or not.
Greg was quoted in the article shown above as was Councilor Jake Auchincloss. Neither of them chose to comment on her misunderstanding, if indeed she did misunderstand, but instead Jake voiced his approval of the policy and Greg fell more into the “wait and see” attitude but thought it was a good policy to explore. If there were questions in the minds of those interviewed about her misrepresenting the new parking policy, these interviews would have been the perfect times to correct her and have her insert quotes that were more accurate.
Huh? @Marti. I don’t know how you know the entirety of what Councilor Auchincloss or I (or anyone else) told the reporter. You realize that not everything someone tells any reporter, makes it into any given story right?
I did release a statement yesterday for the chamber that directly commented on the “misunderstanding” and have asked the TAB to publish it next week. I linked to it yesterday but am going to paste it here as well…
Greg,
“You realize that not everything someone tells any reporter, makes it into any given story right?”
Ok, thanks.
There are so many better ways to have phrased that letter from the chamber but you and Andreae are on a roll – Blaming wealthy Newton’s parking problems on the less well-off.
I have read Brenda Noel’s statement and explanation several times. I have also read the Boston Parking Pilot final report including WBUR’s and the Universal Hub’s take on the Report and the Policy Atlas’s take on Demand Responsive Parking.
One thing that pops out in the Boston report is that “30 percent of street traffic is made up of drivers searching for street parking.” I was told that the 30% figure in Councilor Noel’s statement came from a past study done in Newton Centre, but it’s virtually impossible for Boston and Newton to have the exact same percentage.
In Boston,
In a statement to WBUR, Boston city officials stated,
An incentive included in the on-going pilot in Back Bay was that all excess monies collected because of the demand pricing would go to improve the streets and sidewalks in the neighborhood.
The Policy Atlas describes in great detail how and why demand pricing works in certain areas but also points out the trade offs which Newton’s Advocates of this proposal and its city councilors either ignore and refuse to discuss or just don’t care about.
According to the Policy Atlas,
I realize that not every trade off is related to Newton’s Parking Plan but #3 is a valid problem in Newton. As well as Newton’s high percentage of older residents and others who cannot park farther away and walk.
So will they also finally have people in Waban using meters like the rest of Newton’s hoi polloi?
Meredith, lol.
I would guess not because it’s center isn’t that congested and parking is not much of a problem. But it does seem Waban shouldn’t be singled out and not receive the new parking meters if Newton purchases them.
I am a bit confused. If I need to go to a store in Newton Centre I have to park in Newton Centre. I cannot say parking is too expensive in Newton Centre so I am going to park in Newton Highlands. People are going to pay the extra (or a very few might drive around the back streets until they find a spot). This isn’t going to stop people circling Newton Centre parking lot.
It seems like the aim is to encourage people to park far from the village centre so they”waste time and fuel, congest traffic, and pollute the air.”
Or is this just a money grab?
@Stephen D: Here’s a hypothetical that might help. Langley Road between Newtonville Books and JP Licks is one of the more heavily parked parts of Newton Centre. Right around the corner is Sumner Street, which is typically less heavily parked. So what might happen if it cost $1.25 an hour to park on Langley but only 75 cents on Sumner? Well for one, cheap skates like me would park on Sumner but more importantly an employee who works at a store on Langley would too. Properly managed, that should mean more opportunities on Langley for anyone who doesn’t care about the extra .50 cents and — really importantly — less time by lots of people spent circulating Newton Center waiting for a spot on Langley to open up.
@Mike: Actually Mike, the proposal calls for new smart meters, not kiosks. But you point about evenings is worth considering.
Backing up a bit… a 1.5 MILLION DOLLAR outlay on PARKING METERS (for a parking rate increase that will be chump change to the city’s bottom line) while the city has zero negotiated contracts with its unions; is forecasting significant operating deficits in upcoming tax years; and has a $1.4 billion OPEB looming?
Who the hell is overseeing the finances around here?
ANP, don’t forget Newton is buying Webster Woods, building an Athletic/Community/Senior Center and the city council voted themselves and the mayor pay raises.
In the scope of things, the city contracts should come first!!! It’s hard to believe that all public employees in Newton are working without a contract including the police and teachers in NPS who keep our property values going up. This bubble could come crashing down.
@stephen this is where some reporting would be helpful. As far as I understand, we’re far from a full rollout of this program (likely counting in years, not in months). I would assume that there will be some real-time information as to parking rates within Newton Centre and wayfinding to help you find the available spots.
So it’s not just “Newton Centre” as a whole, but it could be by area zones (Union Street, center lot, Beacon St between Langley and Centre, Beacon from Langely toward Grant, etc.). It’s to give you information to make decisions so you can say “wow, it’s parked up and $3.50 an hour in the center lot, but I’m only going to be 30 minutes so it’s worth the money for the shorter walk” or you may say “it’s $3.50 in the center lot and I’m going to be there for 2 hours, so maybe I should park on Pelham Street where it’s $1.50 an hour and I’ll walk a couple of blocks.”
Chuck, the length of time before this program is rolled out is not why Stephen is confused. And your assumptions about having “real-time information” is just that – an assumption. Nor is your attempt at a scenario helpful because none of know how it will work. Instead of just passing this along to the Planning Department to determine, the particulars of this policy needed to be hashed out and determined so legitimate questions could be answered.
Questions: If these new meters use credit cards with no need for the parking AP required now, how are perspective parkers going to receive the real time information? If these new meters only use credit cards, why does the plan mention kiosks in the parking lots? If these new meters only use credit cards, how do those without credit park – such as some employees, of the very establishments this policy intends to help, who work mainly for tips or for minimum wage?
When Stephen says,
he makes a legitimate point.
To him, this plan promotes a problem that it’s supposed to eliminate.
Let me get this straight. For years, the city has been giving away free parking at night in Newton Centre after 6pm, the hardest time to find a parking spot because of restaurant traffic. Rather than just extend the meter hours until 8pm, [a simple change that would have generated hundreds of thousand$ annually], the city is going to revamp the entire philosophy and price structure of parking. To make matters worse, this new payment method will be kiosk based. Kiosks generate additional foot traffic in municipal lots, putting more pedestrians in conflict with vehicles.
Mike, agree. Instead of all of this rigmarole, first parking prices could just be extended into the night to see what difference that makes.
@Greg– Sounds like more kiosks to me…
“If the City Council approves $1.5 million to replace all 1,100 street parking meters and add more kiosks to municipal lots, the rates could change by the spring.”
@Mike I would add that the data point about evenings (free and difficult to find parking) is exactly why we need variable pricing. If parking were a cost and it were more expensive for those high traffic times, we can control for that and encourage additional turnover.
And keep in mind, we keep talking about Newton Centre but it’s all Newton villages.
However Greg and Chuck spin their higher cost to park,
this increase in parking costs should gain approval from the people it affects most. Our city council made a big mistake
approving this legislation before seeking out public reaction
No wonder voters are so upset with city government.
They don’t know what they are doing. NEWCAL is a perfect
example.
@Greg. I’ll go with the smart meters over the kiosks which I found to be just another hassle when I first used the new one at the newton Center municipal parking lot on Pelham Street. That finally got me to get a senior parking sticker.
@colleen I’m not sure how strongly I can word this, but THIS IS NOT AN INCREASE.
There are days that you are overpaying for parking. You just don’t think about it because you just pay the same meter rates no matter what. We can even make parking free if we wanted to encourage parking in a particular area. It allows us more flexibility. And believe me, I’m no fan of free parking, but we can do it. We do not have that flexibility now.
Let’s be crystal clear on this, because clearly the reporter wasn’t:
The price of your parking in Newton hasn’t changed for over 20 years.
Council gave Planning the ability to make small changes and set a goal of 85% occupancy that the changes in price are aiming for.
The goal is to make spaces available by charging the LOWEST price possible per block. So:
*some places will see a modest price increase
*some places will see parking prices drop–maybe to zero
In Newton Centre, we know of employees who park in front of the store & pay the meter all day, when they have alternatives (T, long-term parking, etc.) Customers can’t find a spot & go elsewhere. I could cite more examples.
For more detail: http://www.andreae4newton.com/updates/time-space-money-and-parking-april-update
Andreae, “lets be crystal clear on this” using the fact that employees of our businesses in Newton take up too much parking in front of where they work sends a terrible message from this supposedly Welcoming City. It’s amazing how the same advocates for affordable housing and making Newton a welcoming city Can switch to advocating for wealth inequality with the winter parking ban, complaints about low income employees, variable parking rates that only affect our lower income residents, our older population and those who cannot walk farther after parking – without recognizing the irony! (Including advocating that our elementary teachers and staff, who mostly come from other lower priced areas and are working without a contract, not be able to park on site but on side streets wherever they can find a space.”
Wealthy patrons, some but not all, driving big, gas guzzling SUVs, can and will park wherever they want whenever they want. They too “have alternatives (T, long-term parking, etc.),” but why would they bother.
Beside the fact that business owners who are wanting to make it easier for their patrons to park with more turnover could tell their employees to park somewhere else, many of these employees work for tips or make minimum wage.
Post to uncheck the “notify me of followup comments” box in the hope that V14 will stop sending me emails every time someone comments on this post, since the links in the emails for unsubscribing don’t work and I’m being flooded with messages.
Sorry to clog up the comment stream, but multiple emails to V14 over the past many months haven’t gotten them to fix this problem.
@Chuck– It depends on the objective. Personally, I just hate to see the city giving away free parking at night. It costs taxpayers too much money. But I totally disagree with your suggestion that this is any indication we need variable pricing.
As someone who lives a stone’s throw away from a village center, I expect that this will begin to impact residential streets that are close to shops and restaurants. People may park on our streets instead. I wonder if any measures will be taken like resident parking permits.
The smart meters give us options for pricing parking, which we have never had before. The only reason that we have the same price all the time is because that’s what we’ve always done, and that’s because that’s all we could do because of the meter design. We could even make the rates variable over duration, discouraging longer term parking that ties up a meter all day but not out-and-out banning it.
Look at it this way: why not reward people with lower parking fees if they shop at less popular times? If that’s dreaded “social engineering”, what’s wrong with it?
As a consumer-friendly bonus, I’ve been told the new meters will take credit cards. That’s a big win for people who don’t use a parking app. Coins are a pain.
The current goal is to use this mechanism as a way to free up limited parking spaces, not to raise more revenue. But I’ll go further and touch the third rail: I don’t have a problem with raising a modest amount more revenue. Unless you believe parking should be free (and it is never really free, just subsidized by taxes), there’s no inherently right amount to charge for parking.
Increased prices aside, parking fees are never popular. Some communities have improved the reception by turning some or all of the meter receipts back to improving the zones where the fees are collected. Some municipalities even put it in their ordinances. This partially transforms a “grudge fee” like parking into a value-added cost.
“A portion of your meter fees pays to improve Newton Centre”. And then do something specific and tangible with the money, for real, that benefits everyone.
Or, if your main concern is focusing on those most affected by cost of living changes, put extra revenues toward directly helping them, possibly with their transportation needs.
Mike, this is what Boston did in back bay and I agree it’s a great incentive.
This too is a good idea.
Several residents have mentioned just that to me. Such as:
Once again, the city ( and the people here ) seem to neglect the people who WORK in Newton Centre, or have an office like I do, which does not include parking. Oh yeah, there was supposed to be a shared parking program, yeah right, that’ll happen. NOT. In my building there is a dentist, a law firm, social workers, and a real estate agency and a travel,agency, and a Starbucks. I have to feed the meter, so to speak, every 3 hours, which means I have to move my car to a new spot. No, this is stupid pure and simple. Greg, I bet you’re going to get an earful from Investment Properties, limited, as I forwarded the mayors email to Rob Walsh, my landlord. I’m torn between moving my office, and just retiring.
The vote was not unanimous.
#82-19 Authorize the Director of Planning to set the fees for parking meter spaces
Approved as Amended
19 Yeas (Councilors Albright, Auchincloss, Baker, Brousal-Glaser, Crossley, Danberg, Downs, Greenberg, Grossman, Kalis, Kelley, Krintzman, Lappin, Leary, Lipof, Markiewicz, Noel, Rice, Schwartz)
5 Nays (Councilors Ciccone, Cote, Gentile, Norton and Laredo)
Councilor Norton: Can you please explain why you elected to vote no?
What a great new initiative. Perfect way to inconvenience residents and kill small local businesses and, at the same time, spend another $1.5M to do so. Master stroke of urban planning for areas with limited public transit.
Kudos to the City Council!
Amending my last comment
Thanks for exhibiting good common sense, Emily, and voting NO on this inane program.
FOLKS: VOTE FOR EMILY NORTON. RE-ELECT ONE OF OUR GOOD CITY COUNCILORS.
Abe said the program will “inconvenience residents”. I don’t see how that happens. No extra metered spots are going in. Credit cards are far more convenient than the existing meters (if you don’t have the app).
As for killing small businesses, improving parking turnover helps small businesses. Conversely, I will bet that the perception that the parking is always full hurts small businesses more than the exact price of parking (which on average isn’t going up anyway under this plan).
It’s Time to Invest ( even more ), in Amazon Stock !
And to vote No to increased density and development !
Traffic is nuts in village centers as well as streets and arteries. Lack of parking is only a symptom of bigger problems in the city.
“Density is the Problem “.
Parking in lots is subsidized by City taxpayers, whether they use the parking or not. The City paves them, clears them of snow, etc. Why should taxpayers who don’t use the parking lots pay for them?
Personally I’d rather my taxes were maintaining a park not a parking lot in Newton Center.
Blueprintbill, I find most streets in Newton pretty quiet most of the day. In fact, I hear just as many complaints about people driving too fast on residential streets than about traffic backups on those streets. (It’s not an either/or situation.)
The key point is “most of the day”. Rush hour and school arrival/dismissal brings backups and delays in many crossroads in the city.
“Lack of parking is only a symptom of bigger problems in the city.” I think the people who complain about a lack of parking have probably been doing so for a pretty long time.
Not 100% sure what that has to do with variable parking meter rates, though.
I’m hoping there will be an app that shows the parking rates in real time, like the GPS map that shows you where traffic is heavy or light. Then, as we head to a part of town for shopping or whatever, we can aim to the parking spots that are lower cost.
But hoping, too, that once I park, the rate stays the same for the length of time I’m in the spot. If the pricing is so dynamic that the rate goes up while I’m in the dentist, for example, that won’t feel very fair.
But in the interest of total disclosure, I get free senior citizen parking in several of the municipal lots–for the duration of the maximum metered time. I wonder if that will change at all.
@Chuck said that this is “managing the demand for parking so that it gets utilized by the people who need it most when they need it” — but I think it’s actually more “by the people who are willing to pay for it.”
In essence, a majority of councilors are saying with regard to parking during peak periods of demand: “Higher prices are a good way to optimize the allocation of popular real estate. Let those who are willing and able to pay more for it have the space. The others can go elsewhere.”
So how does this fit with the (many) other V14 discussions about allocating real estate — for residential purposes? People are naturally concerned about pricing-out of the residential market all but the most wealthy. These two situations — parking and housing — are certainly very different, but I think these two discussions can shed light on each other. Thinking about them at the same time makes my head hurt.
Is anyone considering building additional parking spaces that are more affordable?
This seems like it’s vastly over complicating the pretty simple issue of parking, one we’ve all been dealing with our entire driving lives.
I get that we have the technology to do this and other municipalities have implemented such programs. But do we really need it? Is anyone really circling around, looking for parking the way we do in Boston? I get that we sometimes do so in Newton Centre, during certain times. But is it that bad that we’d implement a costly “solution?” Plenty of real issues that need addressing.
Andreae Downs — I think there have been changes in parking in the past 20 years. I believe the meters in Newtonville kept prices but dropped the time duration within the past 10 years.
@Bruce Henderson yes, you hit my next point. When demand is high you’ll see Mercedes and Lexus cars all over, because it’s just the price of another tall, double shot, 2 pumps vanilla, blah blah latte. When the demand is high people who don’t give a hoot about 5 dollars will be there in droves. Probably in Porsche SUVs.
The least time I went to park using my cell phone and the Passport system, I noticed that the number of the parking spot was written on the sign in digits about 1/4 inch tall. I had to get out of the car, in the rain, and walk up to the sign in order to read the number. Since the sign is about 12 inches tall, there was plenty of room for a larger font. I concluded that somebody who planned the system was not thinking about the people that had to read those numbers.
Let’s hope this new system is designed with some better planning.
Marti,
How can you say that this happened “behind the scenes”? There were multiple public meetings about this, including one I reported on here . There was a public vote by the full City Council. At least three city councilors wrote about it in their constituent newsletters. This has been discussed literally for years.
I get it, you don’t like the outcome. And, you may have concerns about City Council transparency, generally. But to say that this particular action happened behind the scenes is factually wrong and is misleading.
Sean, quick answer- easily.
I have been involved with the discussions on this proposal for years so I know it didn’t happen overnight. My “behind the scenes” reference is that a final vote by the city council was taken while many of us were focusing on the election* – though I can see where you could interpret it to mean a lack of transparency. Sorry for any confusion.
*I would say that maybe it was just me that missed the final vote coming up but I’ve heard the same from many others or I wouldn’t have phrased it that way.
Sean, when I see, “I get it, you don’t like the outcome,” the purpose of my concerns is being demeaned so the commenter doesn’t get it at all. It’s not the program itself that I’m talking about, it’s the way it’s been handled – like so many things in Newton these days. There are many ways I would support this measure if handled a little differently.
I have had concerns and have expressed them many times over the time since this program first came up, because Newton is not just a “wealthy suburb” and has a large percentage of middle to lower income residents, either renters or homeowners who have lived here for many years.
This program to be the success it could be would need to be completely fleshed out as to how and why it works before the city council voted to send it to the Planning Department. The city councilors should have known how the program works from the inside out so they could explain it to their constituents in language that isn’t confusing.
After that, the program needed to be presented to the residents and business owners of Newton with explanations of exactly how it will work, including how, where and when parking prices might change. Also important would be an explanation of how the trade offs would work – maybe extra monies going to the area, trolleys to take people where they need to go, etc. so residents know our worries have been considered rather than just ignoring them and telling us ”this is the way it is.”
If handled in a manner similar to the above, Julie would have written a different article, business owners wouldn’t be worried and residents wouldn’t be complaining.
It’s a regressive policy. It penalizes the less affluent ( probably the people who work in the coffee shops, etc.) to the benefit of the more affluent, for whom, as I said, 3 dollars an hour is pocket change.
Following on @Marti, as an uninformed resident, I read the story and thought it was pretty balanced and clear. Nothing that’s been said on this page contradicts the thrust of the story, in my view. It’s the nature of dynamic pricing that rates are high sometimes and low other times: Indeed that’s exactly the idea.
I think the points that some have made here about the regressive nature of the higher fees (i.e., affecting lower income people more) are true. They either pay a higher percentage of their income or are inconvenienced by having to walk further from their car. That, however, doesn’t necessarily debunk the scheme, whose purpose is to manage congestion. Whether it’s worth the expense of new meters and the like is, though, a legitimate question. (But perhaps those meters were going to be replaced anyway. Don’t know.).
I don’t think the scheme will cause people to use other modes of transport. This is not like congestion pricing on drivers using city streets during certain times each day. That kind of program does cause modal shifts.
BTW, the comment about the small size of the parking space numbers–only visible if you get out of your car–is on target. In some other towns, the space numbers are more prominent.
Marti, it’s not up to those being interviewed to put everything in context for the writer. Reading this article with the sort of hindsight we now have provides a very different context. Yes, it’s all about wait and see. This ordinance isn’t intended to raise the rates for the entire city or even an entire business district. It’s to enable the planning department to experiment with dynamic pricing. That should have been the headline.
Raising the rates on one bank of meters isn’t regressive at all, sorry. People have options. If the entire business district goes up then, yes, I could see the argument.
Re @Adam: “Raising the rates on one bank of meters isn’t regressive at all, sorry. People have options.”
Sorry, but it’s a truism that it’s regressive, either financially or in the use of time, for people who have lower income. As I said: “They either pay a higher percentage of their income or are inconvenienced by having to walk further from their car.” Assuming time has a value, or just thinking of cash outlay, you are affecting lower income people more.
(But, that’s one factor and should not necessarily be determinative of whether to do this or not.)
I’ve been thinking about this more and I thought about how weekend and evening parking garages in Boston often offer a flat rate of $10-12. If people want to go out for a leisurely brunch on a Saturday perhaps followed by a stroll and shopping, is it worth it to pay this much to park in Newton or would the preference be to drive downtown, park in a flat rate garage, have no time constraints, and enjoy more shopping and restaurant options in Boston? Why would I go to, say, Newton Centre?
@Paul it debunks the “scheme” for me because as someone who has had an office in Newton Centre for 20 years, I frequent a lot of the businesses and know the employees struggle to find parking. I struggle too, but my income allows me to just pay the tickets a month I get. They won’t be merely inconvenienced. They will look for a new job. Over the 29 years I’ve been there, all the surrounding streets have been limited to either resident sticker only or 3 hour parking, there is no place to park in Newton Centre that an hourly minimum wage person can park even with a walk. And, like I said, I’ve been their 20 years, right above Liberty Travel / Starbucks, Dominion Software, Inc. 825 Beacon street. Cmon over and talk to some of the localS, y’all. Instead of pontificating from on high….
Sorry for the typos- the AI in my iPad needs some coffee to wake up.
Fair enough, @Rick!
Equality is important too. That we’re talking of raising rates via dynamic pricing while Waban gets free parking doesn’t seem fair at all. If we’re fixing our parking meter policy, fairness across villages should be part of it too.
Many of the businesses in Newton Centre only find out about things after I email my landlord. I’m not aware of any outreach the city does to small business owners. Except to send them personal property tax bills.
The other thing is that much of the traffic in Newton center is simply people commuting to route 9, Or to and from 128 on Beacon Street. It starts at 3 PM when I hear the cars honking at the corner of Beacon and center right under my window. That’s how I know when it’s 3 o’clock. It’s the most congested then and it’s not local people- it’s people passing through town to go somewhere else.
Really, the people here should go and talk to the owners of the sandwich shop, talk to the barista’s at Starbucks, talk to me! We’re the ones that work there we know the score, Seriously do so because the rest is speculation. You really don’t know what’s going on in the small businesses there unless you talk to the rank and file and what their day is like, because I do – I get sandwiches at the sandwich shop I go to the Starbucks three times a day – I’m on first name basis with all the barista’s , they start making my coffee when I walk in the door. I hear the traffic in the Center and the 3 pm gridlock and I know that it’s not the local people causing that grid lock. Parking meter changes won’t change that, besides, I like to know when it’s three o’clock. I even thought of putting a sign in my window and said “honk if you love Trump!” To see if it might calm them down!!
@marti Thank you, you just did more reporting than Julie… and that was exactly the frustration that I felt.
These are the discussions that we need to have about the parking policy. Just because I believe it’s a great thing doesn’t mean it’ll execute perfectly. Journalism should be asking these questions and not just scaring businesses.
There are many forms of regressive taxation and fees in the municipal and state arenas. Before we add a new one, it would be wise to explicitly consider whether the public policy goals intended are sufficiently important to override equity concerns. Overall, I’d say that @Marti and @Rick have captured some important points, whether substantive on this issue or in how the communication around it was handled. Theirs and other comments have persuaded me–a city planner and economist–that my initial inclination in support of this program may have been based on an overly simplistic view. While a lot will ride on the details that will emerge over time, I now have enough questions to wonder whether it’s worth spending $1.5 million on new meters.
Beyond this issue, I think Marti’s general point is important, and one that should sound as a warning to our public officials: “It’s amazing how the same advocates for affordable housing and making Newton a welcoming city can switch to advocating for wealth inequality with the winter parking ban, complaints about low income employees, variable parking rates that only affect our lower income residents, our older population and those who cannot walk farther after parking – without recognizing the irony!” In another column, I expressed concern about backlash with regard to other important policy objectives if income redistributive issues are not fully addressed. Equity–and perceptions about equity–are just as important to consider as efficiency.
I am usually in favor market-based solutions like this, but when the land in question is owned by The People, it is not proper to discriminate to favor rich over poor.
The city derives its power to collect parking fees from Massachusetts law.
The purpose of that law (MGL C.40 s.22A) is to ensure that spaces are used efficiently, and that no one person unfairly dominates a space that should be shared.
The law does not prohibit differential pricing, but is there a better way to satisfy the law’s purpose and our fundamental sense of fairness?
Yes–with today’s technology there are more equitable ways to accomplish this goal than to award parking spaces to the highest bidder, which is effectively what this new policy does. I think parking spaces should be free, but parking time should be limited and strictly enforced. That would be egalitarian.
By the way, to anyone ogling higher parking fees as a way to subsidize unrelated budget items: this is prohibited. Under law, the city must use parking revenue only to defray the cost of parking enforcement, or to make limited categories of pedestrian or physical improvements. It is not a cash cow for other budget categories.
Wow. 62 comments in just over 24 hours. This is what we get when we talk about parking.
Ensuring every block has an open space or two, means customers who can’t or won’t walk far can depend on having parking which is good for businesses. When I used to have the pleasure of taking my father-in-law out to lunch, I only went places I could park nearby because he couldn’t walk far. So this meant Newton Centre and Newton Highlands was not usually an option. Sometimes we would drive through to see if we would get lucky.
The key to this working will be helping people know there are cheaper options available if they are looking to save money. My advice: start with employees or others that are parking for long periods of time. I continue to see employees run out to move their cars from one spot to another. I recently saw employees whose time was up in their spaces right outside the store’s door use the parking passport to pay for each others space that way they got double the time. Ask any of these people why they don’t use the 12 hour meters on Centre St. they will tell you the two blocks is too far. How many of them walk further every day moving their cars than if they had parked at long-term meters. If employees worked somewhere the lot was privately owned, employee parking would be in the furthest spots from the front door. This is not being unfair to employees, this is good business.
@Alicia Bowman it’s just not true. I’ve worked in Newton Centre for 20 years. the 12 hour spaces are taken early by green line commuters. And, if I do get a space early, I usually have to leave to go to a client site and when I come back the space is gone. So, perhaps your acquaintances do have far to walk, but it’s more likely that the spaces are just gone if they don’t get there by 8 am.
Also, it’s a clever scam to have the Passport app allow the same license plate on two accounts, so they don’t have to move their car. I’ll have to team up with someone so I can do that. Thanks for the tip.
The other thing ( I start to sound like Colombo here ) is that in the winter it is common for as many as 8 parking spaces to be out of commission because the plowers pile the snow there. I have to complain really loudly to get it removed, sometimes takes over a week. And often those are 12 hour spaces where they pile the snow.
The equity concerns that folks have raised here are well reasoned and fair. All good, important, points.
Here’s another way to look at it…
The largest contributor to green house gas in Massachusetts is single occupancy vehicles.
Meanwhile the population that will be hurt the hardest by climate change — hotter summers, flooding, poor water quality, poor air quality, property damage, rising food prices, etc. — will be the less affluent.
Yes, the parking fee proposal does pose equity problems. But so does ignoring climate change.
Our climate problems are so big that we can’t do just one thing to solve them. This program is one of the things we can do right here in Newton.
If variable price parking helps reduce vehicle emissions (and remember, it’s worked elsewhere) by changing travel habits and reducing the volume of cars circulating in search of parking, it’s worth doing. (And the fact that I believe it will benefit village vitality is a big bonus.)
If it fails to achieve its goals, then we should discontinue the program. The city council has not relinquished that power.
But this is important enough to give it a try.
I think the ability to dynamically control parking fees – different rates in different places at different time is a powerful tool.
How it gets used – what the fees are, when, where is the difference between a system that everyone loves vs everyone despises. The decision to be able to control parking prices is a good thing, The policies of how it is used is where all the issues or equity, efficiency, support of local businesses come in.
Will it be a good thing, a bad thing, or not much different? We won’t know that until the pricing policies are put in place. I’m all for having the flexible utility of the new system. I’ve got a wait-and-see-attitude towards what the pricing strategy is. Worse case, if the pricing strategy goes completely awry and annoys evveryone, it will be technically very simple and quick to change … and that’s a good thing that’s not true today.
I agree that variable priced parking is an important tool to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector which we so far we have not had much success with. It can also help manage existing parking supply and be one less way we subsidize driving. Free and cheap parking is great for the motorist who happens upon a convenient spot when they need it, but it’s terrible for everyone else. We all are impacted by a under-valuing our public streets while at the same time externalizing the costs of driving onto everyone else. This includes air pollution, GHG emissions (except for Ev’s powered by 100% renewable energy), congestion, lost productivity and the impact of impervious pavement on our water bodies.
We have spent the last 80 years building our cities and towns around the car instead of building for people. This doesn’t seem to be working out for us anymore. It’s time to try something different.
As for equity, if you can afford to own a car you should be able to afford to park it, just as you have to pay for gas, insurance, excise tax and maintenance. I really don’t see why parking is magically exempt from our capitalist system. It’s an asset like everything else. It would be much more equitable to provide convenient public transit, shuttle services and protected bike lanes.
If you can’t afford the tip then you can’t afford to go out to eat.
That being said, any change to prices will take time, will be gradual and should reflect the demand. Which means prices could also go down.
I would also like to see the creation of parking benefit districts so that the parking revenue is reinvested locally. This could be spent on new trees, improving parks and street and sidewalk improvements.
Allison, it’s so hard for me to support even a program that could be a good one when those less fortunate are thrown under the “bus” to promote it.
“If you can afford to own a car you should be able to afford to park it.”
“If you can’t afford the tip then you can’t afford to go out to eat.”
Why not just include,
“If you can’t afford to live in Newton then live elsewhere.”
“If you’re a low-income employee, don’t work in Newton.”
Isn’t it evident that these statements from the above comment prompt replies of hypocrisy?
I don’t understand the reasoning behind promoting policies in this manner. Using classist, elitist, arrogant language is rude and offends people making them less likely to support any program, policy or idea whether it’s a good one or not – and not just those being dismissed but those of us who care about them.
@Marti: It really feels like you are purposely trying to not understand this just to fit your narrative. No one is “thrown under a bus” from variable parking rates. It simply creates a procedure where prices go up or down, depending on demand, just like prices of many other goods and services.
Greg, I do understand the variable pricing parking policy and think it could offer an interesting solution to several things. I have explained it and discussed it repeatedly in my comments here. It seems to me you are purposely ignoring my point when you make a statement like that.
Yes those of lesser means are being thrown under the bus in the manner the policy is being PROMOTED by you, Allison Leary, Andreae Bowman and many others. Please read my comments again – they are very self-explanatory. Several commenters on this thread have understood what I’m saying. I don’t know why you are having such a hard time. Perhaps you’re not reading them at all.
@Alison Leary
“I really don’t see why parking is magically exempt from our capitalist system. It’s an asset like everything else. It would be much more equitable to provide convenient public transit, shuttle services and protected bike lanes”
Until there’s the latter, people struggling to pay the bills on 10-15 dollars an hour may have an old car that they have to use. Public transportation is just not there for every situation that people live in.
It’s precisely this ” I really don’t see…” thing is why people need to go to newton Centre and talk to some of the actual workers. waiters, cooks, even retail, ups store, etc. some of them probably take the green line. A lot of them can’t.
Its probably a long time since people reading this worked a minimum or low wage job.
I can afford to pay 3 or 4 15 dollar tickets a month. That’s definitely a sign that you could raise the parking fee to more than 3 dollars for ME. And I would pay it, because I bill by the hour and time is money for me.
Most workers cannot, and when I had 3 employees ( 2 were part time) there was more parking available over near crystal lake ( that’s now all 3 hour limit).
My full time person lived in Cambridge. Try getting to Newton Centre from Cambridge, well back then for her I think it was 3 different buses. So she drove.
@Alison, to continue @Rick’s theme, for many people, a car is a tool, not an amenity or a discretionary item. They need it to get to work (in part because the transit system is so unreliable that if you get paid by the hour, you can’t risk missing work because of service delays.) People in this situation often have to stretch and skimp to cover the operating costs. To say that someone “should be able to afford to park it” overlooks those folks.
@Greg, you raise good points which were reiterated in a NY Times op-ed today: “In a worst-case scenario, climate impacts could set off a feedback loop in which climate change leads to economic losses, which lead to social and political disruption, which undermines both democracy and our capacity to prevent further climate damage.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/opinion/climate-change-costs.html
So, of course the goal should be to internalize the environmental externalities associated with greenhouse gases. The subtle point, though, is that ignoring or diminishing the legitimate interests of those currently less well off also can lead to a different variant of “undermining our democracy.” Not to get too philosophical, but I believe that is behind a lot of the civic strife we currently see on the national level. The task, locally, is both to move things in the right direction and be persuasive in how this is being carried out. Telling people what they “should” do is not persuasive.
@Paul: I believe you and others are basing your concern on the assumption that variable price parking means prices will go up. That’s not the way this system should work.
Yes prime spaces may cost more than they do now, but less prime spaces could cost less. Also, variable pricing would allow us to — by way of example — make parking in some villages free, or half price, on Mondays (or on dates in August when many people are away), which could benefit our merchants and people of limited means.
@Paul Levy: Our parking meters are badly in need of replacement. Many are broken. They don’t make replacement parts for this model anymore. Like many things in Newton, this has been put off too long.
@Marti: Anyone can be in a hurry, and need a spot to park, including people of modest means. If your visit is relatively short (because you are a customer, not an employee), the extra quarter isn’t as big a deal.
I think it’s great that Newton is having a discussion about equity.
I find it disappointing that the one of the few discussions about equity that we have in the city is about the cost of parking in the context of demand-based pricing.
As if in Newton, which is one of the most affluent cities in the United States, our best solution to helping the poor or working poor is to keep parking cheap *for everyone, all the time*.
People trying to make ends meet in Newton and our surround have significantly more complicated needs and precarious financial situations than will ever be impacted by changing meter rates (ESPECIALLY because we’re talking variable meter rates, not uniformly increased rates). They deserve the respect and dignity to be viewed as whole people. They shouldn’t be treated, as Donald Shoup says, like “human shields” by drivers who don’t want to pay more for parking and who can afford it.
Yes there are people working in, say, Newton Centre that 1. live on tips and 2. pay for public parking. Why is #2 and not #1 our primary outrage, and our answer to it “keep parking cheap for everyone, all the time”? Stuff changes price all the time: gasoline, healthcare, MBTA fares, private parking, tuition, taxes, food, and on and on. No one should have to live a life where a few bucks a day is the difference between making ends meet and hard decisions. Don’t blame that on the parking fees we charge them (and everyone else). Let’s have 70+ comments with great solutions to solving these people’s real problems.
Paul Levy, I very much respect your thoughtful commentary on many issues, and I’m not fond of calling people out. I hope you’ll allow me to make a point by making an example out of you. 🙂 In your “full disclosure” you fess up to getting free senior parking at municipal lots. That’s your lawful entitlement. But where is the equity in that? Look at it this way, perhaps you are tying up a resource that someone working paycheck to paycheck (I assume you aren’t) might need to sustain their livelihood, and they are subsidizing you through their tax money and parking fees. If they can’t find a parking spot, it’s not an inconvenience. They are fired. When you’re lowest on the ladder, you don’t get extra chances to be late to work.
So, should senior parking stickers be means tested? (Will you consider writing a blog entry about it?)
And Marti, I’m totally with you on the issue of roll-out and public relations. The number of unforced errors and political fights that Newton gets itself into simply because it doesn’t engage effectively is growing and truly disappointing. The need for the policy could have been better explained, along with outreach, explicit trials, and explicit use of any additional funds raised. The city could have acknowledged equity issues that do exist and had a conversation about addressing them.
I will take issue with part of your other point, though: “… Newton’s high percentage of older residents and others who cannot park farther away and walk.” The perceived association of age, infirmity, and low income is a common one, but I don’t think it’s especially helpful or accurate. There are plenty of fit older people in Newton, many of whom are fit specifically because they do walk frequently. And there are plenty of older people in Newton who can afford parking fees.
We should be providing for individuals who need help and resist putting them in boxes. I would hypothesize that many of the people who might have trouble walking a further distance will appreciate the additional open parking spaces that are the goal of variable priced parking, even if it costs a dollar or so more.
Hi @Mike. As always you bring light to these discussions. Thank you. Your question of me seems to presume something about my financial circumstances, a topic I will not discuss. But I get your point. Judge Learned Hand said, “Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible.” Likewise, there is nothing untoward about accepting a subsidy or discount offered by the government. Seniors get a discount on parking, on T passes, on state park and National Park passes, and other things. These are usually not means-tested benefits. I think they should be; but our city, state, and federal government have decided otherwise. Maybe they are rewarding us for decades of paying taxes. Maybe they are hoping to get our votes. Maybe the administrative cost of an income certification would be excessive. I don’t know, but I’m happy to accept their offers!
There is a huge assumption in the regressive argument here. What is the percentage of people of lower incomes who it would affect, vs. the percentage of those with higher incomes? At a talk recently with A Better City, which looked at variable tolling, they looked at the numbers and found that it would affect very few of those in the low-income bracket because the vast majority of those driving into Boston from the south and west were of means.
We are making assumptions here that 1) those with employees in Newton Centre would not be offered some kind of parking deal (this has not been discussed with the city, so we have no information) and 2) that the people we’re talking about are driving instead of taking the T. We need data, we don’t have it.
When the Stop & Shop opened on Needham Street I talked with a few of the folks working there, many came in by foot (if they lived nearby) or by T (walking from Elliot). A few drove, but even with free parking they weren’t driving. That’s not everyone, and it’s not scientific, but for those people, even if we put in parking meters in the parking lots on Needham Street, it wouldn’t affect them at all.
For some that I spoke with in other places (like the cashiers working at the cafe in Needham Crossing) the timing mattered more than anything. Driving at 6:30am from Roxbury to Needham took no time, but coming in later meant lots and lots of traffic. That was a far bigger concern.
Let’s put some numbers on the unaffordability issue.
Overall, 4.3% of Newton residents are below the poverty line, or about 4,000 people. Now the poverty line is a funny thing, so let’s double the numbers to scale things for the high cost of living around here. That gives us 8,000 people, or about 10%. Add in some others from outside of Newton, so let’s round to 10K.
That’s an incredibly generous number, since a small fraction of those people park in municipal parking with any regularity. There simply aren’t that many parking spaces. Regularity is really what we’re talking about, because occasional use of a parking meter is a vanishingly small cost in the grand scheme of things, and most places don’t have meters. I would guess the number of affected individuals is more like 1,000-2,000.
According to the US Census and https://datausa.io/profile/geo/newton-ma , Newton has about 15,000 seniors 65 or older. The poverty rate for this group is on average about 5%, or about 600 people according to the 2017 census. This actually isn’t the highest percentage of poverty: 18-24 year old women are approaching 10% under the poverty line. These people face a heck of a time living here.
Yet we give all 15,000 seniors potential access to free and unlimited parking in our municipal lots up to the meter limit, applicable for multiple registered vehicles. And some large percentage of this population, and the driving population as a whole, is perfectly capable of paying for parking.
Those people truly in need who happen not to be in this group? Nothing.
We hide behind the 1,000 or 2,000 people or so for whom driving is a financial necessity, paid parking is the only option, and parking fees are existentially onerous. We look at an idea like variable-cost parking, which can even be designed to be average cost neutral, throw up our hands and say the whole thing is unworkable.
So let’s factor out the inequity. How about we start a low income parking program, available to all qualifying Newton residents, and subsidize it with incrementally higher meter rates for everyone else? We already have the sticker program. I don’t think it’s the best solution to making the worst off better off, but at least it isn’t giving up.
Can someone please clarify these questions? It’s unclear to me how I would know, before arriving at my preferred destination, what the rate will be. Will I have an app that tells me (not that I should be looking at an app while I’m driving)? Or will I learn the rate when I arrive and then, maybe, choose to drive further to avoid it? Will the rate change while I am parked, or am I guaranteed a price for the duration of my stay? If it does change, will I get pinged and have time to move my car? If so, how much time do I get before need to move to avoid the higher fee? Same questions apply, by the way, for lower fees.
Paul,
If the city sets up the system like other municipalities expect that:
1. Rates would change no more frequently than monthly
2. Rate changes would be published in advance on the city
3. Rates would adjust — up or down — incrementally, like a quarter at a time
4. As like now, rates will be posted on city signs
This is not dynamic pricing, where adjustments would be made in real-time.
There are two basic use cases.
1. You drive into a village you’re familiar with. You will have a general idea, as you have now, of where parking is more or less expensive. Over time, there will be finer grain distinctions. You’ll probably head to a parking area based on whether you’re optimizing for cost or convenience. When you get to your desired parking area, you might find, if you haven’t kept up with the meter rates posted on the city web site (and, who would?), that the rate is a quarter higher than the last time you parked there, unless it’s been several months, in which case it might be four bits higher.
2. You drive into a village you’re less familiar with. You will know, as you do now, that there are higher and lower priced parking areas. You will also know that the spread might be wider than it is today, up to $3.75 an hour in prime zones. You’ll probably be able to figure out that the costliest spots are likely the ones closest to the center of commerce. If you are optimizing for cost, you may look to park farther away from those prime spots.
Essentially, it’ll be the same process you use today, only more finely grained, with a higher maximum rate, and with a broader spread within a parking basin.
Paul, I think the Newton system isn’t set up yet, but you can look at http://sfpark.org/ and see how San Francisco does it.
The prices aren’t changing truly dynamically in that system. Prices can be different at a few times of the day, and from block to block, but prices are stable day to day. Changes are made at most every month, I think, and can only go up at most $0.25 an hour or down $0.50 an hour from month to month.
They have lots of open data on historical price changes for 5,000 meters.
They also plan special event rates for sporting events. BC football games ? 🙂
What Mike wrote:
The chamber published this explainer from the city that makes it clear that all that has happened is the council has given the city the green light to develop this program.
All that has actually happened is that the city council voted Oct 2, 2019 to allow the Planning Department of the city of Newton to try using a model of raising parking meter pricing up some or down some during certain periods of time (starting with a few cents up or down) to see if it helps local businesses have more customers. They decided to include a cap of $3.75/on any meter at any time just in case but pricing would most likely never reach that cap.
At this time, all of this is purely theoretical because the parking meters in the city have static pricing – the same price all the time – and are not capable of having their price varied. The city cannot try the out the varied pricing model without buying all new meters for Village Centers – someone suggested that would cost $1.5 million. The city of Newton itself has not attempted to put this expense – or any expense for new meters – in the new budget.
All of the confusion could have been avoided if better (or any) explanations had been prepared and given to the Tab, the Patch, the Globe, business owners, their employees and residents. Instead Julie either had bad info or no info and ran an article (with a major click bait title) In the Tab that implied parking meters rates in Newton were going to be raised to $3.75 an hour. That implication is not true. There is no relationship between Back Bay’s meters charging $3.75 an hour at all times and the theoretical variable pricing model possibly to be tried in Newton.
Please bear with me while I explain what led to this policy being considered.
All of this started years ago when many people were looking for ways to keep local businesses thriving and help those that were floundering. Basically to stay open, these businesses need customers.
Many suggestions by local business owners and residents have been studied by multiple people over those years. One of them was to make it easier for customers to find parking, including having parking close to these business’s turn over more.
If local businesses – or any businesses – have parking lots associated with the building they are in or have spaces they paid for when they opened – those spaces can be marked “for xxxx business parking only.” These solutions were for businesses that depend on their customers having to either park on the street or in municipal lots.
One of these solutions that has been studied and hashed around over the past couple of years is a way to vary pricing at certain meters during certain times. The idea isn’t a new one but it needed further discussion. There have been public hearings on the use of variable pricing, its use in Newton has been discussed in the news – what little there is of it – on listservs, google groups, forums, community meetings and blogs.
While we’re on the subject of parking, how come there are no EV charging spots anywhere in Newton? Only at Bloomingdales that I could find. It’s almost 2020 and car emissions make up 28% of our climate problem. I want to buy an EV vehicle and am dismayed at how not-EV-ready Newton is.
Shouldn’t money be spent on that also or in tandem with these meters?