Among other things, the City Council’s decision to authorize variable meter pricing — up to $3.75 an hour — is an action to fight climate change. As the Parking Caucus — especially Councilors Andreae Downs and Jake Auchincloss — have argued, providing cheap parking is a subsidy to drivers that encourages more driving. The Parking Caucus is well aligned with the global consensus that having drivers pay the full price for each part of their journey is key to reducing driving and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There is no reason, when car/SUV travel constitutes the largest or second largest source of greenhouse emissions in the city, that the city should subsidize parking.
What’s compelling about variable pricing is that, by design, it determines the market rate for parking in a particular area at various times of the day. The intention of variable pricing is to set a meter rate that will create one or two empty spaces a block. In economic terms, it’s the market-clearing rate. Assuming there’s demand in the period, charging above that rate is more than the market will bear. Charge less than that rate and those fortunate enough to get a spot get a city subsidy. The difference between what the market will bear and what the city charges is the measure of the subsidy.
It is not inherently wrong for the city to provide subsidies. Any service the city provides for less than the cost or less than what the market charges for the service is a subsidy — schools, library services, senior services, park and open space access, &c. Those subsidies are good because we want to promote certain activities — getting an education, reading, being an active senior in our community, enjoying the outdoors. These activities enrich our city.
But, it’s perverse to provide a subsidy for activities that actively harm our city. And, driving is an activity that harms our city. There’s too much of it. Driving makes our city less safe, makes our neighborhoods less pleasant. And, it’s contributing to global climate change. So, why do we, in essence, contribute to making driving less costly than it should be? We are subsidizing our own harm.
Not all of the city councilors who voted to authorize variable-rate parking necessarily voted on environmental grounds, though various members of the Parking Caucus explicitly made the climate-change argument. But, regardless of their reasons, by their vote the five city councilors who voted against the measure — Jay Ciccone, Jim Cote, Lenny Gentile, Emily Norton and Marc Laredo — indicated that they consider other issues more important than reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Councilors Lisle Baker, David Kalis, Chris Markiewicz, and Greg Schwartz joined Councilors Ciccone, Cote, Gentile, Norton, and Laredo to vote yes on an amendment to dilute the measure by capping the rate at $2.50.
All five of the no votes on the variable-rate authorization are running for re-election to the council. Of the five, Councilors Cote and Norton have challengers in their races. All nine of the yes votes to dilute the measure are running for re-election. In addition to Councilors Cote and Norton, Councilor Schwartz has a challenger.
Councilor Cote has said that he wants to reduce driving in the city, but he has not been a climate-change leader. Not raising rates is consistent with his saying that he doesn’t want climate-change action that is going to cost people more money. It’s deeply unfortunate that Councilor Cote is not more concerned about climate change, but his vote is generally consistent with his public statements.
Councilor Schwartz says that he wants to promote “environmental excellence,” but otherwise has not been a leader on climate change or indicated that it is a particular priority of his.
Councilor Norton, on the other hand, characterizes herself as a leader on climate change. Voting no on variable-rate parking is 180 degrees from the climate-change consensus.
Not only did she vote no, she has gone out of her way to make sure that voters know that she voted no. She jumped into the Village 14 thread on this topic to clarify that “[t]the vote was not unanimous.”
And, she tweeted to let folks know that she voted no.
https://twitter.com/_EmilyNorton/status/1186964771221970944?s=20
An argument against the variable-pricing authorization (made by Councilor Norton in another tweet) is that the cap is too high. Again, the point of the authorization is to allow the planning director, through continuous trial and measurement, to find the market rate. The argument that the cap is too high is an argument that parking should be subsidized above a certain threshold. That argument is an argument that the city shouldn’t make the cost of driving too high, regardless of the costs that driving imposes on the community or the planet. (A different argument is that $3.75 may actually be too low. If the city planner raises the rate to $3.75 and the market doesn’t clear, then parking continues to be subsidized.)
A narrower version of the argument against higher meter rates is that raising meter rates is regressive. It imposes a burden that is unequally felt by those with different incomes.
One set of people with different incomes we can dispense with quickly: local employees. A major goal of variable-rate parking is to have convenient parking available for patrons near the shops they wish to patronize. Those spaces should turn over regularly as one customer makes way for the next customer. Having a high availability of parking spaces near shops promotes economic vitality.
What the city and shop owners don’t want is employees parking all day in those prime spaces that should have high turnover. Variable pricing creates incentives for employees to park farther away. A well-designed program will have different rates within a given commercial area, making spots more expensive close to shops and less expensive farther away, but within the same area. Expensive on Langley St., but less expensive in the Cypress St. lot in Newton Centre, for instance.
But, otherwise, yes. Those with more means are going to get access to better spots. There are a bunch of reasons why the fact that a driving-related fee or tax is regressive shouldn’t mean the city shouldn’t raise it.
First, any fee or tax for driving or parking is regressive. Since any fee or tax on driving is regressive, should no fee or tax be imposed? If not, what is the measure by which fees and taxes on driving should or shouldn’t be raised? Just no more increases? Ever?
Second, the costs driving imposes on society are regressive. The SUV/car-centric infrastructure is deeply unfair economically. Our land-use decisions and public transportation investments result in hardships that disproportionately fall on the poor and people of color. Reducing driving is going to have an overall progressive effect.
Third, providing a subsidy to everyone is the wrong way to protect the genuinely burdened. Again, the activity matters. If we as a community want to promote public education, it makes sense to provide it free to all, even to those who could easily pay for it. But, why subsidize driving for those who can pay for it when we’re trying to reduce driving. It’s like the city’s saying, “Please don’t drive, but I’d you do, here’s discount parking.” If we want to provide a driving subsidy to folks who need it, let’s make it a direct, targeted subsidy, not a subsidy that also benefits those who don’t need it and results in harm to our community.
And, to be clear, avoiding the relatively minor regressive impact from raising the parking rates on parking in Newton Centre mostly serves as a benefit to people who can afford to pay more for parking. Keeping parking costs low is a wealth transfer to the already wealthy.
Fourth, a fee or tax truly regressive is if its unavoidable. What’s implicit in the meter-price fairness argument is the recognition that, for too many people, driving is unavoidable. But, parking is a small part of the burden of having to drive. If we’re really concerned about fairness, we need to make it much easier to live without a car. To be consistent, those who oppose parking rate increases should be full-throated champions of density in our village centers, walkable neighborhoods, transit. None of the folks who voted against the higher meter rate cap or for a lower meter rate cap seem to be able to imagine a Newton where some folks don’t have to drive. In fact, Councilors Baker and Laredo are on the record as saying that you need a car in Newton. That’s just the way it is.
The status quo is not sustainable.
Until the society makes it truly cheaper ( both in time and money, since they are somewhat equivalent), your point is completely theoretical. Sure public transportation, let’s go！problem is, it’s going – no where fast. There seems to be reluctance to raise the taxes needed to invest in the rail system we have.
The wealthy in Newton will park – because 3.50 an hour, who cares? – and hoi polloi that you allow the privilege of making you a cappuccino will pay.
And by the way, I don’t know of too many small business owners – find me some quotes please – that complain about their own employees parking. Most of the quotes in the tab we’re business owners concerned about customers leaving for the mall. The small business owners themselves know how difficult it is to park in Newton Center. They want to keep their good employees- especially with unemployment so low – and will stick up for them- If they are a good employer. Otherwise the employees will look for a job that’s more convenient to get to. I really am flabbergasted, as I’ve said Ad Nauseam here, that people are so out of touch with the lower wage workers plight. And they are surprised that the Donald got elected. Well I’m not surprised that mayor fuller is out of touch. That goes without saying, from her “downsized ” 6700 sq ft house in Chestnut hill. I suggest reading Nickled and Dimed, or better go to Newton center and talk to the landlord of my office building. Climate change is important- how about a progressive tax on cars that get < 40 mpg, like all the Mercedes and Porsche SUVS , and Expeditions (!) I see in Newton Centre lots. This parking thing will only encourage the wealthy with their gas guzzlers to park, leaving everyone else to well, know their place.
Of all the thing we can do to effect climate change, 1.5 million dollars on "internet of things" parking meter technology seems like a bad investment.
“Regardless of their reasons, by their vote the five city councilors who voted against the measure . . . indicated that they consider other issues more important than reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” That’s quite a leap. I think you just mean that they have not met _your_ standard of being sufficiently concerned. You dismiss “regardless of their reasons” as though there might not be reason to vote no. I thought we elected councilors to use their powers of reasoning rather than walk in lockstep down the path you have decided is the true path.
Paul,
I’d like to restate my question. What’s the scenario under which climate change is your top priority, but you vote in favor of continuing to subsidize car storage?
Paul,
I’m missing the leap. What’s the scenario under which climate change is your top priority, but you vote against the meter-rate increase?
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.
Marti,
Why, specifically, does variable pricing require further discussion? As you note, there have been public hearings. What specific additional public process do you think is required?
Sean, no leap necessary. Use of this variable pricing model in Newton is one small way that might influence climate change. It’s not the best way or the most effective way but heck it might help some. It also might not.
Until we live in an authoritarian regime, people will be able to make choices in how they approach helping our planet survive. Any choice is a viable one if it helps a little or a lot. Choosing to vote yes or no to give this theoretical model a try, says little about the councilors’ efforts to thwart climate change. What it does say about them is either they are willing to give this model a try or they are not. Really, who’s to say a $2.50 cap might accomplish the same thing – particularly because, as many supporters, including me, have pointed out the changes in pricing may be just cents an hour.
Councilor Norton May aggravate a lot of residents by shouting to high heaven about her “no” vote but there is an election coming up so she’s shouting what her supporters want to hear while she and Tarik, Jake and Susan’s opponent in the Ward 2 at-large race, continue to let them believe that parking prices are going up to $3.75 an hour while saying Susan voted yes and blaming Jake for the higher cap. It’s just a reflection of her campaign styles
Marti,
Exactly. A councilor may choose to brag about their no vote for a variety of reasons. But, none of those reasons is based on the overwhelming consensus about the relationship between subsidized driving and car/SUV storage and climate change.
I’ve been following parking closely since the 2005 publication of Professor Donald Shoup’s book The High Price of Free Parking. I have never heard an argument that subsidized parking in a commercial center is a tool to fight climate change.
It strains credulity to suggest that the no voters were voting with climate change first and foremost in their calculus. Councilors are entitled to vote for any of a number of reasons, including appealing to voters for whom climate change is not a priority. And, folks like me are entitled to criticize them and to point out the inconsistency between their stated support for climate change and this vote.
Sean, is your aim to make it too costly, burdensome and/or difficult for people like me to drive and park near Newton establishments, or that we walk or ride a bike everywhere in Newton — in all seasons? Even if some of us are 70+ years old? If your views were to prevail, many would likely drive beyond Newton whenever practical to get things done, or perhaps take Uber to Newton destinations. Seems to me, this would not serve the climate change adherents.
Jim,
Exactly!
Except, I would put it more affirmatively. My aim is to make our village centers places where people — especially seniors! — will live active, productive, engaged lives without getting into a car too often.
An auto-dependent lifestyle is especially harmful to seniors. Auto-dependency leads to a sedentary, isolated existence. Yes, seniors (and others) are going to have to get into cars every once in a while. Better that it is as infrequently as possible. By the way, we have decent services, getting better, for providing rides to seniors as needed.
From the Tab Article
“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.”
Beware software vendors selling you snake oil.
(I’m in the software business, so I know a thing about it)
By the way, 1.5 million divided by 1100 is about $1364 PER METER.
Really, that’s a good deal? I need to get in on this.
How much to upgrade the software when it crashes? Do they run on batteries? Are the batteries lithium ion? They must have solar charging. Are they reliable? What’s the mean time between failure?
I’ve got a cheaper way to try limiting the parking. Close down a few of the lots temporarily, and see what happens.
“Close down a few of the lots temporarily, and see what happens.” This could happen if Newton had something like SpotHero, a digital parking reservation app that connects drivers looking to reserve and pay for parking spaces in private lots.
It complete eliminates circling for parking, because you know where you are going to. There are 6 disconnected private lots behind Johnnies/Walgreens/Jumbo Seafood in Newton Centre, that I’ve never see full. Esp. the bank and dentist lots could be used when the businesses are shut.
Instead of a big tarmac lot in the middle of Newton Center, we could have a pretty, carbon absorbing park.
Sean,
As Marti B. in part responds to you, “Until we live in an authoritarian regime, people will be able to make choices in how they approach helping our planet survive.” And part of that authoritarianism, is declarations, such as yours above, how and how not “people — especially seniors! — are to live active, productive, engaged lives.” And declarations, such as yours, that other than “every once in a while” automobile use is a “harmful for seniors.”
You conclude by noting, “By the way, we have decent services, getting better, for providing rides to seniors as needed.” I’m assuming, as I believe is the case, those services and rides are provided by automobiles (which, BTW, I’ve questioned the need for the city’s involvement and expense in the age of Uber and Lyft). Or am I missing the point?
@Rick Frank-
EXACTLY!
Low wage workers really aren’t the point or focus of this exercise in
behavior modification. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet don’t you? The Chamber Of Commerce wont commit to raising the minimum wage to $15.00 since they know small businesses will be hurt….
so employees will be searching local neighborhoods for parking and paying higher parking fees on substandard wages to use & park their cars if they don’t live nearby, can’t bike or walk, or their MBTA bus or rail ride is functionally useless. Add 2 or 3 parking tickets a month to that stew and… you get the picture.
My wife, who worked in Newton Center
until a few months ago, paid for meters
as her boss wanted to leave spaces open for customers. That seemed fair. The constant meter monitoring, debating tickets with meter maids & city hall made a decent job a miserable experience and a time waster. That’s not our problem now as she no longer works in Newton, and the parking cancer had a good deal to do with it. another Neither she nor I will shop or patronize businesses anywhere that local governments are intent on punishing us. Now we usually
DRIVE( we have 3 cars at my house!)
to places where we don’t have to add a $25.00 ticket to a typical outing.
Some people respond well to the stick.
Some people not so much.
I wont shop or dine in Boston or Cambridge, even if I’m doing a job in either place. If they are going to punish me when i patronize their businesses then no business for them. The best way to respond to bad policy is to starve it economically.
I feel badly for the local small businesses who will bear the brunt of this nonsense…
Exactly what are we trying to “fix” with these variable rates, local parking or global warming? Not the same issue. Not the same solutions.
If you put this type of energy towards improving public transit, sidewalks, and roads versus trying to get people to stop driving in Newton by simply inconveniencing them, maybe we could really contribute to lowering our carbon footprint. Inconvenience people all you want, but with our crappy public transit, inhospitable sidewalks, and scary-to-bike-on roads, it’s going to be hard for people to truly reduce their car use in Newton.
I would go so far as to say
the variable rate parking proposal sounds an awful lot like economic racism towards lower wage workers…
It doesn’t sound very “progressive”…
Is this the Newton That We Want?
@MMQC
Thank you for the last post.
Common sense!
@Rick Frank-
I’m going to dig out Nickel & Dimed
and reread it. Great book. Thanks for the reminder.
@Mary Mary Quite Contrary –
Maybe one likes the idea, maybe one doesn’t but the intended purpose is to make it more convenient for drivers … unless you think driving in circles looking for parking is something people enjoy.
Sure, if you’re willing and can afford the new rates.
@MMQC – There are no new rates.
In the future there may be some new rates. Some may be higher some may be lower. The news here isn’t that there are any new rates. The only news to date is that there will be a new parking enforcement system in the future and it could potentially be used to set different rates at different times in different places.
Let’s wait until someone proposes some new rates before we argue about them.
@Jerry-
Let’s argue about the rates now as they are right around the corner, the same way the new higher CPA tax is.
The variable parking trial balloon will be reality soon, let’s not pretend it wont.
No actually Paul. Not true. The city has said it will take two years before the new meters could be installed. From the mayor’s email this week…
Just for the record, Sean, are you for or against NewCal in the Newton Centre triangle?
Jane H.,
I would love to see some activity in the Newton Centre triangle. And, Newton Centre seems like a good location for the Senior Center. So, generally, I would be open to it.
The big question for me is whether or not it is enough space to handle the right scope of programming. If it is, I would enthusiastically support it.
I will say that I have benefited from the Passport App. But not in the way you might think. Either the parking control has determined that the app has made it too convenient for people to pay, and therefore reduced their odds of giving a ticket, and moved elsewhere…or the city has laid them off. I have parked in a 3 hour meter for a whole day twice without a ticket. Never would have happened pre “smart technology”.
Oh, it’s so smart.
Dear Newton,
I applaud your attempts at curbing Climate Change with variable rate parking. Oh, and thank you for padding my bottom line. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bezos
Joking aside,
I’m NOT against variable parking as an attempt to help the climate. Doing something is better than nothing.
That said, you can’t curb “bad” behavior completely with a putative consequence. Sure, it may work with young children, but they’re powerless until they become teens. :-)
Newton is a city in name only. It’s not Boston-dense (nor do many want it to be). Public transportation has a ways to go until it’s a preferred option. Biking in the cold and rain? Good luck with that.
The solution will come with electric cars become the norm vs a novelty. But until then, trying something is better than doing nothing.
MMQC, I agree that variable rate parking won’t shift people much away from driving by itself, possibly not at all.
You specifically use the term “inconveniencing” drivers, though. Variable rate parking is about the opposite: it provides convenience. It is inconvenient to drive somewhere and not find a parking space. That affects everyone who drives to metered areas. It is inconvenient that, if you can’t walk so well or need to move something heavy to your car, you can’t get a parking space near your destination. I propose that in lieu of driving around looking for appropriate parking and not finding it, most people are willing and able to spend a little more money.
This is a natural trade off people make all the time. Variable-rate parking with smart meters makes this possible where our current system doesn’t. Most installations aim for 85 percent occupancy per block and per time of day, changing prices incrementally every month or so to get that result. Because the meters are smart, the spots can be monitored to know if they are occupied. That means parking apps can direct you to open parking spaces. That’s just about as convenient as you can make it.
It also allows people who are more cost sensitive (or cheap!) to more flexibly trade off cost and convenience. Now, they might park outside the meter zone. In the future, they can park in a cheaper zone if that works better for them.
Smart meters will also provide the convenience of credit card transactions for those who don’t have or want to use the app.
As for your other points, we all know we have a limit lever to budge the state run transit system. We can make a difference for sidewalks and bike accommodation locally. I believe parking fees can be used for these purposes and for improving local business districts. I believe Newton should make the connection between parking fees and these improvements explicit. It turns parking feeds partially into value added costs, which are better received.
People have raised the equity issue of parking in another thread. I think we should acknowledge inequities, quantify them, and address them in ways including and beyond parking. But in a city as affluent as Newton, claiming we can’t consider raising parking fees because a small portion of the population may be disproportionally affected seems out of proportion.
Even for minimum wage earners, reliable parking is important. If you are late for work, and can’t find a spot, I think you’ll pay a dollar or two more on a particular day than lose your job. That, unfortunately, is the life of perhaps 10% of us.
@Greg-
Like I said, the new meters are right around the corner. Two years will be here before you know it…
And the increase in the CPA tax to 3 percent won’t even take that long.That baby will drop before the end of next year. Put it on your calendar now.
It would interesting to hire a White Hat security firm to see if they can be hacked.
Think they can’t be hacked?
Whatcha this entertaining Ted Talk
https://youtu.be/hqKafI7Amd8