Last week in West Newton the city held a discussion around the changes both proposed and underway for the village center. Unfortunately, I had a previous engagement and couldn’t make it, though I listened to much of the conversation through the Facebook feed.
The concerns center around two main issues. First is the types of buildings, both in terms of size and use, that the Hello Washington Street project and the proposed zoning allow. Related to that is the discussion of transportation, which settles on two main issues. One is the use of the commuter rail, which you can see play out in another post. The other is around the flow of cars, related backups, and the storage of personal cars. Off to the side is everything else, like walking, biking, and (hardly mentioned) buses.
But what will the future of transportation look like? When you ask this question the issue of self-driving cars inevitably comes up, but there remains an assumption that people in Newton will own their cars, likely two, and need a place to store those cars when they’re home and when they’re out shopping, running errands, etc. So it’s interesting when you read a countervailing discussion from a company that focuses on transportation.
Ride-hailing company Lyft is going public and this is what it had to say in its S1 filing, as quoted in Business Insider:
We believe that the world is at the beginning of a shift away from car ownership to Transportation-as-a-Service, or TaaS. Lyft is at the forefront of this massive societal change,” they told investors. “Car ownership has … economically burdened consumers. US households spend more on transportation than on any expenditure other than housing. … On a per household basis, the average annual spend on transportation is over $9,500, with the substantial majority spent on car ownership and operation.
Business Insider points out that in Britain, car sales are down significantly and car registrations are down in the US, so is the purchasing of new tires (albeit slightly). They are down much more significantly in China.
There are huge issues at play here, including Brexit and uncertainty in the European markets, but the macro trend is clear: people don’t necessarily want to own a car and are finding ways to avoid doing so.
What does this mean for us? As we examine our zoning we need to think about the future of our city. If car ownership goes down, so does the need for parking in villages. What do we do with our parking lots? What happens when we lose revenue from meters? What happens to the garages attached to many homes? How do we handle driveways? Are setbacks still desirable in an age when a vehicle stops in front of your house and you need to walk through the front door instead of pulling into a driveway or garage?
Lyft asks the same questions in reverse:
We believe that cities should be built for people, not cars. Mass car ownership in the twentieth century brought unprecedented freedom to individuals and spurred significant economic growth. However, in the process, city infrastructure became overwhelmingly devoted to cars. Roads and parking lots have replaced too much green space. Mass car ownership strains our cities and reduces the very freedom that cars once provided.
These changes won’t come tomorrow, but if we’re planning for our future we should be thinking about them.
We should take anything Lyft says with a grain of salt. They are selling themselves to investors. Of course they want you to believe these things.
Certainly there are macro trends but we live in micro environment here in Newton and should look at our own reality. Is Newton car ownership on the rise or decline?
If garages, driveways, and parking lots become irrelevant, then they will just get re-developed into something else at that point.
Its certainly true that most people don’t WANT to own a car but NEED to own. When I can get a uber/lyft/shuttle to $8 to downtown and $2 to the nearest super-market, I would gladly ditch the car.
Unfortunately, I think this a fantasy at these prices. Lyft’s business model is to “LOOSE” money. They make 2.2Billion but have loses of $911 Milllion, I assume Uber has similar looses. The currently prices are only possible because they are intentionally loosing money
example numbers: Nissan Versa lease
lease $180 a month
insurance $70
gas $70
total = $320 a month
$10 a day…
For a family with 1 or 2 kids, this is going to be cheaper than relying on public transportation/Uber 12 months of the year… hands down.
Chuck Tanowitz, so that the reader can understand where you’re coming from as it could impact transportation, on the other thread re Zoning and the “Color of Law” book by Richard Rothstein, you reiterated: “We need to regionalize our housing policy, transportation policy, and our education systems,” in apparent agreement in what we’d have to do here in Newton to go forward with what would be Rothstein’s recommendations:
1. FULLY DESEGREGATE NEWTON SCHOOLS BY COMBINING WITH THE CITY OF BOSTON;
2. GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCT LARGE PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS IN NEWTON WITH PRIORITY OCCUPANCY FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS; and
3. REZONE NEWTON WITH THE AIM OF MORE THAN SUBSTANTIALLY LOWERING EXISTING HOUSES/HOMES PROPERTY VALUES.
If these are not your policy recommendations please let me know where this is off base.
You want simple answers to complex problems. I’m sorry, I won’t give that to you.
We do need to bring down the cost of housing on a per-unit basis. That much is true. We need to ensure that people can move around freely and easily regardless of age, economic status, and capability. That is also true.
We cannot do these things alone as a city, we can only do these things when we work together as a region.
There are kids in Boston who need access to the opportunities that we have here. We need to connect them to those opportunities. We need to provide them access. Programs exist to do that, but we need to determine if those are effective and what else we can do to help.
I am not on the school committee, I am not an education expert, I have not studied alternatives. I cannot tell you that combining schools is the answer. I can only say that it is one of many options.
Chuck Tanowitz
If there are kids in Boston who don’t have access to opportunities then Boston should ask their Billionaires, millionaires, tech companies, finance companies to provide revenue to fix the issue.
Until we see Boston maxing out their potential to tax their own residents/businesses to fix their own problems, it should not be our concern… Boston is “NO WHERE” that point… They obviously need to implement a “Boston City tax” given the host of problems they expect other communities to solve for them
Chuck Tanowitz, with all due respect, of course you can’t or won’t give answers — other than excuses, ‘explanations’ for not giving answers, and academic abstractions/goals such as “we need to bring down the cost of housing”, “we need to work together as a region”, “we need to give kids in Boston access and opportunities”, “I’m not an expert” etc. etc.
WHEN THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD — where an abstract or academic plan is to be put in practice — YOU OPT OUT!
(On the other thread, too, where Seth Roche even proffers a “candidate bounty” for reading The “Color of Law” book, where the recommendations therefrom are applied to Newton, those academic advocates, including Bryan Barash, apparently opt out as well where suggestion is made to put the book’s recommendations into practice, at least in Newton. If not the case, they are invited to prove this conclusion wrong.)
We ARE part of the billionaires and millionaires. The intellectual and financial engine that powers Boston lives in Newton, Wellesley, Weston, Lexington, etc.
Chuck
Please post boston tax revenue compared to Newton.
If you had a billionaire uncle, would you be willing to pay for his kids college tuition? He’s family right?
This is similar to asking newton to solve Boston’s problem. Let them create a city tax for education and affordable housing first and then we can discuss how newton can help
Chuck, will you again look at the three recommendations drawn from the Richard Rothstein book on Zoning, The Color of Law, as it would be applied to Newton, and in view of the reply to your refusal to address with any specifics whatsoever after your stating “We need to regionalize our housing policy, transportation policy, and our education systems,” would you at least say that you would or could concur that these are possible options for Newton drawn from the Rothstein book:
1. FULLY DESEGREGATE NEWTON SCHOOLS BY COMBINING WITH THE CITY OF BOSTON;
2. GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCT LARGE PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS IN NEWTON WITH PRIORITY OCCUPANCY FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS; and
3. REZONE NEWTON WITH THE AIM OF MORE THAN SUBSTANTIALLY LOWERING EXISTING HOUSES/HOMES PROPERTY VALUES.
IMHO, the reason this seems so important is that lofty goals are often thrown around by re-zoning activists, specifically exhorting others including Newton candidates for office to read the Rothstein book, and when “push comes to shove” on weighing Rothstein’s recommendations as applied to Newton, nothing but SILENCE.
BTW, I’d ask the same from Sean Roche (and Bryan Barash) who while introducing the Rothstein book and exhorting candidates and others to read, and when applied to Newton, SILENCE. This is particularly important and informative in that there seems to be a movement for Newton zoning to entail “social engineering”, “social change” and “social justice” — which I’ve maintained should be beyond its purview.
Cost of car ownership is $26.24 per day.
“According to Consumer Expenditures in 2017, released in September 2018 by the U.S. Department of Labor’s U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average vehicle costs $9,576 per year to own and operate.”
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/08/cost-car-ownership.asp
We need critical fact driven planning for new residential, commercial and industrial development that will draw new residents or workers to Newton. Just the facts. Two items are among many I could list.
(1) Public transportation should be in place to serve the influx of new residents or workers before they actually come here. It doesn’t work nearly as well playing catch up after something new is built and occupied.
(2) Many commuters who come to Newton for work each day have no other viable option but to drive here. The same is true for many people who commute from Newton to other municipalities. This is only going to get worse as more residents and workers move around by car. It’s unfair, counterproductive and undoubtedly harmful to business activity to prevent them from doing so until we are assured with data that new forms of fast, flexible and efficient public transportation are evolving to meet the increased need.
In looking through the numbers above, they look at ride hailing as a one-to-one replacement for car trips. The point of a diverse system is companies like Lyft and Uber are just one piece of a much larger puzzle. This is why we need to allow for multi-modal travel.
If you’re used to driving this won’t make much sense, but most urban dwellers decide on transportation at the moment they need based on where they are and where they’re going. If you own a car you likely see driving and movement as one in the same. That is, “I’m going shopping” naturally translates to getting keys and getting into a car. But if you’re taking the path of least resistance you may walk, grab a rental bike, jump on a bus, or take an Uber depending on where you are, your timing, how many people you’re with and where you’re going. A great example of this is the app “Transit” which shows you your options at any moment, along with times and cost. This is what Lyft means when it talks about Transportation as a Service. It’s not about having just one way of getting there, but about making decisions when you need.
Having a bike infrastructure doesn’t mean that every ride will be by bike and it doesn’t mean that people will bike 4, 6 or 10 miles to work. It means providing options to fill in gaps. It also doesn’t eliminate car travel, but car travel becomes one of many options.
As for changes in car ownership, both Cambridge and Somerville are seeing changes in the use of cars there. VMT is down in Cambridge (even if car ownership hasn’t changed) and Somerville is starting to see a slight drop in car ownership.
Bob’s second point is very important for people to understand. Many folks forget that a lot of commuters don’t do typical commutes like daytime jobs from Newton to Boston. I know a lot of people that have to commute to places up and down 128 or west like Natick, Framingham, something-borough. I also know a lot of people that work nights or shift work. The T is useless for them, Lyft would be too expensive, and biking would take too long.
And again, no one is saying that a single mode works for everyone in every situation. There are people for whom driving will always be the easiest method. Monica Tibbits-Nutt, who heads up the 128 Business Council, often jokes that she drives because she cannot bend space and time. It doesn’t mean it’s the only way for her to move around.
The way we are built today is that we focus overwhelmingly on a single mode: driving. We need to reconsider that singular focus.