An opponent of the proposed Austin Street development posted this on a Newtonville list serve today…
Parking survey guy is in Austin St lot
Hi, There’s a man with a clipboard counting parked cars in the Austin St lot right now. The City’s new survey of parking in the Austin St lot and surrounding on-street parking and traffic is happening this weekend. Right now, this weekend, is when the City is assessing whether or not we in Newtonville need parking capacity in our village center. Spread the word… Thanks, Kathleen
One hopes that the survey will be done on a variety of days and times, in which case a Saturday morning is a perfectly reasonable time for one of the data points. The whole point of a parking survey should be to assess the ups and downs of demand.
If opponents are confident that there’s not enough parking in the village then they shouldn’t need to organize to skew the data. This is unfortunate.
Good day for a survey, glad it isn’t in the middle of a snow storm. This survey should not be the determining factor as to the development of this site. Newton should develop the site for the better good of all people in the community. Dense housing is not wanted here. Open space is a better choice.
Mr. Reibman,
Your headline on this blog post is untrue and unfair. I am not a foe of Austin Street, whatever that means, and I did not urge anyone on the Newtonville List to inflate the parking study. I wanted residents to know that the parking study is underway. I think we have a right to know such things. I suggested that the word be spread, so that Newtonville residents would have full information, but I didn’t encourage them to do anything out of the ordinary. So your headline is untrue and unfair. In addition, I am not a “foe” of Austin Street. Rather, I think the Austin Street lot is an incredibly valuable piece of publicly owned property that city officials and staff are trying to sell to developers at a far below market price. I would like to see the Austin Street lot utilized in a way that reflects extensive input from regular residents and business owners of Newtonville. Many people here believe the current proposals aren’t good enough for this very valuable public asset, and would like more say in the decision-making about what happens in our village. I am truly sorry that my attempt to spread basic information has been misinterpreted by a few people as something it was not. To be crystal clear. I am not advocating that anyone do anything they wouldn’t normally do in the Newtonville village center today. Now can you please stop attacking me?
Thanks,
Kathleen Kouril Grieser
@Kathleen Kouril Grieser: Thanks for commenting. I’ve revised the headline to say “Austin St. project foe,” although I suspect that will not fully satisfy you. My post was not intended as an attack on you, in fact I don’t believe we’ve ever met and I know I’ve never written or said anything about you so I’m not sure why you’ve asked that I “stop attacking” you.
But I do stand by my interpretation of your comment on the list serve.
I can’t imagine any other reason why you’d want people to “spread the word.” And even if that wasn’t your intentions, I can certainly imagine others might respond that way anyway by moving their cars into the lot this weekend.
Perhaps you should go back on the list serve and urge people to not do anything that would skew the survey results?
I doubt if people are organizing to skew the data. They are planning trips and parking because that is what people do who travel to the village on most weekends.
Kathleen, don’t mind Greg Reibman.
Greg Reibman, I have to agree with Kathleen here. Your headline on this blog post is untrue and unfair.
What you are actually doing Greg is suggesting to people who favor the housing development to avoid parking in the lot this weekend. Your attempt to use this blog for your own advocacy advantage is not commendable.
@Colleen: Where did I write that?
But even if I had (I didn’t), every one is invited to advocate for their positions on this blog, in fact that’s pretty much why people come and comment here.
Thanks for the suggestion, Colleen, I will definitely avoid the lot today! Why didn’t you think of that, Greg?
That pretty much makes the parking survey irrelevant. Just what it should be.
@Native Newtonian. And do what instead? Park in the Shaws lot or on a side street? If this parking study looks solely at the Austin St lot usage by itself then it is flawed from the get go. A real study should also look at how many people use the Shaws lot but are not shopping at Shaws, or park on side streets like Madison Ave. And as commented earlier this study surely isn’t going to be done over a single day so I doubt it can that easily be skewed one way or another by people for or against this project. Furthermore it’s no secret that the City is doing a parking study. Anyone following the Austin St project knows this.
Sorry, Peter – my remark was meant tongue in cheek. I saw no evidence that Greg had advocated for people to not park there today.. You are correct on all counts in your post.
I interpret that email to say, “quick drive over there and park!” That said a good parking study (no reason to believe this will not be one) will look at multiple days, multiple times, and will duplicate the work over a couple weeks, and likely could be using multiple people and in not so obvious situations (such as in a vehicle counting or across the street etc.
The only other reason I could think that someone would state the above is to show that the city is indeed doing the study, since some have stated that the city makes up the data to fit what they want.
I find that possible but unlikely.
Greg is fine in his posting of this, maybe a bit presumptuous that others would come to the same conclusion as he did, but otherwise fine.
Just wanted to quickly give some thoughts. I don’t see how this wasn’t an attempt by opponents of Austin Street to try and influence the parking results. That said, everyone should take some amount of comfort that parking studies usually involve multiple visits, that events like sporting events, cold, etc. have a much bigger effect, and that the actions taken here should have little to no effect on the end results. Just a waste of time to be honest, and I would think the community as a whole would WANT accurate results.
If your position on parking needs the help a few extra cars will bring, maybe it is time to rethink your parking assumptions?
85 spaces is a LOT of parking. Not enough for the 24/7 uses, but for the vast majority of the time.