by Joeb in Accessibility, City Finances, Development and Zoning, Government Reform, Public Health & Safety, Transportation
Posted on June 21, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Last Modified on June 23, 2009 at 4:22 pm
loading…
For Mayor Curtatone, SomerStat has become the equivalent of health care for Obama: it signals all that’s good, that’s efficient, that’s professional, that embeds Harvard, Tufts, and MIT to his advantage. And, on it’s surface, it’s a serious improvement on CitiStat, the model from Baltimore, and other Stat’s now circulating or adapting among the Massachusetts Mayors, and officials as far as Indiana and Oregon. It gives a much clearer measure of “impact” of public payments for public services than the standard line item which Alderman Curtatone so hated.
But, it’s neither as new as the Kennedy School would have you believe, as sure as the national journals would have us acknowledge, nor as useful to the citizens as it is to certain elected officials who readily exploit its most obvious metrics. Keep in mind, in the description that follows, that “metrics” are what it’s all about: how do we measure what we get from public investments? Do we count – and counting is absolutely everything – tickets or dollars, hours or arrests, serious problems solved or trivial problems acknowledged? It’s all in the metrics, and there is the real problem.
First, some background. During World War I a bunch of “radical” anti-war faculty bolted from Columbia to found the New School for Social Research. I know this mostly from long conversations with one of them, the late Louis M. Hacker, who’s more famous for his own book, The Triumph of American Capitalism (a pseudo Republican defense of the New Deal) than for his earlier socialism. As a then student of Charles A. Beard (who first investigated the financial interests of the founding fathers), Hacker joined him in what he later called “counting fireplugs,” at what was then the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, and a partner of the New School in the then new enterprise of civic management. The Bureau later became the Institute of Public Administration, from which, I suppose, the Rappaport Institute at the Kennedy School imported the concept of “performance budgeting,” perhaps, sometime in the distant past, even citing Kelly & Rivenbarks’ book, Performance Budgeting in State and Local Government. In any case, SomerStat and the process of counting municipal outcomes has a long and mixed history.
Second, that history is decidedly mixed. Although modern information systems do make a difference, the real question is who is counting what, and what they make of those numbers. In the ’20′s and ’30′s, the heyday of this kind of expertise, its proponents knew very well what they were doing: they were taking government away from the “amateurs” and “politicians” and putting it with the “experts.” Although this sounds uncomfortably like Obama’s revolution of the Bush “administration,” it really meant creating measures by which we know that money actually produces more than paid off friends: how many miles of highway, how much crime numbers drop, and the like. The New Deal was conceived and thrived in this environment. And then, after Truman, it ended.
The end was less dramatic than the beginning, since there remained (and still remain) many measures that have common agreement: dollars count; people impacted, at different levels, count; change resulting also counts. What rarely gets counted are the numbers for which Somerville, in particular, is so well known: who gets what, how much, and do they do anything on behalf of the public for what they get? In Somerville, for example, we have to ask who owns those tow trucks, how much they net (and how much the city gets) and who are their relatives in city government who may also…at least theoretically…benefit. In Somerville, we have to ask why certain streets do not have parking signs? To whose benefit are the signs and who benefits from knowing they ought to be there? In other words, SomerStat hides these questions beneath a blanket of other data.
Third, the value of those data ought to be regularly questioned. It is very, very unfortunate that the Mayor has chosen to exploit parking, of all city enterprises, for his first application of data based financial decisions. In doing so, he puts the entire SomerStat approach in real jeopardy. In spite of the overwhelming cupidity of the Board of Aldermen, one or more may ask why or how the Mayor connects “access” to higher tickets across the board? If he really wanted to improve access, he would designate parking spaces away from typical markets as free-zones to residents, and make us safe from the predatory ticket writers. If he really looked at his data, he’d realize that some times during the day are less busy than others, and that those times ought to have discounted parking to even out the flow. If he really cared about access for businesses, he’d give those businesses tokens for discounted parking for their clients (or for evening performances of theater or music) rather than inhibit their business and ours at the same time. The obvious conclusion is that he cares nothing about access, and everything about money. While that may be good for his budget, it is at real cost to citizens and businesses, and, ultimately, to the management system that justifies – or rationalizes – that cost.
Finally, the real problem of parking is a problem of those experts telling citizens what we ought to do. That is what killed this kind of management after the New Deal – and it took about 20 years, well through the Great Society – and what could kill university credibility today. The incredible naivete of the Kennedy School, et.al., is that they really do think that the number of fireplugs – or the equivalent raw number of measured outcomes – says anything. To venal, short-term politicians, it says there’s money to make and an excuse to invent. Of that we’ve ample evidence with expensive tickets and explanations of more “access.” But, in her elaborate measures of parking violations, SomerStat expert leaders forget they are giving a loaded gun to ambitious, underfunded politicians. The public value of those measures (those metrics!) – like when, where, how often, who, and for what those tickets are given – ought to support a real public policy of improved access, protecting the interests of business, of residents, of children, and charging visitors a fair price at rates near or slightly higher than competing cities. That is as far from his current policy as Joe Curtatone is from Urban Progressives at the beginning of the last century – like Charles A. Beard – who started it all!
Before we dump the good part of SomerStat – finding out what real problems can have real solutions – because of the bad part – where’s there money to make, regardless of the consequences? – why doesn’t the Mayor, his new parking committee, his old Parking Commission, his experts, and the Board of Aldermen do some real homework. Who profits from towing? Who loses from unmarked streets? What businesses will lose how much because of a policy framed for cash not access? Why do some people get more tickets than others? Just because they’re stupid? or because the ticketers are unfair? or just under too much pressure? in all neighborhoods? some neighborhoods? rich or poor neighborhoods? Share the real facts before you invent new defenses full of meaningless language about access! Make the policy really transparent! Rather than horde this decision to a Mayor’s appointed Parking Commission, give it to the Board of Aldermen as a serious policy change with real information and real discussion! Or does the Mayor really want all the blame and none of the credit for his SomerStat and his parking fiasco? Why is he protecting the Board of Aldermen from real fiscal decisions that affect over $7,000,000 in income? Has he appointed too many of their relatives as ticket givers? Well, questions like this are just what’s about to happen, and SomerStat could be forced to take the heat!
loading…
Joe this is one of the most exciting posts I’ve read here!
You’ve inspired a thrilling vision:
the BOA seizes the moment!… They are released from a stance of submission to the gods of political and familial gain… They use candor and analytic skills to investigate how and why we’re being given particular slices of data… They ask ferocious and focused questions… They look to all ten directions (don’t forget up and down!) within their wards and broadly for cross-cultural perspectives!… They seek a congruent coordination between budget-making, program planning and equitable distribution…
I’d love to hear the Voices on this- What other metrics should we be viewing?
and, might some follow up on Joe’s great metrics ideas here?
Also inspirational: Bill Shelton’s Open Letter to the Charter Review Committee
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero
loading...
$7M in budgeted revenue (a charitable term if ever there was one) for parking fines.
Less than 100k residents of the city.
Even if every resident has a car (fewer do), and only 50% of tickets hit residents evenly, that’s $350 per serf.
Notably, $2.8M of the “public safety” budget (also our money) is assigned for collecting that revenue.
But as the saying goes, sometimes it takes money to take more money.
I overheard a “parking revenue collector” near the Galleria two weeks ago, shouting to some passers-by that she makes $37/hour.
a) Classy!
b) Maybe Cambridge pays three times what Somerville does for that job, but somehow I doubt it.
loading...
I just noticed this old thread, and something didn’t seem right about Jared’s math. In fact, if there were 100K residents, and half, or $3500K, of the tickets were paid by them, the cost per resident would be $35, not $350.
But I think the more important point is that parking tickets, and meters and permits, are tools the city can and should use to encourage walking, biking and public transit use.
The cost of devoting such a large percentage of our land area to cars is enormous, much more than in less dense cities: all of the roadway space devoted to on-street parking, the extra costs added to apartments and condos that are forced to provide parking spaces, the unpleasant or even dangerous traffic congestion.
loading...
My math was indeed wrong; sorry about that.
Unfortunately, even if you believe that it’s justifiable to use force to “encourage” me to adopt a new-urban lifestyle of walking, bicycling, and T’ing everywhere, I think the “cost of land use” case is (at best) confusing a few different issues.
If you’re using housing costs as a metric, on-street parking *lowers* the cost of packing a given density of cars into a neighborhood, whatever that density is. It overlays a part-time parking lot directly onto the same land people use to get around. And if you’re having trouble appreciating how extremely efficient that is, contrast it with a) driveways, or b) parking lots for Target and Ikea.
Second, traffic density and congestion (which contribute to, but are not the root cause of pedestrian and bicycle safety issues in town) are a symptom of too *little* land devoted to cars. And if 50% of the cars in Somerville disappeared tomorrow, there would likely still be serious ped/bike problems. Car commutes would get easier, but the streets wouldn’t get wider, and the road surface would still suck.
In general, taxing drivers ’til it hurts is really only serving the interest of government bureaucrats, not the interests of new-urbanist utopians (whether you agree with them or not).
loading...
One cost of on-street parking is the large mount of land that is off the tax rolls and that requires upkeep. (Paved areas also have inherent environmental costs.) The same argument applies to parking and garages on private land since these contribute no real value to the property, unless you use a circular argument to justify the requirement. If zoning required shared private parking, then the wasted space would be reduced in proportion to the amount of actual sharing.
In Somerville, built around streetcars, the result has been the loss of many peoples’ yards as they have been turned into driveways and garages.
An idea that is beginning to catch on in the rest of the world (and in places like San Francisco) is to use market-based pricing of parking. If properly priced, economists say that about 10 to 15% of spaces will be unoccupied in a given area. Shoup’s fine book “The High Cost of Free Parking” explains this in great (and often amusing) detail.
A key point economists make is that if a commodity (like parking) is free, or nearly free, there’s no way to really judge the demand for it. Zoning now requires every property to have ample parking as predicted by laughably inaccurate tables that have no correlation with real usage. The result is that everybody, including the many people
who can’t drive, or choose not to drive, subsidize those who do.
We’re very lucky to live in a town that was built right to start, and thus can begin to wean itself from the internal combustion engine
without needing major reconstruction. This requires a BIG paradigm shift, but in my opinion the benefits are well worth the effort.
loading...
Roads are “off the tax rolls” because no one lives in the road, and yet taxes pay for the roads’ upkeep.
The “inherent environment cost” of paved land area is not a problem that comes close to trumping the need for people to move themselves and their goods around the surface of the earth in a reasonable way.
If someone builds a parking garage on his property, under what theory of value are you forming a coherent stance on whether that parking garage constitutes “real value” or not?
In your proposed future where residents bid for on-street parking access, who gets to bid in what locations? Why do you think it’s fair that the least affluent residents (i.e. – those most at risk for being outbid) should be further burdened by only looking for jobs served by public transportation?
There are very, very many cases in society of “people who can’t use public service X, or who choose not to, subsidizing those who do.” Setting aside the fact that your life almost certainly benefits from paved roads, you’re taking liberal statist positions here, so I would have thought the “paying for other people’s stuff” arrangement didn’t bother you much.
Help me understand your vision of the future…if 90% of the cars in Somerville went away tomorrow, how would you propose we reclaim all the land you think is currently wasted to support them?
loading...
>>Roads are “off the tax rolls” because no one >>lives in the road, and yet taxes pay for the >>roads’ upkeep.
I think you’re agreeing with me here about the cost of on-street parking to our city.
>>The “inherent environment cost” of paved >>land area is not a problem that comes close >>to trumping the need for people to move >>themselves and their goods around the >>surface of the earth in a reasonable way.
Personal autos require more land for travel and storage than any other means of local transportation. (Maybe personal gyrocopters would be worse.)
>>If someone builds a parking garage on his >>property, under what theory of value are you >>forming a coherent stance on whether that >>parking garage constitutes “real value” or >>not?
You can see whether or not the parking required by zoning is economically justified in a simple way: how often is _more_ parking provided for commercial or residential construction than zoning requires. If the mandated amount was correct, then about half the time builders would decide to provide more parking, but this rarely happens (about 2% of the time in some surveys.) Builders constantly balance their plans in allocating space, time and money to maximize profits, but they are not allowed to when it comes to parking.
>>In your proposed future where residents bid >>for on-street parking access, who gets to >>bid in what locations? Why do you think it’s >>fair that the least affluent residents (i.e. >>– those most at risk for being outbid) >>should be further burdened by only looking >>for jobs served by public transportation?
The bidding happens by setting different rates on meters different rates at meters depending on location, and probably also day or week and time. Only a few areas would have high parking prices – central Davis Square for example — and most people would choose to park a few blocks farther out rather than pay more. In residential areas, the concept of a parking benefit district could be used – all of the money collected from parking would be spent right on that block. In London, parking revenue directly reduces property taxes so that some districts pay NO property taxes because of high parking income.
>>There are very, very many cases in society >>of “people who can’t use public service X, >>or who choose not to, subsidizing those who >>do.” Setting aside the fact that your life >>almost certainly benefits from paved roads, >>you’re taking liberal statist positions >>here, so I would have thought the “paying >>for other people’s stuff” arrangement didn’t >>bother you much.
All forms of transportation are publicly subsidized — cars/trucks, public transit, air travel, ferries, etc. The problem is the imbalance between the subsidies for cars versus other modes. I think this is a case of the driving majority wanting it all (or most of it anyway) for themselves, and neglecting those who are too young, too old, too poor, or disabled.
>>Help me understand your vision of the >>future…if 90% of the cars in Somerville went >>away tomorrow, how would you propose we >>reclaim all the land you think is currently >>wasted to support them?
I think a 90% reduction is unlikely any time soon, but 50% in a generation may be possible. First, our air would be cleaner (check out the short-lived ultra-fine particle pollution that is not from the Ohio power plants or the NY/NJ ozone migration.) Roads could be put on a diet, making walking and biking a whole lot safer and more attractive. There would be a lot more green space and public open space.
On a few major roads (Broadway, Somerville Ave, Highland Ave, for example) my dream is that we could restore the streetcars that used to run on them.
loading...
Oh, Jared, Cambridge well may pay better – after all it was none other than Dot Gay’s kid who chased tickets in our neighbor city. Perhaps that was to avoid the “appearance of patronage,” or, maybe, it paid better!
loading...
I hope so. Also, I want to make clear that I don’t think ticketers’ salaries are the problem, and I’m sure most of those folks are just trying to make it work like the rest of us. But they’re an indicator of whether a municipality really treats all spending as discretionary, or whether they treat our taxes as their just desserts.
loading...
My head is still spinning from Joeb’s post but one thing did catch my interest.
Your missive about the BOA stepping up to the plate and asking “ferocious and focused” questions as they relate to the ticketing and parking fiasco is not going to happen.
All of you may or may not know that the BOA relinquished its authority over this aspect of policy setting in the early 2000′s(2003 I think). By ordinance or home rule charter change, the BOA handed over the sole authority for these types of fee/fine changes to the executive branch and the Traffic Commission.
Anyone ready to again lead the charge for a major overhaul of the city’s charter? Unfortunately that won’t happen either unless the guy who appoints the members of the charter review committe gets what he wants. Which is a four year term for mayor.
Just my thoughts.
loading...
What happened at the latest BOA meeting where Curtatone stated that the BOA knew full well what was happening with the parking situation (sticker parking and meter increase? I believe that some aldermen hid their heads but one acknowledged that they knew for months and no one said anything to anyone.
I live on a street that is not mandatory sticker parking and really wish it was. I am tired of out of state plates taking up all the parking on the street for weeks to months at a time. In the winter, it is vitually impossible to find a place to park once the city calls a snow emergency. We have two cars (I know a rarity in this City) and one deeded spot.
loading...
Janine,
Without going into a lengthy analysis of who knew what when, I think you are referencing the statements made by Aldermen Gewirtz and O’Donovan at the last BOA meeting.
It is absolutely true that neither Gewirtz nor O’Donovan knew about the silly, illadvised and harmful vote that was taken at the Traffic Commission to extend the hours of meter operation in Davis and Magoun Squares.
It is also true that as the BOA voting representative of the Traffic Commission, Alderman Trane absolutely was one Alderman who did know that was coming.
As for pre-notification about the changes in fees and fines, permit parking and extension of hours? The Traffic Commission duly notified the public and the BOA that they would be discussing and possibly voting on the propose changes.
But remember, the devil is always in the details. And those details only come out if someone wants them to.
Just my thoughts.
loading...
But for some reason in the expensive powerpoint presentation done recently by the mayor for the BOA regarding the budget (sarcasm), I remember seeing the pages referring to increasing the meters and mandatory sticker parking. These were suggestions made by whatever committee Curtatone had helping him. I remember mentioning to my husgand that FINALLY the street would be mandatory sticker parking.
Tom Taylor was also at that meeting with Gewirtz and I don’t recall him screaming that he did not know about the change though.
loading...
Does Mayor Joe “jazz” take into account the amount of lost business that comes into Somerville Every day. Think about the retail or better yet the banking that comes into Davis Sq for example. Every bank has a branch outside of the city with parking or a “less than Somerville” approach to ticketing. There are days where the parking control officers are tripping over each other to ticket cars in order to keep management off their backs. The reason for this is there are less people coming to Somerville to do business because people do not like paying $50 to make a simple deposit or to pickup some cold cuts.
Also curious to know why there are not more people from “Traffic and Parking” on the Journal Payroll list. These people are sure driving the revenue in the Curtatone/Koty empire. FYI the PCOs in Cambridge are represented by a real Union that is why they are paid so well
loading...
This is a very interesting post – although I am not sure I agree with the conclusion that the BOA needs to carpe diem on the parking issue. Somerstat is a great idea that adds value to the city.
However, I think it is of genuine concern that Somerstat- a great idea in theory – does not provide much if any of its information to the residents through a web portal or similar method of conveying information. Knowledge is power, but if you have a strong story to tell, the data will drive your agenda. I do worry at times that the whole thing is just a facade to justify making predetermined political decisions – although I am not sure I am that cynical.
I also think that the parking situation was handled atrociously and is embarassing for the city. I personally think parking meters should go up, and perhaps we should have resident-only parking in the whole city. But the business community and those who care about it are perfectly right to be pissed off that there was no carrot with the stick – no additional longer-term meters to make up for the longer enforcement hours, no additional “2 hour or by permit” spaces to make up for the permit parking, and no smart multi-space meters that take credit cards to help with the pain of higher rates. This issue – where a fine report does exist on Davis Square issues that is available on the City’s web site – could have been unveiled as a masterful use of parking policies to make Somerville a better place. Maybe it still can be.
loading...
I totally agree with you Jeff regarding where the carpe diem should go. I wish we could see the BOA members (and Commissions) use their talents and intelligence to fiercely scrutinize and implement decision-making at this level: to ensure that EVERY city-owned and operated program, service, employment and other municipal opportunity is truly designed with our community membership’s potentials topmost in mind, and to shape a deliberative process for the future stability of this 4.1 square mile environment,.
loading...
More perspective on Urban Parking issues:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/fp/There+free+parking/1747249/story.html
loading...
The critical problem with parking is that this is such a dense city, where (a) mass transit was first invented, (b) auto transit was also a key industry for so long that it killed mass transit, (c) income patterns allowed the city to cope with inadequate parking for so long nobody noticed, (d) when it began to get grievous, after Rent Control died and Cambridge moved in on a large scale, it was never addressed, and (e) we now face the prospect of new (or renewed) mass transit to reduce the pressure. Part of the planning for the Green Line extension ought to be a city-wide parking plan, and key to that plan ought to be a resident tax to cover the real cost of parking, as soon as that mass transit alternative exists. To date that planning has just addressed housing, and that not very concretely – only through zoning. In fact, the parking registration ought to be higher on gas guzzlers who take more space, lower on small cars, and be designed around a comprehensive energy plan that also accommodates discounts for green housing and for other energy-related uses (gas vs. electric heat/water, etc.).
It may in fact be feasible to do that if we begin to argue for it now, since, lacking that, the car owners will get hit with huge fees and no mitigation sometime around 2014, when the new lines go in. PLANNING, an activity not much addressed by city policy so far, would be a great way to soften those blows.
loading...
Joe, I need help with this statement of yours “…and key to that plan ought to be a resident tax to…. Huh? Come again?Resident tax? You mean property taxes and excise taxes aren’t resident taxes? The progrssive’s ONLY solution to everything seems to be to add another tax. Good lord.
I agree that the parking issue was mishandled. I spoke to the mayor and my alderman. Trust me they know my feelings as a resident AND business owner. I had veins bulging when I spoke with them! The turnover argument is complete garbage. Ultimately folks will avoid places that are hard to park in and expensive to park in. You hit a guy with a $50 parking ticket at 9:50 at night (after a movie) and it certainly is NOT going to endear him to our city. The city will gain some short-term revenue, but in the long-term will lose money.
loading...
Xumi,
You miss the point of any kind of revenue generator. The point of a parking POLICY is to encourage some kinds of users, hold costs down on others, and discourage some others. This city is simply too crowded for enough cars to be here – 2 and 3 family units were built for one car, not the four and five they now inspire, due to students and gentry. There are simply not enough parking places.
In part that was because there used to be 27 different trolley stops and five different railroad lines. That’s a long time ago. When that prevailed, we also had 140,000 people! Now we’re down to about half of that, and that’s why it’s just crowded, not crazy.
With new subway lines we can handle even more density – probably more like the earlier days at 100,000 or more, depending on the reliability of those subways and whether we can create jobs as well (or if people work at home, as more and more now due because of the net). And, THEN, with more ways in and out of the city and more places to go within the city, THEN we ought to create a system to avoid ticketing the visitors (at least at that rate) and to encourage the use of those trolleys and subways. Then I’m all for a serious tax on parkers who use the streets regularly, both to discourage that use and to subsidize and encourage more turnover of those cars – through cheaper meters and through meters to which merchants have discount cards.
Finally, I would also encourage an incentive for small, easily parked cars. Those stupid parking slots labelled “compact cars” at malls like Porter Square had no enforcement. I would charge those who take more space or use more resources (air? gas? parking spaces?) with a higher rate, specifically to encourage the others.
That’s the difference between a parking policy and a parking ticket revenue policy. And don’t be too quick about suggesting progressives are the only ones who add another tax.
It’s the “re-gressives” who have higher taxes on those with less money, lower taxes on those with more. And they are quite up front about it, since they argue that the rich will invest. They may be up front, but lots are simply too stupid to read the message they make all too clear. That message is to get out of places like Cambridge, if you don’t keep up with our class and carriage trade. When the Mayor’s Parking Commission adapts that same elite message, they raise the price of meters – which hurts both business and residents. That ain’t progressive in any way, shape or form. In spite of Mr. All American City.
loading...
The difference in parking impact between a regular-sized car and a small car is far less significant than that between a small car and a motorcycle. If what you want is more efficient use of space and better turnover in local businesses, designate and diagonally-repaint a few spots for motorcycles only.
If a non-compact car fits into a “compact only” spot, who cares and why?
loading...
Jared,
All things being equal, the size impact is still unequal, and more small cars make for an easier street for everyone. The way to do that is to give benefits to small cars – like preferred parking. It’s not just a matter of space. And, regarding motorcycles, you’re absolutely right. And why not more bicycle racks (secured), and what about mopeds? There should be bigger incentives the smaller the vehicle – charge parking on Harleys with free parking for bikes – because it is not only parking impact but vehicle impact which is the point of an overall transportation policy.
And you’re right, it’s not just a parking policy that a green Green Line (and Orange and Red stops) provokes. It’s both environmental and transportation, altogether.
loading...
JoeB,
Maybe we should start by letting the actual utility of trolleys and subways be the primary way we “encourage people to use” them.
Jumping straight into bullying people with new fines and taxes almost makes it seem like the “planners” and “policy makers” don’t believe in the soundness of their own spending ideas.
loading...
Does Somerville have an air quality problem? We’re on the coast and the prevailing wind is from the West…
loading...
Incidentally, what kind of parking garages are or will be a part of the Green Line? How will/would/might they affect the overall balance of parking? Will there be discounts for those using the trains? overnight discounts for residents? for guests of residents? etc. In other words, when or how or whether we ever have a real, citywide parking policy will dictate these and all other questions have better answers.
loading...
As now planned there will be very limited parking at all of the new Green Line stops – a few disabled spaces, and short term pull-outs for “kiss and ride”. The maintenance facility will have about 100 spaces for T employees, and the relocated Lechmere station is expected to retain about 200 – 250 spaces. (I do question the need for the Lechmere spaces, but that’s in Cambridge.)
Throughout the advisory group meetings, the EOT and their consultants keep pushing for a parking structure at the Route 16 terminus, but in the end (I hope) abandoned that.
I think the local impact of the stops on parking will be limited. Remember that there are enough stops planned that most people will walk or bike to them, or possibly ride a bus.
To further reduce the parking impact, permit parking should be required in nearby residential areas, and metered or otherwise time-limited parking in commercial districts.
Although we love to gripe about the parking tickets in Somerville, we’re in far better shape to handle this than Medford. There I understand only uniformed officers can issue parking tickets, with the result that there is little or no parking enforcement, and it comes at a very high cost.
loading...
Joe Beckmann – I can only help with a response concerning both the Lowell St and Ball Sq. proposed T stops. At present, there are no plans or even proposed plans to include public parking of any magnitude in the vicinity of these two stops.
The neighbors surrounding the Lowell Street stop, while planning for the 200 unit Maxpac condo development, were adamant that there be no public parking for commuters at Lowell Street. There will however, be a designated vehicle drop off/pick up area as well as ample bicycle racks along the community path extension and at the station itself.
With the new citywide permit parking now in place, the neighbors are still concerned that anyone with a valid Somerville parking sticker will be entitled to park on any of the neighborhood streets surrounding the station.
The solution to this station specific dilemna is not an easy task for the city and I’ve been encouraging the Mayor and Traffic and Parking folks to begin working on it now.
Unfortunately, the focus seems to be more on raising immediate revenue rather than long range traffic and parking planning.
loading...
I’ve been at least to a few of the Union Square meetings where there’s been discussion of structured parking, at least as much to reduce the impact of parking on the declining number of available spots due to re-arranging the square as to the Green Line terminus. In truth, the Aposian lot on Webster Street may take much of any Green Line parking need, but the fact is that there is much, much less open space for parking around Union than there is (or was) around Davis Square, and the planned and newly zoned development, at 10 to 15 stories, certainly demands some off-street parking if it’s ever going to attract business. There are some critical trades involved with high density uses, for which Somerville bears much more burden than Cambridge, since we were developed residentially both earlier and with more intensive trolley uses. Even if the parking is kept on the fringes, which might be ideal for those in the center for car storage, there is certainly a pent up need already for some kinds of parking. And the ideological cant of bikes and walking is fine, but only with substantially more infrastructure than anybody anticipates anybody else paying for.
Finally, as Joe Lynch implies, it’s quite possible to build parking for residents first, others second and optional and at a substantial premium. For years people have talked about discounted parking for subway ticket holders, or unit pricing for parking and a subway pass, and about time limiting those spaces so neighborhood residents could park at night for free or at very low rates. We talked about this decades ago in terms of Central Square in Cambridge, and it would be much, much easier in Somerville, with a mix of profit, nonprofit, and public lots to reduce the subways’ impact on neighborhood parking by offering neighborhood residents dedicated slots in public lots that charged premium prices for non-residents. That would actually reduce the parking problem while discouraging all but the occasional drive-to-station user.
loading...