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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.