Hey, there! Log in / Register
Parking main focus of meeting on proposed Roslindale Square condo project
By adamg on Wed, 10/21/2015 - 9:44pm
Architect Dartagnan Brown points out one of the proposed buildings.
Immediate neighbors of a 19-unit, two-building condo proposal for land behind the Roslindale Square municipal parking lot raised issues of setback, privacy and loss of sun at a BRA meeting at the Roslindale Community Center tonight. Once the developer and his architect agreed to work on those, the talk turned, as it usually does, to parking - and the issue of increasing the housing stock in a neighborhood that has been largely been unaffected by the building boom hitting other parts of the city.
Some residents of Taft Hill Terrace, on which the proposed project would sit, said the 19 proposed spaces just were not enough and predicted that some residents of the new buildings would end up trying to park on their street, which they said already has parking issues, in part due to its proximity to the commuter-rail parking lot, where spaces go for $4 a day, and the municipal lot, where parking is limited to two hours a day.
"I live on Taft Hill Terrace and it's not working," one resident said of the current parking situation.
Beyond the immediate neighborhood, though, residents agreed the project, when coupled with other recent apartment and condo buildings in and near Roslindale Square, is the vanguard of more development - but differed on whether that's good or not. Some residents worried about parking and overcrowding; others said first-time homeowners just aren't buying as many cars as their parents, that Roslindale needs more units to bring in new residents and keep existing ones from being priced out of the neighborhood and that Roslindale Square in particular needs more residents who would walk to local shops, many of which don't see enough foot traffic to sustain themselves.
One of those was Sarah Lee, who said that people in their 20s and 30s are increasingly more likely to have just one car, in part because cars are just too expensive for them, what with housing prices, student loans and the costs of raising kids. She said she supported the proposal because Roslindale needs more people who would rather take the train, ride a bike or use ZipCar or Uber to get around.
The Taft Hill proposal calls for spaces for 19 bicycles and developer Parkhead Development has pledged $2,000 car-sharing or ride-sharing credits to initial buyers.
But Timothy Sheehan said the new residents are going to bring their cars no matter what and they're going to park on the street if they have to, and that could have dire consequences if replicated across Roslindale, a neighborhood known as a suburb in the city, where ample on-street parking is a major draw, because the neighborhood would become just like South Boston, with "competitive street parking" and "people taking a hammer to your car because you're in their spot." He said thinking people will stick to to just one car per household is "a utopian dream" that will fail because you can't "reverse the laws of human nature."
Residents with comments have 30 days to file comments with the BRA. If the BRA board approves the $4-million proposal, it will need variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for height, setback and overall size of the buildings when compared to the size of the lot.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
"based on their age"
I bet.
Old people (other than Joe and the RVMS folks) - 'We can't have any more building downtown because I want to drive to the market and restaurants from Peters Hill or elsewhere. Also why can't we have more boutiques like Newton Center?'
Young people - 'Dear god, please build more housing so we can afford to live somewhere near our jobs. '
POC - not at the meeting
Not accurate re age description in my view
I attended; this description of the age-based views doesn't seem accurate to me. It is true that the 2-3 people who were most vigorous in asserting the belief that every family will own two cars were on the older side, but there were folks across the age spectrum, including those who appeared to be in their 40s, 50s, and 60s, who were plainly well aware of the trends of decreased car ownership and car commuting in Boston, and spoke out in favor of more walkable, less car-centric development.
Yep!
I took out the age reference after realizing that, no, it wasn't at all accurate.
Car travel is going up not
Car travel is going up not down. Monthly, the Federal Highway Administration publishes a report on miles driven by car. The report is called the Travel Volume Trends Report. Here is the summary from the July report... "Travel on all roads and streets changed by +4.2% (+11.4billion vehicle miles) for July 2015 as compared with July2014. Travel for the month is estimated to be 283.7 billion
vehicle miles...."
The increase in miles driven applies to both urban and rural areas. Car miles driven in Mass. increased less than the country average but nonetheless was up 2% in 7/2015 compared to 7/2014.
I'd be interested to see if
I'd be interested to see if that data can be parsed by location (even by county). I'm sure car traffic is up throughout the suburbs as population growth is up (perhaps it tracks closely). However, I wonder (but don't know) if the same can be said for the City.
Though there's been a clear
Though there's been a clear uptick in urban population growth, reality is that most Americans and subsequently most population growth is still in the suburbs, as you said. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that total miles driven increases like that, particularly with lower gas prices lately. But we also know that per capita miles driven have decreased every year nationwide since 2006. And that especially with Millennials, car ownership and miles driven are way down. But all that aside, simple reality is with population growth as it is, it's an imperative for everyone that we re-focus on pricing parking appropriately, better public transit, and more walkability. If we don't, the traffic gridlock we see now will be child's play compared to the future. So drivers (of which I am frequently one) have every personal incentive in the world to support policies that reduce car trips and traffic. This shouldn't be an us v them thing at all.
Good reading here: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Draft_Beyond_Tra...
Good to hear
Even today, there are people on twitter arguing that more development in Roslindale will hurt the local business, because people won't drive the square anymore without even more parking. Mind boggling.
Parking Is a Problem Because...
Employees of Roslindale Village businesses are taking on-street spaces that should be saved for customers. And the city doesn't enforce the 2hr limit in the municipal lot, so employees and commuters park there all day. Parking on side streets around the village is a real problem, especially when it snows.
The last thing we need is to make parking in Roslindale as difficult as parking in South Boston or the South End. Many people move here because they want to live in a place where it isn't that hard to transfer infants and their stuff from car to home.
Why are they acting like it's
Why are they acting like it's a great unknowable fact? You don't need an urban planning degree to figure out that the new building will account for more than 19 cars. I've lived around the corner from Taft Hill for over a decade and everybody drives here, even my neighbor with the segway has a car. Most people in Roslindale shop in Dedham because we have a pretty bare bones retail sector. Taking a bus to Forest Hills isn't the worst commute, but it's not something you want to do more than you have to. If you have enough money to buy a new condo, you probably have enough money for a car, and you probably have a significant other in your life who might have a car of their own. The 4 unit building across from me accounts for at least 6 cars on our street, this place will realistically account for 24+ cars.
Bikes
Roslindale is underrated for bike commuting. I've been here for almost 10 years and I go almost exclusively by bike. If the emerald necklace were full connected it would be a perfect ride for me. A car is nice, but by no means necessary. I think more and more people are getting on that program.
Unbelievable
Bikers are becoming more insufferable by the day. When will you bike people get on the program that bikes aren't for everybody? A car is actually a necessity for a lot of us and, living in a neighborhood with ample parking, I don't feel bad about it one bit.
How dare the poster you
How dare the poster you replied to like to ride their bike!!1!
Drivers quoted in the article are acting like they have a right to never have to look for a parking spot or walk more than 10 feet from their house but cyclists are the insufferable ones? When will you people realize get on the program and realize that cars aren't for everyone and planning a city around them is a terrible idea and that others are tired of subsidizing your choice of transportation?
Amazing "logic" he's got
The irony is that the more of us ride bikes, the easier it will be for that guy to find his precious parking and drive quickly to Dedham. I am constantly amazed by the thought process that suggests the way to solve car congestion requires attacking the people who aren't adding to it.
"subsidizing your choice of transportation"
When did cyclist start paying excise taxes? Its drivers who are paying for your transportation!
You want to start that again?
You don't want to start that again.
Non drivers heavily subsidize drivers through income and property taxes. Your excise tax doesn't cover squat compared to your consumption of services.
The next time a city leaves a road unplowed but clears the sidewalks, maybe you can whine.
Do the math, genius
and then please let us know exactly how much we should be paying in excise tax for our bikes. Really--I can't wait to hear. I think I have some spare change behind the sofa cushions that should cover it. Oh, and not to mention the obvious--many if not not most of us bike people also own cars and pay plenty of taxes--we'd just rather not have to sit in traffic for fifteen minutes while going to get a cup of coffee or a gallon of milk.
You know that's not a statement with any basis in reality.
But somehow I think you already know that. People who own bikes, often...own CARS! I hope that did not blow your mind.
Actually...
I could give a flying fart if he likes to ride his bike, run, jog, crawl or crip walk. Whatever floats his boat is fine with me. I was referring to his line that "a car is nice, but by no means necessary". Who the hell is he (or anyone) to determine what is necessary for anybody else. I work a job that requires a car, so am I not allowed and/or supposed to feel guilty for living in Boston because of it?
Quite honestly, even if I didn't need a car for work, I'd still have one. I enjoy taking road trips outside of Boston, bringing my surfboard to Newport on Saturday mornings in the summer, going where I want when I want and yes, even occasionally going Dedham to run errands.
Look, the bottom line is, this is America, baby. We all have the choice to do what we please, but when you start acting a little holier than thou because of the choices you make or think you can tell people what they should be doing, I find that insufferable.
Actually: Look. the bottom line is...
....within the context of the missive, he/she was referring to his/her own experience; that a car would be nice but he/she doesn't need it.
Take a deep breath and chillax.
The problem is
when you start substituting personal anecdotes for worst-case analysis. Just because you don't need two cars doesn't mean everyone in the building won't either. And you if you build the building without sufficient parking accomodations for that worst case because of what are honestly just political motivations (cars=bad, bikes=good, because.) you don't have a backup plan when you do find yourself up the shit creek. I like living in Brookline where I can walk to the store or hop on the trolley to go downtown. My wife and I also have a lateral and reverse commute, respectively, so we both need cars. We lucked out and found a building with space to accomodate both cars. Why should anti-car politics deny other people the chance to do the same?
WTF?
Why don't you just buy somewhere that meets your needs rather than demand that every place be built to your needs?
The same could be said about
The same could be said about anything with real estate. No individual needs to live in Boston. If housing is too expensive for and you want to blame it on parking spaces, go live in 30 miles out and take the train in.
The problem is...
substituting personal anecdotes for analysis...wait! that's just what YOU did.
more roads, more cars.
wider highways, more cars.
more garages, more cars.
more parking lots, more cars.
surely you're not suggesting that unlimited parking, roads, etc. is the ideal.
You can bike AND have a car
My classic American family (H/W/2 kids) only has one car and we do just fine. I bike to work (or take the train when it snows) and my wife drives the kids everywhere. Could we get along without a car? No, not really. Do we miss having a second car? Rarely, and when we do I rationalize paying a few bucks for an Uber or a rental in that we are saving $800-$1000+ per year in extra insurance for the 2nd car we don't own.
So it's reasonable in very bikable Roslindale to think that 2 or 3 person homes wouldn't need 2 cars.
Exactly
For the first 8 years in Roslindale we were a 1 car household. I actually have a car now, but it's faster, easier and just more enjoyable for me to ride my bicycle to work. The second car is a totally unnecessary luxury.
This.
Some people will need one car. Some people will need two. Some will be able to manage happily with a pair of bikes and a Zipcar spot. I will never understand the vitriol from the anti-bike folks--it makes me want to say "fine-let's ALL get cars and see how much you enjoy it." Let's build two parking spots for every condo and see how that increases the cost. Let's add a few hundred more cars to the morning commute down Washington Street. Let's make it harder to park in Roslindale Square. Let's slow traffic on Centre St to a complete standstill. Will you be happy then?
Same
For the first year we lived in Roslindale, we did it car-free, using the Zipcars at the train station when we needed to beyond the T. We only bought a car my job was transferred from our Dedham (T accessible!) office to Rhode Island. My wife commutes via the commuter rail, Uber, or, when it's available, a carpool. We have no interest in buying a second car, not even for the newly licensed teenager.
Another 1 car Rozzie
Another 1 car Rozzie household here - wife has a car to commute to Newton (technically accessible but looking at hours each way) and I take the busses up to JP for work. I feel like most of my friends (all DINKS) are roughly the same way, very few couples have two cars.
Bikes vs cars
I don't think any conversation on this topic is complete now without this gif.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/the-case-against-car...
Most people aren't going to
Most people aren't going to be eager to bicycle around in the winter.
Irrelevant
Many people do bike in the winter. Others take the T.
There are ways to get around that don't involve a car. You should try one sometime!
Vicious cycle
Maybe Roslindale has a pretty bare bones retail sector because most people in Roslindale shop in Dedham.
Building more condos for people who don't want to depend on cars in Roslindale would create more shoppers in Roslindale and improve shopping there for you too.
Or are you happy with dollar stores and empty storefronts? That's what you and your pals support in Roslindale by driving to Dedham to shop and fighting more dense development.
Bingo
I'd bet good money that kitchen store is gone within a year for example. I shop there when I can, but I only need so much stuff from a kitchen store...
I digress but
Every time I go in that store they ignore me. Like literally--just carry on their conversation behind the register. The last time I went there during the holidays, the woman was actually complaining loudly about how busy it was and how she couldn't wait to close up. Understandable but save it until I leave, ok? There's an art to storekeeping.
"Damn those dollar stores -
"Damn those dollar stores - they bring in all the wrong kind of people!," says the gentrifying geek.
"I want more empty storefronts!"
says the anonymous commenter.
I'd just be happy if the
I'd just be happy if the family dollar truck stopped double parking in the road
Historically speaking you're
Historically speaking you're right - at least that's what I've heard about Rozzie and the Dedham Mall, but to suggest that a few more purchases at Fornax is going to suddenly bring major retailers to the square is silly. Dedham has its place because it has the space for the big box stores that families need for their everyday items. The square has a lot to offer in niche categories, but I just can't see doing all of my shopping there. Village Market is kinda nasty (rodents) and you can't even pick up a kid's birthday present in the square. Somebody should open up a Lego stand at the farmer's market - they'd make a mint.
As for the empty storefronts, there's more to it than you'd think. A lot of it has to do with certain landlords sitting on retail property waiting for the right buyer. Rozzie will do well with or without the magical unicorns that are car-free professional adults, but realistically they need to add more parking.
Need
Wait, families need big box stores for their everyday items?
The situation is worse than I thought. For you, anyway.
I don't need big box stores for my everyday items, so I guess I'm lucky.
But then I'm part unicorn, on my mother's side.
An' anudda ting
D'Artagnan Brown, A'Rchitect
If there is a partner called Athos, I'd let them build anything!
more seriously, seriously? This guy instantly became the most popular kid in school when they were old enough to read the D'Artangnan romances.
Well Gee...
The parking complaints are warranted, given the status quo. Maybe it is time to review how "free" on street parking is allocated, on a city wide level. This really requires city level involvement to develop new parking tools that certain areas could elect (similar to petition for resident parking areas).
Right now, the situation seems to be a case of which comes first, the chicken and egg argument, and both sides are probably right. Maybe it is time to break the cycle and let a level of fairness and economics resolve this? Now if only the city provided the tools to do so...
Maybe it is time to review
That process is very much underway. First step is the move to have adjusted pricing for parking meters based on congestion. The next step and more controversial step is going to be putting a cost on resident stickers and/or all on-street parking. It's inevitable.
I hope you are right but
I hope you are right but there are so many spoiled babies who are going to throw a fit if they are told to pay their fair share to store their property on public land.
Anyone who thinks they
Anyone who thinks they deserve an affordable live in Boston so they can bike to work is just as spoiled. You can live in a far away cheap suburb and take the train in. You aren't entitled to live in any particular location or demand that people build housing around your ideal scenario either.
Exactly
So shut up about parking spaces already. They are expensive wasted land in the city and a subsidy for people who should live 30 miles out if they are so very addicted to their cars.
Talking past an argument
Talking past an argument doesn't invalidate it. Drivers subsidize bicyclists in part through the gas tax which goes towards maintaining the roads that bicyclist ride on.
Some extra housing units per project is not going to have any significant impact on housing affordability. Also, it would be at expense of economic reality of people have the ability to work two jobs in different areas, and people get new jobs all the time.
Believing that you are in any way subsidizing parking on private property isn't realistic. You aren't paying taxes to maintain those parking places on private property. You didn't own the private property that is being developed.
People whining that they don't have an affordable biking lifestyle can take the train in and bike around wherever they came in from.
We're sorry
The argument you just made is invalid.
Please check with reality and try again.
If you need assistance, try this website that says that you are wrong: http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-h...
40% in MA comes from income and property taxes. Cyclists pay income and property taxes, which pay part of that 40%. Cycling amenities are less than 1% of total road costs. Cyclists who do not own cars are subsidizing drivers.
Wrong. You link merely
Wrong. You link merely supports the original claim which was "drivers subsidize bicyclist in part through the gas tax", and that is absolutely true.
Here it is, explained nice and clearly for you. 60%, the majority, comes from user fees, and a sizable percentage of that comes from the gas tax. Only a very small percentage of the 40% you mention comes from people who don't use cars at all.
"The argument you just made is invalid.
Please check with reality and try again."
When you misrepresent the argument, you don't get anywhere. Try again.
Link
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/05/report_busts_the_myth_that_d...
That link is almost entirely
That link is almost entirely talking about NJ. The figures vary greatly state to state. If you are going to dump a link into a discussion, it's helpful if you read it first.
The article
is written about NJ. The study it talks about is a US study.
From the summary
"The time has come for policy-makers
to recognize something that has been true
for years, but is especially true today: we
all pay for America’s roads."
It doesn't say just NJ.
Maybe next time you should read the info before commenting.
It'll take quite awhile...
Because the same people who complain about the scarcity of street parking at these meetings will go ballistic at the idea of paying even a nominal fee for it. The ability to hold both of these positions at once is remarkably widespread.
It blows my mind Boston doesn
It blows my mind Boston doesn't do this already. Somerville charges a fee for their resident parking and it seems to work fine.
I hope at first there would be....
...ways to target/fine the "residents" with their out-of-state license plates who haven't changed over their registration in 30 days. And who knows, maybe making it painful enough for New Jerseyites and students to bring their cars to town and park them for six months straight might mean fewer space savers this winter.
Space adjustment...
Not price adjustment. Measure out spaces on the streets, and line them. I'd be willing to bet that there'd be more spaces. And anyone not in the lines gets a ticket. More spaces, more revenue.
1:1 Ratio is Plenty
A one to one ratio of car to unit is plenty. There are many people with and without kids (myself included) who have only one car because they rely on the train for work. Granted, some people will have two cars and will park on the street but that is life. If the standard is that there should be no more cars in a neighborhood than there are now because it will make street parking harder then we might as well put a moritorium on any new development, but we all know that would be silly and would just perpetuate the supply problem we have that is making it unaffordable for anyone without a six figure income to live here.
What about the people that
What about the people that dont work places reachable by the MBTA , or work hours that dont match up with the MBTA's hours of service? What about the people that come after the original purchasers and need cars. What about the handicapped or elderly that cant ride bikes? This drama about parking spots to me is bullshit social engineering.The gas station on Centre street , the factory beside Blanchard's liquor store , sheesh! If you dont want clutter and congestion , dont build anything and live elsewhere. Then maybe when you have to commute from the old apple orchards or cranberry bogs that have been converted to nice big houses with nice ample driveways , you will appreciate the autocar. Carry on,
Simple
They can pay for the use of their choice of transportation.
Pushing more spaces into a development subsidizes driving. Why should people who don't have cars pay for people who do have cars to use their cars?
Amazing how "necessary" turns into "discretionary" when people purchase those spaces separately.
Exactly this. There are
Exactly this. There are plenty of people who move from closer to the city center to neighborhoods like Roslindale which are more affordable so they can start a family -- which sorry to say it, does for many 2 parent working households, require both parents to have a car. It's not because they are lazy or do not care about the environment. The simple fact is this: you cannot do everything on a bike or via public transportation. You cannot put two little kids on a bike in the middle of winter to bring them to daycare. Both parents can't work 50 hrs per week, plus bring their kids everywhere little kids need to go with bikes and public transportation. There are not enough hours in the day and schedules are extremely tight these days. Maybe you have a 9-5 job which doesn't require you to work late, work on the weekends, work overtime unexpectedly -- and that's great for you, but that's not the case for everyone. I keep reading comments that it's just the older folks who want cars. This is incorrect. It's working families who need cars! Maybe the anti-car folks only work part-time, maybe you don't have kids, maybe you don't have a spouse who works full-time, maybe you don't have busy schedules, maybe you don' t have family obligation outside of the city, I really don't know, but that's the simpler lifestyle you have had the luxury of choosing. Not everyone has the luxury to have their schedule revolve around bicycling and a half-assed publilc trasnportation system.
Fail
Your comment is fail. Look above - see that people function in this area with families and a single car. It isn't unusual at all.
Also note: nobody is forcing people to buy here. If they can't get the deeded parking they need, they can buy somewhere else.
Why do all you car culture freaks go all Kim Davis on anyone who makes different choices and demand that everyone live as you do?
"The common above said
"The common above said something different so fail."
Some people need two cars per household, some don't. Don't be naive.
Yes ... and ...
There are homes that come with two car parking, and others who prefer not to pay for others to have two car parking.
Simple.
There is no need to build places with parking for two vehicles for unit. There is, however, a need to keep housing affordable. Choose two cars, or don't, but don't force your neighbors to subsidize your choices or whine that everything wasn't built for you.
Kim Davis "logic", indeed.
Drivers pay the gas tax which
Drivers pay the gas tax which goes towards maintaining the roads that you ride on with your bikes. Insisting that you are subsidizing drivers in any substantial way does not make it so, but it probably helps your rationalize your unrealistic argument. Adding a little extra housing per project, at the expense of parking for people to drive to their jobs to keep the economy going, is not going to make housing reasonably affordable.
You are doing exactly what you deride. No one owes you an affordable biking lifestyle in Boston at the expense of families with two jobs, one or both of which may be away from public transit. If the city is too expensive for you, go take the train in from from somewhere and bike around out in the suburbs.
Blah blah GAS TAX blah blah
You need to try a little harder.
Gas tax doesn't even come close to covering the expenses of maintaining roads.
All tax payers - including those with cars and bikes - make up the shortfall. Ever hear of income tax? How about property tax? We pay those, too, dear.
>40% comes from these general revenues. Google Tax Foundation and ... oh ... wait ... you don't want to know the truth that cyclists subsidize drivers, do you?
Wrong, try again. 60% comes
Wrong, try again. 60% comes from user related fees and a sizable percentage of that is the gas tax. Only a very tiny percentage of the 40% comes from people who exclusively use bikes. If you did a little more research on this topic yourself, which you clearly need to do, you would have known this. Sorry, but the truth is you are wrong.
Sorry but
You're not using your noggin. Can we get some figures on the numbers who "exclusively ride bikes?" Because I suspect that many people who ride bikes regularly to work also own cars--they just don't drive them to work everyday. Secondly, yes--we also pay property and other taxes, just like everyone else. Third--by your logic maybe you should also bring those deadbeat pedestrians into the loop. There they are, cluttering up those pesky crosswalks, demanding amenities like sidewalks and they don't pay one thin dime!! I mean--what gives??
"Because I suspect that many
"Because I suspect that many people who ride bikes regularly to work also own cars--they just don't drive them to work everyday. Secondly, yes--we also pay property and other taxes, just like everyone else."
This supports the fact that developments are going to need parking.
"we also pay property and other taxes, just like everyone else."
Drivers, pay property and other taxes, in addition to user fees.
Good meeting
I was at the meeting and it was refreshing to hear a civil discussion of reasonable urban planning for this neighborhood. The project to me looks reasonable and well-sized for the commercial district and that was the consensus in the room. Roslindale Square needs more foot traffic for the businesses and this will help along with the substation. To those constantly concerned about on-street parking, the numbers are clear that car ownership in Boston is on the decline. Over a third of households now own no vehicles at all and it's not just downtown dwellers or students. One off-street space per unit here is fair and reasonable to reflect this; the units will not attract families with multiple vehicles because they won't want to live there - it's simple economics. The city is moving away from the idea that free on-street parking must be available at all times 24/7/365 because it actually hurts the vibrancy of the very areas we're trying to enhance and adds to overall vehicular traffic which we all hate. I know that's a sea change for a lot of people, including many people I deeply respect, so it will take time but the change is clear and happening. If people want to read more, this is a good start: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html?_r=0
Economics!
Thank goodness, I thought I was the only one who saw the "What if someone with two cars buys a place?" argument as blind to the fact there are countless other homes available with sufficient parking.
OLX
If only the Orange Line was extended to (at the very least) Roslindale Village, this discussion about families owning only 1 car being unrealistic would stop. Plus, we could start getting bigger density, supporting a much stronger and vibrant commercial scene.
One can dream.
Agreed to the nth degree!
We're talking about less than 1.5 miles from station to station on an existing rail right of way. We need a Rozzie for OLX advocacy group asap.
Main Streets should be
Main Streets should be advocating for this, talk about a shot in the arm for local businesses.
n+1
When I moved here, I was very surprised to find out there wasn't one going on. With 9 bus lines doing RV to FH, the RoW and the parking lots around the CR station, it blows my mind there is no more talk about it. You get at a minimum 5 bus lines that get shorter and more efficient, Washington St. could become less of a disaster and we could open a whole new area close to the T for new development.
T2Rozzie is coming!
Sigh
(I won't become a broken record.)
Where's the billion lying around for your 1 mile, 1 station extension?
(not that it's a bad dream, but sometimes I become the face of reality.)
yup
Yup. This is my stand point with any and all new transit projects or proposals.. "show me the money"
Ideas are just ideas.. need funds to make them happen.
1 Bilion?
There is a problem when people make generalizations about public transport extensions:
Not every move regarding the T needs a billion. Not every extension was created equal. There are very few extensions with a RoW + No tunnel needed, and the OLX to RV is one of those few. Plus, the bus situation in Washington st. makes it even more logical. In a ratio of gain vs cost, I don't see a single modification to the current map that is better.
Just saying "1 billion" every time a T extension is proposed doesn't make you the face of reality, just the face of despair. It doesn't add anything.
Not to go into details, but archboston had numbers an order of magnitude lower than what you suggest (around 100-200 M). Interestingly, the main problem for the extension was where to park the trains.
The main problem is
A big problem.
Yes, I pulled my figure out of my rectum, but my guess that whoever said $200 million as a high point got their number from a similar source.
I did find a site that discussed costs for light rail. $200 million a mile to lay track in Portland. $250 million to extend tracks in the Bay Area. Then, you'll need a station, with fare gate, elevators, and enough space for 3 tracks and a platform, so you're buying the Citizens' Bank. For the heck of it, let's put it at $60 million, roughly what Assembly cost, even though the busway you propose will probably add another $10 million. Then you need a small train yard somewhere. Where?
So, I will revise my estimate to $300 million. To transport people who already take trains and buses, meaning no federal money (they require data that will show created demand.) And since the Commonwealth and MBTA in particular are overflowing in money, all will be well.
Of course, if people were slightly more realistic, the proposal from the get go would be to extend the Orange Line to VFW Parkway, build a 800 car garage where Savers is, thus eliminating more commuters from points southwest taking their cars through the streets of Roslindale and West Roxbury. Take care of the people in Needham with a spur to the Riverside Line and a lot more people are happy (except for the Needham folk bound for Northeastern and the LMA, but they can use the 800 car garage.) But yeah, $300 million to clear a few buses from a mile stretch of Washington Street is a close second, I guess.
Orange Line
extended to VFW Parkway with a garage at Savers. I love that idea. Brilliant.
OLX
So, your more realistic alternative is to take my 1 stop-minor-extension and make it go even further?!
Hey, you had me at hello.
PS I thought this was going to end as many online conversations do: Wasted, but your $ analysis and your proposal was definitely food-for-thought. Thanks!
Not a new idea
The Metropolitan Transit Recess Committee came out with these plans in the 1940s. I think the plans would make any transit lover salivate. A point I saw recently in their report is that there was a lot of potential in Hyde Park for what we would call today transit oriented development. Just think of what Cleary Square would be like today if the Orange Line stopped there.
But here's one to drive some people nuts. Back in the 1980s, it wasn't a given that the Needham Line was even going to be restored. I remember reading in the Transcript as a child plans to turn the line into a busway. Now that would end up taking a lot of buses off of Washington Street and would cost less than trains, but let's just be glad that it never happened.
The bottom line has to be the fiscal realities. GLX is stalled and 50% over budget. The Blue Line needs to get to Lynn first, then we can talk Orange Line. But Orange Line to Roslindale Square, which would theoretically benefit me personally, would be too short sighted.
OLX
Could it be done as a modular project? 1 station at a time.
Maybe some trains would have to stop before RV to avoid the need of "parking" space until you reach West Roxbury station and then you built it.
ROW issues
I didn't bring it up before, but someday walk over the railroad bridges at Walworth or West Roxbury Parkway. While you are looking down, imagine trying to get 2 more sets of tracks under there. One track is doable, but 2 tracks is impossible. Therefore, the cleanest thing is to nix the trains for the subway cars.
Of course, they could just tunnel under the existing track, but then my $1 billion estimate starts to look closer to the truth.
Eventually that's going to
Eventually that's going to have to happen anyway, because Amtrak services and increases on the rail demands at South Station and certain crossings further into the city are going to choke off the ability to run the Needham line, and then those neighborhoods will sue for lack of transit. It's a shame the state would rather waste the lawsuit money sometime in the future than start laying the foundations to just do the extension work now.
There is no inevitability
I think this is why I am heading into almost troll mode with this issue.
The MBTA owns South Station. Yes, expanded Amtrak service would be great, just like it would be between New York Penn Station and points south, which is a situation where capacity has been reacted. In the latter case, it's not like NJTransit is deciding to cut rail lines to satisfy the big guy, and so it would be with the T. Beyond issues at South Station, there is nothing to prevent Amtrak from running more trains on the NEC in Massachusetts. Again, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey are other stumbling blocks, but the Needham Line is not what is keeping expansion from happening.
Amtrak v MBTA
It doesn't really matter which agency uses expanded South Station capacity. Whether it's the T or Amtrak, such an expansion means more trains vying to run the trench north of Forest Hills. There are operational complexities to that which are significantly eased by removing the Needham Line from the equation. Whether the trains are blue or purple, expanded service is going to be on the other branches. A branch that gets in the way and could easily be replaced by rapid transit is likely to be replaced by rapid transit. It's just a question of when.
When working well
The trench works well. The problem is when one train runs late.
The best way to clear space in the trench is to run all Franklin trains over the Fairmont Line. That was the original route of the Midland Line. Of course, all the Franklin riders who work in the Back Bay would be upset, but still.
‘Party Train’ will make
‘Party Train’ will make Fairmount commuter rail shine
''When passengers board a train Friday at one of four stations along the Fairmount commuter rail line, they won’t be met by conductors roaming the aisles and checking tickets as passengers stare silently at their smartphones. This train will be one big party.
A five-car train traveling between the Fairmount and Uphams Corner stops will feature displays of artworks and performances by musicians, all as part of the Boston Foundation’s centennial celebration.''
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/22/party-train-will-make-fairmo...
Where's the Mayor's Voice on Parking/Neighborhoods?
Others have already commented that what makes a vibrant neighborhood is people living/walking in the neighborhood. We need housing development that is in context to support Rozzie Square. We are all better off if Rozzie Square is vibrant without empty storefronts. However, one of the key issues is always parking. When oldtimers - whether in their senior years or THEIR children - feel they have a right to park in their same places that they have been parking in for 30-40 years, it makes for a very tough sell that we may have to give up their cherished entrenched behaviors for a better Rozzie that does benefit all to have and promotes a strengthened quality of life. This prevailing attitude is not just in So Boston. This is something for the mayor to tackle and I have yet to see any key messages related to this coming from his office - in fact, it seems like a lot of quiet. If I am wrong on this, I take it back. But the parking savers are going to be coming up very fast once again. Neighborhood Services is nice, but it is also outdated at this point in time and not keeping up with new challenges and opportunities.
''However, one of the key
''However, one of the key issues is always parking. When oldtimers - whether in their senior years or THEIR children - feel they have a right to park in their same places that they have been parking in for 30-40 years, it makes for a very tough sell that we may have to give up their cherished entrenched behaviors for a better Rozzie that does benefit all to have and promotes a strengthened quality of life''
Dont understand what you mean? The old geyser wants to have his own parking spot in front of Lodgen's Market in the Square.? Some people have already given up their cherished entrenched behaviors, like being able to walk to the neighborhood school, how did that work out? If you want to buy a place in the development, buy it ' if you don't , then dont. Moaning about the available parking and trying to posture it out of the deal only excludes people that feel and need different from you.It seems to me this drama anti car anti parking is trying to stack the deck with like minded social engineers. If you are against the concept of parking, buy somewhere else, or put up your dough and build your own housing complex. You are just trying to exclude the car driving public and obfuscating your argument with ''hooray for me, flux you '' reasoning.
Your argument has me confused
You say
So, are you with the people who think there should be more parking (or less units) in this proposed development? That kind of puts you in the camp of "oldtimers - whether in their senior years or THEIR children"
I mean, if you think a development like this is okay since the goal should be a walkable Square rather than a place to drive to, you could probably get by with people who "feel they have a right to park in their same places that they have been parking in for 30-40 years" since newer people wouldn't need to park, anyway.
Or you decided to interject the whole oldtimer/newcomer argument needlessly into this debate, in which case this oldtimer wishes you would suck an egg. I mean, there are legitimate issues on both sides, and people with all length of tenure hold a spectrum of views. We don't need any more piling on.
Your logic has me confused
Waquiot glad you respect opinions on the spectrum. You had me guessing there in your last paragraph. This development is but one of numerous developments that will be happening across Roslindale. My intent, which may not have been as clearly stated, is that this is not a 'micro' one development issue; but is a macro issue, that affects differing neighborhoods across Roslindale. I support a walkable square and walkable Roslindale. And I am not anti-car. Until the T is extended and/or buses are reliable from 6a to at least 10 or 11pm, cars will often be a necessity. However, I don't believe people 'own' spots 'forever'. People may not explicitly state that this is their intent, but when you talk with people after meetings, the thought of walking one block to your home, or god forbid, any further, is not considered a feasible option.
I got ya
I mean, I was truly confused.
I get where you are coming from now.
Instead of (or in addition to) pledging ride sharing credits
They should pledge to arrange with Zipcar to keep 2-3 Zipcars there in dedicated spaces, so residents can be assured that they'll have a car available when they need one. Many people would find it much cheaper to use Zipcar than pay for insurance, repairs, etc. for a car - especially a 2nd car.
There's 3-4 dedicated zipcar
There's 3-4 dedicated zipcar spots in the Commuter Rail lot?
Off-street parking
Off-street parking requirements keep housing unaffordable. Period.
But if you can't get to your job in the burbs
You won't be able to afford to live most anywhere.
Commuting To The Living Room
Well maybe it's work that is the problem. Despite many advancements in connectivity there are still too few businesses allowing people to remote most or all of the time. Businesses locate themselves in remote office parks because downtown real estate is too expensive. But what if they only needed a small office big enough to be a mailing address and server room?
Yes you loose a certain amount of face time with employees, and there will be people who abuse the freedom. But you also get people who are willing to work longer hours because they're not spending 2+ hours commuting every day.
I dunno
You might want to talk to the Patent Office about that. (I was going to go with this article, but it might cost you.
As for myself, if I telecommuted, who knows what might distract me.
But how do you email 44,000 #
But how do you email 44,000 # of freight.? There are people that still work in the 3 dimensional world. You want heating oil , you got to take a tanker to the pier where the boat comes and fill er up. Not everyone can work in a spiffy hi tech building that has climate control and running water and bathrooms and such. Are these people any less worthy of inclusion into the new world order?
So
So they don't move to a place that doesn't have the parking, and somebody else does.
Simple.
Why does a development have to be for any possible commuting situation? There are plenty of homes in the area with driveways. Buy one of those if you want that space.
Real estate is all about
Real estate is all about location. We are not talking about existing places with parking. The drama is about posturing the proposed development's parking footprint. Unless you have money invested, why get your feathers all ruffled up unless you are social engineering and trying to exclude a segment of the population that has transportation needs different from you.There are many intangibles around parking, where do visitors or guests park , what if health or age or situational things change , ect. ect. I myself wouldn't gamble on the future of the T to provide more better transportation services, they might decline in frequency and quality. The extension of the old el past Forest Hills is a dream induced by too much nitrous oxide in your diet.And if congestion is your argument , build nothing.Again, we are talking about building a new project , not existing stock. This is all social engineering obfuscating opposing thought. These time delays also cost the whole project too. Carry on, be productive,
If people want to pay for off
If people want to pay for off-street parking, let them. But don't require developers to build more parking than they otherwise would.
So
Over 100 comments, a lot about people's commuting lifestyle, with a healthy side of the dream of an expanded Orange Line.
Any thoughts about the actual proposal?
My 2 cents? It's okay, I guess. I think the abbutters have issues the developer is looking into. There is a parking lot across the street, so that shouldn't be that much of an issue.
I vote yes
One spot per unit is fine, make Taft Hill resident only (if it isn't already) and start building.
I say yes.
Near and in the square is exactly the right place for this sort of thing. And I agree with Vaughn about making it resident permit.