Mayor Walsh announced today that the cost of parking at a meter in the Back Bay and the South Boston Waterfront will jump Jan. 3 in a program to see if raising prices can reduce congestion along local curbs.
In the Back Bay, the city will simply increase the cost of parking at a meter from the current $1.25 an hour to $3.75 an hour and see if that discourages people who might otherwise just try to park in the same space all day, in the year-long pilot.
But in the Seaport area, the city will use a dynamic pricing model - and sensors at individual meters - in which spaces in demand will see their prices gradually rise over several months, while spaces that nobody wants will see their hourly charges go down.
On January 3, 2017 all meters in the Seaport pilot area will be priced at $1.50 an hour and adjust by 50 cents every two months. Approximately 591 metered spots will be adjusted over 40 blocks. High demand blocks will increase by 50 cents, while lower occupied blocks decrease by 50 cents. The minimum price will be $1 per hour, and the maximum price will be $4 per hour. Price will vary by four time bands (weekdays 8 a.m. - 12 p.m.; 12 p.m. - 5 p.m.; 5 p.m. - 8 p.m. and all day Saturday). Prices will be posted on meters and available online.
City officials are hoping that by freeing up spaces, they'll reduce auto emissions - since people will spend less time driving around looking for a space - as well as reducing the crazy that comes in a densely packed city like Boston.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Oh please. "Extremely
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 8:54am
Oh please. "Extremely valuable" real estate? The streets were designed with parking in mind. People drive, get over it. Not everyone lives in the city and pedals. And how is a parking spot subsidized? You pay for it or you don't. Show me exactly where it is subsidized?
Nope
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 9:30am
They were designed for horses and carts, and paved for cycling.
So when the "modern" streets
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 11:52am
So when the "modern" streets were installed, along with curbs, sidewalks and meters, this was not intended for auto parking? The meters were put in place so you can lock your bicycle to it, for free?
The Back Bay got its curbs
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 5:30pm
The Back Bay got its curbs (in their exact current layout) before the car era. Of course the meters have been there for a while at this point.
Did they ever get over the misguided historic preservation stupidity that was blocking curbside bike posts?
*sigh*
By erik g
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:03am
[citation needed]
Streets are designed to allow people and goods to move around the city. Nothing anywhere guarantees you your very own 12x6 foot section of pavement.
As was mentioned upthread, a deeded parking space in Beacon Hill or Back Bay is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Divide that mortgage payment by the number of hours in a business day, and tell me if you get $1.25 back. Go on, I'll wait. Because if you don't, you're not paying market rate, which means someone (specifically, the city of Boston and its taxpayers) is subsidizing you so you don't have to go park in the garage around the corner.
A deeded parking spot is
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 11:49am
A deeded parking spot is private property while a public parking spot is public property.
Exactly. They're different
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 5:31pm
Exactly. They're different products. You can't divide the mortgage cost of buying a deeded space to determine the market rate for an hour of metered parking.
When you pay the meter for 2
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 6:27pm
When you pay the meter for 2 hours, you 'own' that spot for 2 hours. When you get an occupancy permit for 2 days, you own that space for two days. That's how the city sees it.
Metered street parking is public space rented out for private use, in 12 minute increments. It's not comparable to a sidewalk or travel lanes used for transit.
The notion that public parking is supposed to be free of charge because of you pay gas tax is just weird.
I'd love to set up my grill
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:25am
No you wouldn't, cause that's hugely impractical and you're just using hyperbole to whine about something you have an unhealthy obsession with. The break you get is not spending money on insurance, upkeep, and depreciation. Use the cash you save to go buy a smoothie and chill out.
That isn't a "break"
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 11:22am
That's called PAYING for what you use.
Sorry, but I'm really tired (as a car owner) hearing about how OH SORRY ME I"M BEING FLEECED when I know damn well that I'm not even paying my way!
yeah actually I agree
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 4:28pm
Paying fair market value is exactly that - fair. As a not so wealthy driver, I'm fine with the economic incentive to explore alternate transportation versus a scarce commodity offered for way too cheap. But some of these staunch anti-vehicle people are straight up psycho and their idea of compromise is abolishing cars altogether. So, one crappy argument follows another, I suppose. It was mostly in jest, and I have no victim complex paying the cost of ownership for a luxury.
You want free parking?
By Saul
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:59pm
You want free parking?
Start at Copley Square, take Huntington Avenue, continue along Route 9, and you'll find malls aplenty with free parking.
(And, by the way, there's no such thing as "free" parking. Anywhere.)
There's nothing simple about
By anon
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 5:18pm
There's nothing simple about parking in downtown Boston.
Free Public Transit
By spin_o_rama
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 7:32pm
We can give people a break sometimes and not charge them out the arse for something as simple as public transportation.
I wouldn't know where to pay
By anon
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 6:24pm
I wouldn't know where to pay $200 for 10 hours of garage parking if I wanted to.
Privitize
By Lunchbox
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:16pm
Sell the rights to the parking meters to a private company and let the market decide what the rates should be. The City has better things to do than monkey with parking prices.
As others note, parking shouldn't be a public right; nor should it be a public service.
No sales, leases maybe...
By anon
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:19pm
No sales, leases maybe...
Stop the looting of public infrastructure.
This did not go well in
By MattyC
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:24pm
This did not go well in Chicago.
Ok, but...
By Lunchbox
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 6:11pm
Just because they screwed it up in CHI doesn't mean it could never work. I misspoke when I said "sell" - have it be a licensing system with an upfront price, revenue sharing, and oversight of quality and price. Kinda like the casinos.
Not just CHI
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 7:38pm
I know it sounds appealing, but I haven't actually heard of a city where privatization hasn't resulted in either a clusterflux or (like PDX) a bribery or skimming scandal.
Can you give us some examples of where it has worked?
Horrible idea
By BostonDog
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:35pm
When you privatize all you do is make someone else rich at the taxpayer's expense.
The city already maintains the spaces and meters. They already have meter maids and tow trucks. Boston has decades of experience with meters. The only question is should the city (the public) benefit form the higher prices or should a private company?
If the city needs an up-front payment they can issue bonds instead.
Huh?
By Scauma
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:50pm
Why not just outlaw driving them? If you have a car, you must park it somewhere right?
You can still park it at a
By bgl
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 5:00pm
You can still park it at a meter or a garage like always - you just need to pay for it, like always.
If you have a car
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 7:47pm
You need to think about where you are going to park it before you leave where you currently have it parked.
Can you explain why having a car gives you special rights to public land that could be used for, say, gardening or wider sidewalks or cafes or private patios, etc.? ("I pay money" is not a valid argument considering the substantial subsidy from other taxes paid by all citizens - particularly in Boston).
Places without on-street
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 11:32am
Places without on-street parking are unpleasant.
It's part of what makes Boston nicer than downtown Miami.
This makes sense, especially
By anon
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:35pm
This makes sense, especially if it means lower pricing for off-peak times and more out-of-the-way locations - like al those meters on Comm Ave in Allston that are empty until late afternoon/early evening.
I do have one request though - if parking is going to cost $2, $3, or $4 an hour, please let people use a higher denomination coin than a quarter. I know 50c and $1 coins aren't terribly popular, but I'd carry a stash of them around if I knew they'd come in handy.
All the newest meters I've
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 7:56am
All the newest meters I've seen installed actually have CC/debit slots.
You can also use the
By cden4
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 2:58pm
You can also use the ParkBoston app on your phone to pay for any meter in Boston.
"The City" will change
By Rob
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:39pm
"The City" will change Seaport area parking meter rates?
That'll be a neat trick.
Those streets and the related meters, revenue & enforcement are MassPort jurisdiction - not the City.
Only Northern Ave?
By anon
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 9:58pm
Massport doesn't control parking in all of Seaport.
As for this plan, I'm for it if it doesn't impact commerce too much. Yes, cars are subsidized in many ways and that's a legit discussion to be had.
However, in the short term, short term visitors to these areas shouldn't be stuck up.
I never thought I'd post in favor of Newbury Street property owners but here goes:
Will studies be done to see how this works? Will it result in more turnover and biz for biz on the street?
If it doesn't will it be rolled back?
Or is tin just a money grab?
I'm much more in favor of a fee for resident parking. That's where the constant demand and continual use of the public way is occurring.
Revenue should go to potholes and snow budget.
I think
By Marco
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 8:33am
only the marine industrial park is massport/ State Police.. Seaport Blvd, Congress and D Streets, Summer St. etc etc are all city territory.
Seaport & Congress between B
By Rob
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 9:47am
Seaport & Congress between B St and Haul Rd, as well as B, D, & Haul in that area are shown on DOT's website as MassPort jurisdiction.
Some of the side streets in that area aren't marked for MassPort, but have the same meters as the MassPort streets. Those meters are visibly different from what the city uses.
Now, what's interesting looking at street views of that area is that there used to be (as recently as two years ago) a conspicuous MassPort sticker that is not in evidence this year. Did the City and MassPort finally settle the territorial issues they were having in this neighborhood and these ARE City meters now? That would explain the discrepancy.
Up until now, I was assuming it was just imprecision in the press release - that they were talking about the Fort Point/Children's Museum/Moakley Courthouse Area and not the Convention/World Trade/Fish Pier area.
I wonder
By Marco
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:52am
the same because I recently parked on D street over there and it was standard meter prices and time limits for City of Boston, as in, I def noted that I had to move the car in 2 hours. At the time I wasn't thinking this much about it and didn't take note of any signage, but I did know there was some back and forth between the city and state going on in that area, particularly because of policing and response times. In a different post on this thread I mentioned that maybe there were all day meters in the area BEACUSE it was under construction so much to allow for workers to park longer. Perhaps when it all becomes city streets (if not already) the meter rules will change.
I would be more in favor if they just called it a money grab
By Scauma
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:43pm
Which is what it obviously is. None of this is how driving, parking, or commuting works. I doubt most people will rearrange their entire day to park their car and take T, when they probably need their cars for something afterwards.
You can call it a money grab.
By Kinopio
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:54pm
I'll call it ending hand outs to lazy people.
I will
By Scauma
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:52pm
Because I call it like I see it. If this brings in more revenue, it'll continue. If it doesn't, it'll go away. It's not about reducing emissions.
It should be about reducing emissions
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 7:48pm
Considering that the Back BAY and SEAport are some of the most flooding-vulnerable areas in the Commonwealth.
It's GLOBAL climate change.
By anon
Wed, 12/07/2016 - 12:24pm
It's GLOBAL climate change. Reducing emissions in the Seaport and Back Bay won't stop sea level rise in that immediate area.
I'd say that turning city streets into profit centers
By roadman
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:57pm
because somebody has this notion that the PUBLIC shouldn't be able to park their vehicle on the PUBLIC street, which our tax dollars already pay for, for "free" (see part about tax dollars) is indeed a money grab.
The public streets are already a profit center
By BostonDog
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 5:01pm
Are you opposed to toll roads? Do you think traffic would go down and/or road conditions would improve if they eliminated the tolls?
I'd gladly agree with a rule they'd need to spend the additional revenue from the meters only on transportation projects.
Please explain how public
By Kinopio
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 5:05pm
Please explain how public streets are a profit center. Because taxes paid by drivers don't even come close to paying for them. You know what would make a profit? Selling city and MBTA owned parking lots, turning them into condos, and getting property taxes from those condos.
Public streets already have meters
By BostonDog
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 5:25pm
The meters are a source of revenue and always have been. Boston doesn't make a "profit" on anything -- Boston isn't a business.
I'm not suggesting the rates should be lower or free, BTW.
If I can't park at the train
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 12:01pm
If I can't park at the train station, I'll have to drive into the city, park in front of your building and walk to work.
Funny guy
By adamg
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 12:46pm
And chances are the street will be marked "Resident Permit Parking Only" and you'll get a ticket, which you'll of course throw out because you'll be damned if you pay one red cent to the commissars at Boston City Hall, and then you'll get another and another and then one day you'll come back from work and you'll find a Denver boot on one of your front wheels and then you'll pay all your tickets, plus interest, plus a removal fee and you'll shake your fist and realize you're powerless before the awesome might of the Boston Transportation Department.
Oh, is that what "Public" means?
By ian
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 6:08pm
So I can store my furniture there? Set up a bunch of planters and turn it into a park? Bring a grill and some friends and throw a picnic?
Or...is this a space where we're subsidizing one particular activity that the city is now realizing maybe shouldn't be subsidized to that extent...?
You can have a picnic in a
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 5:25pm
You can have a picnic in a street parking space if I can park my car on the grass in the Public Garden.
PUBLIC includes people who don't own cars, yet subsidize yours
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 7:44pm
http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-an...
Explain why my neighbors, who are in the top income bracket, pay property and income taxes, and don't have a car, can't access this free land for use as they see fit. Their high taxes are part of that 42% subsidy that drivers get already.
almost 20%, or half
By Marco
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:59am
of that other 42% not paid for directly by drivers comes from federal funds raised through....wait for it....FEDERAL GAS TAX. It's in the very link you posted. 20% paid by non-car owners for the ability to have Amazon drop off a new iPhone to their door, or to even be able to get to a hospital via ambulance or say, a cab home from the bar on Friday, I don't think is unfair. When your rich neighbor's boiler breaks how does the repairman get there? Zip line? I bet he shows up in a truck, via the roads, then parks in a commercial parking space (free) on PUBLIC LANDS.
From the link:
By eherot
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 3:18pm
From the link:
The rest was funded by $30 billion in general state and local revenues and $46 billion in federal aid (approximately $28 billion derived from the federal gasoline tax and $18 billion from general federal revenues or deficit financed).
So again that's $48 billion in road spending at all levels which is not covered by user fees. And as to your "20% for deliveries and emergencies" you're kidding right? That's like 1% of road cost once you factor in how much of what we build is just there to handle rush-hour loads.
Also you are only counting the bare minimum cost of road construction. If you factor in the cost for to build parking (only a fraction of which is generally recouped by user fees) and the environmental cost of all the extra pollution, traffic deaths, and other externalities, vehicle user fees only cover something like 1/9th of the "real" cost.
Let's just get rid of roads then!
By Marco
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 3:52pm
no one seems to want to pay for them. Greedy drivers are just leeching off the system! Rip up the pavement and plant grass. We can go to my suggested system of having one central depot every 50-100 miles where supplies are air dropped in and people can go retrieve them on foot. Everyone will love it!
Also regarding the math: Nationwide average is 5.1 cents per mile. Average is 50% taxes and tolls. then .9 CENTS COMES FROM FEDERAL $ via GAS TAX. Its right there in the article So 5.1 / 2= 2.55. +.9= 3.45 So on average around 65% of the cost is paid for by drivers. Add to that the fact that drivers are also part of the general pool of taxed citizens that "subsidize" the rest of that money, so drivers are essentially hit twice, on both ends. Like I said, the tractor trailers, busses and other large vehicles that do the most damage to roads are SERVICES that EVERYONE makes use of. If you never drive a day in your life or own a car you still benefit from roads. How do you not get this?
Pages
Add comment