Hey, there! Log in / Register
Boston to experiment with demand pricing at parking meters; Back Bay, Seaport to serve as test bed
By adamg on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 2:29pm
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.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
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
PERFECT
raising taxes without saying your raising taxes.
PERFECT
Charging market rates for something in which there is limited supply and high demand.
Surreal Perfect would be
Surreal Perfect would be auctioning off resident parking permits, instead of giving them away, using the funds to offset neighborhood real estate taxes.
Why are they free, actually?
Why are they free, actually? Somerville and Cambridge both charge a nominal fee and it works fine. Money left on the table, imo
For wealthy people
When fees to use public resources go up, there is a risk that the public resources are being given more to people who can afford it.
$20 to park is nothing to some people, but prohibitive to others.
Considering OPEC is planning
Considering OPEC is planning on having gas prices start to rise really soon, if 20$ yearly is going to break somebody's ability to maintain their car ownership, they might want to look at alternatives.
Ummm... This argument bothers
Ummm... This argument bothers me enough that I have to chime in and point out that I'm pretty sure the commentator you are you rebutting does not mean paying $20 a year extra. But $20 everytime. A lot garages charges $20 or more a day.
Now how many times is debatable, but that doesn't undermine the point where charging more filter out people, it also tends to filter out in favor of the richest.
The original comment
The original comment discussed resident parking permits and how they are free in Boston. Next comment stated that Somerville and Cambridge both charge a fee for resident permits. Next comment clained 20$ was a bank breaking amount. Resident parking permits in Camberville are charged on a yearly basis, ergo, 20$ a year.
Add up the property that is
Add up the property that is given away for free to spoiled car drivers and the value is in the billions of dollars. A spot on Beacon Hill should be getting the city thousands per year, not a big fat $0.
Ya let screw over locals
While Universities pay nothing.
Eh
Student flight due to lack of housing regardless, the universities are economic engines that are drawing companies back to the city.
Bonehead Walsh gave away a farm to GE, but realistically they're moving here for the workforce and access to the innovation district.
Likewise the UMass system pumps in 5 billion in additional State GDP over 10 years.
Oh didn't you know? All
Oh didn't you know? All locals are spoiled rotten pearl clutchets with trust funds, inheritances, no college debt to pay off, and we don't have to work for a living!
Give it a rest already
The car-hate is getting tiresome.
Tire some
Naw. Reasonable regulation of a dangerous and damaging mode of transport is some thing that needs to ramp up.
Greed
Is a four letter word
tax?
How dare Marty Walsh take away my Bill of Rights-protected right to abandon my personal property on a public way for mere quarters per hour! How dare he! Taxation without representation!
personal property that...
makes our city dangerous and pollutes it.
Good for Walsh! Now we should have congestion pricing at all roadways leading into Boston.
The motor vehicle also drives
The motor vehicle also drives our economy. We should charge more for street parking. We should also charge to park bicycles on sidewalks as well. Why should a pedal pushed be given that valuable real estate while I cannot use it? Maybe I'd like to park my grill there and have a few friends over. You're invited BoZo, but we will be watching the red sox, patriots and bruins. I know that grown men playing sports gets your panties in a twist though, but the offer is there regardless. We locals can be all inclusive as well you know.
The math doesn't work
I'll bite.
An auto requires a parking space that is, at minimum, 18'x7'. That's 126 sq ft, at $1.25/hr. That space could be used for lots of other productive things -- another lane of motor vehicle traffic, a bike lane, a parklet where folks could sit and eat and spend more money at restaurants and shops.
Locking a bike to a meter or other bike rack takes up what, 3 square feet? So since parking a car in Boston is $0.01/sq ft/hr, that means that you'd be setting up a bike parking meter to charge me 6 cents for my two hour stay. The cost of installing the meter and collecting the money would exceed the value of the revenue.
The 80s called...
Look a post from the 1980s!
Go Rams!
- The Original SoBo Yuppie.
You sound like swirly..
Anti-car everything huh
Yeah, right
That must be why I just bought another car last night. One that I will park in the Seaport on occasion and pay market rate to do so.
I merely oppose privilege and subsidy of inefficient and dangerous modes of transport. I also oppose blanket excuses for bad driving and the failure to require drivers to maintain skills. These encourage mayhem. I've made that abundantly clear.
Dichotomous thinking is a hallmark of intellectual sloth ... Or lack of facility of critical thinking.
What a loaded comment
Funny how the people who whine about "raising taxes" always try to convert "using a supply and demand market approach to resource management" to OMG RAISIN MAH TAXES!
Be honest: you just want to do whatever you feel whenever without having to share, or pay for it.
i mean
that would hardly make them in the minority. look at this planet lmao.
Car owners pay enough taxes
And I say that as a non-car owner. Excise taxes, sales taxes, tolls, etc. It's not like car drivers are getting some sort of pass that no one else is. You pay your city taxes, you should be able to use city streets.
Just like you pay the meter
Just like you pay the meter to park your car on a metered street spot - which is more convenient and still much cheaper than a public parking garage.
The "pass" they are getting
The "pass" they are getting is using extremely valuable public land for practically nothing while non car owners are not allowed to use that land. And the taxes they pay only cover about half of what the roads costs. Non car owners like you and me subsidize them heavily.
How many times do we have to hear this lie?
All those things add to about fifty percent of the cost of you driving.
Look it up. The tax foundation keeps stats.
Wow. Failure of basic research skills and critical thinking skills are correlated!
UPDATE: link to facts http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-h...
I really hate this argument
about car owners and non-car owners and who is subsidizing who blah blah blah.
I am not disputing your facts swrrly, but an individual car owner like myself pays enough taxes to pay MY way on the city's and state's roads. What the non-car owner's money goes towards is what brings produce to their grocery stores, oil to their houses, gadgets to their doorstep, and mail to their mailboxes. Oh right, also: BUSES (that money you pay the T goes to managing their fleet and paying their staff, I wonder if the MBTA pays road tax on CNG or electricity? hmmm). The streets are not some gift/ entitlement only being used by "elites" who own cars, they are used by EVERYONE directly or indirectly. If non- car owners want to stop paying for roads, then all goods should then go to one central location and those people can then schlepp down to the port or terminal and carry their food, gadgets, mail, etc home via donkey. Car owners will pay heavier tax but we will then drive to the goods and service depot and haul our stuff away, honking and waving at the pitiful masses making a 2 day journey for cheez-its.
Most if not all of the damage public roads suffer is due to heavy trucks and buses travelling them day after day. Look at Storrow Dr. (aside from the sections that go under bridges, which suffer weather and water damage) and see how much better shape it is in and how much longer it goes without being repaved than the highways or other roads heavily travelled by tractor trailers.
I am not opposed to paying higher meter rates (they raised them recently anyways, this will go like T-fares until we riot) but I really get tired of people who think drivers paying more to drive is some kind of righteous solution because WHAAA I DON'T DRIVE WHY AM I PAYING FOR ROADS?!?!
No, you don't.
No, you don't, which is exactly the point Swirly's making upthread. You probably paid a couple hundred bucks in excise tax, plus a 2-digit sum in gas tax, unless you drive really long distances to work. You really think that comes close to covering what the state and city doled out to manage all the infrastructure needed to support driving in Boston? If you count road construction and repair, infrastructure maintenance, environmental externalities, and all the other myriad costs cars impose on the rest of us, car owners pay nowhere near their share. Which by definition means they're being subsidized from other sources/people. And I say that as a person who usually drives to work. It should be WAY more expensive to drive and park in the city.
Swrrly's link
notes that NATIONWIDE it costs 5.1 cents per mile to maintain the roads. In MA drivers pay 58% thru tolls and tax. Of the remainder that is "subsidized," .9 cents comes from FEDERAL MONIES GENERATED THRU FEDERAL GAS TAX (so again, by DRIVERS). So 1.2 cents (or under 2 cents lets say since MA specific stats were not available in the link) out of the 5.1 it costs to maintain the road is paid for through revenue that DRIVERS do not generate. My opinion is that this amount is fair considering non drivers all still benefit from having roads. They use buses, they buy products trucked into their local stores, repairmen can get to their homes via roads, USPS delivers via the roads, and so on. I benefit from that as well, and lets not forget that the "subsidized" money comes from drivers' pockets too ASIDE from what we pay individually for the privilege of car ownership, but to use my personal vehicle I PAY excise tax, gas tax, tolls, insurance, parking fees (meters, garages, deeded spot, etc), registration renewal, license renewal, and so on. MA is one of the most expensive states to operate a car in. I don't think it is fair to label drivers as special snowflakes who think they are entitled to special privileges. There definitely are those out there who piss and moan about small raises in things like meter rates etc. I am not one of them.
You didn't read it
It gives a state-by-state breakdown - MA is relatively high at a bit over 50%
MEANWHILE less than half the households in Boston have cars. That means that the subsidy is even more extreme because fewer registered cars means less local tax on those cars meaning more comes from property taxes.
Adds up, if you can actually add.
I did read it
and in MA its actually a lot closer to 60% than 50, but we're splitting hairs. Would all those households be ok if we just tore up all the roads and put housing in its place? How would goods and services get around the city? When you break your leg how will you get to the hospital. Not in a cab or ambulance apparently. Ric-shaws could be the next big start up in the city I guess. OH WAIT they need paths or "roads" to move down. Guess you're just screwed, we'll have to put down people with broken legs as if they were horses now. Property taxes are meant to pay for city services and infrastructure, roads are part of that. And drivers pay the property tax along with all the associated fees, taxes, and tolls to use the roads as well. At least non-drivers/ car owners only pay the property taxes. The rest they throw away on a much more efficient use of their money: THE MBTA! hahahahahahaha
Fleets
The cost of roads will also be borne by delivery fleets, the cost of goods by truck will rise a little bit, and the consumers will pay that way. But! That means that there is more incentive to use less damaging ways to transport goods, either by rail, or consuming more locally produced food, or other changes. It puts the economic and environmental incentives in sync.
A deeded parking space in
A deeded parking space in Back Bay is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why should you be able to park there for $1.25 an hour? If you could buy such a spot, just the mortgage interest and taxes would 2-3x what the meter charges you today.
Yes!
It is perfect! Well done, Boston.
Raising taxes? That's
Raising taxes? That's laughable!
First off, residents of Boston get stickers that give them essentially free parking where they live and they're most likely to take the T around town. I bet 95% of those who use parking meters don't live in Boston and using another city's public parking is something you're welcome to complain about, but it's not a 'tax.' This pricing is still cheaper than a garage, it's just now the city isn't absurdly pricing parking at far-below private parking rates--but it's still cheaper!
Still way too cheap
This approach will only work when the prices become competitive with garage parking in that neighborhood, which is probably a lot closer to $20/hr. Peak demand times, meters should be right up there in that range and you will magically have empty spaces available.
There are benfits to being sub-market price
If you know you'll have to pay say $16 for an hour of parking in location X, you simply will not travel to location X if all you were going there for was to make a quick purchase (which could include stopping at a bar for a drink.) If you think you can probably park at a meter for a few dollars, you will come. There is a mid-ground between too cheap and encouraging long term parking and being too expensive where people don't come to spend money at the local shops.
I don't understand
this and other comments that are talking about the cheap rate causing people to park at a meter for a full day. Have any of you parked in and around Boston before? there is a 2 hour limit on meter parking, after which your car needs to be on a different block. Not one space up, not a couple spaces away, ON THE NEXT BLOCK. If BTD isn't ticketing these offenses why is that our problem? This also is going to do nothing to "relieve congestion." What a bullshit statement that is! You think because its $2 more to park that magically people will avoid trying to park in those areas? Are you people insane?
I'm not hemming and hawing over the increase, okay. If I were me (and I am) I will still pay those prices to park over there, because parking in a garage/lot is still triple the price. However, don't tell me this is going to relive congestion, or that less people will try and park over there because that is just fantasy. A lot of people parking in these areas are not tourists per se but are also not regular neighborhood residents (psssst, that's why they're DRIVING). You think someone is gonna roam around, score a parking spot then go "$3.75! This is outrageous I'm leaving!" No, they will just pay it or sulk to a garage and get hosed.
Christ Mahty you are so full of shit your eyes are brown. Just call it what it is, FUNDRAISING.
2 HR limit on meters
Not in the seaport. construction workers park at the same meter all day long... some use handicap placards which is a whole other issue.
What streets in seaport?
Last week I was down there to meet some family and the meter I parked at on D st (on that first block off Seaport blvd) was indeed a 2 hr limit with a sticker on it and everything. I'm not calling you a liar, just wondering. Maybe some are unlimited BECAUSE of all the construction going on down there, so the workers can park. I dunno if the city would do that but it wouldn't surprise me.
Back Bay for sure has the 2 hour limit. When I worked down there that was a constant frustration of mine, moving my car every 2 hours on the rare days I had to drive to work.
I would tend to agree that if
I would tend to agree that if you really want to do market pricing correctly, you have to get rid of the hourly limits (restaurant owners hate those anyway).
2 or 4 hour
Depending where you are in Boston. Where I work, there are 4-hour meters. So if I drive in, I just have to pop out out my lunch break and move my car.
Having drunk drivers on our
Having drunk drivers on our streets is a benefit?!?
I don't drink and drive, but many people can handle
a drink or two and still drive legally and safely. Of course, your weight, the size and efficiency of your liver, total ABV consumed, and absorption factors like the amount of food in your stomach matter. I wouldn't give Gynneth Paltrow the keys after she did a shot of Everclear at 5pm with nothing to eat that day but a kale / wheatgrass / bee-pollen smoothie for breakfast, for instance.
Another example: your one drink should not be the Zombie Punch at Drink in Fort Point, an original by Don the Beachcomber, the genius who single-handedly invented the Tiki cocktail genre at his eponymous early-1930s Hollywood bar. (Most people have only tasted the dreadful, debased versions popularized by bad American-Polynesian-Chinese restaurants -- looking at you, Hong Kong Scorpion Bowl. You can find the real deal at a few serious bars in town: Drink, The Hawthorne, Eastern Standard, Hojoko, UNI, backbar, Green Street, Yvonne's, a few others. Recommended.)
The Zombie Punch (recipe below) has the equivalent of five ounces of rum in it. It is gorgeous and delicious and judgment-impairing enough that you might consider ordering a second one, but Drink wisely caps it at one per customer.
Don the Beachcomber's Zombie Punch recipe
Recreated through careful historical research by the great Beachbum Berry. (His Tiki+ app is a bible for my summer entertaining, though I drink proper Tiki cocktails even in the winter.) Get to his New Orleans real-Tiki bar, Latitude 29, if you possibly can.
3/4 oz fresh lime juice
1/2 oz Don's mix (one of The Master's many custom spice syrups, this one grapefruit/cinnamon)
1/2 oz falernum (a Caribbean lime/almond/ginger/allspice cordial, some versions ~9% ABV, some 0%)
1.5 oz gold Puerto Rican rum
1.5 oz aged Jamaican rum
1 oz 151-proof Lemon Hart Demerara rum
1 dash Angostura bitters (the little bottle, not their new amaro)
6 drops (1/8 tsp) Pernod
1 tsp grenadine
3/4 cup crushed ice
Blend all ingredients at high speed for no more than five seconds. (Drink doesn't use electric blenders, hand-crushes their ice instead.) Pour into a chimney glass. (Drink uses really cool ceramic Tiki mugs.) Add ice cubes to fill. Garnish with a mint sprig. (Drink uses a whole fistful, lovely and fragrant.)
Donald Shoup is the leading
Donald Shoup is the leading expert on this stuff. He's found that in congested cities, about 20 to 30% of all vehicles are circling for parking.
If the price drives you away, good, that's the point. It means that the space you would have used opens up, and someone else not driven away will be able to use it, whereas before they would have had to circle for another ten minutes. There is a balance, yes, which is why meters that aren't used as often will have lower rates than they do now. The goal of price variability is to have about one or two spaces open per block. That way most parking is used and paid for, but you can always find a spot.
or you know..
We can give people a break sometimes and not charge them out the arse for something as simple as parking.
Taking up extremely valuable
Taking up extremely valuable real estate isn't "simple". Car drivers get billions in breaks every year. Where is the break for people who don't drive? Why can't I store my personal property downtown for a dollar an hour? I'd love to set up my grill and patio furniture by the waterfront and have taxpayers subsidize me.
Oh please. "Extremely
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
They were designed for horses and carts, and paved for cycling.
So when the "modern" streets
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
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*
[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
A deeded parking spot is private property while a public parking spot is public property.
Exactly. They're different
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
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
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"
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
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?
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
There's nothing simple about parking in downtown Boston.
Free Public Transit
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
I wouldn't know where to pay $200 for 10 hours of garage parking if I wanted to.
Privitize
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...
No sales, leases maybe...
Stop the looting of public infrastructure.
This did not go well in
This did not go well in Chicago.
Ok, but...
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
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
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?
Why not just outlaw driving them? If you have a car, you must park it somewhere right?
You can still park it at a
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
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
Places without on-street parking are unpleasant.
It's part of what makes Boston nicer than downtown Miami.
This makes sense, especially
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
All the newest meters I've seen installed actually have CC/debit slots.
You can also use the
You can also use the ParkBoston app on your phone to pay for any meter in Boston.
"The City" will change
"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?
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
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
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
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
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.
I'll call it ending hand outs to lazy people.
I will
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
Considering that the Back BAY and SEAport are some of the most flooding-vulnerable areas in the Commonwealth.
It's GLOBAL climate change.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-h...
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
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:
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!
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?
Which would be correct
How is the current system better? A few hundred people get a great rate, the other hundreds get screwed and drive away or are forced to pay an even higher rate to a private lot.
It's not like the private lots offer parking for free or cheap.
So, does owning a car make
So, does owning a car make one lazy or does parking in the city make one lazy?
Biggest parking bargain in
Biggest parking bargain in Boston is the Cross Street parking lot. If you can get past BRA's waiting list then you can get an assigned spot in the North End for something like $100 a month. Second biggest bargain is valet parking zones. Restaurants pay only $67 a month for valet parking spaces. The fee doesn't even recover the cost of the parking meter.
Good!
Common sense policy, as would be congestion pricing.
Now, how about T fares (and a tax credit for low income people) that can keep the system running reliably?
They should spend the money
They should spend the money on speeding up the Green Line. THEN fewer people would drive to Back Bay.
Charge people who don't have
Charge people who don't have residential stickers $4 an hour to park at a meter, but regular working residents with residential stickers should not be unfairly targeted. If Seaport and Back Bay residents have to pay a more than double increase than EVERY DAMN NEIGHBORHOOD resident should pay.
Why in the world
would residents in the Seaport or Back Bay be paying for 2-hour metered parking in their own neighborhood?
Let's pick this apart
1) The road is the road is the road is the road. It would exist at its width whether cars park on it or not. A cafe where cars park on streets now? Somebody actually said that with a straight face?
2) Free and cheap street parking is fair in a city where the federal government tells us how many garages we can have. Markets work. Again, we're a state which loses federal tax dollars. Why do we continue to be bullied?
3) The automobile remains the most efficient means of getting from A to B. I wonder how many people who are lecturing the car owners in this thread actually live without one.
4) This idea has one key flaw: There's ostensibly a hard border where $3.75 an hour ends and the old $1.25 an hour resumes. You show me a Back Bay rate increase, I'll show you a greater effort to park immediately west of Mass Ave and hoof it.
4 is the point
#4 is precisely the point.
Yes
But now other streets will be clogged with cars looking for the cheaper meters.
Which in turn
Which will in turn cause those neighborhoods to become more expensive. Which is the point.
I don't argue on the basis of pure market economics much, but this really is the best way to solve a problem of artificial scarcity of a public resource.
Markets work
So why not charge what the market actually wants for parking?
Because
Two wrongs don't make a right. Hell, let's build more garages anyway. Somebody said earlier this week in the sanctuary city thread "when did lying become beyond the pale for politicians?" Say we're building something else, and then just make it a garage.
typical libertarian
All about free markets, paying your own way, privatization, etc. until it is ALL ABOUT MY ENTITLEMENT!
Amen! Everything is great
Amen! Everything is great until it affects ME!
1) The road is the road is
1) The road is the road is the road is the road. It would exist at its width whether cars park on it or not. A cafe where cars park on streets now? Somebody actually said that with a straight face?
Roads are both widened and narrowed all the time. Widening is a pain due to the cost. Narrowing is nearly free. The city and/or MassDOT (or DCR or whoever) depending on who's in charge of the particular road can always change some of the right-of-way from road to sidewalk and send a crew in to pour some concrete and repaint lane markings. A street near where I work was narrowed not too long ago in order to encourage more pedestrian traffic. Dropped from three lanes to two and lost some parking.
2) Free and cheap street parking is fair in a city where the federal government tells us how many garages we can have. Markets work. Again, we're a state which loses federal tax dollars. Why do we continue to be bullied?
Markets don't always work. And free and cheap parking is apparently something that's happening outside of the market, so it sounds like you are opposed to what you claim is a fair solution.
Personally, I'd just as soon reorient transportation policy around mass transit and intercity rail on efficiency and environmental grounds. Cars are generally pretty awful on both of these points (privately owned cars are inefficient in terms of space used for parking and minimal driving frequency -- they use a lot of space and tend to be used only for trips to and from work, and less often to and from shopping, and are parked for most of their functional lifetimes) so I have high hopes for self driving cars operated by a fleet owner or mass transit authority as taking a lot of privately owned cars off the street. Pushing flex time as a matter of government policy would help too.
3) The automobile remains the most efficient means of getting from A to B. I wonder how many people who are lecturing the car owners in this thread actually live without one.
I have a car. I drive regularly. I hate it. But I moved from where I used to live, about 600 feet from a T stop, and where I didn't need or want or have a car in my life other than occasional use of a Zipcar.
We need more and better mass transit and more urban density, mixed use, and better planning (bar development in areas that would be difficult to serve by mass transit unless it's high enough density and mixed enough use so that a rail line can be connected to it, and is). Cars may be useful as a gap filler but it's asinine to make them a dominant transportation mode.
Privately owned cars for people who don't live isolated in the absolute ass end of nowhere are basically the pinacle of 'I got mine, screw you' thinking.
Narrowing a road is free? As
Narrowing a road is free? As in no construction costs? No design costs? No beautification casts? Shit, lets close all the streets in the city. We'll have one big public garden! But who do the swan boats get to use the lagoon but I can't use my kayam there? WTF?
"Roads are both widened and
"Roads are both widened and narrowed all the time."
Not around here. In fact, in most of greater Boston, you can see the ancient historic granite curbs in the exact same place they've "always" been.
You could not be more wrong.
You could not be more wrong. The automobile is not the most efficient mode of transportation. Not in any way.
-Cars use 50-80 times more energy than a bike. They use a lot more than buses too
-Studies in Boston have been conducted. In a race between a subway user and cyclists the car comes in last https://www.boston.com/cars/news-and-reviews/2016/06/07/the-car-did-not-...
- Picture 50 people in a bus. Now picture 50 people in 30+ cars because drivers refuse to carpool. What takes up more space, a bus or 30 cars with space between them all?
You are ignoring the most
You are ignoring the most expensive part of the equation, which is human productivity. Measuring the joules needed to propel a bicycle versus a car ignores the time saved/lost by driving versus bicycling. Another important factor is safety. A 15-mph bicycle accident is more likely to result in serious injury than a 15-mph car accident. What is the carbon impact of a healthy 25 year old suddenly becoming a quadriplegic? Even if the risk is small, the impact is huge.
Measuring the joules needed
Measuring the joules needed to propel a bicycle versus a car ignores the time saved/lost by driving versus bicycling.
This is an argument that would only ever be made by someone who has never seriously used a bike as a mode of transportation. Within the city limits of Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville during normal business hours, it is by far the fastest way to get around.
A 15-mph bicycle accident is more likely to result in serious injury than a 15-mph car accident.
1. Cars are rarely going 15-mph when they get in an accident
2. Bike accidents are usually only deadly or likely to result in paraplegia when they involve a car.
1) you missed the phrase
1) you missed the phrase "saved/lost". of course bicycle will be faster than car for some routes. the point is that the time is a bigger deal than the fuel.
2) I still have a scar from getting car doored on Brighton Ave decades ago. Since then I've mostly drove and have probably been through a dozen fender benders, parking lot dings, tires damaged by potholes, etc. None of those left me any bodily injury.
Bicycle advocates are in constant denial over the danger they knowingly expose themselves to every day. Usual reaction is "bicycles have the same right to use the road as cars". I consider that denial. Even Tom Menino, the biggest bicycle advocate the city will ever have, driven all around by an armed police officer for 20 years, wrecked his knee in a bicycle accident, and as far as I can tell, that knee injury and subsequent surgeries led to infections that resulted in his death.
can we maybe smarten up on
can we maybe smarten up on motorcycle parking then too? Current law makes a MC take up an entire car spot in order to legally use a meter, despite being able to park between 2 cars. Let MC's park either A) for free, or B) at a rate below the car parking rate, and allow them to park between cars.
Bravo for trying something new
There are a lot of bitter, snarky comments here. Good for Boston for at least experimenting a bit.
We should be proud that someone is being creative, instead of just shooting the idea down out-of-hand.
Well, if what they're trying to do is discourage me
from coming into the city at all, then they've just freakin' NAILED it.
Why's that?
Because you will be able to find a spot exactly where you want to, or decide to pay less and walk?
That's win-win to me. You might look at what this scheme has done in other cities before you spout off nonsense - but, hey, I get the impression that you haven't set foot in Suffolk county or Cambridge for about ten years.
if you'd only get in by driving
then yeah, that sounds like a win-win. More room for the rest of us.
pahkin'
meh. I live in Boston but drive quite a bit around town. It's a bummer that parking (when you can find it) will be more expensive, but that's life in the big city.
The issue that's not being brought up here (that is sort of beyond the City's control, but they could be louder about it) is that the logical alternative (especially for me) is the T. But that ain't much of an alternative if a 15 minute car trip equates to an, at best, hour long schlep on the T, PROVIDED it's actually running and not engulfed in flames or parked in a tunnel between stops somewhere. Our biking infrastructure (now there's a can of shit-worms) is not really sufficient for people who either 1. aren't good bikers or 2. have no faith in Boston drivers. So dis-incentivizing driving (and accompanying parking) without any real non-car options provided will probably most benefit Uber
driversowners.Also I definitely do not shop/eat/drink in certain neighborhoods because parking is non-existent and the T service there is spotty/inconvenient. Not like my purchasing power is really missed, but this process definitely helps segregate out neighborhoods pretty well.
Last firing neuron: getting around town as an elderly person (said the rapidly aging gen-xer) must really stink on ice. Using the MBTA's dual purpose urinal/elevators, stairs, shitheads who don't give up seats on the T, general crappy T service....jeezis...check me in to Brooksby Village and fire up the karaoke.
By charging $4 an hour for
By charging $4 an hour for parking meters, you're screwing over independent contractors who work in these neigborhoods 10 hours a day, sometimes 6 or 7 days a week... electricians, roofers, plumbers, construction guys, general contractors doing gut renovations, etc. Walsh is taking money straight out these guys' pockets. These are working class guys driving into the city from Quincy, Randolph, Revere who are coming here to work -- not some rich snob from Wellesley who wants to dine at Davio's on a Saturday night. Money adds up for the average worker. Oh right, but screw the blue-collar workers if they work in the city. Plumbers should be carrying their tools on their bikes to work after all. As many cyclists would say: Let them eat cake!
permits
You mean that without any permit, all these contractors have been always able to just drive right up to their clients' addresses and find spots right in front?
I didn't know street parking was so readily available in the Back Bay.
You cannot park now at a metered spot all day by just feeding the meter.
So you're spewing nonsense. Enjoy your cake.
EDIT: Contractors need a permit to occupy street space all day.
https://www.boston.gov/departments/public-works/ho...
At 8 am on a weekday, it's
At 8 am on a weekday, it's easy to find a metered space.
Yes, permits are available, but only 3 days in advance. They're designed for longer-term construction projects, not calling a plumber to fix your heat right away.
Think this through
If the experiment works, it'll save those honest, hard-working men and women a lot of money. Ask them how many parking tickets they rack up now because they can't find a place to park. If there are more spaces, the money they spend on feeding a meter will be more than made up for by the money they save by not getting ticketed for parking where they shouldn't.
thinking
There's something about the isolation of being inside one's personal car in the city that dampens one's ability to think.
ha ha
I actually think better in my car because I'm now solely focused on that one job: to drive safely
Assuming facts not in
Assuming facts not in evidence.
Do you have any documentation of how many tickets the average contractor gets? Have any contractors you know been *asking* for higher meter rates so they would have less trouble finding a legal space?
Yet another reason to do my shopping at the mall...
This is really ridiculous. How do you roll something like this out when you want people to come and spend their money in the city?
At the very least, earmark it for infrastructure or MBTA within city limits.
Right
The malls that are actually in the Back Bay charge way more than $3.75 an hour for parking. I haven't noticed the Prudential Center or Copley Place hurting for business.
The CambridgeSide Galleria
The CambridgeSide Galleria charges for parking too, and I don't see it hurting for business.
Re: That's all well and good.
Those aren't really malls now, are they? A lot of upscale stores. Here's my other problem with this: It just seems like pure greed. Why can't the little guy catch a break and park for a couple of hours in the city to shop or bring his family in to holiday events like the tree lighting last night?
I don't know how this is a positive development in a city with a horrible public transportation system and development geared to those with means. Just look at Fenway. There's no chance the people I knew there could possibly live or shop there now.
Boston Common
News flash: there's a parking garage right under Boston Common: for $14 you can easily park your car for three hours, out of the elements. Too expensive for your tastes? Several garages near Downtown Crossing have evening and weekend parking for as little as $9.
How true. I hear the new Target there has a $10 cover just to get in.
Re: Well aware of all the parking options. Thank you.
Mock me all you like. Fenway was an affordable and diverse neighborhood for years.
I'm assuming the OP was
I'm assuming the OP was referring to malls outside of the city where the parking is free.
Oh, no doubt, but the point holds
Copley Place was built specifically as a mall for suburbanites who want to experience the thrills of the city without actually having to set foot in the city. Is it hurting because you have to pay to park there where you don't at Chestnut Hill?
Re: Copley Place
Very familiar with Copley Place. Spent a lot of my youth there at Chili's, Haagen-Dazs, the record store (don't remember the name), news stand and absurdly designed movie theater.
I was a city kid, never had a car when I lived here. It was either my feet, my bike or the T, which was a lot more reliable in those days.
The proposed costs seem reasonable now, but there's no question it will climb. Of course, nothing is "free", but why nickel and dime us on this? How does this make Boston a "world-class city"? It just seems lame.
prices
T fares have more than doubled in the past decade. How much have meter rates increased?
free parking
Of course, there's no such thing as "free" parking.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/parking-is-hell-a-new-freakonomics-radio...
You're paying for it, for the land on which it sits, for plow drivers to keep it clear in winter, whether or not there's a meter by the spot.
Very glad to see this. It
Very glad to see this. It will be interesting to see how this affects parking occupancy, turnover, and traffic congestion. Newbury St is severely underpriced based on how many spaces are generally unoccupied and how much double parking there is, and I'm willing to bet that most of the traffic ON Newbury St is looking for a space.
Next, I'd like to see meters run on Sundays and later at night in areas of high demand. I'd also like to see the city experiment with eliminating time limits and ONLY using pricing to manage demand.
To those of you saying this is just a money grab, that's really not the case. It's about making parking work better and reducing congestion. In cities where they have already done this, the average meter price actually went DOWN, so it's very possible that Boston ends up making less money in the end.
I'd like to see the city
I'd like to see the city experiment with allowing nonresidents to pay to park in resident spaces, and/or park for an hour or two.
Meters later into the evening could make sense. The problems I have with local implementations so far are:
1) Also extending loading zone hours later into the evening, when the quick-turnover businesses they're in front of aren't open past 6 pm. If the point was to make more parking available in the evening, a No Parking zone which nobody can use for 2 extra hours is useless.
2) Not also moving the meter start time later in the morning, in places that are empty between 8 and 10 am
3) The time limit -- in the evening, there are more reasons why you'd spend more than 2 hours somewhere. (Which reminds me: the South Boston 2-hour visitor limit from 6 pm all the way to 10 am continues to boggle my mind with its stupidity.)
The logic of tripling parking
The logic of tripling parking meter rates escapes me... Walsh said now residents won't circle block after block looking for parking spaces because of the meter fee increase. That makes sense how? Let's get rid of parking meters in the residential sections of neighborhoods then, thus freeing up more badly residential spots for people who actually live here and pay taxes. In the Back Bay there are 7,000 residential stickers for less than 2,000 spots. Stop giving out residential stickers to temporary residents like students. Furthermore, students should not be allowed to obtain residential stickrers since they should be parking in school garages and living in dorms anyways, thus keeping skyrocketing apartment rents from going up further for people who work for a living.
It makes sense because every
It makes sense because every person who decides to not park there because of the price opens up a space. Residential permits were never meant to be a guarantee.
All residents are temporary, and four years is a long time. And, what dorms? Where are all these empty beds? How many of these students even have cars?
Pages