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
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?
Which would be correct
By BostonDog
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:59pm
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
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 11:59am
So, does owning a car make one lazy or does parking in the city make one lazy?
Biggest parking bargain in
By anon
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 5:34pm
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!
By Jeff B
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 5:37pm
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
By anon
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 6:25pm
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
By anon
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 8:05pm
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
By ian
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 8:24pm
would residents in the Seaport or Back Bay be paying for 2-hour metered parking in their own neighborhood?
Let's pick this apart
By Will LaTulippe
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 8:30pm
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
By anon
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 9:55pm
#4 is precisely the point.
Yes
By Will LaTulippe
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 7:29am
But now other streets will be clogged with cars looking for the cheaper meters.
Which in turn
By erik g
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:09am
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
By ian
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 12:13am
So why not charge what the market actually wants for parking?
Because
By Will LaTulippe
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 7:38am
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
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 7:49am
All about free markets, paying your own way, privatization, etc. until it is ALL ABOUT MY ENTITLEMENT!
Amen! Everything is great
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 9:11am
Amen! Everything is great until it affects ME!
1) The road is the road is
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 8:30am
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
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 1:32pm
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
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 5:21pm
"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.
By Kinopio
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 11:44am
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/...
- 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
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 2:09pm
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
By eherot
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 3:29pm
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
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 4:41pm
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
By slowman4130
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 8:32pm
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
By Anony- Mouse
Thu, 12/01/2016 - 10:34pm
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
By u-hub-fan
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 12:06am
from coming into the city at all, then they've just freakin' NAILED it.
Why's that?
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 7:51am
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
By ian
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 11:24am
then yeah, that sounds like a win-win. More room for the rest of us.
pahkin'
By John-W
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 8:59am
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 anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:16am
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
By Saul
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:36am
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
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 5:14pm
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
By adamg
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 11:01am
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
By Saul
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 11:04am
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
By ElizaLeila
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 6:47pm
I actually think better in my car because I'm now solely focused on that one job: to drive safely
Assuming facts not in
By anon
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 5:16pm
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...
By Angel
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:24am
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
By adamg
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:58am
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
By Saul
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 11:12am
The CambridgeSide Galleria charges for parking too, and I don't see it hurting for business.
Re: That's all well and good.
By Angel
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 12:00pm
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
By Saul
Fri, 12/02/2016 - 2:12pm
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.
Pages
Add comment