Hey, there! Log in / Register
Nearly 50 parking spaces at Needham Junction train stop go away on Monday
By adamg on Thu, 11/16/2017 - 11:56am
MassDOT reports that 48 spaces at Needham Junction will no longer be available to commuters come Monday:
This additional parking capacity was available through a long-term lease that recently concluded. The MBTA attempted to renew the lease but an agreement could not be reached with the landlord. The property owner chose to lease this parking lot to a nearby business instead.
Passengers should plan their travel ahead of time and be advised this lot may fill earlier in the morning. With these 48 spaces not available, the Needham Junction commuter rail parking lot will have 131 spaces available.
The state is looking around for possible alternative parking sites, but has yet to find anything, MassDOT says.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
MBTA parking
Well its time for commuters to get creative like the red line riders who park on the sidewalk inside Andrew station or at JFK were there are more cars parked inside the station on the grass and sidewalks. I talked to a female transit cop who was sitting in her car at the station and she said " if she gave tickets to all the illegally parked cars her her bosses would fix them because most of them were employees."
All employees. All onsite.
What does this have to do with the other? We are talking about 20 cars total at both stations.
Perhaps the state should reconsider
their penny pinching policy of leasing key facilities like commuter parking lots and RMV offices.
But I guess Republican patronage is more important than providing adequate facilities for the taxpayers.
So your idea is to pay the
So your idea is to pay the landlord whatever he/she wants, just don't raise my parking or ticket price. Good plan.
Ya got a better one, anon?
n/t
Why do I need another plan? T
Why do I need another plan? T management has given the plan. There's no other information to suggest it's incorrect.
Abruptly closing off part of a commuter rail
parking lot that fills to capacity every day before having a replacement available, and all because you CHOOSE not to renew a lease, doesn't exactly sound like a prudent or responsible way to manage your system or serve your customers.
Actually, it is prudent
Drivers need to get over themselves. Why cater to 50 people with money that should be spent on services that impact thousands and tens of thousands of other system users?
"BUT I HAVE A CAR AND THAT'S SPECIAL" is not a valid argument.
Perhaps because those 50 spaces mean that 50 fewer
people are clogging the roads approaching Downtown Boston because they're using the train.
If providing a bit of pavement results in less highway traffic, then that seems entirely reasonable.
Oh, and abruptly reducing the number of parking spaces when you could have avoided it by either renewing the lease or arrange for a new parking lot - after all, I seriously doubt the T didn't know the lease was about to expire until this week - is unacceptable by any standard.
Neither is
BUT I HAVE A BIKE AND THAT'S SPECIAL. Yet, we're constructing separated lanes and paths for cyclists as part of roadway and transit projects.
If you get rid of special privlidge for one mode of transportation, you should get rid of special privlidge for others as well.
Not being run over is a special privilege?
The first laws regarding bicyclists right to the road were established in 1887. The New York State Legislature took the first step toward resolving the conflict, with the passage in 1887 of "An Act in Relation to the Use of Bicycles and Tricycles." This statute established for the first time that bicycles are "carriages," and that cyclists are "entitled to the same rights and subject to the same restrictions" as drivers of carriages. Cars did not come into popular use in America until after 1900.
The cyclists were using to road first, it is the automobile that has bullied pedestrians and cyclists out their right to safety. It is time for people that drive cars to take responsibility for driving safely.
The horses and carts
were using the roads first. Your point being?
And I will stop there because you last paragraph is just plain silliness.
Here we go.
I can always sniff out the anti car folks.
Hokey, I am not sure if you work and/or how you get to work and/or drive and/or fill in the blank. But warp back into reality, please. Cars are not (and I say again) cars are not going away. People who work in the city need to get to the train station and usually they live too far away to walk and/or bike and/or fill in the blank.
This has nothing to do with being special. Parking is needed for those who drive and need to park.
sure if you pay for it
Why shouldn't you pay full price for parking your car? Why do expect this land to remain available to you for such a low price?
So
The State should just agree to pay whatever the landowner asks? How do you know they were "penny-pinching" and it just didn't make sense to lease the land? Please explain how this situation is "Republican patronage"...
No. The state should build, operate, and maintain
their OWN offices, parking lots, and other facilities that the PUBLIC rely on. Which they used to do until Weld came into office and decided it was better to sell off all those properties in favor of leasing space.
And who benefits from those sell offs, leases, and subsequent moves because "OMG, we can save $25 a month if we lease with someone else" strategies? Developers, landlords, and even moving companies. In other words, policies that benefit the Republican base. Which is patronage by any definition.
A short-term investment such as a parking garage
could yield long-term results in many cases, where practical. Judging from a lot of the comments in the recent stories about decreasing revenue, lack of parking (along with poor schedules/infrequent trains) are the major contributors as to why people drive into the city rather than use the train.
Once we have 18-hour gridlock on the roads, these garages will be full (and then build higher). NIMBYs? It's better to have a garage than people parking in your neighborhood or on your lawn.
Link to full story?
This is going to push more folks to the Hersey station. The Junction fills up before the 7:41am train. Hersey is close to full for the 8:15 now; crappy snow plowing plus the new overflow from the Junction will probably fill up Hersey well before 8:15 this winter. Ugh.
MassDOT Press Release
It came out as a MassDOT / MBTA Press Release today. It will eventually make the press.
The VFW post is adjacent to two good-sized medical facilities and the local YMCA so one fo them has likely sought and obtained the land for their people. my money of on the medical facilities.
And the press will react in one of two ways
They could react with outrage and demand to know why the state decided to cancel a lease BEFORE negotiating a new lease with someone else, which. would insure that commuter rail passengers don't lose parking spaces.
Or they could repeat the news verbatim and go on to report that the President was sighted dripping raspberry ice cream on his new suit (film at eleven).
If I were a betting man, I'd put money on the latter happening. After all, look at the media's response to Fare is Fair, even after the guy from Acton let himself get arrested over it.
I don't understand the
I don't understand the thought process; the goal is less cars in the city, more people on public transport. All well and good but how are these people supposed to get to T stops? Oak Grove is filled by 7, 7:30 the latest. What is a commuter to do?
I thought the idea was the opposite, increase parking at these facilities, T and Commuter rail stops. Wellington always had tons of parking but heard that is even now becoming an issue .
Two thoughts:
Two thoughts:
(1) Rather than relying so heavily on the ability for people to park at commuter rail stations, why don't we work to improve local bus service feeding the stations?
(2) If parking lots are regularly filling up, the price is too low for the demand. The T should raise the price so that the lots never quite fill up and use that additional revenue to improve local bus service to and from the stations.
Except
that if you're talking about 131 parking spaces, you're probably talking about 131 people, total. That would fill up may two or three city buses if they were all coming from the same place. But they most likely aren't.
So I suppose you could charge an arm and a leg for parking (though with 131 spaces you wouldn't make that much money) and throw it into running near-empty buses all over the place to pick up and drop off the 131 people who use the parking lot.
But that would be stupid and wasteful compared to having more parking.
If it only fills up a couple of buses ...
Then it is pretty damn obvious where the T's priorities should be now, isn't it?
Hokey,
I am not sure how often you commute via bus versus commuter rail but..
In regards to your 1)
People travel from many area areas where they do not have any local bus service - already existing - that will get you to a commuter rail parking lot. And good luck with convincing someone who currently drives to ditch the car and take a bus.
People have cars. People drive to the commuter rail. They need parking.
In regards to your 2)
It is not that the price is too low it is that there is not enough parking, in general, available. And now there is even less at this Needham station.
FTFY
People have cars. People choose to drive to the commuter rail. They are not entitled to parking.
How is one supposed to get to
How is one supposed to get to the commuter rail stop? If a bus isn't available? Fly?
Why should we care?
The clear point is that we shouldn't care because we shouldn't be spending money on or subsidizing drivers when the MBTA needs that money for THOUSANDS OF RIDERS.
Actually, parking fees at MBTA lots - which
DRIVERS pay, go to paying T operating expenses. So those who choose to parks at these lots are subsidizing the MBTA instead of being subsidized.
And people have bikes.
They choose to ride them on the public streets. They are not entitled to have separated lanes to ride their vehicles in.
Oh, Swirls..
what happened to you.
Commuter Rail is a service. People are paying for this service. People are driving to the lots. They need a place to park.
We're reaching the price tipping point
When a train to Boston already costs $13.50 round-trip plus $4 to park ($17.50) you are getting close to making driving in about the same cost. If you make people park somewhere else and take a bus (even it were free) the added hassle will push more people to drive in. I know this isn't a solution, but I don't think jacking up the parking rates is the answer either.
Have you ever been to Needham Junction?
There is a bus that terminates there, and it serves a more developed part of the town, but my gut is that the station gets a lot of commuters from Dover or the more, er, rustic parts of Needham. Running bus service to Dover would be a money waster.
I suppose in theory that the Town of Needham and or Dover could set up a satellite parking lot and recoup the shuttle bus cost through parking fees. I know that Norton does that, but then again Wheaton pitches in a lot for that service.
Must I Add Ham To This Egg And Cheese Sandwich, Or Not?
I feel like I'm missing something
And that something is probably quite good.
The Experience Of Being At A Need Ham Junction?
Ah
That’s a good one.
Here's why I think raising
Here's why I think raising the price is a good thing that should be done right now:
If the lot is filling up now, that means it's not dependable or reliable. Someone cannot leave their house and be sure that they will find a space. They always have to have a backup plan.
Raising the price would reduce the demand so that there are always a few spaces available. No matter what time someone arrived, as long as they were willing to pay the new price (which should be clearly publicized), they'd be able to find a space. It would also encourage more people to carpool, so that people could split the cost of parking. This makes the lot more efficient by allowing more people to park there without adding more spaces for more cars.
Sure, the T could try to build more spaces, and maybe they should, but they need land and money to do that, and the T has much more pressing priorities for their limited funding than parking (such as making the actual T service more reliable.)
Lastly, as long as the lot is filling up, the price is not too high. If the price becomes too high, you'll have too many open spaces, and at that point you should lower the price. It's basic supply and demand economics.
Thank you Professor Samuelson
So, we don't need more infrastructure, we just need to price what we have high enough to ensure optimal utilization. It's a win-win: spending goes down, revenue goes up. As for the folks priced out...
Could it be (in my scenario),
Could it be (in my scenario), the lot isn't filling up because it's cheap, the lot is filling up because the demand is that high.
I mean after you do get to the lot, chances are the train is already packed. It's not like you're getting on an empty train.
It's the demand. Most people would rather take public transportation, and that's the goal here.
Why make it so difficult?
I guess it depends on whether
I guess it depends on whether you value your time or your money more. Would you rather pay $10 and be guaranteed to find a space every day at the time at which you want to travel or pay $5 but only be able to find a space if you get there before 6 am?
What's the Goal?
The goal here is (or should be) for as many people to take the commuter rail as possible. The average CR use case is a single individual driving their private auto to the train and parking in the lot provided for a fee. While I'd be great if the state could just airlift little parking garages into these lots, I think that's pretty unlikely.
I would love to see some creative solutions start to get pushed. Wouldn't it be cool if Needham built a protected bike lane around the facility and then if the MBTA could figure out a way to offer discounted fares to those who biked to the station? I would bet in excess of 10% of folks who park in that lot could instead be relatively easily incentivized to bike.