Behind the scenes at Mass DOT

[fatnoah]

Parking structures don't drive families out of cities, the high cost of city housing, lack of back yards, perceived higher crime, and need to transport kids all around all do. Its simply faster and easier to take kids from school to piano lessons, and then to karate in a SUV in the burbs than on various bus and subway routes

I've lived in the city (Beacon Hill) and in the suburbs (Melrose) with a child. In the city, leaving with baby/child was as simple as walking out the door. The day's shopping took about an hour to get groceries, booze, dry cleaning, etc. In the suburbs, the day's shopping takes about 3-4 hours, mainly due to the time required to drive around. Lack of a yard, parking inconvenience, desire to own a home, desire for more space drove the move to the 'burbs.

Long story short, after 5 years, we're preparing to move back to the city next summer. I'd be more than happy to outline the pros/cons of raising a kid in one environment or the other, but for the sake of brevity I'll just say that the "quality of life" scales tip heavily towards the city. Everyone wants different things from life, but from my family's perspective, the city is where it's at.

 

[massmotorist]

I only have one thing to add - Cambridge does go too far in its anti-car policies. It's true that most jurisdictions have policies tilted towards cars, but that doesn't mean policies should become anti-car. They should be more car-neutral.

Removing mandatory minimums for parking is good. Relaxing density zoning restrictions, setback requirements, etc. is good. But adding mandatory parking maximums is bad. Requiring subsidization of transit passes and all the other stuff that Cambridge does along similar lines is bad. Let the real estate market provide parking and let employers choose whether to offer subsidize transit passes.

 

[Matthew]

Unfortunately, Cambridge has not removed its minimum parking requirements. In fact, they're even more ridiculous in some cases.

I agree that maximum and minimum parking requirements are both undesirable. Parking is a commodity that can be provided by the market. However, I see maximum parking requirements as a temporary antidote to the damage done by minimum parking requirements and highway subsidies.

For example, without the parking freeze in downtown Boston, the construction of massive highways at taxpayer expense would have caused an immense increase in number of parking garages under development. Demand for parking skyrockets as the highways deliver tons of cars into downtown. I just got back from Austin which has just this problem. Downtown is covered with parking lots and garages everywhere. They only recently instituted meters on the street. The traffic jams I saw were really nasty, stretching for miles at rush hour. The only alternative is a bus system which can't keep schedules, and a new commuter DMU which operates on a twisty, mostly single-track way. There aren't enough people living downtown to support those businesses which need more than just the lunch/evening crowd to survive.

 

[choo]

I only have one thing to add - Cambridge does go too far in its anti-car policies. It's true that most jurisdictions have policies tilted towards cars, but that doesn't mean policies should become anti-car. They should be more car-neutral.

Removing mandatory minimums for parking is good. Relaxing density zoning restrictions, setback requirements, etc. is good. But adding mandatory parking maximums is bad. Requiring subsidization of transit passes and all the other stuff that Cambridge does along similar lines is bad. Let the real estate market provide parking and let employers choose whether to offer subsidize transit passes.

I don't think they require subsidies for T passes. I work in Cambridge and the one thing my company actually does subsidize is parking! It's a big one too, a couple ~$1500/year benefit. I take the red line or bus in, and I get nothing. The best I get is a tax-free card as part of a larger benefit, so that would save me 20-30%.

 

[Mark02474]

Untaxed benefits like parking and healthcare were both the norm for decades. Co-pay for both are now more common.

Arlington has parking minimums, no overnight parking, and almost no metered parking. Only Arlington center has municipal, metered parking lots. Curb parking in other commercial areas is often tight, especially with a movie theater with zero parking of its own. Decades ago there were parking meters, but businesses fought against them as discouraging business. Overflow commercial parking spreads to residential side streets. Luckily, residences all have parking so street spaces are more available to business customers, though more often they are used by Boston/Cambridge commuters who rather park for free than pay at Alewife.

Parking minimums have kept old storefronts from getting redeveloped from single story to 2-3, but such reconstruction now isn't even profitable for mixed use. This spring town meeting voted down a mixed use zoning change which allowed for high buildings with little parking as long as a token amount of storefront existed. I expect an improved proposal next year. What won't happen is Arlington residents paying to build a municipal parking structure just to accommodate customers of a few business. Private parking development numbers don't work either. So, reasonable parking minimums have their place, especially when there is a 500+ seat theater that has no parking!