City to pilot seven-day resident-only parking in South Boston

The Globe reports on a plan to extend resident-only parking to weekends in part of the neighborhood in an attempt to deal with too many cars.

In other parts of the city, seven day resident-only parking restrictions are common. Most neighborhoods in central Boston have it, including the South End, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, and North End. But Southie is Southie ...

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

    Free tagging: 

      Comments

      As many people in the room

      As many people in the room said, it’s nothing but a Band-Aid. You need to deal with the core of the problem, which is overdevelopment, insufficient parking for the new development, and enforcement.

      So I'm sure nobody in Southie would have an issue with BPD/BTD ticketing all the double parking that goes unchecked in this neighborhood. Somehow I doubt that.

      Just start charging market rate for parking permits, end the handouts. Charge full rates to residents that have out of state plates and give minor discounts to those that are registered in Mass.

      up
      47

      So you're saying

      By on

      the core of the problem is double parking? Perhaps even more directly people FROM Southie double parking? The concerns you quoted are real and relevant but have nothing to do with double parking... Your proposed solution would only create more revenue but do absolutely nothing to resolve the situation. Anything else to add or did you come here just to take a shot at Southie residents?

      up
      10

      Charging market rate would

      By on

      Charging market rate would decrease the amount of people who would want to park their cars on the streets. If people actually had to pay the market rate, instead of being subsidized, plenty of people would trim down to 1 car or give up owning a car in the city altogether. The double parking comment seemed to be referencing the hypocrisy of some people in southie who want enforcement of certain rules but not others, like double parking, which they have fought in the past to keep, even after a little girl died as a result of an ambulance not being able to get to her because some lards double parked. Some people in southie want to be able to follow only the rules they want to and to have other rules enforced on others but not them. Thats not how democracy works.

      up
      27

      We have a winner!

      The double parking comment seemed to be referencing the hypocrisy of some people in southie who want enforcement of certain rules but not others,

      Thank you! Lets not forget the comments that came out against bike lanes on Broadway, they would cut into peoples god given right to double park and run into Dunks!

      up
      22

      Really?

      Your proposed solution would only create more revenue but do absolutely nothing to resolve the situation.

      Here on my home planet, increasing the price of something tends to reduce the demand (with a tiny number of exceptions). For example, if the city were to increase the price of a parking sticker, fewer people would buy them, which would mean that there was less competition for the fixed number of spaces.

      up
      28

      Listen chief

      Nowhere did I say double parking was the core problem, try reading and comprehending what I typed. Rather it is part of a series problems regarding proper development planning, a lack of traffic enforcement and a culture of flaunting the traffic rules, which contributes to the larger issue of parking in general. Tell me that you've never been searching for a parking spot, only to find some clown double parked, blocking a resident or visitor spot.

      way to gloss over what I proposed regarding parking permits. You know, that paragraph I typed out about the hand out that is our current permit parking setup. Anything to add regarding that or did you just come here to blow hot air?

      Also, spare me that crap about bashing Southie residents. My girlfriend is a Southie resident AND has a job in Southie, so my interests are solving a parking issue that we deal with weekly and resolving the parking issue City-wide.

      up
      19

      Maybe

      We can create a secondary market for these too?! I'm sure Ace and Stubhub would get in on the action.

      up
      11

      A little off the mark

      By on

      What does double parking have to do with the issue? Sure it makes it harder to drive around probably is not safe, but that is another conversation entirely. Your solution of selling parking permits to out of state drivers seems like it would actually make the situation worse, not improve it. The only way this would help is if you charge an absorbent rate, and all that does is bring in extra money for the city and hurt residents of the neighborhood. Making money off the parking problem should not be the primary goal for the city, only an added benefit.

      To clarify

      By on

      I am in favor of charging a market rate for parking permits, but not in favor of selling them to out of state drivers.

      up
      11

      I don't think overdevelopment

      By on

      I don't think overdevelopment is really the problem. It's a problem for cars, but only because they're needed.

      I don't think Boston has seen enough business development, so there's too many people living in Boston and then commuting to the suburbs.

      Related to that - there's not many convenient options for public transit from the city to suburbs. There's a ton of companies along 128 through Waltham, Lexington, Burlington, Woburn. But how do you get to them from the city? You can maybe catch a bus, though they have a limited schedule and hopefully you don't have to leave early. Or you can hope your company pays for a private shuttle to Alewife or something.

      So eliminate the need to have a car and you can build more.

      So what's "market rate"? And

      By on

      So what's "market rate"? And what do you expect will happen when some people can no longer afford to pay the "market rate" to park on a public street?

      There ain't no such thing as free parkin'

      By on

      And what do you expect will happen when some people can no longer afford to pay the "market rate" to park on a public street?

      The same thing that happens to everyone who is not rich enough to own a car: they walk, bike or take the bus.

      Why do you think that the public street is a resource to be exploited only by people rich enough to own cars?

      Could it be that you are a selfish asshole who doesn't think about anyone else? Could it be that you are a selfish asshole that believes you are entitled to free land to store your car, even though no other land in this city is free? Could it be that you are a selfish asshole that wants welfare for your car while screwing over all the other residents of the neighborhood, especially those people less fortunate than you?

      You're not a selfish asshole, are you?

      up
      15

      No, I'm not a selfish asshole

      By on

      No, I'm not a selfish asshole. It would certainly seem that you are some kind of an asshole, however. I shall have to think of an adjective that fits. Intellectually dishonest perhaps? I asked a simple open-ended question; you turned it to a deranged rant of a strawman argument about me being a "selfish asshole" wanting "free land" and "screwing over all other residents". Please take your meds before you commit the serious misjudgment of talking like that to someone face to face.

      up
      12

      It's really quite simple.

      So what's "market rate"?

      Market rate is the price at which an uncoerced buyer and an uncoerced seller would conduct an arms-length transaction. You can approximate it by saying it's the price at which there would neither be an inventory of unsold parking spaces nor a waiting list for parking spaces.

      And what do you expect will happen when some people can no longer afford to pay the "market rate" to park on a public street?

      Umm... same thing that happens when some people can't afford to pay market rent for the campsites at the state park? Or when some logging companies can't afford to pay market rate to cut timber in the national forests? Or when some oil companies can't afford to pay market rate to drill on public land? Or when some people can't afford to pay market rate to use Logan Airport, a public facility?

      up
      19

      Some of your examples are

      By on

      Some of your examples are better than others. How is anyone served by empty camping spaces in a state park, or for that matter empty parking spaces on a public street? "Oh yes, I get to have the street ALL TO MYSELF..."

      the key is "market price"

      How is anyone served by empty camping spaces in a state park, or for that matter empty parking spaces on a public street?

      If the price were right, there would not be empty unused camping spaces or empty parking spaces; that's kind of inherent in the definition of "market price". (yes, obviously, the market isn't going to be so perfect that the very last person who comes along looking for a space gets the very last space, but that's the spot you're aiming for.

      up
      10

      Exactly

      By on

      Even if you don't achieve the true economic market price, getting close would be a huge help. Anything closer to the market price than free will make people have to at least decide whether they really need 2 cars per family. Or in other circumstances, if they even need 1 car because they could find a better place to spend the money and they really only have their car because it costs them little to keep and use occasionally.

      up
      11

      One way we are served by

      By on

      One way we are served by "unsold" spaces would be that an hour limit could be placed on it, and it could be used as temporary parking for local businesses.

      I assume all this discussion of sold/not sold parking spots depends on assuming that entire neighborhoods would not become/stay permit only. If we moved to pay permits-- and I'm not at all opposed to that-- we do need to have some free parking in the vicinity as well, for the minority of the further minority of Boston car owners who a) really must have a car, because of work, disability, whatever, and b) who could not afford the financial burden of paying for a permit.

      Allow for car sharing spots, too

      ZipCar has tons of data indicating that each car replaces around ten underused (meaning "sitting in parking spots all day and night") cars for each car. Car sharing spaces would have to be a part of any new scheme.

      Also consider this: if no more spaces are sold than exist, the people can have their own numbered spot that is theirs alone. Or, there could be a two-tier system where people who pay more (or are elderly/disabled) get marked and numbered spots with at least one as near to their home as possible, and those paying a lesser fee can scramble.

      Cambridge has a visitor permit system - anyone know how that works?

      Car sharing spaces in the new scheme

      Car sharing spaces would have to be a part of any new scheme.

      They would be part of the new scheme in that car sharing companies could rent a space just like anyone else. There is no reason to price car-sharing spaces differently from other spaces because a car-sharing car uses up approximately the same amount of parking as a car that is never driven.

      Slippery Slope

      By on

      If you move to a pay-for-permit system, it becomes a very slippery slope when you start giving away permits for free. How many free permits do you give away? Who gets them and what are the qualifications? What happens if you give away too many free permits and then those who paid begin having a hard time parking again? Giving things away for free throws off the supply/demand balance and defeats the purpose of some paying for the resource to begin with.

      One solution may be to make the streets in the business districts (E/W Broadway) metered parking during the day and open parking at night. Those who can't get/afford permits can fight it out for the open parking spaces at night. Obviously the handicapped spaces would still function much as they currently do.

      There is no perfect system no matter what you do.

      It's not that easy

      As others have noted above, many companies that employ city dwellers are now located in the suburbs, well off public transportation lines. Other people have jobs in the city that frequently take them to the burbs to visit clients, etc. This is my busy season. Wednesday, I'm down in New Bedford all morning. Thursday I have meetings in Waltham, Saugus and then back in the Longwood Medical Area. Without a car, some of these trips would be a whole day out of my schedule and I can't afford to lose that time.

      And the thing is, I'm one of the lucky ones. I make enough money to pay for a garage spot. Not everyone does. You're putting a high burden on people that can end up forcing them to move out of the city or limit them career-wise. What are those people supposed to do - do they have to move just because their jobs don't fit your idea of who gets to live in the city?

      That's the cost of doing business

      By on

      Why do you think that you deserve a free pass from making tough decisions about your personal finances because you own a car?

      Everyone else has to make those calls. Should I live here? Can I afford to take the commuter rail? Should I walk or pay for a bus ride? Is this job worthwhile if I have to commute by car? Are the fuel expenses worthwhile? Etc.

      In a sane world, the cost of parking is just another consideration among many.

      But for some reason, you believe that parking should be freely provided no matter what? Do you realize the cost of that to society? You are basically screwing over everyone else just to provide parking welfare.

      When parking is subsidized, it drives up the cost of living in the city for everyone. What are those people supposed to do? They cannot afford their housing anymore because some parking crusaders decided to force minimum parking quotas on the entire city. Whether or not you own a car, you are forced to pay for the parking of other people's cars. That's sick, an abuse of public policy for private gain.

      Why does their plight not move you? Why is it valid for those people to be booted out of their homes, in your eyes, so that you can have more free parking? You're putting a high burden on them, forcing them to move out of the city where they had access to transit and walkable neighborhoods, by raising the prices on their homes.

      All so you can avoid your own personal responsibility. You have a car, that's fine: you pay for it, not us.

      up
      15

      Correct

      By on

      Yes, if you can't afford to live somewhere without a subsidy (e.g., free parking for your car and regulations that ensure you have an available place to park it), then you should move somewhere that you can afford and has the amenities that you need. There is no constitutional right that says everyone has to be able to afford to live in a certain part of a city and park their car for free and without hassle. If charging a market rate for street parking is what will fix the problem, then this is what the city should do and not continue with the subsidy of free parking.

      up
      13

      Market is market, period.

      You're putting a high burden on people that can end up forcing them to move out of the city or limit them career-wise. What are those people supposed to do - do they have to move just because their jobs don't fit your idea of who gets to live in the city?

      It's not *my* idea of who gets to live in the city; I have no preferences about that one way or the other. It's the simple arithmetic of what a limited resource (parking spaces) is worth in the face of increased demand. And it's not me who's putting the burden on people, it's the law of supply and demand. There's nothing I (or the mayor, or anyone else, for that matter) can do to change what a parking space is worth, short of creating more parking spaces. A parking space is worth what it's worth, irrespective of what the city does or doesn't charge for it.

      As a matter of policy, the city (which controls a lot of parking spaces) can give parking away for free (in effect, a lottery to give away the available N spaces to the first N people who show up), or they can charge something closer to what it's worth.

      The current scheme (give it away for "free") imposes other costs on people, which are a little harder to measure but which are real nevertheless. Pricing anything below what it's worth encourages overconsumption, which in turn reduces the available supply, which causes people not to be able to find a space, to waste time driving around looking for one, to get into space-saver wars, etc.) Plus, the "lottery" is warped in that the person who gets off work at 3:30 has a great chance of getting a space, while the person who gets off work at 7:30 PM has almost zero chance of getting a space.

      Pricing parking closer to what it's actually worth, according to almost any theory of economics, would result in a much more efficient use of the resource.

      up
      13

      Some of the effects are long term

      As others have noted above, many companies that employ city dwellers are now located in the suburbs, well off public transportation lines.

      Think through the effects of reducing the subsidy on parking. That would make jobs in drive-to-work locations less attractive than jobs in T-to-work locations. That would mean companies in drive-to-work locations would need to pay slightly more to attract employees. That would encourage employers to locate their facilities in places that are easier to get to, which is a win on so many fronts -- less exurban sprawl, less time wasted getting to and from work, less fuel burned, etc.

      up
      10

      what do you expect will

      By on

      what do you expect will happen when some people can no longer afford to pay the "market rate" to park on a public street?

      There will be more parking available, which is what people seem to be asking for. And those people who can't afford to pay for parking will do what the rest of us do who can't afford the cost of owning a private vehicle: walk, take the T, take a cab, etc.

      It's in the article

      By on

      Back when the city first instituted South Boston resident stickers, residents told the city they didn't want to restrict parking on weekends. But that was before yuppies.

      up
      17

      lack of rapid rail access in Southie

      By on

      The bigger issue behind this minor issue seems to be a lack of rapid rail transit in Southie. As soon as you go down Broadway and onto west Broadway you have to take the BUS or drive. This is the issue that needs to be solved. As development creates dense neighborhoods with more than a single family residence public transportation upgrades need to be developed hand in hand!

      up
      18

      Well if the Boylston Street

      By on

      Well if the Boylston Street tunnel incline at Pleasant Street is ever reopened the MBTA could restore trolley service to South Boston via Broadway. Call it the G-Line.

      An F-Line to Dudley along the current Silver Li(n)e route would be nice too from the same portal.

      up
      14

      Southie Time

      By on

      None of this BC or AD for them. They measure their eras in BY and AY.

      Question - if they start enforcing things in Southie, will people have to park facing the correct way on the street. Drove around a bit there last weekend and every time I turned a corner I had the fleeting notion I was driving the wrong way down a one way street until I realized there was no order to which cars were parked which way on whatever side of the street suited their fancy.

      One more quirk of the 'hood.

      up
      20

      Indeed a quirk

      By on

      of the hood, and has nothing to do with the parking problem. Proper enforcement of traffic and parking laws is a different conversation.

      up
      10

      The article is wrong.

      By on

      I went to every meeting when resident parking was proposed. The business owners, led by most of the bar owners were opposed to a 7 day parking program, not the residents.
      Today it's the same owners along with new business owners who are voicing opposition. Not only are they concerned about their patrons and employees, but more importantly they're worried about themselves.
      The answer to the argument of "where are we going to park?" Is the same as all the other areas of the City with resident parking.

      up
      30

      So what this means is that

      So what this means is that when i go to visit my grandparents I'll get a ticket? What are visitors supposed to do? Especially around Thanksgiving and Christmas? How exactly will that work? Am I expected to pay for parking at a T station and take the train in? I go to visit my grandparents not only because they are elderly but because they are afraid of losing their parking spot. And usually I go after work and I work til 5. I don't understand how this will help create spaces that just aren't there.

      Private Lot

      The idea would be that if you don't have a resident sticker you need to pay to park at a private lot and/or hoof/cab it. Not ideal but this is the way it works in just about every other large city. This policy in theory will leave more spaces open for residents by taking them away from visitors. (But there is so much demand as-is that it won't change anything.)

      up
      15

      Charlestown has unrestricted

      By on

      Charlestown has unrestricted parking on weekends.

      The core neighborhoods are near all of the subway lines. Fenway and the South End do start to get annoying for nonresidents.

      If only the Commuter Rail had a decent schedule on weekends...

      This is quite wacky

      By on

      they are afraid of losing their parking spot

      Why do they have a car, exactly? Except as a space-saver for something that they do not own?

      up
      14

      Afraid of losing their

      By on

      Afraid of losing their parking spot? You mean they own or rent a parking spot and someone is illegally parking in it? They should call the police then. If you mean they are squatting in a public space and expect their EBT space to always be there for them, then they are misinformed about public street parking.

      up
      17

      They are in their 80s.

      They are in their 80s. Walking is hard for them and they have a car to keep their independence. After 6pm on any given day there are no spots available and they would have to park blocks away and walk back and as i say they are in their 80s

      That's the point

      EVERYONE has their own "special" reason why they need to have a car and nearby parking. Either it's lack of mobility, helping someone who lacks mobility, a job, kids, etc.

      But there is more reasons for needing a nearby spot then there are spots and nothing is going to change that short of a bunch of people giving up having their cars nearby.

      up
      14

      When i lived in boston i

      When i lived in boston i didnt have a car or a license i saw no reason for it. But i think many people would pay for a spot if that was even an option. What i was trying to point out was that there is no other option for visitors. I would gladly pay for parking or if i could

      Sounds like it would make

      By on

      Sounds like it would make sense for them to rent a private spot.

      Every neighborhood has private spots for long-term rent. Most older neighborhoods don't have pay lots. So I think street parking should be available for short-and medium-term use, regardless of residence.

      up
      10

      Wrong locale?

      hey are in their 80s. Walking is hard for them and they have a car to keep their independence. After 6pm on any given day there are no spots available and they would have to park blocks away and walk back and as i say they are in their 80s

      In which case, perhaps it would be wise to move to a place that has parking?

      I'm not saying that to be snarky or harsh -- I care for my own elder relatives, too, and I know it's very hard to make changes; particularly hard to move to a new place to live. But it seems that it would be a huge improvement in their quality of life to live in a place where they could reliably park their car right in front of their door?

      Also, if they are legally handicapped, they can get a parking placard and, in many cases, the city will designate a handicapped space right in front of their house.

      Because of the bus stops

      Because of the bus stops around their house they can get a handicap spot but it would be too far away to be useful. There has been many a conversation about moving but they own their house and have been in it for 50+ years and have raised their children and grandchildren there. It has a lot of history for them.

      All understood.

      Everybody with a heart and a brain sympathizes with your parents.

      The question is, to what degree do we want to ask everyone else to subsidize their ability to stay in the house they have owned forever. Providing them with a space to store their car, rent free, is a subsidy.

      My personal answer is that it's good to ask the rest of us to subsidize them to some degree, but not a lot.

      up
      13

      Call it a case of the Mondays

      Call it a case of the Mondays but I am confused by what you mean. My grandparents work full time own one car and the both work in Southie. One drives the other to work and then that one goes to work and parks the car at their office (which has parking) they both go home around the same time and then they run their errands and they plan on being home between 6pm and 7pm so that they can have a spot for the night. They don't park in the same spot, they take the first and closest available (same as everyone else). They also do not use space savers (except in the winter when everyone else uses them as allowed), which I see many others on the street doing regardless of the weather. They just plan their schedule around the parking. I know a lot of people that live in southie and this is the same story i hear from all of them whether they are 80s like my grandparents or in their 30s like myself. My personal belief is that someone who has no need for a car should not have a car.

      If there was an option of purchasing a space in a private lot nearby for them I would absolutely do so but there are very few options and there are no private lots in the primarily residential areas.

      They have the placard but the

      They have the placard but the problem is the bus stop. It's right outside their house and due to the length of the bus stop and the layout of the street the only place to put handicap parking isn't feasible for them. They still end up having to walk quite a way which would be fine for days like today but when it's icy out it can be treacherous.

      The story is not hanging together.

      Either there's a legal parking space within what is for them a comfortable walking distance of the house or there isn't. If there is, then that space, the one they park in now, could be designated a handicap space and they'd then have much freer use of their car - they could go out at various times of day or night and not worry so much about finding a space when they get back. If there's no legal parking space within a feasible walk of their front door, then what is it we're talking about, again?

      up
      16

      In otherwords

      Perfect is the enemy of better here.

      They are parking somewhere now, right? Why can't that be their space?

      Alternatively, have you looked into having the bus stop moved to accomodate a spot for them? It might be worth asking if it can be done.

      up
      13

      Honestly they looked into

      Honestly they looked into last year and it was a combination of the mbta refusing to move the stop and that there has to be a certain distance between the handicap spot and the bus stop, theres a hydrant in the area and a couple crosswalks. I wasnt apart of the original talks with the mbta city etc... my grandparents and my dad were the ones trying to get the spot for them. I do know that in the end while they could have done it they chose not to for a number of reasons including the headache of figuring it out.

      By reading these posts

      By on

      By reading these posts Bostonrose48, I take it you see how things have changed since your grandparents were raising families in the city and you grew up in the area.

      I usually stay away from bike and parking threads, but this one shows the true lack of compassion. I see the elderly people who lived in this city, raised multiple generations, now being told to get out because of a stupid parking space.
      I take it the people telling you it's best for your grandparents to move for some reason thinks this will not be them someday. I can testify - it will get here before you know it!

      I find the lack of compassion towards elderly life long residents in this area troublesome.

      Out with the old, in with the new!

      And as a side note, I couldn't care less if people agree or disagree, just my opinion.

      up
      18

      Nice strawman argument you got there

      By on

      I think most people have expressed compassion for the elderly grandparents, despite your claims to the contrary. That's why people have suggested ideas like the handicap parking placard.

      The trouble is that there's a bunch of perfectly healthy townies and yuppies clamoring for free parking for themselves. That's where the problem comes from. Not from the relatively few people who justifiably need assistance, but from the hordes of freeloaders just looking for parking welfare.

      I have plenty of sympathy for the elderly couple who need some help with mobility. I have zero sympathy for the selfish townie who just wants to freeload on the city's generosity.

      Get it straight, and you'll get a lot further in this discussion.

      up
      14

      That's a completely false read on the situation.

      That's completely false.

      I have enormous compassion for elderly, lifelong residents who, for various reasons, are no longer able to live comfortably where they have been living all their lives. And I think we, as a society, should do things to make it easier for people to stay in their homes. The question is, how much?

      When I grow old, if my knees go bad, I won't be able to manage the stairs in my house any more. Should the neighbors, or the taxpayers, buy me an elevator?

      Years ago, the elderly lady up the street whose husband had died and whose children had all moved away, could afford to live in a big, drafty old 5,000 square foot house, all by herself, because heating oil cost eleven cents per gallon. The situation has changed, now heating oil is $3.50 per gallon, and it's economically infeasible for anyone of modest means to occupy 5,000 sq feet solo. Should you and I pay the cost of her heating bill?

      Years ago, there was an adequate supply of on-street parking relative to the demand, which meant that, like heating oil, on-street parking was pretty close to free. That means that a person of modest means who needs easy access to a car could easily afford to live in a house that doesn't have its own dedicated parking. Now, as with heating oil, the value of parking has skyrocketed. As with the heating oil, that which was feasible years ago is no longer feasible now; a parking space in the downtown neighborhoods is worth at least a quarter of a million dollars. Should you and I pay the cost to provide a dedicated parking space to the person who can't afford one?

      Displacement sucks. Not being able to stay in the house you've owned for 50 years -- whether it's because your knees went bad, or because the economics of energy have changed, or because the economics of parking have changed -- that sucks, too.

      Being frank about the economic reality does not mean one is lacking in compassion. On the contrary, being frank about economic realities is the first step toward deciding how one is going to implement compassionate policies.

      On the other hand, pretending that public parking spaces have no value and that it costs nobody anything for the city to give them away for free, is just plain head-in-the-sand irrationality.

      up
      18

      Translation?

      Whatever helps you sleep at night.

      Care to address the substance? What, specifically, are you saying that the city should or should not do?

      up
      20

      Enough with telling people

      By on

      Enough with telling people they should move because it will be better for everyone but themselves is as start. For some reason elderly are fair game.

      You go on and on about being "frank" about economic realities. There's more to life, especially when your at the far end of it. Do you know what it's like to be 80 and to be relocated to an unfamiliar surroundings? I'm not there yet, but I've seen first hand what it does. It speeds up the process, so to speak.

      The next poster: "Yeah. So come into the city and inconvenience its residents by taking a parking space." Now that's some compassion! That's just what makes Boston so great\

      It would be nice if the city could find a more accessible handicap spot for this couple and to be honest I don't know what the solution is but enough with telling people their lives aren't valued enough disguised as "economic reality".

      up
      10

      Howzat agin?

      I t would be really nice for the city to give this elderly couple a free space. It would be nice to give them a full-time driver, or $500 per month worth of taxi vouchers. All of those would be nice things. Maybe some of them are reasonable, affordable, and the right thing to do. But it's impossible to have a sane conversation about what to provide, if we refuse to discuss what it costs. Anyone who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

      And when I merely point out that parking spaces are not free to give away, you accuse me of somehow lacking compassion?

      Yes, I know damn well what it's like to be elderly, handicapped, or both, so I'll thank you to take your sanctimonious rant and shove it.

      And who the hell told anyone that their lives aren't valued? Are you, personally, willing to underwrite the cost of putting an elevator in my house when my knees go bad? Or are you telling me my life isn't valued?

      up
      19

      Oh pulllleeeeze.....

      By on

      Oh pulllleeeeze.....
      still not buying it, but who cares? Like I said, I find the lack of compassion troubling and it is my opinion. Rant all you want... Read some of the other posts, I don't see much empathy..

      It's truly amazing that in your post you made some good suggestions and solutions, and here we live in a state that throwing money seems to be the first knee jerk response to an issue. Instead it's out with the old, in with the new!

      Relocating when your in your 80's just doesn't suck, it can cause serious mental issues which I am sure you're aware of. Just consider that when you're telling your aging relative time to go.

      The elderly deserve better.

      That is all ..

      It's not lack of compassion

      It's reality.
      It's making hard choices.

      There is a proposal to change how parking spots are managed. So, what are the effects of that change? Benefits? Downsides? There are always downsides, and politicians hate that because then they have to make a hard choice. Somebody is going to get screwed and the politician takes the brunt of it.

      But to ignore these issues isn't a choice, either.

      up
      17

      The elderly deserve better.

      The elderly deserve better.

      No kidding.

      And we all deserve to live in a world free of poverty, disease, war, and ignorance.

      Now that we're in agreement about that, and also in agreement that getting displaced when you're old and frail sucks. please answer specifically whether you think you ought to be on the hook to buy an elevator for my house when my knees go.

      up
      17

      The funny thing...

      By on

      Bostonrose48 and Patricia's example elderly couple would be much, much better served if the city implemented real parking reform and started charging the proper price for parking in our limited street resource.

      It will become much easier to find a parking space when the price is right, rather than when the price is too low.

      Affordability can be handled on a case-by-case basis for those in need, while giving clear price signals to those with choice in the matter.

      The fact that Bostonrose48 and Patricia oppose real parking reform is more than enough of a clue to tell us that their real agenda is something else. Sucks to have to be so cynical about this, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that the two of them are not being completely on the level with us here.

      I am not opposed to parking

      I am not opposed to parking reform. I have said if there was an option to pay for a space for them I would do so.I am not expecting parking to be free I will gladly pay for it. The city is not what it was when they were younger I get that and so do they. No one is expecting free. What I am saying is there is absolutely no option to pay for parking. None what so ever, there aren't any lots nearby or any private spaces available. On street parking is the only option in the area. Please explain how I am opposed to parking reform.

      So get them the handicapped space already

      You have said that there is a space where they park now, that is close enough to their house. You have said that they are limited in the hours that they can come and go, because they need to get back to that space before the spaces fill up. Why not just get that space designated as a handicapped space. Forget messing with the MBTA and getting them to move a bus stop, or any other hassles. Seems like that one thing alone would be an improvement.

      . What I am saying is there is absolutely no option to pay for parking. None what so ever,

      I don't live in Southie but I do know my way around it to some degree; are there really parts of the neighborhood where nobody within a block or two has a driveway or a side yard or a pay lot?

      Ok

      By on

      You said in the beginning "where am I going to park?" ... and writing in opposition to these reforms. Maybe you changed your mind? Let's put that aside...

      You should be the one pushing parking reform... more than me. and not the crummy, half-baked stuff proposed by the city ... real reform. That would enable you to pay for a parrking space for your grandparents and have availability of space for them to use at any time of day they wanted to return home. And it would also allow you to park, on the street (or in a public lot, if they exist), as a visitor and have availabillity for when you need it.

      What's the magic? The concept is simple: flexible prices for parking that depend on where you are parking and when you are parking... the prices are set according to the level of demand for that particular location at that particular time. This effort tries to make sure that at least 1 parking space is open at any given time of day on each block.

      No other way to make it work. There's a bunch of ways to set it up and to deal with hte little things ... the details ... but the core idea is always market-based prices for parking.

      Crickets, Patricia....

      I asked a very simple and respectful question: When my knees go, do you believe that you should be on the hook to buy an elevator for my house?

      up
      11

      Crickets? Sorry Bob Leponge

      By on

      Crickets? Sorry Bob Leponge - there's a thing called life that takes up most of my time, and yours I am sure :).

      You know, I went home last night thinking of my post and how I thought I may have come off too strong. I certainly don't imply you have no compassion, but I do think elderly are fair game as they are very vulnerable. I admit, it's a touchy subject with me, only because of my experiences. If I came off too strong, for that I apologize.

      You ask if I wouldn't mind subsidizing an elevator because of your knees. No, but how about one of those chair lifts? Much cheaper and just as good if your knees are giving out. Do you qualify for a subsidy? This state subsidizes much, why not? You've lived in your home for decades, raised generations of kids and have made the city a livable place, you know the kind of place that people from all over want to live in.

      If the state can subsidize a convention center to the tune of 1.1 billion, I am sure we can tuck aside a couple grand (if you qualify) for a chair lift..

      I've got no problem helping those in need, I just happen to think this state does a lousy job of it.

      Bostonrose48 suggested paying for a spot isn't out of the question for her or her family - so there's that.

      But what do visiting nurses, home health aides, social services, etc. what are they to do? Its a legitimate question.

      Visiting nurses, etc.

      But what do visiting nurses, home health aides, social services, etc. what are they to do? Its a legitimate question.
      up

      They do what anyone else does, whether a visiting friend, a pizza delivery guy, or a plumber. If it's a neighborhood with plenty of parking, they park. If it's a neighborhood with scarce parking, they park in a pay lot, or drive around looking for a space, or they don't bring a car.

      Manhattan has visiting nurses, home health aides, and social services people, you know.

      up
      12

      Elderly not the issue

      By on

      I don't think anyone is saying that elderly citizens are the issue. If someone is 80 and can't get around very well then they can get a handicapped placard (although I’m not sure how many 80 year olds are still driving themselves around). It seems to me that the elderly and disabled are the most protected groups under any of the theorized parking systems (as they should be). I don't think anyone has suggested charging disabled people with handicapped spots to park. The obvious issue here is handicapped parking abuse, which becomes even more important when you have to purchase a parking sticker, but that’s a different conversation.

      up
      10

      seriously what are you 5? I

      seriously what are you 5? I live and work on the south shore i need my car to drive to and from work. I drive to Southie to visit my 80 year old grandparents and I drive to get home to the south shore. When I lived in Boston I didn't have a car nor did I have a license.

      Are you four...

      ...I've give you a few seconds to break out those fingers and start counting.

      The red line in Braintree has ample parking. There are also many T stations in many surrounding communities which also have ample parking. Not hard. Really hot hard. So how long is your list of excuses?

      up
      10

      In my post

      I was asking what could a visitor do. I didn't say i wouldn't do whatever it took to visit my grandparents. If parking and taking a 20 minute train ride is required to visit them then I absolutely will. But what else can a visitor do when there are no other options?

      up
      28

      My home health care friends

      By on

      take the MBTA to work, as do most people I know who work or visit Boston, even those with cars.

      You do know what they do now, right?

      They pay meters and they get tickets, since Boston has no permit system for such in-home caregivers.

      All the more reason to redesign the system - even if said redesign could not legally favor "old town families" over "yuppies/transients/newcomers".

      up
      11

      That's the situation in most

      By on

      That's the situation in most Boston neighborhoods. When I lived in the Fenway, there were a few visitor spaces, and that was it.

      Parking Problems

      By on

      That's right! It's all the fault of double-parkers and wrong side parking i.e.; old neighborhood 'dinosaurs.'
      It's is a direct result of overdevelopement. That's it. Pretty simple. Sadly, it's too late to do anything concrete. Charging people more for everything isn't an answer.
      A seven day program will help a little. Over the years too many zoning variances were granted to developers that allowed the construction of multi-unit buildings. This brought more and more motor vehicles.
      Despite the constant myth of people owning fewer cars; we are seeing the exact opposite. I read posts about ,more public transportation, high speed rail, bike lanes etc. It's all fine. But in spite of this South Boston is overflowing with drivers trying to find parking spots.
      For years our local elected officials allowed this overdevelopement. Now they're speaking out. I just wish you guys did this sooner.
      Commence South Boston bashing!

      up
      14

      Another reason..

      By on

      ...there should be no more apartments and 1-2 bedrooms condos built in SoBo.

      The only development should be:

      - Parks and outdoor space
      - Row of single family townhomes.
      - Condos with a minimum of 3 Beds / 3 Baths and 2000 sq ft.

      nothing more...

      - The Original SoBo Yuppie

      up
      20

      Charging people more for

      By on

      Charging people more for everything isn't an answer.

      You mean because you dont want to pay more?

      You know, vacations to Florida should cost no more than $50, airfare and hotel included. Charging more isnt th answer.

      Despite the constant myth of people owning fewer cars;

      Im fairly certain that census facts arent myths. Try again.

      up
      20

      So true

      By on

      There should be Deed restrictions that any development without parking cannot be sold to anyone having a car registered in NY, CT, RI, or NJ.

      City has no balls

      By on

      They didn't go far enough. The resident parking should be 24 hours a day, like every other section of the City that has a parking program.
      Then the City should start towing all the cars with out of State plates. Stop rewarding the jerks who continue to have their cars registered at Mommy and Daddy's house.

      up
      30

      In the interest of correct

      By on

      In the interest of correct information being a baseline: not every resident parking program in the city is 24 hours. Some apply only during the day or at night, only on weekdays, etc. Most of the southernly neighborhoods only have resident parking in specific areas like near the T stops or commuter rail.

      Name an area

      By on

      And show me a picture of a resident parking sign elsewhere in the City that have times posted.

      Back side of Ashmont station

      By on

      Is residential during business hours. Prevents people from suburbs from driving in and parking and taking T to work..

      Don't have a pic but I assure they are posted with hours. They're not 24/7 b/c there is no shortage at other times.

      A better solution

      By on

      Would be to build a few municipal garages (ideally instead of rebuilding half of the projects they just tore down) that have transponders for fast lane passes. That way, Southie residents can get in for free and use them as resident parking, and out of neighborhoods/state could have their transponders charges, like a toll.

      A garage costs $20,000 a

      By on

      A garage costs $20,000 a space. But you think WE should pay for it so YOU can park for free?

      How about you pay to renovate my bathroom? Thats just $16,000

      up
      14

      Won't solve the issue

      By on

      If Southie residents can still park for free this won't solve the problem, only delay it by adding more parking that will quickly get filled up as development continues and more people move to the area. There are only 2 options:

      1. Stop development and lock down the neighborhood so no one new can move in (this is obviously extremely stupid, since the economy of any city needs development to continue to thrive)

      2. Charge a market rate for parking so demand will be reduced and come in line with supply (economics 101 here people)

      I do like your idea of doing something more useful with that land than building subsidized housing, though.

      1. Stop development and lock

      By on

      1. Stop development and lock down the neighborhood so no one new can move in (this is obviously extremely stupid, since the economy of any city needs development to continue to thrive)

      no. dont lock down development but limit it to:

      - Parks and outdoor space
      - Row of single family townhomes.
      - Condos with a minimum of 3 Beds / 3 Baths and 2000 sq ft.

      nothing more...

      PROBLEM SOLVED.

      WHY IS THIS EVEN A DEBATE?

      We live in a densely populated major city. Whether you drive or don't drive, suck it up and deal with it. If you don't like it, go ahead and move instead of suggesting everyone else that doesn't agree with you should. And yes, I did just do exactly what I just said not to. People who need or want cars are not wrong for needing or wanting cars. People who don't are not wrong for this either.

      The "NOBODY SHOULD DRIVE" "NOBODY SHOULD DRIVE BUT ME" AND "I LIVE HERE SO NOBODY ELSE CAN PARK IN THIS PART OF THE CITY" arguments are getting really old, and no less pointless.

      up
      12

      Let's have a show of hands

      By on

      How many of you wanna be dictators live in Southie? Boston?
      Just what I thought.

      Raising Hand!

      By on

      - The Original SoBo Yuppie