Time to start charging for Boston parking permits, some councilors say

The City Council today approved a request by at-large Councilor Michelle Wu to begin looking at charging fees for what are now free resident parking permits - and maybe even limiting the number of permits any one family could get.

Wu said the current free-for-all system, in which families can get as many permits as they want, and not be charged a cent, just isn't working. She said there are hundreds of Boston families with five or more permits.

Permit fees would encourage residents who have alternative private spaces to use them, she said. She acknowledged that back when she lived in the South End, she would often park in front of her home, rather than spend the extra 45 seconds to drive out back to where she had a deeded parking space.

By freeing up such spaces, the city could begin to look at such things as visitor passes that residents could provide to guests - which Cambridge has long provided. Currently, visitors to Boston residents in permit-only neighborhoods have to hope one of the few visitor spaces are open.

Permit fees would also raise funds for needed infrastructure improvements, she said.

Councilor Josh Zakim (Back Bay, Fenway, Beacon Hill, Mission Hill) praised Wu as "adventurous and brave" for proposing fee-based permits, but said he fully supports the idea. "It is high time," and any hearings should take an overall look at how Boston is dividing up "its precious curb space" in an age of growing numbers of bike lanes, package deliveries and the like.

Separately, Zakim and at-large Councilor Michael Flaherty proposed a hearing on a new type of parking permit for home health-care workers, who now often have problems finding a place to park without risking a ticket as they visit their patients.

Ad:

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

I think about this all the

By on

I think about this all the time when walking around the neighborhood. What would really help things is if you paid by length of vehicle. Have your baseline be a compact car, and any percentage of length past this (in essence, how much up another potential parking space they take up) and you pay X% more. I've seen trucks that are the length of 2 or more cars, so why on earth would dude with the landscraper get the same fee as the guy whose car doesn't pollute as much, takes us a lot less space, and wears down city roads at a much lower rate?

Now lets get talking about the guy I see with a snowplow, AND a trailer on a city street...

up
52

My car is tiny, I'm just a

By on

My car is tiny, I'm just a bad/nervous parker and always end up taking more space than I need. :( I rent a spot and almost never park on the street though. But yeah, living proof that little cars can still take up more than their share.

Trailers though... I have no response to that except to massage my temples and slowly shake my head. People. Ugh.

up
18

Suggestion

By on

Get some tall cones or stack something you can see

Go to a high school parking lot when it is quiet and practice, practice, practice.

Look to Youtube for guidance on methods of doing a better job.

up
11

I continue to be a big fan of

By on

I continue to be a big fan of councilor Wu. It is ridiculous that the city gives away billions of dollars worth of property for free for people to store their private property. No one other than drivers get handouts like that.

A yearly pass should be at least a few hundred dollars. At that price it is still a bargain considering the cost of private spots. Neighborhoods with more demand and higher property prices should be higher. The city will then have more money for infrastructure and parking will be easier to find. Win-Win.

up
79

i mean, fine

Even a nominal fee would be better than nothing. And provided the cost goes up with additional cars registered to the same household, it can help get surplus cars off the street.

up
33

Providence is $100 for overnight. Boston worse than Pawtucket

By on

Providence is $100 for overnight. Its been a boon for the city's finances and Rhode Island urbanism. In contrast, Debt-riddled Pawtucket has a base parking system comparable to Boston's. The city chased Pawsox Yale stadium and MBTA station fantasies instead of practical parking policy. Boston can surpass both Pawtucket and Providence. + Boston can put the parking fee money into area's that the state has abandoned: such as the Mattapan High Speed Line region, the Fairmount Line region, and the West Station region (btw thanks Harvard for stepping up while MassDOT flounders).

up
21

Not necessarily

By on

I know several who have been hit by the program. However, Providence does the right thing with first-time student offenders, many of which can't pay. I'm not saying its a perfect model for Boston either, just better than say, well, Pawtucket. Mass should keep an eye on both Pro and Paw for good and bad strategies. For example, because Paw botched its stadium procedure, Worcester will offer the club millions the city doesn't have, and then ask for millions from the commonwealth, which means shifting money from other programs that effect everyone in Greater Boston.

up
13

I said rare

Not nonexistent. But it's a joke down here - if you get a ticket, you forgot to pay your protection money.

up
10

Ma should be on alert for the pawsox crew. parking fees poof

By on

worcester should be on high alert. the pawsox yale = risd new urbanism ballpark consultants love to lay waste, uh, i, mean help struggling Ma communities. They had a posh stadium party in a soon to close co-working library in pawtucket surrounded by trash, empty lots, and poor families. guess who paid? worcester and others could be suckered in too, costing everyone and their mother an arm and a leg. All those parking fee surpluses. poof. gotta pay for the state cuts

It should be expensive in a

By on

It should be expensive in a place like the back bay. In less wealthy and less dense neighborhoods it should stay free or be inexpensive.

up
18

No

Check the real estate listings - the parts of Roslindale, WR, etc... that would require parking can easily afford a small yearly parking permit fee.

up
13

They do

By on

Generally around T stations - even Westie has areas with parking permits.

up
10

Probably Can't do that

By on

At least based on wealth. And there are a lot of not wealthy young people living in the Back Bay.

Limit the number you can get yes.

Fees- fine, but the city shouldn't get this as incremental income. Use it to offset the property tax levy.

up
10

But it's ok

By on

to give away public money to GE?

up
22

bravo

By on

I am actually really impressed you managed to keep this reasoned and not a foaming at the mouth diatribe against car owners. Shocked even, to agree with you that a couple hundred per year isn't unreasonable. It would indeed be win-win if these funds were earmarked for certain infrastructure enhancements.

up
24

oh hell yes

Stop worrying about driverless car vaporware and start doing something about this actual problem.

up
53

can they also consider

By on

making Boston parking permits somewhat universal? I have always found it sort of unfair that if you live in Back Bay lets say, and your significant other lives in Southie, you cannot park your car in Southie, even with though you have a city issued parking permit. Unless you find a needle in a haystack spot, of course. If you live in the city and are paying taxes (directly or through rent) and then are asked to PAY for a parking permit, you should be able to park in other neighborhoods in your city. Even if there are some restrictions such as only getting one night, or even X hours.
Somerville has visitor passes that are good for 2 or 3 days, and miraculously they are able to accurately keep track of that. Even if you swap the pass from one car to another, you are only allowed to use the pass for that many days per week, and if you try for an extra day you wake up to a parking ticket.

up
40

I think the main reason why

By on

I think the main reason why the permits are per neighborhood is because many people live AND work in Boston, but in different neighborhoods. So if you live in West Roxbury and work in Back Bay, they don't want you parking in a Back Bay resident parking space all day while you're at work. If the City was all one zone, I think what you'd see is that all the resident spaces in the neighborhoods around Back Bay and Downtown would be full of residents' cars from other neighborhoods during the day, leaving no spaces available for people who live there.

up
50

This makes perfect sense...

By on

... but my idea is open to restrictions or further interpretation. I mean, you could restrict it to overnight, or during certain hours if you have an out-of-neighborhood permit it would have a 2 hour limit....something like that. They would enforce it the same way they enforce 2 hour, non-metered parking anyways. Chalk tires or use licence plate reading tech on those BTD vehicles. I just feel like if i am gonna PAY for a resident permit, I should be able to park in other neighborhoods to visit people, businesses, etc. IT'S THE SAME CITY.... MY CITY. I live here and pay property tax, why can't I drive down to Bova's in the North End or ANYWHERE in Southie, hell, even large swaths of Brighton are now permit parking. If its all taken, fine I will pay a meter or a lot, but what kills me is I go to some of these places and there are a ton of resident spots open and I CAN'T park there even though I am a Boston resident, and my car is registered in Boston.
I just feel like there is something wrong with that and no other towns/cities in this area do you have to deal with that.

up
11

Residential Parking areas already vary by time of day.

It seems that you are arguing that as a boston resident you should have priority over people from outside the city. Seems very myopic. The bigger concern should be whether neighborhood parking hurts small business.

Honestly, rich neighborhoods like BackBay, Beacon Hill, and North End shouldn't be allowed to have designated neighborhood parking permits. If you can afford to live there, rent a parking space. What about all the wait staff, and retail employees that work there?

The point of residential parking is to restrict street parking without installing meters all everywhere. But actually now we can install one machine for a whole block. If we start charging for resident permits, we should also remove them from commercial store front areas and replace them with meters for short term parking.

PS Geez , Boston is not a big city. The areas that you describe are all within walking distance.

up
11

"Rent a parking space"

To quote my father, "here, let me bend over and (expletive) it out for you." You cannot rent what does not exist.

Fun fact: We can't have more parking garages in Boston because the federal government (according to Gaffin) says so. You know, that entity which takes your money through armed theft to give to Alabama and Louisiana.

up
14

Agreed.

By on

It's just something I have thought about since long before today. Been in Boston since 1999 and have thought about it more than once! However, as other posters have pointed out here, a visitor pass system would solve most of my griping. My GF lives in Somerville and they blessedly have such a system. When I stay over for the night I park in permit areas and put the visitor pass on the dash. NO ticket, problem solved. I think her 3 day pass (park 3 days out of a given week, no more) costs like $40 and that buys you the ability to have friends and family over your house without overly stressful parking concerns. This would make sense in Boston. If she lived in Southie we probably would have broken up by now!
You are correct about the ability to have one machine charge for a whole block of parking (those machines have their own issues but I digress) it would make sense to put them into wider use, maybe kick the time you need to pay until back to 6 or 8pm (its actually 10pm in a lot of spots? wtf?) and make folks pay or display their permit (that they'd pay for of course).

We can't bitch too much, at least the conversation is happening!

up
14

that's rich

By on

Rich neighnorhhods. Ha!

Yes there are many rich people. There are also lots of not so rich old people that have lived there for years. Also lots of not so tich young people living in small places with roommates etc.

And why the animosity toward rich people. Keep in mind they are the reason we have nice things.

Stop stereotyping.

up
17

Stop misquoting me

I said rich neighborhood which is true. I pointed out that if you can afford to live there and can also afford a car (I assumed this part of the equation) then you can afford to rent a parking space. It is not an entitlement.

up
13

It's not an entitlement

By on

Unless you are not rich. Then it is.

Why should rich people get less from.the government than poir people?

Parking should be means tested?

The city is fairly big...

By on

Lots of square miles in the city and while I hear your argument, I'm thinking your suggestion won't necessarily be fair to all persons who live in neighborhoods with resident permit parking.

Take Allston/Brighton for example. Over near Boston College, people who live there have on-street parking restricted to residents only because far too many people from outside of Allston/Brighton drive over to attend the football games. So our hypothetical resident of one of the multi-unit buildings in Allston/Brighton comes home from work in downtown Boston, fully prepared to have to park a block or so from his or her home, only to find that ALL of the resident-only spaces are taken up by ~other~ residents of Boston who have come from West Roxbury or Roslindale to watch the game. Our A/B resident can't find a parking space closer than Kenmore Square or so without having to pay a huge fee.

You would then have to specify that resident spaces are only for Allston-Brighton residents near Boston College during football season. Then there are the Allston-Brighton residents who live near Harvard Stadium, who will most likely have their games on different days/evenings. And what about Northeastern University's near-neighbors? Boston University's near-neighbors? And then there's the people who live near Fenway Park during baseball season.

For the record I do not have a car, nor am I likely to ever have one. And I'm all for some sort of a fee structure for resident permits, and limiting to one permit per household but having lived both near Fenway Park and near Harvard Stadium, I *don't* think it's fair that people from across town can park anywhere in the city for free, displacing people who actually live near the sports fields

up
14

A gate required..

By on

... in order to get a parking permit your vehicle.must pass through s rectangular gate that elimiates large vehicles, and with a length restriction.
A new design, of optional autonomous design can be call the Boston Car. Probably two-passenger with a locking trunk. Zero-emissions and only available in (sponsored) local professional sports team color schemes, or Baked Bean Brown. Automated stacked parking/charging buildings and small distributed stations (like shipping containers) will provide storage and fueling.

Bean-shaped car bodies a bonus.

up
12

They should follow the San

By on

They should follow the San Francisco model, which breaks it down into smaller neighborhood zones.

In your home zone? Park away!

Have a city permit for another zone? 2 hour limit (maybe longer limits in off-peak times/low demand areas)

No city permit? 30 minute max in a resident zone (so that delivery drivers, repairmen, etc don't get ticketed for short visits that have no long-term negative effect on a neighborhood's parking).

up
24

How about providing a

By on

How about providing a percentage of spaces to nonresidents in every neighborhood? And allowing short-term nonresident parking in all permit spaces? That's what other cities do.

That way, someone could have a girlfriend in Southie (or go for a walk there without dating anyone) even if they lived in Cambridge, Revere, or Vermont.

up
14

We should also have year

We should also have year-round street cleaning. Even the regular street-cleaning doesn't keep things clean in my neighborhood, and people don't stop littering between 12/1 and 4/1. When it's too snowy to bring in the sweepers, that's when you go in and remove the snow!

up
28

Weird

By on

You and your neighbors don’t sweep/ pick up trash in the off season?

up
15

Except

By on

For the old toilets and ironing boards put out by the sweepers.

up
17

Neighbors

My neighbors are fresh out of college and are used to having someone else do things for them. If the bag didn't hold the trash until it landed in the truck, it isn't their problem. I pick some of it up, but a lot of it ends up under cars. Plus every drunk within a mile things the street is a dumping ground. This also ends up under the cars.

And in case you were wondering. If a drunk does take a dump, I don't pick it up. Place a 311 for it.

up
15

Walsh and his Transportation

By on

Walsh and his Transportation Department have been studying the issue since he took office. Sounds like the council grew tired of waiting and decided to push for it on their own.

up
27

Isn't this what auto excise

By on

Isn't this what auto excise taxes are for? I would agree that having 2+ permits per individual residence should incur a fee, but hundreds of dollars per year per permit? Some people require a car to get to work, and this would drive (huehuehue) up the cost of living in the city for them even further.

Not everyone with a parking permit is rolling in dough, but it's great that the councilor is working to ensure that the only residents who do will be able to obtain a permit. Tip-top proposal.

up
20

How is it unfair to charge

By on

How is it unfair to charge for parking, especially where parking is scarce? In the current system, the city is essentially making a donation to the parking permit holder.

up
36

The city is already charging,

By on

The city is already charging, through Boston vehicle excise tax. People who have their cars registered to a residence within city limits pay a fee every year, presumably because it's the cost the city has determined as appropriate (based on cost of vehicle) to operate the vehicle as a resident of the city and utilize related services. Do we need another bureaucracy?

Haven't owned a car 15 out of the 18 years I've lived here, so I understand both perspectives. I look forward to the anti-car circlejerk in this thread.

up
19

Doesn't cover the costs

By on

Excise tax doesn't come near to covering the costs of giving away public property to car users.

You want a car in the city? Pay for it. People who own or rent spots pay taxes on their spot - you should pay for what you use.

up
19

Motor excise tax is

By on

Motor excise tax is authorized by state law and adopted by (I think) every city/town in MA.

It's an old law and has nothing to do with street parking. You could also claim that since you pay registration fees, inspection fees, gas tax, driver license fees, sales tax, real estate property tax, and TSA fees, then you should also have free parking. Still, the simplest and fairest thing is to do is charge for parking. The big question is: how much to charge.

up
25

You could also claim that

By on

You could also claim that since you pay registration fees, inspection fees, gas tax, driver license fees, sales tax, real estate property tax, and TSA fees, then you should also have free parking.

Yeah, thanks. It sounds like a large proportion of the UHub constituency wants to run this town like a gated community, or even *GASP* Brookline.

up
12

People who own driveways and deeded spots

You know what? They pay property tax on that spot AND excise tax on their cars.

They are paying twice for parking, when you pay "once" by your estimation - when they take up none of the city's space.

Be advised that car taxes and fees don't fully pay for services that cities extend to motorists - income taxes and property taxes cover the remainder.

Drivers who like to talk about what they already pay for need to be very careful lest society assign us all the true cost of driving (including diseases of sedentary lifestyle).

up
22

Be advised that car taxes and

By on

Be advised that car taxes and fees don't fully pay for services that cities extend to motorists

What, specifically, are these services?

up
18

these services

By on

...maintaining the roads that the cars wear down?

up
17

Costs

By on

Police
Fire
EMS
Plowing
Maintaining roadways
Electricity for signals
Clearing storm drains

Societal costs (on top of this)
Road accident injuries
Pollution
Sedentary lifestyle related disease

You do know that not all

By on

You do know that not all drivers live a sedentary lifestyle right? People here assume car driver = fat and lazy. I'm not sure where this comes from. I am a very fit person, low bodyfat, very active and I own a car. My neighbor is obese and doesn't drive. Lots of low income folks don't own vehicles and are considered obese by medical standards.

Population data

By on

More important than an anecdote about your neighbor.

up
16

Economics 101

By on

When a resource is scarce, charge a price to manage demand.

It's about time the City started charging for permits.

up
22

scarcity

By on

You are totally right, but the scarcity of parking is very dependent on the neighborhood. Maybe that could be factored in to the cost of the permit somehow.

up
13

What is the motor vehicle and

By on

What is the motor vehicle and trailer excise?

An excise is a tax upon an event or privilege. A motor vehicle and trailer excise is in lieu of a tangible personal property tax and is levied for the privilege of registration. M.G.L. Ch. 60A, which is the statutory basis for the excise, uses the motor vehicle itself as a means to measure this privilege. Revenue derived from the excise can be used by cities and towns for any lawful purpose.

up
10

Hundreds of dollars per year

By on

Hundreds of dollars per year per monthly T pass? Isn't this what sales taxes are for? Some people require the subway to get to work, and this would drive up the cost of living in the city for them even further.

Not everyone with a monthly T pass is rolling in dough, but it's great that the councilor is working to ensure that the only residents who do will be able to obtain a monthly T pass. Tip-top proposal.

up
39

This is in no way an equal

By on

This is in no way an equal comparison. Ok, a portion of taxes fund the T. You don’t go to the train station with your own rail car and throw it on the tracks.

up
17

my auto excise taxes are ~1%

By on

my auto excise taxes are ~1% of the cost of renting a parking spot in my neighborhood. I don't see why an excise tax would at all be considered to be paying for parking on the streets. Especially when so many of us park in driveways and not on the streets.

up
16

You live in a neighborhood

By on

You live in a neighborhood with rented spots? That’s handy!
I’m not sure what led you to believe I think excise
tax =paying for on-street parking. The above poster was talking about T-passes. The comparison is NOT equal.

Auto excise tax TO THE CITY

By on

Auto excise tax TO THE CITY OF BOSTON is $25 per $1000 of the value of the vehicle. If you buy a basic new car, you're already paying the city $500+ per year. Where is this money going, currently? When I first saw this bill over a decade ago (a surprise), I figured that it was the cost I had to pay for the city's services to provide plowed and clean streets where I can park my car, and for continued road maintenance. This is on top of property tax. OK--happy to do it, because I believe in citizenship.

Unless there's an audit explaining in detail how exactly this money is currently being spent, we need better explanations as to why a permit fee is a more thoughtful solution versus curbing abuses (such as 2+ permits per household).

I figured

By on

I figured

All this because you incorrectly "figured" something a long time ago? Motor excise taxation has been going on in Massachusetts and across the USA for half a century.

I you were so thoughtful about your motor excise tax, but not thoughtful at all about how you got your resident parking sticker for free, then that's your problem. The North End has 4000+ permits for 1,500 spaces. The fairest way to level that is to start charging money.

And if you want an audit explaining in detail how the city spends its money, just download a copy of the city budget when it's passed in the summer.

up
17

Can you imagine if T riders paid ANYWHERE CLOSE

By on

to what the actual cost of a ride on the train is? LOL. It'd be like fifty bucks a trip! The retired farmer out in Stockbridge who has never even SEEN an MBTA train has been paying for it his entire life. Weirdly enough he also pays for the roads he drives on. We all do this through TAXES. Except drivers also pay a slew of other expenses.
I am not against paying for parking permits, even if they charge $20 it will raise a LOT of money, and I think folks would gladly pay that. Excise tax, Safety inspection, gas tax, tolls, registration fees...it is unfair to say driver's and those with cars are not paying enough. They pay, and they pay more the more they drive through gas tax and tolls.
I would ditch my car and take the train almost exclusively if there was a snowball's chance in hell of it being at all reliable in the next 10 years.

up
13

Nope

It would be about double what it is now.

Sorry, but motorists are winners in the subsidy game. Anything that changes that is aok by me.

up
16

Explain how

By on

the money collected from local and state governments, as well as the federal government, from taxes and fees collected on motorists, car owners, and roadway freight companies themselves DWARF any money collected by mass transit. Both the roads and the entire mass transit system are funded by tax dollars, collected from all residents.
Someone who NEVER uses the trains sees no benefit from them. Someone who NEVER uses a car still benefits from their food, clothes and gadgets being delivered over roadways. Buses still use the roads, etc etc. The average T rider is paying (according to you) HALF of what it should cost to ride the train. Is your average Car commuter paying HALF of what it should cost them to get to work via car? Considering their tax dollars ALREADY fund the road maintenance AND the T riders half price fare? Considering that they pay for maintenance and repair of their vehicle THEMSELVES? They pay to fuel the vehicle THEMSELVES? Oh and guess what? Parts and labor on the repairs are taxed as well,as is the fuel. When tax dollars go to pay for the electricity that moves the T, is that electric bill taxed? When a train needs to be fixed is the state and hence T riders, handed a bill for the repairs including TAX on top? No, they are not. The fare stays consistent over long periods of time, and is STILL way under the actual cost.
I fail to see how drivers are subsidized more than mass transit users.

up
15

drivers are laughing all the way to the bank...

By on

They're paying much less than half. That's the point. The cost of maintaining roads, bridges, and tunnels throughout the city, state, and US are astronomical and don't move nearly as many people per dollar and sq meter as transit does.

That's before you even get to the costs associated with pollution related deaths, injuries, fuels subsidies....

up
17

Roads are not about moving "people" exclusively.

By on

They are about moving goods and services as well. The Romans knew this. The Kings of England knew this. The ancient Chinese, Mayans, and Egyptians knew it too. THAT'S WHY THEY ALL BUILT ROADS. Johnny potato farmer and his buddies didn't get together one night at the pub and decide to build a road over the hill to find more agreeable women or something. A 'government" saw fit to build the actual road to transport goods, military, etc across large areas.
Likewise, the local and federal governments in America have generally been in charge of building and maintaining roads. The interstate system (federally run) requires arrow straight stretches of road every so many miles to facilitate the landing of planes in an emergency for example.Your electricity, water, gas, and oil are delivered and systems maintained by a network of roads allowing crews access to work on said systems. Your food gets to the grocery store via roads, Every stitch of clothing on your body right now got to you somehow via truck. Medicine, gadgets, and all other supplies too. Your trip to the hospital when you have a heart attack is MUCH quicker via roads. Cops rush to the scene of a shootout (sometimes) via the roads. Fire trucks save your burning building from total demolition via roads.
And guess what? Every business/service moving vehicles over the roads is paying TAX on the fuel they use to do so. The vehicles are REGISTERED and INSPECTED every year, all with fees attached that go to the state.
You could ban all private car ownership statewide tomorrow and the roads would still need to be maintained, at a cost borne by the taxpayers. If cars were so cheap and people were paying well under half what the actual cost was to move around (my cost per week out of pocket to commute to work is less than by train using a car btw, just on a week to week basis, not including cost of car and all the fees I mention) then why doesn't EVERYONE have a car? I mean, it is so heavily subsidized right? Who in their right mind would take the train everywhere? It takes longer, breaks down constantly, and is full of beggars and passed out junkies? The answer is IT'S NOT CHEAPER. Its a luxury, and drivers pay for it.

i agree

By on

Actually I kind of agree with you. Roads are critical for daily city life. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. Taxes, tolls, and fees on commercial vehicles tend to be much higher, although there is still some subsidization.

But...let's impose a ton of tolls on private vehicles to discourage those. Those who use private vehicles can pay their fair share through tolls and fees! Freight and commercial vehicles, which as you point out, will encounter a lot less traffic and move around freely. Emergency vehicles will be able to respond a hell of a lot quicker.

We'd have to maintain a lot less lane-miles, since they'll be less volume and less wear. Lifetime of bridges would be extended. Crashes, injuries, and pollution would go down.

Sounds pretty utopian to me!

Also. Dude. the interstate highway system can't be used to land planes. That's an urban legend.

Small planes can pull it off, but they also land on much smaller streets in emergencies. Highways aren't built to take the force of a landing airliner or military plane. The surface would collapse and the plane cartwheel. Also they often have...you know...light posts and signs.

up
20

This is a straw man argument

By on

This is a straw man argument (but you knew that, didn't you?). If the roads were only used to deliver goods, we would rarely need anything more than one lane in each direction. 95 percent of the capacity we build is to accommodate single occupant vehicles carrying little to no cargo for approximately two hours a day.

But it's even simpler than that.

The dense, rich, transit-rich side of the state brings in far more tax dollars per capita than the comparatively poor and rural parts of the state. Most of the economic activity in MA is not based around the delivery of goods, it's based around services (like health care) and the creation of intellectual property (like software and pharmaceuticals). The taxes on the proceeds from those services is mostly what pays for your rural roads. A lot of (possibly a majority of) those people earning those dollars that get taxed to pay for those roads take transit to work.

That's how people in Greenfield, MA benefit from the MBTA even without being directly served by it.

up
18

Parking?

By on

...and is full of beggars and passed out junkies?

Well, the passed-out junkies are terrible drivers, but junkies are indeed out there driving the roads, too. I bet quite a few beggars, too.

Please pay for part of your use of expensive public real estate to store your personal tank of toxic inflammable fuel (often) on wheels.
I mean, it takes up otherwise usable roadway space too, while it sits idle.

up
10

Wrong

By on

Someone who NEVER uses the trains sees no benefit from them.

Really? You think your commute would be a piece of cake if there were no T and everybody switched to cars? You should be grateful more people haven't abandoned the T yet.

up
18

Nope

Isn't this what auto excise taxes are for?

Nope.
Next question.

up
16

Josh Zakim is wealthy and

By on

Josh Zakim is wealthy and lives in a mansion on Comm. Ave. I doubt he parks on the street using a residential sticker, shovels out his own parking space, has had his car broken into because he some addict sees a quarter on the car seat, has to worry about where he's going to find a parking space in his neighborhood after he gets home from a late night shift.

up
20

OK pal.

By on

Josh Zakim lives in an 1100 sq ft 1bedroom he bought in 2011 for $585k. If he doesn't park on the street, he rents a garage space.

up
33

Neighborhood resident stickers

A resident parking sticker for Dorchester is great because Dorchester is huge (1/3 of the city). If the city wants to start charging for parking stickers folks in Dot are going to clamor for stickers designated for their specific section of Dorchester such as Savin Hill or Lower Mills. Won't that be fun?

up
10

and do the same for the damn

By on

and do the same for the damn bikes. My neighbor locks his bike to the street sign in front of my house. Not cool. Bring it in or lock it at an approved spot. Will 311 remove it?

up
15

Either this is goofy satire

Or I want to live in your utopia where this is your biggest concern. That's not walking and chewing gum, that's walking, chewing gum, and trying to belch the alphabet in Hebrew.

up
20

So once again a scheme which

By on

So once again a scheme which punishes those least able to afford it. Wealthy people with multiple cars won't think twice about paying for an extra permit of two; while those just getting by will have to fork over additional money to park on a PUBLIC Street, a street their taxes have paid for.

How about all you rich folks who think these fees are a good idea make voluntary donations to the city.

I don't mind paying higher taxes to improve our city, but the idea of these user fees is unfair.

The only good idea is visitor passes for guests.

Maybe it's time to look at a city wide permit-since to point of this was to free up spaces on Boston Streets for Bostonians.

up
23

Oh, please

By on

There are vast swaths of the city where the poor and middle class live that don't have resident-permit parking programs at all - it's not going to affect me or my neighbors one bit. As for the rest of the city, maybe they could have some sort of income-based sliding fee.

up
21

Ugh, income based sliding fee?

By on

So, I already pay more in property tax than the person who lives next door to me (who makes less and lives in a smaller house). I already pay more in income tax, and now we should pay varying rates for the right to use public property? No thanks.

up
23

If you can afford a car

By on

You can pay for a place to put it. Simple.

I have to pay for parking at work. WAHHHHHH.

up
17

Imagine if the city already

By on

Imagine if the city already had this money and we were trying to decide how to dole it out. Would you think that it was better to pay everyone $200-300/year to store a car on the street, or spend that money on something that more directly helped poor people (like homeless shelters, or heating assistance, or T passes, or free bicycles, or literally anything other than a subsidy for storing their car on the street)?

up
22

You think money from permits

By on

You think money from permits will go to ANY of the services you mentioned? Probably not, money would most likely go to road related expenses.

up
16

remember MD tags?

Separately, Zakim and at-large Councilor Michael Flaherty proposed a hearing on a new type of parking permit for home health-care workers, who now often have problems finding a place to park without risking a ticket as they visit their patients.

Shouldn't be rocket science, this is what the MD plates were for back when doctors made house calls. Mirror hanging tag, boom.

Subject to the same abuses as disabled parking tags, yeah, so file that into the same system.

up
20

Councilor Josh Zakim (Back

By on

Councilor Josh Zakim (Back Bay, Fenway, Beacon Hill, Mission Hill) praised Wu as "adventurous and brave" for proposing [shit somerville and cambridge figured out over a decade ago]

long overdue. people complaining about omg how is it going to work can look across the river. I have and use a driveway but would kill for visitor passes. limit them to 2 per address and charge for them, too.

up
11

I'm all for it

By on

as long as BTD starts enforcing the current resident parking program. They can start by towing cars that do not have stickers. A New York registered vehicle has been parked on my street for a week with no tickets issued. I can count of half my hand the number of times I've seen a parking enforcement officer on my street. #doyourjob

up
22

Call 311

By on

every day if you have to get them to enforce the rules. I promise you, if you call a few times, they are going to get the hint and issue tickets. I used to work in Savin Hill, very close to the T and I'd watch people pull up in front of Savin Hill T, which at the time had a 2 hour parking limit, get on the T, and not come back until 6 and not get a ticket. It was infuriating, but I would call 311 every day and eventually they came down and would sweep through once a day.

up
10

Resident Parking Permit Fees

By on

If the city starts charging for residential parking permits, then it should also ban ALL neighborhoods from using space savers at any time.

up
27

Fun

By on

This Council is "Fun"....looking for something interesting from K Janey

why the limit?

By on

I don't understand. If there are five cars legally registered at the address why shouldn't all be eligible to get a permit? I recall some complaints here a year ago about SE residents with private deeded parking who had resident stickers and parked on the street.

up
13

Yes

By on

And if each person has a car, they should team up or move out of the city. This will push the guy who leaves his car for three weeks without moving it to reconsider having it at all.

Why should they team up or

By on

Why should they team up or move out of the city? People can like where they want to live for their own personal reasons. It’s none of your business.

up
19

Yes, and

By on

They can pay for their impact on the city.

Paying for what you use is called "growing up".

up
12

“Growing up” you do realize

By on

“Growing up” you do realize that you are talking about a non-existent parking fee. If the time comes that residents do pay for permits, those adults can make their own choice as to whether or not they’d like to stay in Boston. Still, NONE of your business.

up
13

Fake registrations?

I am all for limiting the number of permits per residence, but there are reasons for multiple cars per residence. Ones I have seen are
1) Car collector in the south end. I don't have the link, but with some work you can find it.
2) People with kids driver age at home. Granted to maintain 3-4 or more cars with teenage drivers would cost a pretty penny, it is still legitimate.

up
13

Why 2 and not 0? Why a flat

By on

Why 2 and not 0? Why a flat fee? Why not simply charge by the neighborhood and the size of the car?

up
12

Yes! This is so long overdue!

By on

Yes! This is so long overdue!

Charging money for a limited resource only makes sense. Right now it really is a total free-for-all, and in many neighborhoods there are far more permits issued than spaces available. We have a situation where people are afraid to use their cars because they won't have a space when they return! And we've seen what happens when it snows...

The guest permit idea is also an important one, and not just for guests. It's also important for someone who doesn't own a car but occasionally uses one. When someone's street is permit-only, but that person doesn't own a car, when that person does use a car (ZipCar, rental car, borrows a friend's, etc) they can't park it on their own street at all, to load or unload, or just for a few hours or a day. Plus there's the case when they have someone visiting, that person visiting can't park on the street either, even though the resident doesn't have a car taking up any space anywhere. So car owners get unlimited free parking and non-car owners get nothing. In a City where we really want to encourage people to not own a car if they don't need one, why are we making it harder for people who DON'T own one?

up
15

They could start by covering

By on

They could start by covering the operational costs already spent in issuing the permits we do have. It blows my mind that even a nominal fee isn't charged right now, considering the city is paying somebody to process those applicatons, mail them out, keep a database, etc.

up
23

Charge triple for college

By on

Charge triple for college students then. It's already hard enough for working class families. Congrats in advance to all of you single no canada goose jacket kids trust funders who have jobs in the city that covers all of your bills... with Daddy's help of course.

up
14

"Boston is not for sale"

Said the councillor in the story above about taxing property speculators. So...it's for lease, then? What are the terms of me paying for something that I now get for free? What do I get in exchange for paying more money? Better enforcement of the program? Snow removal?

up
16

Go for it

By on

I have a two car garage.

up
13

Marty has to be smiling

By on

Michelle Wi just blew her chance of running for Mayor. The poor people left in Bistin will remember this.

up
22

Or she sealed it. Most people

By on

Or she sealed it. Most people realize the streets are a public resource and worth more than what we currently pay to park on them.

up
16

Newsflash!

By on

Barely a majority of people living in Boston have or use cars!

How's those plans to move to Texas?

up
14

Resident parking

By on

Perhaps they should begin by enforcing the existing parking rules first. If people don't register their cars now what gives you the impression they will do it if they have to pay. You tax homeowners with the new preservation tax now this.
Enough all you accomplish is forcing elders to sell their homes.

up
23

Considering the value of a

By on

Considering the value of a parking space, maybe a transponder pay-as-you-go system makes the most sense, especially in Zone A areas Downtown, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, etc.

Have a BTD van drive around at 3am, scan the transponder for every car parked on the street, and charge $5 a night.

With smart phone technology I

By on

With smart phone technology I don't understand why a city like Boston doesn't have an app in addition to the paper system. The app can geolocate where the car is and your credit card can be charged... the added benefit of the app would be it knows if your car did not move so can charge you more if you go over the time limit. The app could do everything the paper does and add in some extra benefits like visitor parking benefits in areas that do not have machines in place to process a paper slip.

Then you can take the parking enforcement car, put a license plate reader on it and have it drive up and down the streets. All the cars with prepaid passes will be in the database, as will anyone using the app. So the only cars you need to stop for are those without passes or those that used the paper system... which will be a very small group of people because most people would switch over to the app based system if it came with extra benefits and took credit cards and was easy to use. It would also be self enforcing .

up
10

Finally!

By on

I was shocked when I first moved to Boston to learn that the city just gives away resident permits. It should at least implement a fee to cover the cost of the program and possibly a bit more to go towards other programs. I'm sure this could be done while keeping the fee relatively low like Cambridge has done.

How about they increase the

By on

How about they increase the illegal overnight parking for nonresidents fine to $100. On my tiny end of the street alone they would make thousands a week. Let’s at least start there

up
19

This is just another tax and

By on

This is just another tax and a burden on the working poor. Taking parking spots to give to those who are moving into these multi units condos and apartment complexes that are not providing off street parking spaces for their renters, Soon only the well off will be the only ones that will able to own a car in Boston...

up
14

Taking parking spots?

By on

These are public spots. You know that? Nobody is taking anything - only charging for the expense of having them.

You are weird.

up
12

Another tax..

By on

This is just another way to push those who are struggling out of Boston. The city is allowing multi unit apartment buildings where you once had at the most a triple decker in these old neighborhoods or on some Main Street storefronts. These unit may or may not come with parking spaces that the renters don't use because they have to pay for their assigned spot. So instead they too park on the street. And if you do not own a car you can't understand why this is not a good idea..

up
23

Cost for Parking Permit Should be Based on Vehicle Value

By on

The cost of a resident parking permit allowing some people exclusive use of city streets not directly in front of their home should be based on the value of the car. Since the city already appraises vehicles for auto excise tax, no extra work would be necessary for this. For example the city could charge 10% of the appraised value of the vehicle. For example an older US or Japan subcompact would cost around $50 a year, a new starter Mercedes or BMW around $300 a year etc

parking

By on

It's not time to charge for the permit, we already pay enough in taxes. it is time to crack down on the slum lords that have too many people and too many cars in our neighborhood. Simple homes that are turned into condos and no parking is provided and if they have parking they still park on the street. If you flip a house you need to have at least two spaces for every unit. Stop the building and the permits to do so. Visitor parking is a joke we have so many that take our spaces just for their convenience they are not even live around the neighborhood.

Pages