Progress on Parking?

Newton is working hard on refining its parking enforcement practices (see this in the TAB and this in the Globe).  We’re also thinking quite a bit about supply, particularly in Newton Centre:  development applications for Panera and more recently the train station diner hinged on parking supply questions.  And who hasn’t heard about dreams of parking garages in Newton Centre to get the parking out of the triangle at Beacon & Centre?

To their credit, a handful of aldermen have also tried to reform some parking regulations.  Last year, there was a short-lived attempt to create a pilot program for combined employee/residential permits on some streets near business districts.  Also in 2009, an item to reduce parking requirements for restaurants was docketed, but it was never discussed.  The most important reform, however, is still under consideration:  an in-lieu-of-parking fee system.

For a new business to open, Newton’s zoning requires that it provide a number of parking spaces based on the size of the business (in terms of square feet, seats, employees, etc.)  In many towns, businesses that are unable to provide the required parking can pay a fee in lieu of providing that parking.  ”In-lieu” fees are then aggregated in an account and used to fund a broad range of programs that ensure the availability of necessary parking.  Such programs could include improved transit, improved signage to lower-cost employee parking farther from the business, pricing management to ensure parking availability, and, of course, building a parking garage.  (For more information on in-lieu fees, see this summary from Boston’s own Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, and check out the rest of their Parking Toolkit while you’re there.)

The most exciting part of an in-lieu fee program is that it explicitly recognizes that there are many ways to manage parking supply and demand.  It says: Parking management is possible.  Not just construction, and not just enforcement, but sophisticated, market-based approaches to ensuring adequate parking at lowest cost.

Consider the story of Stanford University’s efforts to manage their parking.  The university was growing, and its need to transport students and faculty to campus was growing as well.  The natural approach would be to build a parking garage, but before they did, they did a cost comparison.

(Thanks to Jason Schrieber of Nelson/Nygaard for this slide.  Click it to expand it.)

Starting from the bottom of the slide…

• Housing Joint Development, bringing the potential commuters to live in on-campus housing that’s integrated with alternative transportation modes, worked out to be least expensive for small numbers of commuters.  The negative number indicates the revenue (rather than cost) due to the housing rental/sale.
• Bike/pedestrian improvements are cheap to make small incremental increases in commuter access, but offer quickly diminshing returns.  You can induce only so much people-powered transport, no matter how cushy you make the traveled way.
• Similarly, transit was a cost-effective way to reach a small number of additional commuters.  As the numbers get larger, the extent of the transit network necessary to bring commuters from their far-flung homes becomes overwhelming.
• For small numbers of added commuters, structured parking (a garage) is a very costly way to go.
• Land is expensive on the Stanford campus, so surface parking, which consumes land so quickly, was the worst option.

The “Garage Efficiency Point” on the graph shows the price/number-of-commuters combination beyond which a parking garage was the least cost option.

Based on their analysis of need, a new parking garage would cost $7 per commuter per day, whereas a commuter shuttle would cost $2 per day.  They skipped the garage and went with the shuttle.

The point:  there are lots of options for handling parking.  It doesn’t stop at enforcement and building parking garages.  We should be gratified and proud that we in Newton are finally taking steps toward true parking management.  It will make our villages better and save us money in the long run.