Riverside and Parking, Pt III

If it's better for surrounding neighborhoods to eliminate the park-and-ride spaces, why are nearby residents concerned that the developer create enough parking to satisfy current park-and-ride demand. In fact, why do some want more T parking, enough to satisfy demand on Red Sox game days?

In a word: overflow. Neighbors don't want the traffic that now goes directly to the Riverside lot to start trolling the neighborhood and parking in front of their houses.

But, on-site parking to prevent parking on residential streets is a crude tool with substantial negative consequences. Adding on-site parking limits either or both density and walkability. Without a walkable, human scale, Riverside will be just another sprawly, car-centric, suburban strip mall. Less density means less opportunity for the vitality that people on the street create. And, as surely as night follows day, parking generates traffic.

There are tools, however, that can limit neighborhood parking: residential parking permits, short-duration parking restrictions. I'm not sure that on-street parking should be discouraged on all streets around Riverside. On-street parking slows traffic and creates a buffer between moving traffic and pedestrians on the sidewalk. But, if the neighborhood wants no parking on a street or streets, parking ought to be restricted directly, not indirectly by requiring "enough" spaces on-site.