85% occupancy, thursday, july 11, 915am.
28 of 33 non-handicapped spaces occupied. A big improvement in usage from previous observations a year ago!
This may bode well for the future parking at the new mbta lot.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
high weekday occupancy at auburndale commuter rail parking lot
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
A Solar Sound Barrier at the Auburndale Commuter Rail Station
Plans are afoot to move the Auburndale Commuter Rail Station to the north side of the MBTA tracks, abandoning the existing south-side platform. This would create a long strip of unused land, south of the tracks, from the Woodland Rd. Bridge to the Grove/Lexington St. Bridge.
Here's an idea for productive use of that to-be-abandoned paved strip, that simultaneously serves as a much needed sound barrier: Build a sound-blocking solar array, spanning the length of the strip.
Being on the far north side of the Mass Pike, with great south facing exposure, makes this the perfect location for a solar array.
Being on the far north side of the Mass Pike, with great south facing exposure, makes this the perfect location for a solar array.
A 15' tall solar array spanning the 1500' between the bridges would amount to about 1/2 Megawatt of power, enough to take about 100 average Massachusetts homes off the grid. This installation capacity would exceed any existing or planned installation in the city.
This idea can be entertained after the new station is built, but for now we shouldn't foreclose the opportunity for use of that strip of pavement. Mass DOT could ask an Energy Services Company (ESCO) about the site potential and to check my numbers.
This idea can be entertained after the new station is built, but for now we shouldn't foreclose the opportunity for use of that strip of pavement. Mass DOT could ask an Energy Services Company (ESCO) about the site potential and to check my numbers.
Let's generate fossil free energy, reduce traffic noise, and make a highly visible statement to all I-90 motorists about Newton's commitment to sustainability.
Friday, March 30, 2012
1065 Empty Parking Spaces at Riverside during Peak Business Hours
I counted them by eye, Friday AM, 10:15-10:45.
Here's the breakdown:
MBTA Lot: 490 Empty spaces
Riverside Center: 441 Empty spaces
Indigo Hotel: 134 Empty spaces (and only 72 occupied, for a dismal 35% occupancy).
Another way to look at this: 192,000 square feet of wasted space (actually, worse: 192,000 sq. ft of impervious urban heat island).
The gate is wide open to "visitors" - zero incentive for people to use transit.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Parking Glut at Riverside
Here was the scene at Riverside today (Thursday) at 10:15AM - when we expect maximum weekday commuter parking. 
And here is empty parking in the parking garage at Riverside Center, at 10:10AM on a weekday. I counted about 150 unoccupied parking spaces. The gates in this garage were wide open - unregulated, free parking, and they still don't fill the lot. I wonder how many park-and-riders are sneaking in here.
These photos made me realize, in planning for the pending Riverside Development, we need to do homework: obtain parking data from the MBTA and the office park to analyze just how much parking is really used/needed now, and in the future. It looks like we have an oversupply.
(lest you think I am cherry picking, below are a few more views:
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
128 to become permanent parking lot
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council warns that 128 is going to see 77% more traffic between Route 3 and the Turnpike ... and then proposes band-aids: shuttle buses.
The projected increase in traffic is going to be fueled by new development. Why not meet the new demand with a supply of mass transit? Why isn't the answer new rail or bus rapid transit?
The right orientation on Boylston Street
Encouraging news on the Chestnut Hill Shopping Center front: the developer intends to re-orient the buildings to engage Boylston Street.
It’s a project that in certain respects has its back to Boylston Street, and we’re going to turn it into a project that has its back on no one.
It's a shame that NED didn't have the same attitude a block away.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Ding, dong, the Atrium is dead
Wondering about the future of the Atrium, Tiffany's has been the piece that didn't fit. Given the overwhelming decline of the Atrium, why had Tiffany's stayed? With Tiffany's, could mall-owner Simon still make a go at high-end retail? Given competitor Chestnut Hill Square coming online soon, could the Atrium attract high-quality retail tenants (or retain the two that are left) without it's marquee tenant?
At least one question answered: Tiffany's is moving across the street to the Mall. (Apparently, it's been public since April. I just saw it here.)
Gotta believe that that's it for the Atrium.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Hess-Mahan: Bike racks were not extorted!
I have tweaked the Board of Aldermen for extracting bike racks from Beacon Street as a special permit condition. Aldercritter Hess-Mahan weighs in with a defense:
Oy! "Extorted"? Really? Please!
The special permit laws provide that when a special permit granting authority (SPGA) approves a special permit, it may impose conditions that are intended to mitigate the impact of the project. That is exactly what the Land Use Committee and the Board of Aldermen, as the SPGA, did in this instance. The BOA granted a special permit waiving the requirement that B Street provide additional parking in Newton Centre for its proposed expansion. As a condition, Land Use proposed, and B Street agreed to require bike racks that were intended to encourage people to ride their bicycles to Newton Centre instead of driving their cars, thereby reducing the demand for parking spaces.
As the Chairman of the Land Use Committee, I have worked tirelessly with the planning department and my colleagues trying to erase the antiquated and incorrect notion that every special permit requires a "public benefit," which has no basis in the law and bears the indicia of paying "tribute" rather than providing mitigation for the impact of special permit projects.
Please do not unfairly malign our efforts to improve the special permit process. I am also working on amending the parking regulations. But until they are changed, we must apply the law as it is written.
My position continues to be that the parking requirement that necessitated the special permit application is a bad law. So, any condition put on its waiver is unwarranted.
But, Alderman Hess-Mahan deserves credit for his committee's continued good outcomes on parking waivers and for wrestling with these issues.
B Street B Racks
Updated: According to Aldercritter Hess-Mahan in the comments, Beacon Street only reimbursed the city for installation and that the cost was covered by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Makes the condition a little more palatable.
As attentive readers may recall, as part of the absolutely correct decision to grant B Street (then Pie) a parking waiver, the Land Use committee extorted from negotiated with the owners a commitment to pay for installation of food-themed bike racks.
Here they are. Around the corner from the restaurant and in front of a bank.
Maybe it's wishful thinking. With the way things are going in Newton Centre, maybe the tide has turned and the bank will be replaced by a restaurant. Doubt it.
The likelier explanation is that there is no room in front of the restaurant. The sidewalk is too mean and narrow.
At a minimum, though, the B Street-supplied racks ought to have some permanent recognition that they were donated by bStreet.
Newton Centre Racks
Here are the new racks in Newton Centre (that I've found so far). Send pictures of other new racks anywhere in Newton and I'll post them.
Next to Bigelow's on Sumner, near the corner of Langley.
In front of Tete a Tete on Beacon, near the corner of Sumner.
In front of Zoots and Peet's, on Beacon.
On the corner of Centre and Beacon, near Piccadilly Square.
At the corner of Beacon and Herrick (yes, that's Herrick, not Union), in front of Bank of America.
On Centre, near Cypress, in front of Piccadilly Square.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Maryland hand-me-downs
What a stunning denunciation of the state of our transit system that we are leasing trains from Maryland, just to keep things afloat. Maryland's investment in its system is so much better than ours that their surplus markedly upgrades our regular fleet.
Really, really deplorable.
A sign that opening day is upon us
What's in the bag? A parking meter that has been installed on Beacon Street near Audubon Circle/St. Mary's Place in Brookline. Perhaps more importantly, it's just a few blocks from Fenway. Attention-paying readers will recall that Brookline is instituting market-based meter rates on Red Sox game days as a way of ensuring that there is turnover of spaces during games. Space turnover means that businesses in the area, particularly restaurants, don't suffer because all on-street parking is consumed by game-goers.
What does that have to do with this meter-in-a-bag? You can't do market-based rates with old meters. You've got to have new technology. Hence, the appearance of this meter -- and a bunch more on Beacon. They've been installed in time for opening day and the institution of the new game-day rate policy.
Friday, March 18, 2011
High-speed rail and walking to a village
One of the key arguments in favor of inter-city rail is that it will improve opportunities for air travelers.
Last year, nearly a million people flew between Logan and JFK or LaGuardia (and presumably several hundred thousand to Newark). High(er)-speed rail between Boston and New York would provide a more competitive alternative to flying, which would reduce the demand for flights. Reduced demand for flights to and from New York would up limited terminal space and takeoff/landing slots for flights to destinations that cannot be easily served by rail, basically any place outside the Northeast corridor.
If you want more and better air travel choices, encourage rail improvements to remove congestion from airports.
That lesson scales. Better mass transit for commuters takes drivers off the roads, making less congestion for those who need to commute by car. Better bike accommodations encourages people to bike rather than drive, when they can, freeing up space for drivers who can't bike -- too far, picking up kids, &c. Better pedestrian accommodations encourages people to walk rather than bike or drive, ...
The larger point is that mobility options are not anti-car (or anti-air travel). They are pro-mobility. Everybody wins.
Magical things happening in Newton Centre
Dear Mayor Warren,
Just wanted to let you know that, sometime today, a squad of bike-rack fairies seemed to have hit Newton Centre, sprinkling magic post-and-ring bike racks all over the center.
Just wanted to let you know. Could be a city-wide epidemic.
Pics tomorrow.
Fondly,
NS&S
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Bike lanes and priority bike lanes, what's the difference?
In light of the regulatory hurdles to "real" bike lanes in Newton, given the actual amount of on-street parking for long stretches of key roads (Beacon, Comm. Ave., Walnut, Parker, Langley, &c.), and given the necessity to provide more explicit bike accommodation than striped shoulders to attract less experienced cyclists to the streets, there's a strong case to be made for so-called priority bike lanes.
In practical terms, though, one might ask: what's the difference? The difference boils down to whether the outside, left edge of the bike lane is solid or dashed. That's it.
If the outside edge is dashed, a bike lane is not exclusive to bikes. The dashed treatment is seen wherever bike lanes cross intersections or where the bike lane slots between the travel lane and a right-turn lane. The clear intent of the lane, even when dashed is to provide a safe haven for bicyclists. It's just not as rigidly exclusive.
Where parking is currently allowed, but rarely used, the priority bike lane should be superior to the striped shoulder. It should be just as effective at keeping cars in the travel lane and out of the shoulder. It should be more effective at delineating space for bicycles, attracting inexperienced cyclists. And, if anything, it should act as a mild discouragement for the otherwise legal parking.
A net win that can be accomplished without regulatory change.
Is a "real" bike lane preferable? No question. Better to have parking prohibited, even where it's rarely used -- maybe especially where parking is rarely used, since there's little downside. But, the difference isn't worth the fight. Not now, at least. Put in priority bike lanes, which will improve accommodation and spur ridership growth. Revisit the issue when the demand is higher.
Friday, March 4, 2011
How bikes and legal parking can co-exist
Alex: Priority bike lanes.
Watson: What is the solution to the conflict between parking regulations and traditional bike lane rules?
As I discussed below, there are long stretches of Newton streets on which we want to have bike accommodations where there isn't a lot of parking, but parking is legal and the street is not wide enough for travel lanes, bike lanes, and parking in the shoulder. Because parking is legal, bike lanes are not permissible. (Note, some of these same roads have stretches where parking is legal and regularly used (at least during the day). Those stretches are a different case.) And, striped shoulders -- legal for parking and separate space for bikers where no one actually parks -- are not sufficient accommodations to attract new riders to the streets.
In sum, we've got shoulders that are currently available for biking and for parking, but without real demand for the parking and no way to make it more inviting to ride in them.
The answer to the problem is some sort of hybrid treatment of the shoulder that designates it's a place for bikes to ride, but also acceptable for parking. Putting a sharrow in the shoulder isn't a good idea, because sharrows designate -- as the name suggests -- a shared space for moving cars and moving bicycles. We don't want to create an invitation for cars to drive in the shoulder.
But, priority bike lanes might work. Priority bike lanes are, essentially, bike lanes with the bike lane stencil, but using dashed lines rather than solid lines to demarcate the lane. Priority bike lanes indicate to bicyclists and motorists where bikes are expected to travel and where motorists are supposed to yield to bicyclists. They are typically used where there is no other facility for bikes and bicyclists need to ride in the travel lane. They set out a space for bikes that cars may also use.
For the problem of the regulatory conflict on our street's shoulders, they may be perfect. Because they define a shared space, there is no need to undo parking regulations to install them. The combination of the striped line and the stencil should provide motorist with notice to expect bikes and to be careful. The stencil will invite the less advanced rider. And the dashed line will allow the accommodation to co-exist with the seldom used right to park.
There may be some design niceties about whether it might be good to bring a priority bike lane a little into the travel lane, But, otherwise, that's it: a bike lane with a dashed line rather than a solid line. The answer to the regulatory conflict that prevents us from taking full advantage of the space in the shoulders.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Paying for paving
We're wrapping up a winter with unusually high snow removal costs. And, we've got an epidemic of potholes that are going to have to be fixed.
This might be a good time to reflect on the fact that maintaining a traffic infrastructure costs serious money and that we expect road conditions that exceed our willingness to pay for them. It's time for a higher gas tax, with a distribution to municipalities for roadway maintenance based on traffic volumes and a significant distribution for transit and other alternative transportation.
What's the real conflict between bikes and parking?
It is an article of faith that, in Newton, there are two major impediments to bike accommodations: too narrow streets and legal parking. Combine them and they eliminate the possibility of bike lanes. There just isn't room in the right of way for travel lanes, bike lanes, and parking. That requires at least 20' -- 9' travel lane, 4' bike lane, and 7' parking shoulder -- and more like 23' in each direction. So it's posed as an either or: bike lanes or parking.
But, maybe things aren't as bad as they seem.
Along the streets where parking is principally overflow parking, there is no real competition for space between bikes and cars. The shoulder is predominantly available for cycling and a striped shoulder separates bikes from traffic pretty well. But, because of regulation, that nice space for biking can't be designated as an official bike lane. A bike lane can't be striped where cars can legally park.
For long stretches, it isn't a conflict between actual cars and actual bikers, but a conflict of regulations.
On those long stretches of road, why isn't a striped shoulder enough? From my own experience (principally on Beacon and Winchester) the stripes keep the cars out of the shoulder. But, the goal is broader than making life safer for the bikers on the road now. We want to encourage more riders. And, unfortunately, the stripes don't attract new bikers to the shoulder.
Less advanced riders, the riders we need to attract to our city streets, don't feel comfortable without more explicit bike accommodations.
So, what are we to do? One option is to disallow parking, at least from the stretches where parking is infrequently used. That's certainly a better balance of accommodation for bikes and cars: full time access for bikes at the expense of occasionally used parking. But, it invites a political battle.
What if there were a way to create bike accommodations that attract new riders without taking on the parking regulations? The answer lies in this bit of reality. If the regulations did allow parking and a bike lane to co-exist on these up-for-grabs stretches of road, the actual incidence of parking wouldn't be too much of a concern. Occasionally, a biker would have to go out into the road. Not ideal, but much better than what we have now. And, not too different than what you see with the occasional illegally parked car in official bike lanes in other cities.
Next up: the solution.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Riverside lot not for Newton residents
Natick man got a ticket from Wellesley the day he parked in Newton, in the Riverside lot. Funny story. Wellesley town staff used a hand-held ticketing scanner, supposedly coded not to issue tickets, to do a license-place survey of cars in the Riverside lot. But, they accidentally issued tickets on the surveyed cars.
Why is Wellesley doing a survey of an MBTA lot in Newton? Because the town wants to know the transportation choices that its residents make. And, enough of them are presumably using the Riverside lot to matter. And, apparently, folks from Natick, too.
How, exactly, is this good for Newton?
Saturday, January 8, 2011
How the aldermen helped kill the Atrium
The Atrium has a bunch of flaws*, but when you ask people why they don't like to shop there, the number one complaint is parking. Not "they don't have any stores I like." Parking. It was parking when there was William-Sonoma and other now gone stores were there. It was parking when the economy was humming along.
Parking. Parking. Parking.
People hate it.
But, when you consider the Atrium from a land-use perspective, the number one thing it's got going for it is parking. It's a building with over 100,000 square feet of retail space and around 20 surface parking spaces. It's a giant parking structure with a few stores above it. By comparison, the first phase of Chestnut Hill Square is going to have just under 250,000 sq. ft. and 699 surface parking spaces. To be fair, the planned but not guaranteed second phase will have a 300+ space parking garage when the 90-100 residential spaces are built. And, the second phase will eliminate about 100 surface spaces. But, in the end it'll be about 600 surface spaces.
So, what's the board got to do with this?
In a not-even-perfect world, we'd have a lot more structured parking. Surface parking encourages sprawl, creates run-off problems, &c. But, structured parking is at least marginally less appealing for shoppers who drive. So, a mall -- like Chestnut Hill Square or the Mall at Chestnut Hill -- will be a more appealing option than something like the Atrium, which is served almost exclusively by a parking garage. When Land Use and then the full board capitulated to New England Development's one-less-surface-space-and-we-walk threat**, they not only doomed Chestnut Hill Square from a land-use perspective, but they made things worse for the Atrium in this particular regard. It's not only a competing mall within spitting distance, it's a competing mall with more surface parking.
Obviously, this is a regional problem. Making more structured parking at Chestnut Hill Square wouldn't undo the attraction of the surface parking at the Mall at Chestnut Hill or the Chestnut Hill Shopping Center or any of the dozens of surface-parking surrounded shopping options in the area. But, it sure would have been nice if the board had not reduced the incentive to provide structured parking.
* Pedestrian access across the front is awful. The wall along Florence Street is inhospitable. No open space. Possibly even not enoughsurface parking.
** The irony, of course, is that New England Development built the Atrium and it's underground parking garage, which undoubtedly cost 2 or 3 times per parking space what an above-ground garage would cost, and built it with far more capacity then has ever been met by demand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
