Parking, Malden style

Well bless my soul, I can't believe I'm still around ... actually, I'm not around Newburyport and likely won't ever be again, but that's another story altogether ...

So, I'm down here in Malden, where the parking situation is pretty close to what Newburyport officials are proposing (or not proposing): that is, free on-street parking with time limits downtown, one free lot, etc. The only difference is - and forgive me if this is part of the plan - validation.

If you shop or eat or otherwise patronize enough businesses while downtown, you can erase your parking fee entirely through the validated parking scheme. Of course, I'm not sure how this would work w/a pay-and-display machine because you can't hand your validated ticket to a machine - and have it respond favorably.

(I've been downtown Malden w/my sister a few times now, and whereas the downtown Malden of my memory was a virtual ghost town, it's pretty bustling now. I don't know, but maybe it's that fabulous Asian restaurant w/the best sushi I've had in quite a while ... yum ...)

Anyway ... I'm not saying that Malden is Newburyport, or anything like Newburyport, because of course it's not. Like my opening paragraph, any reference to the multicultural aspects of Malden is another story altogether.

Time to get real and move on

From my new perspective, here in Gloucester (where you have to pay to park everywhere that's a public spot, by the way), I find this whole paid parking debate kind of ... "namby pamby."

Just last week, Gloucester imposed a new law in the city:

Adopted by a council vote of 7-1, the new ordinance language is designed to "regulate the practice of shuffling cars from one metered space to the next throughout the workday."

A ban on the practice has been imposed within the downtown area from Main and Spring Streets to Tally's Corner, at Main and Washington Street.

The new ordinance language declares: "Once a meter expires, it shall be unlawful to park the car in another metered space within the area" on any day except Sundays and holidays between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.

I've been in downtown Gloucester a few times now, and I don't find coughing up a couple of quarters to park to be too much for me to handle.

I think that this (Newburyport) City Council needs to be a bit more decisive and stop the endless meetings, information sessions and whatnot on every issue. There are plenty of opportunities for people to voice their opinions during the regular process for implementing plans and passing laws.

And you do NOT get to park for free in Gloucester, with a resident permit, except at the beach.

Life's a bitch, ain't it?

Council postpones vote on paid parking

Read about it here.

Paid parking (meeting) on Nov. 4

There's a meeting of the City Council (a meeting of the whole) to talk paid parking and it's this Thursday at 7:30 p.m., in City Council Chambers.

The parking consultant will be there to answer questions.

But do they take fils?

So, a reader sent me this link .... he asserts, I assume in jest, that this (selling parking meters to a foreign entity) might be the solution to all of Newburyport's financial woes.

The blog post from the the Atlantic Wire screams out the headline "Why Does Abu Dhabi Own All of Chicago's Parking Meters?" This is the first paragraph:

The city of Chicago has 36,000 parking meters. In 2008, it sold them on a 75 year lease for over one billion dollars. The buyers were led by Morgan Stanley. But as Matt Taibbi reports in his forthcoming book Griftopia, previewed in Rolling Stone, the state-owned investment arm of Abu Dhabi ended up owning a large share -- possibility a controlling majority -- in Chicago's parking meter system.

I'm not entirely sure that the words "lease" and "sale" are interchangeable, but ... oh, well.

And since Newburyport is buying only 6 (I believe) pay-and-display kiosks, the city could hardly reap a huge payday from the move ... but, hey, I have contacts in Kuwait!

Methinks the author of that blog was trying to stir up trouble ... something I try never to do ...

Paid parking (meeting)

I see (or saw) that you paid heed to my last post and flew down to City Hall at 6 p.m. last night to attend ... oh, wait, that was the line outside Park Lunch.

Silly people.

Anyway, I in jest told Mr. Y upon returning from the meeting that soon there will be a (paid) parking permit based on eye color. I said that soon, there would be a special permit for people with blue eyes.

This turned out to be a mistake because, of course, Mr. Y has eyes of this very color. He insisted that this particular permit should be free and went on to name several other special interest groups that should be able to park downtown for free.

Some of them he doesn't even belong to.

Ah, well, at some point I'll write a serious story on the meeting ... which, of course, Mr. Y did not attend, either.

Yikes.

Parking

There is a meeting tonight, somewhere ... I think it's at 6 p.m. and it's about paid parking.

People, I can't emphasize enough how important it is to attend these committee meetings if you care about an issue. By the time it gets to the full City Council, it's pretty much too late to voice your opinion.

The issues are examined in the committee meetings ...

So tonight (Thursday), 6 p.m. in City Council chambers.

If you care.

I have a story in today's Current about the parking garage. I think it's got some facts that are not well known ... in any case, I don't think there ever will be a parking garage.

Parking garage

According to Councillor Ari Herzog (via Facebook), there will be an order on the City Council agenda on Monday to site a parking garage on Titcomb Street.

As you I'm sure all know, the City Council has to approve a site, but not a plan (as in, they don't get to say "I want option 1, or option 1A"). There is a deadline to all this planning and that deadline is May 15.

I'm writing a story about this garage for this week's Current so I'm not going to say a whole lot here.

But I will say that some $500,000 of taxpayer money has been spent on this already. That's how much the site study cost (or that's the last figure I had).

It kind of boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Parking garage, conceptually speaking

Today was kind of a madhouse for me so naturally I forgot there was a public hearing on the proposed "intermodal" parking facility in the city. There were two options presented for each of two locations: Green Street and Titcomb Street.

Actually, the conceptual plans presented were rather attractive but the cost(s) was not. Mayor Holaday said the whole presentation (of which I missed 15 minutes, but I guess there was a fire alarm ...??) will be up on the city's website tomorrow.

Check it out there. I think I saw that in option 2 for Titcomb Street, the former Fitness Factory building is a green area ... grass, trees ...

Snow emergency parking

City Councillor At-large Ari Herzog informs me that the Council's Neighborhood & City Services committee - of which he is the chairman - will meet at 6:30 on Monday (before the City Council meeting and in Council chambers) to discuss protocols for parking during a snow emergency, as in how to improve public notification and information.

"I think it's a conversation we should have," Herzog told me.

Apparently during the snowstorm that didn't happen a couple of weeks ago, 2 of the blue lights that notify residents of a snow emergency did not work. Herzog has invited Marshal Howard, DPS Director Brendan O'Regan and Julia Godtfredsen from the Mayor's Office to the meeting.

Also Herzog said the Budget & Finance committee will meet the same evening, at 7:15, probably in the upstairs auditorium at City Hall.

Parking meters

Here is the link to the story in the Flint Journal about bringing parking meters back to Flint (MI - my former place of residence). Thanks, Dick, for reminding me!

I don't know how many of you read the story I wrote for Globe North on the subject of parking, but this is something that former Councillor James Shanley talked about with me. Former Mayor Byron Matthews had all the parking meters in NBPT torn out to encourage people to shop downtown rather than at a mall.

I would much rather feed a parking meter than pay $5 or $8 to park in a lot. If I'm just running into City Hall to pick up the City Council's agenda, why should I have to pay $5? I usually always park in the east NRA lot (when it's free, that is) and I like that arrangement. It's usually pretty empty and I get some measure of exercise walking up State Street.

But if the lot were no longer there, I would be willing to fork over some quarters to park on the street, in the lot, or anywhere else. Especially if I knew the money was going towards infrastructure.

Parking & etc.

The other day I was at an event where people were talking about parking in our city.


It's always interesting to me when people say - as they were here - that there's never anywhere to park downtown.


This week I've been downtown perhaps 3 times - and all 3 times I've found somewhere to park immediately.


Twice I parked across the street from City Hall on Pleasant St., where I find there usually is at least one space during business hours.


This morning I parked in the east NRA lot, which is where I usually park unless they are charging.


Sure sometimes there are potholes and a lot of puddles of water involved, but part of that lot is paved.


After some questioning, one of the people from the event I referenced above revealed that what she was looking for was a space right outside where she was going to shop.


Now that's another kettle of fish, isn't it?


She takes her neighbor shopping and the other woman can't walk very far.


Well, my mother is like that as well - and what we do is drop her off outside the store, find a place to park and meet her at the store. When we're ready to leave, we go get the car and pick her up outside the store.


This seems to be more a case of laziness than anything a parking garage or satellite parking could ever solve.


I admit that I rarely go downtown during an "event," but during Yankee Homecoming, or the River concerts or something, there was an important meeting at City Hall. I was forced to park all the way up by Kelley School!


What is that, 4 blocks away?


I lived in Boston for 20 years and never owned a car that whole time. If I needed to go somewhere in town, I mostly walked there. I walked to work. If I needed to go somewhere outside of town, I took the 'T.'


We don't have a rapid transit system here, of course (wouldn't that be amusing, though?), but I found that on trips where I was carrying stuff, taking a taxi was the easiest solution. Certainly cheaper than operating a car and trying to find a parking spot for said car.


That being said, I have found that I have gone from walking everywhere (or relying on mass transit) to pretty much driving everywhere. Even when there was bus service out here on the island that would have taken me right into town, I never used it.


Now it's gone due to a lack of participation.


Shame on me ... shame on us.


And don't forget that this garage everyone is talking about is basically a bus station with parking spaces above it.


Forget about analogies to Portsmouth; this is not Portsmouth. That city has a much bigger downtown with many more restaurants and businesses.


I have had a long discussion (about a year ago) with James Shanley about parking. He had some good and innovative ideas. He has studied this matter, along with others, extensively.


Both candidates have positions with which I both agree and disagree. You know I've said I'm not endorsing anyone for mayor and I'm not trying to do that now.


I've watched both these people closely in City Council and over the course of this blog I've noted things I've noticed about most of the councillors, including these two.


The debate is on the PortMedia website.





I don't envy you the choice you have to make.

Latest parking study

Today I came across this interesting post on the P. Preservationist blog.

Of course I wrote about the parking meeting for the Current but I did not get a chance to comment on here. It's been a hell of a week and frankly, I'm exhausted.

I agree totally with the Preservationist, except that I was surprised that at the very least Jim Roy did not JUMP all over the fact that the city may hand Mr. Karp a parking garage that would be paid for with public funds.

Just what I want - my tax dollars going to support a billionaire's business venture that I don't want to happen.

Of course our planning director Sean Sullivan told me that it wasn't giving New England Development anything because NED would be giving the land (they would be required to provie parking anyway, but not necessarily for the public - although NED would make more $ if it was open to the public).

Would this solve NED's problem of not having access to those 8 acres on Waterfront West? Would our tax dollars pay for that as well?

I have to say, though, that if this garage thing goes through, that would be the only place identified that I think it should go.

What a dilemma for me.

I'm not sure what this means

This morning, someone sent me a memo from Newburyport Development about parking for tenants of one of its properties on the waterfront (after the Waterfront Trust begins charging for its spaces).

It almost sounds as if ND has made some kind of deal with the city/the Redevelopment Authority to allow its tenants to park for free in the NRA lots on days when the rest of us have to pay (Fridays, weekends and during Yankee Homecoming).

We encourage you to continue to use the municipal parking lots that are free just beyond this area and on the other side of Market Landing Park. Understanding that the city does charge on Fridays during the summer and during Yankee Homecoming, the parking attendant has agreed to allow cars to park at no charge if they enter the parking lots either before 8:00 am (for the west lot) and 9:00 am (for the east lot).

Oh, so the NRA lots are "municipal parking lots" now? I'm not being snotty; I really want to know. Because on the east lot, there's this huge sign telling everyone that the lot is owned by the Newburyport Redevelopment Authority (which admittedly is a quasi-governmental entity) and the NRA keeps the revenue generated from the parking fees.

Did employees in City Hall get a similar communication, I wonder? And isn't there some kind of an ordinance to the effect that businesses more than 500 feet or something from a municipal lot have to provide their own parking?

I was looking this up when I got distracted by something else ... next post, peeps.

And the "parking attendant?" Is that the company that the NRA contracts to collect the parking fees ...? Nowhere in the whole thing are the words "Redevelopment Authority."

The memo goes on to say that parking by tenants in front of Newburyport Lighting and the Chamber of Commerce is verboten as those spaces are for customers.

Water St. parking

I like this one - the City Council is debating whether to restrict parking on Water St. south side from Federal St. to Independent St.

I have no idea where Independent St. is, but this is the area around The Tannery.

This is a nightmare stretch of road, right up to Market Square. It's the way I - and everyone on this side of town, I would guess - get into town. Even before The Tannery, it's awful.

And when there's a truck, delivering stuff to The Tannery - well, did I mention it's a nightmare?

And further along, towards town? I've already moaned and groaned about not being able to see oncoming cars when pulling out from a side street/parking lot because of the cars parked along the street.

Having said that, I think it only needs to be restricted during the day. It all clears out after business hours.

Speaking of parking

I'm getting really tired of not being able to see oncoming traffic as I turn from any side street onto High St. because cars are parked in the bike lane.

I also the other day saw a person on a bicycle nearly nailed because he had to bike into traffic because of some truck parked in the bike lane.

I have no idea how many times this happens to other people, but pulling out of the laundromat onto Water St. is also really a hazard because of on-street parking. In both these instances, if someone on the main street doesn't wave me out, I take my life into my hands.

And while I'm on the topic of turning out of a parking lot/side street, I'm also getting tired of not being able to see people/cars coming along in a parking lot, when I'm backing out of a parking spot, because I can't see through the SUVs parked next to the Jetta.

Last year, I actually hit another vehicle while backing out of a spot in the Green St. lot. An SUV parked next little Jettski (which I admit is unusually low) and I nailed the other vehicle. Fortunately, I was backing up really, really cautiously.

The woman driving the other vehicle admitted she wasn't paying attention because she was looking the other way for an empty spot.

(Of course, there happened to be a handy policeman on his bike in the immediate vicinity.)

It's common these days to designate spots for small cars only. Perhaps it's time to do that in parking lots here. I know it's done to maximize spaces but it also could be safer for those of us in normal-sized cars, for city driving.

Google it

I'm reiterating my complaint about ads that appear on the Daily News site, while a page is being loaded.

This latest one, for something called a Zwinky, was up for way too long. I know I'm a very impatient person, but this was ridiculous.

I almost gave up looking for this editorial, about the newest parking study.

While I agree with whoever wrote it that it seems to be an exercise in futility, the Daily News keeps ignoring the facts of the matter (or they're relying on Sean Sullivan, who didn't know all the facts).

Perhaps in the future a garage will be needed, when billionaire Steven Karp finally moves forward with plans for the waterfront. Why not wait until that day arrives and let a plan emerge at that time?

I have the answer to that question. This project is going in dribs and drabs and the money is only flowing in one part at a time. The first part is a study.

As transit authority administrator Joseph Costanzo (from the Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority) said to me here, "This is a very preliminary step in a long journey."

Don't these people do any kind of search before they write stuff? The earmark is clearly spelled out both on a goverment site and in a press release from Congressman Tierney (all except the part about the 20% match).

My objection is that its sucking up federal funds that could have been better used elsewhere. The earmark was granted in 2005 ... the city could just have ignored it and I assume the $1.672 mil would have gone back to wherever it came from.

Which sounds just fine to me.

If Karp needs a traffic study and a parking garage, let him pay for it himself. That's my and your taxpayer dollars going to pay for something a private individual could well have afforded.

I can't wait until this whole Waterfront Trust matter is revealed for what I think it is - a land grab.

I so hope I'm wrong.

Bus stop

First an update: When I got home just now, I had a message from Peggy Brown, chairwoman of the Licensing Commission. (1) Chief Cutter has no problem with Oregano barriers, as long as they are not permanent and can be moved in case of an emergency and (2) the application was forwarded to the ABCC with the caveat about NFD approval attached.


So on to the parking study.


There have been a few comments to the story in the Daily News.

In light of my previous post, which I actually composed this morning, the parking study and the (perhaps) entrance to Karpville might conveniently coincide, if the Green Street lot is selected as the spot for the garage.

With the mixed retail/parking scenario mentioned in the DN piece (see below), I can't see any other viable city-owned spot for it ... except on the waterfront, of course. Don't think that's on the agenda, though.

The consultant will determine a site for public parking that will be most cost effective and provide the most benefit, Sullivan said, noting that a structure would be a more likely outcome than an open parking lot. The parking facility could be modeled after a new structure in Lowell that has retail space on the bottom level and parking beginning on the second floor, he added.

And the coincidences keep mounting. They could just be coincidences ...

Here's another question: how much retail can Newburyport support?

And here's another point: this garage is supposed to be intermodal, which stands for transfer to and from personal transportation to public transit.

Does that mean it could be a bus station for the MVRTA, like the one in Haverhill?

It's possible, according to the MVRTA guy I spoke to last fall. That would be fun, huh?

Bah humbug.

Huh?

I'm confused.

I just read this in the Daily News, about restoration of funding for a parking garage feasibility study

State money for another downtown parking garage study has come through after all, city officials said yesterday, meaning the city can once again take up the question of what to do about the parking situation.

"That's big news and very good news," Planning Director Sean Sullivan said.

The state will fund $95,178, and the federal government will contribute $380,000. The city is working with the Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority, which was the actual recipient of the grant.

Just last October, I wrote this for the Boston Globe North.

A portion of the $1,672,000 is in the transit authority's hands to cover fees for the consultant, Costanzo said. Congress will in 2009 be authorizing transportation funds for the next six years, and the $1,672,000 will cover the study and maybe up to final design of the project, if it moves forward, he added.

I guess the "portion" was $380,000 - but what happened to the whole $1.672?

Looks like I'm going to have to find out!