It’s the Parking. Really. 
 In this update, I talk about the unexpected ways that parking affects: 

1. Buildings and streetscapes 
   
   
2. Newton’s vulnerability to climate impacts, particularly 
   1. ​Heat 
   2. Flooding 

 
Buildings 
Parking turns out to be a driver of more than just trips (pro tip: more parking=more driving=more traffic. 

In fact, parking, or specifically government-mandated “minimum parking requirements,” are one of the reasons new apartment and office buildings are often massive and ugly. The higher the minimums (which are built into zoning codes—Newton’s is particularly high), the more likely the building will look massive and generic.   
In this scenario, the parking comes first—the apartments or offices are a thin veneer around a garage! 
First a developer acquires a large block of property, builds a multi-story garage to meet the parking minimums, and builds the stuff that will sell/rent (apartments, condos, offices, etc.) around  the outside. 
 
Parking minimums began in the car- and sprawl-happy 1950s and later, as planners assumed that everyone who could, would drive. A similar assumption drove the demolition of rail and street-car services. Since then, we have learned the economic and climate consequences of drive-everywhere culture, and City Council has started requiring developers of larger projects to include transit passes, bike- and car-share and carpool programs, among other things.  
 
One reason is that it’s clear all these spaces are underutilized. Look at the parking lots surrounding many of our stores on Needham Street and even on a busy shopping day, many spaces sit unoccupied (many of them meet Newton’s current parking minimums). I toured a new, luxury development in Waltham’s downtown recently and noticed that most of the cars occupying the spaces were dusty. On a Monday morning—so they weren’t being used for commuting or for weekend shopping trips! 
 
If Newton were to reduce its parking minimum in half (and remember that developers can always produce more parking than the minimum if they wish), a single story of underground parking could allow for courtyard-type buildings with amenities in the middle. 
 
The developer would still need a large block of property, but could dig down just far enough to hide a full-size parking lot with one entrance. Building above might have to still be fairly big, but it could allow for more air, light, and shared space for playgrounds or other community assets. 
 
Buildings with no parking minimums? Well, that’s how any of our village centers built before 1950 were constructed. Sometimes homes and shops included spots for cars (or horses). Sometimes the builder assumed people would walk or take transit. So yes—parking can shape buildings, even whole village squares. 
 
My take: I personally prefer the look and feel of those buildings created without massive parking—this has also been called building for a “human scale,” not for “auto scale.” 
 
Climate Impacts:  

1. Heat: 

Throughout this winter, the city is assessing the risks of extreme heat and more intense rainfall as a result of the emissions that already are in the area’s future. These are climate changes that are highly likely even if we stop using fossil fuels today. Here’s (p21) where Newton has “heat islands”—those areas that are hotter than normal on a hot, sunny day:  
 
The reddest areas are hottest. They are also where Newton has the highest density of surface parking lots—along Washington Street, Needham Street, at the Chestnut Hill malls, etc. 
 
Buildings also have an impact on heat, but there are many available technologies that will lessen this—from painting the roof white to planting a flat roof. It’s a little more expensive to build, but both of these methods reduce operating costs. 
 

1. Flooding 

The second, and possibly bigger, threat to Newton’s population is water. We had a foretaste of what that might look like in March of 2010 and over the snowy part of winter 2015. When we build and pave over open space, water doesn’t filter back into the ground; instead it flows—often fast—into storm drains.  
 
Pollution—nutrients from exhaust as well as junk on the ground—washes into the Charles River, Crystal Lake and –sometimes—into our sewer pipes, overwhelming them. Therefore, one of the recommendations of the climate vulnerability plan is to depave—to reduce the size of parking lots, the width of streets, driveways, etc. The newly-asphalt-free spots can become places where street trees could thrive, or places for rain gardens—installations designed to absorb water (more than just grass or garden). 
 
So in this way, also, parking and driving can affect our future in a changing climate. 
 
In other words, we in Newton have choices to make that will affect the city’s future. Do we continue to build for cars or for people? How will we address flooding and heat? Do we want to drive alone and be able to park everywhere, or is it time to take some of our trips in other ways?  
 
My take: City officials, including city councilors, need to do whatever we can to avert climate disasters and to mitigate the effects of those that will be coming our way. I’d like to see city officials get out of the business of estimating parking needs (leave that to the developers, who have skin in the game), and, if anything, restrict new parking—both to save current residents’ lives and property threatened by heat and water, but simultaneously for our kids’ future on the planet. 
 
Action I encourage you to read the material on the city’s website about Washington Street (deadline Dec. 2) and the Climate Vulnerability assessment and to comment.  
 
You can comment on the Washington Street Vision via the city website. There’s a public hearing on the Climate Vulnerability Assessment Dec. 10 at 7 pm in City Hall.  
 
The links are here:  
1.Washington Street
2. Climate Vulnerability: 

While new school buildings and large paving projects certainly command attention, some of the less visible and less expensive items can represent a disproportionate improvement in quality of life. This month, I am focusing on these.

• pedestrian refuges and other traffic islands
• lines on the street
• Friends of Cold Spring Park
• Trees
• Events

1. Islands A project dear to my heart was the shortening of pedestrian refuges (a protected island between lanes where pedestrians can safely wait for a break in traffic) in several parts of Newton. Why? Some posed an obstacle to people in wheelchairs. A glaring and dangerous example was the pedestrian refuge island at the intersection of Washington and Beacon streets in Lower Falls. I had seen a man in a motorized wheelchair, heading to the hospital, who had to cross Beacon by rolling into the traffic lane on Washington! This island is now shortened, so the crosswalk is uninterrupted by curb, as is the one at Lowell and Commonwealth.

More expensive, but unusually effective—the upgrade of pedestrian crossings in Newton Corner at the circle. Just a little extra curb—sometimes with a grass berm—audible signals, and—most visibly—the removal of yews that blocked motorists' view of each other. Something more lovely still needs to be planted in these islands, but already it looks much better—and is safer for all!

2. Lines As part of the reconstruction of Beacon Street—this year's section was Walnut to Centre—has included the painting of generous “fog lines”--the white lines on either side of the road. These already function as de-facto bike lanes, but more importantly, they encourage drivers to slow down to the speed limit. I've noticed it on my own drives, and I'm sure pedestrians appreciate the additional distance as well as the new sidewalks.

3. Park Off pavement, the newly-formed Friends of Cold Spring Park (on Facebook @FriendsofColdSpringPark; FriendsofColdspringPark@gmail.com) helped and publicized Alex Rivero's Eagle Scout project—several raised board walks across some of the muddy sections of the fitness path there. The Friends are raising money for more trail improvements, and are working with Parks & Recreation staff, to prioritize other sections. It's worth it to follow the page just for the quirky events, artifacts, animal sightings (weasels!) and history trivia. Donate (tax-deductible) for trail improvements with a check to Newton Conservators with “Friends of CSP” on the memo line: PO Box 610023, Newton 02461.

4. Trees: Join the Newton Tree Conservancy to plant over 100 new street trees Nov. 17th. I'm signed up, and you can too—this is a wonderful way to improve air quality, mitigate climate change and enhance the beauty of Newton streets. The link to join them is
https://www.signupgenius.com/go/60b084ca9aa2fa1fc1-fall

5. Office Hours: After I clean up from the tree planting, I'm holding office hours at the family-owned Grape Leaf, 6 Lincoln St, Newton Highlands from 11 am – 12:30. Come to find out more about zoning, the city's two big climate plans, or anything else on your mind. You won't regret trying the gyros!

6. Zoning, Ward 5 Edition: If you live or own in Ward 5, save the evening of November 29th. We don't have a venue confirmed yet, but it looks like that's the evening the Planning Department will join us to talk Zoning Redesign as it affects our ward

​What is Inclusionary Zoning?
Since 2003, Newton has required developers who create 6 or more new units of housing to provide 15% of that project’s units at rents or selling prices within the reach of low- to moderate-income households (households with gross annual incomes at or below 80% of area median income, AMI). This ordinance is called Inclusionary Zoning (IZ). It is a common method to encourage the private production of affordable housing. A full description, and details are here: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/lrplan/inclusionary_zoning.asp)
 
Problem was, from April 2003 until this year, only 14 affordable units were built in Newton under this ordinance (more were built under the anti-snob zoning state law we refer to as 40B).
 
Newton’s Housing Strategy (2016) proposed amending the IZ ordinance to see if the production of affordable units could be enhanced, and Mayor Warren docketed a request to increase the IZ requirement. Several councilors docketed a request then to study the question.
 
Last March, the consultant, RKG Associates, presented their analysis of the proposed update to the ordinance - what it costs to build a unit in the city, and at what point the IZ requirement is too high--meaning no new housing units.
 
All developers—few can finance purchase and construction with cash—need to meet the requirements of lenders to move forward with development. Once they factor in probable income, minus cost of land, cost of construction, cost of permitting and other soft costs (architects, lawyers, etc.), the costs of affordable units, operation costs, and debt service, their rate of return has to hit those financial requirements to get funded.
 
RKG calculated the tipping point between building vs. abandoning housing investments in various scenarios for Newton, and provided the Planning Department with their financial feasibility model, so that staff can now calculate the tipping point themselves.
 
The resulting recommendation is that the new IZ requirement first apply with the addition of 7 or more units; that the number of required IZ units vary between 15-17.5% of total units in the project, depending on the size and constitution of the development (rental or ownership); and that the required IZ units include a mix of affordability levels (up to 120% of AMI).

In addition, developers of any project that consists of 100% affordable units will be allowed to choose the mix of affordability, rather than comply with the city’s required mix. This may allow, for instance, a 100% middle-income senior-friendly apartment or condo building (with units affordable to households with incomes between 81% and 120% AMI).
 
Currently, our ordinance applies to projects with a net increase of 6 or more units under a special permit application, but not to any by-right construction. Newton also has a “density bonus” for projects that provide greater affordability than what is required, but the proposed ordinance removes that, since this incentive has resulted in very few new affordable units.
 
One of the factors that I found most interesting in RKG’s financial analysis of the proposed update was what happened with parking. In all of the scenarios explored by RKG, the consultant assumed multi-family housing would be built near transit, allowing Newton’s lowest parking minimum of 1.25 spaces/unit. As the number of units grows—over 35 units—the assumption is that the parking moves underground.
 
The number of affordable units is contingent on how much the developer subsidizes parking (and thus driving). And because underground parking is so expensive (I’ve heard estimates between $50-$100,000/space), the percentage of required affordable units has to be significantly lower once underground parking kicks in to make the project viable.
 
(Newton has some of the most generous parking minimums within the 128 area. Clearly, the City needs to decide whether it wants to continue to subsidize driving or housing, and to what extent.)
 
So currently, the committee is looking at changing the IZ ordinance to allow for more affordable units across various sizes and types of development. But we also need to decide whether to aim for fewer overall affordable units with deeper levels of affordability or a greater number of affordable units at higher levels of affordability (middle-income or “work force housing” for instance).
 
What do you think?
 
In other developments:
The Northland project for Oak and Needham streets started public hearings Sept. 24. Details here: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/current/devrev/hip/northland.asp  I am particularly interested in how the project will address the transportation needs of those inside and coming to the site.

Lately, there has been some talk about putting a moratorium on certain kinds of development. While the message this sends is well-taken, the effect may be more uncontrolled development.
Here’s some background:
 
City Council is currently working on modernizing our Zoning Code—we and the mayor heard clearly that the current code wasn’t working well—mansions instead of cottages, special permits for dormers and porches. Phase 1 zoning redesign was completed several years ago and we are in the midst of a multi-year process with multiple opportunities for community input right now.
 
You may have noticed some building going on near Washington Street in Newtonville. There is more proposed for West Newton and probably Needham Street.
 
Also, the city has just completed a week of Washington Street Visioning, which came hard upon the heels of a Needham Street Vision.
 
I sit on the Zoning and Planning subcommittee of the Council, and our meetings have been, to put it mildly, action-packed.
 
It’s a lot to digest, and I understand the appeal of a moratorium on development along Washington Street. And to blame a certain zoning designation for the two holes in the ground that may or may not turn out to be great buildings for Newtonville.
 
Three docket items related to this are pending before City Council.

 1.Removing MU4 from the zoning code.
 
MU4, or Mixed Use 4, is an optional zoning district. It is only applied by special permit. So removing it from the mix of tools the Council can use only removes Council discretion. We can independently not vote for any more MU4 designations without passing an ordinance forcing ourselves to do so.
 
Moreover, MU4 was crafted to mimic the very village centers most of us like—first floor retail or walk-in services, second floor office or residential, homes above. The mix makes sense when people want to walk, rather than drive, for most trips. It is prevalent in those historic villages built before 1950—when street cars and feet got us most places.
2.    Moratorium on building projects more than 10,000 sq. feet along Washington Street.
Again, any large projects going in along any of Newton’s streets will need a special permit—which gives Council discretion and allows us to work with a developer to improve the project—making it more sustainable, sturdy, lovely, pedestrian-friendly, etc.
 
Voting in either #1 or #2 would make it more, not less, likely that a developer would instead opt for a 40B, or anti-snob, development—all housing, some of it affordable, that circumvents most of a municipality’s zoning. I chose to keep some control for the city.
3.    Restricting residential uses in mixed-use projects to no more than 50%.
The concern I hear from the authors of this item are that housing will be filled with children, who will use our schools and increase Newton’s debts. Newton is rightly proud of its public schools and the desire of many outside of Newton to avail themselves of them is real.
 
But it’s far from proven that housing will fill predominately with parents and children. Regional studies show otherwise. Mayor Fuller has hired a consultant to check Newton’s own history against the region’s on this.
 
In the meantime, between big-box stores and online shopping, our commercial centers are struggling. To add more commercial without housing is a non-starter for many developers because the financing isn’t there—it’s too risky. So to vote for this item would be to vote to stop most mixed-use development. Again, a rational developer might well opt for the 40B development, leaving the City with an even more-residential project.
 
To be clear, voting for these three items would have meant Newton would be MORE likely, not less, to see large residential (40B) projects proposed, over which City Council and residents have little control.

I welcome your thoughts on the above, and on other creative ways to make our city more sustainable, more lovely and more inclusive. Feel free to email me at adowns -AT- newtonma.gov. And if you haven’t already, sign up for my occasional email updates 

I’m one of your at-large city councilors. To help me do my job better, I will be sending out occasional emails about issues facing the city. I’m hoping these emails will inform you and that you will help me get a fuller picture.

In this post, I cover three things:

• Wednesday, January 3, 2018, report on road repairs
• Roads scheduled for repair this summer
• My take

Road repairs:
On Wednesday, January 3, the Public Facilities Committee heard about the Department of Public Works’ plans to repair Newton’s roads. While I’m not a member of this committee, the chair, Councilor Deb Crossley, invited all councilors to attend.

DPW Commissioner Jim McGonagle explained that one reason—besides underfunding—that so many of Newton’s roads are currently in rough shape is that the City used to do a full “mill & pave” every 12-15 years (or longer), instead of lower-cost maintenance that prolongs pavement life.  
 
Road maintenance ranges from “crack sealing” (those squiggly lines of asphalt that fill in the small holes before they become big holes), through to reclamation. The former is relatively inexpensive and quick, the latter is almost the most expensive road repair we do. (Tops for expense is concrete panel overlay—which is what much of Watertown St, some of Centre St, and upper Lowell Ave need—at $4million/mile.)*

DPW decides on which roads to fix based on several factors:

• condition—that’s the PCI, or Pavement Condition Index (scale of 1-100, where 1 is gravel and 100 is newly-paved),
• how many vehicles use the street, and
• cost effectiveness.

As my colleague Jake Auchincloss explained in a Facebook post earlier this season, it pays to repair roads before they deteriorate too far.

DPW Commissioner McGonagle provided this chart -->

I’m not going to replicate Jake’s good work, but I generally support saving money and preserving our public assets. Based on this metric, it often makes more sense to prioritize a “fair” street rather than one in worse repair.

*For those of you who use Lowell Ave, the northern section was scheduled for resurfacing this summer.

Summer work 2018
For 2018, DPW has a short list of streets it is working on—and will also continue 2017 work, like Beacon from Walnut to Centre, which was not completed before the snow. This list only includes major work—not maintenance work (cape sealing and less expensive).

Everyone loves free parking.
 
We’d love free ice cream, too. But the effect on our waistlines (and the waste cans outside of ice cream stores) would be ugly.
 
America has experimented with free parking, and the result was similarly ugly—cars were parked everywhere, and nobody could find a space.
 
Some places tore down buildings to create parking lots and garages—take that solution far enough and you have few stores, lots of parking—but it’s hardly a vibrant, walkable area—too many cars, too much asphalt between destinations.
 
Other places added parking meters. A small cost meant that drivers thought a little harder about where they needed to park in order to run an errand or get into work.
 
But in Newton, we haven’t changed the price of parking at a meter for so long, the cost is hardly a deterrent. On Friday, wanting to take my mother (87) to lunch, I circled Newton Centre looking for a spot close enough to an open lunch locale for us to get in and out in an hour. No luck.
 
From my email inbox and conversations, I know that a good number of spaces are taken by employees—feeding meters, moving cars on time-limited streets every few hours by a few feet—and this limits the number of spaces available for other uses.
 
City Council has heard that the time-limiting ordinance, which is applied to meters and residential streets with no meters and high demand, has a wording loophole that allows savvy drivers to successfully appeal. We tried to adjust that language recently.
 
I agree with many of those who emailed in opposition to the changes—time limits are a crude method for achieving parking turnover.
 
To achieve the desired behaviors that will make finding parking in our most valuable commercial locales easier, we need better policies.  Public parking spaces are a common resource, and should benefit everyone. The balance between commuters, employees and customers is difficult, as City Council just heard. Who should occupy the most-convenient most valuable spaces? The owner/employee, the customer, the commuter?
 
Ideally, those who need spaces for several hours (owners, employees, commuters) can find the space they need further from the center of the action—and can leave the car there all day for a reasonable cost. Then customers can find parking convenient to their destinations for short periods, and a little further away for longer visits. But in Newton Centre in particular, that’s not happening now.
 
As I write this, the City is working to open up some long-term spaces on private property for employees and others using an app—there are a number of nearly-empty private lots near most of our village centers.
 
But these spaces won’t alleviate the parking issue in the village center unless the City better manages the public spaces that are most in demand by customers. After all, if the space in front is cheap enough, why park further away?
 
Councilors Jake Auchincloss, Alison Leary, Vicki Danberg and I are working on a pilot parking management tool that has worked in other cities, and which Newton-Needham Chamber President Greg Reibman called “congestion pricing,” to keep some highly valuable spaces available at peak times for short-term uses.
 
Developed by UCLA economics professor Donald Shoup (http://www.streetfilms.org/illustrating-parking-reform-with-dr-shoup/), “demand based” or “dynamic” parking pricing has two components:

1. Smart pricing—charging the lowest price necessary to meet a vacancy goal of about 15% of space in any block.  (This also means that some that now stand empty—like the long-term meters on Centre north of Tyler Terrace—might even become free)
2. If more money is generated from the program than is necessary to build and manage the parking program, those funds go to improve the neighborhood where that money-generating parking is located—benefits like street trees, or benches, or cleaning the sidewalks, or safer crossings….

(A third component, which the Council has done by special permit rather than as policy, is to remove onsite parking requirements. Since we don’t want to knock down buildings to create parking lots or garages in our village centers, and we want businesses to come and thrive in our village centers, we regularly waive the current requirement that restaurants build more parking space than they have in their building.)
 
Time & Return: Before City Council Now
 
The proposal to clean up Newton’s ordinance on time limits remains before the council. Dynamic pricing isn’t appropriate for the whole city, but residents have been coming to Traffic Council for decades asking for relief from all-day commuter or employee parking, and the common result has been some form of time limit. So we need to have an ordinance that is enforceable. I will be voting again to tighten the language in the ordinance to make it more effective.
 
However, I did hear that the 24-hours is too long a prohibition on return (which was added to help the parking control officers, who don’t yet have the technology to know whether a car has left a lot/block and then returned or whether it was just moved a few spaces). On a two-hour space, clearly two hours is too short. So what is the right amount of time? I look forward to hearing your suggestions.
​