Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980, Parking Policy Issues in Lexington Center.pdf RI PARKING POLICY ISSUES IN LEXINGTON CENTER 91 1 ac$u d OAP- 3 s$ 44a. d Cittavuq 644- a 1-o LhAtAkaket 6-4C 1 Lexington Planning Department December 1980 Prepared by Robert A Bowyer, Planning Director with the assistance of Steven Asen, Assistant Planner Lisa Ferguson, Intern 3 Gretchen Cooke, Secretary 1 INTRODUCTION As part of the Lexington Center revitalization program initiated by the Board of Selectmen , with responsibility assigned to the Lexington Center Revitalization Committee , the Planning Department has the responsibility for preparing both short-range and long-range parking plans This report contains recommenda- tions for the short-range plan and contains many of the elements of a long-range plan The short-range plan contains recommenda- tions for actions that could be taken within two years Policy issues are the most important part of both the short- range and long-range plans Much of this report focuses on policy issues rather than the how-to-do-it steps to implement a plan This report is intentionally provocative---to focus thinking on basic policy issues There is a parking problem in Lexington Center in that, at certain times of the day , there are not enough parking�yace. fur all people who presently come to Lexington Center by automobile This situation is believed to be detrimental to businesses in that potential customers or clients are discouraged from coming to Lex- ington Center There are three principal alternatives to deal with this problem 1 Increase the supple of n:arkiag This has been Lexing- ton ' s traditional approach 2 Alter the utilization of the existing supply of parking thru regulation and ar.i -inn This has not been attempted in any conscious way to date 3 po nothing; maintain the status—quo Some would argue this has nso been Lexington ' s approach recently Pursuing any of these three alternatives , including maintaining the status quo, represents a policy decision The questions of who pays for parking, who benefits from the provision of parking, what is the public ' s , i e , the Town ' s role, and what is the pri- vate sector' s role are policy issues addressed in Chapter 2 , Policy Analysis In preparing this report, the Planning Department conducted some limited field survey work in the spring and fall of 1980 However the basic data on parking is drawn from the report "Park- ing in Lexington Center pre.ared . . - „- tstaff in 19 /5 Conditions have not changed appreciably in five years anti it is not necessary to duplicate that study A number of references in the text will be made to the 1975 report and to "A Plan for. Lexington Center" prepared by Economic Development Asso- ciates , Inc , in February 1966 - 1 - It may appear to some readers that the content of this re- port is substantially influenced by the passage of so called Proposition 2 1/2 by the voters of the Commonwealth While the effects of Proposition 2 1/2 on municipal finance cannot be ig- nored, the contents of this report were conceived well before the vote on Proposition 2 1/2 and would be unchanged if there had never been a Proposition 2 1/2 The relationship between the short-range and the long-range parking plan deserves comment The policy issues posed in Chap- ter 2 will affect both the short-range and lona-rngm nTan The recommendations for a short-range plan contain actions which might be viewed as experimental in the sense that the response of the motorist, i e , the consumer, to changes in the price structure is somewhat unpredictable The nature of that response will in- dicate the number of parking spaces required in the future and hence will affect the long range plans Thus the long-range plan cannot be "finalized" u it experiments in the pricing structure are undertaken an the response is known - 2 - 2 POLICY ANALYSIS Major points which are developed in this chapter are policy, utilization, subsidy and the employee vs shopper conflict Employees v Customers The Classic Conflict The parking problem in Lexington Center is yet another example of the classic conflict between the parking needs of employees for all day parking and of customers-clients for -short-term "turn- over" parking Numerous business districts encounter this problem and Lexington Center is certainly not alone in this regard Much of this report deals with the resolution of this conflict The Issue Is Access In its broadest context, the "parking problem" is an access problem. People (shoppers , clients, employees, visitors) come to Lexington Center by different "modes" of travel---by automobile, by Lexpress, by MBTA bus , by bicycle or by walking Of these dif- ferent travel modes, only the automobile poses a significant storage problem (parking) which has space consuming characteristics When- ever the "parking" problem is discussed, it is important to remember that there are alternative means of access and that parking policies should be a part of, and consistent with, an overall policy of access When viewed as an overall access policy, present practices are heavily weighted toward the automobile and that aggravates the park- ing problem This point is developed further later in this chapter The Present Situation As shown in Table 1 , there are presently 1, 662 parking spaces in Lexington Center TABLE 1 NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN LEXINGTON CENTER # of Percent- Spaces age Public (Town-Owned) Off Street Metered 217 13 0 Unmetered 266 16 0 Serving Town buildings 190 11 4 On-Street Metered 132 8 0 Unmetered 314 18 9 Private (all off-street) 543 32 7 1, 662 100 0 (Source Planning Department field survey, 1980) - 3 - Perhaps the most significant piece of information is that the Town has 580 unmetered parking spaces (266 off-street and 314 on- street) for which it charges no fee In other words , there are 580 free parking spaces These 580 spaces are 35 percent of all spaces and 52 percent of all public spaces in Lexington Center In terms of the employees vs shoppers conflict, it is in- teresting that the customers , who tjriixflyiisé the mpi-prq , pay_a charge to come to teflflataiSftter _while_the-emplay_ees , who pri- marily use the unmetered spaces, pay nothing Financing A Parking Improvement Program For those who believe the solution to thc parking problem in the Lexington Center lies in the expansion of the supply of park- ing, or even for those who advocate less expensive short-term improvements, it is essential that the parking_p_r_gatam_be perceived as financially self-supporlug An analysis of actions by the Town Meeting -reidlive to Legington Center shows that, in recent years , the Town Meeting has been reluctant to spend money , raised in the real estate tax levy, on parking improvements In an era of tighter fiscal control and competition with other important public services and projects , improvements to parking have not ranked high on the Town' s list of priorities If the Town is to be expected to fund parking improvements in Lexington Center, a clearly identified source of funds which does not compete with the real estate tax levy must be utilized. The Town Meeting is not likely to want to spend money on any parking improvements , even simple ine?cpensive_impsnsrpments_ when glare is no charge foi 580 parking spaces, more than half the Town' s ,i,„nizefttary This is the first of several reasons why-TOme type at fee will have to be charged for these spaces In addition to covering annual operating costs , there must be sufficient funds generated to cover the capital expenses of a park- ing improvement program both short term and long term Parking Should Be Financially Self-Supporting Parking should be financially self-supporting and should not need to be subsidized by the taxpayers of the town It is the type of public service that lends itself quite readily to a user fee Making parking financially self-supporting means identifying Eria-meeting all the 'Town ' s costs for all public parking, both on - street and off-street in the Lexington Center area These costs should include at least the following 1 Maintenance of parking areas--snow removal (plowing of a street 'should be attributed to traffic while removal of snow should be charged to parking) ; cleaning of dirt, leaves , trash ; maintenance of drainage systems in off- street areas , maintenance of trees, shrubbery, fences , etc , directly related to parking - 4 - 2 Maintenance of arU; ^^ „La.tox , P nment---repainting p -^9 eg �---� or lines (both curbside and off-street) , repair of meters , repair of signs that regulate parking; also parking infor- mation-directional signs 3 Lighsx. tin ._of off-street parking lots and pedestrian passage ways leading to the street or business establishments 4 Collection of parking fees---this is the administrative d6;71-7 coilecti processing money, not the amount of money received 5 Enforcement activity---police enforcement of meter, and other restricted areas , i e , loading zones , two-hour limits on side streets, etc (This should not include moving violations which are a traffic responsibility, not a parking responsibility) ; costs of printing and process- ing tickets, other police enforcement costs These costs should also include all Ca^i +zl expenditures for park- ing, such , „, ! ' it ion , construction of parking lots and pedestrian passage_,kday_s__related directly to them, initial installa- tion of parking meters, erection of signs, lighting, etc , major reconstruction or repaving of a parking lot, and the debt service costs of capital expenditures for parking (The Town has not had a practice of borrowing for parking improvements but might do so in the future) lA System of Fees For the reasons cited above and expanded later in this chapter, the practice of providin free parking spaces in Lexington Center .Rhauld_.be--eliminated A ssyys e f fees should be established so that there is some type of fee for practically all public parking spaces in Lexington Center with the amo,gpt of the fee to be related to the distance from the Center and the length of stay This does not necessarily mean the erection of meters throughout the Center and could include the purchase of stickers, or "passes" , on a long term basis permitting motorists to park in different parts of the Center At this stage of this report only the general principle (policy) is important; some suggestions as to mechanics and fee schedules are made in Chapter 4 The word system is used advisedly Fees should not be uniform and should be graduated according to distance from the Center and length of stay The Town' s Role And The Town' s Objectives In Providing Parking At this point we need to discuss some basic policy issues Why is the Town of Lexington involved in providing parking? What justifies the intervention of governmental authority in what might otherwise be a matter of private responsibility and private initia- tive? - 5 - The principal philosophical (policy) issue in the Town ' s role is off-street parking As far as on-street, curbside park- ing is concerned, that all occurs on public_ _ _ . . ' ch t - Town owns The allocation of the use of curbside space is related to a variety of transportation objectives which emanate from the oxovision of pubfic streets Thus there are regulations (limita- tions) on the use of curbside space to: promote efficient traffic movement, provide bus stops, taxi stands, and crosswalks for pedes- trians Economic, rather than transportation, objectives underlie other regulations (limitations) qn curbside space Time limits (often enforced by parking meters) encourage a "turnover" of auto- mobiles, which permits more customers-clients to patronize busi- ness establishments Loading zones are designated for the move- ment of goods for business establishments But why does governmental authority (the Town of Lexington) intrude into private property, off the street for the provision of public parking? In all zoning districts in the Town , other than the Center Business zone, private owners are required to pro- vide offstreet parking, surricient tor the needs of their build- ings, at their own expense The reasons for the public ' s partici- pation in the provision of parking for center business district areas is perhaps more traditional- and circumstantial than conscious and are 1 An e££o� r save , or prgmote older central business districts Tn part, cities and towns act as investors to maintain property values and hence tax revenue 2 From a cynical view, downtown merchants are ypolitically powerful (in some places) and force public action There are also cases of "trash-barrel socialism" in which de- teriorated properties adjacent to a business district, which are no longer viable economic uses , are promoted as "ideal locations" for public parking and command a healthy acquisition price 3 A more rational explanation is that older business areas , are composed of numerous small parcels of land and a city or town acts as an organizing mechanism for the pro- vision or common parkins r"lr.eas ,_abaces't.cla-n ""i,liprovements an the ll1C tVen where private 6hrs are motivates o in the common interest, they lack the power of eminent domain to deal with "holdout" owners When com- pared with the newer shopping center, which is usually a large parcel of land, constructed at one time accord- ing to one design concept, and built and operated by one development entity, the older multi-parcel business district needs an organizing mechanism to compete effec- tively 4 A further rationale is that parking is provided for the general public and serves the residents of the city or town - 6 - w Regardless of the reason, the participation of a city or town in providing off-street parking places it. in a form of economic partnership with the businesses in the area Depending on what type of regulation the city or town imposes on the utilization of off-street parking spaces , it may be conferring an economic benefit or cost to different_ ty_pes_.o.f -busi-nocccc While the effect of these regulations is rarely perceived as economic planning, park- ing regulations are not neutral in their economic impact Let us again return to our earlier theme of the conflict in Lexington Center between all-day employee parking and short-term turnover parking for customers-clients The fact that the Town provides 580 free parking spaces is an economic benefit to establish- giants with employees who need all day parking, sucn as oriices One Consequence of the present (presumably unintentional) favor- itism for all day employee parking is that there is not enough parking for short-term turnover customer-client parking. The Town , by changing its regulations and pricing, has the power to favor instead those establishments oriented to short-term customer- client parking While such a decision is directly a parking policy, it is also an economic policy and that must not be forgotten The perspective of this report is that the Town ' s principal responsibility is to provide sufficient short-term turnover larking for customers-clients and only atter tnat need is satisi:ied, to provide_all-dav parxing tor employees There are several reasons for this position rhe first is that the Town provides the "greatest good for the greatest number" by encouraging a turnover in its park- ing spaces That produces the greatest "efficiency" in the use of a public service A second is that it is more likely to pro- vide a service to residents of the Town generally in this manner A thirst reason is that many of the employees have other alterna- tive means of access, i e , by public transportation, or by car pool Thus a second reason for discontinuing the practice of pro- viding free parking is to shift the balance toward providing more parking for short term customer-client needs Access and Subsidy In considering alternative means of access as one (not the only) method of reducing the use of parking spaces by all-day parkers, public transportation must be considered Various govern- mental bodies have articulated policies , such as "encourage the use of publi: transportation" in the context of energy conserva- tion, reduction of traffic congestion, reduction of air pollution, revitalization of older business districts, etc Although the officials of the Town of Lexington may not officially have voted such a policy, it is believed to have widespread support in the Town---as a general principle This support often wavers when the specter of SUBSIDY is raised Public transportation requires substantial subsidy to supplement the tees liares; cnargeci Lu isoanyeis - 7 - The Town of Lexington incurs costs for maintaining, light- ing, policing, etc the 580 parking spaces for which it receives no off-setting income; that in itself is a subsidy These spaces can now be referred to as subsidized free parking In the process of subsidizing both the automobile parker and public transportation, the Town is actually in competition with it- self.. The Town appropriated $180, 000 in FY 81 to subsidize Lex- press while giving away , for nothing, 580 parking spaces in the same location that is the terminus of all eight Lexpress routes Is it any wonder that children not of driving age are the major users of Lexpress and few adults of working age ride the system? A third reason for eliminata.np frra narJ ncr is for the Town to stop engaging in competition with itself in trdngnortation ser- vices Pricing and Choices in Transportation Persons selecting a mode of travel are believed to be more influenced by direct charges than by total cost Consider the direct charges to the person making a roundtrip to Lexington Cen- ter and using one of the 580 subsidized free parking spaces Direct Mode of Travel Charge Lexpress 80 MBTA bus 50 Automobile (all day parker) none A person is very much aware of the out-of-pocket cost for a bus fare or a parking meter fee, somewhat aware of an automobile ' s visible operating costs, such as gasoline,and largely unaware of the total operating costs of an automobile For instance the American Automobile Association has recently estimated the cost of owning and operating an automobile in the Boston area at about 28 cents per mile which would make a roundtrip of more than two miles cheaper via MBTA bus than by automobile However few people make that calculation and many figure they have to pay the fixed costs (insurance, taxes , depreciation, maintenance, etc ) any- way Another deterrent to the use of public transportation is waiting time to conform to the bus schedule and the greater con- venience of the personalized transportation of the automobile To the extent that pricing decisions influence the selection f the mode of travel , the current practice of providing 580 sub- si ized tree spaces is obviously a deterreiL Luyenccuxaging the transportation of public transporation """ A fourth reason for pliminatjnq_ free parking is to make the direct out-of_pocket, costs of automobile usage comparable to those - 8 for pubi c transportation Public Transportation and the Employee-Customer Conflict A further consideration is that public transporation is pri- marily oriented to "work trips" , i e , getting people to and from work Those trips comprise 60-70 percent of all passenger trips on public transportation The use of public transpo-rtation_£.o ' _ shopping ranks relatively low and comprises less than 10 percent of -all public transportation trips -- — Now let us relate this information back to Lexington Center' s basic conflict between all day employee parking and short term customer-client narking Some (and clearly not all) of the emplo- yees in Lexington Center could travel to work by Lexpress or by MBTA In May 1980 the Planning Department surveyed 200 of the subsidized free parking spaces (principally the Meriam Street lot) and determined the city or town in which the automobile was registered Shown below are those cities and towns in which there is Lexpress service or a direct MBTA bus route through Lexington Center.; towns without direct bus service are not shown Town vehicle registered % of total LEXINGTON 30 x 580 = 174 Arlington 6 x 580 = 35 Bedford 3 " = 17 Boston 3 " = 17 Burlington 5 " = 29 Cambridge 3 " = 17 Waltham 4 m = 23 sub-total 24 138 GRAND TOTAL 54 312 Source Planning Department field survey , Spring 1980 In theory if all Lexington all-day parkers rode Lexpress or MBTA buses or walked (yes , some are within walking distance) then 174 of the 5S0 clbsidized free parking spaces could be available for short tern. turnover parking And if all persons who live in the six communities with direct bus service to Lexington Center took the bus , 138 parking spaces would be available The transfer of a total of 312 spaces from all-day employee parking to short-term shopper parking would be a huge windfall that otherwise would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Town to construct if the only alternative considered was to expand the supply of parking That is a theoretical exercise of course because not all residents of the towns mentioned live close to MBTA bus lines ; ithin Lexington the addition of 174 riders, if they all travelled _n the 8 - 9 a m peak hour,might burden Lexpress during one of its busier times There are eight routes run in one hour and each bus has a seating capacity of 17, resulting in a total capacity of 136 (assume 176 with standees) There are however 14 trips run in that time on the four META routes in the town The combined capacity of the 50 seat MBTA buses in Lexington in the 8 a m - 9 a m period is 700 (assume 910 with standees) The 174 Lexing- ton residents and the 138 from the six other towns would be in addi- tion to the regular ridership on those bus lines One interesting footnote to this data is that if only 30 per- cent of the persons parked in subsidized free parking are Lexington residents, then 70 Percent are not From a parochial point of view, why does the Town provide free parking for so many non-resi- dents ? A fifth reason for eliminating free parking and for introduc- ing fees comparable to or higher than bus fares - is to "encourage" employees to use public transportation services, which already__ exist, and to tree up parking spaces for use by customers-clients - Interaction of Utilization and Supply From all of the above several conclusions can be drawn 0 No increase in the supply of parking can be anticinated_until, there is a substantint- increae in parking revenue, which de- ion an increase in utilization or the existing inventory 0 until there is an increase in the supply„of parking, there must he an , n. a.aaoo in utilization to deal with the parking problem 0 Increases in fees ,designed to promote greater utilization, may nave the effect of '"encouraging othe`r` alternatives, such as public transportation, car-pooling, walking or bicycling In addition, there are other considerations 0 The effects of the interaction of fees and alternatives on consumer behavior and hence on utilization is not quantifi- able and will have to be monitored 0 The effects on the increase in the number of spaces available for short-term parking and a potential increase in customers- clients is also not quantifiable Until these effects are identified and analyzed the Town will not be in a position to proceed with a long range parking plan In fact, the Town has,_an obligation to test the effects of pricing a. : . ion before it commits to a lona term program oP expanding •ar in. . Stated anutner way, there needs to TY871=t'r experimentation wi -different types of pricing and regulation to get a real sense of how much parking is needed in the long term In other words, the Town can ' t "finalize" its long term parking re- quirements until the effects of changes in price and regulation - 10 - are determined Effects Of Changes In Regulation And Pricing Whfle the response of the consumer (the motorist) to elimi- nation of the subsidized Free parking and the imposition of a graduated fee schedule is somewhat unpredictable, other effects of that action are readily predictable and the Town should be pre- pared to deal with them These effects and th,e actions the Town should take are outlined below 1 A ho , ' --since any alteration in an American ' s relationship with his/her automobile is viewed as un- constitutional , or unamerican, a change in traditional behavior will make many people upset There will be cries that the Town is driving business out of the Center , is taking money out of the paychecks of the employees , etc An explanation o£the policy basis for th.e change _and the alternatives availablt P - s ' -s • . ore the chang goes into effect, will at least indicate the chance is a conscious uecision aimed at achieving cer- tain objectives How much it will reduce the anger re- mains to be seen In earlier years , Town officials shied away from changes in parking regulations because "the businessmen would never stand for it ! " That suggests the businessmen con- trol the situation In fact, the Town has everything on its side it owns and controls the supply of parking; it sets the price; ana it operates the policing mechar nism---all the necessary ingredients of a monopoly The Town might well take the posture of a benign 'monopolist providing parking in the public interest You ask what is the public interest? The answer that is a policy question, which brings us back to one of the themes of this report The preceeding paragraph might imply unilateral action by the Town or an adversary relationship between the Town and the business community Obviously the Town does not operate in that manner and sees itself as a partner with the business community in developing a parking program that meets the mutual interest of each party For in- tance, the Lexington Center Revitalization Committee has representation from both the public sector and the private sector 2 Trying to beat the system a Spillover onto residential streets---to avoid in- creased tees , some motorists wiLT'h'tttempt to park all day on residential streets within walking distance of their place of work The Town should post restric- ttlans on all-day parking on residential streets ana be sure those regulations are strictly enforced Some communities , such as Cambridge , have adopted a resident - 1L - I sticker program which permits only cars bearing stickers issued by the City , or those with a visi- tor "pass" to park on residential streets b Poaching on private park^ ng motorists will attempt to park all day in private off-street lots This is already a problem and signs have been posted on several properties indicating parking is restricted to users of the building Dealing with this problem is primarily a private re- sponsibility, although the Town might have some role in the future c Meter feedir,.g.-some motorists will attempt to feed a meter all day to avoid one of the other alternatives The cost of feeding a meter all day , i e , nine hours times 10 cents equals 90 cents per day, $4 50 per week, $18 00 per month, is probably expensive enough to discourage most meter feeding The Planning De- partment ' s surveys taken in the spring of 1980 indicate there is a little meter feeding at present but it is very modest in comparison with other business districts The Police Department ' s present enforce- ment efforts appear adequate to deal with the meter feeding problem but they may have to step up enforce- ment efforts , at least initially, as motorists ad- just to the change in regulations and pricing 3 Development of private parking spaces---the operators of existing private off-street spaces may find a new market for persons who would rent parking spaces on a long term basis In view of the number of existing private off- street spaces potentially available for this use, this practice is not likely to be numerically too significant The Zoning By-Law requires that in a CB district , a spe- cial permit be granted by the Board of Appeals for the parking of automobiles other than those related to the building on the lot There is no provision for such a special permit in a residential district 4 Use of public transportation---some people may realize chat the Lexpress or MBTA buses provide a less costly method of getting to and from work The Town, and em- ployers , might encourage the use of public transportation by greater publicity of the routes , schedules , and fares of the bus services 5 Car Pools---a few employees may find it convenient to car- pool in the face of the other alternatives available The Town, or perhaps the Chamber of Commerce, might act as a clearinghouse for carpools Outlined above are the likely effects of the change in regulations and prices if no other action is taken The Town has an obligation, 12 - working with the business community, to develop other alte-fna- tives so that employees do have a convenient (if not necessarily free) means of access to work Those are outlined in Chapter 4 The Private Sector' s Role in Providing Parking There have been several attempts to amend the Zoning By- Law to require that establishments in the Center Busixiess zone pro- vide parking for new construction, including additions to existing buildings Some of the reasoning has been that establishments in all other zoning districts in Lexington are required to pro- vide parking at their own expense Another reason is that this method was seen as a way of providi.ncj_ additional parking when it became clear that the Town would not raise money out of the real estate tax levy for new aaairional parking spaces From a technical point of view, the articles that were sub- mitted had several shortcomings One effect of the articles would have been to to require parking on the same lot as the new struc- ture or addition The preferred arrangement in a shopping area is to have one or more large common parking lots and one or more clusters of stores or other business establishments All new shopping centers follow this pattern and many older business dis- tricts have adapted to it, at least in part The disadvantages of having parking on individual lots is that it breaks up the continuity of store frontages and introduces a number of drive- ways that create additional pedestrian-vehicular conflicts Rather than working to separate automobiles from pedestrians (customers-clients) , the effect of the articles proposed would have been to perpetuate the mixture of automobiles and_ped.estrians Many older business districts have introduced- pedestrian malls or "auto-restricted zones" , e g , "Downtown Crossing" , as key elements of their revitalization Another problem of the pro- posed articles would have been the effect on small lots where it is simply physically impossible to add additional par inTc g sp7-ces While the physical implications of the proposed articles {b would have created problems , the general principle, i e , that the private sector should bear some responsibility for the additional traffic it generates, has merit Other ways of achieving tate same objective are (a) to permit the parking spaces required to be located away from the lot they serve (so that they contribute to the overall inventory of parking spaces) or (b) to permit money, equivalent to the cost of constructing the required parking spaces, to be contributed to a fund earmarked for the construction of addi- tional parking spaces Another issue , which was not addressed in the proposed zon- ing articles is the loss of par]ijng spaces due to new construction The Plahning Board ' s 1975 Report stated "Between 1966 and 1974 , at least 173 private spaces were lost due to construction of new buildings in the Center " (see page 9) That is 32 percent of all the private parking spaces in the Center at present The Town ' s Zoning By-Law should require that when new construction (including additions) occurs , that sufficient parking spaces are - 13 r � provided both to accomodate the new construction and t&' .x eplace any existing parking spaces removed Other ways in which the private sector can contribute to im- provements in the parking situation in Lexington Center are dis- cussed in Chapter 4 - 14 - 3 SUGGESTED POLICIES C� The first step in making parking improvements in Lexington Center is to agree on the policies which will form the basis for all actions Based principally on Chapter 2 , Policy Analysis , the following are suggested for consideration l Policy 1 As a first priority, provide an adequate supply, which (o shall include some surplus to accomodate peak demand, of turn- over" parking for customers and clients in the business district 1 " 4 After the needs of "turnover" parking for customers-clients are satisfied, provide the remaining available space for all-day em- ployee parking 3( Policy 2 The parking program in Lexington Center must be finan- cially self-supporting The Town' s parking fund (currently called parking meter fees") shall be the edource of Town funds for I operating the parking program and for capital funds for improve- ments to parking facilities; no other funds drawn from the real es- tate tax levy or other sources of Town tunas should be used use of monies from the Town s parking fund shall be limited to expen- ditures related to the parking program )1 Policy 3 Establish a system allocating parking spaces, with ® . appropriate time limitations on the use of spaces, according to distance from activities that generate the greatest parking demand 9 Policy 4 Consciously s`t _the rates tor theuseof parking spaces, according to their location and length of stay, to achieve overall , 1 parking policies Utilize a graduated fee schedule, with different - 15 - 12 1 / SO rates for different types of spaces , to achieve the appropriate utilization of parking spaces Policy 5 Encourage the use of other alternate modes of trans- portation for present all-day parkers 5 1 Encourage the increased use of public transportation Set fees for parking at a level slightly above the fees for bus service 5 2 Improve bicycle routes and storage 5' 3 Encourage carpooling \y/ Policy 6 For all new developments in the CB zoning district, including additions to existing buildings, require that additic„pal off-street parking spaces be provided, by either (a) a financial contribution to the Town s parking fund to be reserved for the construction of new parking spaces, or (b) construction of addi- tional parking by the private developer in locations consistent with the following policies 6 1 Permit required parking spaces to be located away from the lot which they are intended to serve 6 2 Prohibit the construction of new parking spaces whose design would disrupt the continuity of building frontages or major pedestrian circulation routes 6 3 Prohibit the removal of any existing privately owned parking space, unless replacement parking spaces are provided - 16 - 12 17 80 Policy 7 The Town' s parking fund shall pay the full economic cost of the construction of new parking spaces, or the reconstruc- tion of existing spaces That cost shall include the treatment of all environmental effects and making parking facilities visually attractive through landscaping and screening Policy 8 Encourage the pooling or time-sharing of parking spaces according to the differential daily, weekly, and seasonal parking needs of the various activities DISCUSSION This is a concept not previously discussed in the report It involves the joint use and operation of private park- ing spaces, ana in many cases would involve the participation of the Town, to achieve a more effective utilization of all parking resources in Lexington Center In many cases, pooling or time- sharing means use of parking spaces during the off-peak time For example parking spaces needed for an office building might be made available for the use of shoppers, or those attending a theater or restaurant, in the evening hours Another example is use of part of a church' s parking lot during weekdays while maintaining principal parking use on weekends and evenings The mechanics of this need a good deal of work, but it is introduced here as a general principle - 17 - 12 17 80 4 ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT POLICIES Identified below are various proposals to implement the policies suggested in Chapter 3 It is important tc nom e are various alternatives to implementing the policies If a particular proposal is objectionable, LAI, .a3 La e4her proposals that would implement the policy It is the policy that is most important; not the individual proposals Policy 3 Establish a system allocating parking spaces, with appropriate time limitations on the use of spaces , according to distance from the activities that generate the greatest parking demand 4. PROPOSAL Zone System of Parking Spaces Type of Maximum Regulatory Typical Parking Time Device Locations Zone A Quick 30 min. Meter Curbside - Mass Ave Yellow Turnover Waltham St 15 min Special locations in front of post office some banks Zone B Turnover 1 hr Meter Most remaining curbside Orange Lots,within @ 200 ft of stores 2 hrs Lots,beyond @ 200 ft of stores Zone C Mid-term 3-4 hrs Meter Remaining spaces in Red lots except those designated for Zone D Zone D All-day 12 hours Meter Fringes of parking lots Brown (10 hr) satellite lots; Signs; non-residential streets stickers- on periphery passes * PROPOSAL Stickers, passes The Town would sell parking stickers , good for 3 months , 6 months or one year or passes good for one month The passes would be laminated cards, showing the expiration date and the model and registration number of the car to which issued; the passes could be displayed in the windshield of the car and act - 18 - 12 17 80 in place of a sticker The passes-stickers would permit parking in any unmetered space in Zone D but not in any metered space in any zone (the normal meter charge would have to be paid) Spaces in Zone D would not be reserved and would be filled on a first come, first served basis The Town would issue, at no cost, one courtesy pass to each residence which fronts on a Zone D area The courtesy passes would prominently display the street address , to be used by residents, visitors , tradesmen, deliveries etc and would be invalid except on the street for which issued These courtesy passes would permit residents to have free parking near their houses for themselves or guests PROPOSAL Zone D 2 hour "limit" Tosimplify enforcement, all curbside spaces in Zone D would be posted (signs erected) as I 2 Hour PARKING except by sticker or pass The "exception" would be the rule and most of the parking in Zone D would be all-day parkers with stickers or passes A car without a sticker or pass could park for up to 2 hours Police could check periodically and ticket cars without a sticker or pass which stayed longer than 2 hours That system avoids the installation (and expense) of parking meters on the fringes of the business area 'A PROPOSAL 1/4 mile limit All public spaces on-street and off-street, within 1/4 mile (about 1300 feet) of any part of the CB zoning district line should be regulated and should be either metered, or posted in Zone D, or eohibited in the case of residential streets (as Vinebrook Road is at present) Courtesy passes should also be issued, at no cost, to all residences on residential streets where parking is otherwise prohibited 19 - 17 AA Policy 4 Consciously set the rates for the use of parking spaces , according to their location and length of stay, to achieve overall parking policies Utilize a graduated fee schedule, with different rates for different types of spaces , to achieve the appropriate utilization of parking spaces 4 PROPOSAL Graduated Fee Schedule Hourly Monthly Daily Zone Rate Rate Equivalent A l0Q/30 min Yellow 5Q/15 min B 15e/hr Orange 25Q/2 hrs C 10e/hr Red 20Q/2 hrs D Meters Brown 25e/2 5 hrs 50C/5 hrs 75e/7 5 hrs $1 00 /10 hrs $20 00 $1 00 pass - $15/1 mo 75 sticker - $80/6 mo 67 sticker -$150/12 mo 60 skPolicy 6 1 Encourage the increased use of public transportation Set fees for parking at a level slightly above the fees for bus service PROPOSAL Comparable fees Parking Fees Lexpress MBTA Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent /mo /day /mo /day /mo /day 1 month pass $15 00 75 9 00 45 3 month 6 67 33 6 month sticker 13 33 67 5 00 25 10 month 4 00 20 12 month sticker 12 50 60 1 day meter 20 00 1 00 16 00 80 10 00 50 /r Policy 1 As a first priority, provide an adequate supply , which shall include some surplus to accomodate peak demand, of "turn- over" parking for customers and clients in the business district After the needs of "turnover" parking for customers-clients are satisfied, provide the remaining available space for all-day employee parking - 20 - 12 1 / 80 4 PROPOSAL Increase amount of parking for turnover parking a Erect Zone C (3 - 4 hour) meters in spaces in Edison Way lot currently unmetered b Erect Zone C (3 - 4 hour) meters in Meriam Street lot in row of spaces nearest railroad tracks c Erect Zone D (10 hour) meters in Meriam Street lot in row of spaces in first bay opposite those nearest to railroad tracks (Zone D pass-stickers are not valid at any meter Thus 10 hour meters will be used by the irregular all-day parker, who doesn' t buy a parking pass , by the mid-term turnover parker and by the overflow Zone B parker at peak times ) Policy b For all new developments in the CB Zoning district , including additions to existing buildings , require that additional off-street parking spaces be provided, by either; (a) a financial contribution to the Town' s parking fund to be reserved for the construction of new parking spaces , PROPOSAL Contributions to Parking Fund The cost of a new, or replacement parking space for which con- tributions are made shall be based on (1) the Town' s actual costs in its most recent experience in constructing parking spaces in Lexington Center (if that experience has been within five years of the date the contribution is made) or (2) an estimate of current construction costs prepared by the Town Engineer (The Town .engineer' s current estimate for construction only is $1 , 250 ner parking space ) The cost in either (1) or (2) shall be adjusted annually for infla- tion by applying the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index An allowance for land acquisition costs shall also be included and that shall be based on the average of the current assessed land value, as determined by the Board of Assessors, of all privately owned lots any part of which is in the area bounded by Waltham Street , Forest Street, Clarke Street and a line connecting Clarke and Waltham Streets 150 feet from and parallel to, the south side of the right- of-way line of Massachusetts Avenue This area is selected as being representative of land values in areas that might be the location of new parking spaces The land required for a parking space shall be assumed to be 300 square feet * * * x * * * The following proposals do not necessarily implement specific policies but are either necessary or desirable to carry out the parking program - 21 - 12 17 80 Physical Improvements o Install 3-4 hour meters on presently unmetered spaces on Edison Way o Install 3-4 hour meters in the Meriam Street lot for the entire row of spaces nearest the railroad tracks o Install 10 hour meters in the Meriam Street lot for the entire row on the opposite side of the aisle from the spaces nearest the railroad tracks o Erect signs designating the remainder of the Meriam Street lot for "Parking 8 AM - 6 PM, Mon - Sat By Sticker Only" o Erect signs on all "non-residential" streets within 1300 feet of the boundaries of the CB zoning district stating "2 Hour Parking Except by Sticker" o Erect signs on all "residential" streets within 1300 feet of the boundary of the CB zoning district stating "No Parking Except by Courtesy Pass" o In the Meriam Street lot, re-stripe all of the row of parking spaces (nearest the railroad track) in the second bay for compact car spaces That will leave the remaining row of spaces (nearest the private property on Oakland Street) for standard size vehicles Erect appropriate signs designating the compact car area and the standard car area Informational Improvements o Color code the heads of all meters, i e Zone A - yellow, Zone B - orange, Zone C - red, Zone0D - brown o Erect more parking directional signs indicating where municipal off-street lots are located Use the international "P" symbol On each directional sign add notations such as "30 [orange] 2 hr and 70 [brown] 10 hr " which will show the number and type of parking spaces available in the lot to which the sign points o Prepare schematic map of parking locations in the Lexington center area This would be a concept plan and would show, by color coding, the location and type of all parking spaces, the entrance to all public off- street lots and the direction of one-way streets Informational displays of this map would be erected at the main pedestrian entrances to all lots and in other key locations Each informational display would also have a map of Lexpress and META routes and fares Printed copies of the schematic map could be made available to businesses for them to display - 22 - 12 1/ 80 Some interest has been shown by the Chamber of Commerce in developing a directory sign of businesses This might also be placed on the informational displays o Develop an informational statement or brochure explaining the Town' s parking policies and program This would be principally oriented to the all-day parker to explain why he/she will have to p aY for parking spaces The statement should include a.n,.ormation on obtaining parking stickers, and the fee schedule, and on Lexpress and MBTA routes, fares, passes and their costs o Develop a carpool information center This could be simply a card file organized by the home address of the employee where he/she could find how .many other people working in Lexington center live in Acton or Wakefield, for instance Public - Private Cooperation 1 OPERATING THE PROGRAM o Private sector distributes the informational statement; indicates support for the program (after the initial shock wears off) o Employers, both public and private, provide some time flexibility so employees can use public trans- portation o Employers participate financially and share the costs of bus passes or parking stickers (In Boston or Cam- bridge, more and more employers are encouraging parti- cipation in the MBTA Pass Program, by a financial con- tribution, payroll deduction, etc In some cases , this is becoming a recognized employee fringe benefit ) 2 DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL PARKING RESOURCES.--- Type 1 Town Lease of Existing Spaces On the periphery of the Lexington Center business district are several institutions , principally churches and the Arts and Crafts Society, which have existing parking lots which are not used extensively during normal business hours Depending on the willingness of these institutions to enter into an agreement with the Town, a lease could be arranged for a PART of their existing parking lots The institutions would receive compensation for the lease and the Town could assume operating responsibility for the part of the parking lot it leases These spaces would be for Zone D - all day parking by sticker only - 23 - 12 17 83 Type 2 Town Lease and Construction of New Spaces There are a few parcels in and around Lexington Center on which it may be advantageous for the Town to execute a long-term lease, e g ten years or more, to construct municipal parking One example would be land behind the Boston Edison sub- station This was proposed before, in Article 29 of the 1974 Annual Town Meeting, but the Selectmen withdrew the proposal when there were not enough votes for its passage Perhaps , if money came from the Town's parking fund instead of the tax levy, the project might be revived, provided Boston Edison Company is still interested Another example might be the lot on which the old Belfry Club was located It might be mutually advantageous to use that site for off-street parking, on an interim basis , until future development prospects are clearer 3 JOINT DEVELOPMENT In Chapter 2 there were several references to the development of large common parking areas (See point number 3 on page 6 which discusses a town acting as "an organizing mechanism for the provision of common parking areas" and on page 13 , second paragraph, the references to "the preferred arrangement in a shopping area is to have one or more large common parking lots In the center of the block between Waltham and Muzzey Street and of the block between Muzzey and Clarke Street, north of Raymond Street, is a combination of public and private parking areas A great deal of space in the center of these blocks at present is devoted to parking, but the use in inefficient because (a) the layout of spaces respects the configuration of individual lots, (b) the general public is excluded from the private lots and (c) circulation from one lot to another is not possible One large common parking lot in the center of each of those blocks would result in (a) a net increase in the numbe: of parking spaces , (b) a perception of more parking spaces (When laid out in an organized way, it will appear that there aie more parking spaces than there actually are Regardless of the actual numbers, it is important that the potential customers and clients think there is ample parking) , (c) a more efficient utilization of a given number of parking spaces and (d) an opportunity to develop additional access drives which will relieve the congestion at the existing access drives from Waltham Street and Muzzey Street Outlined below is ONE of the ways a common narking lot might be developed; there are other alternatives so the basic merit of joint development should not be discarded because of one's distaste for one particular ingredient In outline form, the parties would - 24 - 12 17 80 Private Owners o Execute a land lease to the Town for $1 00 per year o Receive. a number of courtesy passes equal to (a) the existing number of private parking spaces on each lot, or (b) the number of parking spaces that would be required by a zoning requirement, whichever is greater o Receive a payment from the Town, drawn from the Town ' s Parking Fund, equal to the real estate tax levy on the land which has been leased to the Town for parking purposes Each owner is subject to real estate taxes for land, as in the 1980 situation The effect of this payment is that the Town pays the real estate taxes on the land that it uses , but it pays out of the Parking Fund so that no money is lost from the real estate tax levy The Town o Constructs common parking lot and acces's drives o Maintains , operates and polices the parking lot in the same way as if it were Town owned o Pays $1 00 per year to each owner as a ground lease and the equivalent of the real estate tax levy on the private land included in the common parking area o Issues courtesy passes , at no cost , to the individual property owners for the use of their customers, clients and employees The advantages of this joint development proposal to the private owners are (a) responsibility for maintenance and operation of the parking lot is transferred to the Town, (b) the same number of parking spaces are available, at no cost, as at present and (c) the value of the private property would probably increase because of the increased accessibility afforded by the common parking area The advantages of this joint development proposal to the Town are (a) land can be obtained for practically no cost because of the land lease and the Town is not required to exercise eminent domain and make damage payments (The Town might have to exercise eminent domain to acquire a critical parcel; it may be able to by-pass some other hold-out owners ) ; (b) the initial capital expenditure is reduced to construction cost, since land acquisition costs are avoided (c) by keeping the land in private ownership, it stays on the tax rolls; by making a payment from the Town Parking Fund ,no money is lost from the real estate tax levy; and (d) a host of transportation, economic development, design and aesthetic objectives can be achieved by having the development in the Town ' s. control - Z5 - 12 1 / 80 Planning Activities o Review the layout of all public parking lots to improve the efficiency of circulation and to accomodate clusters of compact car spaces o Design an expansion and reconstruction of that section of the Town' s existing parking lot between the entrance drive adjacent to the police Station and Fletcher Avenue, behind the School Administration Building O Monitor and evaluate the effect of the pricing and utilization proposals described above and determine whether additions to the parking supply are needed or not Satellite Parking One additional consideration is that it may be desirable to develop "satellite" parking lots which are beyond a reasonable walking distance and would need to be served by either a shuttle bus or the existing Lexpress or MBTA bus service The latter alternative would need very careful study and should not be con- sidered feasible until proven so Lots which should be studied as possible satellite locations include the Town ' s lot adjacent to the swimming pool, part of the lot behind St Brigid' s Church and part of the lot owned by Grace Chapel, all of which have access to Worthen Road and all of which are used, in part, for the commuter bus service to Boston An additional possibility is parking at Muzzev Junior High School, which will close in June, 1981 , although the future disposition of the Muzzey land is very much up in the air at this writing There are a number of operational and financial problems in developing a shuttle bus service These have not been addressed as yet Short-Term and Long-Term Programs Chapter 1 indicated this report would contain recommendations for both a short-term and long-term parking program The suggested policies would apply in both the short-term and long-term The proposals set forth earlier in this chapter are restated below in a time context Before any long-term proposals are undertaken, an evaluation of the effects of pricing and utilization should be made to determine the number of additional parking spaces needed the long-term proposals below assume additional parking spaces may be needed but it is conceivable there are enough spaces available now if all parking resources are used effectively Please note that several construction proposals are grouped in the long-term category because a capital reserve must be built up in the Town ' s parking fund before a capital intensive project can be initiated - 26 - 12 17 80 SHORT TERM PROGRAM (for action in 1981 - 1982) o Establish graduated fee schedule and pass-sticker program [requires action by Board of Selectmen] o Establish zone system of parking spaces 1 Erect signs regulating all public spaces within 1/4 mile of CB district 2 Install meters in Edison Way lot 3 Install meters, erect signs in Meriam Street lot [requires appropriation by Town Meeting] o Adopt regulation providing for compact car spaces (prohibits standard cars from using compact spaces) [Board of Selectmen] o Re-stripe part of Meriam Street lot for compact, spaces, erect signs [Town departments] o Informational improvements package (color coding meter heads, schematic map, informational displays) [requires appropriation by Town Meeting] o Develop informational brochure [Town departments] o Develop carpool information center [Town department? Chamber of Commerce?] r o Investigate Town lease of existing spaces [Board of Selectmen, Town departments; might require appropriation from Town Meeting] o Promote sale of Lexpress, MBTA passes [Chamber of Commerce, employers] o Review layout of existing lots for efficiency and compact cars [Town departments] o Design reconstruction of Town lot behind School Administration Building [Town departments] o Investigate lease and construction of Boston Edison lot, Belfry Club lot [Board of Selectmen, Town departments] o Investigate joint development concept for center of Waltham - Muzzey and Muzzev - Clarke blocks [Board of Selectmen, Town departments] - 27 12 17 80 ry e � Evaluate effects of short-term program * * * * * * LONG TERM PROGRAM (for action in 1983 and after) Assuming evaluation shows additional spaces are needed o Reconstruct Town lot behind School Administration Building [requires appropriation by Town Meeting] o Reconstruct other Town lots to improve efficiency of circulation and/or accommodate compact cars [requires appropriation by Town Meeting] o Construct new lots on Boston Edison, Belfry Club sites [assumes cooperation by private owners ; requires appropriation by Town Meeting] - 28 - 12 17 80