Letter sent out by Ward 3 Councilor Bob Cronin -- If you happened to read the Daily News article about paid parking in today’s (12/2) paper you will see that the Mayor’s paid parking plan is to be removed from committee at the December 13th City Council meeting. The article details that the Public Safety committee voted 3-0 not to recommend the plan. This plan, in my opinion, (which is based on over twenty years of experience in the field of parking planning and management) is not ready and should not be brought forward at this time. It is only coming out because the lease agreements with the NRA and Waterfront Trust expire 12/31/10. I continue to remain open to dialogue and discussion with the Mayor, her staff, Councillors and residents and I continue to be willing to listen to all points of view. There have been numerous public meetings with a great deal of input and the sharing of ideas from residents, businesses and City leaders and staff. There have also been many working sessions. However, as Public Safety debated the final draft, it changed several times in significant ways which then required further discussion and fact finding, thus extending the timeline. However, as the plan changed, revenue estimates never followed suit. As an example, paid permit parking for residents was to be only to be allowed in the NRA lots and Tracey Place in the first final draft. That changed to allow permit parking in all lots (minus Waterfront Trust) but revenue estimates never reflected that change. Occupancy rate estimates were downgraded. These are some of things that were disclosed in public forums. The leases themselves seem weighted against the City, including a clause allowing the WFT and NRA to take over the lots for special events. There are many more issues like neighborhood impacts, usage counts, use restrictions, lighting issues that need further work, but that’s the overview. Can this plan be reworked? Possibly. But this should be done in a methodical manner and not at the eleventh hour. Another perspective is that although the cost of fifty cents an hour is reasonable, the act of paying it may be too overt in this uncertain economy for many people. Visitors may choose other destination options, something that could ultimately hurt the City. The resident parking component is a $50 permit, $25 if your older than 65. That means a resident must gauge if they plan to visit the downtown for more than 100 hours a year between 8 AM and 6 PM (or 50 hours for a senior). I believe that this will not present a financial incentive to many families. Frankly, it’s also a plan that doesn’t have widespread support at this time. I suggest rethinking and reworking the plan-- in-house, not with another study—to develop it in a way that the City, businesses and residents can perhaps get behind and support.
1 comment:
Letter sent out by Ward 3 Councilor Bob Cronin
--
If you happened to read the Daily News article about paid parking in today’s (12/2) paper you will see that the Mayor’s paid parking plan is to be removed from committee at the December 13th City Council meeting. The article details that the Public Safety committee voted 3-0 not to recommend the plan. This plan, in my opinion, (which is based on over twenty years of experience in the field of parking planning and management) is not ready and should not be brought forward at this time. It is only coming out because the lease agreements with the NRA and Waterfront Trust expire 12/31/10. I continue to remain open to dialogue and discussion with the Mayor, her staff, Councillors and residents and I continue to be willing to listen to all points of view.
There have been numerous public meetings with a great deal of input and the sharing of ideas from residents, businesses and City leaders and staff. There have also been many working sessions. However, as Public Safety debated the final draft, it changed several times in significant ways which then required further discussion and fact finding, thus extending the timeline.
However, as the plan changed, revenue estimates never followed suit. As an example, paid permit parking for residents was to be only to be allowed in the NRA lots and Tracey Place in the first final draft. That changed to allow permit parking in all lots (minus Waterfront Trust) but revenue estimates never reflected that change. Occupancy rate estimates were downgraded. These are some of things that were disclosed in public forums. The leases themselves seem weighted against the City, including a clause allowing the WFT and NRA to take over the lots for special events. There are many more issues like neighborhood impacts, usage counts, use restrictions, lighting issues that need further work, but that’s the overview. Can this plan be reworked? Possibly. But this should be done in a methodical manner and not at the eleventh hour.
Another perspective is that although the cost of fifty cents an hour is reasonable, the act of paying it may be too overt in this uncertain economy for many people. Visitors may choose other destination options, something that could ultimately hurt the City.
The resident parking component is a $50 permit, $25 if your older than 65. That means a resident must gauge if they plan to visit the downtown for more than 100 hours a year between 8 AM and 6 PM (or 50 hours for a senior). I believe that this will not present a financial incentive to many families. Frankly, it’s also a plan that doesn’t have widespread support at this time. I suggest rethinking and reworking the plan-- in-house, not with another study—to develop it in a way that the City, businesses and residents can perhaps get behind and support.
Post a Comment