Transit oriented parking

It’s common to see development projects and city initiatives promoting transit-oriented development, which is ostensibly the allowance of higher density, walkable development near transit stations, based on the idea that if people live within walking distance of transit, they won’t need to do as much driving.

This is true, too. According to Lisa Jacobsen and Rachel Weinberger of the Transportation Reserarch Board, who did a survey of 32 transit agencies (which did not include the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) found that the best situation for transit agencies was for stations to be surrounded by high density development with little to no parking. Such a situation also resulted in car use being up to 60 percent lower than Institute of Transportation Engineers standards predicted. Free parking provided by workplaces resulted in reduced transit usage, while the station being near the workplace was more of a factor in someone choosing to use transit.

Across all modes, only 22 percent of transit passengers used park and ride. All the agencies surveyed lost money on parking — the MBTA, however, anticipated¬†net revenues of $17 million for FY16.

But when one considers that fare revenue was over $600 million for the same fiscal year, one begins to wonder if providing parking is really that important. Considering that parking facilities comprise a large part of the MBTA’s real estate holdings and real estate revenue was anticipated to decline by $700,000, perhaps the T should put its car storage space to work for it.

While there are some egregious examples in the core rapid transit system — Alewife, Wellington, Quincy Adams, Braintree and Quincy Center — the commuter rail system is the biggest offender. There are also absurd local policies in place, such as the fact that there are at least six parking garages within a half mile radius of Malden Center Station, plus numerous surface lots, and the way Assembly Square is developing as all parking garage.

For example, in 2014 the MBTA opened a new $34 million parking garage for a commuter rail stop in Beverly — twice the yearly net revenue of all the parking in the system. Not only that, the City of Beverly assessing department values the land and the building at around $4.1 million. That doesn’t sound financially sustainable.

Another interesting tactic of commuter rail planning is to locate stations a considerable distance from anything. This is the case with Framingham, Mishawum, Prides Crossing, Lowell, Providence and Worcester and others. It’s like transit in Boston has been designed to fail.

Advertisements

One thought on “Transit oriented parking

  1. There are far too many commuter rail stations that were located far from population centers because some residents (a) wanted a large parking lot and (b) didn’t want commuters parking on-street in village centers and leaving their cars there all day. It’s really too bad. It’s fine to have some commuter rail stations designed for park-and-ride, but this should not be at the expense of providing stations in existing village centers, which have a large catchment area of people who would be able to walk to the station. Solving the “commuter rail riders using on-street parking” issue, there are many solutions to that, mainly some combination of time limits and parking fees to park on the street, to make those spaces available for customers rather than commuters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s