HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-03-17 Select Board Packet1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
WHAT IS AN ARTBOX?
A painted mural on an electrical supply/utility box
A piece of Public Art that brightens any given area
An engaging opportunity with the community
23
WHY SHOULD READING INITIATE AN ARTBOX
PROGRAM?
To:
▪promote, and to some degree create, local public cultural initiatives
▪engage the community and support local artists
▪beautify the Town and showcase original, meaningful works of art
▪involve local non-profits and residents
▪increase economic development/placemaking initiatives
▪increase perception of public safety
24
WHO ELSE HAS INITIATED AN ARTBOX PROJECT?
Stoneham
Arlington
Peabody
Malden
Salem
Beverly
Revere
And dozens more!
25
WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE TO CREATE AN ARTBOX?
•Gather materials needed
•Acyclic Gold Standard paint and brushes, Liquitex Soluvar Sealing Coat,
Cleaning Materials, other artist needs (palette, trash, water, etc.)
•Prep box by cleaning/sanding
•Wait a day to dry
•Ensure measurements are correct for design to fit onto box
•Ensure weather is amenable
•Safely place materials in area (do not block pedestrian access, etc.)
26
STAFF/REVIEW PROCESS
•Develop a Core Review Team
•About 4-7 people (Planning, DPW, Non-profit, library/school system)
•Will market/advertise the program and application
•Will formalize application and review process
•Determine what is an acceptable application
•Choose artwork to be commissioned
•Ensure compliance throughout process
27
POTENTIAL LOCATIONS:
•Town Hall Entrance
•1 Box
•Black in color
•View of Town Hall and Church
•Nice tree and bike rack
•Potential Garden Club collaboration
•Salem/Harnden/Main
•3 Boxes, two similar in size; one slightly larger
•Gateway into Town!
•Good view of church
•Haven/Main
•2 Boxes, one is much larger than most found
•1 small silver box, what is this? Can it also be painted?
•Would help create Gateway feel of Main and Haven
•Woburn/Main
•1 Box
•Highly visible, active area due to existing businesses
•Elm Park at Washington/Main
•2 boxes, plus small silver box
•‘Little Library’ in area plus historic signs and nice garden/benches
•Another Gateway into Downtown
28
PROGRAM LOCATIONS:
•Town Hall Entrance
•1 Box
•Black in color
•View of Town Hall and Church
•Nice tree and bike rack
•Potential Garden Club collaboration
29
PROGRAM LOCATIONS:
Salem/Harnden/Main:
This location includes three utility boxes. This location is a gateway into Reading and a
high traffic area. This location has a great view of the Reading Town Common and
the Historic Old South Church. Due to the number of boxes in the area, the Committee
is looking for artists to consider working together on a collaborative work that spans
across these three boxes.
30
PROGRAM LOCATIONS:
Haven/Main:
This location includes two utility boxes . The goal of these Artboxes is to create a sense
of connectivity and draw people from Main Street to the Haven Street corridor and
from the Train Depot to Main Street. This corner is the entrance way to Haven Street.
Haven Street includes a mix of newly conserved historic buildings including the M.F.
Charles Building, mid-century modern building at 580 Main Street, and the Postmark
building.
31
PROGRAM LOCATIONS:
Elm Park at Washington/Main:
This location includes two utility boxes . This location is the southern gateway into
Reading’s downtown. This park is owned by the Town of Reading and the park and
Little Library are maintained by the Reading Lion’s Club. It is requested that the artist
consider a piece with a theme of volunteerism and community pride in honor of the
Lion’s Club’s mission.
32
PROGRAM LOCATIONS:
Woburn and Main:
This location includes one utility box . This area is centrally located on the corner of
Main Street and Woburn Street. This grassy location is adjacent to the Town Common,
Town Hall, and many local businesses.
33
LEFT TO BE DONE
•Market and Advertise the program
•Social Media (Town, Rec, ArtsReading, Library, etc.)
•Distribute flyers downtown and to key organizations
•Press Release/Call to Artists in the Reading Chronicle
•Receive and vet applications (due by April 15 th)
•Review Committee set to meet on April 16 th to review applications
•Schedule meetings with selected artists to review proposal and schedule
•Get painting! ☺
34
35
36
37
38
39
NONANTUM
Washington @ Adams
California @ Bridge
Before After
40
NONANTUM
Watertown @ Chapel
Watertown @ Adams
Before After
41
42
Downtown Parking
Potential System Modifications
Overview for Select Board
January 21, 2020
Updated
February 4, 2020
& March 17, 2020
43
Cross-Disciplinary Team
(PTTTF: Parking Traffic Transportation Task Force)
•Management
–Bob LeLacheur, Jean Delios
•Planning / Economic Development
–Julie Mercier, Erin Schaeffer, Andrew MacNichol
•DPW / Engineering
–Jane Kinsella, Chris Cole, Ryan Percival
•Public Safety
–PD: David Clark, Christine Amendola, Michael Scouten
–FD: Paul Jackson
44
Sources
•Maps & Data: Downtown Reading Parking Study –
2018 Assessment, prepared by Nelson\Nygaard
Consulting Associates, Inc.; 2019 Parking Survey
•Anecdotal Information: Stakeholder feedback at
public meetings; conversations with Police Dept.
•Philosophy & Opportunities: based on industry
practice and recommendations of Nelson\Nygaard
2018 Assessment
45
Tonight’s Presentation
•Systemwide Modifications – Brief Overview of Phase I
•Concerns & Staff Responses
–Outreach
–Kiosks
–Employees
–Customers
–Residents & Commuters
•Phase II proposal
–Safety & Accessibility
–Other Considerations
•Implementation Decisions & Timeline
•PTTTF Request of Select Board – VOTE!
Matt Smith of Nelson Nygaard is here!
46
Systemwide Modifications
[Brief Overview of Phase I]
47
48
Geography
INNER CORE (orange)
OUTER CORE (pink)
User / Component Pros Considerations
[SCENARIO based on STATED PHILOSOPHY]
Makes sense for all-day
users to park further out.
Anyone who wants to park
closer can pay in lot.
Town assessing lighting
and sidewalk upgrades,
will need to decide
whether to stripe spaces
or just add signage to
newly regulated areas.
Community Access
"loophole" will be closed in
Downtown North. All-day
parkers will be relocated out
of Downtown North to free
up spaces.
Commuters will still be
able to park in
Downtown South or in
MBTA lots.*** / Impacts
to commuters and
neighborhoods will be
assessed in Phase II.
Eliminates single user spaces
& 'adds' supply to system.
Removes 'privatization of
public spaces'.
Residents who want to
park on-street will be
able to outside of
regulated hours.
Regulated hours need to
be determined.
LEASING
EMPLOYEES
RESIDENTS
COMMUTERS
(1) Redistribute Employee
Parking to Outer Core / (2)
Expand Areas where Employees
can park / (3) Increase # of
Employee Permits available / (4)
Offer Employee Permits for FREE
(1) "Resident Only" (residents or
resident commuters) & Town-
controlled Commuter parking
relocated out of Downtown
North / (2) Phase II - Commuter
Impacts to be evaluated
Abolish Program & Re-allocate
spaces: High Street (41) = "Public
2 Hr or All Day with Employee
Permit" / Brande Court (4) =
public (kiosk) / Harnden/Union
(13) = Police Dept?
(1) Remove "Resident Only"
regulation in Inner Core / (2)
Price Community Access Permit
competitively w/MBTA pricing /
(3) 9-11 Gould Street permit
remains / (4) No Changes to
Downtown South / (5) Phase II -
evaluate Resident Permit
Spaces will be available to
short-term users of all types,
but not to commuters b/c of
2 Hr restriction. (Community
Access "loophole" will be
closed in Downtown North.)
Changes
Defined as: Area bounded by
Woburn/Main/High*
Defined as: Streets emanating 1-
2 blocks outward from Inner
Core**
Regulations: All streets changed to "Public 2 Hr" or
"Public 30 Min"; remove "Resident Only" and
"Employee Permit" areas; "No Parking" areas will
remain; Payment Kiosks added to CVS & Brande Ct
Lots; 9-11 Gould St permit remains
Regulations: All streets changed to "Public 2 Hr or All
Day with Employee Permit"; remove "Resident Only"
areas; Add/formalize spaces east of Main on Green &
Bolton, and north of Woburn on Linden & Sanborn; "No
Parking" areas will remain
PUBLIC
Provides more spaces for
short-term users &
empowers longer-term users
to pay-to-stay. Cost
escalation will disincentivize
employees from parking in
lot all day.
(1) Inner Core changed to
"Public 2 HR" or "Public 30 Min"
in some areas / (2) Kiosks put in
CVS & Brande Court Lots - no
time limit, but cost escalation
after 4 hours^
Need to discuss
timeframe for
regulations. Could be
limited: 10:00 AM - 4:00
PM or more broad: 8:00
AM - 6:00 PM or
something in between.
49
Concerns*& Staff Responses
*We also received a lot of positive comments from various user types which I’m happy to share if requested.
50
Outreach
•What lessons can we learn from other towns?
–Staff met with:
•Arlington Transportation Planner & ED Director – 2/13
•Waltham Traffic Engineer & Asst. to Traffic Engineer – 3/11
Feedback summarized by staff in document dated 3/12/20
•We need more feedback from businesses.
–Staff attended Chamber event at Tin Bucket – 2/25
–Staff reviewed all correspondence from businesses – ongoing
–Staff followed up with PDA Dental at their office – 3/10
All feedback incorporated herein
51
Kiosks
•Length of Free Period
–15 minutes is too short
Increase to 30 minutes
Allow businesses to validate (for customers only)
•Privacy & Security
–What kind of data is collected with Pay-by-Plate?
License plate, length of stay, amount paid –no personal information
•User Challenges
–Teenagers can’t be bothered
Pay/program remotely with an App
–Elderly won’t be able to navigate them, don’t have smart phones, may be on fixed income
Different payment options will be available; on-street parking & HC spaces will remain free; businesses will be able to validate for customers
•Up-Front & Ongoing Costs
–Pricing scenario to recoup costs
See compiled information from Nelson Nygaard dated 3/12/20
Paid parking typically results in more revenue than towns anticipate
The goals of paid parking kiosks are: to influence user behavior, to create turnover & availability of spaces in prime locations, and to improve the user experience of downtown Reading.
52
Employees
•Employee Permits/Spaces
–Not enough permits or spaces
Outer Core can accommodate ~200 more formal spaces (and permits)
–Don’t want to walk too far, especially at night and in winter
Outer Core is 1-2 blocks from Inner Core; safety improvements under consideration
–Why pay if space not guaranteed?
Employee Permit can be free
•Funerals & Churchgoers
–They often use spaces proposed for Employee Parking
–How will regulations impact them?
Funeral parlors can reserve spaces whatever the regulations may be; churchgoers can use “Public 2 Hour” spaces if available.
Opportunity: some churches downtown have expressed willingness to work with Town to allow their lots to be used by businesses, employees, etc.
•Shared Parking Agreements
–Not enough parking? Empty lots nearby?
Staff are working on a shared parking agreement, and are facilitating coordination between private entities (i.e., Haven Street businesses and Sanborn Street lot owner).
53
Customers
•Brande Court & CVS Lots
–Not enough turnover
Paid parking kiosks should influence behavior and help turnover = more spaces available
–4 hour spaces used all day by employees, may be used by commuters if no time limit
Would cost $15.50/day for employee or commuter to park all day (8:00-6:00 w/30 mins free)
•Leakage
–Will paid parking discourage patronization of Reading businesses?
Paid parking is proposed in lots only; on-street parking will still be free
Allow businesses to validate (for customers only)
•Need more Short-Term Parking
–Not enough 15 or 30 minute spaces
Staff can assess where to add more, Police prefer 30 minute spaces over 15 minute spaces
54
Residents & Commuters
•Resident Only Areas
–Opinions of residents are mixed
Inner Core proposal still allows resident use for all but 4 hours per day
Outer Core proposal is effectively more limiting on resident use b/c it allows employee parking all day
•Impacts on Commuters & Neighborhoods
–Removing these areas may discourage commuting and/or push commuters further into residential neighborhoods to the north and south
See staff proposal for Phase II – Commuter Impacts
55
Phase II – Commuter Impacts
Evaluate Impacts of Phase I on Commuters & Neighborhoods
What we know now:
Potential # of Commuters displaced by Phase I: 150
Streets that may be impacted:
Downtown North
Mount Vernon, High, Dudley, Grand, Deering, School, Middlesex, Bancroft
Downtown South
Prescott, Pratt, Woburn, Temple, Sunnyside, Riverside, Warren, Center, etc.
56
Phase II – Commuter Impacts
Prior to Roll Out of Phase I:
•Outreach to all users, including Commuters, to alert them to Phase I
very important
•Education about other locations for commuter parking (i.e., currently unregulated areas in nearby neighborhoods)
After Roll Out of Phase I:
•PTTTF monthly assessment of complaints, tickets, user issues related to all Systemwide Modifications, with focus on commuters and neighborhoods
•Utilization analysis focused on unregulated neighborhood streets
•Survey commuters about parking and alternative long-term solutions such as remote parking w/shuttle service
•Consider adding Resident Only regulations to unregulated streets, removing Resident Only regulations entirely, AND/OR modifying Resident Community Access Permit
more information needed
57
Safety & Accessibility
•Sidewalks & Pedestrian Access
–Safety improvements and upgrades may be needed
Engineering is still completing an inventory of sidewalk deficiencies
•Lighting
–Additional lighting is needed in certain areas
Police & DPW put together recommendations for the Inner and Outer Cores
•Snow Removal Policy
–Need to clarify expectations for residents and businesses
DPW / Engineering still gathering & evaluating policies of surrounding towns
•Accessibility
–Do we have enough handicap spaces?
2019 Engineering Analysis: public lots and Main Street have enough; additional spaces will be added to Haven Street as part of streetscape project
58
59
Other Considerations
•EV Charging Stations
Agree this is important but feel a needs assessment would be helpful before we dedicate parking spaces to EV Charging
•Compact Spaces
Can be considered next time lots are repaved or restriped
•Temporary Parking for Construction Workers
Staff have a process for this as well as off-site suggestions
•Bike Racks
Staff are working to increase inventory downtown
•Wayfinding Signage
18 new Parking signs will be installed downtown soon!
60
61
Implementation Decisions
62
1. Abolish Leasing
–Details: 58 public spaces leased to 10 different private entities
–Locations: High Street (41), Brande Court Lot (4), Harnden Street (13)
–Why: Eliminates ‘privatization of public space’, increases public supply
Decision 1: abolish leasing.
2. Employee Permit spaces redistributed & expanded
–Details: PD issues ~145 permits for ~120 spaces
–Field Inventory: # of spaces could increase from ~120 to ~330
•Number of permits issued could double
–Locations for lighting & safety improvements: still under review
Decision 2A: fee or no fee for employee permit?
Decision 2B: stripe spaces on side streets or just add signs for now?
3. Timeframe for All On-Street Regulations
Decision 3: limited (10:00-4:00) or broad (8:00-6:00)?
63
4. Kiosks in Public Lots (CVS & Brande Court)*
–Types:
Decision 4A: Pay-by-Plate or Pay-by-Space?
–Timeframe for Regulations / Time Limits:
Decision 4B: start later (10:00-6:00) or all day (8:00-6:00)?
In either case, consider allowing first 30 mins free
Decision 4C: time limit or no time limit?
If no time limit, consider escalating price after 4 hours
–Recommended Pricing Strategy:
•First 30 mins FREE
•Up to 4 hours: $1 per hour, 4+ hours: $2 per hour
Decision 4D: adopt this strategy as a place to start; data collected by kiosk will inform whether pricing needs tweaking
*See compiled information from Nelson Nygaard dated 3/12/20
64
4. Kiosks in Public Lots (CVS & Brande Court)…Cont’d*
If Town implements kiosks, it’s important we also:
–Establish a Parking Benefit District
See attached memo from MAPC dated 12/20/18 (written for City of Everett
but applicable to any municipality)
–Invest in License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology for enforcement
–Use Mobile Apps consistent with nearby towns
(i.e. ParkMobile, PayByPhone, etc.)
*See compiled information from Nelson Nygaard dated 3/12/20
& staff document dated 3/12/20
65
Implementation Timeline
Downtown Parking - Systemwide Modifications - Other Components
March-July Aug.Sept.Oct.November Dec.January 2021 March 2021
Prepare Capital Plan for sidewalks, lighting, etc.
Establish Parking Benefit District - organizational structure, legislation, special
revenue account*Town Meeting
Phase II - Commuter Impacts: begin evaluation
Survey Commuters & conduct Utilization Analysis
Survey Downtown Stakeholders on 1st 6 months of Phase 1
PTTTF report back to Select Board
Downtown Parking - Systemwide Modifications - Implementation Timeline
March April May June July 1, 2020
Select Board VOTE
Employee Permits - ordering & notification to businesses (8 week minimum; 12 weeks preferred)
200+ Regulatory Signs - ordering, fabrication & installation (6 week min; 8 weeks pref)
Kiosks - selection, procurement, delivery & installation (12 week minimum to be safe)
Kiosks - maintenance, collection, customer service (12 week minimum to be safe)
Parking App - vendor selection, contract (12 week minimum to be safe)
Education/Outreach (the longer the better, will extend into July and beyond as needed)
Launch Systemwide Modifications LAUNCH DATE!
*Select Board and Town Meeting votes likely needed; Staff confirming process with Town Counsel.
66
PTTTF Request of Select Board:
•VOTE On:
Systemwide Modifications
Implementation Decisions
67
Thank You
68
Memorandum
To: Mayor’s Office, Planning & Development Department, and Legal Counsel at the City of Everett
From: Kasia Hart, MAPC Transportation Department
On: December 20, 2018
Re: Parking Benefit Districts Follow Up Items
Parking Benefit District Background
Under the Massachusetts Municipal Modernization Act (An Act to Modernize Municipal Finance and
Government,” Chapter 218 of the Acts of 2016), cities and towns are now able to create parking benefit
districts. A parking benefit district is a specific geographic area from which parking revenue is collected,
and then reinvested back into the district for transportation-related improvements.
These improvements may include:
Acquiring, installing, maintaining or operating parking meters or other parking enforcement
technology
Parking enforcement
Improvements to the public realm like street trees, curb cuts and parklets
Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure or facilities
Improvements to bus shelters, access to public transportation, or transit operations, including bus
rapid transit infrastructure, facilities, and technical improvements (such as improvements to signal
timing)
Salaries of parking management personnel
In order to establish a parking benefit district successfully, three key components to consider early on
include defining a geography for the district, determining what parking revenue should be allocated to the
district and how that revenue should be budgeted (if revenue estimates are available), and designating an
entity to oversee the district. Once a plan for how these elements will be established are in place, a
special revenue fund can be created in order to hold the parking revenue for the parking benefit district.
Below are some more details about each of these steps of the process.
Key Steps for Establishing a Parking Benefit District
Define a geography: One of the first steps for establishing a parking benefit district is to define the
boundaries of the district itself. If the intent of the district is to invest parking revenue throughout the city or
town (as opposed to a specific district), then the boundary of the district should be the same as the
municipal boundary. If the district is the same as the municipality’s boundaries, the city or town does not
need to allocate all municipal parking revenue to the parking benefit district; the statue allows all or a
portion of the parking revenue generated within a parking benefit district to be reinvested back into that
district. The remainder can continue to go to the general fund. M.G.L. only indicates that cities and towns
69
may establish parking benefit districts, but not indicate the process by which they need to do so, so the
official designation of the geography should be at the determination of the municipality.
Determine parking revenue source and develop a preliminary budget: Determining what parking
revenue will be allocated to the parking benefit district is another key first step, particularly if the
geography of the district is the same as the municipal boundary and the amount of parking revenue that
could potentially be included in the parking benefit district is substantial. Utilizing new parking revenue
(i.e. revenue that was not previously allocated to the general fund) can help ensure funding for other
municipal programs are not impacted by the creation of a parking benefit district.
Once the source of the parking revenue is determined, it is valuable, but not essential, to estimate the
amount of revenue to be allocated to the parking benefit district and then to develop a budget for how
the funds will be spent within the district. Given that there is some variability in revenue, it is worthwhile to
consider what investments are priorities, in case revenue is lower than anticipated. Creating a budget
could be one of the first tasks for the entity designated to oversee the parking benefit district (see below).
Designate an entity to oversee the PBD: According to the parking benefit district enabling statute, “a
parking benefit district may be managed by a body designated by the municipality, including, but not
limited to, a business improvement district or main streets organization.” Though not required, it is highly
recommended there be an entity in place that is tasked with monitoring parking benefit district revenue,
developing an annual budget, and performing other oversight tasks. This can be an existing body (such as
an existing board or commission), or a new entity created by the municipality. Given the financial
implications of a parking benefit district, having representation on this oversight body from the local
finance department, finance committee, or other related group is recommended. For an example of a
newly created parking benefit district oversight body composed of a range of stakeholders, please see
the Town of Arlington’s Parking Implementation and Governance Committee.
Establish a special revenue fund: Once the basic framework of a parking benefit district is developed, a
special revenue fund should be established in order to hold the parking benefit district revenue. As this
process generally has to come before City Council, it is recommended to have a proposal for a parking
benefit district prepared in conjunction with the request to establish the special revenue fund. This proposal
could include an outline of the three elements described above, although the actual budget could be
established after the special revenue fund is created, but it is helpful to at least have a ballpark estimate
of the total annual revenue that will be allocated to the fund.
For further questions, please contact Kasia Hart in the MAPC Transportation Department at
khart@mapc.org or 617-933-0745.
70
Relevant Parking Benefit District Language in Massachusetts General Laws
M.G.L c. 40, sec. 22A: Parking meters; fees; exemption from fees for disabled veterans and handicapped
persons; bicycle locking devices; motorcycle parking; restricted parking areas for veterans and
handicapped persons (as amended by An Act to Modernize Municipal Finance and Government, 2016)
Section 22A. Any city or town, for the purpose of enforcing its ordinances, by-laws and orders, rules and
regulations relating to the parking of vehicles on ways within its control and subject to the provisions of
section two of chapter eighty-five, may appropriate money for the acquisition, installation, maintenance
and operation of parking meters, or by vote of the city council or of the town may authorize a board or
officer to enter into agreement for such acquisition, installation or maintenance of parking meters;
provided, that the city of Boston, for the purpose of enforcing the rules and regulations adopted by its
traffic and parking commission, or promulgated by its commissioner of traffic and parking, under chapter
two hundred and sixty-three of the acts of nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, may appropriate money for
the acquisition, installation, maintenance and operation of parking meters, or, by vote of the city council of
said city, subject to the provisions of its charter, may authorize the traffic and parking commission of said
city to enter into agreements for the acquisition, installation or maintenance of parking meters. In any city
or town that accepts this sentence, the agreement for the acquisition or installation of parking meters may
provide that payments thereunder shall be made over a period not exceeding 5 years without
appropriation, from fees received for the use of such parking meters notwithstanding section 53 of chapter
44. Such fees shall be established and charged at rates determined by the city or town. Rates may be set
for the purpose of managing the parking supply. The revenue therefrom may be used for acquisition,
installation, maintenance and operation of parking meters and other parking payment and enforcement
technology, the regulation of parking, salaries of parking management personnel, improvements to the
public realm, and transportation improvements, including, but not limited to, the operations of mass transit
and facilities for biking and walking. No fee shall be exacted and no penalty shall be imposed for the
parking of any vehicle owned and driven by a disabled veteran or by a handicapped person and
bearing the distinctive number plates authorized by section two of chapter ninety, or for any vehicle
transporting a handicapped person and displaying the special parking identification plate authorized by
said section two of said chapter ninety or for any vehicle bearing the official identification of a
handicapped person issued by any other state or any Canadian Province. Any city or town may, in
accordance with the provisions of this section, acquire and operate coin-operated locking devices for
bicycle parking. A city or town may, in accordance with the provisions of this section, authorize the parking
of more than one motorcycle in a single parking space and may impose a penalty for the full amount of a
violation of an ordinance, by-law, order, rule or regulation related to the parking of vehicles on ways
within its control and subject to section 2 of chapter 85 for each motorcycle so parked in violation of any
such ordinance, by-law, order, rule or regulation. No motorcycle shall be parked in such a manner so as to
inhibit the means of egress of another motorcycle currently parked in the same parking space.
M.G.L. c. 40, sec. 22A ½: Parking benefit districts
Section 22A 1/2. A city or town may establish 1 or more parking benefit districts, as a geographically
defined area, in which parking revenue collected therein may be designated in whole or in part for use in
that district through a dedicated fund in accordance with the purposes and uses listed in section 22A. A
parking benefit district may be managed by a body designated by the municipality, including, but not
limited to, a business improvement district or main streets organization.
71
Town of Reading
Parking Revenue Breakdown
Main Lot - Behind CVS
Max Revenue Per Space
Low High Low High @ $.50 / hr @ $1.00/hour
8am - 4pm 8 5 40 2,000 73 146,000 $0.50 $1.00 73,000$ 146,000$ 54,750$ 109,500$
8am - 6pm 10 5 50 2,500 73 182,500 $0.50 $1.00 91,250$ 182,500$ 68,438$ 136,875$
8am - 4pm 8 6 48 2,400 73 175,200 $0.50 $1.00 87,600$ 175,200$ 65,700$ 131,400$
8am - 6pm 10 6 60 3,000 73 219,000 $0.50 $1.00 109,500$ 219,000$ 82,125$ 164,250$
* Total Hours per year reflects 52 weeks of parking minus 10 days (holidays when parking is typically free - NY Day, MLK, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas)
Lower Lot - Brande Court
Max Revenue Per Space
Low High Low High @ $.50 / hr @ $1.00/hour
8am - 4pm 8 5 40 2,000 86 172,000 $0.50 $1.00 86,000$ 172,000$ 64,500$ 129,000$
8am - 6pm 10 5 50 2,500 86 215,000 $0.50 $1.00 107,500$ 215,000$ 80,625$ 161,250$
8am - 4pm 8 6 48 2,400 86 206,400 $0.50 $1.00 103,200$ 206,400$ 77,400$ 154,800$
8am - 6pm 10 6 60 3,000 86 258,000 $0.50 $1.00 129,000$ 258,000$ 96,750$ 193,500$
* Total Hours per year reflects 52 weeks of parking minus 10 days (holidays when parking is typically free - NY Day, MLK, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas)
ANNUAL TOTAL - BOTH LOTS
Max Revenue Per Space
Low High Low High @ $.50 / hr @ $1.00/hour
8am - 4pm 8 5 40 2,000 159 318,000 $0.50 $1.00 159,000$ 318,000$ 119,250$ 238,500$
8am - 6pm 10 5 50 2,500 159 397,500 $0.50 $1.00 198,750$ 397,500$ 149,063$ 298,125$
8am - 4pm 8 6 48 2,400 159 381,600 $0.50 $1.00 190,800$ 381,600$ 143,100$ 286,200$
8am - 6pm 10 6 60 3,000 159 477,000 $0.50 $1.00 238,500$ 477,000$ 178,875$ 357,750$
Monday - Saturday
Total Spaces
Total Space
Hours
Rate Per Hour 75% Average Occupancy
Monday - Friday
Hours of
Enforcement Daily Hours
Number of
Days Per
Week
Total Hours
Per Week
Total Hours
Per Year
(minus 10
Rate Per Hour 75% Average Occupancy
Monday - Friday
Monday - Saturday
75% Average Occupancy
Monday - Friday
Monday - Saturday
Hours of
Enforcement Daily Hours
Number of
Days Per
Week
Total Hours
Per Week
Total Hours
Per Year
(minus 10
holidays)Total Spaces
Total Space
Hours
Rate Per Hour
Hours of
Enforcement Daily Hours
Total Space
HoursTotal Spaces
Total Hours
Per Year
(minus 10
holidays)
Total Hours
Per Week
Number of
Days Per
Week
72
READING PARKING ANALYSIS
Additional Information on Enforcement and Revenue Potential
LPR Costs and Timeframe:
LPR costs will differ depending on the type of equipment purchased. There are handheld LPR
systems where parking enforcement officers carry them and scan each plate; fixed location LPR
readers mounted on posts at entry/exit locations (gather data entering and exiting a lot for
example); and vehicle mounted LPR systems that scan plates as enforcement vehicle drives by the
parked cars.
Getting an exact cost requires submitting a proposal to a vendor, with final costs depending on
the type of equipment and scale of operations. It’s a hardware and software package typically.
Essentially, the better the equipment, the more expensive. I’ve heard of systems that cost as little
as $5,000 to over $25,000. Vehicle mounted systems are the most common and run in the
$10,000-$15,000 per vehicle range. They are expensive but are highly effective. My take is that
costs will come down in cost over the next several years as more places start to use them.
Kiosk Collection
Technically it would be possible for the police to access plate info, but it would require them to go
into other systems to look at who the plate belongs to, etc.
It’s an interesting question because a data advantage of a pay by plate system is the ability to track
paid usage by plate (not person – again, that requires an extra step into another database). It
allows the operator (not the police) to see how often a car parks there, and for how long they pay
on average. It helps to understand turnover and frequency of use. I have never heard of a police
force taking the data.
However, you could also consider placing parking enforcement officers in another department to
separate the duties – this is what Salem does. While police can and do ticket when called, they
still use paper tickets. All digital enforcement is done by the Parking Enforcement Officers who
are part of the Traffic and Parking Department, and the Parking Clerk is in another department.
The Police don’t have any access to the kiosk information in Salem. It’s a good system.
Revenues
See spreadsheet, which breaks down both lots by 5 or 6 days (Monday – Friday, or Monday-
Saturday); by two enforcement hours (8am-4pm or 8am-6pm); and by different rates ($0.50/hr
and $1.00/hour). The assumed average utilization/occupancy throughout the day is at 75%. To be
more conservative, we could redo this at 50%.
73
[NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME
[Client Name]
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2
74
77 FRANKLIN STREET 10TH FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02110 617-521-9404 FAX 617-521-9409
www.nelsonnygaard.com
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Julie Mercier, Town of Reading
From: Matt Smith
Date: January 29, 2020
Subject: Parking Kiosk Recommendations
The below memorandum outlines several parking payment options and recommendations for use
in Reading, starting in the Town’s municipal lot(s).
Payment Equipment and Costs
Payment kiosks would provide the best option for on-site payment within Reading’s public
parking lot(s). Kiosks provide payment options (cash and card payment), require less
maintenance than standard or smart meters, and create less visual clutter.Given the number of
spaces and layout of the lot(s), two kiosks (in each) would provide sufficient coverage.
Kiosk costs are generally comparable to purchasing standard meters (when installation costs are
included), and more cost effective than smart meters. Based on pricing sheets provided through
the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s (MAPC) Collective Purchasing website, kiosks (solar
powered or hard-wired) generally cost in the $10,000 to $12,000 range per unit, with some
models priced higher. We would recommend units that at a minimum accept coins, bills, and card
payments, provide a digital display (easier to see and to provide additional information) and that
include internal lighting. Units without internal lighting are difficult to read at night.
Kiosks can be procured through the MAPC’s Collective Purchasing program. MAPC has
negotiated lower rates as part of a statewide group procurement process, allowing municipalities
to purchase units at a discount without going to bid. For example, Parkeon’s multi-space meter
(i.e. kiosk) – solar of hard-wired – accepting coins, bills, cards and with a small display screen
runs $11,600 per unit under the program. All models from various vendors including ITS, IPS and
offer units at similar costs.
For a list of all available units, see https://www.mapc.org/our-work/services-for-cities-
towns/public-works-collective-purchasing-program/#parkingpaymentsystems
Recommendation: Hard-wired (electric) kiosk from Parkeon or IPS.
Hard-wired kiosks have a slight edge as these units are more reliable in cold weather. However,
newer solar units have improved performance, so given the reduction in costs to install (no
electricity is needed) and to operate (no electricity is needed), solar is a good, green option. There
is no or little difference in unit cost, but ongoing costs are less for solar.
Recommendation: Allocate $15,000 per kiosk, including installation costs.
Installation costs include labor and materials for a concrete pad where unit is located, electrician
costs (if wired), and shelters (optional).
75
[NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME
[Client Name]
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2
Installation Timeframe
Based on a discussion with a Municipal Parking Manager, kiosks are typically shipped and
installed within 6-8 weeks; however, timeframes may shift depending on availability and orders.
Kiosk installation costs – of the unit itself – is typically included in the cost. Other costs –
concrete pad, electric conduit connection, etc. – is the responsibility of the municipality.
Payment Options
Pay-by-Plate vs. Pay-by-Space
Recommendation: Pay-by-Plate should be used for parking payment sessions.
Kiosks allow pay by space and pay by plate options. Pay by Plate is recommended for several
reasons.
- Pay-by-plate is more cost effective. There is no need to number individual spaces – signs
or paint, which requires frequent upkeep.
- Pay-by-plate can be used to track user patterns, for example, how often a specific car
parks in the lot, and for how long.
- Pay-by-plate can be used for virtual (license plate based) permits and LPR (license plate
recognition) enforcement should the Town procure systems in the future.
Free Parking Allocation
Given that paid parking is new to Downtown Reading, allowing a short period of free parking, as
well as a grace period at the end of each session, is recommended. Free parking should be
directed towards short-term, convenience parking sessions. For example, someone running into a
café for coffee pick-up or into the pharmacy quickly.
Recommendation: Provide 15-minutes of free parking for each session. Free
parking still requires entering license plate into the kiosk (or parking app – see next
section).
Additionally, proving an automatic grace period at the end of each paid session sho uld be
considered, so as not to punitively punish those who are unintentionally delayed, and go over the
time allotted by a few minutes. Such programs help to reduce enforcement fear.
Recommendation: Institute a 5-minute grace period that automatically extends the
paid time by 5-minutes to reduce likelihood of receiving a ticket within minutes of a
session ending.
Pricing Strategy
Among the most successful ways to encourage parking turnover is pricing. Given that the two
Town owned lots serve a variety of user types, providing the option to park for different periods of
time, even all-day should be allowed (if parkers are willing to pay for it.
Recommendation: Implement graduated pricing, where the base hourly rate ($1.00 per hour)
increases for anyone parking more than 4 hours (e.g. $2 per hour).
76
[NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME
[Client Name]
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3
Hourly Parking Fee Breakdown
- First 15-minutes: Free
- Up to 4 hours: $1 per hour
- 4 or more hours: $2 per hour.
Parking Applications
Parking applications add convenience for parkers. Many communities already incorporate
parking applications, which have proven popular with many users. Parking applications not only
provide user convenience, they also provide important data about parking patterns and user
behavior, but also provide additional services (typically included in the base package) such as
Parking Validation options allowing individual businesses and/or organizations to set up
individual accounts and pay for their customers’ parking. Parking applications can also be used to
manage permit systems (by plate).
There are several options available to communities. Among the most used by local municipalities
are ParkMobile (Somerville), Passport Labs (Boston, Cambridge, Brookline, Salem, and more)
and PayByPhone. Any of these platforms should be considered.
Parking App contract costs may be paid in full by the municipality, the user (parker, with a fee) or
a combination.
Recommendation: Contract with a parking application vendo r before launching
payment.
Parking Benefit District
Parking Benefit Districts (PBDs) provide a mechanism in which to designate all parking revenues
within a defined district – in this case, Downtown Reading – to improve the parking system
within that district. Parking district improvements include but are not limited to parking
equipment and maintenance, staffing (e.g. enforcement), infrastructure improvements (roadway,
sidewalk, bicycle projects), public transit; wayfinding and signage, and more. All the above effect
the parking system by improving facilities, managing parking demand, and more.
Establishing a PBD before parking fees are established is recommended. The funds to be collected
under a new system are net new revenues and do not impact existing budget allocations. Further,
by advertising that all parking revenues directly go to fund infrastructure and beautification
projects in the downtown district, users will see and experience the results.
The Town of Arlington adopted the first PBD in Massachusetts. Funds from new parking meters
are used to pay for improvements to public parking lots near Mass Ave, including lighting to
improve visibility and user safety.
Recommendation: Establish a Parking Benefits District as part of the introduction
of priced parking.
77
1
Downtown Parking – Systemwide Modifications
Information Provided by Matt Smith of Nelson Nygaard
Compiled by Julie Mercier, Community Development Director
Date: 3/12/20
A) See Memo from Nelson Nygaard, dated 1/29/20 re: Parking Kiosk Recommendations, distributed to
Select Board for 2/4/20 Meeting and again for 3/17/20 Meeting.
B) Follow up questions from 2/4/20, email exchange between Julie (black text) & Matt (red text):
1. Pay-By-Plate
a. Concerns were expressed about privacy and security
i. What kind of data is collected / can be accessed through someone’s license
plate? The plate number is used as an ID for enforcement purposes, but no
other information is provided. For example, when the enforcement officer
prints out the paid parking list (from the kiosk), all plate numbers of cars that
have paid, are listed on a printout. The officer then compares the car plates with
those on the list. If the plate number isn’t listed on the printout, the car hasn’t
paid, and it’s a violation. A ticket is then issued as any other ticket would be
issued.
ii. Pay-By-Space wouldn’t collect this type of data on users, but it could still track
utilization patterns, etc., right? Yes, it would collect utilization information, but
what pay by space can’t do, nor can pay and display, is track duration
information. For example, if someone pays by plate for 2 hours, but then
extends it another 2 hours, you now know a car parked for a total of 4-hours.
Pay by space (or pay and display) would not provide this detail – it would look
like 2 separate cars parked in the space. This is why pay by plate is more
valuable – helps you to understand parking behaviors more effectively.
iii. What would we be giving up from a data/enforcement perspective if we used
Pay-By-Space instead of Pay-By-Plate? Enforcement is no different. With pay by
plate and pay by space, enforcement officers receive a printout of paid parking
– either the space number or the license plate number.
b. Concerns were also expressed about the need to walk back and forth from car to kiosk
i. Is it safe to say that with Pay-By-Plate (which I’ve never used), a user doesn’t
have to walk back to the car to put a sticker on the dash or am I
misunderstanding how this would work? The major advantage of pay by plate is
there is no need to walk back to your car. You plug it in, pay and then go. Pay by
space is problematic when people don’t see the number, go to pay, and then
have to walk back to get the number and then back to the kiosk. And pay and
display is the worst, as it requires all parkers to pay then walk back to display
the proof or payment. It’s the major disadvantage – especially in lots where the
distance to the kiosk is often greater. It’s highly inconvenient for the parker.
2. Free Period
a. Select Board members feel that 15 minutes is too short of a free period, 2 hours was
suggested The purpose of paid parking is to better manage high demand parking areas
78
2
where spaces are at a premium, typically because they are nearest amenities. Allowing
2-hours free wouldn’t be effective in achieving turnover. If 2-hours are free, I think the
cost of installing kiosks or meters isn’t worthwhile either. Upping the free time to 30-
minutes is perfectly acceptable. It still encourages turnover, but allows for unanticipated
delays for convenience trips – e.g. long line at the pharmacy may go over 15 minutes
free, but unlikely to go over 30-mins free.
i. What is the maximum free period you think is advisable? 30-minutes (especially
since on-street spaces will remain free)
3. Pricing
a. Concern about up-front and ongoing costs of kiosks the upfront cost appears high, but
they more or less pay for themselves, and then some. (e.g. 50 spaces at $1/hr over 10
hours = $50/hr revenue, or $500/day). If only 50% utilized, the revenue is $250/day.
With approx. 300 revenue producing days a year (Sundays free, and holidays free), that
is $75,000 a year in revenue for the lot (at 50% utilization). Upfront cost is less than a
third of the first year revenue. Ongoing costs include wireless connection (if want real
time data, or want to include in parking app) – max $1,200 a year, plus small
maintenance budget ($500). The Town continues to come way out on top.
i. In your experience, has paid parking resulted in more or less revenue than towns
expect? Typically more, especially with kiosks. Meters (old coin ones and smart
ones) display on the meter how much parking time remains. When someone
leaves early, the next user sees there is time, and doesn’t have to pay for that
portion. When using kiosks – pay by plate especially, each person pays for their
parking from the time they arrive, even if it overlaps with a previous paid
session.
ii. What do we need to charge to recoup the costs of kiosks? I understand this can
probably be answered in many ways. See the above. Based on that, even if you
only charge $.50/hr, and utilization remained at 50% on average, you would
collect $37,500 in the first year – approx. $15K more than the kiosks. Even if
utilization plummeted to 25%, and you charged $.50/hr, you still collect $18,750
a year, so it would take 2 years to recoup the cost of 2 kiosks.
If helpful, I could create a spreadsheet highlighting the kiosk costs (installation and maintenance),
and the revenues (at different utilization and hourly cost levels), to estimate time to recoup costs.
C) Follow-up questions relayed from Julie to Matt:
1. LPR costs & timeframes for ordering/implementing – could the same company provide/service
the LPR tech and the kiosks?
2. One thing I want to clarify: even though the kiosk just collects license plate info and nothing
else, it would still be possible for the Police Department to take this license plate info and plug it
into their other systems to get personal information, correct? But it sounds like this would not
be automatic – it would be an extra step PD would have to take if they wanted to know more
about a user/person.
3. I’ll take you up on your last offer to create a spreadsheet on costs/revenues – I think this would
be really informative. Can you show us the difference between 6 days of paid parking (including
Saturdays) and 5 days (only Mon-Fri)? It’s still an open question whether we would include
Saturdays or not. I’ll have to look at the utilization data. Do you have a recommendation on this?
All of our other enforcement timeframes are just Mon-Fri. Perhaps having it broken down as
79
3
8:00-4:00 (8 hours of paid parking per day) and 8:00-6:00 (10 hours of paid parking per day)
would be informative as well.
D) See Memo from Nelson Nygaard, dated 3/11/20 re: LPR, Kiosk Data & Revenues, distributed to
Select Board for 3/17/20 Meeting.
E) See Parking Revenue Comparison prepared by Nelson Nygaard, dated 3/11/20, distributed to Select
Board for 3/17/20 Meeting.
F) Follow-up questions relayed from Julie (black text) with response from Matt (red text):
1. It sounds like in the pay-by-plate scenario, license plate information would be collected and
retained for purpose of analyzing parking patterns. Is there a way to anonymize it? A license
plate number can still be traced back to the user (even if not by the vendor). Or is there a way to
analyze the parking patterns lot without tying the patterns to the actual plate numbers?
2. Under the proposed pay-by-plate system, as currently envisioned, who would "own" and have
access to the data? The Town? The vendor? Both?
It’s a little unclear about how the data is provided, but typically, the full plate is provided as part of
the system. The key issue here is to ensure data use policies are clear and limit the ability of law
enforcement to use the data. I think a good way to discuss is how the State uses license plate
technology for all electronic tolling on the Pike and Tobin bridge. An LPR scanner snaps photos of
every plate, processes through database, and then issues tickets to those vehicles who do not have
an EZ pass. However, they have set strict data usage policies. For example, laws require subpoenas
for authorities to access driver data, mirroring existing policies of EZ Pass system. So basically,
anyone who has been using EZ Pass for years, or ever drives the Pike or Tobin, this is the same thing.
It’s enforcing something electronically.
Data retention policies – 30 days, 3 months, 1 year, etc. – should also be put in place to limit ability
to track behavior.
Simply put, LPR is already a part of most people’s daily lives. There are even parking garages that
only use LPR for payment. Nearly every parking kiosk uses pay by plate – it’s just manual. This is no
different. And, most parking enforcement handhelds scan the barcode on people’s inspection
sticker, which links it to the registration, to provide tickets. It’s all electronic. As long as policies are
put in place to protect data, it should be good.
80
1
Downtown Parking – Systemwide Modifications
Feedback from Arlington Econ Dev / Transportation Staff & Waltham Traffic Engineering Staff
Compiled by Julie Mercier, Community Development Director
Date: 3/12/20
OVERVIEW
Arlington:
Implemented paid parking in public lots and on-street, established Parking Benefit District in 2016
Pricing scheme: $0.50/hour & can park all day; first 15 minutes free for on-street meters (abused)
Employees & Residents can purchase permit to use municipal lots; Town not keeping track of data
Don’t use Mobile Apps but plan to launch PayByPhone soon
Waltham:
Has had some form of paid parking since 1980s; Currently, on-street is free and there are 23 kiosks
in public lots; modifications proposed to add paid parking on-street where prime spots are
Pricing scheme: $2 for 12 hours; used by many commuters (Staff think this is way too cheap)
All parking revenue goes into Parking Meter Fund, separate from General Fund
Offer Monthly ($35), Yearly ($350), Senior ($5) and Resident Permits
we may want to consider Senior Citizen Permit for nominal fee
Use PayByPhone App – it’s very popular
KIOSKS
1. Vendor Review
a. IPS (Arlington leases on-street & multi-space meters)
i. Mechanical / Maintenance / $ Collection: solar panels don’t charge well, screens
bake in sun & unreadable; many issues with coin jams, many contested tickets –
vendor response terrible
ii. Customer Service: terrible, Arlington outsourced to 3 rd party (RepublicParking)
iii. Data Collection: very disappointing; financial back-end is robust but not user
friendly and doesn’t connect space # w/payment info or time – as a result, staff
have not tracked utilization and do not know if changes are needed
Not Recommended
b. Parkeon (Waltham owned kiosks in past)
i. Mechanical / Maintenance / $ Collection: needed fixing constantly, $ collection
was awkward
ii. Customer Service: closest person in NY, would charge $1000 per visit
iii. Data Collection: good back-office reporting
Not Recommended unless issues described have been resolved
c. VenTech (Waltham owns kiosks now)
i. Mechanical / Maintenance / $ Collection: solar panels don’t have many issues;
bills/receipts jam during rain – system sends email to staff; Waltham has part-
time repair/collection person on staff
ii. Customer Service: local MA person available, very responsive
iii. Data Collection: good data provided but they don’t really use it
Recommended – Waltham loves them
81
2
2. Type of Kiosk
a. Pay & Display (Arlington): many complaints about back & forth, need to allow Mobile
App in order to mitigate this
b. Pay By Space (Waltham): striping and signage are costly, people don’t remember #s
3. Payment Methods
a. Arlington meters: coins & CC, launching mobile app soon
b. Waltham meters: nickels, dimes, quarters, bills, CC & mobile app BUT no change given
4. Mobile Apps – PayByPhone (Arlington interviewed many vendors and selected PayByPhone,
Waltham and MBTA use PayByPhone)
a. Contract
i. Contract Fee can be paid for by municipality or passed through to end user
ii. Waltham passes $0.25 through to end user; required to have 1,000 transactions
per month – given 3 months to build up to that number, now exceed it easily
b. Promotional Materials provided by PBP can be attached to kiosk so users know how to
download and use App
c. Interface w/Kiosk Vendor - 3rd vendor needed to communicate between VenTech & PBP
i. Waltham uses Conduent, contract paid for by ticket revenue
ii. Not the same as LPR, but probably could coordinate with it
This part was confusing to me; will need to research further
PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT
Arlington has one, Waltham does not
Issues: not set up properly locally (set up when Treasurer was elected official and not an accounting
professional), so accounting is unclear – as a result, it’s taken a long time for Town to spend $
Revenue: 100% net revenue goes into PBD; revenue exceeds expectations by tens of thousands
Feedback from Businesses: ready to see benefits of Parking Benefit District
Recommendations: make sure Town Treasurer or Accountant is member of Committee; set up
allocation plan from the get-go
KEY TAKE-AWAYS
Arlington
Kiosks and PBD are win-win more parking available & more $$ to invest in downtown
Set up Mobile Apps right away; PayByPhone recommended b/c used by MBTA
Do not underestimate importance of maintenance, collection & customer service for kiosks
“Parking is a scarce resource and should pay for itself”
Waltham
Parking Benefit District ability to reinvest downtown makes the case for paid parking
Premium parking should cost more
Pay By Plate is best method; wish they had it
“Paying for parking is paying for peace of mind”
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163