People are also LEAVING Somerville because they cannot afford a home large enough to raise a family in. People are LEAVING Somerville because other than 20-somethings who can bike to their first job, real adults with real families and real jobs need cars to run normal errands - biking is a hobby, not a legitimate form of everyday transportation for everyday needs.

It's not the problem of the people moving in as much as the people who are already here that is the problem. We have a lot of older people that have been here for many years and cannot bike or walk. These are the people that are being shut out of Somerville and many have already moved or forced to move. We are renovating this city for one set of people and excluding those that have been here for the long haul. The city should be for all, not one group. This is way too one sided. My parents can't possibly go to many of the places in Somerville now, can't even cross the street without tripping over the bricks. Should have evicted everyone from Somerville and then build YOUR dream city.

@J L:
People come and people go. But as a matter of fact, allowing people to store their cars on public roads for free reduces incomes, increases housing prices and increases property taxes. People are priced out by "free" parking, not by having richer transportation choices.

@AHM:
If a person is too old and infirm to walk, I for one don't want them piloting a 2 ton killing machine with bad sight lines down a roadway at 30 mph.

Conversely, busses and meals-on-wheels services both improve when a city stops focusing on free parking (cars spend 95% of their time parked) and more on a robust set of transportation choices.

"Somerville ranks highly on national walk-score...rankings."

What a CROCK! City Hall has brick sidewalks constructed that are hazardous to
seniors and the disabled, and cyclists still wreak havoc riding on the sidewalks...

An "urban renaissance" for some, maybe, but certainly not for ALL!

Decreasing the amount of cars means less revenue from parking meters, parking pass fees, excise taxes, and enforcement. On the other hand, more housing and commercial development means more revenue from building permits, property taxes, associated fees, and sales from city-owned properties that go on to generate increased amounts of tax dollars. There’s, clearly, a desire to shift some revenue sources from vehicle-based to property-based. Understandable if you’re advocating for the extension of the Green Line to Somerville and the Community Path to Boston. Talking the talk and walking the walk.

Courtney - if the idea is to simply look at it in a revenue context, that's your prerogative. I look at it as a quality of life issue for people who raise families here, not just $$. Families need cars because kids have soccer equipment, buy lots more groceries, etc.

Mr Weeks notes above he uses his bike for his primary transportation. I'm glad. However, he also HAS a car, and avoids using it. I wonder where Mr Weeks parks his car when he isn't using it? Or where the majority of other bikers park their cars when they aren't using them?

Lots of folks in the city (including one of our candidates for office) tell me that they try to bike as much as possible around the city - but that the driveways that they have is the most valuable thing about their house. I expect this is true for the vast majority of bikers - they avoid using their car, but still own one (and have to park it) to go grocery shopping, visit their in-laws, tote laundry around, etc.

Somerville's existing housing does not come with a lot of off-street parking. Otherwise the schools and municipal lots wouldn't be full every snowstorm. Adding 3,000 housing units will definitely add more cars. I am all for increasing the safety of bikers and walkers. However,we cannot live with blinders on, and think that eliminating parking = eliminating people who own cars. All we will do is exacerbate our existing problems.

I wonder - does the mayor ride his bike the 1.5 miles he lives from work?

Just go near a school in Somerville at school times. Lots of cars, suvs and trucks blocking the streets, parking in front of people's driveways. I can't remember even once growing up here ever getting a ride to school or even one of my friends. We walked. I went from Park Street to the Carr school, then to Southern and then to Cross Street to trade school. We didn't take a bus, we walked. Now people drive there. I try to do my driving to avoid those places and times. I do not drive through Union, Davis or Magoun Square so as to avoid using more gas by sitting there. I try to watch my time so I don't go near schools when they are getting in or out. I want to use as little gas as possible. I plan my work and supply houses so I travel as little as possible. It adds up at the end of the month.

There are quite a few houses here with no driveway and also many apartments do not allow any tenant parking. which helps to get more cars on the street. And housing that was built with not enough parking.

"... push to create more biking and walking infrastructure in the city, even when those plans come at the expense of parking." – and the expense of personal safety, as is the case with the proposed Beacon St redesign. Proof of that is evident when we learn that the designers circumvent published MA DOT standards. In fact, based on the proposed design we can state with high confidence that the City is more interested in “pushing” concepts that only serve to increase the perception of improvement when in reality they have only worsened a shared resource for all users, particularly those that actually live there. Don’t be fooled - the only thing being pushed for here is a line on the mayor’s resume stating “first federally funded cycle track”. I applaud the city’s outward facing ambition and forward thinking – but is it too much to ask for an intelligent, well thought out approach that doesn't simply push for the sake of pushing?

first .let take a minute and look at this picture we are over taxed .over fined and have to pay 30 dollars a year to park are roads are falling apart and we should spend money on thing we do not need than on tings that make mayor happy not the things that people of this city who are trying to make it and live we have to stop spending money in this city we the people need to speak up call your alderman tell them put the brakes on the mayor and stop spending we have so many houses going up assembly square and all this money he is spending 2 fo1 dollar we take in

I question who benefits from this scheme. Is it geared towards Somerville residents or people who are living/working in Cambridge? Given the location of Beacon Street along the city line, it seems questionable. If a project like this clearly focused on expediting travel within the city I'd feel a bit differently. I'm sure opportunities for that exist. Why didn't Somerville Ave get built this way if this is such a good idea? Residents of Somerville have got the short end of the transportation stick for years, both for public transportation and by car.

ya all shoulda been here when there were ten times as many bikes on our streets-in the sixties, when there thousands and thousands of kids on the streets with bikes.
the real question is, what type of community is the mayor building?we have morphed
into a middle class city, but now i fear that he wants to lead us into becoming a wealthy enclave close to boston. maxwell's green is charging 2,000.00 bucks to rent studios that have less than 600 square feet! i think the mayor is leading us in the wrong direction.
and just to upset you folks out there who think dog crap is radioactive, when there were thousands of kids with their thousands of bikes, there were also thousands of family dogs running free on the streets. glory days.

The mixed use of Somerville, business and resident worked well for this city for many years. Only when we became antibusiness did we start having problems. The more we have shifted to residential the more of a problem this has become. You can encourage walking and biking all you want but only so many can do that. For many of us the car is not a choice, it is a neccesity.

MEB said it well: "Residents of Somerville have got the short end of the transportation stick for years, both for public transportation and by car." I would add "for cycling." The sad truth is that there is no way of getting around this town that isn't a mess (other than those who can afford to live in Davis Square, which, face it, is part of Cambridge now).

For cars: traffic is congested because of idiotically designed intersections and lack of lane paint or signage, streets are poorly maintained, and parking is overcrowded.

For bikes: sometimes there are lanes and sometimes not, there are dangerous potholes and washouts, and there is NO enforcement for cars that endanger cyclists, nor is there any enforcement for the many reckless cyclists ignore traffic laws.

For pedestrians: public transport doesn't happen reliably. The sole Green Line that goes to Lechmere runs so infrequently that it isn't a viable choice, and won't be even when it's (supposedly) extended. Buses are spotty and don't run to downtown, so a car is really the only way get to work and keep your job. For walkers, good luck - if the decaying sidewalks don't get you, the many places where there are NO allowances made for pedestrians will (ever walked from MGH/Beacon Hill to Union Sq? It's harrowing - you're basically crossing highways).

So rather than saying any one group has it better, we should face facts: EVERYTHING needs to be overhauled, but won't be. It's the #1 reason we can't wait to move.

I'm tired of commenting on these things, so just read my post on Somerville Voices and you'll understand why people should be angry about what's going on with Beacon Street beyond just the parking issue: http://www.somervillevoices.org/2013/02/24/uncategorized/the-beacon-street-cycle-track-false-promises-of-cycling-safety-and-a-burden-on-the-neighborhood/

hello

1235

People are not VISITING Somerville because of the lack of parking and this hurts business and the vibrancy of the local community.

Further restrictions on parking is a back door way of generating more parking ticket revenue for the City. Thank you mayor Just-the Ticket Joe

Home prices are too high for 3 reasons: people want to live here, NIMBYs prevent more housing supply, and too many people have too high salaries, upping the prices. There's only 1 cause that can be addressed: NIMBYism. And the NIMBYism is always too many cars and parking competition. So we need to reduce both by making walking, biking and transit better.

These are all good points, however, I'm still recovering from the Mayor eluding to 10pm meters.

And speaking of it being larger population back in the 60's we had a lot of large families back then. In Magoun Square in those small houses many people had 6 children. So we have to compare it to adult population to figure out drivers who had cars. Many women back then still were not driving. The male had the license and the car. I Know when I got my license I was the one who had to take my mother food shopping. I don't have a clue as to percentages maybe someone else does but would account for not having so many vehicles back then with a large population.

Why is there never a shortage of BMWs, or MacDonalds cheeseburgers? Because those who supply these items price them according to demand and their cost to produce (/maintain).

The startup cost of a paring space, ignoring the value of the land that is paved, is $4000. Then there's annual maintenance costs (striping, sweeping, etc.).

When the government gives that land away for $30 a year - too low a cost to competently manage the resident sticker problem - the issue is clear. It is not a problem of under supply, it is a problem of under pricing.