From: mhkanter@aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 3:48 PM
To: Fitzgerald, John BRA
Cc: mayor@cityofboston.ma.us; Meade, Peter; Ross, Michael (City Council); LaMattina, Salvatore; jay.livingstone@mahouse.gov; City.Council; rbobrien@rbobrien.com; Louise.Thomas6@gmail.com; lmehp@rcn.com; jane.forrestall@verizon.net; KMRYAN1@PARTNERS.ORG
Subject: Boston Garden Garage and other projects in area
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
I have lived in the West End since 1970 and was a member of the first Board of Trustees elected by the owners of the Hawthorne Place Condominium. I wish to commend Linda Ellenbogen and Kathleen Ryan for their thoughtful letter of comments with respect to the EPNF for the redevelopment of the former Boston Garden site. I would like to be on record as agreeing with most of the substance of that letter, but cannot endorse its views on the need for parking.
The BRA (at least per a discussion I had with Kairos Shen at one of the public meetings on the Government garage project, if not formally) has a view that the way to solve the increasingly unacceptable traffic congestion in the area is to reduce the available parking. I think this policy, if implemented as planned, is likely to lead to unintended and decidedly adverse consequences.
The traffic studies in support of the view that less parking will be needed in the future are drawing on recent data as to the increased use of bicycles. There is an underlying assumption that the same rate of increase will continue. This is a risky proposition, given that the elimination of parking in the many projects in the area will be irreversible. This is analogous to a young business that might achieve $50,000 of sales in its first year and $100,000 the next and concludes that its business will double every year. Both social scientists and businesspeople will tell you that the assumption is faulty; it is much more likely that the rate of growth, if any, will slow or plateau, and it is quite possible that the trend will actually reverse.
Even if the BRA is correct in thinking the younger residents it is attracting can be persuaded to give up; their cars, I suggest that phenomenon will not be permanent. As any parent will tell you (and you may know from your own experience) a lot of time is consumed in transporting kids to their various activities, and taking the child means taking a lot of stuff for that child (and any sibling who is brought along because he/she cannot be left alone). The stuff may include diaper bags, snacks, toys, blankets, clothes, etc. and it is not easy to transport it and the kids themselves without a car. When you see a child on the T with only one parent, the child is virtually always strapped into a large stroller to enable the parent to transport the gear. Neither the strollers nor the stuff (nor the backpacks and other luggage frequently brought on the T) are factored into any of the analyses of the capacity of the T. A much more detailed analysis of the demographic impacts of the lack of cars is needed.
The West End has many young singles as well as couples, some with young children. We lose a good many of these families when the children reach school age because of lack of satisfactory public schools/school assignments. It has long been the city's goal to improve the schools and keep these families as residents. Discouraging cars is inconsistent with that goal. If you make it too difficult for parents to meet the needs of their young children, they will leave. A policy that makes it too difficult or expensive for residents who need one to keep a car is a policy that will lead to a community composed primarily of seniors and young people, and many of those youngsters will be transient residents.
Another group that will suffer profoundly are the owners of stores in the area and the employees that depend on the stores for their livelihoods. Our retailers do not thrive based solely on sales to the residents of the neighborhoods. They need people coming into the city to shop and to patronize the city's restaurants, bars and events. There are plenty of stores, restaurants and bars in the suburbs. If it is too difficult or unpleasant for visitors to come to the city or to get around it once they are here they will come less often, if at all. We saw this phenomenon during the years of the Big Dig. Traffic was a mess and businesses in the affected areas suffered severely. Even if commuters were willing to come to work by bike (year round, regardless of weather) do you envision them coming to shop and taking their packages home on the bikes? They will patronize establishments near their homes (and/or shop on the internet) and the stores you want to have animating our streets will suffer accordingly.
I support Phase 1 of the Boston Garden proposed development, including the podium and the hotel, which I think is unlikely to add significant traffic to the area. This support is motivated in large part by the proposed supermarket, which has long been a goal of our neighborhood and of the North Emd residents. I think approval of later phases of the project, and other projects in the area such as the Government Center Garage project and the Equity Garden Garage project should be deferred until sufficient progress has been made in traffic mitigation and enhancement of public transportation. Further, the BRA should do everything it can to promote siting of new projects in less congested and underserved areas.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Miriam H Kanter