Reason Behind the 48-hour Parking Rule

[wonkywheels.livejournal.com]

There has been some talk in this community about the 48-hour parking rule. Can someone explain the rationale behind this law? I have a car, but I take the "T" or ride my bike to work, so it doesn't make sense to me to have to move my car for no reason. I understand the need to move my car for street-sweeping, but this 48-hour thing doesn't seem to have a basis.

Comments

Re: Other Cities

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

I respectfully disagree with you almost entirely.

I am both a resident and a driver and I am having a really hard time fathoming people who are also residents and drivers who truly feel this way. My hunch is that many of the people supporting this rule don't even need the street parking but are projecting something similar to the un-neighborly attitude you describe: those spots in front of my house are MINE so get out of them. Many are probably also the same ones who feel justified in reserving "their" spots with a trash bin.

Again, why not make more streets resident-only and then enforce that rule if the "real" problem is outsiders taking up spaces, which I agree seems like the likely original justification. And to use your own argument, then what is the problem with me parking in that space in front of my own house for a week? I can see being annoyed by someone in "my" space for a week, sure, but not annoyed enough to legislate against it.

Unless they were blocking me in or otherwise causing a nuisance, why would I ever care about the same car being in the same space, as opposed to there always being a different car in that space? The whole thing doesn't make real sense. There are the same number of spaces whether or not we're playing musical cars.

I happen to have a driveway now so in practice, it doesn't matter to me at all and I fall into neither category you describe, but I still disagree vehemently with this rule. I also have friends who don't have locally-registered cars so changing to a more reasonable set of rules would likely hurt them, but I still think it's the right way to go.

I see no need for this arbitrarily-enforced rule that is broken constantly when we can have a consistent system that favors legal residents and is easier to enforce.

Hey, maybe I should run for something. ;)

Re: Other Cities

[tomchampion.livejournal.com]

Maybe you should. In the meantime, the process for getting a street converted to resident permit parking is largely in the hands of the residents themselves.

Section 5-7 Residential Permit Parking Program Approval Procedures
(a) In order for a street in the City of Somerville to become a Residential Permit Parking
Program Street, 51% or more of the residents must approve/support a petition for the request.
The petition must be submitted on Department of Traffic & Parking Form 1 (T&P Form 1,
included in Appendix B) by the residents in accordance with the instructions on the form.
(b) Once a petition is submitted meeting the requirements stated on the form, the Department
of Traffic & Parking investigates the number of residential units on the petitioned street in order
to verify signatures. In calculating the percentage of the residents who approve of the petition,
the following criteria apply:
1. One signature per household.
2. Only legal residents of legal units may sign the petition.
3. Sublet units will not be counted (i.e., house 37A and 37B shall be considered one
(1) household #37)
4. Corner lots with addresses on an intersecting street will be included in the
calculation and may sign the petition.
4
(c) The Traffic Commission, by a majority vote, approves the petition if the requisite number
of signatures are submitted on the petition and verified by the Department of Traffic & Parking.
(d) The Department of Traffic & Parking advertises the proposed traffic regulations for three
weeks in the newspaper.
(e) After advertising, signs are installed for enforcement.

Re: Other Cities

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

*nod* I am aware of the process (and have copies of the form at my desk), but your response avoids the points.

I still think the City should take the parking issue upon itself. For example, if a street is full of people who keep their cars registered elsewhere to save on insurance (and avoid paying Somerville the excise tax), why would they support such a change?

The problem is obviously bigger than any one block.

I also can't help but wonder if, were the 48-hour rule actually enforced all the time, how many car owners without off-street parking would still support it.

Re: Other Cities

[josephineave.livejournal.com]

Considering a lot of households in Somerville have 3+ adults, it seems unlikely to have 51% of residents in agreement, more like 51% of households (and perhaps 1/3 of adults). When my street went resident only, it seems like the petition circulated for months with lots of resident turnover during the time.

When it happened, we didn't get any notice...new signs just appeared suddenly.

Re: Other Cities

[pearlythebunny.livejournal.com]

This seems too easy. What would happen if upper Willow Ave. were to become resident-only parking? Where would all the people who park on Willow to visit Ball Square businesses put their cars? Wouldn't it hurt businesses in Ball Square? The businesses aren't on Willow, but wouldn't they have any input? Sometimes parking regulations on one street affect many more people than just the residents of that street.

Another example, lower Willow is one-way, which forces traffic that wants to go to Mass Ave through Davis Square. Davis Square is already very congested. Shouldn't residents who live in Davis Square have some say about the traffic patterns on lower Willow?