Biking in Boston

So overall, has the Hubway been successful? The statistic mentioned above of 1,650 rides per day sounds good but I wonder if that is more or less than is expected.

A point I've tried to get through is that "rides" is a poor measure of use designed to inflate popularity, most likely for promotional and tax funding purposes. The figure includes multiple check-outs and ins per person per day. There are those at either end of MBTA trips, there is turning 31+ min rides into two (free) shorter ones, and even people checking out bikes at a station and quickly checking back in there apparently not going anywhere (changed mind or wanting to inflate statistics, 1% of all trips in my Washington DC quick examination). Even MBTA trips are more accurate, linked trips which include bus/subway transfers, and unlinked trips which may only include subway transfers. Hubway uses the largest number they can measure as the metric for usage.

http://www.codeline-telemetry.com/maps/bos-depletion_yesterday.htm
Once again, if you look at how many bikes are in use at a given time, interesting usage patterns appear. On nice weekend afternoons, 80-100 bikes are in use with a fairly broad peak - recreational. Nice weekdays show a AM work commute peak of 50-80 people using a bike. Broad 50-75 daytime use yesterday (vacation?, tourists?), and increase from 5-8PM to 80 users with 110 peak. The greater evening commute usage than morning can be for many reasons we can only guess: less rushed than in AM, wanting after work recreational stress relief and relaxation, short errands or dining out.

There is a wealth of information that Hubway isn't sharing with those paying for it. I would like to see a couple stations put on the Esplanade. Its a nice and safe place to ride for tourists and locals alike, and would also help indicate how much use is recreational. Hubway has the data on what stations are poorly utilized and are candidates for moving to elsewhere to try for higher utilization.
 
So many false claims, so little time!

First, on the Arlington Mass Ave project. I failed to point out that 2 linear miles of granite curbing are also to get replaced. Between acres of sidewalks cement, decorative sidewalk pavers, 40x$4,000 pedestrian scale sidewalk lights, and all the work to move curb lines inward with moving associated storm drains and conflicting utility lines, will the extra greenhouse gas produced for materials removal, destruction, replacement materials, and diesel fuel expended in construction + added losses due to increased driving congestion EVER be made up by INCREASED bicycling? I won't speculate like others would, but merely suggest the calculation needs to be made for every construction project that adds work to put in bike lanes, which by the way, don't reduce accidents over wide outside travel lanes according to studies.

The converse to this argument is that over the last 50 years construction has INCORRECTLY focused solely on cars on dense local corridors where there is a significant need for proper infrastructure for not only cars, but buses, pedestrians, and bikes. We should look at the cost of just having car only transport infrastructure. what is the cost of lost foot traffic in front of stores? What is the cost of more frequent maintenance? What is the cost of businesses and residences having to respond to parking MINIMUMS? What is the cost to the city of having to provide below market rate street parking? I have a feeling people so anti-bike and supposed free-marketers in transportation would freak out if street meters and restaurant lots where set at market rates according to supply and demand... they freak when streets parking downtown goes from a $1/hour to $1.25/hour.
 
So many false claims, so little time!

First, on the Arlington Mass Ave project. I failed to point out that 2 linear miles of granite curbing are also to get replaced. Between acres of sidewalks cement, decorative sidewalk pavers, 40x$4,000 pedestrian scale sidewalk lights, and all the work to move curb lines inward with moving associated storm drains and conflicting utility lines, will the extra greenhouse gas produced for materials removal, destruction, replacement materials, and diesel fuel expended in construction + added losses due to increased driving congestion EVER be made up by INCREASED bicycling? I won't speculate like others would, but merely suggest the calculation needs to be made for every construction project that adds work to put in bike lanes, which by the way, don't reduce accidents over wide outside travel lanes according to studies.

While you hopefully are writing the next part of your response, I will respond to this right now.

Perhaps unlike some people where and maybe even my sense about you. I don't give a shit about the environment. Okay, that's a lied. I care about smog and ozone. But let's say I don't give a shit when it comes to developing the right strategy to transit.

In this case, I don't give a shit if you're right that adding bikes lanes is a net negative because of cars forced to drive at slower speeds so their engines don't drive as efficiently.

What about the argument of utility. Have you lived in the city and need to make a quick trip to a supermarket? Or perhaps going to meet with some friend's apartment a mile away? Or live in the city and found a job a mile and a half away?

Let's say every mode is possible to get to said places. Walking, buses, trains, taxis, and bikes. Guess which one is the least expensive and the fast?

The bike (and I'm mean biking with lights too).

Walking a mile away will take about 20 minutes.

A car might take 5 minutes, but then searching for parking will kill it. Also in Boston, you can easily get stuck for multiple cycles at lights.

Buses get even more stuck in traffic, many times still need more walking, and comes every so often based on the schedule (perhaps with quotation marks).

Train go much faster (unless its the b-line or probably c-line), but you have to lose time going to the station. And not everyone is on the Red Line. So you'll still have to walk.

And taxis. Eliminate the parking issues and might get trapped at a light, but competitive and direct. And expensive.

So bike wins. And people are realizing that so many are biking (and there are a large number of bikers).

So drop the "save the environment" crap. I got a feeling that don't really care that much about it anyways. Even if you do, either system making C02 requires a solution that needs more than lower emissions. How about the fact the Bike is for many situation, the most efficient way to get around. Why can't we have bike lanes based on that justification?
 
We should basically never do anything ever.

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying to have the information so more informed decisions can be made. People using platitudes want to make uninformed decisions. Information is used to make better decisions. Knowing the carbon footprint and return can be used to make a decision. Are you going to advocate ignorance as the way to make decisions?

Its the same with bike share systems. Let's have good data to see how well or bad it works. Lets maximize value by moving low usage stations to other locations where more people will be served.

In Arlington, the decision can be between mostly just repaving the existing pavement and doing all the extra stuff.

Metrics are also needed in other decisions. What road features actually reduce accidents and do we employ them over non-productive features? For example, wider sidewalks, curb extensions and bike lanes don't reduce accidents, while raised median does. Which do we spend money and roadway width on? Study data is not utilized in maximizing road spending benefits.

As to payments, Arlington, like all cities and towns get road money from gas taxes from the state. Its called Chapter 90 funds, and is by a formula that is roughly half by road miles, and the other half split between numbers of residents and numbers of jobs there. Hubway, besides taking fed money from public transit, took Boston money from the public health department.

Ignorance favors more bicycling for health. Does it outweigh heath damage of added stress from traffic congestion caused by replacing shared road with bike only road space?

Bottom line: Let's make better decisions by having good information.
 
Bottom line: Let's make better decisions by having good information.

Or we could NOT spend countless time and money researching something that's already been researched to death. Sorry, but getting cars off the road that can be replaced with bikes/pedestrians/public transportation is already a well researched and well understood benefit. Calling for more research is just a time wasting strategy and ultimately a money wasting strategy as well. I'm sorry if you don't like the conclusion of the research, but such is life.
 
A point I've tried to get through is that "rides" is a poor measure of use designed to inflate popularity, most likely for promotional and tax funding purposes.
More like, a point you've tried to suggest but that you have failed to make. You've made the claim but offered no evidence based argument. Your suggestion that some people ride twice doesn't really tell us anything about the statistics.

There is a wealth of information that Hubway isn't sharing with those paying for it. I would like to see a couple stations put on the Esplanade. Its a nice and safe place to ride for tourists and locals alike, and would also help indicate how much use is recreational. Hubway has the data on what stations are poorly utilized and are candidates for moving to elsewhere to try for higher utilization.
Yet some how you are privy to this information? Your credibility dies a bit more with every word you type.
 
The converse to this argument is that over the last 50 years construction has INCORRECTLY focused solely on cars on dense local corridors where there is a significant need for proper infrastructure for not only cars, but buses, pedestrians, and bikes. We should look at the cost of just having car only transport infrastructure. what is the cost of lost foot traffic in front of stores? What is the cost of more frequent maintenance? What is the cost of businesses and residences having to respond to parking MINIMUMS? What is the cost to the city of having to provide below market rate street parking? I have a feeling people so anti-bike and supposed free-marketers in transportation would freak out if street meters and restaurant lots where set at market rates according to supply and demand... they freak when streets parking downtown goes from a $1/hour to $1.25/hour.

Minimum parking zoning is to keep overflow demand from using parking that everyone can use, not just that business or residence.

Pedestrians are already very well provided for in urban areas with nearly all roads having sidewalks. Few sidewalks in our area experience congestion. Where it happens, almost always, is from private property in the way, be it tables and chairs or bikes chained to poles.

An invention I thought of is a bicycle parking meter with locking chain. That way cyclists can contribute to infrastructure and benefit from having a lock, including Hubway bikes. Its like arctic parking where electric service for an engine heater is included. I also advocate for more motorcycle parking spaces which are much closer to bicycle size than car sized spaces.

BTW, you probably don't know of the efforts in the 1980s to encourage carpooling and smaller cars. They failed, though carpooling is still much more popular than bicycling! There were fed regulations on businesses limiting parking spaces, and parking spaces were also made smaller to promote compact cars.

Child car seats killed the compact car initiatives. Kid seats promote parents to buy big SUVs. Getting kids in and out of compact cars is back breaking, so SUVs are favored. Due to killer air bags in the passenger seat (no two seat cars) and width of kid car seats, there is only room for two in the back seat, thus prompting the need for 3 row SUVs and minivans to transport many times: parents and 3 kids, parents, 2 kids, and grandma or nanny, parents, 2 kids and a playmate etc. With more heavy SUVs on the road, compact cars need to be stronger and heavier to survive being hit by one, new roll-over regulations are imposed due to high center of gravity vehicles rolling over, and rear cameras are needed because parents can't see well out the back and run over their own kids.

Now, if feds had used information on all the negatives in kid car seats, would they have still chosen them over belt systems which better fit 3-10 year olds? Belts which would be available in cabs and not result in incorrectly installed car seats? Belts which served the low-income who have to borrow cars often because they don't own two cars, one for dad, and the minivan for mom with seats always installed? Middle class regulators didn't think of that, much like not thinking that air bags might kill smaller adults and kids.

Where bike lanes become congested and show more cyclists than motorists, space allocation should clearly be shifted, just as when sidewalks are consistently overcrowded with people.

As to street parking...First, businesses need it to stay in business with enough patrons. Second, the land was bought long ago. If building new streets, there could be savings in buying narrower right of way. For 70 parking spots at $1/hr., with 70% utilization and fines, there is income. With bike lanes, there is no income. Which is preferable? Cars provide lots of income in taxes to help pay for road use, bicycles zero.

Restaurant parking? Owners own the land so parking comes from their pockets. Communities don't like fast food restaurants, so making them have parking for 45 minute sit down meal needs instead of 15 minute need is a way to penalize them. Businesses need parking to stay in business. Bicyclists do not make up for lost motorist customers. Arlington gets very few customers out of bicyclists despite having the second busiest bike path in the country - far more come by car.

As to making roads work for transit buses, I'm all in favor! The bus accident this week in Roxbury is an example of a road made inhospitable for public transit. Too much width was given to the sidewalk for the 60' double/tandem/articulated bus to get by the legally parked 65' tractor trailer on a curve safely and easily. If lots of space was wanted in front of the court house, the building needed more set-back. Travel lanes need to be 11' wide for city buses given that parking width is often squeezed. With bicyclists on the road too, 14' is better for outside lanes. With 98% motorists and 2% bicyclists, allocate roadway accordingly. If it were 50-50, again allocate accordingly.
 
Or we could NOT spend countless time and money researching something that's already been researched to death. Sorry, but getting cars off the road that can be replaced with bikes/pedestrians/public transportation is already a well researched and well understood benefit. Calling for more research is just a time wasting strategy and ultimately a money wasting strategy as well. I'm sorry if you don't like the conclusion of the research, but such is life.

You touch on an interesting point. BAD research has been done. Its all been funded and conducted by pro-bicycling interests. The design of studies is mostly biased to show desired results instead of useful ones. The studies rarely publish negative results just like failed new drug efficacy testing. Studies are conducted by bicyclists in grad school for the greatest part. Funding is either from road design firms wanting more expensive projects, or from government bureaucrats who like to jump on popular bandwagons and mostly take public transit or bike themselves. Its as bad as doctors getting payouts from drug companies deciding what drugs to approve or prescribe.

The costs of adding bicycling are largely absent, in terms of dollars to build and carbon footprint. The costs of torturing drivers to convert them to bicycling religion is also not calculated, in wasted productivity, nor negative health effects of added stress, heart disease, and road rage.

Anecdotally, Tom Tom released a new list of most congested cities. Its flawed in the northeast because of low snow in the first quarter. In Seattle and SF, congestion is way up over last year. Is that from more bicyclists or more bicyclists stealing roadway?
 
Or Mark, how about we just allocate based on practices that we already seen done successfully in other cities. Instead of trying to define metrics, spend time, and spend money to do research like researching stress on drivers versus health benefits of bike riders. How about we save that money and just go ahead do it anyways.

Studies can only go so far. Sometimes out field deployment is the only way to get results. Armed with results we already seen in Europe and other cities, how about we just go ahead and the ones that get no usage don't get repainted. I rather do this then spend another 5 years doing more studies or wait another 10 years when the next re-pavement cycle occurs.

Minimum parking zoning is to keep overflow demand from using parking that everyone can use, not just that business or residence.

Why does it have to be by law rather than just leaving to the developer/owner to determine how much parking he needs?

BTW, you probably don't know of the efforts in the 1980s to encourage carpooling and smaller cars. They failed, though carpooling is still much more popular than bicycling! There were fed regulations on businesses limiting parking spaces, and parking spaces were also made smaller to promote compact cars.

Child car seats killed the compact car initiatives. Kid seats promote parents to buy big SUVs. Getting kids in and out of compact cars is back breaking, so SUVs are favored. Due to killer air bags in the passenger seat (no two seat cars) and width of kid car seats, there is only room for two in the back seat, thus prompting the need for 3 row SUVs and minivans to transport many times: parents and 3 kids, parents, 2 kids, and grandma or nanny, parents, 2 kids and a playmate etc. With more heavy SUVs on the road, compact cars need to be stronger and heavier to survive being hit by one, new roll-over regulations are imposed due to high center of gravity vehicles rolling over, and rear cameras are needed because parents can't see well out the back and run over their own kids.

Now, if feds had used information on all the negatives in kid car seats, would they have still chosen them over belt systems which better fit 3-10 year olds? Belts which would be available in cabs and not result in incorrectly installed car seats? Belts which served the low-income who have to borrow cars often because they don't own two cars, one for dad, and the minivan for mom with seats always installed? Middle class regulators didn't think of that, much like not thinking that air bags might kill smaller adults and kids.

This is mostly a giant tangent. I can see two points to take out in this story, but neither are salient points. One is you giving an example where regulators didn't take in all information very well (apparently child seatbelts), but information on child seat rules and trying to determine bike lanes lessons are far too different to each as anything but the most abstract. The other point is an example to choo of an effort to focus less on cars. But a compact car is still a car.

As to street parking...First, businesses need it to stay in business with enough patrons. Second, the land was bought long ago. If building new streets, there could be savings in buying narrower right of way. For 70 parking spots at $1/hr., with 70% utilization and fines, there is income. With bike lanes, there is no income. Which is preferable? Cars provide lots of income in taxes to help pay for road use, bicycles zero.

Bikes provide use up far less resources and they damage roads to a tiny level. Bikes are more akin to pedestrians than motorized vehicles in terms of damage. So unless you want pedestrians to also pay revenue directly somehow, than the sales tax alone is I think pretty reasonable to cover.

Restaurant parking? Owners own the land so parking comes from their pockets. Communities don't like fast food restaurants, so making them have parking for 45 minute sit down meal needs instead of 15 minute need is a way to penalize them. Businesses need parking to stay in business. Bicyclists do not make up for lost motorist customers. Arlington gets very few customers out of bicyclists despite having the second busiest bike path in the country - far more come by car.

Complete tangent. If you are trying to address something. I suggests a quote to give better context. Right now this is completely superfluous post.

As to making roads work for transit buses, I'm all in favor! The bus accident this week in Roxbury is an example of a road made inhospitable for public transit. Too much width was given to the sidewalk for the 60' double/tandem/articulated bus to get by the legally parked 65' tractor trailer on a curve safely and easily. If lots of space was wanted in front of the court house, the building needed more set-back. Travel lanes need to be 11' wide for city buses given that parking width is often squeezed. With bicyclists on the road too, 14' is better for outside lanes. With 98% motorists and 2% bicyclists, allocate roadway accordingly. If it were 50-50, again allocate accordingly.

For bikes to have a chance to go beyond 2% to something that will not be rounded down to 0% allocation. Some infrastructure would help. Someone have rebutted you before citing that when Route 128 was first made, no one used it. I think this lesson can be applied here too. In fact, if you look at numbers of bikes in 2005 versus today, you can see a huge growth. And I don't think all of that was just purely recreational. But keep in mind also that even commuter bikers turn to other modes during the winter.

----


I'm still waiting for your response for AmericanFolkLegend and my post about utility.
 
You touch on an interesting point. BAD research has been done. Its all been funded and conducted by pro-bicycling interests. The design of studies is mostly biased to show desired results instead of useful ones. The studies rarely publish negative results just like failed new drug efficacy testing. Studies are conducted by bicyclists in grad school for the greatest part. Funding is either from road design firms wanting more expensive projects, or from government bureaucrats who like to jump on popular bandwagons and mostly take public transit or bike themselves. Its as bad as doctors getting payouts from drug companies deciding what drugs to approve or prescribe.

Pure speculation. You know as much as well do, unless you have some unknown extra experience or access to information. You are just merely trying to cast doubt on the already published data without anything to back up the doubt.

The costs of adding bicycling are largely absent, in terms of dollars to build and carbon footprint. The costs of torturing drivers to convert them to bicycling religion is also not calculated, in wasted productivity, nor negative health effects of added stress, heart disease, and road rage.

Anecdotally, Tom Tom released a new list of most congested cities. Its flawed in the northeast because of low snow in the first quarter. In Seattle and SF, congestion is way up over last year. Is that from more bicyclists or more bicyclists stealing roadway?

Again, you trying to make take special issues that I doubt you truly care of health of people or pollution. Also you are using speculation towards a direction for your own interests - trying to connect congestion in SF to biking when it could be anything.
 
RE: the point that bikes provide no income- and it ties into the way I think of public transportation and bike subsidies more generally. (Bear with me a little, this does build to a coherent point) This is one instance where I personally believe the wider net of government has an advantage over private business. The government collects taxes based meal taxes, income, sales taxes, etc. So they cover a variety of transactions on which we collectively spend our finite income. In this manner a gov't can still collect revenue- potentially more or less- from multiple different avenues.

The converse is a private business, ranging from a parking and gas station (to stick with the car theme) to a restaurant or clothing store which only get income from a single sales point and usage type.

In this way a gov't can still see revenue from its citizenry, and can more appropriately encourage more desirable outcomes. The city and state, I think rightly, can choose to increase the ease of biking so people don't have to rely on cars as much (or at all in my case). Between T pass and hubway membership, I could say I spend $80/month on all my basic transportation needs. The foregone expenses of gas, insurance, car payments, parking costs, etc. result in me spending significantly more money at area shops and restaurants- so the state still sees a revenue from me that is directly facilitated by the fact that I don't have to by a car to do many of the things I want or need to do. The state is functionally the only entity with large enough reach to realize both society and economic benefits from these public infrastructure subsidies (its really the primary reason the gov't builds roads in the first place). Transportation is a means to a more encompassing societal end, and really no private institution has the ability to realize the generate 'income'.

(Apologies for the Whighlander-esque post, hope it was clear ;) )
 
Which has nothing to do with Hubway. Again, I'll point out that you are suggesting that the data is available, and from the other side of your mouth that it is not. Which is it?
When bike share systems are built by the same company (ie Bixi) and run by the same company (Alta), its fair to conclude that the wheel isn't re-invented every time and with less capability. Of course, a publicly funded company like Alta bike share, could just tell us what data they capture.
 
1. Or Mark, how about we just allocate based on practices that we already seen done successfully in other cities. Instead of trying to define metrics, spend time, and spend money to do research like researching stress on drivers versus health benefits of bike riders. How about we save that money and just go ahead do it anyways.

2. Studies can only go so far. Sometimes out field deployment is the only way to get results. Armed with results we already seen in Europe and other cities, how about we just go ahead and the ones that get no usage don't get repainted. I rather do this then spend another 5 years doing more studies or wait another 10 years when the next re-pavement cycle occurs.

3. Why does it have to be by law rather than just leaving to the developer/owner to determine how much parking he needs?

4. Bikes provide use up far less resources and they damage roads to a tiny level. Bikes are more akin to pedestrians than motorized vehicles in terms of damage. So unless you want pedestrians to also pay revenue directly somehow, than the sales tax alone is I think pretty reasonable to cover.

5. For bikes to have a chance to go beyond 2% to something that will not be rounded down to 0% allocation. Some infrastructure would help. Someone have rebutted you before citing that when Route 128 was first made, no one used it. I think this lesson can be applied here too. In fact, if you look at numbers of bikes in 2005 versus today, you can see a huge growth. And I don't think all of that was just purely recreational. But keep in mind also that even commuter bikers turn to other modes during the winter.

6. I'm still waiting for your response for AmericanFolkLegend and my post about utility.

Not much time to respond now...
1. Makes sense when cost to implement is small. Painting bike lanes on roads with excess width and capacity, I have little problem with. The cost of paint is small enough that studies cost more. If parking, congestion, or truck/bus safety are a cost, then deeper thought is needed.

2. Europe has many differences from the US, so direct comparisons are difficult to make. High gas taxes, taxes on engine size, village center life, few child car seat laws, more motorbike are just some differences.

3. It has to be by law otherwise builders make more profit by building more condos to sell or space to rent and letting residents park on streets for "free".

4. Bikes do use far less resources, and so do motorbikes, which we need to promote more than the current negative. Both modes are also considered choices over walking, which is a fundamental right. Using a vehicle on a public road is a privilege for those willing to adhere by the rules. Motorbike users shouldn't also pay more than sales tax too!

5. Build it and they will come has worked somewhat for bike paths. Bike lanes seem to mostly draw riders from other streets without bike lanes more than convert non-riders. Does anyone have good data on this? When bike lane numbers are looked at, seldom are they considered holistically to see how travel patterns change.

Note we are in a bike boom, like 1890's, 1930's. 1970's. No telling if it is sustainable like motor vehicle traffic is. Given graying demographics in MA and fewer child and female riders, cycling is likely to again decrease. This is why road design needs to be cheap to reconfigure - ie mostly with paint, not with concrete and road crown positions.

#6 will answer when I have time...
 
3. It has to be by law otherwise builders make more profit by building more condos to sell or space to rent and letting residents park on streets for "free".
.

So you're saying that cars HAVE to be offered subsidized parking otherwise people won't build the spots? I don't think this is true, and is actually a major area that should be reformed in both housing and development policy. If a developer is building in an area where people need cars- say a housing complex in the 'burbs or outer city, would they realistically think they could sell any if they provided now space for people to park? Conversely, in the city, if you live in a big apartment complex in say fenway with garage parking but dont have a car, the price of building that space is built into your rent. No garage= cheaper rent. In areas well served by transit or having sufficient density where people don't need cars, developers shouldn't have to build any parking if they think they can still sell the units to people. They can also build less parking and not have to assume 1 spot or more per unit as is the current case.
 
As to payments, Arlington, like all cities and towns get road money from gas taxes from the state. Its called Chapter 90 funds, and is by a formula that is roughly half by road miles, and the other half split between numbers of residents and numbers of jobs there. Hubway, besides taking fed money from public transit, took Boston money from the public health department.

Groan.
I'll make this real easy for you Mark by continuing to use Arlington as an example. For FY 2013, Arlington is project to receive $787K in state aid from Chapter 90. For FY 2013, the Arlington DPW has a budget of $7.7M. Of which, over $5M is for the Highway Division. So your "user fees" are covering roughly 15% of the road work performed by the town of Arlington. And this is just construction - it doesn't include the design costs.
 
OK, back.

On utility. Absolutely, bicycles, skateboards, SegWays, mopeds, and scooters have their uses and occupy less space to store than an Escalade. I'm even for riding bicycles on sidewalks outside commercial zones. Safest is that they not exceed jogging pace. I'd like obese sidewalks to be partially allocated to bike tracks. You people don't want to subsidize parking but want to subsidize businesses with free outdoor seating space!

I'm not opposed to HubWay in general. I oppose the hype in promoting it and lack of public data given the public funding. If London or NYC is entirely privately funded, then they have a right to keep it secret. Otherwise, its really useful data and no more invasive that Google streetview and areal images for the benefits. I would hope that they take out some of the politics and religion by admitting its significant recreation use and just benefit tourists by putting stations on the Esplanade. Maximize dollars spent by moving stations that underperform.

On parking. First, nobody considers the wasted time and fuel from people driving around hunting for spots, especially when supply is reduced (ie Mass Ave Boston). More gas and congestion also equals greenhouse gas.

Second, apartment buildings. A building where I had lived in Charlestown had parking that one paid extra for if desired. When heat, A/C or parking is "free", its built into the rent, price, or condo fees. Its not subsidized in any way. Having parking makes units easier to sell or rent. Even Arlington has parking problems. Some renters don't have enough spaces available and there is no overnight street parking in Arlington. These renters are begging for some. In east Arlington there is no municipal parking lot. The Capitol Theater has about 5 movie screens and over 500 seats. Zero parking spots. Should they be forced to close down?

Arlington DPW. I don't have the budget handy, but assume your $5M figure includes snow removal, sanding, drain work, equipment purchases, misc repairs, making curb ramps comply with newer ADA regulations, legal fees for easements and contracts, and plowing the bike path (no funding from cyclists). Design costs for Mass Ave come from fed and state funds.

Pollution: I'm worse than people who deny global warming. I think there is very little we can do to change it! Its just not going to happen technically or politically. Bicyclists frequently play the self-righteous pollution card, so I counter with how much they cause when removing parking or road lanes. Personally, I hate driving big cars and have only owned two seat cars and motorcycles for the last 25 years, then another 5 with 4 seat, 4 cyl. cars before that. I recycle, but am annoyed at being urged to waste water rinsing some types of undisclosed plastic types not even recycled from collections.
 
On parking. First, nobody considers the wasted time and fuel from people driving around hunting for spots, especially when supply is reduced (ie Mass Ave Boston). More gas and congestion also equals greenhouse gas.

But that's just it! If the street parking were priced to market (e.g., the same price as nearby garages) no one would drive around in circles, they'd just go to the nearest garage and maybe find a street spot on the way there. Or they'd take a taxi, or the T, or walk. People are only driving around in circles because it's subsidized.

On Arlington DPW I'm sure your right. There are probably some non-construction costs in there, but you have to admit that the cost of sweeping, plowing, drainage, etc. is largely dependent on the number of traffic lanes miles in a town which is largely dictated by our addiction to cars.
There are separate departments that cover utilities and the Minuteman Bike Path is covered by the "Natural Resources" division.
Equipment purchase and repair are in the "Motor Equipment" department. No matter how you slice it, Chapter 90 does not come close to paying for all the road work in Arlington.
 

Back
Top