Biking in Boston

[choo]

OK, back.

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?

1- the parking IS subsidized if you don't use the parking- even at buildings that also charge for parking. garages in apartment buildings can cost 100k per space, and this is partially built into rents for units.

2- Why would the Capitol Theater have to shut down? They are running a successful business without the need for parking. If they needed parking to operate, they would then either have to shut down or build parking. If I were to build a new rental housing complex and people were clamoring for parking, I would build it in as there is a market for it.

 

[Mark02474]

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.

OK, if meters cost as much as garages, there would be less driving around. People would then just rather live, work, and shop in the suburbs where parking was cheaper subsidized! Parking garages cost much more than meters for a number of reasons. Parking structures are more expensive than surface space. Private parking garages have lots of taxes to pay. Public garages match private ones otherwise they leave money on the table.

Subsidizing parking and driving (gas tax below actual costs) are needed to support our consumer economy. Employment and the economy takes a big hit when gas prices go up - doesn't matter if from oil prices or added taxes.

Another point on comparing bike adoption in Europe vs potential in the US. I'm a minority - for driving a manual transmission in the US! Its the reverse in Europe and the whole world. If shifting gears to drive a vehicle is too much work for Americans, what is the likelihood they will also pedal to get someplace?!!! If Americans drove manuals, we wouldn't have all those accidents where people mistook brake for gas - ever hear of one with a manual trans? Nor would child injuries occur from them shifting the car in gear while parked with the engine/air conditioning on while a parent briefly stepped away. I see people drive more poorly with automatics - manual drivers tend to time lights by creeping up to them while automatic drivers hurry up and wait at them. Can't they see the light ahead is red? Why rush to it? Cyclists naturally think and plan more too to conserve their energy, provided they stop at lights and stop signs...

 

[HenryAlan]

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.

You may be laboring under the false assumption that Mark02474 isn't a socialist. He's all in favor of tax payer subsidized transportation if it's the transportation he prefers.

 

[choo]

OK, if meters cost as much as garages, there would be less driving around. People would then just rather live, work, and shop in the suburbs where parking was cheaper subsidized! Parking garages cost much more than meters for a number of reasons. Parking structures are more expensive than surface space. Private parking garages have lots of taxes to pay. Public garages match private ones otherwise they leave money on the table.

Subsidizing parking and driving (gas tax below actual costs) are needed to support our consumer economy. Employment and the economy takes a big hit when gas prices go up - doesn't matter if from oil prices or added taxes.

Another point on comparing bike adoption in Europe vs potential in the US. I'm a minority - for driving a manual transmission in the US! Its the reverse in Europe and the whole world. If shifting gears to drive a vehicle is too much work for Americans, what is the likelihood they will also pedal to get someplace?!!! If Americans drove manuals, we wouldn't have all those accidents where people mistook brake for gas - ever hear of one with a manual trans? Nor would child injuries occur from them shifting the car in gear while parked with the engine/air conditioning on while a parent briefly stepped away. I see people drive more poorly with automatics - manual drivers tend to time lights by creeping up to them while automatic drivers hurry up and wait at them. Can't they see the light ahead is red? Why rush to it? Cyclists naturally think and plan more too to conserve their energy, provided they stop at lights and stop signs...

The point is in dense cities where parking would be high, more people would likely opt to not have a car or drive a car in the city, and rely on public transportation or other modes like bikes. But the end goal isn't to have more bikes, its to have a more efficient use of overall space- which an accessible dense city with amenities such as restaurants, supermarkets, entertainment, etc.. If you have a limited space (like we do in Boston area) having the infrastructure to have everyone drive into the city is expensive and self-defeating because it inherently ruins the draw of the density. If everyone that took the 1 bus, green line, orange line, bike, and commuter rail to work or go out in the back bay, do you think the neighborhood would in anyway resemble its current state of density or vitality? All those modes of transport are more space efficient. run one more train with 300 people rather than 300 more cars with 300 more spaces.

Also, your relation of manual drivers to the use of bikes is maybe the dumbest relationship I have ever read. By that measure, the US swimming team will win no medals because we as a culture don't drive stick.

 

[Mark02474]

1- the parking IS subsidized if you don't use the parking- even at buildings that also charge for parking. garages in apartment buildings can cost 100k per space, and this is partially built into rents for units.

2- Why would the Capitol Theater have to shut down? They are running a successful business without the need for parking. If they needed parking to operate, they would then either have to shut down or build parking. If I were to build a new rental housing complex and people were clamoring for parking, I would build it in as there is a market for it.

1. Live elsewhere where you are not paying for parking, or rent out your space.
2. Lets say Arlington put parking meters everywhere around "Capitol Square" and charged $4 for the first 30 min, $2/hour afterwards, or $7 added to ~90 min. movie tickets to park. The bus is $2 per person, each way. Driving/parking still looks cheaper than the T for 2 or more seeing a movie. Driving to Fresh Pond theaters with parking included, is better yet. Hence, door closure of the Capitol.

If the Capitol wants to make its own parking, it would need to buy 2-3 houses at $600K each, move or demolish them, and construct a lot or multi-level garage. Big investment not easily paid for with movie tickets in a Netflix age.

Subsidized parking and driving keeps businesses around. Without, as in downtown crossing, businesses struggle.

 

[choo]

but they don't need the space! so they don't have to close.

But I am realizing what others have said, you don't mind subsidies in the least. YOu just don't like bikes and don't want them to get any of 'your' subsidies. At least you are clear on that much, but with that there is clearly no data or argument that will convince of the similar benefits, opportunities, and value of other modes of transport.

 

[Mark02474]

You may be laboring under the false assumption that Mark02474 isn't a socialist. He's all in favor of tax payer subsidized transportation if it's the transportation he prefers.

I'm in favor of subsidizing the transportation that the people want, not me. In NYC, walking is hugely popular along with public transit. In the rest of the US personal vehicles are tops, followed by carpooling and walking. Bicycling is way down the list with motorcycling. Bike zealots want to coerce people into using various modes of travel, which I oppose.

What I want is to motorcycle again, but the only advantage is ease of parking, and a little better gas mileage. Everything else is made by government as expensive as a car, so there is hardly any point. Mopeds are a joke. Leaf blowers have bigger engines and more power!

 

[choo]

By your logic we never should have built highways or paved roads because a majority of people used horses and didn't 'want' cars. Highways and paved roads are the biggest subsidies GM and Ford ever got.

Bike use has been growing tremendously, and its not being built on highways. It's being built in dense city streets which are very much multi-modal in nature! So people (obviously not you) do want bikes!

 

[Mark02474]

But I am realizing what others have said, you don't mind subsidies in the least. YOu just don't like bikes and don't want them to get any of 'your' subsidies. At least you are clear on that much, but with that there is clearly no data or argument that will convince of the similar benefits, opportunities, and value of other modes of transport.

I just don't want non-paying transportation CHOICES to take away scarce resources from other mode choices which help pay for themselves. IF there is excess roadway or sidewalk than can be converted for use by a higher demand mode than nil (excess) at minimal cost (paint), fine.

For example, go ahead and make a bike lane on Rutherford ave from an existing shared lane with some jersey barriers to separate motor vehicle and bicycle traffic. Studies show that excess capacity exists, so cheaply reallocate it.

Want to bike over the Charles river? Try selling bonds to build a bike bridge paid with by bike tolls.

I'm good with bikes riding on uncongested sidewalks at walking pace. Any faster is unsafe for cyclist and pedestrians, 5x more risk than riding in a road without bike lanes.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

I agree with Choo, mark. You seem to be acknowledging that transportation subsidies are ok, but only for your preferred mode.

 

[Mark02474]

I agree with Choo, mark. You seem to be acknowledging that transportation subsidies are ok, but only for your preferred mode.

Since 99% of Americans prefer to drive for most trips, you are correct to assume that is also my preferred mode. It also happens that the overexercised history of my knees now prevent me from bicycling. As our population ages, a greater percentage of MA residents will be joining my category. I'm thankful that I can still walk and get up and down stairs. I first subluxated my left kneecap in H.S. sports. Now it occurs with every crank rotation. Short crank arms and only pulling with my left leg might work OK, but a lot of trouble.

BTW, I saw there was a recent study that showed bike share users have fewer accidents than bike owners. Inexperience might produce the reverse, but heavy rentals and lack of helmets result in slower speeds and more caution. Not only do riders exercise more caution, motorists seem to give unprotected riders more buffer.

 

[Lurker]

"non-paying transportation CHOICES to take away scarce resources from other mode choices which help pay for themselves"

Please illustrate how private automobiles come anywhere close to playing for their requisite infrastructure. Public roadways for private vehicles cost more dollars per passenger and goods transported that any other means of transport, save for air travel.

 

[Randomgear]

Sounds like what you need is an e-bike. You can do 20mph without breaking a sweat and still take advantage of the massive bicycle subsidy soon to come to Arlington's Mass Ave.
Of course, it's use on the Minuteman path might be considered a wee bit suspect by pedal nation.

 

[Ron Newman]

Putting bike lanes on Mass. Ave. in Arlington will kill the Capitol Theatre? What? I'm lost here.

(Same folks who own the Capitol also own the Somerville Theatre -- which also doesn't have any parking.)

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Since 99% of Americans prefer to drive for most trips

They actually prefer to? Or have they been manipulated by a century of automobile related subsidies and bailouts, coupled with an onslaught of regulations and subsidies for living in areas which require a car, in additional to absurd marketing tactics? The marketing I can deal with, but when added onto everything else government has done to promote the car, it's insane.

 

[Mark02474]

Putting bike lanes on Mass. Ave. in Arlington will kill the Capitol Theatre? What? I'm lost here.

(Same folks who own the Capitol also own the Somerville Theatre -- which also doesn't have any parking.)

No, its about making currently free parking into parking costing the full actual cost, so that would add greatly to seeing a movie, reducing patrons compared to other choices where private parking is included with the ticket price (ie at Fresh Pond Theater or suburban theaters).

Somerville theater has public parking lots nearby. Capitol Theater not.

 

[Mark02474]

"non-paying transportation CHOICES to take away scarce resources from other mode choices which help pay for themselves"

Please illustrate how private automobiles come anywhere close to playing for their requisite infrastructure. Public roadways for private vehicles cost more dollars per passenger and goods transported that any other means of transport, save for air travel.

I wrote that choices other than bicycling HELP pay for themselves (with user fees or fares), while cyclists are freeloading off motorists. Walking isn't a choice, its the base case, fundamental. Even cycling is a step up or luxury in comparison.

If you want no roads, I'm OK with driving an ATV or off-road motorcycle. Is that the alternative you are proposing to having paved roads? Going 19th century or steampunk?

If we want to think about how to make roads less expensive, I'm for that. Not putting roads underground is a start.

 

[Mark02474]

They actually prefer to? Or have they been manipulated by a century of automobile related subsidies and bailouts, coupled with an onslaught of regulations and subsidies for living in areas which require a car, in additional to absurd marketing tactics? The marketing I can deal with, but when added onto everything else government has done to promote the car, it's insane.

Its not about marketing and subsidies. People want cars on their own. Look at China. Cities like Shanghai have gone from 80% bicycle use to under 20% in a few decades. Advertising didn't create the shift to driving, pent up demand and the new ability to to afford cars did.

 

[Mark02474]

Bike use has been growing tremendously, and its not being built on highways. It's being built in dense city streets which are very much multi-modal in nature! So people (obviously not you) do want bikes!

Going from 10 to 100 is a huge increase. Basically, going from a minuscule minority to a tiny minority is still fairly insignificant. Count actual numbers, in relation to actual numbers for other modes instead of relative growth for a more accurate picture. Put all the modes on a chart with linear scales and see how it looks.

Cyclists earn all the hate they get. Showing no respect for the law or other users of roads and sidewalks is one. Having a juvenile freeloader attitude is another. Its like expecting free telephone, TV, Internet, music, movies, software, video games, ebooks etc. because their individual portion is small, its all already paid for, and they're not harming anyone. The great majority who do pay for those things don't like it or any other form of shoplifting.

If your growing numbers want growing opposition, keep up what you are doing! If you want some respect, follow rules of the road and contribute to the cost, no matter how small you think it is.

 

[whighlander]

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 )

Choo -- appology accepted

Westy

PS -- what the "Xk" as Riff would say does this mean " In this way a gov't can still see revenue from its citizenry, and can more appropriately encourage more desirable outcomes. "

Who should and is better situated to decide on what is a more desireable outcome for you -- you or the burureaucrat?

I think that this issue has been settled by the people "voting with their feet" as RR put it