Take Back The Streets (...and alleys)

In an alternate universe, the City of Boston resumes business as they had the past two years, a horrible car accident (4 separate links) occurs where the restaurant wasn't insured and didn't use jersey barriers, the restaurants would blame the City for not telling them to put larger barriers, and the customers would complain that city employees are inept at their job and so far corrupted that they were incapable of regulating it.
 
stefal said:
In an alternate universe, the City of Boston resumes business as they had the past two years, a horrible car accident (4 separate links) occurs where the restaurant wasn't insured and didn't use jersey barriers, the restaurants would blame the City for not telling them to put larger barriers, and the customers would complain that city employees are inept at their job and so far corrupted that they were incapable of regulating it.
Click to expand...

I'm really glad you posted this while I was halfway through typing my own response because it helps perfectly illustrate the point I was having a hard time wording.

While many of the regulations are common sense, placing the onus on the restaurants to accommodate irresponsible driving is irritating. The problem is not the restaurant, it's the person driving their 2000lb hunk of metal into the patio. The city should not be held responsible for not mandating car-proof patios at the restaurants expense, they should be held responsible for routinely neglecting to enforce traffic laws. For example, in the 2nd article you link the problem is the guy driving "50-60 mph" - the solution isn't to make patios that can resist an SUV driving into them at 60mph, the solution is to prevent, through design and enforcement, an SUV from driving 60mph into a restaurant patio!
 
Blackbird said:
Does San Francisco have the same requirements for jersey barriers and insurance? And if so, is it the only other place that does?

I'd actually feel better about all this if there was a precedent, and not just City Hall asking businesses to shill out thousands of dollars for minimal benefit.
Click to expand...

I actually don't know whether it does or not. My comment was based on some articles I've read in the SF Chronicle about how difficult and expensive it is to open and run a small business in San Francisco. None of the articles were specifically about outdoor dining or jersey barriers. They were about the forms, fees, taxes, permits, regulations, approvals, inspections, etc. etc. etc. that business owners have to go thru. There was one story in particular about a guy who wanted to open some sort of ice cream shop that read like both tragedy (for him) and farce (because of all the crap the city requires to open an ice cream shop). The Globe story makes it sound like Wu's requirements are starting to have the same effect on restaurants that SF regulations had on this guy.

I'd link the ice cream story, but the Chronicle has put up a pay wall and I can't read their stuff anymore.
 
While many of the regulations are common sense, placing the onus on the restaurants to accommodate irresponsible driving is irritating.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. What's especially interesting about many areas of Boston such as the North End, Newbury Street, Charles Street, etc. is that the density of humans on the sidewalk is such that adding diners doesn't substantially increase the number or overall density of people on the sidewalk. i.e. the impact of someone driving onto the sidewalk would roughly be equivalent.
 
KCasiglio said:
I mean this without an ounce of snark: why? And who would be this grassroots? The aloof Brahman residents aren't going to get involved in anything
Click to expand...
You don't understand I am saying that either the neighbors want it or it shouldn't happen. We should stick to knowing what is good for where we live not other places
 
Scott said:
You don't understand I am saying that either the neighbors want it or it shouldn't happen. We should stick to knowing what is good for where we live not other places
Click to expand...

No I entirely understand what you're saying, I'm disagreeing with it specifically in the aforementioned case of Newbury Street.
 
The conversation was about making Hanover Street pedestrian only
 
Scott said:
The conversation was about making Hanover Street pedestrian only
Click to expand...

The post you responded to specifically cited Newbury, hence why I called the local residents Bhramins and wouldn't acknowledge political involvement of someone living on Newbury to be grassroots.

Hanover is another debate, and while the views of the residents (and not just who can/will show up to an evening meeting for public comment) should of course be taken into consideration I vehemently disagree that it should be the only and final say. Perhaps you don't live in Boston, in which sure stick to where you know. But to say only a North End resident can have an opinion on Hannover is ludicrous. Should we gate the community as well? Is it not already exclusive enough?
 
Looks like very little to no outdoor dining in the North End this summer: https://www.wcvb.com/article/boston-massachusetts-outdoor-dining-2023-north-end-changes/42943929

Further, "the permanent program requires businesses to submit professionally engineered site plans for outdoor dining setups on the street and sidewalk to ensure all patios meet the requirements of the state building code."

and

"The mayor's office says all approved businesses participating in outdoor dining will be required to pay $399 per month if they have a liquor license and $199 per month if they do not. "Fees will go toward technical assistance for hiring architects to draft site plans, with the goal of expanding the program to businesses that would not otherwise be able to participate," a news release from Wu's office said"
 
king_vibe said:
If congestion and access for first responders is such a concern, all on-street parking should be eliminated.
Click to expand...

I was kind of thinking the same thing. Could Hanover Street be reduced to one lane to allow for wider sidewalks?
 
Java King said:
I was kind of thinking the same thing. Could Hanover Street be reduced to one lane to allow for wider sidewalks?
Click to expand...
Given the amount of double parking, one lane only works with intense traffic enforcement, like you see at Logan pick-up drop-off curbs. Full time traffic enforcement on site $$$.
 
From the past times the city has considered pedestrianizing Hanover Street, did anyone draw up any specific plans? I'm thinking, if the pedestrianization is permanent, you could change up the physical street in all kinds of ways: get rid of sidewalks; set up dining areas directly against the buildings; demarcate a lane down the middle for emergency vehicles; add trees, benches, bollards, etc. I'm trying to find some diagrams or artist renderings or something and can't find any. I'm now realizing that whenever this idea has come up in the past, the plan was maybe just put up a few "Do Not Enter" signs and hope for the best.
 
ritchiew said:
From the past times the city has considered pedestrianizing Hanover Street, did anyone draw up any specific plans? I'm thinking, if the pedestrianization is permanent, you could change up the physical street in all kinds of ways: get rid of sidewalks; set up dining areas directly against the buildings; demarcate a lane down the middle for emergency vehicles; add trees, benches, bollards, etc. I'm trying to find some diagrams or artist renderings or something and can't find any. I'm now realizing that whenever this idea has come up in the past, the plan was maybe just put up a few "Do Not Enter" signs and hope for the best.
Click to expand...
I don't think it has ever gotten to formal plans.

The killer is the fire station at 392 Hanover, Boston Fire Department Engine 8 Ladder 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top