[*BCM*] Public Meeting - Bike Lane Improvements, Beacon St Somerville

[John Boyle]

Good argument 

John Boyle


On Feb 2, 2013, at 5:49 AM, Matthew Carty <mattyciii at gmail.com> wrote:

> Beacon St in Somerville is a major bicycle artery.  It's getting re-surfaced, and improvements to the bike lane.  Some aspects of the improvements are getting push-back by people who don't want their precious taxpayer funded free curb side car storage impacted.  Please consider coming out in support of better bike lanes at this crucial MassDOT public meeting.
> 
> Date/time: Monday 4 Feb, 6:30 pm
> 
> Location: LFK Elementary School, 5 Cherry Street somerville MA ( http://goo.gl/maps/CKkm4)
> 
> Background Info: 
> Synopsis: http://somerville.patch.com/blog_posts/guest-post-city-hosts-meeting-to-resolve-beacon-st-dust-up
> Detailed info: http://somerville.patch.com/blog_posts/creating-a-better-beacon-street
> 
> I scribbled down some of my thoughts on the issue, things I'll try to polish up and speak to when they take public comment.  
> Issues:  
> 
> 1) "MassDOT is designing Beacon St with a 30 mph design speed since it is considered a minor arterial and it considered a regional route"
> Indeed it's a major arterial.  IT IS A MAJOR ARTERIAL FOR CYCLISTS!  Motorists have many alternative options available - alternatives not so good for bikers.  
> * Highway 93 roughly parallels this route, motorists heading north west from Boston have this option - cyclists and walkers don't. 
> * Also, motorists (by virtue of having a motor) can use McGrath Highway and Medford st, also parallel and not bike friendly. 
> 
> As a major arterial, the cycle track should run the whole length of the street, and it should be built to NATCO standard.  
> 
> 2) MassDOT's 30mph design means a narrow cycle track.  Too narrow for a faster cyclist to pass a slower one.  If it's built that way, it's not too hard to imagine many cyclists opting to simply ride in the street, as is their right.  Motorists will have to slow to the speed of the cyclist.  This 30mph plan will backfire horribly and result in a 12mph street. 
>  
> Conversely, if the motorway is built 10.5' wide and the cycle track to NATCO standard, cyclists will be able to operate at differing speeds & pass each other.  You won't therefore see cyclists in the motorway. 
> 
> 3) Who pays for these roads? 
> Studies have shown that motorists pay for half or less than the cost to build and maintain a road.  Over time they will pay an even lower proportion due to loss of buying power with inflation, increasing fuel economy results in less gas purchased per mile, and with the Governor's unwillingness to increase the gas tax.  As the cost burden shifts from the users that cause the most wear and tear to roads (the motorist) - to everyday people (income tax payers, many of whom drive little or not at all), there is no reason to unfairly favor motorists. 
> 
> Worst of all, giving free parking space to motorists is the most unfair thing going.  Why should one individual have taxpayer funded land to store their personal property in a way that infringes on another parson's right to mobility? "Free parking" is a tax on the entire community.  If indeed this route is an arterial, all parking should be metered and strictly enforced, to gain the maximum revenue from those who store their cars on the street. 
> 
> 4) The case for a full length cycle track: SAFETY
> There is no political will for banning cell phone use while driving.  This despite overwhelming evidence that cell phone use (hands free or not) is a major distraction leading to more car wrecks.  If we as a culture are not willing to protect cyclists and pedestrians from distracted driving by banning cell phone use, then why not protect cyclists with a row of parked cars? 
> 
> 5) Motorists will claim that a narrower travel lane and loss of parking is a threat to freedom, or will result in loss of economic prosperity.  There's an equally compelling case that a complete, NATCO code cycle tracks improve freedom and economic vitality of the street more than wider lanes and more parking can possibly do.  Cyclists and pedestrians sto pat businesses along the way home.  Drivers simply pass through. 
> 
> 6) Consider the possibility that a cycle track will empower some residents to divest of a car.  If even a small minority of people who presently store their cars 24x7 on Beacon St decide they can sell the car becuase of improving bicycle safety, this will lead to a net improvement on parking turnover for local businesses by many orders of magnitude.  Demand for resident parking (i.e., taxpayer subsidized free storage) will thus go down.  Demand for short-term parking at businesses will also go down.  
> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bostoncoop.net/pipermail/bostoncriticalmass/attachments/20130202/1a0216f1/attachment.html>