An irate citizen complains about this new bike rack on Worcester Square in the South End:
In a city where parking spaces are so limited that they sell for $560,000 how can you justify turning a resident parking spot into a bike rack?
UPDATE: City marks the case closed, notes: "Bike rack installed by request of residents and worcester square neighborhood association."
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Try this report to Citizen's Connect
By anon
Tue, 07/02/2013 - 9:51pm
Take a picture of a car parked and say "car is parked on public property without paying anything for the privilege. This must stop. we should not be cutting school services and not plowing roads while these people get to use public property to store their personal property without paying rent."
Hmm.
By BostonUrbEx
Tue, 07/02/2013 - 11:55am
This is about one parking space, where a resident's car would likely sit from 6pm to 8am. This leaves 10 hours through the rest of the day for cars to come and go. (It's more likely that the resident's car would sit for days at a time, but let's just assume it's a mere 6pm-8am sitter) This are is residential parking only, but lets also assume that during the day it is completely open to the public for them to come and go as they please. That thusly means there are 10 hours free to the public to park there. Assuming each car spends a mere hour there, that means 10 cars can come and go. So we have a total of 11 different cars using this space in a 24 hour period. Again, I find this highly unlikely, but we're being optimistic here... Meanwhile, this rack now provides space for 10 bicycles to lock up, even if all 10 sit there for days at a time. So, leaning towards pro-car parking as much as is reasonable (can we at least agree on that?), we're talking about a loss of 1 vehicle being able to park. Now, if we assume you can get creative with how you lock up, we could maybe see more than 10 bikes here. And we could undoubtedly see bikes come and go through the day, since I'm going to venture to guess that anyone locking their bike here is not leaving it for days at a time, but actually leaves for some hours at a time, giving windows for other bikes to come in.
Also worth noting they could have used a better rack, which would offer capacity which would blow one car space's capacity out of the water.
Not seeing any need to get mad either way. Though, I don't see what was wrong with how things were, other than people getting upidity over bikes locked to... a public fence. But I'm sure those are the same people now complaining that bikes don't have to lock up to a fence anymore. You can't win with them. You can only try to look at this as a matter of efficiency of land use.
i mean
By neuroboy
Tue, 07/02/2013 - 4:13pm
it's easy to say we should just continue locking to the fence (it's what would've happened had the City not come through for us), but it still really sucks to get passive-aggressive notes on your bike on a monthly basis when it's secured pretty in much the only way possible that doesn't include parking a bike in your living room. we did what we thought was the most reasonable thing to do to avoid pissing people off with our inveterate public property fence-locking. it's hard to have sympathy for folks that complain without engaging or helping find solutions/compromises. as i said before, the caveat for the NIMBY should always be "be careful what you wish for".
but yeah, all this over a single parking space. it's certainly amusing if nothing else.
Pages
Add comment