[*BCM*] MassBike Victory: MBTA Buses to Get Bike Racks

[Thomas John Vitolo]

Quoting Lee Peters <lfpeters at gis.net>:

> Wait a second !  Parking enforcement costs money???  I captured 60
> pictures of double parked automobiles in 3 hours, and I even ignored the
> commercial vehicles.  Can I keep the $2700 that I could have made during that
3 hour period?
> 

Slow down there... you've forgotten a number of things.
 * Salary
 * Benefits
 * Infrastructure (tickets, uniforms, mailing system, payment processing system. etc
 * Time requirements (time to give a ticket far exceeds time to shap a photo)
 * The money from fines is not kept by the enforcement department.  IIRC, it
goes into a general budget.  Therefore, the enforcement group is dependant on
the legislature for funding.


An increase in enforcement requires more money allocated than currently.  That
boost (say, $250,000 worth) would only exist until that money being paid for
overtime or more employees ran out.  Then, enforcement would be reduced.

Personally, I think more enforcement of parking regulations and traffic
regulations are no brainers since they increase public safety at no total cost
(if run efficiently).  I'm not really sure why it doesn't happen.

 - stomv

Support a few technologists in Washington.  Go to:
http://actblue.com/list/stomv

> I am not flaming, is it possible that I a missing the big picture?
> 
> Those bus racks are great for flat tires and surprise rain storms or
> when 
> you are just too drunk to ride.  They are installed in Gainesville,
> FL where 
> I used them occasionally.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Thomas John Vitolo" <tjvitolo at bu.edu>
> To: "Boston Critical Mass" <list at bostoncriticalmass.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 1:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [*BCM*] MassBike Victory: MBTA Buses to Get Bike Racks
> 
> 
> The flip side is that the money is being spent on a capital
> improvement. 
> That
> is, once the money is spent, those racks will remain in service for a
> long 
> time.
>  Sure, some time and money will be needed to maintain the racks
> should they
> break, transfer them from a retired bus to a new bus, etc.  But, in
> general,
> once the money is spent the improvement will be around for a long
> time.
> 
> That's much different than, say, enforcing no parking in bike lanes. 
> Once 
> the
> money is no longer being spent on enforcement, the old problems will
> just 
> come back.
> 
> So personally, I'd rather money is spent on capital improvements and
> other
> things that will have a small but long lasting impact on bicycle
> quality in 
> the
> city.
> 
> 
>   - stomv
> 
> Support a few technologists in Washington.  Go to:
> http://actblue.com/list/stomv
> 
> Quoting Ari Pollak <ajp at aripollak.com>:
> 
> > Let's not also forget that some bus routes that go outside of
> Boston
> > &
> > Cambridge travel routes that wouldn't normally be very safe to
> ride
> > on -
> > narrow roads, highways, etc. So this would be a safer way of
> > bypassing
> > those areas.
> > Granted, it seems like a lot of money to be spending on something
> > that
> > may not get such high usage, especially if they could spend that
> > money
> > to actually improve service.
> >
> > Rachel Elizabeth Dillon wrote:
> > > There are a bunch of reasons this is a good thing, in my
> opinion:
> > >
> > >  * It demonstrates a commitment to cyclists in that it's money
> > going
> > >    towards making the city more bike-friendly. While it may not
> be
> >
> > >    what we would like to see most, it's something, and I think
> it's
> >
> > >    a good thing.
> > >
> > >  * It's great for casual cyclists who may be trying to choose
> > between
> > >    driving somewhere and not doing so --- say you're trying to
> go
> > from
> > >    Somerville to Waltham. You might say "I don't really want to
> > walk
> > >    15 minutes to the T, ride the T for 15 minutes, walk to a
> bus
> > stop,
> > >    wait for the bus, ride the bus for a half hour, and then
> walk
> > to
> > >    my destination.  I will drive." (This is even almost
> > reasonable.)
> > >    However, "I can bike to the bus stop, and then bike the bus
> > route
> > >    until it catches up with me, and then hop on" is much more
> > >    appealing, and also encourages people to use mass transit.
> > >
> > >  * It's useful for people like me (and, presumably, many on
> this
> > list)
> > >    who would be happy to just bike to Waltham as well. If you
> > start
> > >    feeling ill, get tired, find that the weather is more than
> you
> > >    bargained for, pop a flat and don't have your tools or, God
> > forbid,
> > >    get in an accident, you probably want to get to either your
> > destination,
> > >    a bike shop, or home, and trying to do that with a
> > non-functioning
> > >    bike or rider is very difficult. Being able to bring your
> bike
> > with
> > >    you on public transit it always a good thing --- even if you
> > only use
> > >    it once a year, if every cyclist in the city uses it once
> per
> > year,
> > >    that adds up.
> > >
> > >    (I got hit by a bus in Harvard Square a couple of months
> ago,
> > and
> > >    was fine but my bike wasn't ridable; I was very happy I
> could
> > hop
> > >    it on the T rather than just leave it locked up in a
> > high-traffic
> > >    area. Had I not been fifty feet from a Red Line stop, I
> would
> > have
> > >    been in a lot more trouble.)
> > >
> > >  * It makes bikes more visible to drivers and people who use
> mass
> > transit.
> > >
> > > So, while I might like to see more money going into enforcing
> "No
> > parking
> > > in bike lane" or something like that, I think this is valuable.
> > >
> > > But it's possible you were just trolling. :)