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

[Ian Klepetar]

Hello to you all...i am not currently in the area, though strongly support
enhanced bicycle accomodations on Beacon.  If i wrote up a letter of
support and emailed it to somebody, could it be read at the public meeting?

lemme know,

Ian Klepetar
founder
Bicycle Benefits

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 6:49 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/20130202/4c636a47/attachment.html>