The four parking spaces at the end of the Newton Centre parking triangle are going to be converted to public seating for a 60-day trial beginning July 1. Traffic Council unanimously voted in favor of the trial this morning. Alderman Vicki Danberg has arranged for privately supplied tables.
This is going to rock!
More to follow.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Public seating in Newton Centre
Who's Nathan?
Nathan Phillips is an associate professor in the Dept. of Geography and Environment at Boston University. His professional interests are in the cycling of water, carbon, and energy in natural ecosystems, especially as impacted by environmental change. Over the last several years these professional interests have converged with interests in environmental sustainability, including sustainable transportation like biking and walking, and human energy generation.
And, he's sharing his commitment to making Newton more bike- and pedestrian-friendly here!
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Barrel Monster creator arrested
The North Carolina State student and artist who created the Barrel Monster has been arrested and charged with stealing construction materials to make it.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Auburndale library needs a bike rack
There were over a dozen bikes strewn about the lawn today for the opening of the Auburndale Community Library, and even one locked to the handicap-handrail and partially obstructing the main entryway. All this in plain sight in front of many of our local civic leaders, at least one of whom commented on the need for a bike rack here. Sounds promising!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The value of a parking spot
It's not in Newton, but this Herald report of a $300,000 parking space in the Back Bay illustrates a point we like to make on occasion: parking spaces have value, especially where parking is limited. Maybe it's not $300,000 everywhere, but there is some value. To the extent that the city allows free or nearly free parking on the on-street and off-street spaces it owns, the city is foregoing revenue. It is giving a hand-out to drivers.
From Universal Hub.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
What's your point exactly?
Not sure the news value of this Globe article on the legal challenge to the DCR's ownership of the rail bed in Lower Falls. A future legal decision might have an impact on an idea that might be a future proposal.
Meanwhile, there is a bridge that is going to be rebuilt, creating a wonderful pedestrian connection, with an awesome opportunity for a terrific park.
Traffic Smackdown
Energysmackdown.com harnesses a healthy competitive spirit to conserve household energy. What about doing this on our streets and highways? How about a Mass Pike vs. I-93 (or more comparable freeways) smackdown, coordinated through WBUR 90.9 to captive NPR-listening commuters on their morning/evening routes? The goal being to measurably reduce traffic on our major feeder arteries, shunting people to public transit. Bonus points for increased bus ridership on the freeways or streets. We could choose a single day or week, or maybe go-green fridays. Go Metrowest! (that was intended to rile up the other burbs).
Bike-powered move
Here's an opportunity to be part of something cool and unusual: volunteer to help a bike enthusiast move by bike power. It's a 1/2-mile move within JP on June 20 at 3 PM.
A few years ago, Livable Streets Alliance head guy Jeffrey Rosenblum moved within Cambridge with the help of buddies on bikes.
Being exploited will never again feel so good.
From Universal Hub.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Cash for Clunkers
The Federal Government is about to deprive Massachusetts of gas-tax revenue. The cash-for-clunkers bill just passed by the House will reward anyone $3500 for trading in a car that gets less than 18 MPG for one that gets 22 MPG or more. There's an extra $1000 if the new car gets 10 MPG better than the old one.
That means that a driver currently paying the Commonwealth 23.5 cents every 18 or fewer miles, will pay at a minimum 20% less in gas tax, assuming fixed miles traveled. Combine that with the steep rise in mileage that is coming in new cars and the fact that the costs of maintaining roads goes up as gas prices go up but the revenue per gallon is fixed, and one comes to the following conclusions: the gas tax is too low, but more importantly it's a pretty stupid way to fund roadways (and transit).
It's time to tax based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Save the MBTA!
Today, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council released a "new plan for growth and preservation in Greater Boston" called MetroFuture. Not surprisingly, the plan, according to an op-ed by council director Marc Draisen:
... calls for a new pattern of development based on "smart growth" - concentrating new homes and jobs near existing infrastructure, preserving farms and fields, and protecting air, water, and habitat. However, attaining the lofty goals of MetroFuture depends more on one institution than on any other: a healthy, stable, and growing transit system.
We need to be investing in transit infrastructure and services, but instead we face higher fares and significant service cuts.
Draisen does a nice job of highlighting the difference between how transit needs get different treatment than roadway needs.
Much attention has been paid to toll hikes proposed for the Mass. Pike, Tobin Bridge, and harbor tunnels. The Commonwealth now appears poised to prevent those hikes by pumping state money into the Turnpike Authority. Yet no such commitment has been made to the T. Are those who pay T fares any less worthy of state assistance than motorists? Are they any more to blame for the state's transportation woes? The answer, in both cases, is no.
While transit spending is more progressive, providing services to the elderly and poorer residents, I don't think it's really a class issue. It's more a function of how transparent the subsidy is. It's easy to see how transit riders don't cover costs at the farebox. It's less clear how heavily subsidized driving is.
No fare increases without a gas tax. No service cuts.
One rail bed to another
Check out the full gallery at Inhabitat. It's just plain gorgeous.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Ken Parker on Walnut Street
If you are a complete streets advocate, if you hope for better accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians, you can't ask for a better statement of vision than this one that Alderman Ken Parker* articulated at the Bike Newton Transportation Forum in April.
Even I don't dare imagine a day when there are more bikes than cars on Walnut Street.
Turns out that Alderman Parker's focus on Walnut Street (where he lives) takes his comment out of the realm of the hypothetical into an ongoing debate about a concrete problem. The long-delayed reconstruction of Walnut Street is a state-funded project, which means that it is subject to the Paulsen Bill, which requires that bicyclists and pedestrians be adequately accommodated. There has been a long-standing disagreement between the city and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Task Force about what constitutes adequate accommodations, whether the city should seek a waiver of the Paulsen Bill, and whether the city's proposed alternative is adequate (though there has been recent rapprochement on a workable compromise). At issue is a stretch of parking from Forest Street north, which -- if maintained -- would preclude on-street accommodations, such as bike lanes. We're currently awaiting the state's review of the parking and waiver request.
Surely, if your vision is more bikes than cars on Walnut Street, than you'd be against a waiver of the Paulsen Bill for Walnut Street and you'd be for the most substantial on-street bike accommodations possible. So, I asked Alderman Parker his position.
Very disappointing. Not only did he avoid the question, in doing so he posited a false choice that pits pedestrian v. cyclist needs, when on Walnut Street (as in the vast majority of cases) the choice is very clearly between driver and cyclist needs. If the choice is between a "wide walkable sidewalk and a dedicated bike lane" choose both and get rid of on-street parking.
Most notable, however, was what he didn't say: he has already taken a position on the retention of on-street parking on the contested part of Walnut Street. At a November 1 meeting on the subject in the mayor's office (attended by Anne Paulsen, herself!), Alderman Parker strongly supported the continued use of Walnut Street for parking, even going as far as to joke that his wife Kelly would kill him if he worked to get rid of parking.
You can't have more bikes than cars for Benjamin and have parking instead of bike lanes for Kelly. Not on Walnut Street.
*I am supporting Ruth Balser for mayor, in large part because I believe that she is the most likely candidate to actually accomplish complete streets and other progressive policies. (Ruth was also at the November 1 meeting.) Please read my posts on the candidates in light of that support.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Testing drivers
During discussion of Traffic Engineer Clint Schuckel's MUTCD primer (more about that to come), Mitch Fischman suggested that we need signs to educate drivers about, among other things, the need to keep a safe distance between you and the car ahead of you. Some snickering about that being a basic drivers ed concept ensued.
Turns out Alderman Fischman might be onto something. According to the most recent GMAC National Drivers Test, a fifth of the country's drivers could not pass a basic written drivers exam. The average score was 76.6%. That means that, on aggregate, the driving population doesn't know or understand 25% of what they should.
The story's even worse in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth's drivers ranked 45 of 51 (including DC), with an average score of 73.8%.
Take the test yourself.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Update on Park and Vernon
The Public Facilities committee, to its credit, voted to urge the mayor to get a solution designed and trialed and showed a great interest in getting something built. It's unfortunate that such an obvious solution takes so long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
