Citizen complaint of the day: And take your stupid bike lanes with you

Not so! The bike lanes are right to the left of the parking spaces. Maybe the city should crack down on double and triple-parking wherever it occurs, because that's what presents a real danger to people, whether they bicycle or drive in their cars. Moreover, double/triple-parking makes it extremely difficult for emergency vehicles (i. e. fire engines, ambulances and police cars) to get through, because it often causes traffic jams and bottlenecks to form that result in delays in getting to the scene of a crime, a fire, or to a residence or business in order to transport a seriously ill or injured person to the hospital. Time really is of the essence in all three of those cases, and double/triple parking makes things much more difficult than they really should be.

So there!

Wahhh wahhhh WAHHHHHHH wahhhh!

This isn't about double parking. It's a about taking up 3 spots in an already congested area.

Why aren't the traffic laws enforced in South Boston? Double parking, parking against traffic, parking next to fire hydrants, U turns are all things I see each and every day when I walk around Southie on my lunch hour.

Yes, they are. And Adamg obviously got beat up by someone from Southie when he was a kid (or last week). He uses every opportunity on this un-original site to bash people from that neighborhood with his snarky lead-ins.

Let's get rid of ALL cars in Southie and take over the town!

AMEN!

Read the original complaint. It NEVER mentions double parking. Universal Hub made that part up to stir the pot'.

Oh, no. Not the tired old "why isn't there more enforcement on cyclists breaking the laws" and gas tax/excise tax arguments again.

Cyclists are, in general, not a significan danger to other road users. Yes, if you look hard you can find one or two freak accidents in which a cyclist killed a pedestrian. There was big news about one in San Francisco some time in the past year or two; but it was big news precisely because it's so uncommon. It costs money, time, and effort to enforce traffic laws. Where do you think that money, time, and effort is better spent, ticketing cyclists who happened to run through a red light when there was no traffic around, or pulling over people speeding down the Arborway at 80 miles an hour and risking flipping over the median and nearly killing someone? Sure, if there happens to be a cop there and he catches a cyclist flagrantly blowing through a red light with traffic around, he should probably pull him over, but it's not something that we should be devoting serious resources to.

The streets these lanes and bike racks are on are paid for through the gas tax, not to mention excise taxes and all the other fees that go along with car ownership.

God, when will this tired old trope die. The roads are not paid for by the gas tax; the gas tax pays a small portion. Likewise with the excise tax. Gas taxes produce about $25B in federal revenue, and federal highway spending is around $40B (both numbers as of a few years ago). A portion of gas tax is earmarked for other usages, so even less of the actual highway spending comes from it. The rest is paid from the general fund, which is funded by taxes that everyone pays like income taxes.

Boston's motor vehicle excise tax likewise doesn't pay for all of its road spending. Public work and transportation departments in Boston spent around $160M in 2009; the excise tax raised about $40M in the same year. Where does the rest of that money come from? That's right, other taxes that everyone pays, like property taxes.

I'm not feeling like continuing to chase down the numbers for state level gas taxes and spending, but it will be similar. A portion of highway spending will be paid for by gas taxes, but the rest by sales and income taxes.

And then you have to consider how much less a cyclist uses than a driver. A bicycle takes up far less space on the road than a car; within the same amount of space that one car fills while in motion, you could probably fit 10 bikes. A bicycle takes up no on-street parking (except, perhaps, for the on-street Hubway stations, which take up maybe 1/4 of a space per bike, and are shared between many passengers). A bicycle does far less damage to the road than a car or truck; the general rule of thumb is that road damage is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight, so the factor of 10 weight difference between a bike plus rider and a car gives you a difference of 10,000 in amount of road damage. A bicycle poses far less danger to other people, and requires less cost for enforcement. Add all of these up, and the costs of the roads to support cyclists is so much lower than it is for cars; if you think responsibility for paying for the roads should be based on usage, then car drivers had better start paying a lot more to make up the relative difference in how much of the road they use.

No one is trying to get you to ride a bike if you don't want to. They're just trying to make it easier for those who do want to ride a bike. It's OK for people to have different needs and desires, and for the government to cater to all of them.

Bikes are for a lot or purposes. They're for people who can't afford a car. People without a license. People who want to get to work more quickly in a congested area. People who want to get some exercise on their commute. People who don't have a parking space. People who want to have a little more fun on their commute. People who want to see the scenery and feel the breeze on their face. People who care about their impact on the environment around them. People who are nervous about being responsible for navigating a couple tons of steel at high speed around other people.

There are lots of reasons that people ride bikes. You might categorize some of those as "people who like to feel superior", but there are a lot of those that I don't think would ever fall in that category. And may I point out the irony of your rhetorical technique of denigrating a certain class of people as "people who like to feel superior", implying that they are inferior to someone like you who doesn't think that way?

Let me give you a little bit of a history lesson on roads. Roads have existed for thousands of years; there have been roads for longer than there has been written history. They were originally meant for pedestrians; then later, for carts and horses. Paved roads with curbs and sidewalks have existed since at least the Roman empire.

In the 19th century, a new type of vehicle known as a velociped was developed. This eventually developed into the ordinary (also known as the penny farthing), and from there to the modern safety bicycle. These vehicles benefitted greatly from good roads; they were more comfortable, and you wouldn't sink in an get stuck in the mud. So the League of American Wheelmen started the Good Roads Movement to lobby for improved roads in rural areas. For one account, see this description of California's Great Cycle Way: "At present, the cycle-way is wide enough to allow four cyclists to ride abreast, but its width may be doubled presently. As it is, cycles and motor-cycles alone are allowed on the road, but when the track is widened, motor cars may be permitted the privilege of running over its beautiful surface."

So, roads were originally for pedestrians, then carts, then bicycles, and only later for cars. Saying that the roads are "meant for cars" is, well, lacking in perspective. The roads are meant for public use. Some members of the public, like you, prefer to drive cars. Some prefer to ride bicycles. Some prefer motorcycles. And of course, there are many who use trucks to transport goods. And some people still prefer horse drawn carts. It's possible to share the road between multiple users using different modes of transit.

I'm going to push government for expensive registration fees and licenses to ride bikes.

And what, pray tell, would this achieve? Registration, fees, and licenses are applied to cars because they are big and dangerous, and have a high impact on the roads and environment. None of this applies to bicycles. You seem to want to apply them simply out of spite. Remember, taxes, regulation, and the like are not good for their own sake; they are applied because they are necessary to further some purpose. What purpose would be furthered by applying them to cyclists, beside just getting fewer people to bicycle? Do you really want those people in cars, adding to the congestion, posing more danger to you and everyone else around?

If it's snowy, I'll just take the whole lane for my little bike with its studded snow tires. Safety first.

No, The stand is BEFORE the cab stand. Take another look.

Clearly you need glasses. This is in the street leading up to the cab stand. At least 3 spots are being taken.

This is not an emergency. Please disperse.

Very well said, Peter!

http://www.caughtinsouthie.com/hubway-station