The transportation-land use cycle, illustrated by the Village of Piermont, NY and its environs:
The road builders say, "Everyone wants to drive, and a road will create jobs. That's why we have to build a big road!"
The employers say, "There's a big road, and everyone wants to drive, and I want to work near my house in the suburbs. That's why we'll build an office park!"
The town planners say, "There's a big road to the office park, and everyone wants to drive, and we're afraid they'll take our parking. That's why we need to require parking for everyone!"
The retail developers say, "The town requires parking, and everyone wants to drive, and it will boost our rents. That's why we need to build parking!"
The residential developers say, "The town requires parking, and everyone wants to drive, and it will boost our sales prices. That's why we need to build parking!"
The residents say, "There's all this parking, and everyone wants to drive, and it will be more convenient. That's why we need to buy a car!"
The transit planners say, "Everyone who lives around here owns a car, and everyone wants to drive, and it will bring more passengers. That's why we need to build a park-and-ride!"
The road-builders say, "Everyone is driving to the park-and-ride, and a road will create jobs. That's why we have to build a bigger road!"
When does it end?
(FYI, the older parts of Piermont are a bit more progressive on parking.)
I like that the last photos shows an attempt at on-street bike parking, but they should use a bike rack and not a series of thin vertical tubes.
Somewhere, you should mention that office parks and entertainment venues that are surrounded by so much parking repel any pedestrian who's not desperate. I for one do not go anywhere that's auto-oriented except the regional gaming store, and there I've only been twice since moving to Providence.
Agreed with Steve Vance. Would it have cost them that much more to put a few U racks and to surround the space with bollards?
That last photo, too, shows where our priorities lie...
That style of rack is what a good majority of the bike racks here look like. I don't understand it, who was the idiot that came up with the design? Thats the style used where I work, so I park at a handicap sign. The other really common type is this kind, which is even worse
Thanks, guys! FWIW, Piermont is on one of the most popular road training routes in the area, so on weekends it attracts a lot of Lance Armstrong types, like this guy. You can't see it, but there's another on-street rack right in front of him. The businesses recognize the economic value of so many cyclists visiting, hence the on-street bike racks. Commuter cycling, not so much.
That style of rack has one advantage over the modern ones: you can pop your bike in, and it'll stay there without tipping over. Of course it's not really compatible with best-practices secure locking techniques. A relic of a different age.
Post a Comment