New Haven Independent

posted by: Taxed To Death on July 30, 2007  5:01pm

lol…I just love it….We’ll encourage businesses to provide showers for bikers, and we’ll hatch a plan for taxpayers to install showers for bikers when businesses don’t. This is a good use of city resources?

Oh, I can hear the mayor now, beginning with a version of how these new showers reflect our values as a community, how without these showers, it will be a stab in the heart of New Haven residents..and how people using these showers will be able to access them with the illegal immigrant card we’re dispensing now. lol

Mike Piscatelli is the same character who wants to dump the entire cost of the white elephant, also known as the New Haven Fake Trolley, a/k/a electric bus on New Haven taxpayers. For once, well, twice, I wish Mr. Piscatelli would be content to just show up to work without any of his “good ideas.” God forbid, the city would not have to cut the budget because we axed a service and didn’t create another unfunded new program.

“If we dream it..we can make taxpayers pay for it.”

posted by: Bruce on July 30, 2007  11:49pm

TTD: Nobody said anything about taxpayers covering anything.  We force developers to jump through all sorts of hoops to make it easier for people to drive and park in the city, why not encourage them to provide facilities for employees who would rather bike in? One of the reasons the taxpayers are shouldering the burden of the Shartenberg lot building is because the city is forcing them to build hundreds and hundreds of parking spaces in a concrete garage—this in a building that is directly across the street from a commuter rail station and only a few blocks from an urban center.

Also, it is worth noting that Mr. Piscatelli proposed that parking meter money be used to pay for the trolley system—not the taxpayers. 

I am with you in spirit (I was taxed right out to the suburbs) but careful where you point that thing.

posted by: jms on July 31, 2007  2:26am

Just for the record I would bike to work regularly if my workplace had a shower/locker. (I did so for the better part of 6 years in a row in the 90’s) I do need my car at work on some days. But I could bike in on most days. I understand that people want to argue about who would pay for the showers and I see why this is an obvious question. Money makes the world go ‘round… most of it being our hard earned money. Without sounding too utopian… if enough people actually did ride their bikes to work the savings in gas alone would pay for the showers in a week. Somewhere back in the real world I am sure there is a more realistic solution. I am interested to see if anyone comes up with some good ideas on this one.

Wishful thinking? Good ideas?

posted by: Taxed To Death on July 31, 2007  7:47am

Even though Shartenburg is across the street from a commuter garage, people still need cars, preferrably parked off street. Second, Piscatelli has proposed not parking meter money, which is already spent on other other budget items, but to spread the $240K in lost parking revenue from the Shartenburg parkers to be spread across parkers in the garages - in effect, passing on another tax increase in a city already severely overtaxed. The fake trolley should be axed and save $350K a year.

posted by: Bill Saunders on July 31, 2007  9:05am

Maybe all the people who choose to bike to work can chip-in with their gas savings, and get an outdoor shower unit, like the one pictured below:

http://www.wellscargocog.com/shower_units.html

Other options might be having a local gym, like Downtown Health and Racket, provide showers at a reasonable fee.  Or what about the YMCA/YWCA?

However, this is not an issue for local government.  Can we please stop with window dressing and start focusing on some of the more pressing issues affecting our fair city.

And Bruce, since when is parking meter money not taxpayer money?  It is revenue that would have to be made up by the taxpayer should that stream of funds dry up, or be allocated elswhere.

posted by: Bruce on July 31, 2007  10:49am

What is wrong with encouraging people to commute on bicycles?  Many people PREFER to commute by bicycle and would do so more often if some very simple and inexpensive measures were implemented.  This would take cars off the road, alleviate parking problems and reduce pollution in the city.  It would likely save us money.

And I’m sorry, but not all people living in the city “need” to own a car.  Students certainly don’t need cars—I never had one when I was in school.  I know plenty of people who live in New Haven and don’t own a car.  Plenty.  Car sharing services, like zipcar (http://www.zipcar.com/) are perfectly suitable for many peoples’ needs.

Bill: good point, but not until that revenue stream (paid for largely by out-of-towners) dries up.  I’m not really supporting the trolley program, just trying to clarify this point.

posted by: on whalley on July 31, 2007  1:48pm

I used to commute from Middletown to New Haven. It’s about 30 miles one way. I kept a change of clothes (or two) and a pair of shoes in the office and carried on my back clean boxers, socks and a clean undershirt. A black suit is like blue jeans no one notices if you wear it two days in a row or for a week straight.

When I got to work (at least a half hour early) I sat, drank something, ate something and when I cooled down I sprayed my naked self with some Axe, put on my clean clothes and opened up for business.

A shower would have been some uppity overkill and completely unecessary. Just some luxury that would have made me no better than the goofball driving in in his Escalade complaining about traffic but not complaining one bit about the pouring rain he apparently didnt ride in in. Those were the best days. Why shower when youre sopping wet?

If there’s a shower, fine. If not get over it or get another job.

I’m sure any company or business looking to move into New Haven just loves the ever growing list of idiotic things it has to comply with to operate here.

posted by: jjbobbles on July 31, 2007  2:10pm

That Trolley that services 6 people a year really costs the city $350k?

That’s an incredible waste. I’ve never looked into it because i knew it was freak me out. I’ve lived here 4 years and I still have no idea where that thing goes.

As for the showers, what’s the big deal? Put one in at city hall and let people pay to use it. Keep that price fairly cheap. 

Let them shower at Yale.

Register so it’s only people who are riding their bikes to work, or working out. God forbid we let the homeless in.

jjb

p.s. i bet the library has a shower someplace…

posted by: robn on July 31, 2007  2:22pm

BS,

In a way, cyclists are already chipping in by not ...

1)...buring any gas, polluting the air, contributing to asthema and other smog related disease, taxing the heathcare system and contributing to greater overall healthcare costs for everyone.

2)...burning any gas, which comes from oil reserves, which has to be defended by a military industrial complex, which, when combined with interest on the national debt, eats 45% of every one of your tax dollars.

posted by: Taxed To Death on July 31, 2007  4:23pm

I’ll bet the mayor has a shower in his office. These bikers could go there…DeStefano’s infamous “night in” can be turned into a “morning in” so he could meet with taxpaying commuters.

And yes..the fake trolley does cost $350K a year. $240K of that was paid for with parking revenue from parkers in the Shartenberg lot. That revenue will now go to Becker as the owner of the property. Unless the fake trolley a/k/a electric bus in trolley clothing is canceled, the increased shortfall will fall to…(drum roll please)  THE TAXPAYERS!!!!!!!!!

P.S. Uhhh RobN—that’s too heavy for me and a really, really big stretch. Good try though.

posted by: Bill Saunders on July 31, 2007  4:56pm

For the record, I have not owned a car in 8 years.

I find biking a great convenience in many circumstances, and not a great option in others (rain, winters, for families with children). People should be happy that they have a lifestyle where they can regularly use their bike. Some people are not so lucky.

In terms of the City getting involved with making New Haven more ‘bike friendly’, perhaps designating certain sidewalks as ‘multi-use’ paths (the Berlin Model) might be a way to alleviate some of the rush-hour dangers that have been a frequent subject of posts in the past.

A bicycle is an extremely flexible mode of transportation, and being able to excercise personal judgement to protect one’s personal safety is tantamount.

And how bout some large central places to park bikes downtown (and, and promote pedestrianism as a secondary travel mode for the smaller jaunts (the Providence model). Living downtown, walking has never let me down.

posted by: jade on July 31, 2007  5:17pm

I think that any idea that 1. encourages physical fitness (hello obesity problem) and 2. reduces pollution & traffic congestion should be explored.  Let’s keep talking about it!  Get the awareness out there, that’s step #1!

posted by: charlie on July 31, 2007  6:17pm

I agree, Bill! People aren’t going to cycle in large numbers until you make it more friendly. No bike lanes, and maybe 1% of people will bike to work.  Add the striped lanes, and maybe you can get that up to 5%.  You’re not going to hit 10% (or even 40%, like in Copenhagen) until you add the Berlin-style “multi-way” lanes that you refer to. That means doing something like narrowing Orange/Elm/Whalley, moving the parking inwards, adding very good signals at crossing points, and expanding the sidewalk to include a bike lane (preferably curbed off from the pedestrian lane).

posted by: Bill Saunders on July 31, 2007  8:53pm

One correction to my above post—I meant the large central bike parking in Provincetown, MA—not Providence, RI.

Other added bonuses of such central locale parking might include:

a). A place for bike culture to propagate naturally.
b. A real visible show of the numbers who are riding, and how that ridership changes over time.
c). Easily policed to protect against theft.

posted by: Joel Creswell on August 1, 2007  1:06am

Robn makes a good point.  As Bruce pointed out, there are direct, obvious cost savings to the city from more people commuting by bike, the biggest of these probably being not having to provide so much parking.  But as Robn points out, there are many indirect benefits of cycling:
<ul>
<li>Clean air is not one to be overlooked, both for health and climate change reasons.</li>
<li>In addition, he’s quite right that it’s extremely expensive to pay for the military to secure and defend our access to oil abroad.</li>
<li>But beyond these points, promoting cycling as a means of transportation also improves the livability of the city.  Having people on bikes makes neighborhoods safer, both because bikes are less deadly to pedestrians than cars and because having people on the street reduces crime.  Also, not having to provide as much parking frees up land for other uses, such as parks or development.</li>
</ul>
Finally, while some may feel that New Haven’s taxes are unreasonable (any they are higher than in many other places in the U.S.), they are much lower than in many other countries in the world.

posted by: HeavyD on August 2, 2007  2:33am

Who could possibly advocate investing in more parking rather than in measures to promote bike commuting? It helps with our lousy air quality, and it helps make this city feel more like a community than a parking lot.

People with an “I’ve got mine” attitude can stay in their tin cans, roll up the windows, and drive out to the burbs. We’ll spot ‘em when they show up here and segue into non-sequiturs about ID cards.