Streetcleaning: double edged sword for cyclists...

who own motor vehicles.

What I dislike about streetcleaning, like many other city services, is its guise.  Yes, it's a necessary service, especially for cyclists.  It's this very sweeping of debris that keeps us from getting more frequent flats.  It seems we get screwed more often though.  Well at least those of us who own motor vehicles, since we tend to drive less and often park on the street.

I have come to terms with the fact that streetcleaning is a means to acquire revenue for the city.  Yes they are doing a service, but they are also counting on motorists not moving their vehicles so that they can collect revenue.  If everyone moved their vehicles accordingly, I am sure the mayor would be fairly upset.  It's this opportunistic behavior I hate, yes hate!  Kind of like that guy in the earlier thread.  The one about the abandoned bike...you know he didn't want the owner to claim the bike, so he could take it as his own.   

So as I stare out my window and look at that bright orange ticket splattered on my windshield, I am upset.  So much so that I gave myself a headache.  Not at having to pay, but at having forgotten to move my car yet again.  I feel like the guy from memento, hopefully I wont get run down by a (insert mode of transportation here) as I am wandering on the (insert location here) aimlessly in a senile stupor one day.  rant over.   

Views: 269

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Duppie on August 5, 2010 at 6:59am
Not true. Renters could rent a parking space just like a lot of renters do today. Also, businesses don't need parking lots, just like they don't today. We still have street parking, but it should be metered.

Not that much would change from today really

Adriana said:
If this were the case, only those who own property could afford to own motor vehicles. All businesses would need parking lots. What about private social gatherings? Vehicles would be reserved for the elite, but they would not cease to exist.

T.C. O'Rourke said:
Adriana said:
Huh...are you saying there should not be any public parking at all? !

Yes, that is what I'm saying. The roadway is public space set aside to enable the movement of people between private properties. TRAVEL. A goodly portion of this public space is taken up by motorists storing their personal vehicles, to the detriment of the system.

And removing parking from the street would open up all sorts of space for wider sidewalks and bicycle facilities.
Permalink Reply by Duppie on August 5, 2010 at 9:04am
No. Because residential streets don't typically have businesses on them. That is why they are called residential to begin with.

Adriana said:
Should there be metered parking on residential streets?

Duppie said:
Not true. Renters could rent a parking space just like a lot of renters do today. Also, businesses don't need parking lots, just like they don't today. We still have street parking, but it should be metered.

Not that much would change from today really

Adriana said:
If this were the case, only those who own property could afford to own motor vehicles. All businesses would need parking lots. What about private social gatherings? Vehicles would be reserved for the elite, but they would not cease to exist.

T.C. O'Rourke said:
Adriana said:
Huh...are you saying there should not be any public parking at all? !

Yes, that is what I'm saying. The roadway is public space set aside to enable the movement of people between private properties. TRAVEL. A goodly portion of this public space is taken up by motorists storing their personal vehicles, to the detriment of the system.

And removing parking from the street would open up all sorts of space for wider sidewalks and bicycle facilities.
Permalink Reply by GabeW (not the other Gabe) on August 5, 2010 at 9:07am
So then I would expect all the bikes that are locked up outside on public sidewalks - intended for pedestrian transport, not private bike storage - should have their locks cut and the bikes should be impounded. Unless you rent that public spot or it's your property.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on August 5, 2010 at 9:55am
And exactly what charity in its right mind would accept money raised from an orgy? :)

(I tried to resist.)

Adriana said:
shopping orgy? What about a charity orgy? Charity is not measured in money, but in that which is intangible and not tax deductible.
Permalink Reply by Old Tom on August 5, 2010 at 12:00pm
The streets are for whatever purposes the electorate and their representatives decide. That includes parking.
Permalink Reply by heather s on August 5, 2010 at 12:14pm
Sometimes the electorate makes bad decisions.

Old Tom said:
The streets are for whatever purposes the electorate and their representatives decide. That includes parking.
Permalink Reply by Carl on August 5, 2010 at 12:18pm
I know the pain. It took me ten years of grumbling and check-writing in Chicago, but it finally convinced me to give up owning a car, and other than a few inconveniences here and there, I'm so much happier without that damn pain-in-the-ass thing!
Permalink Reply by Vilda on August 5, 2010 at 12:55pm
Listen to Carl! El dumpo de car-o!
Permalink Reply by Old Tom on August 5, 2010 at 2:27pm
Dump the car? Good luck when the hall sends you to a job in Rockdale. And when that one's over maybe they send you to Waukegan. The only places I worked I could possibly bike to were on the East Side and Fisk and Crawford stations. And after 10 hours of hot, sweaty and rigorous work one's not inclined to pedal home from 103rd and Avenue G.
Permalink Reply by Adam "Cezar" Jenkins on August 6, 2010 at 5:01am
Adriana said:
Really? How do I improve my short term memory? This is my underlining problem and frustration.

I found that a few tickets improved my short term memory immensely. It is also of course for revenue. Those tickets are the hidden tax you pay for the privilege of parking for free on Chicago streets.
Permalink Reply by Adam "Cezar" Jenkins on August 6, 2010 at 7:43am
That's kind sad honestly. I was hoping that people were actually paying for something that should be paid for. Autos are far to subsidized in America.

H3N3 said:
Sorry, Cesar-- I beg and plead for street cleanings, and it pisses me off to no end when people don't move their vehicles and a whole buncha crap gets left in a space about 3 car lengths. And I have to call my alderman and complain that there are no consequences for not moving your vehicle (can't get a cop to write a parking ticket in my part of town).
I'd be surprised if the money the city makes off tickets like this even covers the administrative cost of tracking the fines and trying to collect on them.
Permalink Reply by T.C. O'Rourke on August 7, 2010 at 2:12pm
Car use is already elitist. Only those who can afford one can store it in the roadway, while those who cannot sit on buses crawling through the same narrowed roadway. Or thread their bicycle through the scraps of space between fast moving autos and parked autos.

It is true that my position, when taken to the extreme, could be used to argue against public bike racks as well, amongst other things. Personally, with bike parking being far more compact and cheaper than auto parking, I feel that providing storage for bikes on the *public* way constitutes a reasonable use of municipal resources-- one that benefits the general *public*.

Since bicycling far more accessible to the average person than car ownership, this use of municipal resources would far more equitable as well. Providing bike parking reduces the clutter of bikes locked to random posts/fences/street furniture as well, so I'll argue that its practicality merits the allowance.

Regardless, to eliminate automobile parking in the public way and the relocation of this space for bicycling, walking and public transit --all modes that all serve the greater good-- I would gladly accept the loss of public bike parking as well.

“Businesses” would provide both, likely at a better ratio than we have now.

And as for “private social gatherings”, people could walk, bike or take the massively improved public transit system, should they be unable to afford private parking nearby.

The fact that storing private automobiles in the public way is convenient for those who own them is not at issue.

Tell me why I should subsidize your transportation costs and just except that you should be able to keep your stuff in the street we own equally. And the mere fact that you have arranged your life in a way that necessitates auto-ownership while I have not – ie: “because I need to”-- isn't going to do it.

While you’re at it, feel free to explain why I should pay for the resurfacing of the roads you destroy or the cops to manage the traffic you create or the wars to fuel your vehicle or…


Adriana said:
If this were the case, only those who own property could afford to own motor vehicles. All businesses would need parking lots. What about private social gatherings? Vehicles would be reserved for the elite, but they would not cease to exist.
T.C. O'Rourke said:
Adriana said:
Huh...are you saying there should not be any public parking at all? !

Yes, that is what I'm saying. The roadway is public space set aside to enable the movement of people between private properties. TRAVEL. A goodly portion of this public space is taken up by motorists storing their personal vehicles, to the detriment of the system.

And removing parking from the street would open up all sorts of space for wider sidewalks and bicycle facilities.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service