Walked into Newton Centre this weekend and came upon this bumper part at the corner of Beacon and Centre Streets. No mystery why it’s there. Clearly somebodies had a bit of a shunt. In the course of moving/removing the vehicles, the bumper got left behind.
The mystery is why it’s still there. When there is a vehicular collision on our public streets, isn’t somebody responsible for cleaning up the mess?
This isn’t the worst offense, but it’s yet another example of how drivers imposes imposes costs on society at large. Somebody’s going to pay to remove this. And, it’s not going to be the driver. It’s a minor offense, but it’s a common offense.Â
We need to stop subsidizing driving. Now.
“Imposing costs” – I believe you’re being a bit melodramatic. If you’ve ever been involved in an accident I’m sure you can understand why cleaning up the debris is maybe not the top priority behind safety and assessing the scene (potentially a crimescene). A DPW truck should be able to come by and grab that bumper no sweat. It’s more a matter of why the DPW did not come by earlier.
If this is the biggest municipal problem you see all day, you live in a damn fine city.
The fire department usually responds to crashes to clean up. The bumper doesnt bother me as much as the glass and other debris that is usually swept to the curb by the FD rather than cleaned up. When I was involved in a crash several years back this is exactly what happened to the broken glass. The Fire Department told me not to worry about it. The street sweeper would come get it, I let him know that it was November so likely the street sweeper wouldn’t be by for about 6 months. anyone walking or biking would be at risk of being injured or getting a flat. After everything was taken care of, I went back with my own broom and cleaned up the glass. So if the fire department is supposed to clean up after vehicle crashes should they be doing more to ensure it is safe for all road users including bikes and peds?
Sean, I’m confused. I recall paying sales tax, title fee, registration fee, license fee, excise tax, gasoline tax, and tolls to the government. When will they be sending my “subsidy” check?
Actually, I believe it’s the tow company that cleans up the debris. That’s assuming the car needs to be towed. I’m fairly certain it’s not the job of the fire department to clean up any of the mess other than fluid leaks from the cars.
There was an accident in front of our house last winter. I was picking up pieces of plastic from the sidewalk and my yard for weeks after that as the melting snow exposed them, but there were a lot of “crumbs” of glass and plastic in the street along the curb. At some point when the road and curb was free of snow, I put in a 311 request on the city web site to have it cleaned up, and at 6 AM the next morning, the street sweeper came through. Yes, it was annoying that this was not more proactively cleaned up, but you can get the city to take care of this, even in winter. I get Sean’s point (and Mike’s), but you can see all kinds of crap along our roadways and sidewalks that will sit there for days until some one cares enough to pick it up or contact the city.
Yuppie scum,
You try to come up with regular posts about only the most urgent issues that face the city! (Also, please do re-read, I was very careful to acknowledge, “Not the worst offense.”)
Mike,
You don’t really think that all those terribly burdensome taxes fully cover all the costs that driving imposes, do you?
I was taught that when you see something that needs fixing and you are able to do it, you do it. Isn’t that what a good neighbor and citizen does? What Alicia did (cleaning up glass in front of her house), I suspect a lot of us have done too, not giving two thoughts about it.
Let’s keep doing it!
@Sean– I’m searching for common ground. Let’s see if we can at least agree on something related to your thoughts about “subsidized driving.” I think it’s absolutely crazy that the city does not charge for metered parking after 6pm in Newton Centre. Do you have any thoughts about that?
Mike,
The city should charge for on-street parking any time that the parking space has value. In the case of Newton Centre, charging for parking after 6 would fit the criterion. And, why no charge on Sunday?
Any time the city forgoes revenue (relative to market), it is passing a subsidy from all of us to some of us. If the city loans books below market, there is a subsidy from all of us to book borrowers. If the city maintains parks instead of selling them, there is a subsidy from all of us to those who enjoy the parks. If the city puts on free concerts on the Newton Centre green, there is a subsidy from all of us to the silly dads who dance around with their toddlers and to the clearly delighted older folks hanging in their folding chairs. (Was the former, soon to be the latter.) If the city sends out a crew to clean up the detritus from a crash without charging the involved drivers, there is a subsidy from all of us to some of us.
There’s a difference between the first three and the last. We want to promote the activity we’re subsidizing: literacy, recreation and open space, enjoying the arts. We don’t want to promote driving. We may view driving as a necessary evil and we probably want to limit it. We definitely don’t want to promote it. But, allowing any of the costs of driving to be be borne by the general public encourages people to drive.
We really don’t want to do that.
Sean– So we agree… Parking meter hours should be extended in Newton Centre. And I agree with you that there should be a parking charge on Sundays as well.
I’m not buying the rest of your “subsidy” argument though. I think it’s an overly simplistic perspective on a complex situation. No pun intended here, but our economy is driven by automobiles. Tens of thousands of people are employed by just the auto industry in Massachusetts. Millions of Mass residents are dependent on cars to get them to work and school. I agree there are reasons to change. But that change must be gradual over many, many years. In my opinion, jobs come first.
Mike,
I think we want to disentangle. I do think k the subsidy analysis is a simple as I make it. We need to understand all the different hidden subsidies out there and identify the thing it is we’re hoping to promote, our end the subsidy.
What is complicated is the analysis of whether driving is something we want to promote v. permit v. discourage v. prohibit. I want to discourage on the way to prohibit. Are you suggesting that our only economic choice is to promote?
@Sean
So by your logic, if the city sends out a crew to paint bike lanes without charging the bicyclists, there is a subsidy from all of us to some of us.
And why would you assume that Mike Striar is looking to promote car use. You list 4 choices: promote v. permit v. discourage v. prohibit. As you are on the discourage on the way to prohibit side, he seems to be more permit with a gradual move towards to discouragement, for those who can.
I have had various of mobility issues over the last 11 years from osteoarthritis which has led to both knees being replaced and my left hip next month. I am 51 years old and seen my ability to get places on my own shrink to almost nothing for large stretches of this time. A car is a necessity for me to get around. Believe me, I would prefer to walk to more places but I just can’t. I miss hiking, and camping and the may outdoor activities I enjoyed before the arthritis destroyed enough of my soft tissue to allow me to do it. It’s progressing from joint to joint so even when I get one replaced, another is starting up and beginning to restrict.
This is why I get really ticked off hearing you (and the other Great Green Bike Warriors Saving The Planet For Everyone) spout off with your cavalier attitude about prohibiting the use of cars or limiting where someone can park. I guess you prefer if I just sat home and rotted as opposed to being able to get out places and do the things I can do while missing those I can no longer.
I agree we need to reduce our burden on the world but the war against the evil automobile doesn’t work for everyone and come off as very self-serving.
Wally,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
As for the easy question: yes, if the city stripes a bike lane, it’s a subsidy from all of us (through the city) to a sub-set of us. In the case of bike lanes, the subsidy is relatively small and the justification to promote biking is pretty large. The planet is warming, cars are dangerous, and traffic diminishes our quality of life. I feel good asking the city to spend more on bike accommodations.
You raise an incredibly important issue regarding transportation infrastructure and mobility issues. The glib answer is that we should redirect money from services (like post-crash street cleanup) and projects that only or primarily serve drivers and spend the money on complete streets and better housing and land-use, which would reduce the need for a car for most people with mobility challenges.
The more thoughtful answer is that the goal of complete streets is to make it easier for everyone, fully including the mobility challenged, to happily exist without a car or using a car much less often.
There is an interesting question about transportation equity in an economic sense that is very similar to the issue of transportation equity for the mobility challenged. If we charge more for parking, tolls, gas tax, &c., aren’t we just hurting the poor? An answer I find credible is that charging more has some impact on the poor, but that the funds generated more than offset the impact if they are used for public transportation and other projects that reduce the need for driving. Flipped around, the argument is that the main beneficiaries of free or underpriced driving are those who are better off.
Applied to the issue of transportation equity for the mobility challenged, wouldn’t it be better to charge everybody more for driving and have targeted subsidies for those who have challenges getting around? I would be delighted to live in a system that charges me more for parking, imposes a clean-up obligation on towing companies that they pass along as a higher fee for towing, charges higher tolls, collects a (much) higher gas tax, &c. and gives you (and others who have fewer choices) refunds on those charges, subsidized car service, subsidized housing in neighborhoods where you might not need a car, &c.
Giving everyone a break on the cost of driving seems to me a terribly inefficient way to make sure that some people with very specific needs are well served.
Sean,
I may not agree with you on some things but I appreciate your dedication to your beliefs and your response. There are no easy answers and not everyone will be happy with every outcome. As with all things, we need to find a middle ground that achieves as many goals for the stakeholders involved. It’s too bad we can rarely seem to find that ground.