The current Northland permitted plan requires 1,156 bike spaces. While there are certainly many Newton bike enthusiasts, could that number of Northland bike spaces be considered by some to be excessive? As discussed in the other Village 14 thread, Lime Bike has closed up. Having said that, it is unclear whether this could be attributed, in terms of economics, to Lime Bike’s and/or the City of Newton’s initial over-estimation of how many bike riders (other than simply for sport or pleasure) there are in Newton, or attributed, at least in part, to the mode of procuring and dropping off bikes under the Lime Bike system. Any thoughts?
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
This error message is only visible to WordPress admins
Error 403: Requests from referer https://village14.com are blocked..
Domain code: global
Reason code: forbidden
This is a ridiculous post (and no doubt misleading photo). Why would anyone challenge a property owner’s desire to encourage biking?
The problem ,as you describe it , is that there is excessive opportunity to park your bike if you are a resident, or work at or are visiting Northland? Wow -what an odd post. I assume those allocated spaces at Northland are spread strategically throughout the development? Not massed together in one location as depicted in your misleading photo. What’s next too much green space?
Jim, my family owns 6 bikes. It is also a big complex and folks will work and live there. So I say that is reasonable actually. The biggest question is have is if they are protected from the elements or not? Makes a big difference.
Also, while Greg is grouchy, I’m not sure of the downside here.
@Fig: Seems to me that Jim is hell bent on making sure Northland fails by challenging the very things that will help it succeed.
He’s spent months here arguing against the shuttles, now he’s trying to remove bike parking?
What’s next “Does Northland have too many sidewalks?”
The Northland permitted plan REQUIRES 1,156 bike spaces.
This site is 24 acres. The misleading photo to the contrary, there will be no one central bike garage. They will be placed strategically around the site, both above and below ground, near offices spaces, apartments, shops, parks, the Greenway and the transportation hub.
Biggest, baddest, bikes Share in the world.
Btw, I’ve been to huangzhou. They have nice weather, which helps. I didn’t see many bicycles when I was there in 2007 though.
They also grow the best green tea in the world, dragon well green tea.
https://vimeo.com/24241296
Greg, Peter, Fig, Rick,
While the Northland permit REQUIRES a wildly excessive number of bike spaces, it cynically LIMITS the needed number of automobile parking spaces.
Greg, if you’re saying these absurd requirements (in terms of sheer numbers) are needed to help it succeed, what does that say?
@Jim: I can’t believe we’re debating this. It says that people like riding bikes to places where it’s easy to park them.
From the “Transportation Demand Management” report on the city web site.
BTW – Jim is responsible for this odd post but not for the photo. That was my doing.
Jim, to be honest, I think you are just incorrect here. My building has about 50 and they are all used. Maybe more that I don’t know about.
If your point is that, wow they have a lot of sheltered bike spaces but not enough parking, I think that was intentional.
Btw, you do seem to have an intense focus on Northland, and you are posting more than anyone I’ve ever seen on this forum. I’m glad to have your voice here, but I also don’t want this site to become the Jim Epstein variety hour… We all have our items we care deeply about, but I’m not quite sure I understand why this one is yours. I think the volume of posts is why some of the other long time posters are getting testy. I think we all get what you are saying at this point. Just a thought.
Also, Greg, Northland does have too many sidewalks. Everyone knows that. It’s science.
I love to hear of a new development thinking about bikes and including them in their plans from the start. Between offices, retail, and 800 units of housing on 24 acres I’d be surprised if they are not all used. Most everywhere else, bicycle parking is either non-existent, an afterthought, or woefully inadequate.
Worse case, let’s say their estimates are off and they don’t all get used, where’s the harm. When was the last time you heard someone complain that a shopping center or office park had too much car parking and were concerned that the lot never fills all the way up?
Fig,
I’m aware of the intentionality of the less than needed automobile parking.
As I understand, V14 can be approached by anyone with a suggested thread, subject, of course, to V14 management’s review and approval. With the internet, there’s no limitation on space — that is, a thread of mine does not crowd out others, which a reader is free to skip (while others may find of interest as I do). So as a reader, I for one would certainly welcome more voices. Some people may or may not find any one thread of interest.
Regarding Northland, I did have 3 areas of concern: (1) IMO the lack of effort on negotiation with RightSize to enable approval of the project without subjecting it to the referendum, (2) IMO the misguidedness of the bus shuttles (for a number of reasons I’ll not repeat here), and (3) IMO the way over estimation and feasibility of actual bike usage as a mode for travel (beyond purely sport and recreation) to supplant and get people out of their cars encouraged by intentionally and knowingly providing insufficient automobile parking.
Jerry, is this really odd to bring up?
@Jim – I work at Harvard’s Longwood Medical Area campus and there are people of all ages who are year-round bicyclists. The locked covered 2-level bike racks are always full, so many people bring their bikes up to their offices. While I have no wish to try navigating Rte. 9 or the LMA by bike, clearly there is great (and growing) demand.
Bike parking locations are small, cheap, and adaptable compared to motor vehicle parking. I think it’s pretty practical that each unit has a bike parking spot somewhere. That cuts down clutter and wear and tear inside the units.
One of the points is that no one will get to say they don’t have secure space for a bike. Since 800 units will have more than 800 people (including couples and families, plus employees), I don’t see this number as being crazy pumped up, and if spots are unused the financial and opportunity costs are minimal.
Honestly, I would be surprised if “they are required to install-maybe too much bike parking” would, for instance, sway more than a handful of voters in the referendum. If that.
Here’s my standard of relevance in the case: would fewer bike parking spaces have swayed a single Councilor who voted against the special permit?
Meanwhile parking is limited specifically to address what I believe is the biggest source of opponent’s concern, traffic congestion. I do not see the “make Northland better by increasing parking” as being a solution many will embrace. Would more parking spaces have swayed a single Councilor who voted against the special permit?
Same is true for the shuttle buses. There may be skeptics about the efficacy of the buses, but the “let’s get rid of the shuttle buses” caucus is tiny compared to those who are enthusiastic about them, let alone those who are neutral-to-positive. Would eliminating shuttles have swayed a single Councilor who voted against the special permit?
I think people sharing their ideas is a great thing enabled by forums such as V14. However, good ideas need to rise to the top based on community resonance and update. The rest need to hide themselves in the depths so that other ideas can be heard. I’m not seeing a big groundswell of support for these particular ideas, even after repeated hearings. I think that’s because they aren’t addressing problems people are raising.
Even the “the City should mediate a discussion with Right Size Newton and Northland” is only a first step toward a solution, rather than a solution in itself. It’s not clear to me “willing to meet” is the stumbling block here. Certainly the idea isn’t novel any more.
Finally, “With the internet, there’s no limitation on space — that is, a thread of mine does not crowd out others, which a reader is free to skip (while others may find of interest as I do).” No, strongly no. Signal-to-noise ratio is a thing. People’s time is precious and they don’t want to spend it filtering. Village 14 should aim for high standards for everyone, be it relevance, good ideas, respect/understanding/empathy for others, and high community interest.
Forums quickly become identified with their worst failings, and lose or alienate audience as a result.
@Jim, you write “… the Northland permit REQUIRES a wildly excessive number of bike spaces,…”
That’s blatant hyperbole on your part. You have no idea if the number of spaces available will ultimately be excessive; too few ; or just perfect.
@Jim, I appreciate the post. :-)
Planning for 1,100 for Northland is like building a 35,000 person stadium for the sport of badminton. Hopefully aspirational, but badminton is not a sport that would fill a 3,500 person venue let alone 35k. Lime Bikes is leaving town and I saw zero bike riders on the road today.
IMO, Newton’s civic leaders has chosen the path of quickest desired results (housing, green, sustainability) vs doing the hard work by upgrading infrastructure (public transportation, school) BEFORE allowing mass density.
I thought phasing was IMPOSSIBLE to do (getting financing) yet somehow the Wellesley Office Park project is phased.
But hey, if you want to ride your bike, Northland has plenty of parking.
PS. Greg posts more about Northland than Jim.
Bike parking is a huge problem in this city and one that is a practical issue for my family. Just try taking a family of 5, by bike, to dinner in Nonantum. It’s difficult at best. I’ve done it.
My son, who bikes regularly everywhere around the city, balks at biking to W. Newton because it lacks bike parking in the right locations. One bike rack in front of the Post Office seems to have disappeared; I believe someone drove into it and destroyed it.
Worse, bike racks are installed wrong in places like the Starbucks in Auburndale. There the racks, which should accommodate 4, are positioned wrong so they can only fit 2. You can regularly find bikes (often ridden by kids from the nearby homes) either left on the sidewalk or locked to the outdoor seating area. Other installation problems in the area, off the top of my head, include Joanne Langione Dance Center in W. Newton and the Walgreens in Four Corners.
Northland ran into this bike installation issue in Waltham when they put in bike parking next to Brothers Market. The racks had originally been installed too close to the wall to be usable, so they made the contractor come back and reinstall them. My regular complaints to the Auburndale Starbucks haven’t resulted in anything.
So if a company that actually cares about these things wants to install bike parking and act as a community leader, then there is no issue. I can’t believe I even have to write this response.
It’s pretty clear that Right Size surrogates will throw any issue against the wall to stop this well-planned project. Criticizing a property owner for wanting to accommodate those who choose to bike may be the silliest argument yet.
Greg, I don’t know if it is accurate to call Jim as surrogate for RSN.
There’s a natural human inclination to group and stereotype people with partially aligned ideas/interests/views. I think we should resist it. Most comments here are more complex than that.
I would actually like to hear directly from more designated surrogates of RSN. Sunlight is good for everyone.
Worth noting is that Brookings came out with a report this week called “Banning cars won’t solve America’s bigger transportation problem: Long trips”
The report focuses on the indelible connections between housing, transportation, and economic opportunity. It includes this paragraph:
“Rather than focusing on an outright ban on cars, we need to make it easier for more people to live in places where shorter trips are the norm, and driving across an inefficient and inequitable built environment isn’t always necessary. Planners, developers, and other leaders need to invest in more connected, vibrant, and inclusive places that are designed around people, and reduce the distances we need to travel to get there.”
Which is EXACTLY what Northland’s project is designed to do. To fault it for not eliminating all trips is to miss the point. It’s there to shorten trips, like those to the grocery store, to dinner, to the gym, to socialize, etc. Bike parking is a piece (and only a piece) of a much larger solution that will come in time to the whole city of Newton.
There is no magic bullet solution to our transportation problems.
There is no single thing that we can do to fix it.
There is no big agency that will swoop in and solve it all.
It’s about steps taken in the right direction that leads us to a better way of life, one with transportation alternatives and shorter trips that get us to more places.
I haven’t read all of the comments, but it seems nobody has pointed out that, regardless of Northland, Massdot WILL redesign Needham street to have a raised bike path. I expect this to encourage biking. There are many other things that are prominent in the list of the people who like me bike every day, alone and with family, in Newton. Northland should at least have 2 bike spots per unit. Given the ridiculous number of units, this number doesn’t seem at all off target, and plus you have retail etc.
We could potentially make Newton a bike-friendly city, where people can bike safely to the schools, gyms, and parks
I can’t believe this thread has gotten this long without mention of the fantastic, protected, pleasant Upper Falls Greenway that runs right behind the project!
Northland’s architects designed the spaces particularly with the greenway in mind—connecting bike paths and sidewalks to it and turning the low-rise housing to face the greenway (thank you John Rice and the Upper Falls Area Council!)
The city’s next job is to open the northern and southern reaches of the greenway and spur so they finally connect to transit. Then your bike ride becomes truly useful for many more trips.
The Greenway is nice, and a valued part of the Upper Falls experience!! But it’s not nearly enough. At just over 1 mile, it’s quite limited ot the length of Needham Street.
To really make a dent on the reliance of the automobile….
1. Reliable MBTA service
2. Fare-free MBTA
3. Add more parking at the MBTA stops
4. Fare-free school buses
5. Intra-Newton loop buses connecting all of the Villages
6. More bike paths
If we’re going to do this, let’s go all in!
@Matt I’m totally with you on the bike paths. There are a few places we can find that should be no-brainers. Centre Street between the Highlands and Newton Centre should be protected lanes. Walnut Street, Waltham Street, Crafts Street for certain lengths should be protected too. Then there are places like Lower Falls or the Cochituate aqueduct that can also be easily converted, if we had the political will.
I also agree on school buses. In fact, we need to rethink school transportation entirely (I think you’ll find a friend on City Council in Alicia Bowman on this one).
And you know I agree with you on fare-free MBTA. I believe we should raise the gas tax and just cover this.
I disagree partially on parking at the T stations, as that would encourage more driving. We can do it, but we need to be selective about where those cars go.
What’s most interesting, however, is that the 128 Business Council has a plan in place to create intra-loop buses for Newton, and it tried to execute that twice. Once with Wells Ave (the owners balked at paying for it… the bus system still isn’t in place there) and the other is through Northland. The original bus system was much more extensive, but as the project became smaller so did the bus system. All these things are interconnected.
But let’s take steps. Right now we have a bus, it’s not perfect, but it’s a start. Let’s not kill it.
@Chuck, love your use of the term, “political will”. ;-)
Showing some restraint and not commenting on the parallel post by Pastor Scott’s speech on MLK day, on “Let’s Make Room”. His idealism is commendable, but we must not forget the realism/pragmatism that must go with that. I love chocolate cake, but it’s irresponsible to eat it 3 meals/day, 7 days/week.
To make room (for people), we need to address the traffic issue, and have the political will to take bold steps, and not wait for a Developer to be the primary source of the solution.
Saw a documentary over the weekend about how Boston took the matter of congestion and trasportation into it’s own hands to create the first subway system in the country. Very intersesting and follows your notion of policial will.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/race-underground/
As for more parking at the T stops, is it deal to get to full Green? No. But it’s a diffrent take on “last mile”. By offering the convenience of parking, traffic will be reduced on the major thorougfares taking people in and out of Newton – Mass Pike, Route 9, Beacon Street, Comm Ave. Partner that with a fare free MBTA and you’re talking a major reduction in overall traffic.
@Matt: Curious that you seem to want to comment about the “Let’s make room” thread but not on the thread itself.
@Greg, I didn’t comment directly in the other thread because I know it’s well intended and I did not want to put a damper on the occasion (MLK day). Also why I didn’t comment on your post on Newton Civic Action group on Facebook either. I may not agree with you on Northland, but not insenstive to the occasion of the day. :-)
And I don’t disagree with Devlin on the intent…just do not think that simply wishing “Let’s make room” is enough.
@MattLai: I find your comments about “showing some restraint and not commenting on the parallel post by Pastor Scott’s speech on MLK day, on ‘Let’s Make Room'” patronizing and disrespectful.
You’re certainly entitled to disagree with Rev. Scott, but by not discussing your disagreement where he and others who read his post are able to respond, you both miss his entire point about coming to the table as neighbors to cooperate in working out solutions and you also unfairly exclude him and them from the conversation. Furthermore, by suggesting that you’re excluding Rev. Scott and interested others to show “restraint,” you imply that the Rev. Scott and these others need protection from your comments–patronizing to say the least.
At the very least, I think you owe Rev. Scott and the posters on that thread an apology.
I recommend that the moderators remove your remarks about Rev. Scott’s message from this thread and place them in the thread under Rev. Scott’s message. I’d be fine if they move these comments of mine as well. Maybe then some honest discussion might come out of your disrespectful remarks.
NUFR: We do not move comments to other threads but I agree with your overall point.
NUFR: big words from behind a fake name.