Thanks, Markos, for reaching out to Mike Bobinsky and John Peverada.
All,
Some of these 'reasons' were included in the stories in the media about this. But they don't stand up to scrutiny, for the most part.
- neater cleaner street scape: is the streetscape so BAD now? It isn't, but if it were, the meters and poles wouldn't be a significant contribution. Intown, one wants a certain amount of liveliness, even messiness.
- facilitate snow
removal efforts: this could be true, depending on the placement of the poles. Other street furniture (signs, lighting poles, trash cans, benches, etc.) and trees are not going to be removed as part of this effort.
- posts
are too close to the curb/bikes interfering with parked cars: this prioritizes parked CARS over parked BIKES. Since car lengths vary, this may OR MAY NOT be a problem; removing all the posts because some motor vehicles might be inconvenienced doesn't seem like a fair solution. Additionally, motorists are not REQUIRED to be touching the curb with their tires. State law gives them up to 18" away from the curb.
I would advise us to argue for a judicious selection of poles for removal. It may be wise to develop some pro-pole-retrofit criteria. One of those could be the demand for bike parking in any given area. Surely there are others...
Alex