Public Comment

Transcript (~7 min @ 0:55)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 0:47 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Non-voting members, Alderman Mortimer, Alderman Boisselle, Alderman Tramontozzi, Alderman Lipper-Garabedian, Alderman McMaster, and President Ex Officiel Member Lemmon.

▶ 1:04 Francis X. Wright Jr.: we have four items on our agenda tonight but before that do I see a motion for public comment

▶ 1:12 Francis X. Wright Jr.: so moved second we have a motion for public comment by Alderman Zwirko seconded by Alderman

▶ 1:25 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Medeiros all in favor aye opposed and this is the time during our meeting if anyone would like to come forward and speak on any matter that is on our agenda this evening they may do so if you'd

▶ 1:40 Francis X. Wright Jr.: like to you can come to the table state your name sign in and speak our rules

▶ 1:49 Speaker 1: allow you to speak for up to ten minutes Dan Kretschmer 110 East Emerson Street speaking tonight as both the citizen and vice chair of the pedestrian bike committee of Melrose volunteer committee as most of you know and I'm going to

▶ 2:04 Speaker 1: speak in regard that to the ordinances that are proposed regarding the lime bite bite share program and this I guess applies to both of them since we only have one shot at this so I'll give the general comments I'd note that we'd sent all the aldermen our comments on alderman Medeiros is ordinance so you all have that and I won't go into all the detail that we provided on that but only try to hit the high points here the first point I like to make is there is an agreement in place between the city and the line bike organization which has only been in place since October it's our position that we should let it run for at least a full year and evaluate the results before considering an ordinance data that's been provided to the city and I understand will be presented by the Planning Department tonight indicates that the bike share program is meeting a transportation need for some of our residents and employees so in our view an ordinance is premature at this point we believe that the agreement does a pretty good job of covering most of the issues that are out there an ordinance may be reasonable in the future we don't oppose that the one proposed the more detailed one proposed by alderman Medeiros certainly has parts that could be included in an ordinance and I would like to say we'd like to thank alderman Medeiros for giving us a heads up on the ordinance and taking the time to join our meeting in December we had a long and I think good discussion about the ordinance and gave her a number of comments and concerns that we had about it we do note that the ordinance as it stands today is the same one we reviewed and none of those changes have been incorporated into it so we would like to see at least some of those changes occur before it's considered we've had some general comments and some wording changes and edits that we believe would make an ordinance more effective and as I mentioned we feel it should follow largely along the lines of the city agreement and that the technology definitions and administrative requirements should be compatible with those of the state and or partner communities in the regional bike share we believe that by kind of going off on our own path in too many directions we're not going to be compatible with some of the legislation that's on Beacon Hill right now and some of the other practices of our neighboring communities because as you're aware the bike started coming in here long before we had an agreement from Maldon there were quite a few around and I think it behooves us to be part of the regional consortium in those areas just a couple of other points it's clear that there is a demand for service the line bike data that you'll see indicate that over thirteen hundred and fifty individuals have used the service since July of 2018 making a total of over four thousand trips while these numbers are significant they don't indicate that the all the bikes deployed are being fully utilized the service is an unsubsidized private operation and supply will ultimately need to be adjusted to demand I think we've seen this already there were a lot more bikes there early in the deployment they're fewer now and there's already been a sort of a major switch from from pedal bikes to electronic assist bikes so you You can see the private market adapting to the demands of the public with regard to the service. And as I said, after a longer period of time and a full summer season and fall season, the city and the vendor will both have a much better grasp of supply and demand. We'd also just like to make a few comments on the ordinance itself. We're just concerned that some of the provisions are not easily enforceable or are unenforceable and would constitute a low priority of use of scarce resources. We understand that improperly parked bikes can be a nuisance and even a hazard, but the hazards created by distracted drivers blowing through crosswalks, people going through stop signs and speeding down local streets, which as a traffic commission member I hear about every meeting those need to be the priorities for enforcement in the city it's also important to remember that in a big picture it's important to remember that the city has an interest in promoting non-vehicle transportation this is consistent with concerns again which we also hear in the traffic commission about traffic hazards increasing rush hour congestion parking supply pedestrian safety and climate change commitments to reduce greenhouse grasses gases exploring ways to promote safe non-vehicle transportation alternatives is something the city should embrace and encourage and not stifle so I guess in summary we feel that some regulation some ordinance at some point may make sense we don't feel this is a time and we feel when that happens the ordinance as it is can be reworked to be more effective kind of walk the line between a fair regulation of the service and not stifling the technology innovation which is giving some of our people opportunities for transportation that they didn't have before thank you thank you sir anyone

▶ 8:04 Francis X. Wright Jr.: else interested in making a public comment this evening on any matter on

▶ 8:12 Speaker 2: our agenda motion to close public comment second motion to close public comment by alderman Zwirko

▶ 8:15 Francis X. Wright Jr.: seconded by alderman Medeiros all in favor aye aye opposed public comment is closed we have four