wisen@inmet.UUCP (08/24/83)
#N:inmet:6400046:000:3413 inmet!wisen Aug 23 11:43:00 1983 Regarding Palo Alto's shower regulations: As I see it, government has the same right to require shower installation as it has to build roads, because both projects improve regional transportation facilities, although in bizarrely different ways. <"A shower is a transportation facility!?"> It sure is. If you live close enough to work that you can cycle the distance, then the constraints against cycling to work are probably 1) I've always driven to work, why should I change now? 2) It might rain on me. 3) I don't want to smell up the office. For me, (3) is a major constraint. I suspect likewise for others. I formerly worked downtown for a company that had no showers, no bicycle parking, and very scarce auto-parking. In fact it was across the street from Fenway Park, and nearly impossible to navigate a car to work during Red Sox games. Public transportation was quite adequate during the winter, spring, and fall, but in summer everybody sweated on the bus and smelled as if they had jogged into work. For this job, I rarely took a bicycle to work, but when I did, I got there twice as fast as the bus. Presently, I work at a company that has bicycle parking and showers, and is in a fairly auto-congested area. I bicycle to work about 95% of the time, save at least 40 minutes over the public transit, and don't add an auto to the rush-hour congestion ( I live so close to work that a car won't get me there significantly faster ). Now, if you are a government transportation administrator, and if you believe that the government has the right to build roads, enact and enforce traffic regulations, build public transit, and do various and sundry other things to keep the traffic moving; if you are constrained in budget by a public that has voted into law a severe property-tax cap (proposition 13); if you administer a boom-town such that your construction projects which are adequate for today's needs are inadequate 10 years hence; and if your public gets severely annoyed at the disruption of large highway construction projects; then you should do everything in your power to reduce the public need for autos before embarking on multi-billion dollar construction projects that tear up the neighborhood streets. Since this isn't a totalitarian state, you can't require citizens to car-pool, walk, etc., but you can probably regulate employers so as to remove the obstacles to car-pooling, cycle-commuting, etc. I don't know that much about Palo Alto, but I suspect that the city has a good idea. If I were a traffic administrator, I would have given the companies a big tax break for installing showers, rather than requiring showers. Since I've never jogged to work, I don't know if that's a practical way to commute. Note that I haven't brought up the issue of a healthy work force. That would be hypocritical of me, since I enjoy cycling enough that I would probably continue cycling even after the Surgeon General determined that it was hazardous to my health, and even after the Sierra Club claimed that cycling was bad for the environment. (Whenever I find cute baby seals in the middle of the road, I club them to death with my bicycle pump). Next time you commute by auto and see a cycling commuter, don't think of him/her as a slow obstacle, think of him/her as one less competitor for a parking space. ----------Bruce Wisentaner
porges@inmet.UUCP (08/24/83)
#R:inmet:6400046:inmet:6400047:000:1133
inmet!porges Aug 23 15:41:00 1983
***** inmet:net.misc / wisen / 11:43 am Aug 23, 1983
Since this isn't a totalitarian state, you can't require citizens
to car-pool, walk, etc., but you can probably regulate employers
so as to remove the obstacles to car-pooling, cycle-commuting, etc.
----------
--But although it's not a totalitarian state, you CAN, I suppose, require
citizens (yes, employers are citizens too) to build expensive equipment
they don't want to build for employees who might use the showers because they
might then ride bicycles to work and might then reduce the load on the traffic
system? That's three "might"s for one definite tangible cost to the business.
And, speaking of "might"s, if we were talking about a store instead of a
software company, how about explaining what happens when a company can't
afford showers and everything else like it that they will be required to
build, and "might" then go out of business?
Well, then I guess THEIR clientele won't be adding to the traffic
congestion...
-- Don Porges
...harpo!inmet!porges
...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!porges
...yale-comix!ima!inmet!porgesasente@decwrl.UUCP (Paul Asente) (08/25/83)
inmet!porges says
--But although it's not a totalitarian state, you CAN, I
suppose, require citizens (yes, employers are citizens too)
to build expensive equipment they don't want to build for
employees who might use the showers because they might then
ride bicycles to work and might then reduce the load on the
traffic system? That's three "might"s for one definite
tangible cost to the business. And, speaking of "might"s,
if we were talking about a store instead of a software
company, how about explaining what happens when a company
can't afford showers and everything else like it that they
will be required to build, and "might" then go out of
business?
The regulation applies only to office buildings of (I think) 10000
square feet or more, and stores and restaurants of 50000 square feet or
more. So we're talking about big stores here, not your corner grocery
store.
By the way, the city council unanimously passed the proposal earlier
this week.
-paul asentewisen@inmet.UUCP (08/26/83)
#R:inmet:6400046:inmet:6400049:000:818 inmet!wisen Aug 24 12:01:00 1983 Don: Governments require sprinkler systems in new buildings, and sometimes old buildings, because there might be fires. Governments require all sorts of things that might not be neccessary. And where government does not require something, and things go awry, people (or newspapers) frequently cry out "Why doesn't the government do something!?" [ I'm thinking of AIDS hysteria right now]. Whether or not the government has the right to require anything is a subject for net.politics. I'm only concerned with whether or not Palo Alto has done something pragmatically good for itself. I also dislike expensive regulations which force companies out of business. Does anybody out there have the facts on the Palo Alto case, before we clog up the network with half the hearsay? --------Bruce Wisentaner
porges@inmet.UUCP (08/26/83)
#R:inmet:6400046:inmet:6400050:000:206 inmet!porges Aug 24 13:40:00 1983 Ok, last time...a common ground, I hope. I don't deny that showers are good -- it was precisely the degree of government compulsion that I was discussing. All clear, let's all take a nap. -- porges