Bike lanes = nothing but problems

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Sorry cambridge is mostly *childless for many reasons.

Would love to see some recent data on that.

[GeePee]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

The poorest areas of the city certainly seem to have the fewest cyclists.

haha. tell me you haven't run into the groups of 15+ kids pulling wheelies in the wrong lane of crowded traffic? How privileged.

[GeePee]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

And who cant take the MBTA?

people who don't live close enough to it. your same argument about bikes.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Bike lanes are a way to attract DINK or single working age residents with disposable income looking to live in valuable real estate near the CBD. For economic reasons jt will press forward.

It's a cheaper alternative than investing in adequate public transit.… which a greater share of Americans use, and is ADA friendly

Bike lanes are largely used by people living in more affluent areas because those are the areas that have invested in good bike infrastructure. Places like Somerville, Cambridge, and certain parts of Boston are unique in that they actually have components of usable cycle networks that actually connect people where they want to go. If less affluent areas built protected bike infrastructure that connected neighborhoods to schools, employment centers, grocery stores, etc. They'd be well utilized there as well.

Just like roads and mass transit, bike networks need to get people where they want to go in order get people to use them. In many parts of Massachusetts they don't. The ones that are done right are well utilized. I'm not sure what the ADA has to do with anything. I've never seen anyone arguing for bike networks instead of transit.

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

My only argument is that bike lanes are unpopular and will remain unpopular for a long while. Part of the reason is because bike lanes don't solve all problems and create additional problems for drivers- which is one of their intentions.

Nothing solves all problems. That something doesn't "solve all problems" is terrible reason to dislike it. I also don't know anyone who wants to "create additional problems for drivers." What they want is a safe share of the road. In some cases, that means narrowing (or eliminating) some parking or travel lanes, making intersections safer, etc. That many drivers feel like A) they should have a monopoly on the road (and street parking spaces) and B) and effort to balance out access to the road among other modes of transportation is a personal affront to make their lives difficult is exactly what people are talking about when they call drivers entitled. It's the definition of entitlement. The city streets are public spaces. They don't belong solely to people driving private cars and compromise is required in order to make them safe enough for other uses. If drivers could be trusted to safely share the road with cyclists, there would be no need for protected bike lanes. But since they can't...

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Biking is good for your health, good for the environment, but I REALLY dont' think it does anything practical in the US to reduce traffic in a meaningful way.

You're not a bad person for biking but- in general- you're privileged to be able to do that as a primary means to commute, or as a primary means of transit, as the article outline..s most arent and theres many reasons for that. That word "privileged" is a trigger but it doesn't have to be.

It absolutely can, but it needs to be done right. The infrastructure needs to be complete and it needs to connect people to the places they go. If you plop a beautiful, bi-directional separated bike lane on 4 block stretch of Mass Ave. and then have both ends empty back out into mixed traffic, nobody will use it. For a long time, that's what Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville have done. Approaching cycle routes like transit extensions or new roads is a much better way - create something complete that goes from where people are to where they want to go. People will (and do) use networks like that. The cities in the Boston area seem to finally be getting that.

That people who bike are "privileged" is a backwards way of looking at things, and really highlights exactly why we need better bike infrastructure. The whole point of building out a usable cycle network in the region is to give more people mobility options. The fact that so many people who are barely scraping by have no choice but to pay for and maintain a vehicle in order to do basic things like go to work and get food is a huge problem. That should be the privilege. Opposing improved cycle infrastructure and improved mobility options because most of the usable examples currently exist in more affluent areas just perpetuates the status quo which disproportionately hurts the people who can least afford it.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Would love to see some recent data on that.

It's really readily available.

12% of cambridge is a minor compared to 19% statewide and 22% nation wide..
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...etts/PST045222

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by GeePee

people who don't live close enough to it. your same argument about bikes.

They can drive there or uber there. No one is physically incapable of a ride on the T. They can also call the RIDE. I don't think semantics either


If you're really that far from the MBTA youre almost certainly in a rural exurban are where you can ride your bike recreationally with no problem but are too far from job centers to bike in

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

It's really readily available.

12% of cambridge is a minor compared to 19% statewide and 22% nation wide..
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...etts/PST045222

And Boston is 15%, so virtually negligible in a comparison to Boston.

[MKTwet]

18th century tech taking over. Might as well go back to horses and wagons since it's better for the environment.

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by MKTwet

18th century tech taking over. Might as well go back to horses and wagons since it's better for the environment.

or allow more folks to WFH

[GeePee]

Originally Posted by MKTwet

18th century tech taking over. Might as well go back to horses and wagons since it's better for the environment.

It's better for my blood pressure and my heart I know that for a fact.