Word from Boston Bikes by way of Southie Bikes is that a community meeting on proposed bike lanes on West Broadway scheduled for Monday has been abruptly called off:
Neighborhood groups, businesses and elected officials will continue to meet and discuss the possible expansion of bike lanes in South Boston.
The hearing had threatened to become the latest, and possibly loudest, battle between natives and people who have actually moved into the neighborhood.
Southie Bikes says:
Planet Southie, Southie Bikes, Chamber of Commerce, and City Councilor Bill Linehan have more work to do toward common understanding.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Sounds to me like they didn't want their a** handed to them on a platter by the natives. Especially after the last bitchfest meeting they had.
I.e., Linehan got the meeting canceled because he already has the angry-Southie vote locked up thanks to the St. Pat's thing and he didn't want to alienate the earthy-crunchies in the South End and around Broadway station by coming out against bike lanes.
I don't think Linehan would have to cancel a meeting he's already taken a stance on according to the last meeting and yesterday's paper, "Linehan opposes bike lanes on Broadway".
The Commonwealth of Liberal Retards
You're really winning everyone over with that one, sunshine.
Can we get a minus-1 button?
Feel free to leave anytime then. You won't be missed.
Usually at these meetings, more bicyclists show up than anyone else, so I doubt that was the reason.
The whole public process frustrates me to no end, because it's based on the presumption that simply by being a resident or showing up to a meeting, someone knows more than traffic engineers, infrastructure experts, and people who actually study and discuss this stuff.
Invariably, every meeting like this boils down to two camps:
-The people who actually know what they're talking about and are backed by studies and research.
-The people who are emotionally driven. They hate cyclists and/or have baseless fears that cycling infrastructure will harm them in some fashion.
-The people who fear and fight any sort of change to their neighborhood
Safety? All road users are safer on roads with bike lanes.
Parking/traffic? 51% of permanent Boston residents don't own a car, and car ownership declined 14% in the last 5 years. Consider that many cyclists do own cars or drive, and now you can see that people who drive but do not cycle are a minority.
Pedestrians? Cyclists are involved in (not at fault, mind you) 1% or less of pedestrian injuries.
Businesses? Bicycle infrastructure generates economic activity because a)more bicycles can be accommodated more easily than more cars (a bike lockup post costs no more than $200-300 tops and can be added to most existing sidewalks) b)people who ride bicycles for urban transport have more disposable income; they're not paying for a car c)they can travel farther more easily so they're more likely to be a customer of a business that's not in their neighborhood.
Can you please inform me as to where you obtained your information on bicycle pedestrian injuries? I am not aware of any studies or reports that have been completed. I know many pedestrians do not even report accidents involving bicycles and if the Boston Police Department creates a report I think it is classified as sick or injured person. I am not aware of any BPD classifications for bicycle related accidents or injuries unless the accident involves a motor vehicle. If you are going to use statistics and percentages please include where they can be verified for others to view.
Hi Markkkkkk204829430243, I see you've started commenting anonymously. Have you heard of Google?
Note that none of these studies address fault (for example, a jaywalking pedestrian who steps out into the roadway suddenly, or crosses at a controlled intersection against a light, or a pedestrian on a bike path who steps into the way of a cyclist), nor severity of injury (just because EMS is called doesn't mean they have anything more than a scratch.) They're simply counts of cases where a pedestrian was injured in a collision with a cyclist enough to warrant EMS showing up.
In fact, if I remember correctly, BostonEMS didn't transport a single pedestrian last year for a collision with a cyclist.
How many pedestrians a year are injured enough by drivers such that the ped requires transport?
In 2006, about 900.
That number is not far off from the number of cyclists struck by drivers and transported to area hospitals (it's actually higher - well over 1000.)
Internt forum moderator
I think the idea that 'native' southie residents don't bike and only people who have moved there, as Linehan tries to say, is totally wrong. Leaving aside whether it matters how long you have lived somewhere, there are plenty of people who have lived there for a long time who don't have the money to own a car, park at their job, or take the T.
is the main supporting evidence in arguments as to why certain changes are bad - regardless of what other long-time residents want.
"oh - you've only lived here for 30 years? well, I came over on the mayflower - and back then we triple parked"
I’m not a native, but a transplant to Southie 6 years ago. I don’t believe “bike lanes” are a good idea. There is no room for them. They create a false sense of security and give the impression to many bikers they have the right-of-way.
I think it’s a great idea for people to bike and leave the cars at home, but we need to be realistic and make the best use of funds. Boston was not designed with wide roads that can accommodate these “bike lanes”.
I see other parts of the city where the “bike lanes” are already worn away because they were put in the middle of a traffic lane.
Areas of the city are already congested. Why would you want to cause a greater issue?
I've heard people mention safety. Bike lanes do nothing to ensure the safety of a biker.
Waste of time, effort and money.
I have to say--you're talking out of your hat. Both from a factual perspective and from that of anyone who's ever ridden a bike. South Boston isn't some hold-out enclave of unnaturally small streets--if we can find room for lanes everywhere else in Boston than surely we can there too. And bike lanes don't just literally create safer streets (though they do) they are a huge step in raising awareness for drivers that yes--they are sharing the streets with others and should drive accordingly. I've seen plenty of worn out zebra crossings--think we should get rid of those too? I mean--we wouldn't want to create a false sense of security for pedestrians.
Unless I’m mistaken there are no studies to support your statement of “bike lanes create safer streets” http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=971. I’ve witnessed countless arguments between motorists and bikers, and say the bike lanes only fuel the issue. Bikers and motorist both feel they have the right-of-way. An awareness program would be a good idea. These lanes are put in with no explanation and no regulations/laws governing their use.
While my home is Southie, I bike and drive throughout the city. I’m cautious at both, and typically bike in areas I know to be safe and can accommodate a ride. I don’t see value in adding bike lanes in some areas of the city. Some areas, yes…and even in Southie! But, on West Broadway,its not a good idea. W. Broadway is already plagued by congestion and double parking. Its already a nightmare.
As for cross-walks? Pedestrian traffic is on the sidewalk, not the road. They already have a separate, elevated lane for people to safely travel and a system designed to help them cross the road. Also, the public is aware of the laws regarding pedestrian crossing. Not sure the relevance of that comment.
On zebra crossings. and yeah--they still jaywalk too but the crossings are a guide to where they SHOULD cross and where drivers should be extra aware. Hence my comparison.
I couldnt disagree more. Bike lanes marginalize bikes. They feed into the "get outta my way" attitude drivers have. The best solution is education and enforcement. Citing drivers for unsafe passing of other vehicles (bicycles) would be a start. Citing riders for running red lights would be another great step.
Most bicycle accidents happen at intersections when turning vehicles either ignore or dont see the bicyclist whom has been force to the side of the road where they are less visible. Bicycles should ride in the flow of traffic in an urban setting.
I ride in the city 2/3 nights a week. Usually a 20-30 mile loop hitting most of the neighborhoods. Where bike lanes exist in Boston, they are either perfectly placed to ensure an encounter with a car door or they are those ridiculous chevron symbols painted onto the street. Riding with (and being acutely aware of) surrounding traffic is what I have always done.
Education and awareness on the part of all road users are essential to safe biking and motoring.
Chevrons aren't bike lane markers, they're referred to as "sharrows" (a portmanteau of "share" and "arrow") and are "Share the road" symbols.
Yes, the sharrows are placed as a reminder to cars and encouragement to bikers to take up the whole lane in places where riding in the gutter is unsafe. They indicate how far out the biker is expected to ride safely.
how many people are capable of riding 30 mph "with traffic?" This is absurd VC garbage that has been thoroughly debunked in terms of increasing bicycle mode share.
You need to design bike infrastructure for an average speed of 10 mph or less - bike lanes provide a space for slower moving cyclists to move over. if you middle-aged male VC people want to ride in the middle of traffic with your stupid spandex outfits and $5000 crabon bikes, go right ahead, but if we actually want to make it safe for 99% of cyclists (and potential cyclists - and there are a lot of them - I'm betting it's over half the city) who just want to get around safely and not get all sweaty because they're FORCED to ride at car speeds, we need to start thinking differently.
What's scary to me is that a so-called "traffic engineer" is only capable of thinking of actual motorist behavior and wants to force "ideal" cyclist behavior on people who are incapable of meeting that level - and not ACTUAL BEHAVIOR and needs of ALL USERS.
I want to force motoroists to drive more patiently, not mariginalize inexperience bicyclists into a place where they will get run over.
then you'd want to design physical traffic calming measures that brings motorists down to cyclist speeds. like this:
I'm sure if any of these "true southie residents" see anything like this proposed they'd reach a whole other volume of "outrage."
Of course - what we really need on this stretch of broadway is something more like this:
That way cyclists only have to deal with stupid pedestrians, and the spandex-clad VC (vehicular cyclists/bike drivers)dudes can weave in and out of double-parked cars. win-win.
Of course this won't happen because something that has worked for decades somewhere else can't work here because we're "special."
. . . which works very well over Windsor Street and Vassar Street in Cambridge.
While I won't go so far as to agree that "bike lanes marginalize bikes" I absolutely agree with the part about turning vehicles and accidents.
My method of avoiding situations like that in heavy-traffic urban conditions is to do what you say - I ride in the middle of a lane, as if I were driving a car, so as to cut off the possibility that some knucklehead is going to try to "squeeze" by me. And before the crazies get upset, they should appreciate that when I do this I am riding at the speed of traffic (which is rarely more than 20-25 mph in the conditions to which I refer, and even if it were approaching 30, I can still keep up).
On an unrelated note, I loved your post yesterday with the details of the North End hydrants - don't you love it when the UHub know-it-alls just ignore someone who has reason to know precisely why something is the the way it is (but cannot, for various reasons, say why) in favor of their own I-need-to-sound-smart rants? (I thought that "bombast" would have been a better word than "rants" but I didn't want to hear about the irony of using that word.)
I also liked his post explaining about the hydrant colors, and I was one of the many people who voted it up. Then, he posted again, apparently disturbed that some other people had simultaneously replied with other less-informed ideas about the hydrants.
One of the nicest things about Universal Hub is the polite and cordial decorum present in these boards, so when he resorted to some unpleasant name calling, he devalued his earlier constructive post.
And I'm fully aware that there are plenty of cyclists in this city who are more than happy to ride in the flow of traffic (they're often the ones blowing by me--no "on your left," no lights, no hand signals) but if you want to make the city a safe and comfortable place for more people to ride bikes, you've got to plan for average folks. Older people, kids, parents trundling kids to school--basic transport cyclists, not 25-year-old guys seeking an adrenaline rush.
I would still be young and fabulous!
My only comment on this is that when I am no longer able to ride at the speed of traffic, I will not be doing so in the middle of the travel lane regardless of whether I have the legal right to do so.
That is my own personal choice based on my assessment of what is safe - it is the same reason why I will not ride on the Minuteman (excepting, very rarely, outside of 128). There are too many users operating at wildly different speeds (and too many damned 20 ft. long retractable dog leashes that are virtually invisible) so as to render the right of way, in my estimation, unsafe for me to operate my bicycle. I don't want to get hurt, and I don't want to hurt anyone else.
Important: I am not suggesting that other people should not ride in the middle of the travel lane even at a speed that is lower than that of the vehicle traffic so long as they have the legal right to do so. I am merely saying that I will choose not to do so because I have decided for myself that it is too dangerous (given the current mindset of drivers - perhaps, in 30 years, that will be different).
You can rest assured that should I come up behind you riding in the middle of the lane whilst I am driving, you will be accorded the space and patience to which you are entitled. Similarly, you can be assured that you will always know if I am about to pass you if I am on my bike (by bell and a very loud but friendly voice).
Do you think children should be riding their bikes with vehicular traffic on city streets such as Mass. Ave.? This is an honest question. You mentioned streets should be made safe for kids to ride their bikes. With so many out of state drivers and suburban weekend type motorists unfamiliar with city driving who still don't believe cyclists have the legal right to ride in the steet, how can it be safe? Out of towners see bike lanes and think cyclists are supposed to stay in the bike lane. Older generations do not know the law. I've had this conversation with visitors many times over the years. And cabbies... well, I've seen one too many harrowing near misses and aggressive encounters to even begin to count.
They are 15 and 17 now, but we have permitted them to do so since they were 12-13 and demonstrated adequate vehicular cycling skills.
In other words, it is a parenting decision.
In Germany and Switzerland, I saw kids as young as 5 or 6 riding their own bikes in the roadway lanes. Parents were generally nearby, but that seemed to be the age where having one's own bike was expected. I frequently saw pre-teens out on their own.
Expecting traffic cops to make this happen is beyond naive. And sorry--as a transportation engineer, expecting a 12-mile per hour cyclist to ride seamlessly in car traffic is just...well, not right.
If you're looking for enforcement, ride your bike around Coolidge Corner for an hour or so, and go through some red lights, etc. I would be shocked if you were not stopped by a Brookline cop on a bike or standing at an intersection. They stop cyclists who are not complying with the rules of the road all the time, and I think that is great.
I don't run red lights so I wouldn't know but I've heard similar stories. Personally I wish they'd put as much effort into fixing the raggedy, potholed streets there. I've had some close calls out there due to giant holes, uneven pavement, copious gravel, etc.
We'd have officers standing out on the street corner just watching the traffic too! But, let's be honest, A) it isn't and B) even if it was, it would be an uphill battle like combating double-parking on Newbury Street.
... pay for the extra officers needed?
Did anybody see or was anybody a part of the crackdown yesterday around Comm and Mass Aves? Read about it here.
Happens several times a year - usually along Hampshire St. and where Hampshire empties onto Broadway.
They tend to be out at the beginning of the academic year - for the last 5 or 6 years.
Saw a guy bolt around a group of other cyclists waiting at a light - waved over just past the first two parked cars on the other side.
Vehicles and bicycles need to obey the rules of the road. I was crossing the street on A street and the walk signal was on. The vehicles stopped at the red light, however a bicyle rider went through the red light. I think education and enforcement is needed before more bike lanes are added. Would the city have to require bike riders apply and pay for a license, take a test for a permit and require riders to have a license plate on their bikes so they can be identified when they do not obey the laws of the road. I think bike lanes work better on streets without parking (just my opion). I feel it would be more difficult to cross the streets with bike lanes because you would not be able to see the bikes coming when a van is parked at a crosswalk. I also feel they do not work on bus routes. When the school buses and MBTA buses let people off the bus they wait for them to cross the street and the bike riders would not be able to see people crossing the street to avoid hitting them.
Also, MassDOT encourages this practice, too.
They create a false sense of security and give the impression to many bikers they have the right-of-way.
Alright, so, two things: first, as a frequent bicycle commuter, I can guarantee nothing about a bike lane or anything else on the roads of this city provides a "sense of security" in any way, shape, or form; and second, bicycles do have the right of way as much as any other motor vehicle (which is what a bicycle is under the law) does. That doesn't mean bicycles can run red lights at will, but neither does it mean automobiles can cut around bicycles to make a right turn (often without indicators).
... is one less car on the road.
Not true. Plenty of people walk and take public transportation.
In those cases, the bike rider is one less person crowding up the sidewalks, busses and trains.
Boston was not designed with wide roads that can accommodate these “bike lanes”.
That's true. Much of Boston was designed for pedestrians, livestock, and vehicles powered by those. Some later parts were designed for trains. We ought to ban cars from any part of the city where roads were put in place prior to 1886. Horses, oxen, and other draft animals are a bit smelly though, and aren't hygienic, and tend to die easily, so in the interests of public health, perhaps we could substitute bicycles for livestock instead.
Commence Southie bashing!
Don't you have some mail to deliver, Newman?
Broadway is at least as wide as Main Street in Charlestown or Somerville Avenue in Somerville, both of which accommodate bike lanes just fine.
And yes, bike lanes are useful. They separate slower traffic (you and me on a bike going 12-15 mph) from faster traffic (cars and trucks going 30 mph). When the car traffic gets jammed, the bike lanes serve the opposite purpose -- keeping the 12-mph bikes going around the stopped cars.
I wonder what the residents of Charlestown think of the bike lanes. I know many Charlestown residents that dislike the bike lanes. From the post it sounds like the newer residents are against any concern a resident, that has lived here before southie became popular, is irrelevant. Please have respect for all residents of Southie. Also please get the facts before you post a comment about a person. Also please do not stereotype residents.
That would be EX-mailman!
Read the Ciccone columns. If you're talking about this particular segment of Southie, there's really nothing left to say. Southie is a bastion of patriotic, right-minded family values and the rest of us are just a bunch of Godless Communist pedophiles who want to corrupt youth while riding our vegan bikes over the poor double-parked UPS guy AND the little old lady making her way to Gate of Heaven for the early service.
Southie is the one neighborhood in Boston where gentrification will dramatically improve the neighborhood.
What about Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan? Based on the number of comments here it looks like bike lanes matter more than crime, drugs and violence, go figure...
Because Roxbury, Mattapan, Hyde Park (more recently, specificity near Mattapan) and Dot are just so fu*k'n pleasant. Go home to Tyngsboro!
Or large parts of them are, at any rate. I suppose one could say the same thing about, oh, parts of Andrew Square.
Some parts east of Dot Ave and a few pockets west in Dorchester, and Fort Hill area in Roxbury - that's hardly "large parts," if you ask me.
Pretty much all of it.
Lower Mills is "some pocket"?
And, hey, you might be surprised what you'd find driving around Mattapan.
over the place and empty trashcans on every corner.
Another gratuitous swipe by the editor. You got it in for South Boston. There are families making a go of it in and around Andrew
Square given some tough dynamics. The same can be said for the rest of South Boston. Ridicule if you must. It's your show.
But it's not like I put that in my original post. I was responding to somebody who seems to think large swaths of the city on the other side of 93 are nothing but radioactive hellholes best ignored by the right sort of people.
But please do tell us what those "right sort of people" you're referring to will find out there that they won't find in their own neighborhoods, other than drugs and an elevated chance of getting violently parted with their wallet and iphone? Also, why are you so anti-Andrew Square? Are you angry that your Roslindale pad's value hasn't moved that much since you bought it, while old run-down triple-deckers in Adnrew that were dime a dozen not too long ago are now worth a cool million or more?
Our house is worth about three times what we paid for it. No, nowhere near a cool million, granted, but then, it's only a small colonial. In the meantime, we don't have drug addicts breaking into apartments and killing their neighbors or causing problems for our bars.
I think we all secretly hope "gentrification" eradicates.
However - I think it's mostly just hard for a certain segment of the population to come to terms with the fact that Boston is now a highly influential world class city and no longer as much of a scrappy blue-collar backwater like it was when they were growing up in the 60s and 70s. "but it's the way we've always done things!"
"dirty old Boston" is long gone. It's time for us to move forward.
Change is difficult for some people.
I see where you're coming from but I take issue with it at the same time. I think about 90% of the posters on this blog arrived to the Boston area later in life, transplants and there's nothing wrong with that.
But, I do see a level of disrepect towards those who only know this area. They were born and brought up in these neighborhoods, this is all they know.
Imagine being in their shoes, being told it's time for them to give it up. And, I assume if most of you stay in this area you will be in their shoes at some point further down the road.
No, this piting the transplants vs. the original Bostonians should be avoided - or at least done with a bit of respect on both sides.
You all fell in love with this city, that's great and just know the HUB of the universe was here long before you and meant a great deal to those you now seem to wish would "eradicate" .
if they've been active in improving and keeping up the neighborhood and are welcoming to newcomers. There are plenty of these people around - and while they can often be skeptical of some things (typically it's mostly related to broken promises, funding that never appears, etc...), they tend to be pretty hopeful and open to new or imported ideas. What aggravates the rest of us are the self-centered individuals who show up to every single meeting complaining about anything and everything and confuse cultural shifts with some sort of massive conspiracy against people "who were born here."
Respect is something you earn through your involvement in the community, not something that gets handed to you for living in the same place for a really long time.
I would suggest that "involvement in the community" is what built the roads you walk/ride on, the buildings you work in, the housing you live in, the parks you enjoy - the city you fell in love with and packed up your stuff to and relocate to.
Respect is called for and both sides should follow suit. I tend to think wishing a group of people "eradicated" is a bit much.
I see both sides of the issue and this being a blog frequented by those newer to the area, I understand the prevailing viewpoint by most here. Then again, my family knows no other area - this is where we come from so I see their viewpoints as well.
I guess there's no right answer, just a bit of understanding can go a long way.
Speaking of respect, some of us are natives of places like Cambridge, which some writers think don't deal with reality on a daily basis. Look around a little, and you might see some native neighbors of yours who are just as frustrated with these attitudes as the out-of-towners.
Respect has been earned !
The South Boston Vietnam Memorial was America’s first formal memorial for Vietnam veterans – predating the dedication of the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. by 13 months - and honors 25 men from South Boston who gave their lives during the Vietnam War. No neighborhood in the United States lost more members of the Armed Services in Vietnam than the 25 South Boston men who died there.
In other words, people who have not bothered to explore the city, the state, the country, or the world?
From what I've encountered of many such people in my own city, they often oppose changes that would help their own quality of life and/or save them tax dollars because of a strange combination of the fearfulness has kept them rooted to a small area, and misplaced entitlement based on never having ventured very far.
I don't think we should be required to make bad community decisions and live with the sometimes serious financial and quality-of-life consequences of those decisions based on the irrational fears of a few people who have trapped themselves in a time capsule. Consider their comfort, yes, but not allow their fear to veto reasonable and prudent uses of public money.
Travel, of course but this is home, always has been always will be. It seems you wish we stayed away.
Fear? My father, uncles, cousins, cousins kids were and are currently fighting wars and have seen much more of the world you'll ever see. Many came back as BPD - and you're talking fear??
No, you're assuming too much here and I'll leave it at that.
Regardless, spending of public money needs to be grounded in the greater good and rational decisionmaking based on factual reality - and that changes over time and always will. Allowing a few people's pathology to run the show doesn't serve the greater good.
I dont see what the big deal is, there are already bike lanes in Southie on other streets off of Broadway...
Perhaps the ex-Mrs. Cruise could speak on bike lanes the next time she is in town, shooting a movie, or whatever:
Then there is Gwyneth Paltro photographed riding her Vespa like a bicyclist would! Life imitates celebrity.
The bicyclist in the Kidman incident was a photographer who rode on the sidewalk to get a picture of her and knocked her over in the entrance of her hotel. No bike lane was involved. And the cyclist got a ticket because it is illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalk in NYC.
What's that thing--a lie travels around the world...? But who cares--the Herald is like a hog wallow for grunting half wits.
Nobody in 02474 pays him any mind any more. He lost his town meeting seat, and now even the Arlington Advocate has stopped printing his frequent "submissions".
Herald comment section it is!
We won my ballot question showing voters want to keep 4 lanes on Mass Ave. instead of campaigning for myself. Lexington Selectmen prove smarter than Arlington's for deciding against bike lanes and lane removal on Mass Ave there. Arlington Advocate never stopped printing my submissions, I just never submitted many. The Arlington email list administrator censors posts and posters he does not agree with, so the list is just a circle jerk, mutual admiration society.
Just ask the Town Hall and DPW.
that ignore button...
I don't _ever_ want to see this guy's posts.
today bike directly into a stop vehicle, in his hip spandex suit.
Being the responsible citizen i am! I stopped, pointed, laughed uncontrollably and gave the driver my contact in case the biker tried to refute the damaged he caused.
Which is what--Anon, 123 Asshat Ave., D-bagville?
Yeah--I'm sure the damage was extensive. Too bad you weren't around during any of the fatal accidents this year invving cyclists. Sounds like your keen eyes and hilarious wit would come in handy.
And you stopped and laughed?
And you think we are supposed to be impressed by this?
Let's move UHub to a Usenet group, so we can have killfiles!
1st rule of usenet: don't talk about usenet
Man that rule is only for kids who equate usenet with nothing but piracy and child porn
I love how Mark can bring up the Nicole Kidman incident while ignoring the driver who just yesterday plowed into five kids, critically injuring two:
In Mark's crazy world, only cyclists do bad things. But here in the real world at least the cyclist was cited; the driver got nothing. It's totally legal to hit people on the sidewalks as long as you use a car.
Of course, Mark can also ignore the tens of thousands of deaths per year caused by cars, so ignoring this one crash probably didn't even cause him to sweat.
I just meant to inform folks on two current, media stories relevant to bicycles and transportation, if not bike lanes in Southie.
I was unaware of the parking accident in Queens, so didn't report that. It didn't get the media distribution that Kidman and Paltrow stories did. There are too many tragic incidents of people trying to park and ending up in stores, rivers, pools, and sidewalks. I've written before that this is a more common problem because few people have manual transmissions now. A need to use a clutch is a safeguard against confusion between slow and go pedals. Knowing how to drive a manual transmission would be a good barrier to entry to keep the feeble minded from roads. There have been cases where it has foiled carjackings!
I never claimed its legal to hit people on sidewalks, so where do you pull that out of? In Mass its illegal to operate a motor vehicle on a sidewalk, though they did not seem to have charged the crazy teacher in Swampscott with it when she tried to run down her ex-husband's gf.
> they did not seem to have charged the crazy teacher in
> Swampscott with it when she tried to run down her
> ex-husband's gf.
You didn't look very hard. Pretty serious charges pending -- and teacher held (for now) without bail:
Mark only looks as far as he needs to to confirm his bias.
The proposed bike lane design did not eliminate a single parking space, nor did it eliminate a single lane of travel for motorists. The existing road is more than wide enough to accommodate buffered bike lanes and travel lanes without sacrificing anything.
Please take a look at a representative page of the bike lane layout.
City Councilor Linehan never reviewed the proposal prior to publicly opposing it.
Of course not. His objection to the bike lanes has nothing to do with traffic, parking, or any other practical considerations; this is purely a culture wars issue.
do cyclists have to travel on Broadway? Southie is one big grid... plenty of streets with a lot less vehicle traffic that also intersect with the major arteries used to commute to other parts of the city. If anything bike lanes on Broadway will increase accidents and increase tension as a result.
do cars have to travel on Broadway? Southie is one big grid... plenty of streets with a lot less vehicle traffic that also intersect with the major arteries used to commute to other parts of the city. If anything driving on Broadway will increase accidents and increase tension as a result.
what you did there... clever, yet erroneous. The street itself is, always was, and always will be, there; bike lanes notsomuch. I made a good point, you made a decently good joke but failed to address my question. Go ahead and paint some extra lines on the pavement and have a two-wheeled victory parade down Broadway but realistically the only thing this might change is the aesthetic value of tar... which is certainly worth all the bickering...
Well, Broadway has been there a long time - it was put down a long time before the invention of the automobile. Shouldn't bicycles have seniority of their young upstart competitors?
And what was your good point again? I keep re-reading your posts, and I can't quite make it out.
I don't give two flying shits about having bike lanes or not but clearly its having them on Broadway that's the main point of conflict... so my question is why do they have to be on the busiest road in Southie? Wouldn't a decent compromise be to put them on a street that runs parallel yet will still allow the cyclist to get wherever he or she needs to go in roughly the same amount of time? Its not like there's anything preventing someone from biking down Broadway right now regardless so I guess I'm also just failing to see the point of having designated lanes at all. I don't agree with most of the opposition's argument but it is true that safe bike travel will still be far from a guarantee so the benefits are quite vague at best.
I don't see why cars have to drive on the busiest commercial roads, when there is no room for each person to put a two-ton object. Isn't that what I-93 and I-90 are supposed to be for?
You can get a lot more business going with people walking and biking to do their shopping and socializing, all without the dangerous menace of private cars hogging all the space and creating hazards for people trying to spend money and run errands.
tell me this is heavy sarcasm?
Why do vehicles, potentially transporting multiple people, have to travel on Broadway?? Homes, condos, apartments, banks, supermarkets, pharmacies, etc...
No room for cars on roads?? Could've fooled me... must be an illusion from all the painted lines.
MORE business when people walk or bike?? Don't see too many Venice Beach tandem bikes cruisin down Broadway... and how about people who literally cannot safely walk or bike to their destination? You plan on telling grandma to lace up her boots and take an icey stroll in the middle of Winter to pick up her medication?
"...all without the dangerous menace of private cars hogging all the space and creating hazards for people trying to spend money and run errands." 95% of the cars on Broadway belong to people who live there, work there, or are currently running errands/spending money...
I heard they just put new bike lanes on I-93 heading into oncoming traffic, please feel free to take the maiden voyage!
It would be great if we could designate less heavily traveled streets adjacent to major routes as bike friendly. I'd go a few blocks out of my way if it meant nice wide bike lanes with room to pass slower bikers, and an auto speed limit of 15 or 20 mph.
For example, designate Broadway for cars and local bike traffic (i.e. destinations on broadway) and 3rd street for bikes and local cars traffic.
PS - to all the anons referring to "spandex-clad" bikers: are you sure you're in Boston? I ride every day on Comm, and fairly often down mass ave and through the south end, and maybe 5% of bikers max wear spandex (unless you count girls in leggings). If you said scruffy guys in cutoff jorts maybe I'd believe you. Or you just really need to focus on the road a bit more.
If they live on Broadway or wish to visit one of the many businesses on Broadway, then yes they pretty much do have to bike on Broadway.
Cyclists don't want a circuitous route to get places any more than automobile or delivery trucks do!
I remember when there was a huge huff and puff when bike lanes were put down, taken away and then put back on Main Street in Charlestown. "Why do they have to go on Main Street?" -Uh, I don't know, you think if a street is called "Main Street," it's probably the most direct route to take?!
Recently, the old school residents of Southie looked out the window and realized they had become the minority in their own neighborhood. In a desperate attempt to regain some modicum of control, they have loosely organized to protest any change the neighborhood, regardless of how asinine or ridiculous.
Be it two picnic tables at the tiny burger joint on L Street (Tasty Burger), high end wine at the tiny market on Broadway (American Provisions) or bike lanes on a one mile stretch of road, they have decided they will cry and moan about any change not initiated by one their own. I have no doubt that they will find a reason to protest the new bagel place on L & Broadway (you guessed it... they don't like Jews either).
For anyone tired of this BS from this dying Southie demographic, just wait one year. 12 months. In 12 months, over 4000 new high end condo units will have gone online, and the tide of change will have turned. Bill Lineman won District 2 by a hair in 2011, how many of these residents will vote for Bill after his hard stand on African Americans, women and bikes?
So enjoy your bike lane victory, the tide's coming in.
What's this about a bagel place at L & Broadway? I've missed this news.
Anyway, Linehan will be gone in a couple of months. I've gone from not really knowing who he is to disdaining him for his faulty logic and ignorance of basic economics in an impressively short span of time. Every time I see some anti-business, anti-growth parochial stand, up he pops, making a terrible argument. Tasty Burger's table, the Broadway Subway's breakfast service, preventing the owners of those "mansions" on East Broadway from doing what they want to with their own property, etc.
That's exactly how I feel. I had not reason to vote for Lee in the last election, but now that Linehan's made himself known I'll vote for literally anyone who him.
Anyways, the bagel shop is slated for the corner of Broadway and L where the bank used to be. I'm sure they will find some ridiculous rationale to scream about it at the meeting:
Sorry for the grammatical errors; I was typing this while riding my bike down D Street.
If you honestly believe that people like John Ciccone or Bill Linehan STILL represent the majority opinion of longterm Southie residents your logic is just as asinine and ridiculous. Think about the numbers and the facts... there's nothing about gentrification that's just now being realized; it has been a gradual process occurring consistently over the past two decades or so. Longterm Southie residents have been the minority here for quite some time (don't know the exact date but I recall the results of a demographic study conducted 5+ years ago that stated 50+% of residents had lived here for 10 years or less). That means there's no possible way "old school" Southie alone could've elected the public servant you're bashing; especially considering this isn't the only neighborhood in our voting district. It also means that if enough of the new residents banded together against said "loosely organized" protestors on whatever the particular issue at hand may be then the changes you seek would come to fruition. Not all changes are progressive improvements that'll result in positive change. Claiming that those who oppose change are the unorganized participants is dumbfounding because for the majority of newly arriving residents Southie is simply a convenient and fun place to live for awhile before continuing on in life; therefore what stake do they have in the future of this neighborhood? Essentially none, aside from perhaps the resale value of the condo they purchased at an already inflated price; furthermore just because you're a member of a condo association doesn't make you a contributing community member. My overall point being: if you think thousands of new units, whatever the size or type, and thus potentially several thousand more uninvested and unconcerned citizens are going to improve quality of living for any resident, lifelong or Sept. 1st'er, then you sir or ma'am... are a jackass.
Am I the jackass? Wasn't sure. Anyways, a lot of the "new" people don't vote, or at least not the way the "old" people do. Many of the old time Southie folks are hold overs from the bussing days; they have pre-established formal and informal activism networks in place that they've used to hold on to some semblance of political power in the recent past. It's easy to tell who the Southie old guard is supporting in any election; just look at signs on any street. You won't see much deviation. The new people come from all over, and don't have those networks in place (yet).
Linehan barely made it back to the Council in 2011, and Linda Dorcena-Forry was the first non-Southie resident to hold that State Senate seat since 1940 (I think?). My point is, Southie managed to keep their Linehans in office by voting strong and consistently, but the water mark is becoming high enough that even low voter turn out and lack of unification amongst the yuppys isn't enough.
I personally don't even own a bike, and really didn't give a crap about bike lanes on West Broadway and until I started reading "You people are all the same" and "If you don't like they way we do things, move back where you came from yuppy" on sites like Caught on Southie.
You want a Culture War? You got it. This war's being fought on an Economic battle field; we have bigger cannons and waaaaay more gun powder.
YUP you are the silly one I speak of, and your logic continues to amaze me. The reason Linehan barely won had very little if anything to do with new residents voting against him... those election results represented the concerns of longterm residents who felt he hadn't done enough for THEIR community the previous term. The "new" haven't built up networks over the past decade for a number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with it being too difficult to break the mold. For one many come from backgrounds that are far too different to be unified on most issues but more importantly too many simply just dont care. Why fight against developers building that monstrous apartment complex down the street if you'll be gone by the time its finished right?
To your next point, why fight fire with fire? Bringing up bussing and calling us a dying demographic isnt going to help your cause. We are still very much alive and a lot more influential than you might think. For every "we don't like your kind around here" comment you read there are several others that group together and berate all lifelong Southie residents like we're one big pitchfork and torch wielding militia. The oldguard is fast becoming the minority within the minority so all that "us vs. them" culture war bullshit needs to stop. The only hope for positive change is to come together and compromise. If war is what YOU truly want then you will undoubtedly get it, just remember that most of your weapons and ammo are currently being stored on OUR property.
I wish the "us vs them" crap would end. I've tried for years, but at this point I feel as I've been backed into a corner, and the only option is to fight or move. And I'm not moving. From Tasty Burger to American to Provisions to this bike BS, Southie has convinced me to become politically active.
I respect that, forgive my jackass comment, not so silly after all I see ; )
Get involved and stay active because I guarantee there are better days to come. Once all the opposite ends of the spectrum combatants tire themselves out and the dust settles it'll be those of us breaking bread who come out on top. I truly hope more n more people decide to stay here longterm because that's the only possible way some sense of community will be restored, one we can hopefully all be proud of together.
because even some Yuppies hate Yuppies. And there's nothing worse than Yuppies trying to make everyone else think and act like them.
I love bagels but I don't love driving to Katz' in Chelsea every time I want one worth eating. Personally I would only support a new bakery in Southie if in fact they plan on providing at the very least one particularly unique and quality product; which typically means, in regards to a Jewish bakery, one damn fine bagel.
YUP, you generalize too much and you take your arguments to places they don't belong by playing loosely with facts and innuendo. I don't say that you aren't entitled to have your opinions and to express them, but I think you'd be a lot better off if you didn't lose your temper and escalate the argument. How many people out of the roughly 40,000 residents were at the Tasty Burger or American Provision hearings? A hundred? Yet, you want to taint all the people who didn't see those issues your way, as Neanderthals. You use a protest that hasn't happened, against a Bagel Store that doesn't exist yet, as clinching documentation that everyone in Southie hates Jews. Over the top, no? Also, derogatory and inflammatory. You don't give Bill Linehan much chance for re-election after his hard stand on 'African-Americans, women and bikes'. I thought his stand was about hosting the Breakfast. (I thought Forry could have handled that skirmish better, too. All she had to do was make a polite public statement and handle the issue behind the scenes. Instead, she sat back and let the crap fly. Why do I think she should have done it that way? I'd like to see Professional People, actually perform professionally.) How did you turn it into a stand against African-Americans and women? Is that a rational way to frame your argument? Take a deep breath and regroup.
Instant bike lane wherever you go? (at night anyway). http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/13/tech/the-laser-light...
Shouting match over Southie bike lanes cancelled and moved to UniversalHub.com.
Well done :-)
but maybe some streets just shouldn't have bike lanes. Where there are thickly settled, commercial areas, with numerous pedestrians coming in and out of stores and crossing the street, maybe bike lanes would not be appropriate in such areas.
Is there a bike lane on Newbury Street? No, because it would only add to the havoc.
Also, the pedestrians on B'way, generally speaking, don't seem like the brightest bulbs. A cyclist going 20 mph might not be able to stop in time when a pregnant, meth-addicted woman in a tube top and flip-flops runs into the street from the packy.
Not safe, not a good idea.
I KNOW RIGHT! HOW DARE CYCLISTS WANT INFRASTRUCTURE TO TAKE THEM TO THE SAME PLACES EVERYONE ELSE WANTS TO GO!
Those damn hipster yuppies, hippies, poor people, and oddball attracting bike lanes need to stay the fck outta Southie so we can continue our proud tradition of bigotry against outsiders and double parking.
Can a driver playing on their cell phone drinking a cup of coffee going 30 mph stop when your pregnant, meth addicted woman runs into the street.
but maybe some streets just shouldn't have car traffic. Where there are thickly settled, commercial areas, with numerous pedestrians coming in and out of stores and crossing the street, maybe car traffic would not be appropriate in such areas. Delivery trucks, bikes and pedestrian only traffic models in such in area would make such an area safer for all.
Cars are what make roads dangerous. Get it?
Because I have this notion that some 18-year-old Saudi princeling driving his BMW might get distracted by some sequined jeans or stone marten fedora in a shop window and fail to note the presence of my bike. People just drive like vacant-minded idiots on that street--there are some things that even bike lanes can't overcome.
This is why you keep your ulock within easy reach to take off a mirror
Everything you say about West Broadway is even more true about Mass Ave, or Harvard Ave in Allston. But both of those streets now have bike lanes, successfully. And people still double-park in them. I have to constantly weave in and out when I go up Mass Ave. It's still better than nothing at all.
Judging by the comments, Adam, you called it.
I cannot believe all the haters on both sides of every story Uhub reports on. Uhub = We hate
Without hate there is only love AND THAT'S BORING!
/obscure NYC reference
I'd be out there taking out my pent-up rage on kittens and small children and stuff. Oh and ramming my bike into parked cars. Thank God for this site!
Here's my proposed redesign:
West Broadway, and East Broadway east of L Street: Keep the existing curblines. In each direction, paint bike lanes in part of the one very wide lane. Remove 2 or 3 parking spaces at major intersections to make room for left turn lanes. http://goo.gl/maps/PpCQS
East Broadway west of L Street: Currently it's 2 lanes each way plus parking, with narrow sidewalks. http://goo.gl/maps/Bfpwn I'd restripe it to one general lane, a bike lane, and parking on each side, and use the extra width to widen the sidewalks slightly and plant more trees. If any major intersections need the extra width, I'd keep the existing curblines there.
Why are bike related issues the #1 most commented on topic on uhub?
Hundreds of years ago new ideas and theories creating paradigm shift were often greeted with sentences of heresy, imprisonment, burning at the stake etc. Consider how the Catholic Church still continues to resist for very long times, female priests, celibacy, birth control etc. etc. These are just social forces creating the pressures.
Neighborhoods shift demographics and character, and those too are disruptive and turbulent during the transition.
Now, imagine when paradigm shift is coercive, and how much harder people will resist changes being forced upon them by a very small minority. Add the injustice of how motorists have to pay penalties for traffic violations, while cyclists don't. Does that help?
Maybe that's the paradigm shift we all have to look forward to. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11062708.
If South Boston had no facilities for all these avid bike riders, why did they move there? This is like buying a house in Provincetown because you like the beaches and the proximity to the ocean, and then demanding the residents there stop being gay because it doesn't coincide with your heterosexual lifestyle. Another thing I don't understand is why MBTA buses have bike racks on them. Aren't the bike riders supposed to be riding the bikes? So you want the taxpayers to spend a million on bike lanes and another million on bus bike racks? Make up your mind.
1) Sometimes it rains during your bike trip, and a bus bike rack is a nice way to get your bike back home.
2) Bus #111 to Chelsea uses a route that you can't bike on (the Tobin Bridge). Some other buses to the North Shore also go over the Tobin or through tunnels that don't allow bikes.
Sometimes, people who have these things known as "jobs" need to get to said jobs when they are some distance from transit lines, or need to get some distance from home to said transit lines.
Example: my husband rides a mile to the express bus, loads the bike, and then rides 1.5 miles from Haymarket to Fort Point some days.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy