Adam Castiglioni checked up on the progress on the Commercial Street cycletrack - a dedicated lane, complete with barriers, for bicycles.
Great news! Hope this works to keep cyclists safer.
I also hope Segway tours doesn't take the bike lane over.
Congrats to the North End!
Hopefully we can get something like this in South Boston soon!
Fewer cars make for a safer and healthier neighborhood.
Actually, fewer diesel trucks would make the biggest difference in air quality: fine particles are terrible for your health!
I'm excited. A safe place to have my kids bring their razor scooters and pull my youngest in a wagon.
Shower, Eat Breakfast, Troll UHub comment Section
Bugs may be simply observing that every so-called "bike lane" in the United States is quickly taken over by anything but bikes: parents pushing strollers, kids on scooters, clusters of walkers, dogs on long leashes, etc. It makes them practically unusable for bicycles because of the difference in speed. Designing something that vaguely looks like what they have in the Netherlands doesn't really do anything unless you regulate the usage like any other part of the transportation infrastructure and don't just abandon it to become a play park.
I agree with IBB. This isn't a city where people exactly like to follow rules. I imagine a triple wide stroller in the bike lane, and if a biker will tell the mother to move over, it will be the mother who would be yelling as if she's in the right.
All of those mothers with their strollers getting in YOUR way! Damn, life is rough for you. For what it's worth, when is the last time you've seen a triple wide stroller, let alone one in a bike lane in the city of Boston? I'm out walking around all of the time, and I can't say I've ever seen a mother (or father) pushing a stroller in a bike lane.
But it is a fairly rare thing outside of the routes that people decide to walk two abreast with the damn things from South Station to the Museum of Children.
My favorite had to be the person who was practically demanding that someone help her get her megasupermassivestrollerhole down the stairs at Summer St. where the walkway hits the road. She claimed that walking the giant sidewalk eating behemoth with 40lbs of children in it back across the bridge and around to the other bridge was too hard.
Should they be bikes only? Or should bikes share the path with walkers in the same way that drivers should share the road with bikes?
Not being snarky, just curious. I walk on a rail trail regularly, and I sometimes wonder if the cyclists hate us. But then I think -- wouldn't that be analogous to drivers (unfairly) hating cyclists on roadways? I wonder if others differentiate between bike lanes on city streets, which I think should be cyclist-only, and rail trails, which I consider multi-user resources. Which is not so say that walkers should meander all over the pathway with their retractable leashes.
I walk a trail daily (Strand) with my dog but am very mindful of joggers and cyclists. We pull off to the side to let them pass and I always make sure I've got two hands on the shortened leash - just in case. It comes naturally to my dog now to stop and pull to the side when someone approaches, but she is a dog and a strange noise may startle her causing her to dart out.
I can't believe how many "thank you"s I get from passing cyclists. I can only imagine what they think when they see a dog out on a flexi and if the owner doesn't restrain the dog. A little common courtesy goes a long way.
I think trails are fine to share but would never go in an urban bike lane unless I was on a bike.
It always bugged me when I saw off leash dogs. Love dogs, and realize it's the "community path" and not its colloquial name, the "bike path", but there are just too many variables that can go wrong to really justify an off leash pooch there. They're much better suited to dog parks in that regard.
On trails, I have no problem with other trail users so long as they stay on their side of the trail. I really don't mind waiting behind an elderly couple or sniff everything dog walking while I wait for oncoming traffic to pass. That's just part of using the path.
When the Minuteman is a cluster meetup, I just take to the roads. They are mostly in good shape now and fun to ride, if much hillier than the path.
The ultimate in inappropriate path use: somebody set up a photoshoot with an entire class of private school kids spanning the path under an underpass on the Minuteman. Why this dimwit thought it was a cute idea, I'll never know. I came extremely close to bowling them down because I was too busy evading the person with poor judgement and a camera and was looking toward the sun (when they were under the bridge). This was in a section where speeds top 15-20 mph. That gets my vote for mass Darwin award attempt. Extremely stupid and dangerous thing to do.
I don't have a "should" stand on this one, just an observation that bicycles don't mix well with pedestrians and pedestrian-speed traffic (which includes kids on bikes with training wheels randomly veering around). Is it analogous to drivers hating on cyclists on roadways? Not really, and certainly not across the board. In Boston and other congested areas, the speed of traffic is such that cyclists are just part of the flow: hate on cyclists in that context, and you might as well hate on taxis, delivery trucks, and that rich prick in the Audi. In rural areas, bikes work in the mix for a different reason, i.e., that rural areas are already used to mixed traffic in the form of cars, bikes, horses, tractors, vintage automobiles that can't go above 30 mph, etc. It's in the suburbs where drivers are used to nothing but motor vehicle traffic, and don't generally deal well with anything else (whether that's right or wrong is the subject of another discussion). On an interstate? Of course cyclists shouldn't be there; the speed differential is just too big.
Now, to make an analogy with so-called bike paths or "rail trails", that's analogous to a cyclist on a high-speed limited access road. It can be done in some cases (for example, Route 6 on the outer Cape, speed limit in the 40s and 50s, generally good sight lines and a large shoulder). There's always an inherent danger because of the speed differential. If the cyclist were, in addition, to ride unpredictably, stop at random, block through traffic, cross traffic, hold a conversation on a cell phone, etc., you'd call that suicidal. But that's commonplace behavior on rail trails and so-called "bike paths", and I don't see any hope of changing it, because people feel entitled to do it, and honestly probably get their mad on at cyclists who are trying to pass by. As nice as some of them can be, the last place I ever want to ride is on a rail trail -- they're an accident waiting to happen.
I'm all for alternative users of roads. But in the rural areas I've been to, far too many roads are set up for high-speed motor vehicles only. If there's a shoulder, you could get away with walking or biking if you're not afraid of fast-moving cars a few feet away, but often in New England there isn't. There are some quiet back roads, but eventually you'll end up on a highway.
I don't know how people manage to get around without a car in such places.
Cycling on Interstates is ok as long as there's a standard shoulder, and you don't cross any streams of traffic (i.e. you take every exit). Out west, most Interstates are signed to allow this in rural areas.
Out west, most some sections of Interstates are signed to allow this in rural areas.
FIFY. Also note that bike riding on Interstates is only allowed in places where there is no adjacent secondary roadway to serve as an alternate route.
hate you, but to be clear, the reason I hate pedestrians on the bike trail is because they're often walking in groups of 3 or more, walking across the ENTIRE trail, and totally oblivious to bikes approaching from behind. Unfortunately most bike trails are just about wide enough for two bikes to pass each other safely, and not at all wide enough for someone to swerve around a group of birders or whatever.
Since when are rail trails the same as bikes-only trails? Honk a horn, ring a bell or yell if you're riding behind pedestrians and they don't know you're behind them. Sheesh.
Honk a horn, ring a bell or yell, and the pedestrians are likely to be startled because they haven't been paying attention and jump the wrong way. Also, to be honest, it's a real pain in the ass to constantly be making noise. A bike is very quiet and that's part of the enjoyment -- who wants to hear someone yelling or dinging every fifteen feet, or to be that person? Would a group of birders appreciate a yelling cyclist, or would they prefer one who just passes by quietly?
If it is a mixed use trail, it's on the slower traffic (or human menhirs) to be aware of the traffic and not block the path. Treat it like a road: you don't stand in the middle of it gazing out into space, you don't stroll across it without looking, etc. If all that is too much of an imposition, then my point is made: so-called "bike paths" are useless for cycling.
Kind of hard to avoid noise when cycling in a city or populated town like Lexington though.
In which case, the constant yelling of "on your left" isn't able to serve its ostensible purpose, is it?
If it is a mixed use trail, it's on *everyone* to be aware of the traffic.
You have eyes, right? On the front of your head? So that when you're moving in a forward direction, you see what's in front of you, yes? And you are naturally aware of such things? That's the situation of a cyclist on a mixed-use path: they are the fastest traffic around, they see what they're overtaking, of course they're aware of it, it goes without saying. A cyclist already IS aware of other traffic, but what you don't seem to get is that "awareness" != "mind-reading". You can't make a cyclist responsible for reading the mind of the absent-minded stroller-pusher talking on a cellphone who may decide to suddenly drift to the left, it's not possible. It's the responsibility of slower users to be aware that there are faster users, and to walk/ride/stroll/skate/dipsy-doodle in such a manner that overtaking traffic can pass safely.
I'm learning that you just don't like people.
It's the responsibility of slower users to be aware that there are faster users...
Citation please. Please show evidence that what you claim is true. I've never seen this posted on a sign at a mixed-use path / trail.
Seriously, if your cycling skills are such that you feel you are endanger to other who you feel are too slow and are in your way, please consider staying away from other cyclists and pedestrians. You seem quite agitated that you have to share paths with children, parents with strollers, older people or people who have mobility issues who may not be able get out of your way quickly enough to suit your cycling speed.
You know, down a mountain, on snow? Did you know that the people uphill have the responsibility to avoid those below them? At least that what I was always taught.
Now translate that to the faster people on bicycles - they need to anticipate potential issues and practice avoidance.
Just like I was taught in motorcycle class and every day when I ride my moto and when I drive my car. It is up to me to be situationally aware and practice behavior anticipation. If you know people and understand how they think (yes, even little children), you can anticipate how they may move. Or slow down appropriately as the situation/crowds calls for.
People do not have eyes in the back of their heads. You should be "aware". It's not mind reading, it's basic human understanding.
Furthermore, you should be riding at speeds that you can control based upon the situation around you.
...because most people are wearing earbuds.
You kind of hate the old grandpas with binoculars looking at birds? You might be a little bit too fragile for the real world I'm afraid. If you don't feel that you can safely maneuver your bike around an old guy who probably moves at a snail's pace that you can see from a mile away, then you do not have the cycling skills to be riding a bike near other human beings, let alone other cyclists who probably zip past you in the blink of an eye. Good luck to you.
What would you say if this old guy wandered out into a road, right in front of a speeding car? Would you say that the driver doesn't have the skills to be driving near other human beings?
The driver of a "speeding car" who evidently can't avoid hitting pedestrians shouldn't be on the road.
You're driving in a safe manner and within the speed limit. A pedestrian steps out from behind a SUV directly in front of your vehicle. You hit the pedestrian. You, anon, shouldn't be on the road.
That's the analog of the situation you're describing on the bike path, you know. So stop trying to redefine the situation to be something that it's not.
But when I call out "on your left!", that doesn't mean jump to your left and end up in front of me, or freak out and jump off the trail/path and act like I intentionally almost hit you. And I don't mean "you" specifically.
Now, I ride Hubway in Cambridge/Boston and have yet to see parents pushing strollers, kids on scooters, clusters of walkers, dogs on leashes, in the bike lanes. Perhaps you are more "in the know" to make the strange statement that "every" bike-lane in our country is dealing with these issues?
Aside from that, many of the "paths" in parks and/or trail rails are multi-use so yes, you will see the aforementioned folks using it and there is nothing wrong with that. As long as everyone is civil to each other whether I wish to walk or ride a bike on a rail path should be allowed.
(edit: this misunderstanding is my fault, because I did indeed say "bike lanes" in my original post, but I was thinking not about paint-separated lanes, but paths that are separated from motor vehicle traffic. So, paths like the ones in Southwest Corridor Park, the Esplanade, rail trails, etc.)
We're talking about rail trails here, not "bike-lanes", so quite possibly I am more "in the know". I have, in fact, never seen "parents pushing strollers, kids on scooters, clusters of walkers, dogs on leashes, in the bike lanes". I have seen a motorcycle whose rider was being a complete nozzle, thinking that he'd use the bike lane (which had plenty of cyclists in it) to ease his way ahead of backed-up traffic. Bad move if you don't know the infrastructure. He was just picking up speed when he came to the head of the line and the pedestrian crosswalk, just as a pedestrian started to step out from behind a panel truck. Pedestrian jumps back, rookie on the bike makes a rookie mistake and lays the bike down. Pedestrian calls rookie out for the dumbfuck he is, the rookie looks around for someone to help him lift his bike before a cop comes, hilarity ensues. It was great. But no strollers.
I'll be the guy on rollerblades with a dog on a 25' retractable leash.
Everyone hates that guy including their dog.
psh... roller blades! Amateur.
Summertime cross county skis, complete with the poles, is where it's at. Make sure to flail them around wildly too.
Where will Uber, Fedex/UPS, Food Delivery, and city vehicles park now? The bike lane is suppose to be dedicated for them!
What on earth makes you think they won't continue to park in the bike lane? They'll just bump up onto the curb unless it's a lot bigger than it looks in this picture.
Actually there is a new policy where the Uber drivers as well as Fedex/UPS will no longer pull up along side the road to pick you up and/or deliver your package. You will have to walk out and meet them in the middle of the road but the bike lane will stay clear for cyclists. Oh, and for furniture delivery, yeah, well you just get two-three burly friends and meet the Bob's Discount Furniture truck in the same area - middle of the street. The driver will put cones out but you will have to hustle. It will get tricky when you have to move and your moving company and/or UHaul will not be close to your front door, but hopefully you are young and can handle the challenge. Oh, for those pesky seniors and/or disabled folks where their caregivers just might have to pull over and temporarily park, at times, in the "bike lane", so they can be nearer to the sidewalk. No dice. Same rules apply.
A bike lane is pretty meaningless if it's designed to be a short term parking lane. They might as well just create "Short Term Parking Lanes" and then tell bikes to use the middle of the normal travel lane. (Which is what happens in practice, only idiots then get pissed at bikes for not using the bike lanes which are blocked.)
Your satire doesn't work because suggesting that vehicles stay in their lane instead of going into the bike lane isn't ridiculous. In fact it is the opposite. It is the law of the land.
Don't put cyclists and pedestrians in danger by parking in bike lanes and sidewalks just because you are too lazy to find one of the thousands of public parking spots in Boston.
FedEx trucks aren't the problem in this corridor. The problem is Sacred Double Parking, which the locals believe is a sacrement.
The funeral home violates its permits, too, and triple parks cars there where it is supposed to only have the parking lane.
There's usually a cop on station when the triple parking is going on, so it has to be legit. I mean, BPD is known for their dedication to traffic enforcement in the city. Also, the "sacrament" bit was solid gold.
With this barrier, how will cyclists turn left onto or off of the track?
How will they get around piles of snow, potholes, or other obstructions?
This is a huge improvement - no illegal funeral triple parking obstruction, no little league special arsehole parking, no more trucks in the lane.
Potholes? You only get potholes from heavy stuff banging the lane.
Left turns? There isn't much there to turn. If there is, plenty of breaks to circle back.
Who gives a fuck??
Welcome to Boston!
There are small plows that fit into cycle tracks. Many other cities have them. And pot holes are created by 2 ton motor vehicles, not by bicycles, so pot holes won't be a concern.
Are a pain in the rear. You expect the city to go out and buy new equipment to plow the special little lane they just made for you so you can ride your bike in the snow? Why can't you just take the T during the winter?
We pay taxes so the big plows can plow the streets, whether or not we own cars.
So why not?
We should all be stating as a policy that the DCRCity of Boston has no responsibility or intent of providing "safe" winter biking opportunities on any of our linear paths or sidewalks.
Just don't honk at cyclists when they use whatever bit of road is available. We have that right you know.
As far as I've heard, potholes aren't created by trucks, but by freeze-thaw cycles. See http://www.dot.state.mn.us/information/potholes/formation.html
My own anecdotal evidence on this: Potholes are much less common in South Florida where I grew up, despite the fact that re-paving happens much less often there.
Freeze thaw + overweight vehicles screwing up the road underlayment/bed/whathaveyou.
MA (unlike VT/NH) never spends the money to fix the stuff underneath the paving. We just groove and repave so that the new pavement falls apart because of the crummy foundation underneath. So tons of money goes to fixing the problem every few years (make work for contractors) rather than fixing it correctly for the long term.
If you don't believe that weight creates potholes, go drive any well-used section of road, such as 128 around Lexington and Waltham. There are pronounced ruts in the road that eventually become long potholes. Don't try and say that frost created those.
Are the result of freeze thaw cycles, not those evil machines you hate so much. try again.
Then how come they don't exist on the Charles river paths (Boston side, Cambridge side is a whole other mess) or other offroad paths? yes it is the freeze-thaw cycle but also heavy weight vehicles. The worst we get on the offroad paths is freaking tree roots that cause problems, I am sure potholes do exist on some but I have yet to see any (they are also exacerbated by every utility and their brother digging into streets only a few months or even years after being built, and they are never sealed back up properly, in addition oil/gas getting onto the road surface eats away at the binding agent and helps exacerbate failure)
If this becomes widespread, maybe there will be less articles on U-Hub about new ghost bikes appearing around the city, which is always very sad. I spent some time in Amsterdam in the 90s & the Dutch have bike lanes like this all over their city and it works beautifully. Now the question is, if we get enough dedicated cycle lanes for bikes on all of our major streets, will the Critical-Mass, "urban cyclist", wanna-be-Kevin-Bacon from the 80s movie Quiksilver types actually use them? I hope so but I kinda doubt it. The other day I was driving down Amory St in JP and there was a guy riding his bike at a snails pace in the middle of the street with the Southwest Freakin' Corridor bike path literally right next to his skinny jean wearing ass! Bikes are good for the environment and good for the physical fitness of Bostonians. Hopefully if enough dedicated lanes are built, more people (including myself) who are now scared of riding a bike with crazy people on the road (both drivers and aggro cyclists) would be more likely to spend more time riding a bike and less time driving a car.
I think Amory Street is a great place to ride. It's far safer than the path, not to mention quicker.
Why were you driving on Amory Street, when the Orange Line Freakin' Subway was literally right there? (The type of pants you were or weren't wearing are irrelevant to the discussion.)
The reason some folks don't ride on the Southwest Corridor path is because every cross street is an opportunity to get run over by a car.
That's literally the weakest reason I've ever heard to NOT ride on a bike path.
To show you what it is like to encounter blind intersections where drivers are hurried and looking straight ahead.
I ride on the bike path every day and yes, I know the hazards of some of the crossings, but the idea of riding on the street NEXT to the bike path makes no sense whatsoever. Ride defensively and keep your wits about you, and meantime don't forget to enjoy one of the most pleasant bike paths in the city.
Cross streets are safer on a normal street than a bike path, because visibility is better, and it's easier to position yourself safely.
Also right of way is much better defined on normal streets. Who has the right of way here? https://goo.gl/maps/WjLngdRy13A2 Are bikes considered pedestrians, and cars have to yield to them in the crosswalk? That would be pretty scary if you buzzed through at 15 mph and expected cars to slam on the brakes for you.
But on a street, it's safe to assume that if there's no traffic light or stop sign on your street, the side street will have a stop sign.
Boston is not Amsterdam. First and foremost. They have had a bike riding culture and infrastructure for many a year. And Amsterdam is not without their own issues, regarding the bikes, which you can research on your own (i.e. things have changed a bit since the 90s in regards to how the city is trying to handle increases in the number of cyclists). Now that is not to say we can't have a bike culture in Boston but to compare Boston with Amsterdam is a bit like comparing apples to oranges.
As I have said many times before, cars are not going anywhere soon. So, yes, have bike lanes but when you take away road for car traffic so commuters are spending much more time commuting because of bike lanes taking more road space, well, this will not create many supporters for bike commuting. You will see a backlash. It is a delicate balancing act.
And bike commuters are still the minority. And the most popular form of commuting is still by car.
Lastly, and again I say, not everyone is going to be able to ride a bike and most commuters are probably commuting miles from the city. This will only increase because of the increase in housing costs near the city which will force more folks to live farther away. For example, I have colleagues who have commute to Cambridge from Brockton, MA, Plymouth, MA and New Hampshire. Riding a bike, for them, is not going to work.
when you take away road for car traffic so commuters are spending much more time commuting because of bike lanes taking more road space
Citations demonstrating this would be very welcome.
Except that there are none because bike lanes do not go where a full lane of traffic would. They add capacity.
See also: Beacon St., Somerville
The plan calls for eliminating one of two traffic lanes along the westbound stretch of Beacon Street from Short Street, just past the Harvard Street intersection in Coolidge Corner, to Westbourne Terrace, just before the intersection at Washington Street.
But it also found that there could be significant impacts at the intersection of Beacon Street and Lancaster Terrace, where traffic stopped at the light could grow from about eight cars now to approximately 33
This move is predicting more traffic if you remove a lane, but it is just a test run.
NYCDOT has several studies proving that the addition of bike lanes did not increase traffic congestion.
It's amazing what studies can prove when you want a certain conclusion.
Boston is not Amsterdam.
I love when people make the exceedingly lazy argument, "Boston isn't ______." It's right up there with, "that's just how we do things around here." Sorry, but Amsterdam isn't a Martian colony for dogs. It is a city on Earth inhabited by people, just like Boston. And the idea that biking is an idea that they can wrap their minds around but we can't is just insulting. It's not rocket science.
..that Boston could ever become like Amsterdam as far as bike usage but this is an interesting article on it.
I just got back from Amsterdam last week and the bike infrastructure is really amazing. Bikes are the priority over all other vehicles and it works for them. Not sure if that culture change would be possible here, but they do have some very good ideas.
But why here?
If the plan is to roll out city wide, then I get it. It's a start. But if not, this seems like an odd place to me.
I'm in the area daily. It's not a direct route for many who I would assume would be commuting in/out to work. It seems better suited for tourists or people doing the harbor walk. Again, if that is the intended purpose, that's ok too. But would the money not be better spent on a route for those that use bicycles daily? Like North Washington Street or the greenway?
This lane takes cyclists from the greenway bike lanes over to the North Washington Bridge. From there we get to the bike lanes through Charlestown and up in to the Assembly Square area and the bike lane on Rt. 99 into Everett.
That's why here - already a lane there, already in use, and an important connector.
It's part of series of cycletracks called Connect Historic Boston that will form a loop around downtown.
Google "Connect Historic Boston". The reason this particular project is actually getting built (unlike say the proposed track around Boston Common, or Summer Street) is that they got a federal TIGER grant.
I did not know about this.
It was funded by a grant and originally planned (before Boston really accepted the whole bike lane thing) as part of a North/South Station commuter connector for people on folding bikes & Hubways.
I'm guessing they put it here because it was easy, not because it was an important place to have one. Commercial Street is wide, but sees little traffic because it doesn't really go anywhere.
It is the safest way from the green way to the bridge, and that gets you to the lanes in Charlestown that go to lanes to Everett, Assembly, East Somerville, and Medford via the river.
The real obstacle is pathological double parking.
It adds a third of a mile, versus going straight up the Greenway to North Washington.
The latter technically has bike lanes. But they're so badly designed and maintained as to be useless.
I put the over/under at 90 comments.
and we've barely cleared 25... sad day for Uhubbers :(
I think it's because Adam cleared out the riffraff. I mean, sure, it's more civil around here, but it just doesn't feel like a bike thread without He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named expressing his heady enthusiasm at the prospect of running down cyclists and pedestrians in crosswalks.
whatever happen to him...
Adam deleted his account.
Really? I musta missed that day...
if my comments seem ignorant, but why is this so "good" to have?
More & more, it seems Boston is implementing bicycle paths, yet it's at the cost of sacrificing parking options and road space.
If there's available space, why not implement exclusive right-of-ways for streetcars, buses or some type of intercity shuttle service?
Are there not enough options for cyclists in the city as it is? (Sincere question)
Is not "Are there not enough options for cyclists in the city as it is?" but "Are there not enough options for people?" Yes, there are. One of them is riding a bicycle. One of them is driving a car. One of them is walking. One of them is using public transportation.
One of these options takes up FAR MORE space than all the others and is more expensive for individuals and municipalities.
Comparatively speaking, few people ride bikes and not everyone is able to ride a bike. Many people drive cars and many are able to do so though it is quite expensive. Many people ride public transportation and most people are able to do so and it much less expensive than driving a car. So what is your point? And, no, I do not have statistics to back up the fact that many more people in the city drive cars and take public transportation than bike -- I just live here and open my eyes.
Very few cars, massive numbers of pedestrians downtown.
Yes, which is PERFECT! And your problem with this is... ?
>One of these options takes up FAR MORE space than all the others and is more expensive for individuals and municipalities.
This was a nice civil battle between cyclists and pedestrians when you try and pull in public transit!
Bike lanes require far less space than driving lanes or trolley space.
Paint is pretty damn cheap.
Most bike lanes are in places where there isn't room for an additional lane of traffic.
Also important: adding lanes does not necessarily add capacity. They only add capacity when lane mileage is the rate limiting factor - which is very rare. That's why Cambridge has removed lanes - all they did was create more places for cars to be stuck when the intersections were the rate limiting factor for throughput.
You can test this idea out by putting a 3' diameter pipe to feed your shower head.
Some lane removals that supposedly wouldn't cause problems introduced new traffic jams where they didn't exist before. See the BU Bridge, and Mass Ave southbound through MIT.
Yeah, those areas never had traffic jams before they removed those lanes!
Maybe they had them sometimes. But it got far worse for far more hours of the week the day these changes took effect.
Blame those - the whole city got traffic jams from those. They went in around the same time.
That area was a total clustermess in the mid-1980s when I went to MIT and did the market runs for my cooperative living group in the Kenmore area.
Here's the thing though, many people rely on taking the bus who cannot ride bikes. It's just a fact. A single cyclist is not more important than 40 people on a public bus. And, I'm not sure if you are aware of this since you cycle instead of taking public transportation it would seem, during rush hour there are several busses on any given road in the city -- that would be hundreds of people doing the right thing: taking public transportation instead of driving and adding to traffic congestion and pollution. If traffic and congestion is made worse by removing lanes in which busses and other motor vehicles use, and people cannot at least sometimes rely on public transportation to get them to work, doctors' appointments, etc. on time then MORE people will opt for driving. Again, I laud your commitment to not driving and cycling instead, but you have to understand that not everyone is able to do so, especially during the winter and people who have certain physical disabilities.
Not sure if you've ever been to a transportation planning meeting in the Boston, Cambridge, or Somerville, but I cannot think of a single example of these cities having been in the position to implement a dedicated bus lane but were unable to do so because they couldn't get around the public demand for bike facilities. The reality is that parking presents the main impediment to having more dedicated bus facilities in Boston about 80 percent of the time, the other 20 percent it's "it will cause traffic jams." If there's ever any question of how we'd fit in bikes, buses, free or $1.50/hr car parking, and private car traffic, it's ALWAYS the bikes that are the first to go.
I'd like to see a picture of those.
Because bike lanes go in 4' wide spaces - no space to put a bus there, unless you get rid of all the cars parking and driving.
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 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy