Devin Cole shows us the new cycle track - bike lanes marked off by more than just paint - along Brattle Street in Harvard Square.
HUGE upgrade for safety and access.
Congrats to Cambridge!
I am hoping one day we get these in South Boston. Broadway and L street are perfect for bike lanes.
Underground bike lanes would be much safer.
The bikes can keep the streets so I, as a pedestrian, can still shake my fist at them for not stopping at crosswalks and other infractions.
They mostly will.
Granted, by then we'll be traveling in drones.
It will NEVER happen, people have tried and failed.
It will happen as more bikers move into the neighborhood and people stuck in their old ways move out or pass away.
This is the priority the city should place:
3. Subway Riders
4. Buses (not having bus only lanes for the entire routes of #9, #7 and #11 is embarrassing for our city).
6. Uber / Lyft
9. Cars that belong to actual Boston residents
10. Cars that belong to Mass suburbanites
...(the other 48 states)..
58. Cars that belong to NH residents.
Except I'd put Taxis ahead of Uber/Lyft, and maybe ahead of ZipCar.
Some of the taxi medallion holders are bad, and I'm so sick of lying and attitude from many drivers about the credit card machine, and the whole taxi thing needs an economic rethinking and technology updates. But Uber the company (not the drivers) is a nasty company, and knowingly broke laws to get advantage over law-following taxis, so I'd put Taxi ahead of Uber on the list. And Lyft just hitches itself to Uber.
I have not much bad to say about ZipCar, unlike Uber. But anyone can use a taxi without needing to pay a classist membership fee, and can at least hail or go to a cab stand without their movements being tracked, and avoid other modern corporatism like that.
I'd elevate buses above bikes, just because there are only a few routes with buses and many with bikes - bikes can usually take a parallel route to avoid conflicts with buses, but buses cannot deviate.
I'd also add rt 1 to the list of routes that need exclusive lanes their whole length.
Mayor Walsh will never allow for bike lanes on Broadway. Where would people double park?
narrow streets getting narrower.
I agree. Driving in the Boston area is a bad idea. Good thing we have subways, buses, sidewalks and increasingly more bike infrastructure.
How can you agree with the statement "I hate driving in Cambridge" if you don't drive?
bike and walk and take the T AND occasionally drive, which is often why we prefer biking, walking, and taking the T.
But maybe a person once owned a car, lost the car because it was rear-ended and totaled by someone texting and driving, decided owning a car was more trouble than it's worth, and has lived ever since with a combination of walking, MBTA, occasional biking, and occasional Zipcar for grocery runs and saved tons of money in insurance, gas and repairs and countless hours looking for parking. But maybe I'm just projecting
I own a car. I hate driving in Cambridge. So, when possible, I don't drive and take my bike instead. If biking is not possible, I often take the red line or bus.
I don't understand how that is hard for people to comprehend. If someone says they hate being crowded in a train car, so they drive all the time, that doesn't seem difficult to understand...
Then they wouldn't do it unless they absolutely have to, such as for deliveries to stores.
And people who actually walk could stop being third-class citizens, after cars and bikes.
If you think cars hate the percentage of bicyclists who ride in the street but ignore traffic laws, pedestrians who wait in the heat/cold at every crosswalk light, for the light and then for 3 cars to run the red, just love it when a bicyclist comes blasting through the crosswalk at any time afterwards, from any direction, street or sidewalk.
In policy, give top priority to pedestrians and public transit, for convenience and pleasantness. Otherwise, it just looks like you're trying to keep the number of cars low enough to make driving viable for the wealthy, and everyone else's needs are incidental.
Jaywalking pedestrians, face shoved in their phones, who scream BIKES RUN RED LIGHTS when THEY are the ones crossing against the light and got "almost hit" (meaning: surprised) by a cyclist travelling on the GREEN light.
Stop jaywalking, pull your phone out of your rump end, and we'll talk.
At least a quarter, maybe closer to half, of the lights in my neighborhood have long parts of the cycle during which the pedestrian signals display "don't walk" and, simultaneously, any possible vehicular traffic that could cross the cross walk also has a red light, "no turn on red," etc.
Waiting for a light when there's no possibility of cross traffic sucks. The prevalence of "Don't walk, for no reason" signals has us trained to pretty much ignore the traffic signals.
@Bob: It's not technically jaywalking peds that are the problem. If the light cycle is messed up and you take advantage of an opening in traffic to get across, then good for you. We all do that, especially when traffic is light.
What's not cool is paying zero attention to oncoming (or turning) bikes & cars, and just mindlessly crossing despite the red Don't Walk sign. This applies if the pedestrian has their face in their phone or not.
Along with potential safety issues, it backs up traffic for the unfortunate and/ or misguided fools who have no choice but to be in a car (Bus, Uber, Taxi). And it's impolite.
Any light where there's a cycle track is going to require multiple phases, the majority of which won't allow pedestrians to cross. No more green-yellow-red for one street, then the other. For example, Broadway in Kendall Square.
When there's no light, the smart walker learns to time their crossing with the auto traffic, and stay back from the curb to signal this intent (because some drivers will stop and halt all auto traffic at really stupid times otherwise)... but then some walker who doesn't know or care about smooth flow will just waltz out in front of a car, throwing off the timing and causing the other walker to have to wait even longer for traffic to clear.
But, when law-abiding pedestrians are getting the shortest end of the stick regarding being allowed to simply move about in public places, it is not fair to say "I see people walking out into the street looking at their phones, so I'm going to use that as an excuse to disregard all walker issues and continue to prioritize cars over everyone else."
Should have to register and take a safety class. Also by registering them cops can then enforce traffic laws by citing them for running red lights.
Where registering and licensing drivers is making any impact on the quality and behavior of drivers, this just might work
You know why they don't do it more often?
They have to do it proportionally with ticketing the real dangerous vehicle operators - motorists.
What you really want is more ticketing for all modes.
Also by registering them cops can then enforce traffic laws by citing them for running red lights.
Seriously, how? Especially since cyclists can get cited now without registration.
Cyclists can already get ticketed for running red lights.
Source: the red light ticket I got on my bike in Cambridge
Also, registration for bikes is a non-starter, largely because a large share of bikes in the city are ridden infrequently, not by the person they're registered to, or part of a bike-sharing program, etc. Too many challenges for too little benefit.
The vast majority of cyclists have driver's licenses - talking 90+%
What we clearly need is more emphasis on the laws regarding cycling and driving around cyclists on the driving exam ... and to retest everyone every ten years.
Or, shall we ask it this way: who is killing people with their vehicles?
It isn't cyclists.
Need to learns to use plural!
Pedestrians standing on the curb at a crosswalk with no intent to cross, just staring into the phone standing at the crosswalk. When you stop they seem surprised and say something like "Oh, no, I'm not going". Ride down Mt. Auburn or Cambridge St. and see if you can tell who's actually going to cross and who is just staring.
If they're standing on the curb, they're not in the crosswalk. You don't have to stop and you shouldn't. So many Boston drivers are full of some kind of "let's be extra courteous so everyone will be confused about who should go next" thinking. If a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, stop for him. If not, don't.
There was absolutely no reason for this street to be two lanes, this is an amazing idea, it improves safety for all who use the road.
Please keep in mind I say this as a Cambridge resident and someone who travels this street every day
There was a very good reason. You could double park when making a delivery or dropping off a person with mobility issues.
There are two parking lanes.
Deal with it.
How is a truck making a delivery supposed to deal with it, if there are no open parking spaces on the block? Or there is a space, but it's car-sized so the truck can't fit?
Before, they could double park, and it was a non-issue. Now they'd block the one general lane.
Put one on every block and you're good.
And if 2 trucks show up at once?
Then they can circle the block, find a different spot, or come back later - the same thing that you have to do in your car when there's no open parking space.
So we took a commercial street that had loading capacity for multiple trucks, and reduced it to one truck at a time, resulting in increased traffic, pollution, and delivery costs from circling. In other words, we created a problem where there didn't use to be one. How is this an improvement?
Because if you take a more holistic view and focus on more than just the singular issue of trucks making deliveries, you'll see that we fixed a multitude of other problems.
Creating one problem in the process of fixing many problems is still an improvement.
Depending upon the building type going in, Zoning covers this. Although, the age of may Boston buildings makes then non-compliant. But the new buildings going in ...they should have loading built in to assist in keeping streets (more) clear for cyclists, peds, and other traveling public.
I don't see any physical barriers (maybe those orange cones will be replaced by posts?), so folks will still double park. What really gets me is how often they do this despite there being an actual parking meter spot open, which they are blocking by double parking in the bike lane.
Double parking is illegal, unsafe, and causes major traffic issues.
People with mobility issues can use the parking spaces for pick ups and drop offs.
You don't have places where every special little beemer driver decides there is a special lane for him or her - everyone in their lane and place and stuck there. No ambiguity means no special people cutting lines, making their own lanes, or roaring around already stopped vehicles to run red lights.
You just get in line, take your turn, and low stress. In a hurry? Use I-93.
And Leo is getting larger!
and i enjoy it.
you picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
Cars ruin cities and kill people. Bikes don't.
More bike lanes please!
wide bike lanes
...on the outbound #1 route, only a block or 2 now, but the same separated design. Nice.
Brattle St. looks great, but there was never really a need for this on that quiet, wide street.
Mass Ave is much more popular with, well everyone. Continuing the separated lane would go so far to helping the overall safety and usability of that road.
The big benefit of this new lane on Brattle is that it allows two-way travel by bike. That means there is now a quieter alternative to busy Mass Ave.
No, an alternative to Mt Auburn, or possibly Concord Ave. Mass Ave isn't parallel to Brattle.
One way protected lane also added yesterday on Mass Ave NB between Putnam and Harvard St. A couple steps forward!
What's the point of the space between the yellow line and the curb now., bikers can't ride too close to a curb?
There are two bike lanes, one going in either direction--a little hard to see in the photo. It's an unusual design but hopefully it'll work.
A yellow line denotes opposing traffic on the other side and that you should keep to the right of it.
you're riding between bikes close on one side (always so focused and stable) and cars on the other side that may not get the concept. What could possibly go wrong?
Sorry for being flip but the experiments in bike lanes are lacking the one element that's actually helpful, predictable expectations for all participants. I both bike and drive and walk and getting to a spot that's confusing is the worst situation.
the experiments in bike lanes are lacking the one element that's actually helpful, predictable expectations for all participants
They're not experiments. This infrastructure, for example, has existed in Montreal for 2 decades or more.
I do agree that predictable is important -- but new and predictable are different. The standard of "yellow line on your left, white line on your right" has existed in America since long before you were born. It applies to country roads, heavily trafficked arteries, and interstates.
Yes, good signs and markings are important. In this case, there are bike stencils and arrows on the road in the image -- I don't have a feel yet for what the rest is like, as I haven't been there.
Except if you're in the general lane or parking lane, in which case there's a yellow line on your right.
It's why I don't especially like this design. IMO, there needs to be a physical separation, like a curb, so that this becomes two very near parallel roadways. I suspect that there is a longer-term plan to do just that, but moving curbs and drainage is expensive, typically reserved for when the road is due for major work, on the order of every 30 years or so.
You are not riding beside moving cars. There are parking spots there. Look again.
I rode the contraflow this morning and it's an enormous improvement over the previous options to get into the center of Harvard Sq. You either had to go to Mt Auburn, past where all the buses turn around at the tunnel, and over to JFK St.; or you had to go to Concord, which is one of the most dangerous biking stretches in Cambridge (two narrow lanes each, way plus parking on both sides- extreme dooring hazard) and down to Mass Ave. past Out of Town.
Cars have the parking lane plus the lined buffer lane plus the orange posts (don't know if those are temporary or permanent) so there's no way a car should encroach on the double bike lane. The only problem was that cars making a right from Church onto Brattle didn't know to look right for bikes coming on the contraflow since the car traffic is only from the left, they need to put some kind of sign indicating that bike traffic is 2-way.
Where do cars coming out of Church stop to look for traffic on Brattle in the general lane? They might have to stop twice, once to look for pedestrians and bikes, and then again blocking the cycle tracks to look around the parked cars for oncoming cars.
Also, what's the intersection treatment for eastbound cyclists at the Brattle Square end?
What I see (right to left, in the picture):
Buffer (door) zone
Vehicle Travel Lane Outbound
This is not like that intersection with Beacon in Somerville/Cambridge Line at Park where you travel between parked cars and opposite-direction moving cars. There is a buffer zone and parked cars between the inbound bike lane and the moving outbound cars.
Left to right?
That's so dangerous for the bikers. Bikers in the city have trouble biking in a straight line. There will be head on collisions.
Yeah, like the horrible Minuteman bikeway with bikes going in both directions, people having head on collisions every few minutes.
So it's one-way for cars but two-way for bikes? I'm not going to be looking for bikes coming from the north when I cross.
Bikes going the wrong way on one-way streets is a bigger peeve of mine than them running red lights.
I'm not going to be looking for bikes coming from the north when I cross.
Well maybe you should. You refusing to look for them doesn't mean they aren't legally allowed (and encouraged) to be there.
It's not the wrong way if there's an actual legitimate lane going that direction.
I've never encountered a street that's be one-way for one kind of vehicle but two-way for another before. Most people haven't and there should be a big effort to make people aware of this change (maybe not just signage in place but also advertising). A solid yellow line 4 feet from the curb isn't going to mean anything to anyone.
My peeve about bikes going the wrong way is on streets with existing one-way bike lanes or no bike lane at all. It's wrong when a car or motorcycle does it, it's wrong when a bike does it but those cyclists act like it's not.
As a separate topic, how are those parking spots in the middle of the road working? Do they still use individual parking meters on the sidewalk?
Come down Park in Somerville - Bikes can go straight down the hill into Cambridge, or uphill with the cars, but cars can only go one way up hill.
It's called a contraflow bike lane, it's quite common even in this area. There's one on the other side of cambridge common, there are a bunch around Fenway and Brookline. Drivers need to be educated about them because they're not that unusual. Look both ways before crossing the street isn't some unheard of concept.
Drivers need to be educated about them because they're not that unusual.
If they're not unusual, then drivers should already be aware of it.
I get your point, but because they aren't in wide use in our area, they are a bit unusual. They won't be in a couple of years, if not sooner.
It's just something new to get used to. Please - increase driver education on it.
Look both ways before crossing the street isn't some unheard of concept.
People get lazy with regards to one way streets, however. So this will be something of a re-learning of old habits. It's ok, old dogs can learn new tricks. :)
The MA license test is already a total joke. Then there is no additional requirement that one keep up with changes.
This is why I firmly believe that we need to have a 5 question, open book exam when people renew their license every 5 years. Things change, and most people have to be forced to learn that.
I'd be fine with that.
Cambridge has has contraflow bike lanes for a decade now. There's one on the other side of Cambridge Common (Waterhouse St.) and Scott St., among others.
They are safe.
None of those are on the wrong side of parked cars, or on the right side of the general lane. In all of those longstanding contraflow lanes, oncoming bikes are in the main roadway, to the left of the general lane. Where you would expect oncoming traffic.
That would be ... which side again?
Ever been on a one-way street before? Wouldn't all vehicles be on the "wrong side" of the parked vehicles on the left side of a one-way street, by that "logic"?
There are even streets in the area that have parking down the middle - something that isn't all that uncommon in the US, either.
Bike lanes shielded by street parking are nothing new - they have had these in Cambridge for over a decade now in the Kendall Square area. It is only an issue when some putz decides to leave their car there.
Everyone is jumping down you throat, but I, as a ped/biker, absolutely see your point. I think the solution is to paint the lane through the intersection (green, probably) with big arrows on it. Not perfect, but helps drivers have an idea that something is happening and they need to look both ways for cyclists.
Plans on the websites show green markings with bike symbols in both directions for the intersections.
Yes, this is standard practice. The lanes most likely aren't technically finished yet, they're just letting people ride on them in the meantime because it's easier than trying to keep them fenced off or something.
Same thing as the Commercial St cycle track around the North End - they're still adding things like the green pavement treatments even though the cycle track has been rideable for months now.
Cars and trucks should be banned from ALL of Cambridge. Give all of these cyclists jobs as pedi-cab drivers and get rid of taxi drivers and MBTA busses. Businesses need goods? Instead of trucks delivering their wares, someone should devise a large-scale bike which can transport goods and this bike could be powered by multiple cyclists. We'll have fresher air due to no vehicle pollution and all of these cyclists will be now be employed thus improving the economy. Why not give it a shot?
why don't you give her a call with your, um, suggestions and report back with her reply?:
Now if only someone could come up with do-able way to make people in Cambridge less arrogant and obnoxious; that would impress me.
Piss off, idiot.
Although I should really should add 'smug'. How else would you describe a demographic obsessed with political correction and whining about others being 'mean spirited', yet resort to a retort such as yours and the post below?
I'm not a snowflake; there are few people who could be described as snowflakes who were born and raised in NYC and Boston (JP, Allston, Somerville) in the 80s-90s in what could charitably called working class.
Don't like it? Don't live in Cambridge. Diversity doesn't mean making the world safe for insufferable twits like yourself.
And I'm willing to bet I come from a much more 'diverse' background than you!
You make a blanket generalization of people in one of Massachusetts' largest cities and you're surprised when a resident tells you shut up?
If only someone could come up with a do-able way to make non-Cambridge snowflakes less sensitive and fragile...
Seems like that would be the people who conflate "work hard to make their community better" and "take evidence-based action" with "arrogance".
Why stop with cars? I mean the trucks can also stop at the Cambridge outskirts and the entire city can become off limits to all vehicles. Who cares about business deliveries? Why should I support a business you would like to frequent with allowing deliveries when I may personally not choose to use that business? Anyone that lives in Cambridge and wants to drive to their job should move out of the city because it's not designed for cars or walk/bus/bike/etc to their car parked outside the city borders. I'm sure this will markedly increase the livability, property values and desirability of Cambridge.
Then again, perhaps that's the solution to increasing rent and property prices in Cambridge. Make the city undesirable enough and you have your traffic solution because no one will want to drive there at all.
Dude. There are cars, using the road, in the picture. I count about 10 motor vehicles? You can still sit in a steel cage spewing smoke on that exact stretch of road, and you can store it for a few hours should you desire.
No one has stopped your car. No one has stopped deliveries.
Anyone care to address all the logical fallacies presented in this rambling?
I'm scared to bike in these lanes. Being on the wrong side of parked cars causes a visibility problem at corners. That's why you're not supposed to ride on sidewalks, except in places without any intersections, driveways, or pedestrians.
I am usually wearing a high vis yellow jacket, a bright helmet, and a blinkie rear light even in the daytime. About as visible as I can get, and yet I am still constantly worried about cars right hooking me or left hooking me, because I have been through a lot of close calls.
But I am also constantly worried about being doored. At least now the setup protects me from dooring, and I can focus on not getting hooked at intersections. Also, I would hope that the drivers are paying attention to the road they are turning onto, else they'll be running over pedestrians in the crosswalk.
I've been bike commuting in the Boston area for over 20 years, and have never been doored. The best way to avoid being doored is to ride outside the door zone. That is, ride at least 3 feet from parked cars.
I've been doored when riding in the bike lane when someone abruptly decided to open the right hand door of a car waiting at a light in the travel lane. It would have been impossible to ride less then 3' from the cars as that would have put me too close to the curb. (There was no parking on this street.)
+1 on the passenger dooring. You used to be able to look out for cabs, who were a common source of this, but Uber/Lyft has added a whole new dimension of passengers unexpectedly hopping out and you can't be 3' from both the parked cars and the travel lane, so either you sit in traffic by taking the travel lane or you use the bike lane and risk dooring from one side or the other.
The new cycle track does not prevent dooring. Cars have been parking slightly into the buffer zone. Their doors extend a foot or two into the bike lane.
And unlike a traditional lane where you can move as far left as necessary (if you check over your shoulder first), in this cycle track you're limited how far you can stay from parked cars, without encroaching into the oncoming cycle lane, or getting too close to the curb.
The people who installed these did so because the safety statistics say that they are safer than lanes that are adjacent to traffic.
The oft-cited studies have fatal flaws.
The Rusk study of Montreal didn't make fair comparisons between streets with bike lanes and cycle tracks. They compared very quiet streets with cycle tracks, with busy commercial streets with lanes and on-street parking. Not surprisingly, the busy streets were more dangerous. http://john-s-allen.com/reports/montreal-kary.htm
Local cyclist Paul Schimek has this to say about the BICE Vancouver/Toronto study:
"The analysis was based on *only two blocks* of cycle track (Carrall St, Vancouver) out of hundreds of miles of road in Vancouver and Toronto. They found only 2 injuries on those 2 blocks whereas their method (which is highly questionable) predicted they would find 10. This is not exactly convincing evidence, don't you think?"
We gots ourselves a "vehicular cycling" cult devotee.
Funny how VCCs always find "fatal" (read picayune or obscure or declared by fiat) flaws in the methodology of studies that don't support their religious beliefs, yet produce zero substantive studies of their own (and kill any efforts toward that when it is clear that the data don't bear out their hypotheses).
Vehicular cycling started out as an adaptive approach with some value, but it has sadly turned into a dogma for those who hate the idea of having to share their roads with a lot of other cyclists.
I provided two studies, along with critiques. Here's another study, analyzing bike crashes on Comm Ave: https://www.scribd.com/document/240561402/Comma-Ve-Report-Sept-22
You provided...a bunch of insults.
You're an experienced bicyclist. How do you feel about the cycle tracks that have opened in the last few years? Do you really think https://goo.gl/maps/wUi9nDmXZRz is better than a traditional bike lane? How about https://goo.gl/maps/CNeU26J4WT62 and https://goo.gl/maps/3gA2xNcBrGm ?
Where there is only recently anything approaching this sort of bike accommodation.
Neither of your examples are peer-reviewed. You know why? Because John S. Allen (who lives in Maine and refuses to listen to anybody who lives in an actual city, BTW) and Paul Schimick are well-known ideologues in the Cult of Vehicular Cycling. They don't submit their "reports" or "analyses" to critical review, and both strenuously resist anybody questioning what they have done or concluded for decades now. My husband used to moderate a large local cycling listerv and I've been around the cycling community for a quarter century, so I know this.
You are going to have to come up with something far more substantial than the theoretical, unfiltered meanderings of a couple of well-known ideologues.
Right, because standard striped bike lanes are never blocked by delivery trucks and double parked cars :-D
In my experience, protected bike lanes are clear a heck of lot more often than striped bike lanes. Vassar St has gotten much better with pedestrians not walking in the bike lane. People are figuring it out.
Here are some studies showing the dangers of sidepaths: http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/sidecrash.htm
These are not "studies" - they are not published, they are not peer-reviewed, they are not scientific, and they do not meet the standards of the planning community for factual and objective information.
What you have is a single biased person's 2002 "analysis". No actual data that is relevant to current conditions, etc. This is not local data, either, and the assumption of what constitutes "side path" is wrong, too.
Also not peer reviewed.
John S. Allen is a crank who is completely unfamiliar with urban cycling and yet demands that everybody follow his ideas about how urban areas should be configured.
Like I said above: he's been known to leave cycling groups because they don't "believe" and blindly follow his theories and actually refute his assertions with evidence and other mean things.
These designs typically prohibit parking near the intersections -- and the best designs eliminate it with physical barriers.
Of course, you're always legal to ride with traffic in the motor vehicle lane.
Hope it helps! I never want to see anyone injured or killed by a motor vehicle, be they on foot, a bike, a wheelchair, a segway, or what have you. With regards to the issue of cyclists on this thread upset with jaywalkers: as someone who walks everwhere in Boston and Cambridge, I can tell you that all too often crosswalk signals do not work and when they do, cars and bikes blow theough the intersection anyways! We walkers are MOST at risk and not everyone can physically dash out of you car-driving and bike-riding paths! Cyclists AND auto drivers MUST STOP for pedestrians in crosswalks. Stop gunning for us and stop screaming at us just because you have to delay your bike rides and car rides for a mere 30 seconds for those of us on foot and in wheelchairs trying to get across the street.
Hey now I can legally ride this street into harvard square instead of salmoning like I have been doing for a decade! Thanks Cambridge!
The lane starts at James Street. So you'll need to salmon, or walk your bike, the short block from Mason Street.
How are people who use wheelchair vans supposed to use this street?
1) Can the ramp reach down to the street rather than a raised curb? The dropoff from the road's crown/gutter makes this worse.
2) There might not be space at the end of the ramp for the wheelchair to turn, without the curb getting in the way.
3) The ramp would block the cycle track while it's deployed.
4) The chair user might have to go a long distance in the cycle track to reach the nearest curb cut.
Note the spaces marked "VAN" at your local grocery store ... no curb!
I used to drive a friend for errands. She had a handivan. I never had a problem unloading her + a heavy chair in one of those spots. They handle pavement in wide open parking lots just fine!
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 2022 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy