Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law • Hacker News Board

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#51

Post by dominotw » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:29 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #41

dominotw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally know 3 ppl that died in chicago. Two of them were my coworkers, died in the same year. :/ Sorry but if you have kids and family you are fucking stupid to ride bikes on the street in chicago. White bikes on sidewalks are not street art. Go to lakeshore path/606 if you are dying to ride bikes. I got doored 2 yrs ago escaped only with broken wrist.

Then I assume you would support a similar law in Chicago as Cambridge passed?

Yes but aren't you back on the street with no protection where there are no bike lanes( most of chicago)?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#52

Post by tsmarsh » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:29 PM UTC

biswaroop wrote: post #38

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #13

As much as I hate Cambridge I'm having a hard time finding fault with this. Bike lanes fit their needs really well.

Curious, why do you hate Cambridge so much? I find it a reasonably great place, but I'm just a graduate student here.

Here is my list:

* Its ridiculously ugly. * The layout seems designed to amplify the wind and somehow manages to do it in all directions. * Building restrictions that prevent affordable housing from being built. * They're happy to hike prices on parking to reduce cars, but the Red Line is unreliable which forces people to use cars. * Central * They managed to make bike lanes that are more dangerous than roads * Northbound Longfellow Bridge * Try turning on to Technology Square from Broadway * Mass Ave in general

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#53

Post by jeffwilcox » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:30 PM UTC

chadash wrote: post #27

> "Local law now requires the city to erect vertical barriers between cyclists and cars on any roadway that’s rebuilt, expanded, or reconfigured" I'm all for better bike lanes, but it seems kind of extreme to require this for all new roads [0]. I used to live in Cambridge and rode my bike quite a bit. I never felt like I needed a dedicated lane on every side street, just on the main drags (where some of the new prote…

I think our cities are learning from what Scandinavia has been doing for ages. This is exciting news. Smart streets keep everyone safer and raise awareness to pedestrians and people with mobility issues, too.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#54

Post by amalcon » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:30 PM UTC

mhb wrote: post #39

chadash wrote: post #27

> "Local law now requires the city to erect vertical barriers between cyclists and cars on any roadway that’s rebuilt, expanded, or reconfigured" I'm all for better bike lanes, but it seems kind of extreme to require this for all new roads [0]. I used to live in Cambridge and rode my bike quite a bit. I never felt like I needed a dedicated lane on every side street, just on the main drags (where some of the new prote…

On a lot of streets, won't the only way to do this be to eliminate parking on one side of the street? Should be interesting.

This is what has happened so far. Retail business owners have... not been pleased (to put it mildly).

Overall it's pretty clearly been a net gain, but there's definitely some short term pain there.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#55

Post by biswaroop » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

barrad0s wrote: post #43

There is already barely any parking in Cambridge, driving there already sucks... Let's see how much worse this is gonna get.

Good. Parking and driving are not well-suited to narrow roads in high density cities. There have been tons of studies that show this. This is as a Cambridge resident who struggles to find parking when I occasionally have to. Parked cars are truly a blight on our beautiful streets. Protected bike lanes are definitely [edit: probably] part of the route towards greater livability.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#56

Post by chadash » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #35

chadash wrote: post #27

> "Local law now requires the city to erect vertical barriers between cyclists and cars on any roadway that’s rebuilt, expanded, or reconfigured" I'm all for better bike lanes, but it seems kind of extreme to require this for all new roads [0]. I used to live in Cambridge and rode my bike quite a bit. I never felt like I needed a dedicated lane on every side street, just on the main drags (where some of the new prote…

It's the perfect time to do it. Building the protected bike lane in the road design from the get go is the most effective way to make both cyclists and drivers happy and safe.

I totally agree with you. If you are re-doing a road, that's the best time to build a bike lane. But I'm personally not convinced that it's necessary on every new road. I lived on a side street in Cambridge that saw maybe one car every twenty minutes. I was lucky to have a private driveway, but my neighbors would have been pretty angry if you took away their street parking to put in a bike lane on a street with very little traffic. In my opinion, there should be some additional criteria, such as needing a bike lane on any new street with expected traffic of more than one car every minute (or some reasonable time frame). As a biker when I lived in Cambridge, I always felt safe on side streets where I could just bike in the middle of the street and move over for the occasional vehicle, but I was much more afraid on major (or even minor) thoroughfares.

I personally would love to live in a world where fewer people own cars in the first place because public transportation is so good, but that's an ideal that we are no where close to achieving, so a lot of people need to own cars.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#57

Post by wool_gather » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

est31 wrote: post #3

cure wrote: post #2

It is funny to see Cambridge labelled a 'Boston suburb'. That was clearly written by someone who has never visited Cambridge, MA or even the Boston area.

Never been there, could you explain?

As far as daily life of someone living in either city, they're effectively one metropolis. Many, many people live in one and work (and shop, and play) in the other.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#58

Post by dsfyu404ed » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

souterrain wrote: post #36

While Baltimore is reversing protected a bike lane implementation as a result of pressure from retail business and constituents who prefer cars. (The neighborhood in question is one of the most affluent in the city.) https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs...

My city did that. Only they waited for most of the businesses to fold first. What a great reward for weathering the recession those businesses got. Turns out when you kill parking in favor of bike lanes in a small city that does a lot of business by being a commerce destination for the surrounding towns it doesn't work well. Also nobody bikes here because the entire city is hills (plenty of people walk though) so bike lanes are an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist but they tried it anyway because they're politically fashionable, details of the specific situation be damned

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#59

Post by NikolaNovak » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #47

chadash wrote: post #27

> "Local law now requires the city to erect vertical barriers between cyclists and cars on any roadway that’s rebuilt, expanded, or reconfigured" I'm all for better bike lanes, but it seems kind of extreme to require this for all new roads [0]. I used to live in Cambridge and rode my bike quite a bit. I never felt like I needed a dedicated lane on every side street, just on the main drags (where some of the new prote…

Don't they get snow? With vertical barriers I'm confused how a plow will be able to properly clear the street.

In Ottawa, Canada that appears to be a realistic problem (according to my colleagues that live there; I have limited personal experience). They try to use the sidewalk-cleaning smaller machinery, but it's still a struggle due to shapes and barriers.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#60

Post by thealfreds » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

theseadroid wrote: post #45

crushcrashcrush wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace Chicago with nearly every city. It’s a death wish.

Have you been to cities in Netherlands or Danmark?

They were meaning US cities, we can certainly be very US centric in our thinking.

And to keep on that theme let me talk about my city.

If you don't actually need to get anywhere and want to ride for leisure Denver has some nice built up trails that sort of meander through neighborhoods that are completely separated from roads. Very safe and usually very pretty to ride on.

Downtown looks pretty dangerous though.