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

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#91

Post by twoodfin » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:46 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…

It's required only during maintenance made as part of a pre-existing 5-year reconstruction plan on roads that were included in the 2015 Bicycle Plan (or any subsequent plan the Council approves). That's still a dramatic expansion from Cambridge's current separated bike lanes, but it's not "any roadway" as the article claims.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#92

Post by souterrain » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:46 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #58

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 bik…

This part of Baltimore doesn't fit this model, however, since parking was not removed. The bike lane was inserted between the parking zone and the curb. Previously, the bike lane was between the rightmost travel lane and the parking zone.

Poor driving, or factors related to poor driving, may be a contributor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2018/08/30/dc-...

Or, it may just be an anti-cycling bias, but I don't have evidence to support this.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#93

Post by ahoy » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:47 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #44

This is long term controversial issue. If you think the right answer is obvious you probably haven't dove down to the details, where it's much murkier. See in particular John Forester's _Effective_Cycling_. Forester believes that "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" and are not segregated from them. There are studies in this area pointing in both directions. One such concluded tha…

I don't know a single cyclist who agrees with that statement.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#94

Post by danielecook » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:47 PM UTC

Just got back from a trip Amsterdam. If you want to see what the future of Cambridge could be - take a trip there. The cycling infrastructure is phenomenal and very heavily used. It seems the majority of streets had dedicated and protected cycle lanes on both sides. Even more impressive is that it doesn't stop at the city limits. It goes far far out into the countryside. They even had parking garages for bikes.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#95

Post by galago » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:47 PM UTC

I live and work in Cambridge, MA. In my opinion, Cambridge and Somerville are not very bicycle friendly due to the fact that main streets were laid out before cars were common. As a result, there is basically only one route (via Beacon) to work for me via bicycle. Grid-cities like SE Portland, OR where I formerly lived, were much easier because you can ride on a street parallel to the artery, not on it. Its nice to see what Cambridge is doing, but its a much harder job than other cities face.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#96

Post by ahoy » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:49 PM UTC

wool_gather wrote: post #76

biswaroop wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree mostly, except that there needs to be a usable non-bicycle alternative to cars too. I love riding, but not everybody can do it all the time, for a large variety of reasons. Reducing in-city car usage is good, but just forcing it to be even more unpleasant is not going to solve anything.

Sounds like a job for.... public transportation!

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#97

Post by dkdjnkecmsl » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:49 PM UTC

just_steve_h wrote: post #69

tomcam wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the fact that he was white have to do with it?

What does the fact that he was white NOT have to do with it?

As a fellow cyclist, I hope you get hit.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#98

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:50 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.

[deleted]

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#99

Post by dsfyu404ed » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

gbear605 wrote: post #73

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire state of MA is highly unwelcoming to anything with two wheels and a motor that is less than a motorcycle (and even then it kinda sucks for them too). You say "scooter" or "moped" and suburban soccer moms and uptight politicians get images of New Dehli in their heads and that's too low class for MA so any organized attempt at doing that gets blocked by the power of arbitrary enforcement. As another commente…

Single party nature of the state? The governor is Republican

Look at the 2016 election county map. MA is really thoroughly blue. Having a (relatively) politically homogeneous state minimizes the amount of people who find the actions of a powerful state government to be distasteful.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#100

Post by dsfyu404ed » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:53 PM UTC

souterrain wrote: post #92

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bik…

This part of Baltimore doesn't fit this model, however, since parking was not removed. The bike lane was inserted between the parking zone and the curb. Previously, the bike lane was between the rightmost travel lane and the parking zone. Poor driving, or factors related to poor driving, may be a contributor. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2018/08/30/dc-... Or, it may just be an anti-cycling bias, but…

I'm not saying Baltimore did that. I'm just saying you can't just go around with a hammer looking for nails because you have a politically popular hammer. It's not going to work in every case.