The NIMBYs are reviving the traffic board to hold up bike lanes

Submitted by IntelligentCicada363 t3_ycqbtd in CambridgeMA

If you saw the Cambridge day article, https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/10/24/revive-the-cambridge-traffic-board/ , rich NIMBYs in Brattle are trying to revive a defunct board to hinder or stop the construction of bike lanes. This op-Ed serves as a rallying cry to spread the word for people to gum up all non-car road infrastructure

This is the same byllshit that got us in the housing crisis — small number of unelected people stopping all construction and in this case prioritizing cars in a failed road system that desperately needs space for multi modal options

The city manager just put out a call to fill the board members positions. It’s just 3 people. If just TWO pro-multi modal people join this board, we can turn this against them.

https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/trafficparkingandtransportation/News/2022/10/citymanageryianhuangseeksnewmembersforcambridgetrafficboard

This is about creating safe roads for all users, not just cars!

I will be applying!

121

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

vhalros t1_itnpn1t wrote

This does sound like some useless beracracy intended to slow down changes to death. Like, in a city of 120,000 people, is there literally anything you can't find fifty people to sign?

Also, looking at the actual traffic regulations, section 3b, it doesn't seem like the traffic board reviews the things they think it does? They could probably still make a stink though; better to have supportive people on the board.

29

Nabs617 t1_ito8qnv wrote

I'm rooting for you and hopefully another like-minded individual. I was happy when I read about Cambridge building out protected lanes on Hampshire, but then I was a half-second from getting doored the very next day. These changes can't wait. The Brattle folks recently tried to stop the lanes citing historical integrity or some mess, and I think our lives matter more than the look of protected lanes.

I'm happy to see Garden become a one way today, but just last week a woman who was 8 months pregnant was hit by a car there. A week can make all the difference. I hope this board doesn't slow down any much needed progress.

23

HaddockBranzini-II t1_itpog9a wrote

I am not sure where in Cambridge that construction is being stopped. Maybe affordable housing development, but otherwise you can't walk a block in Cambridgeport without seeing some new development for pharma-bros and gals.

−5

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_itsc2p0 wrote

So I think people who say the solution to a failed road system is more bikes overlooks the fact that not everyone is a healthy 20 something to 30 something year old person who has the pulmonary capacity to bike everywhere. Same with public transportation and people with weakened immune systems. Like a good percentage of Cambridge's older population need transportation by car and by extension parking. The people in that area don't need less parking and more bike infrastructure.

−9

bufallll t1_itslesy wrote

this is an incredibly tired argument. the idea is to make it easier for people to use bikes and transit (the overwhelming majority of people are able bodied), which in turn frees up roads for the people who really need to be on them. also your statement of ages is pretty laughable considering 55% of people in cambridge are between the ages of 20 and 44 (nationally that age group is 36%) so yes, we actually do have a very young population. also, if someone needs to drive so much, could they possibly move… literally anywhere else in the damn country? why should the rest of us who actually want to live in a functional walkable city have to suffer for some people who are shackled to their cars?

also let’s be real, you’re more than likely using disabled people as an excuse for your own selfish habits. people who harp about needing parking/lanes for disabled people always seem to forget that there are also a ton of disabled people who cannot/don’t drive. what about them? oh, they aren’t convenient for your argument?

12

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_itsmo8k wrote

I'm personally disgusted with your response. I am temporarily disabled, probably wouldn't be able to use a bike (due to pulmonary restriction because of cancer) for a year. And probably shouldn't use public transportation for a few months because of a weakened immune system because of chemo. The place where I was diagnosed was Mt. Auburn Hospital which is in the area in question. You should really try to consider that anyone you encounter could actually have a disability they don't exactly wear a sign saying they are.

−3

greemp t1_itt2g5y wrote

In your case, wouldn't it be better for you to have more people on bikes and using public transport, freeing up the roads and parking so that you can actually get places more easily? It's not ableist to encourage healthier and more sustainable transport choices for those who are able. In fact, it makes.more space for those who actually need it.

14

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ittochv wrote

Correct, if it makes sense for the specific area or road. If you read the entire op-ed the authors aren't against car alternative transportation, in fact they state they are for it, they're against decisions on bike lanes being made without consulting residents in areas where bikes lanes might make little sense for those residents.

−2

IntelligentCicada363 OP t1_ituktit wrote

They are against them. They have never proposed a single solution other than to rip them all out.

10

greemp t1_itvx5xo wrote

This is a new argument and unrelated to our previous discussion.

Roads are communal and public. They may travel through communities, but they are not for the exclusive use of that community. This argument especially falls apart when looking at major thoroughfares such as Brattle. Why should the residents have any more say over those.roads than the people who use that road? There are many Cambridge residents that bike, walk, and scoot through that area daily. Why is their safety secondary to the concerns of the community on the road (concerns, which I may add, that are trifling compared to the daily threat of serious injury or death faced by vulnerable users of that space.)

9

bufallll t1_itsq3bm wrote

ugh okay i’m sorry to hear that and sorry for the harsh language, i have seen a lot of abled people make that argument when it doesn’t include them and i assumed that was you too. i hope you get better. however i stand by the core of what i said, getting more people out of cars and onto bikes and public transit should free up the streets for people who need to drive and our community should rely on cars as little as possible. i moved here largely for the access to public transit and walkability and i want to see that character maintained and strengthened, and i also bike. this area is not safe for cyclists and the facts are that we do need more bike infrastructure.

10

IntelligentCicada363 OP t1_itukqen wrote

You’re disgusted? What about the large number of disabled and elderly people who can’t drive at all? Just fuck them right?

10

vhalros t1_itura3b wrote

The idea that bicycle infrastructure is useable only by 20 to 30 year old able bodied people is ridiculous though. Bicycles are a practical mode of transportation for many many trips, that are inexpensive, emit no pollution, and take up relatively little space. While it's true that some trips are best served by car, our transportation system over prioritizes them to a ridiculous degree.

9

literary-chickens t1_itsgmjk wrote

Yeah, I bike everywhere but think frequently that it's an ableist big-picture solution. We do need something better for aging and/or disabled residents.

−2

greemp t1_itt3e5m wrote

Wouldn't it be better to create more space for people? If roads were narrowed, there would be more space for wider sidewalks allowing people with mobility issues to actually use wheelchairs on sidewalks. Ever tried to use a wheelchair outside main business thoroughfares? It's impossible in this city, which forces people into their cars. It's important to realize that encouraging those who are able to cycle and use public transport creates more space for those who absolutely need to use cars. This is not ableist in the slightest. The opposite in fact.

10

literary-chickens t1_itxtds2 wrote

Sure, of course! Dude, I'm on your side! I meant that the overall rhetoric we use around bikes and cars can be moralizing in a way that makes it sound like disabled lives don't matter. "Down with cars, everybody bikes" is alienating and isolating to people with different realities. (I know you're not saying that, but people do.) It doesn't have to be disabled folks; think about young children or families, for a different example. I agree that it's not ableist to encourage and uplift public transport and biking. I'll vote for such policies every time. But the vitriol and condescension toward cars--it's neither righteous nor kind.

3

ClarkFable t1_itnx6q6 wrote

"This is the same byllshit that got us in the housing crisis"

No it isn't. Housing shortage is a regional issue, and no amount of unilateral policy making by Cambridge could solve the issue. But that's not to say that Cambridge's zoning policies couldn't use some serious improvements (e.g., the use of historic district boards to try to slow down development, stupid low height limits, etc, and all counterproductive)

−12

IntelligentCicada363 OP t1_ito1rsp wrote

Every town has a zoning board

10

wittgensteins-boat t1_itpvs79 wrote

Planning boards propose zoning changes.
City council or in towns, town meeting affirms or rejects.

The Zoning Board of Appeals generally deals with nonconforming properties in terms of zoning, and some kinds of special permits for buildings.

Massachusetts now has a regional zoning requirement for multiunit housing in MBTA Municipalities, near stations.

See this summary:

Mass. Dept of Housing and Community Development.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities

2

crazicus t1_ito259o wrote

It is the same bullshit though, just in each individual town in the region

6

ClarkFable t1_ito7f6e wrote

Sure, but that doesn't mean a unilateral change by Cambridge can do anything about it. That's the difference, and it's an important one.

−4

crazicus t1_itofnvu wrote

It’s not really related to what was said though. OP didn’t claim it was solely a Cambridge issue nor that Cambridge alone can fix it. The point was just that it’s a small number of people blocking things for everyone else. Splitting hairs over nothing here really

4

taylorhayward_boston t1_ito11vl wrote

What percentage of the 120,000 people in the city regularly bike and what percentage regularly use a car?

−20

IntelligentCicada363 OP t1_ito1ywa wrote

40% of households in Cambridge don’t own a car — so a significant portion of the population would benefit from increasing access to safe infrastructure

given that statistic and that historically 100% of our road space has been devoted to cars, I’m not really sure the point you’re trying to make, other than to make the tired argument that you and therefore everyone drives a car

38

axeBrowser t1_ito3boj wrote

It's not a winner-take-all contest. First, the roads can be shared. Second, every biker is potentially one less car on the road, thus reducing traffic congestion. This is a benefit for auto users. Further, given that biking is a more efficient use of scarce public roadways in its ability to transport more people per hour over short distances, it punches above its weight.

The only serious counter argument against bike lanes is that dedicated bus lanes would be even better if a hard choice must be made between the two.

35

IntelligentCicada363 OP t1_itocnpw wrote

Dedicated bus lanes are extremely difficult to enforce since car drivers will just drive in them, and MA doesn't allow traffic cameras

7

mtmsm t1_ito2su8 wrote

This data is pretty old but interesting. Driving has been on the decline, and biking has become a more and more common mode of transportation.

29

crazicus t1_ito32w9 wrote

As of 2019, 28% drove alone to work vs 7% riding a bike to work. I imagine that the bike share has increased since then since there’s been improvements in the bike network and the pandemic got more people onto bikes as well.

10

Master_Dogs t1_itom06g wrote

Blue Bikes System Data shows year after year of growth. They've added a few hundred stations over the last decade and it's paid off with millions of miles biked each year. And critically they've started to leave bikes out year round in many spots so people don't have to stop biking in the winter if it's reasonable out or if people bundle up for a short ride. And if we plow our sidewalks and bike paths too.

12

ClarkFable t1_ito8859 wrote

When you look at the number of commuting trips, biking's percentage is in the single digits. Not too surprising considering winter is a thing around here.

−11

Master_Dogs t1_itolphi wrote

Winter isn't a factor in many northern European countries where they:

  1. Actually have bike infrastructure which is more convenient than driving
  2. Actually maintain their bike infrastructure year round, like plowing bike paths and lanes
  3. Maintain their paths properly; for example, they're able to keep paths mostly ice free in Sweden by not salting the path but instead packing the snow down while plowing.

Those 2/3 things are key. We're hardy New Englanders, a bit of cold and snow doesn't bother us IF it's out of our way. Otherwise why would people continue to drive all winter long? Why is skiing, snow boarding, ice skating, hockey, etc such big things for us? Clearly we don't mind the cold if it's fun. Biking on a freshly cleared bike path IS fun. What's not fun? Riding in a snow filled roadway because the bike lane wasn't cleared and fighting with motorists who don't want you there. Maintenance and infrastructure are key if we want to provide alternatives to driving. And that goes for everything: people won't walk if the sidewalks aren't cleared and won't want to take public transit if the bus stop is filled with snow.

20

ClarkFable t1_itpkarx wrote

At the risk of sounding like a complete wimp, Boston’s average winter low temps are much lower, we get significantly more winter precipitation, and the wind is way worse than a place like Copenhagen.

−4

Master_Dogs t1_itpmfsc wrote

I said Sweden, not Denmark. But regardless Sweden's Capital of Stockholm actually has a lower temperature than Boston, while Copenhagen has roughly the same average temperature as Boston.

If you want another example, see how Montreal (a city a few hundred miles north of us) actually clears their bike lanes at the same time as they clear the streets: https://montreal.ca/en/topics/cycling-and-bike-paths

Again: IT'S INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAINTENANCE. You may personally be a wimpy car driver but there's plenty of people out there that will bundle up and walk, bike or transit if we fucking bothered to clear snow off our sidewalks and bike paths. Those people may be car drivers today who add to traffic when they'd be perfectly fine using an alternative if we bothered to build and maintain it year round.

13

ClarkFable t1_itpzmpw wrote

>Stockholm

Stockholm's commute share from biking isn't far off from Cambridge. Copenhagen's share is well above. Montreal's is much lower.

This further illustrates why low temperatures and precipitation matter a lot (not average annual temps).

−1