Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

willzyx01 t1_itzzlxw wrote

It will keep happening until they separate bike lanes with something more than a plastic dildo.

277

TheLamestUsername t1_iu00dfm wrote

Alright you heard them, we need two plastic dildos to help the cyclists.

100

wolfiewu t1_iu0mt6y wrote

You're joking but it would probably help quite a lot. I don't understand why they left so much space between the dildo bollards. The white SUV in the picture clearly fits between them with tons of room to spare. If they had doubled the number of dildos cars would not be able to fit between them.

Or they could just like, not half ass the job and put up a proper curb or metal/concrete dildos.

60

Amy_Ponder t1_iu0ntx2 wrote

It's a good start, but if we're already spending the money let's just widen the sidewalk and pave a proper separated bike lane on top of it. I understand it's more expensive up front, but since you don't have to replacing the dildoes every time they get rammed and snap, you're saving more money in the long run.

Plus, you plant a few trees, add a few benches, maybe a public art installation if you're really feeling frisky, and you've suddenly turned your boring sidestreet into a genuinely pleasant place to spend time. Which gets more people out of their cars, which makes it more likely they'll wander into nearby businesses, which helps the economy and generates more tax revenue for the city, so they can pave more wider sidewalks / separated bikelanes... it's a virtuous cycle.

48

wolfiewu t1_iu0piw8 wrote

Honestly just about anything else would have made this better. This was a non-solution. But officials around here have a massive boner for making bikers miserable and half-assing every public infrastructure project.

22

Amy_Ponder t1_iu0q9b6 wrote

Amen to that. I don't understand how we can be one of the wealthiest states in the country and still suck at public infrastructure projects so badly. It's not lack of funding, it's not lack of willpower, so what's going wrong?

12

wolfiewu t1_iu0s7ge wrote

It's 100% lack of willpower. Any time a new initiative or project comes up, neighborhood associations or stores whine and the politicians get meek and fold.

12

seriousnotshirley t1_iu20y39 wrote

Because they remember how bad the ideas got in the mid 20th century. They were going to cut right through Cambridge and anywhere else they wanted. If the plans back then hadn’t been so awful and pushed through by egos it wouldn’t be so bad but it was awful so we’ve swung so far the other way to making every little town and neighborhood have veto over anything.

3

Virtual_Natural1642 t1_iu2b77r wrote

Maybe because very soon smart cars / smart dust enabled architecture / biometric surveillance is going to change the landscape so they figure why spend all of this money now just to rip it up in 10 years?

0

Macbookaroniandchez t1_iu18vb2 wrote

the ones that make this state so wealthy are not where bike infrastructure is needed or desired.

−5

artificial_osler t1_iu2049j wrote

Ah yes all the tech, biotech, business, healthcare, research, and entrepreneurial activity throughout Central Boston and Cambridge are definitely not the source of most the states wealth...

/s

4

Macbookaroniandchez t1_iu2618h wrote

...and then they return home to their homes with quiet, low traffic streets in places like Canton, Newton, and West Cambridge. Again, they aren't impacted by the problems caused by poor public infrastructure. Thus, they aren't as motivated to ring up their representative and demand something get done.

0

Anustart15 t1_iu47srh wrote

Half the C suite at my company bike commute from their wealthy suburbs. The bike ride from Arlington/west Cambridge/Belmont/Winchester to Kendall is pretty manageable with the halfway decent infrastructure we have up here.

1

kangaroospyder t1_iu0pkdi wrote

Sidewalk bike lanes from a cyclists perspective are the worst implementation. Pedestrians are far more erratic, just walk along them without realizing they are meant for bikes, and have no realization when a bike is coming down the lane, even if you ring a bell or shout at them from 2 feet off their heels, then get mad at you for trying to use infrastructure meant for bikes.

11

Amy_Ponder t1_iu0qexh wrote

I think that's more out of ignorance than malice, since separated bike lanes are still pretty rare, so a lot of pedestrians flat-out don't know what they are or that they're not supposed to walk there. The more people we have biking on the streets, the more pedestrians will start getting the memo and respecting the lanes.

3

kangaroospyder t1_iu0yu7s wrote

I just walked from South Station to the BCEC and back today. The entire walk next to the sidewalk level bike lanes both ways had pedestrians in them, and that's a with benches and trees seperating the sidewalks from bike lanes. I've literally been yelled at for using the bike lane on Mass Ave outside The Elliot, and I refuse to use the Mass Ave one between Boylston and Westland because it is so chaotic... No one respects bike lanes, it's just extra sidewalk or extra car space.

5

charons-voyage t1_iu14p6k wrote

The Mass Ave ones are horrible. Every time I need to brake and wait for morons on two feet to get out of my way. I stopped going that way though cus I’m legit scared of Mass and Cass nowadays.

4

charons-voyage t1_iu14fjk wrote

It sucks for everyone involved. I had a cyclist scream at me today by Wollaston beach because he was riding on the sidewalk, faster than was safe considering the foot traffic), and I was running in the opposite direction. He told me to “STAY TO THE RIGHT!”…like wtf this is a sidewalk, mate. Use the road like I do when I ride my road bike. It’s fine to go pedestrian speed while on a sidewalk. But bikes need to yield to peds on the sidewalk.

Morale of my rambling, keeping all modes of transportation as separated as possible is best for everyone lol

2

CJYP t1_iu4j2pi wrote

Sidewalk isn't the same as a sidewalk level bike lane. If biking on the sidewalk, you have to yield to pedestrians. If you're biking in a sidewalk level bike lane, pedestrians should yield to you.

1

Anustart15 t1_iu48923 wrote

>He told me to “STAY TO THE RIGHT!”…like wtf this is a sidewalk, mate.

Was there room for you to be farther right though? Nothing is more annoying than people that just on the wrong side of the sidewalk for no reason, whether they were on a bike or not, obstructing the wrong side of the sidewalk when there's space to make room for others is just shitty behavior too.

0

charons-voyage t1_iu4ryy9 wrote

There was room to my right. But why should I move over when he was cruising by, on the sideWALK, on his bicycle? He should have yielded to me. It’s not like there is a rule on sidewalk that runners have to stay to the right…

ETA, I’m not a prick. I move over to give people room when it’s obvious that there is a “right of way”. But I didn’t know if he was gonna go left or right, he was going way too fast and had just passed another group of people. I can’t read his mind and he gave no indication that he was gonna go stay to my left.

0

Anustart15 t1_iu4ukjy wrote

>But why should I move over

Because it's the normal neighborly thing to do.

>But I didn’t know if he was gonna go left or right

Because you weren't off to one side, so he also didn't know if you were going left or right.

>It’s not like there is a rule on sidewalk that runners have to stay to the right…

But clearly you can see how it would be beneficial to everyone's ability to efficiently share the sidewalk

−1

charons-voyage t1_iu4xj95 wrote

I was ALL the way to the left (hugging the wall). He should have yielded to me since he was on a bike. He also could have moved over. Not like there are rules over which side of the sidewalk to walk on lol

1

Anustart15 t1_iu54tt6 wrote

Again, there aren't rules, but literally everyone here walks on the right side for the very obvious reason of making everyone safer and more predictable. I don't blame him at all for yelling at you to go on the side of the sidewalk that literally everyone else goes to

0

charons-voyage t1_iu56hxg wrote

The left side is further from the road (a busy road) hence why I stay to the left. Again, this is a sidewalk lol. Not a shared use path. Bikes can use the sidewalk but should slow down and yield to pedestrians. Or just use the road like a normal person.

0

Anustart15 t1_iu5banu wrote

Again, literally everyone else walks on the right side of the sidewalk, so don't be surprised when someone gets annoyed that you choose not to

0

charons-voyage t1_iu5cbg0 wrote

I’ve been running in the city for over a decade. Nobody favors either side of the sidewalk lol that’s ridiculous. If anything, pedestrians distance themselves from the road. Usually people spread out and block it tbh, it’s obnoxious trying to dodge people who don’t pick a side. On a shared use path, there’s usually signage (like the Minuteman) indicating to stay to one side. But on a sidewalk? Nah, it’s a mixed bag.

Maybe we can agree to disagree here haha. At the end of the day, Lance should have slowed down and yielded to a pedestrian, or gotten his bitch ass in the road where road cyclists (myself included) belong.

0

Azr431 t1_iu1ae7u wrote

If they're purpose-designed/built, they are very nice. If they try shoe-horning some bike lines into an existing sidewalk, it rarely works well.

1

kangaroospyder t1_iu1e8ne wrote

The one on summer street towards the BCEC is very well seperated (wall of trees and benches) yet pedestrians still take it over... It's probably the best designed sidewalk level bike path I've seen. Doesn't help one bit.

3

nonitalic t1_iu1kfda wrote

It takes time and more bikes using the paths. Pedestrian adherence on Western Ave in Cambridge is way better now than when the path went in.

3

kangaroospyder t1_iu1qfhz wrote

I don't know how much time you want to allow, but the path near the BCEC is at least 2 years old, as is the one outside The Eliot. The one from Boylston to Westland is at least 5 years old and always a shit show.

1

Voiles t1_iu1sf9r wrote

> Sidewalk bike lanes from a cyclists perspective are the worst implementation.

I cannot emphasize how much I disagree without this statement. When I use a bike lane on the level of the road, I have to:

  • constantly watch out for inattentive people opening car doors into the bike lane;
  • frequently go around cars parked in the bike lane, forcing me merge into traffic;
  • fight with buses who pull into bus stops to let passengers off, forcing me to merge into traffic. As the bus and I are often traveling at about the same average speed, this leads to a game of leap-frog, where they zoom past me only to pull over at the next bus stop.
  • watch for inattentive people going to and from their cars, as they step into the bike lane without looking.

Yes, pedestrians sometimes obstruct bike lanes on the level of sidewalks, but I find this much less dangerous and less irritating than the above. In Cambridge, riding down Western Ave is just a delight compared to riding on Mass Ave, even after the massive improvements they've made to the bike lanes on the latter.

1

ScruffTheNerfHerder t1_iu0rpzt wrote

You need what's on comm ave where the bike lane is separate from the sidewalk and road. Shared bike lane sidewalks just put pedestrians at greater risk.

8

catknitski t1_iu44xjx wrote

You don’t want the bike lane the same level as the sidewalk bc then people will just walk in the bike lane b

5

Amy_Ponder t1_iu46urh wrote

I think that's mainly because bike lanes are still pretty rare, so a lot of pedestrians flat-out don't know what they are or that they're not supposed to walk there. The more people we have biking on the streets, the more pedestrians will start getting the memo and respecting the lanes.

0

Anustart15 t1_iu48ece wrote

But if you do it somewhere touristy like downtown Boston, there will always be a critical mass of people with no clue walking down the bike lane

2

Amy_Ponder t1_iu49cuf wrote

So install some signage explaining what the bike lanes are there. Meanwhile, continue paving them as normal in the rest of the city.

0

Anustart15 t1_iu4ap4e wrote

Because tourist (and everyone, realistically) are famously good at reading signs and following their instructions.

1

Amy_Ponder t1_iu4bk21 wrote

So because we'll never get 100% of people following the rules all the time, we should just give up completely? Come on, man. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

I'd much rather have a lovely network of separated cycle tracks, which may have some issues with tourists being idiots in certain tourist-heavy areas, than the current life-threatening bike gutters most roads have now.

0

Anustart15 t1_iu4cira wrote

I'm not saying no bike lanes, I'm saying sidewalk level bike lanes are not the best option for that area

1

link0612 t1_iu1kh6e wrote

They'll be ripping up the whole road in a few years for MGH expansion and red-blue connector, so they didn't want to spend the money now just to tear it up again

4

Amy_Ponder t1_iu1nhmt wrote

Wait, the red-blue connector is actually happening?

2

HammerfestNORD t1_iu0w94c wrote

C'mon now. You know the logic train works as well as the T around here.

2

Po0rYorick t1_iu1f0ae wrote

Absolutely. Looks like they are spacing the bolla…er… dildos at 20’ on center which is the same size as a typical parking space so people just use them as parallel parking spaces.

1

artificial_osler t1_iu20c96 wrote

But then it'd make the lane actually inaccessible to cars. They do this so they can pretend they made a bike lane cars are not "supposed" to be in, but still leave easy short-term parking that while illegal is never enforced

1

SaraHuckabeeSandwich t1_iu048cz wrote

Honestly, just give these ass-hats $300 parking tickets for every hour they're parked like that, and that'll also solve the problem real quick.

A lot of people feel entitled to leave their car anywhere they damn well please (as long as only non-drivers are hurt by it), and it's because they're used to getting away with it.

48

MohKohn t1_iu0s5so wrote

The laws of physics don't require enforcement

5

boston_acc t1_iu211et wrote

Agree. This would solve the problem real quick. In fact, you could disincentivize ANYTHING by making the cost of doing said thing exorbitant. That has its benefits and downsides I suppose (see political suppression and purging of dissenters).

3

AccousticMotorboat t1_iu05xu8 wrote

The city seems to want frustration vandalism to advance the cyclists are violent narrative.

−18

mzzy_ozborne t1_iu11gbb wrote

This but also people need to start agitating people who park in the bike lane. Breaking something on their car, spray paint, stickers etc

9

Southcoaststeve1 t1_iu19rqg wrote

I had a customer in RI that applied a decal to the windshield for people illegally parking in his lot. It was impossible to peel off maybe a 1/4” at time and it was large like 10x12 So it took drivers like an hour unless they had a razor blade scraping tool.

4

charons-voyage t1_iu152hh wrote

Violence and destroying personal property solves nothing. Write your council member.

3

yuvng_matt t1_iu3temz wrote

Right because they are so good at getting things done. Fuck that I’m smashing windows

1

charons-voyage t1_iu3ukz2 wrote

Lmao ok tough guy. What if the person pulled over for a legitimate reason (emergency, handicapped person exiting, etc)? It’s just not worth it. Just keep pedaling dude. Biking is supposed to be MORE relaxing than driving. Don’t be getting all road ragey.

1

wasthespyingendless t1_iu26mtf wrote

Look up the legal limit to damage before it's a felony, I think it's $500. There were two cars parked in a bike lane once and I pounded on the trunk while going by (resonant boom wakes up the driver). A police man stopped me and threatened me with a felony.

My new favorite is just pulling on the side mirror a bit, no damage, but they have to roll down their window and put it back.

−1

snoogins355 t1_iu241e8 wrote

Could get that citizen reporting ticket app like NYC has for idling trucks. Do it for blocking the bike lane. You get $40 per ticket. I'd be roaming the streets

4

kangaroospyder t1_iu2vrmg wrote

If we had that app I would make $300/ day just on my 4 mile round trip commute.... it's so bad and there is no enforcement.

5

Bald_Sasquach t1_iu0tfro wrote

I watched a street cleaner drive over a row of these the other day to clean the bike lane, and realized that alone is why we won't see solid barriers.

2

beetans t1_iu05ywp wrote

Please just start towing

104

wegry OP t1_iu0u0ze wrote

311 closed my report as “noted” 😎

60

Bombpants t1_iu3v6vh wrote

Once BTD puts up the real no-parking signs they’ll start enforcement.

1

DunkinRadio t1_iu03gap wrote

Will end up like the HOV lane dividers on 93S coming into the city.

They tried putting more and more substantial dividers up and people just kept knocking them over. Eventually they gave up.

37

BackRiverAch t1_iu0icol wrote

Donald Trump actually didn't put up his border wall because some lady with a gluten free bakery in Cambridge wouldn't stop suing him.

31

artificial_osler t1_iu20f5z wrote

Has anyone ever seen someone get ticketed for stopping/parking in the bike lane? I've been biking everyday for 5 years and not once seen a driver reprimanded by hanging out in there

12

kangaroospyder t1_iu2vxts wrote

I almost got ticketed for going around a car parked in the bike lane that pulled out into me on my bike in front of a Cambridge cop... Does that count?

3

Anustart15 t1_iu48rxi wrote

I feel like I haven't seen anyone get ticketed for anything around here. There's 0 enforcement ever

3

SeptimusAstrum t1_iu9k6am wrote

i've never seen anyone ticketed, but i've definitely seem some broken side view mirrors

1

Southcoaststeve1 t1_iu1915t wrote

Are we talking about the van parked in the bike lane or the car on the sidewalk?

11

Cybercaster22 t1_iu4bt5h wrote

Yes. But any car that parks in a biking lane in general. So many Boston drivers do it, and they're hardly ever ticketed or towed.

2

Interesting-Milk9910 t1_iu175ko wrote

Kick their mirrors off 🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️ no way to learn like the hard way

9

snoogins355 t1_iu24fnj wrote

I was thinking put their wipers up, but modern times...

2

[deleted] t1_iu17cex wrote

[deleted]

9

Sheol t1_iu1g2bn wrote

Not enough room to keep the median and two lanes and still accommodate parking, bike lane and the buffer. You can't sacrifice the buffer since otherwise people will exit their cars directly into the bike lane.

4

[deleted] t1_iu1hriv wrote

[deleted]

−6

Sheol t1_iu1i422 wrote

There is no parking allowed in this photo... So no one should be exiting into traffic.

8

[deleted] t1_iu1ityq wrote

[deleted]

1

willhasrddt t1_iu2s9bb wrote

You're writing like someone who never has had to ride next to parked cars on the inside next to a sidewalk with no buffer zone. The section like that in Brookline on Boylston St is an absolute nightmare. Parked cars treat that area as if it is comfort parking for them. Constantly there are cars parked with their wheels in the bike lane and people swinging their doors open without looking. This includes people leaving their doors wide open as they muck about in their car. Not to mention pedestrians who use the bike lane as if it were an extension of the sidewalk. Traffic, parked cars, bike lane, and sidewalk with nothing but lines separating each of those areas is a recipe for getting doored or other injury.

1

[deleted] t1_iu0kiqk wrote

[deleted]

6

CJYP t1_iu0l1fo wrote

Sure. They can block a traffic lane.

79

Tele-Muse t1_iu4aoon wrote

Yep. It’s the lane made for cars so why not block the cars. After all it’ll only take a few moments to deliver. Atleast that’s the logic people use for them blocking the bike lane.

4

[deleted] t1_iu0lov8 wrote

[deleted]

−40

CJYP t1_iu0n2xl wrote

Blocking the bike lane puts people in danger. Blocking a traffic lane causes inconvenience. It's not the same.

51

No_Marionberry5581 t1_iu0ojb5 wrote

None of this makes sense. Because it’s now a very crowded two line road in front of a major hospital and you can’t have cars stopping in the riding lanes. Cars need somewhere to pull over. I agree we need bike lines. But taking away the safe spaces for cars to pull over is crazy. What’s going to happen the first time an ambulance can’t get through because cars are stopped in the driving lane. I don’t think this was well thought out. And I’m a biker who uses this street.

−7

CJYP t1_iu0t54h wrote

There are two full traffic lanes. When a car is stopped in the driving lane, ambulances will use the other one. The lanes are fairly large, so there's even room for traffic to move out of the way of the ambulance if needed. Seems pretty simple to me. How is it handled on existing narrow one lane streets?

12

No_Marionberry5581 t1_iu1evw3 wrote

Yeah, that might work on a normal two lane road. But Cambridge street is normally very backed up. Add to that the fact that cars can’t pull to the side for an ambulance, and it is a disaster waiting to happen.

−4

CJYP t1_iu1fdsh wrote

So, it's not safe to block the bike lane. It's also not safe to block the road. Where would you put them?

3

No_Marionberry5581 t1_iu1g6yo wrote

I don’t think any of it is safe. I have ridden this route every day for seven years. I want and need it to be safe. But taking away the only place cars can stop for deliveries and stop in an emergency makes no sense to me. I don’t consider this safe for vehicles or bikes. I don’t consider this safe for rescue vehicles needing to get the hospital quickly, or fire engines who are at the station opposite this picture. I feel like we are trying to do too much in too little a space and it’s bound to cause issues. Out of all the bike lines that have been built around Boston, I find the stretch of Cambridge street from govt center down to the bridge to be particularly concerning.

3

[deleted] t1_iu1axvk wrote

[deleted]

−9

CJYP t1_iu1bnu4 wrote

Now you see how the people using the bike lane feel?

9

Tele-Muse t1_iu4ayr2 wrote

How bold of you to assume this person can put themselves in someone else’s shoes.

4

Interesting-Milk9910 t1_iu17c1o wrote

Blocking a bike lane w a motor vehicle ≠ blocking motor vehicle lane w a motor vehicle

6

[deleted] t1_iu1amnr wrote

[deleted]

3

Interesting-Milk9910 t1_iu1awn0 wrote

Because a motor vehicle cam kill a biker, a biker cannot kill a motorist. Also you ever play the “what shape fits on what hole” game as a kid? If somethings a big metal death trap it goes in the big metal death trap lane, not the bike lane, regardless of what their justification is

3

[deleted] t1_iu1c9eb wrote

[deleted]

0

Interesting-Milk9910 t1_iu1laj2 wrote

Yes stupid, what we are concerned about is cyclists dying. And no shit, obviously we are talking about the parked cars. The cars parked in the “not for parking cars lane”. The cars that force cyclists into the “get got by a tank” lane just to get around their stupid asses. How are you so dense? Edit: answered my own question. This user is a neoliberal, that’s how they are so dense

3

[deleted] t1_iu1m4i7 wrote

[deleted]

4

datepalmfacepalm t1_iu1p8fg wrote

In my personal experience I was irritated by driving in traffic and taking 45-60 minutes to travel 13 miles...so now I bike, and it still takes 45 minutes but it's a whole lot less unpleasant. Same thing with quick trips within the city - the improved bike infrastructure makes these trips quicker and more stress-free than driving.

1

[deleted] t1_iu2f8fc wrote

[deleted]

−1

datepalmfacepalm t1_iu2zqvp wrote

Well, it's not about delivery vehicles exclusively - seems like the scope covers any vehicle parked in bike lanes no?

> Boston seems hell-bent on just making driving even more miserable to discourage it, but of course that doesn’t actually work, it just invites backlash.

This is the part of your comment I was responding to. Making driving within the city "miserable" while improving alternatives does make people less likely to drive. Which benefits you, as a driver, when there are less cars on the road.

2

Interesting-Milk9910 t1_iu1omxr wrote

A parked car can’t kill someone is the same argument as a gun can’t shoot anybody, and neither are good arguments to try and make. You fucken right cars have to go somewhere, the dump. Get off yo lazy ass and try biking sometime, or are you too scared to get run over by a car? Edit: and like my other comment says, if you wanna keep parking in the bike lane ima start coming down that shit busting mirrors

−1

Digitaltwinn t1_iu3p8e5 wrote

Then they should have gone to the giant MGH loading dock on the road parallel to Storrow. It even tells delivery drivers when it’s occupied.

1

TheSlayer696969 t1_iu1qpi1 wrote

What's the point of the tow zone signs if they never enforce them? Or even ticket them?

The city could pay for all of the bike safety infrastructure just by ticketing or towing bike lane parkers.

6

IdkWhatIwant895 t1_iu71xca wrote

just tow all the vehicles parked in the bike lane and the assholes who do it will never do it again.

1

Digitaltwinn t1_iu3pb37 wrote

Then where are the bike lane markings?

0

wookie768 t1_iu34xsx wrote

I love blocking the bike lanes with my bucket truck when I need to do utility work on the side. They always have a dirty look riding by.

−7

Extra_Masterpiece_47 t1_iu2bfhj wrote

It's time for bicyclists to start paying their fair share. There should without a doubt be a registered user if it is your means of transportation. All this infrastructure for a single use. Does anybody know how much all these bike lanes have cost?

−11

nomolurcin t1_iu2lar7 wrote

The wear and tear to a road is proportional to the fourth power of the weight of the vehicle, which means cars cause orders and orders of magnitude more damage to roads than bikes. And the gas tax doesn’t even come close to covering road maintenance costs, so we bike riders have been covering the costs of roads through our taxes anyway.

8

AccomplishedGrab6415 t1_iu2x1sv wrote

Gas taxes aren't even earmarked specifically for road maintenance. They go to a general fund where they can get spent on literally anything. Cars haven't been paying their own way since the dawn of time.

3

AccomplishedGrab6415 t1_iu2wyjg wrote

What a classic way to tell the world you don't know how roads are funded.

Bikes have already paid not only for their infrastructure, but they've subsidized your car's lanes for DECADES.

5

tilehinge t1_iu0i4m6 wrote

FUCK I have to take this street, and it was a shitshow. I was so confused why there was no space even on the right side. I don't understand why they make bike lanes wide enough to park in.

E: I should clarify, I was on a bike

−12

cimson-otter t1_iu0tj1y wrote

This sucks for any contractors that have to work on this road

−17

glouscester t1_iu0wmnu wrote

Take an Uber or pay for parking and charge your client.

1

cimson-otter t1_iu1bimw wrote

Yeah….that doesn’t work at all. A lot of workers have trucks needed for work and come from outside the city.

Bike lanes are necessary, but this hurts a lot of the infrastructure workers.

−6

[deleted] t1_iu0m6vm wrote

[deleted]

−23

Amy_Ponder t1_iu0p9k2 wrote

The solution is for more people to bike, walk, and/or take public transit, so we have less cars on the road and wider bike lanes aren't an issue. (Also makes it a more pleasant experience for when you do decide to drive, since there'll be way less cars on the streets and therefore you won't get stuck in traffic anywhere near as often.)

17

ClarkFable t1_iu2v0bb wrote

Biking in the dead of winter isn’t practical for most people, regardless of the infrastructure. Look at Montreal.

0

Coomb t1_iu15oam wrote

>(Also makes it a more pleasant experience for when you do decide to drive, since there'll be way less cars on the streets and therefore you won't get stuck in traffic anywhere near as often.)

Not going to happen. The corollary to induced demand (add new road space and people will switch modes from something else to driving until the total travel time is about the same as before you added road space) is that the same thing happens in reverse. If some people switch modes away from cars for whatever reason and that brings travel times down again, other people will switch back to cars. Make driving more pleasant -- > more people drive until everybody's just as miserable as they were before. This is the natural behavior of people minimizing commuting cost in a comprehensive sense.

−2

Amy_Ponder t1_iu1nyw6 wrote

That's why you've also got to make alternate methods of transportation-- walking, biking, and public transit-- as attractive as public transit, so people will still chose to forgo driving even when there isn't much traffic on the road for other reasons. Maybe it's cheaper, or faster, or you don't have to worry about finding parking at your destination, or you simply don't have to deal with the mental stress of driving itself, or some combination of all those factors.

It is possible to do-- as risk of sounding like one of those obnoxious Euroboos who've convinced themselves everything is perfect over there, many European cities really have figured out how to almost completely get cars out of their downtown areas without having to explicitly ban them. No reason we can't do the same over here.

1

ClarkFable t1_iu2vegh wrote

There isn’t a major city in Europe that has the same winter lows, winter precipitation, and wind as Cambridge and has a higher bike commute percentage. It’s just not practical year round.

1

Amy_Ponder t1_iu43m7a wrote

I bike year-round in Boston. Wear a ski helmet with goggles, ski gloves, and wool socks, and winter biking is just as pleasant as biking any other season.

Only scary part is it getting dark so early, which means you're biking in the dark more often, which means your odds of getting hit by a car go up. And better bike infrastructure and less cars on the street would vastly improve that situation.

1

Peeeculiar t1_itzzoyy wrote

Men are from mars, women are from venus and the bike lane is apparently a drunk dude.

−34

Extra_Masterpiece_47 t1_iu0cgm8 wrote

When do the bicycle registration fee's officially start?

−58

giritrobbins t1_iu0f7v1 wrote

As soon as cars start paying for all the costs of roads. In MA hundreds of millions annually goes from the general fund to roads because excise taxes and the gas tax do not cover road maintenance on their own

50

Coomb t1_iu15c92 wrote

The vast majority of road maintenance costs are incurred by trucking, which is used to transport your goods regardless of whether you drive a car or ride a bike. A single truck passage is equivalent in terms of road damage to about 10,000 cars.

2

jlfern t1_iu12rwb wrote

And sales tax pays for a portion of the mbta. I haven't been on a train or bus in 20yrs. It is what it is. Their point is vehicles pay a specific use tax. Bicycles do not. Cyclists want more and more of the road but don't want any of the burdens of being a responsible operator on these roads. No license, no registration, no excise, no insurance, no inspection, no direct use tax.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for bike lanes. I also believe it's only fair that cyclists should contribute specifically to the creation and maintenance of these projects much in the same way as motorists.

−4

ledhead93 t1_iu15pfh wrote

The roads, bridges, oil subsidies, emergency services, health implications, etc are covered by everyone regardless of if they drive. That means cyclists and pedestrians are paying for the roads and bike lanes with their taxes. They are not directly paying for these things but given how much bike and pedestrian infrastructure costs compared to vehicle infrastructure along with all the other associated costs, they are still paying more of their fair share compared to motorists.

And the mbta helps everyone regardless of if you use it. The extra traffic, pollution, and land use changes would have a massive economic effect on the state.

16

jlfern t1_iu1nd68 wrote

We can agree to disagree but that's my point. They're not paying more than their fair share. We all pay for everything that comes out of the general. Including roads, bike lanes and the mbta. Motorists pay above and beyond that specifically for roads. Riders on the mbta pay above and beyond via fares.

Bike lanes are not a public park. Sure they may have some residual benefits to society as a whole but again, so do roads and like you pointed out, the T. Bike lanes are created for and used by one subset of the population. You'd think those people would have a vested interest in kicking in a little extra by way of a tax or registration to make the situation better.

−2

kangaroospyder t1_iu1ru1k wrote

You "agreeing to disagree" is ignoring study after study that cars are the most subsidized form of transportation, and it's not even close... You're welcome to just deny facts, but other people aren't going to do that.

7

jlfern t1_iu1w2us wrote

I'm not denying anything. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.

It's a simple concept- like it or not but modern roads were built for motorists. If we want to change that significantly (more than plastic dildos in the road) it's going to cost money (regardless of how insignificant an amount anyone thinks that might be). The folks who benefit the most should share in that burden above and beyond the average citizen.

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how this doesn't seem fair and reasonable...

1

[deleted] t1_iu2wl8m wrote

[deleted]

1

jlfern t1_iu32nvz wrote

Okay?

We all pay a lot of property tax. A little off topic but thanks for sharing.

And you absolutely should pay your excise tax for your vehicles' road use. Just like you should pay a fare when you take the train or bus. See where this is going?

This isn't some social program to help the disenfranchised. You said it yourself- you pay a lot in property taxes, you own a vehicle. Doesn't sound like you're hurting financially. I'd argue you're probably pretty typical of the average cyclist. It's a choice. You are choosing to use roads not designed for that type of traffic, demanding change and demanding everyone else foot the bill while patting yourselves on the back for all the good you're doing. That entitlement isn't winning over many average citizens of the commonwealth. If you want a plan you need a way to pay for it. And if you want others to help, you better have some skin in the game too.

But the other way might work too.

1

Extra_Masterpiece_47 t1_iu294i3 wrote

Glad you understand 🙏 I honestly heard this from a co worker that they are considering some sort of "registered operator" for bicycle riders. It obviously goes by age so 5 yr olds will not be subject. However the cost of all the bicycle use road expansion is starting to add up

2

charons-voyage t1_iu15rk3 wrote

We can barely get our RMV to function, they won’t be able to handle bike registration. It’s almost impossible to regulate. Shit, look at all the dirt bikes on our roads.

Maybe tax every bike bought in MA with extra tax earmarked for bike infrastructure idk. But I still think the amount of stress bikes put on the infrastructure is negligible. In fact, more bikes HELP drivers by getting cars off the roads.

0

stargrown t1_iu0ml6e wrote

As soon as vehicles start paying for cost of health impacts and all the other negative impacts of emissions.

18

snoogins355 t1_iu24jvd wrote

Lol, yes let's get 5 year olds dealing with the RMV...

1