Why this candidate for Cambridge City Council won’t sign the bike lane pledge
It is election season, and Cambridge Bicycle Safety will soon be asking City Council candidates to sign its 2023 pledge to continue uninterrupted installation of separated bike lanes, especially along Massachusetts Avenue. It will come as no surprise to many that I will not be signing.
Separated bike lanes are only one part the city’s complex transportation discussion, which should not be viewed as a stand-alone issue. To do so ignores Cambridge’s many other vital transportation needs, including public safety, delivery access, curb accessibility for seniors and the mobility-impaired, as well as resident parking, parking for businesses, mass transit and safe pedestrian access. The unglamorous needs of the city itself for snow removal, trash removal, street repairs and paving and underground utility work all need to be accomplished on the same streets.
If you have driven in Cambridge recently, you know we have a transportation problem, and short-term it is not solvable by more people cycling. Some people cannot ride a bike. Many people have already reduced vehicle trips. Even cyclists use their cars occasionally. Reliable bus service would help reduce congestion, and without it people will still resort to driving.
Somehow, we lost track of the fact that well-functioning streets are an important feature of a well-functioning city. With the elimination of parking and travel lanes for installation of separated bike and bus lanes, congestion has increased. The goal of reducing greenhouse gases by promoting more cycling activity has instead increased the number of idling vehicles and lengthened travel times. Motorists take alternate routes through residential neighborhoods to avoid clogged traffic on major thoroughfares. It is unclear if the streets are any safer for cyclists or anyone else. On the redesigned Cambridge Street in Inman Square, buses and delivery vehicles can’t pull over, and stop in the middle of the travel lane – backing up traffic almost to Prospect Street. Fire vehicles and ambulances are having a tough time getting through traffic. These are the byproducts of a City Council approach to policy that focused on one issue to the exclusion of other important transportation needs.
As you may know, for the past several years, I, along with many others from Cambridge Streets for All and Save Mass Ave, have been raising these issues and realities, only to be rebuffed by a majority of the City Council. The council’s refusal to have a meaningful discussion about modifications to the Cycling Safety Ordinance led Cambridge Streets for All and a group of plaintiffs to sue the city. Residents were denied due process by the city to have a formal hearing with the Traffic Board over street changes created by separated bike lanes. Lack of upfront impact assessments, community input and flexibility of design and timetable were included. The goal of that lawsuit was not to remove all separated bike lanes, but rather to cause the City Council to convene a belated community discussion, to show flexibility in implementation and design based on location and to develop mitigation approaches. This never happened.
We need clear-headed thinking about our city streets. I believe we need to do a full assessment of the bike lane installations and undertake a thoughtful, comprehensive transportation planning process, especially for Massachusetts Avenue. Robust data collection and analysis of street activity and use, input from stakeholders and engineering and design assistance that consider the multiple uses and users of our streets should be part of the process.
Separated bike lanes have fueled deep division within Cambridge. We can start to mend our civic relationships by hitting the pause button on further installations and undertaking a process that will focus on the goals of safe and efficiently functioning streets. And that is why I will not sign the CBS pledge.
Joan Pickett, candidate for Cambridge City Council
@FrankD and Chris Casa.
I was trained as an actuary.
When I see studies like the two links showed, I cringe that people are using these to support their opinions.
And, as far as bike lanes not causing accidents, very unfortunately, it is only a matter of time.
The green poles dividing the bike lanes are already being knocked down. And… having one bike lane, with bikers going both ways, and vehicles parked in the lanes, is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
And Frank, please stop with your assertions that drivers are in the minority in Cambridge. Just open your eyes.
I’m a biker. I want bike safety. What is being done is not the correct way to provide it. I know that the bike lobby is very powerful in Cambridge, but the way it is going about trying to achieve its aims is, in my mind, wrong.
@concerned43, I’ll be glad to discuss this more, as I always enjoy doing.
Could you articulate what makes you cringe about seeing the economic development business intercept study data? The studies date back to 2010 (many squares have repeated studies/data). The first major bike lanes in Cambridge were made after half of these business intercept studies were conducted. Do you think there’s some vast conspiracy of shoppers to mislead the economic development department about how they traveled to a business?
Anyway, obviously this is a completely different question than ‘the minority of people are drivers’ – this is ‘the minority of people shopping or dining in our business districts are drivers’. Can you provide any data to support a different position?
Finally, I appreciate that you are a cyclist, but I have not seen you articulate what you would like to see or advocate for anything. So it’s easy to point fingers to say ‘this isn’t good enough’ but if you aren’t advocating for _something_, it’s not really helpful. What’s your preferred solution to provide protected bike infrastructure on Mass Ave north of Harvard Square? How about Hampshire (where cyclists outnumber cars two-to-one during rush hour)?
If I recall, you promised to get back to me after reviewing the Bluebikes data we discussed extensively in a prior thread. Did you manage to check it out? You’d asserted that the data showing over 1.7 million trips starting or ending in Cambridge in 2022 was incorrect, and told me that I was mistaken in interpreting it. I’m still ready for the tea and scone, and frankly it would be my treat to learn more about your ideas for how to implement data-backed safe bike lanes in a timely fashion.
Separately, here’s the Federal Highway Administration data showing that flex post protected bike lanes have a crash modification factor of ~0.5 (using data from Cambridge):
https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-025.pdf
@AdamL, the Federal Highway Administration conducted a well designed study that evaluated many different types of bike lane styles. This was a study conducted by professional transportation analysts (as opposed to a layperson who sued Cambridge to remove the bike lanes). They actually used data from Cambridge (along with four other cities.) They showed that that flex post protected bike lanes (like the quick-build ones we use here) have a crash modification factor of ~0.5 (Table 2):
https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-025.pdf
Which study do you believe more, and why?
@AdamL Bike lanes are not causing more bike accidents. You are repeating disinformation.
A recent Federal Highway Administration study showed that the Cambridge bike lanes *reduced* accidents. Reduced.
You are repeating nonsense from a bogus study that failed to take into account an increase in cycling rate on streets with bike lanes. If people use one street more than another, there will more more accidents on that street. That is the kind of mistake amateurs make when they look at data and don’t know what they are doing.
In fact, the Cambridge bike lanes have *reduced* the accident *rate*. That’s what the FHA study conclusively showed. That study was done by actual scientists who have actual expertise.
Don’t spread disinformation.
@concerned43 You may have been trained as an actuary, but you have not been trained in finding actual facts.
Fact: drivers are a minority in Cambridge.
According to city traffic counts, the number of cyclists on Hampshire street *outnumber* drivers.
These articles report surveys that show that 2/3rs of the trips around Cambridge are NOT in cars:
https://www.cambridgebikesafety.org/2021/09/22/bike-lanes-and-local-business-the-economic-impact/
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/08/29/bike-lanes-and-safer-streets-benefit-everyone-including-businesses/
Last I checked, 1/3 is, in fact, a minority.
Fact: The Cambridge bike lanes have *reduced* accidents not increased them.
A recent Federal Highway Administration study of our Cambridge bike lanes showed a significant *reduction* in accidents.
This is consistent with dozens and dozens of studies over many years in many places. They all show that bike lanes (just like the ones we have here), reduce accidents by 50% or more.
I guess being trained as an actuary doesn’t train people to look up actual facts. Doesn’t it train people to make stuff up without doing any research?
concerned43. In short, ou think the bike lobby is wrong because you have your facts wrong.
Drivers are in a minority and our bike lanes have reduced not increased accidents.
There are facts. You just have to look for them. No reason to make up false claims.
That powerful bike lobby throwing around millions of dollars, right? Sound ridiculous when you say it out loud.
As opposed to the petroleum and car industries convincing you that cars are “freedom”? Who have systematically dismantled mass transit systems to sell you more cars.
See, unlike what you said, that actually happened.
Joan Pickett says Inman Square was a mistake? There were 70 accidents in Inman Square in the years leading up to the redesign. Way higher accident rate than the average.
The redesign also improved the storm drains to reduce flooding.
The city reports a lot of positive feedback on the redesign.
We need candidates who think through issues and addresses the challenges facing our city.
We don’t need someone who blindly lashes out at progress because cars cars cars cars are all that matters
@concerned43 You were trained as an actuary. Actuaries deal with numbers.
Your answer to how many cars vs bikes is “open your eyes”. Open your eyes is not a number.
The city’s own records show more cyclists than drivers on busy streets. Those are actual numbers and thus reality.
I didn’t know actuary training included ignoring numbers and just guessing at things.
Likewise, studies show that bike lanes prevent accidents. “Time will tell” is your speculation and it is not based on any data or evidence.
I thought actuaries made predictions based on numbers and data. I didn’t know that they make guesses based on nothing.
Here is the first thing I said.
“When I see studies like the two links showed, I cringe that people are using these to support their opinions.”
Look closely at the studies. Would you say that the stats are robust?
You said: “The city’s own records show more cyclists than drivers on busy streets. Those are actual numbers and thus reality.”
The city’s own records? Busy streets (what does that mean)? I’ll tell you what. Stand outside City Hall for two hours between 10 and noon. Tell me how many cars pass, in both directions, and how many bikes pass. Then stand on Mass Ave, by Porter Square and do the same thing.
Look, this city can’t get a lot of things right even though it spends a lot of money trying to do so.
As I’ve said, I’m a biker and I want to be able to bike safely. I realize the bike lobby is strong. However, what is being done is going to lead to lots of accidents.
And let me know what you think about one bike lane, with bikes going in both directions, and cars or landscape (or other trucks) parked in the lane. Wake up guys before this “bike lanes everywhere”, whether they be safe or not, come back to haunt you.
And do look at those stats in the two links. If you find them robust, then we’ll never agree on anything.
@concerned43 You don’t have *any* stats for your claim that drivers are the majority. No stats are the least robust thing ever. I cringe when people make claims with no data whatsoever.
City traffic counts (not the surveys in those studies, actual traffic counts) show that on Hampshire St, cyclists *outnumber* drivers.
They did just what you suggested. They counted cars and counted bikes. There were more bikes. It’s not rocket science.
Nearly 37% of households in Cambridge don’t own a car. Note: households. That means the number of *people* without a car is higher.
In 2018, only 25.87% of Cambridge residents drove alone to work.
25.56% took mass transit.
27.60% walked to work.
Driving rates have been steadily decreasing for a number of years so the percentage of drivers is lower now.
So, you see, @concerned43 there is actual data out there. Wake up to facts.
And you say the city always gets things wrong.
Pick and choose. We all do that.
“City traffic counts (not the surveys in those studies, actual traffic counts) show that on Hampshire St, cyclists *outnumber* drivers.”
Yes, on Hampshire St. What about Mt. Auburn, Mass Ave, Kirkland, Beacon?
Whatever. We’ll be back here in two years to see what the stats are. By that time, the city will realize that it is in financial trouble, and will regret spending so much money on things like Mass Ave.
@concerned43 “Pick and choose”? Choose to ignore evidence?
It’s essential to consider evidence when making claims. Ignoring evidence and inventing information without factual basis is not a valid approach. If you’re asserting something, it’s crucial to provide supporting statistics to back up your statement. So, where are the stats that support what you say?
As for the other streets, the stats I posted clearly show that drivers are a minority in Cambridge in general.
I wish the city would do something about bikes going thru red lights, when pedestrians have the walk sign (just stand by the central sq post office), ride on sidewalks, ride the wrong way. They need licenses, and tickets. Not to mention scooters, skate boards, electric bikes. Riding down the middle of the street. Bikes need to follow the rules, why does the city not care?
@pmadey. I wish the city would do something about drivers running red lights, rolling through stop signs, turning without looking for pedestrians, using their phones when they drive, speeding, ignoring crosswalks, etc.
Cars are hurting and killing pedestrians, not bikes.
@pmadey. Cars cause >90% of pedestrian injuries, not bikes. If the city needs to address a safety issue, they should address the far bigger problem: Cars.
Joan is correct and I will work against any candidate promoting this sh– show. Whomever hired these urban bicycle planners should be fired.
This is completely full of nonsense as is much of this discussion so I will only respond to one thing. “I believe we need to do a full assessment of the bike lane installations” The FHA just did this and found that they improved safety for all road users, and made recommendations for how to improve safety of bike lanes based off of this. They suggest going further if anything, not a pause.
Ok one more thing ridiculous enough to respond to and not addressed by someone else “And the pledge is down right fascist.” you should not cheapen fascism with such comparisons. Pledging you will follow through on necessary infrastructure improvements isn’t fascism.
I do have two relevant historical anecdotes here though: Germany had installed separated bike lanes prior to the nazis taking power but the nazis wanted bicyclists off of streets and banned cycling groups and took out the lanes. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2009/jul/26/cycling-around-the-world-dali-nazis
When the nazis occupied the Netherlands they also were enraged by dutch cycling habits “Transportation historian Carlton Reid describes what happened in 1940s Holland (emphasis mine):
“’Dutch cyclists were used to ruling the road, and they continued to ride in front of motor vehicles, even though the motor vehicles now contained Nazi soldiers. This came to a head in the year after the invasion, with cyclists ordered to keep their hands on their handlebars at all times, not to ride two-abreast, and to cede priority to motorists at junctions.’
“(These new rules, along with German confiscations of people’s bikes, did not sit well with the Dutch, though they had little choice in the matter.)”
Source: https://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2023/07/minneapolis-park-patrol-enforce-antiquated-parkway-cyclist-rule-get-in-single-file/
The nazis also famously confiscated most bicycles in the Netherlands, and Denmark (the order was to confiscate all of them)