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
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Why This Voter Is Not Voting For You.
These comments don’t hold water or add up.
Not everyone has to cycle for everyone to benefit from cycling.
1. Studies show that bike lanes can double cycling rates. When someone is on a bike, they are not in a car.
Fewer cars mean less traffic, less pollution, and less carbon contributing to climate change. That benefits everyone including people who drive.
Research shows that bike lanes can make a big impact on climate change. We need to address climate change now. Look at current events.
It’s too late to pause and discuss.
2. Bike lanes have been shown to *increase* safety for *all road users*, including drivers and pedestrians. A recent CHA study showed that our Cambridge bike lanes have reduced accidents.
Is this idea that we will “focus on the goals of safe streets” by hitting pause on something that has been proven to increase safety?
3. Bike lanes do *not* harm local businesses. They often increase business. NYC streets showed on 45% *increase* in retail sales after bike lanes. This has been shown again and again and again in many, many studies.
4. The concern about seniors and mobility-impaired is unwarranted. You are using them as a cudgel.
The number of disabled parking spots on Mass Ave *increased* with the bike lanes.
Many elderly people can’t drive. I don’t hear a plan for them. Dedicated bus lanes are a big benefit to seniors. I didn’t hear any proposal for that.
To sum up: You don’t have my vote.
I vote for candidates who are informed on the issues and the relevant research. I don’t vote for candidates who are ill-informed and play to people’s emotions.
I hope you won’t have the vote of anyone who wants progress towards a better world.
The bike bots have responded with more nonsense. I am a senior and cannot bike, the bike lanes have made getting around Cambridge vastly more difficult.
Joan is right, candidates should reject all pledges and other litmus tests from interest groups.
Let’s raise the level of discourse and get the facts straight.
Well said, @AvgJoe. I don’t hear one word about what this candidate will do to address any issues or challenges facing Cambridge.
All we hear is “no to bike lanes” as if that is a solution to anything. And a bunch of disinformation heard on NextDoor.
Let’s vote for candidates who have proposals for real solutions to real problems.
Don’t vote for a candidate who is running to settle grudges on NextDoor.
Unlike Avgjoe, I find Joan Pickett’s points reasonable, valid and compelling. She is not anti-bike lanes but is advocating for a more comprehensive plan, rather than the one-size-fits all. The Cycling Safety Ordinance should have been widely promoted and discussed rather than slipped through City Council while most of us were concerned with a pandemic. (Yes, I know the wheels started grinding in 2013, but the final ordinance was a 2020 product).
I could give counterpoint to each of Avejoe’s points, but for brevity choose two.
“When someone is on a bike, they are not in a car.” No, they could be on a bus or subway. I’m a sample of one, but when age caught up with me, I gave up pedaling to work and switched to the bus. I would expect many bike riders are also public transit advocates. So it’s far from one to one.
“The concern about seniors and mobility-impaired is unwarranted. You are using them as a cudgel.
“The number of disabled parking spots on Mass Ave *increased* with the bike lanes.”
Most seniors and many who have mobility issues do not qualify for disabled parking passes. That doesn’t mean they don’t have mobility issues. And buses are not the easy answer if it involves walking three four blocks in the cold, rain or heat to a bus stop and then the same at a destination, perhaps with packages in tow.
Avejoe is correct that “many elderly people can’t drive. I don’t hear a plan for them.” But that is Ms. Pickett’s point. There should have been a plan BEFORE we embarked on deconstructed the roads.
I like Joan Pickett’s tone and approach. We need more of this in City Council.
@Ben Compaine The arguments you presented don’t appear to align logically.
Parking has always been an issue, but it’s curious that concerns about parking spots for seniors only surfaced when bike lanes were introduced.
Joan Pickett asserts that we needed a plan for seniors who don’t drive before implementing bike lanes. However, the truth is, there was hardly any discussion about seniors who can’t drive before the bike lanes were introduced.
The connection between bike lanes and seniors who don’t drive seems tenuous at best. Bike lanes primarily affect drivers, not seniors without cars. Solving the issue of senior transportation should be addressed independently. It has nothing to do with bike lane implementation and street safety.
It’s disconcerting that seniors are being used as pawns in this argument. No one seemed concerned about senior transport until it was seen as a potential argument against bike lanes.
In other cities, bike lanes have significantly increased cycling rates, mainly among those who used to drive, not those who switched from mass transit to biking. Cyclists often emerge in areas where reliable mass transit options are lacking.
So yes, bike lanes do reduce traffic. And they can have a big impact on climate change.
Protected Cycle Lane Networks Can Make a Big Impact on Climate Change
https://www.itdp.org/2022/10/24/protected-cycle-lane-networks-climate-change/
Joan,
You have a voter in me. The only person/group I’ve ever heard of asking folks to sign pledges is Grover Norquist. The over the top reactions from the first two posters should be all the validation you need though. It’s the cycling ordinace’s inflexibility that’s at the heart of all the discord.
Thank you for not signing a pledge of this type. The streets are for all our needs – people with young families, people with disabilities, seniors and those who need various ways to get to work. ?And it is important that we meet the street needs of our businesses. We also prioritize adding a viable city transportation system. Finally we need to consult with other global experts who have created smart bicycling lanes that advance community needs – the Dutch among these.
Canceling bike lanes for “public safety” is like bombing for peace.
@Ben Compaine
Your comments don’t really make sense.
You said, ” I would expect many bike riders are also public transit advocates. So it’s far from one to one.”
Who said it had to be one-to-one? The point is that bike lanes reduce the number of people in cars. It doesn’t have to be one-to-one.
In fact, studies have shown that bike lanes can, in fact, reduce traffic:
When Adding Bike Lanes Actually Reduces Traffic Delays
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-05/when-adding-bike-lanes-actually-reduces-traffic-delays
People have studied the effects of bike lanes on traffic. They have found that bike lanes cause in little or no increase in traffic. What they do is give people a
What they do is give people a scapegoat for venting their anger at traffic in places where traffic was bad to begin with. They seem to forget that there was congestion before bike lanes.
What bike lanes also do is reduce accidents, preventing injuries and death. This has been proven over and over and over again.
Pickett’s, “pause-and-discuss” is a tactic used time and time again to try to kill projects.
The evidence is clear: Bike lanes do not increase traffic and make things more difficult for seniors. They do not harm businesses.
What they do do is decrease traffic, decrease pollution, and save lives.
This has all been proven many times in many places, including here in Cambridge.
The last thing Cambridge needs is another politician who ignores facts and evidence and just plays to people’s angry instincts.
There is too much of that in the world already.
I think it is crucial to post the Bike Pledge here for the readers that perhaps have not seen it. It is the Cambridge version of Oath Keepers!!
Here is the pledge:
I support rapid implementation of the citywide network of protected bicycle lanes as mandated by the Cycling Safety Ordinance.
I pledge to do everything in my power to ensure the successful implementation of the ordinance, including voting in the City Council, advocating in the public realm, and connecting stakeholders to ensure a positive outcome for all in our community. I will not vote for any proposal that weakens the ordinance or delays its timelines.
Mass Ave is the most important street in Cambridge and needs protected bike lanes as soon as possible. I will not vote for any proposal that delays protected bike lanes on Mass Ave beyond the timeline of the rest of the ordinance. This should be done in a way that supports transit, improves pedestrian safety, protects the tree canopy, and enhances the business environment.
@Ben Compaine Did you miss the bit in this op-ed where Joan Pickett explains she’s also opposed to dedicated bus lanes? “With the elimination of parking and travel lanes for installation of separated bike and bus lanes, congestion has increased.” That’s the opposite of support for buses.
In fact, the North Mass Ave buses have been a huge success for thousands of bus riders on the 77 every day. As the City points out (https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/trafficparkingandtransportation/News/2023/01/northmassavebuslanes) ”
The analysis shows that average travel time for Route 77 buses between Dudley Street and Alewife Brook Parkway significantly decreased after bus lanes were added. Bus travel times also became more consistent and predictable throughout the day. ”
But Pickett doesn’t like them…
@Itamar Turner-Trauring. Indeed. Pickett claims to be concerned about seniors but opposes dedicated bus lanes.
What hypocrisy! Reliable bus service is a huge boon to seniors and other who can’t drive.
Pickett has no plan to help seniors or anyone. She is just doesn’t like bike or bus lanes.
Saying “no” is not a plan for governance.
We need politicians who actually care about disadvantaged people, not someone who uses them as a pawn.
And we don’t need another politician who ignores facts and plays to populist anger.
Bus lanes are working for people. The dedicated bus lanes have greatly improved transit tines.
Lower-income people ride buses. Seniors who can’t drive ride buses.
Who exactly are you fighting for Joan Pickett? It is clearly not disadvantaged people.
A lot of people ride bikes and buses because they can’t afford cars. People on bikes are risking their lives to get to work.The majority of trips around Cambridge do not involve cars.
When someone says, “we need the streets to work for everyone” what they really mean is “work for a minority of privileged people”.
Thanks, anyway Joan. We already have too many politicians who are only concerned about people with privilege.
@Williard. The city has consulted with global experts about bike lanes. There is a global network of scientists who work on this topic. The Cambridge bike lanes are essential the same design as in many, many other cities.
Don’t spread disinformation.
Is there proof that bike lanes have increased traffic? Real question not rhetorical because a lot of the argument here requires that as underpinning.
As far as seniors go: https://medmartonline.com/mobility-scooters/golden-buzzaround-xlshd-scooter
AvgJoe and others- provide each name of each consultant that was brought in by the city – and the specific design recommendations they offered? Nada. One just needs to look at the way the bike lanes are laid out, jig saw fashion, and constructed (cement blocks often) to see the problems. This is easily redressed if we had competent people in charge and some forethought. Why were bike lanes and bus lanes not combined on Mass Ave? Both bikes and buses are very scarce here. Why are there so few bike riders everywhere? Why so few buses? Why are may bike riders not even using the bike lanes? Why was there not more flexibility written into the original bike lane language to enable greater flexibility by CDD to address local street variables? Studies show the most dangerous part for accidents (cars, bikes, pedestrians) are intersections and crossings – places that dense small cities such as ours have everywhere. Why does the blue bike data show large spikes in bike ridership in summer (tourist season) and deep spiking decreases in winter? It means people simply not interested in or able to use bikes here for a myriad of reasons. Many Cambridge resident and Council-supporting bike riders also own and drive cars in Cambridge. Talk about double speak. Good luck seniors hauling a big heavy bike up 3 flights of stairs or getting to doctors appointments in Westin or where ever – ditto families with children.
@cportus No, there is no proof that the bike lanes increased traffic.
In fact, this is a myth about bike lanes and it is not true. Bike lanes do not increase traffic and often decrease traffic when cycling rates increase.
A case in point: The new bike lanes on the Mass Ave (Harvard) bridge. Drivers claimed created more congestion. So, the city examined it and found that there was *no difference* in the average transit times across the bridge.
This kind of thing has played out all over the country. People claim more traffic after bike lanes but then it turns out not to be true.
It’s as if people forget that there was traffic before the bike lanes.
@cportus That is why we need candidates with proposals for real solutions to real problems.
We don’t need candidates who ignore evidence and facts and play to people’s emotions. We have too much of that already.
We don’t need hypocritical politicians who claim to be concerned about the elderly and then turn around and oppose bus lanes, which are a huge help to seniors.
We don’t need politicians who ignore the needs of the disadvantaged.
Lower-income people use buses and bikes because they can’t afford cars. Pickett thinks they should continue risking their lives traveling to work while she “hits pause” on bike and bus lanes.
We need politicians that have real solutions, that are open-minded, progressive, and are actually concerned about the disadvantaged.
We don’t need politicians whose only concern seems to be whether they can park in front of the convenience store.
Thanks for letting me know you won’t be getting my vote.
Hey Joan Pickett,
What about this:
Heat waves in US and Europe would have been ‘virtually impossible’ without climate change, new report finds
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/world/heat-wave-climate-change-us-china-europe-intl/index.html
And this:
Protected Cycle Lane Networks Can Make a Big Impact on Climate Change
https://www.itdp.org/2022/10/24/protected-cycle-lane-networks-climate-change/
We need solutions not “pause”.
Vote for candidates who offer solutions not “no”.
The majority of trips in this city are not done by car. This is just more whining from privileged motorists who for the first time in their lives have to share space on the road.
To complain about the massive improvement to Inman Square shows that the only thing this candidate cares about is cars. Cars cars cars. Not the pedestrians, shoppers, and cyclists in Inman who are far safer now.
Are the three of you finished with having fun with each other? I like Joan’s tone, logic and being brave enough for respectful discourse. Thank you for posting the Bike Pledge. It is an eye-opener involving intimidation. That is part of the problem with zealots. there is no room for discussion or even attempts to educate. bike lobbyists are loud, rude with sharp elbows. Elderly issues are real. So are self-important cyclists who ride on sidewalks, run red lights and are dangerous riders. They get hit it’s the driver’s fault. We need to license bikes as moving vehicles that can hurt or injure. You want the road, be a part of the public process.
@pete Yeah, OK. It’s the bike lane people that are the zealots.
It’s not the people who oppose any change whatsoever no matter how trivial.
It’s not the people who want to reduce the bus service that many lower-income people rely on.
It’s not the people who oppose an infrastructure change like bike lanes that have been proven to dramatically reduce accidents, including here in Cambridge.
It’s not the people who want to maintain the status quo despite all the shocking evidence of climate change.
Those people don’t have sharp elbows, the people who want to roll back and halt progress?
BTW, when you say “elderly issues”, you mean “the elderly who drive”. Because what this candidate is opposing (bus lanes) is important to many seniors and lower-income people.
@pete, Education and Discussion:
Education: There is a wealth of studies on bike and bus lanes conducted worldwide, including here in the Boston area. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the positive benefits of implementing bike and bus lanes for everyone, including drivers. Numerous urban transportation and climate scientists have reached this consensus.
It’s essential to stay informed and base our opinions on the available scientific evidence. One can easily find dozens and dozens of academic peer-reviewed studies that confirm the advantages of bike and bus lanes.
I encourage both you and Joan Pickett to educate yourselves on the subject by familiarizing yourselves with the scientific research. This will help ensure that your views align with the substantial evidence supporting the implementation of these lanes.
Discussion: Prior to the construction of the bike lanes, there were years of public discussions, surveys, and elections that indicated strong public support for such infrastructure. The decision to implement the bike lanes was made with consideration of public input and support.
It’s important to acknowledge these facts to avoid spreading disinformation about the public’s stance on bike lanes.
Pete the cycling bros need the workout. It’s kind of what they do. I’m just surprised anyone could come to the conclusion that CDD is capable of crafting an ordinance so flawless that if warrants the signing of a pledge to keep it from harm. It’s weird.
I think I detect a note of desperation in the bi-annual, gimmicky, bike lane pledge from the cyclists lobby. Note the language “rapid implementation “ “as soon as possible” reject anything that “weakens” the original plan. The “pledge” is another heavy handed tactic to try and intimidate any candidate who doesn’t support the lobby’s agenda 100 percent. No deviations permitted. No compromise accepted. If you don’t sign it, you get targeted as someone not to vote for on Election Day. Single issue, bullying tactic that has hopefully run its course.
Thank you Joan for standing up for the rest of us who, like you, are not against bike lanes, but, instead want a process and results that make sense for the majority of the population across all age groups with all our varied mobility and pedestrian needs.
You have enumerated the various, complex and inter-related infrastructure challenges Cambridge faces. That’s the kind of visionary thinking we need on the city council. What we don’t need is blind adherence to plans that were adopted under intense pressure and bullying years ago without a thought to cost or the transportation needs of the overwhelming majority of Cambridge citizens.
One final note on the cost issue which Joan points out is $50 plus million for just Mass Ave for this fiscal year. Compare $50 million for bike lanes for a privileged few- many of whom don’t live in Cambridge – to $40 million for the affordable housing trust fund. Is there something phony and wrong about a rich – supposedly liberal- city like Cambridge that is spending without debate or review $50 million for a bike lane super highway for a few that would be used at most 6 months out of the year, while allocating only $40 million for affordable housing? If that isn’t hypocrisy, I don’t know what is.
I’m supporting Joan Pickett and others who will stand up for us and not be intimidated by any single issue lobby.
Disabled and low income person here, wanting to speak for myself. Parking is necessary as an access issue. I live in East Arlington and since the changes in Cambridge, I avoid visiting it and patronizing the businesses along Mass Ave in North Cambridge, because there is simply no place to park. I used to go several times a week to the businesses, to eat, shop, etc. Now I go months without visiting. That may just be my anecdotal experience and perhaps we’re not enough to matter to others whether we can access these spaces or not, but it does mean there are issues of equity at play here.
For those who state that handicapped parking has increased in Cambridge: in Massachusetts metered and timed public spaces are available to people with handicap parking placards and plates as de facto HP parking. In other words, with my HP placard I can park for FREE at metered parking for an unlimited amount of time and at timed parking space without limit. When you get rid of dozens and dozens of those spaces but only replace with a small fraction of HP parking, you actually limit the parking options/availability for disabled people and you make us compete with other disabled people for very limited HP spots. We’re a quarter of the population and as someone pointed out many people with disabilities do not or may not have HP placards/plates but still need accessible parking. It’s clear people making comments here don’t actually speak to us disabled folks about this issue or are even vaguely familiar with our realities or struggles.
Regarding car ownership and low income people: while it’s true we’re less likely to own cars than higher income people and more likely to frequent public transit–the truth is most low income households (actually the vast majority of us) do have cars. And more importantly, low income households are more likely to NEED their cars to survive. In fact, car ownership is the single most critical factor in job stability and economic mobility for lower income households (car ownership actually makes a difference of $7,000-8,000 in our annual income). Disabled people with cars are more likely to be able to access the healthcare we need. Survivors of domestic violence are shown to thrive the most after leaving an abusive household if they have a reliable car. Many jobs available to lower income people actually require us to have our own cars. And that has been my experience as a nanny, therapeutic mentor, house cleaner, over the years.
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/many-low-income-families-cars-may-be-key-greater-opportunity
This is what I successfully argued here in Arlington to increase parking options for lower income and disabled people. Nearly everyone in my affordable housing complex owned a car and there was spillover onto the streets where they were ticketed frequently and punished for it. And I am guessing there is a working class population coming to Cambridge now being financially punished for needing parking.
Regarding climate change: as someone who is degreed in environmental science–the issue is not going to be adequately addressed by some bike lanes and that’s a distraction and deflection of the changes we really need. It’s going to take a lot more cultural changes it seems we aren’t willing to make. In the meantime, parking limitations only punish disabled and low income people trying to survive in a car dependent culture. And some studies even show that limiting parking–along with increased costs of living ushered in by building mostly high end market rate housing–push lower income people out of these transit hubs–making us more likely to need/use cars, or use cars more and up emissions (a process known as carbon gentrification).
In addition to the lack of parking, I also barely venture into Cambridge anymore because the gridlock and traffic has gotten so bad and it is likely that does indicate emissions are, ironically, increasing with that.
If people really want emissions to go down, they would expend more of their energy fighting for truly accessible and affordable public transit and more financial relief and subsidies so people don’t need travel so much by car for work in order to make rent.
The majority of the MBTA system is still inaccessible to disabled people. Its limited times and unpredictability makes it hard for those of us who can’t afford to miss work or health appts, forced to rely on our cars instead. When people concentrate their energy to fight for bike lanes before these other things are taken up, it shows me they are only thinking of able bodied people with convenient 9-5 jobs located in areas relatively accessible to their homes. They’re not thinking about or caring for those of us who can’t ride bikes, who can’t ride public transit with mask mandates down during a pandemic, or are working three jobs all over the metro area, or late night/grave yard shifts and who work outdoors all day with their bodies that would then make riding bikes home painful and dangerous.
The “bike lanes everywhere all the time based on studies in different locations with different assumptions” crowd consistently gets one thing wrong:
Removing net parking spaces reduces accessibility for disabled people. Even if you add another spot reserved for disabled people, the net reduction in spaces reduces accessibility for disabled people.
Why:
A disability placard or tag allows someone to park for any length of time without a ticket in any metered spot– not just in those handful of spots reserved for disabled people.
So when you trade any metered spot for a bike lane, you are trading accessibility by a disabled person for a bike lane for an able-bodied person.
Please don’t let their rhetoric fool you. It is clear they did not listen to the lived experience and voices of disabled people before suggesting such a single-focused approach to our shared roads.
I think bike lanes are great…and Joan just earned my vote. Too often our City Council votes with their hearts instead of their heads, failing weigh the real world costs and benefits of their votes. We’ve made great progress with bike lanes overall, but when we crush Mass Ave businesses by taking away their parking, or plague the neighborhood near Garden Street by pulling traffic from the largest road, we are making are overall situation worse, not better. We need Councillors who will think rationally and holistically, as Joan has demonstrated here
@Lakiesel
Bravo!
And as Joan Pickett said:
“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.”It’s going to be a mess.
Just look at Brattle Street from Willard to Mount Auburn. Right now it is a maze of lines and posts, perplexing to a driver during the day, and dangerous at night. There are going to be a lot of accidents on this stretch.
Additionally, when you get, as an example, a landscaping (or other) truck parked in the bike lane, those on bikes who are going East on Brattle, have to move to the right, right into oncoming traffic going West. Did anyone stop to think about this? Apparently not. How soon does a bike rider have to get hurt or killed by an oncoming car, before this city realizes that it has made a big mistake in not thinking about the consequences of bike lanes only on one side of the street.
@Williard Let’s clarify the points raised:
1. Where are the bikes?
Everywhere. City traffic counts show that bikes outnumber cars on many major streets like Hampshire St. Should our only concern be drivers?
2. Why so few buses?
There are not. Do you expect them to be numerous as cars?? A single bus can carry a significant number of passengers, making it an efficient mode of transportation. A single bus can carry 40 people. Think about how much space 40 cars would take up.
3. People don’t bike in the winter.
While some individuals may choose not to bike during winter, many people do continue cycling throughout the year. Some rely on bikes for transportation, regardless of weather conditions, especially in urban areas.
4. Why can’t the bike and bus lanes be combined?
Bike lanes are designed separately from bus lanes to enhance the safety of cyclists and segregate them from motor vehicles. Combining them compromises safety and lead to potential conflicts between cyclists and buses.
4. What you said about the bike lane design is your opinion.
A recent FHA study showed our Cambridge bike lanes reduce accidents. So, I guess they are designed well enough for that.
@Lakiesel, your analyses overlook important factors:
1. Traffic was already problematic before bike lanes, and studies disprove claims that bike lanes increase congestion.
For example, the Mass Ave bridge saw no increase in transit time after adding bike lanes.
2. As Cambridge’s population grows, traffic and parking will worsen regardless of bike lanes.
3. To reduce traffic, we must offer alternatives to driving and remove some cars from the road.
4. Bike lanes don’t mean everyone must bike; they provide options for some people to drive less.
5. Fewer cars mean more parking for disabled and low-income drivers, plus fewer accidents and injuries.
6. Bike lanes have significantly increased cycling rates in many cities, especially among former drivers.
7. Long-term benefits outweigh minor inconveniences like parking spot changes.
8. Reducing cars benefits everyone, including drivers, and research backs this up. Urban planners agree on the need to decrease car usage due to increasing populations.
Ignoring the issue won’t solve the growing competition for parking spots. We must find solutions.
Perhaps one day you car people will realize your rage at a some space being taken away to help others is how every cyclist and bus rider has felt for the past several decades, but I don’t hold out much hope.
I also await the day that a single “I support bike lanes but” person proposes an actual solution.
God forbid we think about the children and teenagers who can safely get around the city now.
Or even the much maligned college students.
Believe it or not but the awful “young and fit” people do maligned in this comments section deserve the public space just as much as you people do. Wow.
“The goal of that lawsuit was not to remove all separated bike lanes.”
Fact check: Outright Lie
Maybe the candidate forgets that the text of the lawsuit is a matter of public record?
From the lawsuit: “Cambridge Streets for All, et al. respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter the following relief:… That, after hearing, this Honorable Court enter a preliminary injunction directing the Defendant City of Cambridge, its officials, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and contractors, and all those persons acting in concert with them, to remove the constructed separated bike lanes.”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23706216-cambridge-streets-for-all-lawsuit-june-10-2022
In her letter, Joan Pickett says “The goal of that lawsuit was not to remove all separated bike lanes…”
The court decision dismissing the motion for an injunction to remove the bike lanes, explaining the reasons for the dismissal, and listing Joan Pickett as a plaintiff, is available here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22077340/070122-injunction-decisions.pdf
@cambridgeresident. Well put. Drivers are in the minority in Cambridge. Yet they complain bitterly about even a hint of difficulty for them, even if it means saving lives.
Ok, anti-bike/bus lane people:
There will be more and more cars on the road every year.
What is your plan to reduce increasing congestion and to protect parking spots from more competition?
you guys are exhausting. And the pledge is down right fascist. Not allowing for new information or situations, or circumstances. It is a targeted absolute which doesn’t allow a good councilor any room for responsible deliberation. It is a threat and intimidation. The one thing I respect about Joan is her tone and willingness to discuss. The process of how lanes got rammed through without community outreach is the real issue. And yes… Zealots. just read this page.
@ FrankD and others
You said: “Drivers are in the minority in Cambridge.”
We all want bicycle safety. I ride and I want to ride safely.
And we realize that the bicycle lobby is strong.
However, would all of you stop with the fiction that drivers are a minority in Cambridge. It is not true and it’s beneath you to continue to say that it is true. Just open you eyes. So… just stop with that fiction. You’re hurting our cause.
And again, the way the bike lanes have been set up, there are going to be numerous accidents and probably deaths. Just take a look at the unbelievably poor setup on Mt. Auburn.
@concerned43, many people are shocked to learn this, but when you actually poll real customers who are shopping /dining at our businesses, only a minority arrive by car. Customers predominantly arrive by transit, foot, and bike:
https://www.cambridgebikesafety.org/2021/09/22/bike-lanes-and-local-business-the-economic-impact/
These are business intercept studies run by our economic development division in collaboration with our business associations. Over many, many iterations (starting well before the bike lane ordinance), across our many business districts, there have been the same repeated findings.
Susan Sheng covered a broader version of this same data here as well: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/08/29/bike-lanes-and-safer-streets-benefit-everyone-including-businesses/
@concerned43 Sorry. Wrong on both counts.
1. Drivers are in the minority in Cambridge.
@Chris Cassa posted links proving this.
2. The bike lanes are not causing accidents.
There was a recent Federal Highway Administration study that included our Cambridge bike lanes. It showed a *reduction* in accidents. A reduction in accidents means fewer injuries and death.
So, what we have here is a minority of people making demands and campaigning against something that will save lives and prevent injuries to others.
@Scott Brightly and @James Zall
So, Joan Pickett is lying when she claims that the lawsuit did not seek the removal of bike lanes?
She is just starting her campaign and she is already lying? We need less, not more mendacity in politics.
Joan Pickett’s comment on Inman Square reveals her hand.
The Inman Square redesign has been a huge help to pedestrians. It is much easier to cross and much, much safer.
Inman Square was a notorious accident site. It had a disproportionate number of pedestrian (and car) accidents.
The redesign has greatly improved safety and improved traffic flow. It is a big success.
If Joan Pickett thinks the Inman Square redesign was a mistake, it is clear that she only cares about one thing: cars cars cars cars.
We do NOT need city council members who are one-trick ponies of road rage.
We need politicians who are up to the challenges facing Cambridge. We do not someone who is running to settle a score with cyclists.
After talking with Joan directly I’m more convinced than ever she is exactly what the council and this city needs.
@PatrickWBarrett. Well, why didn’t you say so? Good enough for me. I take back all my concerns that Pickett wants to roll back progress, that she makes claims that are nonfactual, and that has no plan or vision other than cars cars cars cars.
I’m glad we have someone running who is willing to remind us all that our civil processes need to have standards, and that it is disastrous when those civil processes are circumvented to appease the vocal and ignorant.
I look forward to learning more about your whole platform, if your CSO stance is any measure, you have my vote.
It’s a shame partisans of bike lanes were quick to adopt ad hominem tactics, I would certainly have used bike lanes given that they were safe and effective for _all_ parties.
Oh, also, I withdraw my concern that she is already lying (about the lawsuit she was involved). Or that she claims to be concerned about seniors but is opposed to improvements in bus service that benefits them.
It’s a little early in the campaign to already be discovering mendacity, don’t you think?
Cars cars cars cars – that’s the solution to the challenges facing Cambridge
@FrankD I have a question for you. What are your thoughts on the publically-available police crash report data showing more bicycle accidents on the same streets implemented with bike lanes than before said lanes were implemented?