Cambridge city councillor Joan Pickett is being mourned by family, friends and co-workers after a short period in hospice and her death Friday.
Pickett, 69, was known to be ill in recent months and was hospitalized over the summer, and she missed the City Council’s special summer meeting Aug. 5 and committee hearings because of the illness, said friends and co-workers on Saturday.
“I’m in shock,” said John Pitkin, who knew Pickett for more than 20 years through work on the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association and later on legal efforts against bike lane installation citywide. “She was a neighbor and a friend. I’m just trying to process it.”
Pickett was a resident of Mid-Cambridge for more than a quarter-century, a New Hampshire native who attended Boston College for a biology degree and then went into finance with an additional degrees from Columbia University in New York City. It was there she worked in commercial lending and municipal bond finance at the Standard & Poor’s bond rating agency, according to her city biography.
Pickett returned to Massachusetts in 1997, where she used her Columbia degree’s focus on public health in strategic planning and business development for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. She became a member and then 10-year president of the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association, Pitkin said. She also served on the Charles River Conservancy as board and finance committee chair, and she was a founding board member of Caring Canines Pet Therapy.
During last fall’s campaign for City Council, she was asked to name her favorite spot in Cambridge: “Joan Lorentz Park,” she said, referring to the front lawn of the Cambridge Main Library in Mid-Cambridge and a part of the city she had a hand in shaping with her work in the community. “It is a beautiful neighborhood and civic green space.” The longtime home of Pickett and husband Adane Dessie – and two rescue pups, Pippi and Bo – is on Ellery Street, which forms the park’s border to the east.
She also named the pet project she would like to see from the city’s participatory budgeting process: “I’d like to use funds to install benches at all bus stops so seniors, persons with disabilities and everyone else can be comfortable while waiting for a bus.”
Work on the council
Her candidacy for the council grew out of her concern around bike lanes, she said during election forums. She argued that the public and business owners had been left out of too much of their implementation, and that as a councillor she could apply that perspective of broader involvement as well as her financial skills. Mayor E. Denise Simmons put the first-term councillor at the head of the Finance Committee with Patty Nolan and Transportation and Public Utilities with Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler.
Though conflicts over transportation infrastructure have been hard-fought in Cambridge, bike advocate Chris Cassa spoke Saturday with warmth. “Joan’s contributions to Cambridge, especially her work on Joan Lorentz Park, have had a lasting positive impact on our community. While we didn’t always agree, I appreciated her genuine care for our city and the warmth she brought to her work,” Cassa said.
A call for remembrances was sent Saturday to councillors. Nolan, who worked side by side with Pickett during an intense budgeting process – and not too long ago had been collaborating with her to set up hearings for the fall on capital and budget issues – said she was “deeply sad and will miss working with Joan” personally and professionally.
Nolan was impressed by Pickett’s ability to “look at decisions affecting a whole organization, which is especially important now that the city is coming to the end of a period in which we are able to say yes to everything. I was very grateful for how savvy she was in approaching that kind of fiscal environment and her willingness to dig in on issues and ask for the data. Joan was willing to take a look and [make an effort] to fully understand an issue before a vote.”
Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui also responded Saturday, and like other councillors offered condolences to Pickett’s family and loved ones. “I am so saddened to hear about Joan’s passing. She was such a warm colleague. I enjoyed getting to know her and witnessing her dedication to the community,” Siddiqui said.
“I was sad and surprised when I heard of Joan’s passing,” vice mayor Marc McGovern said, recalling an acquaintance that began more than 20 years ago. “We got to know each other better this year, and I’ll miss sharing candy with her during meetings. Joan was always able to have respectful conversations, even if there was disagreement. Her passing is a loss to the council.”
Ayesha Wilson, who joined the council at the same time as Pickett, said the body had lost “a kind heart and capable mind.”
“I’m so grateful that I was able to meet Joan this past year, and got to experience such a genuine and wise friend,” Wilson said. “I’ll be missing her, and keeping her loved ones in my prayers, for some time.”
Pickett’s time in City Hall lasted just eight months, starting from her inauguration Jan. 1.
Announcement expected
An announcement of Pickett’s death was expected Tuesday, according to City Hall staff, but a brief note appeared Saturday atop Robert Winters’ Cambridge Civic Journal site: “Joan was a good friend and neighbor and I will miss her greatly.”
Pickett’s legislative aide, Erika-Leigh Pereira, said Saturday that a statement from the Pickett family was expected soon.
In a statement to the city website, Simmons said the family appreciated “everyone’s thoughts and well wishes at this difficult time, and news of a memorial service shall be made available to the public in the days to come.
Though the council has been in a two-month summer lull, with August especially slow in terms of meetings, it returns to its weekly schedule of Monday meetings Sept. 9. Traditionally, a remembrance will lead off that meeting; it was unknown Saturday whether there would be a separate municipal ceremony, which would be decided by family.
It will be a busy week for the Election Commission: Primary voting is Tuesday, with the commission’s count starting at 8:30 p.m. and a count of provisional ballots planned for Wednesday. Staff will then have to rerun the Nov. 7 election to see who will take the ninth seat in Sullivan Chamber. “When there is news as to the mechanics of determining who shall fill this vacancy on the council, and as to a timeline of that process, we shall work to get this information to the public as quickly and as thoughtfully as possible,” Simmons said.
A rerun of the November election by independent journalist John Hawkinson in January using the same software as the city showed Cathie Zusy taking the seat.
Contacted Saturday, Zusy said she was not prepared to speak about anything but her feelings for Pickett, with whom she shared time in civic life and on the campaign trail in the fall.
“I just feel incredibly sad. I had the highest regard for Joan Pickett. She was a dynamo. She came out of retirement to do what she felt was her civic duty, and we need to honor her and her extraordinary service,” Zusy said.
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.
I object to the phrase “ on legal efforts to rein in bike lane installation citywide”. Does the writer ever write “rein in traffic light installation”? Or has ever written “rein in car brakes and seat belts”? Why does being safe when moving around in our city need to be “reined in”?
So can we force a new vote on bike lanes once Zusy takes over?
There are plenty of other places for arguing about bike lanes, on Cambridge Day and elsewhere. Can we try not to get into it here though?
Let’s follow Chris Cassa’s good example here.
– an avid bike lane supporter
I see I can count on CambridgeDay commenters to keep it classy during a time of mourning. Very mature.
It astounds me how some on the extreme refuse to acknowledge everyone wants the same thing, safe bike infrastructure.
The only difference is that one side wants the City to expedite the process no matter the CSO’s flaws and only listen to their loud, narrow slice of the constituency. The other side recognizes those flaws in the CSO and wants the City to listen to the entire Cambridge constituency and do a thorough job that won’t waste millions of taxpayer dollars and fail to meaningfully improve infrastructure safety and efficiency.
Rather than being disrespectful during this time of mourning, let’s indeed follow Chris Cassa’s example and be respectful to each other, and lets not try to fuel political division when there doesn’t need to be any in the first place. And lets get back to work
Such a terrible news. I only talked with Joan once, when I knocked on her door while canvassing, and had a very pleasant conversation with her. Even though we disagreed on things, she listened and genuinely wanted to understand my perspective. May her memory be a blessing.
For anyone who’s looking for supports more bike lanes in Cambridge and less cars, I suggest voting for Evan MacKay for state rep in Tuesday’s election. Marjorie Decker will continue the status quo of lies and deception to keep bikes off the road.
I am amazed how those single-issue die hards find opportunity to push agendas on a site mourning the loss of a impressive, involved, compassionate and thoughtful councilor who didn’t have a chance to really make her mark. with her professional experience, Joan was smart and saw the bigger picture on a number of the most crucial issues. she wanted to make a difference to ALL people, not just the ones who voted for her. She was genuinely interested in understanding what was happening in neighborhoods and commissions. She was willing to “reach across the isle” with genuine respect and discussion and made people feel noticed. Several times, she tended to be the grown-up in the room suggesting how to proceed, asking the hard questions respectfully while being a problem-solver. she was kind, had integrity, no hidden agendas and was willing to listen and learn which is more than I can say for some councilors. The city is at a loss with this loss. We are all at a loss, even if you disagreed with her. If anything, you could always learn something from such an experienced professional, citizen and friend. too bad those who sent her hate mail, threatened her for her positions, and exercised uncivil behavior towards her aren’t mature enough to recognize a nice and talented, engaged human being.
I knew Joan but got to know her in her capacity as head of Mid Cambridge Neighborhood association when I was working on the project that is now my home in mid-Cambridge. Joan was an impressive and joyful leader and a bright spot during a long process. She went on awesome person list and we became neighborhood friends. She was not someone who had political ambitions. She was the person that gets no credit doing crime watch and being just a precious neighborhood resource. Her professional back-round made her an example of a city councillor who took the delivery of city services and fiscal decisions as her fiduciary duty. She was destined to carve out a seat for a no nonsense hard working councillor. When Asked I would say just a very nice genuine super smart neighbor who happens to be running. Seniors need people like Joan and she will be missed. The whole city loses. She called me a couple months ago to talk about the danehy park renovations. She simply cared. RIP and my deepest sympathy to her husband and family.
I will miss Joan very much. Besides her ability to speak kindly and listen to everyone, I will especially miss the opportunity we have lost to have the perspective of someone who understands municipal finance, including how ratings agencies evaluation a city’s fiscal health, so that we can rationally analyze what we can do with the resources we have and how it will affect what we say we care about. So many of our conflicts arise from different views of which goals are compatible with each other and which are not and how they interact. I think Joan’s ability to listen and to bring her years of experience and her professional expertise to bear on these questions could really have made a difference.
I would also like to commend whoever chose the picture that accompanied the Mayor’s announcement. That is how I would like to remember Joan, with a beautiful smile, a sense of humor, and kind, wise eyes.
Sad for her passing.
The last time I saw her was at the memorial for the two cyclists killed by truck drivers, one at a dangerous incomplete intersection where safety improvements are still not fully implemented.
I’m glad Ms Pickett was there, but it was disheartening to be reminded of her crusade against people riding bicycles.
Very sad news. My condolences to Joan’s family and friends.
@Pete You criticize “single-issue die-hards,” but Joan was exactly that. She was a councilor focused on opposing bike lanes.
@AdamL Your claim that she wanted to “fix flaws” with the CSO is baseless. There are no flaws with the bike lanes—they have proven to reduce accidents by 50%. There is ZERO evidence that they have harmed businesses or anyone else.
It’s disheartening to see someone oppose something that benefits people by reducing pollution, greenhouse gases, and saving lives, while causing no harm other than minor inconvenience to a vocal minority.
Very sad news. My condolences to her loved ones.
She seems to have been pleasant in person.
However, let’s remember that Cambridge Streets For All distributed misleading propaganda, including flawed studies claiming bike lanes increased accidents. Real research shows that bike lanes actually reduce accidents.
Is this how one “reaches across the aisle” and addresses issues? It seems unfair to put others at risk for a marginal improvement in parking convenience.
I am grateful to have known her and had so many conversations with someone so completely committed to Cambridge. Even in poor health she won a hard earned seat and took on one of the most stressful jobs in the City. Joan was a really nice and thoughtful woman and that is how we should remember her.
“It astounds me how some on the extreme refuse to acknowledge everyone wants the same thing, safe bike infrastructure.”
This is a lie. A group of people, including the person being memorialized here literally sued the city to block all bike lanes and remove all existing ones. That is what they sought to demand from the city legally, it is a matter of public record. It is hard to take seriously calls to respect the dead coming from people actively misrepresenting their legacy to paint them in a better life. Telling the truth about someone is still necessary after they are dead. Creating convenient but baseless myths to bolster their legacy is still wrong.
She actively fought to maintain dangerous roadways, and to prevent safe infrastructure from being implemented. She did not reverse this position after people died, was that respecting the dead?
@slaw +100. Because of her efforts, people will be hurt, or worse, in accidents that could have been prevented. And for what? To protect some parking spots?
I don’t call that “kind” or “nice”.
Her opposition to affordable housing and the AHO was not kind either.
This is very sad news. I was late in getting to know Joan. I am grateful I got the chance to do so. She was a great example of civic mindedness. Friendly, curious, intelligent. Big shoes to fill. My condolences to her family and friends.
@AdamL Your account is a distorted version of reality. Surveys consistently show broad support for bike lanes in Cambridge. At the last city council meeting, nearly all public comments favored bike lanes. Emails to the council were 2 to 1 in support, and elections have also demonstrated strong backing.
The “loud, narrow slice of the constituency” you mention represents a minority of drivers and business owners who donate to council members. They are the vocal minority who subverted the will of the people, without any evidence that bike lanes harm businesses.
Their actions also defy common sense. Our streets are dangerous and desperately need improvements. Opposing infrastructure that enhances safety and addresses climate change is short-sighted and selfish. Doing so for parking convenience is callous.
I sympathize with Joan’s loved ones—this is tragic. But we shouldn’t ignore what she stood for: selfish self-interest and a ruthless approach to getting her way. She sued to have life-saving infrastructure removed, not to slow down and take a measured approach. Her organization, Cambridge Streets For All, was willing to fabricate lies to achieve its goals.
A terrific person, both as a champion for Cambridge and a model for personal strength. We first met when she was canvasing for her seat and was determined to walk up the steps to me house despite her severe arthritis. She spent 10 minutes, that felt like 30 for both of us, on 5 or 6 steps, with me pleading with her the whole time to just have a seat, stop, rest. She never made it to the top of the steps, but never conceded to her knees and only barely to my fumbling manners. Inner fortitude that refuses to give in to our too human limitations is the best kind
Those posting smear comments about Joan should be ashamed, as should Cambridge Day for publishing them. People who constantly denigrate others for (allegedly) not caring about *saving lives* aren’t themselves the champions for lives or safety that they imagine themselves to be. The consistent unwillingness to entertain any point of view that deviates from their own, or to show respect for anyone not subscribing to their narrow, pompous ideology, speaks volumes about their lack of character and integrity.
@AllisS Yes, thank you for cutting to the chase on this matter. Those cutting remarks and cruel comments are completely inappropriate and come from the same folks who harassed, trolled and threatened an elected city councillor who was working to find compromises and fairness for all residents, including elders – not just for these unencumbered idealists. Joan stood up for many of us and I appreciate that she came out of retirement to speak up and try to better our neighborhoods as she always had. I hope that Cathy Zusy will carry this spirit forward to uplift all, not just the loudest and most demanding factions.
I spoke only the truth. She did not seek compromise she sought to impose her will by blocking street safety improvements and she did so consistently and at every opportunity with every means at her disposal. That is her legacy as the crimson acknowledged: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/9/1/councilor-joan-pickett-dies/
Claiming she supported safe bike lanes is contradicted by everything she actually did and I don’t think lying about someone is acceptable because they are dead. Nor is speaking the truth a “smear,” “cutting,” or “Cruel” the people who use the opprotunity of someone’s death to attempt to silence all criticism and white wash a legacy of obstruction and opposition to necessary improvements to keep people alive, and which unfortunately are still being paid for in blood. That is just as much failing to “show respect for anyone not subscribing to their narrow, pompous ideology” as pointing out that she actually did not seek safe bike infrastructure she sought to remove all of it, she did not seek compromise she sought to delay obstruct and remove, and she was not driven by data she consistently misrepresented the data about both the safety improvements of bike lanes and their impact on businesses. This isn’t a monarchy, our representatives should not be free from criticism, for the ways they actively harm people, even posthumously.
It is disrespectful to the people harmed, including killed, by the decisions of politicians to render those decisions beyond criticism. It is even more disrespectful to those people to outright lie about those decisions. But to the same people who see no issue with that or a politician prioritizing their convince or the (misguided idea about the) profits of their friends over constituents lives see saying the truth about what she actually did in response to blatant Im misrepresentation is unacceptable. It does speak volumes. Who is granted full humanity? Who isn’t?
@Slaw Ever stop to consider that people “prioritizing their convince” (sic)—e.g., seniors, disabled, pedestrians—may have legitimate needs that have been adversely impacted by the infrastructure “improvements”? Or do only cyclists’ needs and wishes count anymore?
I am not going to get into this debate here. I am only refuting lies about our political representatives.
That being said all the groups you mentioned also bike and benefit from safer bike infrastructure. Equating the interests of any of those groups with parking in general is baseless and tokenizing. Safe biking infrastructure also makes it safer for all those groups, and the idea that there is any real adverse impact of bike lanes on these groups is highly suspect.
Pickett said she got into the race “to make a difference in the way the city engages with its residents and businesses, and to ensure persons of all ages, races, abilities, and income are considered in policy decisions.”
“I look forward to bringing data, analysis and fiscal discipline to our decision making and I am ready and excited to get to work to achieve these goals,” she wrote.
Bikes are not the only issues facing Cambridge. All or nothing continues to be the mode of operandi in the city. chill out. I hope there will be some measure of respect for Joan in council to come unless those lobby leaders are snickering behind closed doors. we need more civic engagement.
I feel this is very much the wrong place for political arguments about bike lanes or anything else.
@Ron Newman you are absolutely right. I’m sorry I took the bait and engaged in it.
Joan was intelligent, well-informed, confident but down-to-earth, friendly, and concerned about issues in Cambridge that promoted the quality of life we all strive for. She was a leader who inspired others, at least she did me. I met Joan back when she was leading the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association and our paths crossed often since then. Joan’s garden is beautiful and tranquil. Since 2016 I have been helping her care for her garden and add more colorful plantings. Joan loved her garden and playing with her two cute dogs on the spacious lawn. But most of all, Joan loved Cambridge and worked to make it better for all of us. I will miss her.
@pete Joan *said* that she ran for council for those reasons. But that was politics. In reality, her group sued the city to remove all bike lanes.
The “lobbying” was by a small, vocal, minority who overturned the will of a majority of Cambridge residents who want safer streets.
@AllisS Bike lanes enhance safety for everyone, not just cyclists. They prevent accidents and save lives. Advocating for bike lanes is advocating for safety.
Using the elderly and disabled as an excuse to prioritize parking convenience is misguided. Many in those groups can’t drive, so you’re not defending their interests.
The AARP, the largest elderly advocacy organization in the U.S., supports bike lanes. They likely understand what’s best for the elderly.
By reducing accidents, bike lanes also help prevent disabilities.
What about the poor? Many people cannot afford cars and rely on bikes for transportation.
In sum, bike lanes improve safety for everyone, reduce noise and pollution, and help transport the most disadvantaged members of the community.
Opposition to this, over parking convenience, “speaks volumes about their lack of character and integrity.”
It’s amusing to hear that bike lanes benefit only a narrow group. In fact, the infrastructure changes Joan opposed also enhance pedestrian safety—everyone is a pedestrian at times.
In Cambridge, drivers are the minority, so opposing changes that benefit everyone amounts to a minority imposing its will on the majority.
Stop using the elderly and disabled as excuses; many can’t drive. You’re merely defending drivers’ convenience.
The poorly designed quick build lanes do a disservice to everyone’s safety. Note that both recent tragic crashes resulting in lives lost were on streets with cycling infrastructure. If the result is confusing for all, including cyclists, vehicle drivers and pedestrians we are no more “protected” and are sending a message to inexperienced cyclists that this is a safe route – when that is not true. Let’s wait for the results from the inquiries on these recent tragedies. Joan and other councillors were right to vote to suspend this until we get it right, safe and fair for EVERYONE.
I see lots of people calling Joan a one issue candidate. She wasn’t one. Her recent focus was on understanding the budget and why we are going over. It is a mess and bikes are only a piece. I met her a few times and she was a great woman. Said to see she passed.
2tccambridge
Stop gaslighting. Those recent crashes were unrelated to the bike lanes. A study showed the Cambridge bike lanes have REDUCED accidents by 50%.
The anti-bike lane lobby makes baseless claims. The bike lane designs have been studied and are working as intended – reducing accidents and increasing cycling rates, which takes cars off the streets.
@tccambridge Delaying bike lane decisions based on two crashes outside existing lanes, while disregarding studies showing bike lanes halve accidents, is gaslighting. It ignores established safety benefits in favor of isolated incidents.
This is the problem with the anti-bike lane lobby. They ignore facts in favor of making up their own. Just like Cambridge Streets For All.
@tccambridge
Absolutely false: where Ms Nguyen was killed by a box truck driver had (and still has) absolutely zero separated bike infrastructure. In fact even the flexposts that should be there still aren’t nor are there bike signals.
@tccambridge The others beat me to it, but what you said about the crashes is false. It also disregards studies from Fed scientists and the city showing that bike lanes have improved street safety.
If the anti-bike people want respect for their views, they should start respecting the facts.
This article is to remember a life, not advance a political cause. Sad news, thoughts and prayers are with her family and friends.
@cambridge101: We remember this individual because of her tenure as a city council member, where her political views and actions significantly influenced the community. Her political legacy is central to our remembrance.
When a politician passes, their life and career are thoroughly evaluated and discussed. For instance, when Nixon died, the discourse extended beyond trivial aspects like his fondness for his dog.
This is particularly pertinent as her political actions have had, and will continue to have, a substantial impact on others. Pun intended.
Let’s be clear about her legacy.
Bike lanes have been proven to dramatically reduce accidents, prevent injuries, and save lives.
Joan opposed them, using local businesses as an excuse, despite no evidence that bike lanes harm businesses—indeed, they often boost them.
Her legacy is preventing the adoption of safety measures without justification.
It’s disheartening that so many here have jumped into the bike lane issue. There are many other venues for that discussion.
If one wants to comment on someone’s legacy, know that it is far more than any one issue. Joan headed up the Mid-Canbridge Neighborhood Association for 10 years–long before bike lanes were on anyone’s agenda. As a neighbor who shared her love of the Westie dog breed, she got us involved in her Caring Canines organization. She had a successful career in non-profit development. Above all, she was civic minded–a quality that should be applauded, whether you agree or not with every position she took.
I will grieve and miss Joan Pickett. We could use more neighbors like her.
@Ben Compaine Joan Pickett made opposing bike lanes her main issue. She chaired an organization that sued the city to remove bike lanes, and she ran for city council on an anti-bike lane platform. It’s reasonable for people to discuss the key issue she campaigned on.
Bike lanes improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. Opposing them without good reason puts people at risk. This is part of Pickett’s legacy that merits thoughtful discussion, even after her passing.
@FrankD. I agree. We are reading this remembrance because Joan Pickett was a politician. Her political actions are central to her legacy and are fair game.
Sadly, her legacy will be:
Accidents that could have been prevented were not. People’s bodies sacrificed on the altar of convenient parking.
No, @MrNice—criticisms of excessive parking elimination haven’t been based on “convenience” but rather necessity. Cyclists aren’t the only people who have valid needs. But since your purpose is to troll on this topic, it’s clear why you would dismiss those needs in such a cavalier manner.
@AllisS False.
1. Bike lanes benefit everyone, not just cyclists. They improve safety for pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists, and reduce traffic congestion by promoting alternatives to driving.
Organizations like AARP endorse bike lanes for all age groups, including the elderly.
By reducing pollution and greenhouse gases, they benefit everyone.
Your claim that they only benefit cyclists is false.
2. The anti-bike lane lobby has not provided evidence that bike lanes harm businesses or anyone’s “valid needs”. These claims remain unsubstantiated.
The only real trade-off is a minor reduction in parking convenience, which doesn’t outweigh the significant benefits to the entire community.
Opposing bike lanes based on unproven claims or minor inconveniences risks public safety. We shouldn’t prioritize parking convenience over people’s lives.
Unfortunately, that is the legacy we are discussing.
@AllisS
Here’s how bike lanes makes streets safer for pedestrians. Everyone is a pedestrian. Safety is a “vital need.”
1. Traffic calming effect: Bike lanes tend to narrow vehicle travel lanes, which naturally slows down traffic speeds. Lower vehicle speeds reduce the severity of crashes involving pedestrians and improve overall road safety.
2.Buffer zone: Bike lanes create an additional buffer between pedestrians on sidewalks and moving vehicle traffic. This extra separation enhances pedestrian safety and comfort.
3. Improved intersection design: When bike lanes are installed, they often come with other pedestrian safety improvements at intersections, such as wider sidewalks, enhanced crosswalks, and pedestrian crossing signals. These upgrades make intersections safer for people walking.
4. Reduced vehicle volumes: By encouraging more people to bike instead of drive, bike lanes can help decrease overall vehicle traffic. Fewer cars on the road means less potential for pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.
5. Increased visibility: Bike lanes can improve sight lines and visibility at intersections and driveways, making it easier for drivers to see pedestrians who are crossing.
6. Promoting active transportation: The presence of bike lanes tends to encourage more walking as well as biking. More people walking and biking creates safety in numbers and a greater expectation for drivers to watch for vulnerable road users.
By creating a more orderly flow of traffic, reducing vehicle speeds, and enhancing overall street design, bike lanes contribute to a safer environment for pedestrians as well as cyclists.
Our whole community benefits from bike lanes.
We shouldn’t have them because a few people want to park a block closer to the convenience store?
@AllisS, my comment on this thread was not “trolling”; discussing a politician’s politics is valid.
Additionally, infrastructure changes like bike lanes make streets better for people walking, not just cyclists. Look it up.
Prioritizing parking benefits only a small minority. The majority of people get around Cambridge without cars.
@MrNice Trolling means baiting and trying to provoke in order to elicit an emotional response— a definition that fits what you, @FrankD, and @Slaw (you may even be the same person) have been doing to a T each time you ridicule concerns about lost parking as based on “convenience” as if the need for that represented some moral deficit. Cycling is, after all, a choice, whereas aging and disability are not. It’s those who fall into one or both of those groups whose safety and independence are often inextricably linked to driving and to having parking easily accessible (i.e., “convenient”) to homes and businesses.
@AllisS
1. Safer streets benefit everyone, not just cyclists.
2. Driving is a choice. It’s interesting that you consider everything except driving to be a choice.
3.Using the elderly and disabled as an excuse is misleading. Many elderly and disabled individuals cannot drive.
The AARP supports bike lanes, indicating their potential benefit for the elderly.