Recent comments in /f/CambridgeMA

Nabs617 t1_ito8qnv wrote

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

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

23

axeBrowser t1_ito3boj wrote

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

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

35

IntelligentCicada363 OP t1_ito1ywa wrote

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

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

38

ClarkFable t1_itnx6q6 wrote

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

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

−12

vhalros t1_itnpn1t wrote

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

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

29

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_itnkk1j wrote

If you're complaining about a small uptick in crime but really believe we're on the edge of the apocalypse, it seems like I'd be wasting my efforts trying to convince you that crime is relatively quite low on a historical basis. I wish you the best of luck in your apocalypse, and maybe I will catch up with you when you emerge from your basement.

3

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_itn1n64 wrote

What is this argument? You think crime picks up momentum as it falls? What on earth? Listen, crime has surely risen since the Pandemic's economic disruption. But I am simply not going to join in on a crime panic on that small relative effect. Things will calm down when the economic situation stabilizes.

5