And there’s nothing that says motorists are allowed to routinely break the law in myriad accepted ways, yet we know these things are fully normalized:

• Going 5–10 MPH over the speed limit
• Rolling through stop signs
• Making right turns on red even when it is clearly posted to be illegal
• Using a handheld device (e.g. phone) while driving
• “Punish passing” a cyclist (i.e. passing closer than 3 feet)

Compared to the above, the traffic violations that a cyclist can commit aren’t even close in terms of potential and actual harm done.

So if anything, general license to routinely break traffic rules is not only common, but well accepted in the US.

Since my breaking some laws as a cyclist keeps me safe, while others breaking the law as a driver leads to people being hurt and killed, we need to recognize that these two kinds of law-breaking are not the same.

Geometry alone dictates that replacing car use with other ways of getting around is how we welcome more people to Cambridge & nearby.

You can provide for more people if they walk, roll, ride a bus, or ride a train, than if they drive, simply because you need far less space per person for those non-car ways of getting around.

Removing car infrastructure in favor of other modes means providing for more people, not fewer.

Last time I was there (pre-covid), some dude with shit in his pants was standing on a chair screaming nonscense. Watching everyone pretend not to see or smell him was interesting.

In Cambridge you vote with yard signs, not at the ballot box...

[deleted]

Just deleted a "survey/study" post cause it wasn't pre-approved, and it wasn't from the community.

There’s many business owners in that area that are concerned with the increase in crime. It’s definitely the crime.

It’s a shame that this location is closing. It has been there for quite some time. It’s unfortunate things are getting so bad in the square because of the homeless and addicts. The city and CPD need to do something before more businesses start leaving that area.

My bad, was thinking of 21st amendment they definitely have a fireplace, not sure if it’s wood or gas.

I hope they buy or imminent domain the empty, non buildable, parcel of land at 12 Cameron ave. It’s the tiny lot that’s fenced in next to the ever source/former fire station with the mural.

I’m not saying it would add much to the small little park space right there. But it’s an overgrown eyesore that rarely gets shoveled in winter so so something better could probably be done with that land

I don't think a lack of crashes is the only metric we should use though. If we want these paths to not just be for pleasure, but for actual transportation too, then bikes have to be able to move through quickly without making pedestrians feel unsafe (perception is really important here because it determines if people enjoy and use something meant to be pleasant). I suspect this will become an increasing issue as e bikes become more common

I'd like to see that too. To me though, the reality is that a separate bike path is better than a bike lane. No assholes parking in the path, no risk of doorings, no danger from cars turning, and probably an easier time plowing

Good news! The plans for the redesign call for 12-14ft with 2ft buffers on both sides.

I actually think the widths are just fine. There are rarely, if ever, crashes on the paths themselves. People on bikes, strolling, walking dogs, etc are pretty naturally prepared to share space.

> As someone who frequents this path, it's quite nice but arguably not wide enough. There's people taking leisurely strolls in large groups and cyclists biking through (sometimes also in groups). I think it'd be nice to see a contraflow bike lane down the middle of the path to provide some structure for where to expect cyclists.

Hmm, yeah at peak hours it can get fairly crowded. I'd probably rather see dedicated bike lanes added to Highland Ave, plus cross streets (Willow, Cedar, and Lowell) and separated lanes on Broadway (only paint at the moment). That would provide some alternative dedicated routes for cyclists plus calm some of those streets so people can spread out more.

My first post explained how the statement about % of travel modes in OP's article is potentially misleading (i then demonstrated how it is misleading by referring to additional data--at some other commenters request). And here is the project plan that notes the impact on vehicle lanes, parking and loading. https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/2023/hampshirest/hampshirestreetprojectbrochureonline.pdf

My work here is done, unless you can think of something else to argue about. Cheers.

You are mistaken.

> “We’re just doing an introduction to the project tonight, looking for broad feedback on safety issues, parking and loading needs, and things like that. There’s no specific design yet,” said Elise Harmon-Freeman, communications manager for the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department of the City of Cambridge, on Tuesday evening.

They have been forthright with their data. They say exactly when and where they collected it. Not sure what more you want.

Unless I am mistaken, they are narrowing the vehicle travel lanes, as well as getting rid of parking and some loading zones. And to be clear, I'm not even set against the changes on Hampshire st., I am for being forthright in the presentation of relevant data to the community.

What? This isn’t about the cars at all. The space for bikes has already been allocated years ago, the oldest image on Google StreetView for Hampshire St is in 2007 and it has the same lanes. This is a conversation about whether that space gets protection, it’s not taking any road space from cars. Do you even know what we’re talking about here?

Yes, I understand you don’t care how many cars actually use the road. You’ve made this quite clear.

>See how Somerville did their community path

As someone who frequents this path, it's quite nice but arguably not wide enough. There's people taking leisurely strolls in large groups and cyclists biking through (sometimes also in groups). I think it'd be nice to see a contraflow bike lane down the middle of the path to provide some structure for where to expect cyclists.

>It helps that people walking and biking weigh a fraction of your typical compact sedan.

Agreed. It's nice to now have a real example I can point to to show people just how long bike infrastructure lasts

700+ bikers in an hour is real data.

> The city's planning a renewal/redesign in their chunk of the path. It'll be interesting to see how they balance this being a park with it also being a commuting path.

IIRC the Linear Park/Path was built prior to the Minutemen opening, so it wasn't ever really designed to handle the traffic it gets now.

I think they really just need to widen a few spots from 10 ft to 12-15 ft depending on space availability. That should leave plenty of park space. See how Somerville did their community path (ignoring the future path extension, which will have this same issue being a 10 ft path, thanks to GLX budget issues) for an example of how you can have a nice multi modal path with some park like amenities.

> It also sounds like the path hasn't been repaved since it was built 35 years ago. If that's true, that really speaks to the efficiency of spending on bike and pedestrian infrastructure

It helps that people walking and biking weigh a fraction of your typical compact sedan. And with most people opting for SUVs and pick-up trucks... We can see why the roads are trash. (That plus an overall lack of road / transportation in general maintenance in the last 20 years).

Everything is a cost benefit. So while you might be correct, you can't know for certain unless you have real data.

They never should have moved CPD headquarters from Central Sq to East Cambridge. There used to be a substantial police presence in Central Sq. No longer.