Right. A lot of my advocacy work has focused around getting walking, biking, transit, and light car usage (taxi/zipcar/rideshare/or ownership) to all play nicely together. Because they complement each other.
Maybe you (and others, please! Even you DZH!) can offer some thoughts on the following then:
I's not naively claim that instituting a fully, 100% functional bike infra system is an easy or even worthy task in Boston. (I think it's worthy, but political opposition is such that there's a ceiling on what's immediately achievable). However, I've often wondered why Boston doesn't allocate it's resources in more narrowly targeted neighborhood goals, to the detriment of a city-wide system. Here's what I mean by that:
Density of bike lanes is arguably more important than general coverage - that's a maxim that holds true in Europe
and the US. I can't find it now (it's bookmarked somewhere on my comp), but there was interesting study out of U of Minnesota (I believe) that found that density of specific infra induced more to use an American system than "connectivity" of the system - i.e. segregated street lanes are better than rail-to-trail. It's not that the community path system isn't useful (it's certainly less contentious politically, probably why Boston's system in that regard is fairly well developed - even compared to Amsterdam or Copenhagen), it's that those "preferred routes" generally don't allow for cyclists to use their bikes for much else other than leisure rides and commutes. And even then, I can say from experience that most of the bike commuters I know in Cambridge don't utilize the off-path systems anyways - they're a bit too loopy/hard to reach for effective travel (though I fully recognize people do use them, I'm just talking from personal experience here).
Why doesn't (or what's the reasoning for inaction) Boston and Cambridge double down on specific, geographically defined neighborhoods for full build-out? The problem intersections in Boston currently lie nicely within the "box" made by Mass Ave (east), Harvard Ave (west), Comm Ave/Beacon St/Brighton Ave (north), and Huntington (south). If I'm looking to target one area as a "trial" region for a proper build-out, it's there. If MassBike, Livable Streets, et al can have a "this is what were talking about!"-example, it makes advocacy in other areas easier as there's a tangible, close-by example of just what kind of benefits bike infra offers. I can imagine how annoying it must be for those involved in bike advocacy to hear the "I've just been to Copenhagen - why don't we just do that!"-line. Wouldn't it better/easier to say "I've just been to Allston, the South End should really follow suit!". Those areas are similarly connected via high-capacity public transit (ok, ok - it's the B, but you know what I mean) that offer an alternative in the event of adverse weather/construction disruptions. To boot, there's already a decent start to build off of in the upcoming Comm Ave re-design. I'd rather see Allston/LA/and the E-W arteries fully built out than the continuing "low-hanging fruit here, low-hanging fruit there, take what you can get when you can get it" approach. I don't even live there, but it'd make a case for improved facilities in my neighborhood
so much easier.
Cambridge is in a similar position, I'd rather see any and all efforts directed to grade-separated infra in the Port, Kendall, Coast - even if that's detrimental to efforts elsewhere in the city. I know that's a hard-ask politically, but I don't think scattershot improvements are a better guiding mantra, when all is said and done.