Biking in Boston

Boston is not the best place to bike because of how narrow so many streets are. You have to know to take up the whole lane to protect yourself, then ass hole drives get pissed because they think the roads were given to them by God.
 
Lurker said:
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news...le_hubway_bi.html?p1=Well_Local_YourTownlinks


svillehubwaystations.jpg

Red dots represent possible Hubway bicycle rental stations, set to land in Somerville by about July.

By Matt Byrne, Town Correspondent
City officials released a first-look map of possible locations for eight Hubway bicycle rental stations in Somerville.

The stations, sprinkled throughout the city's myriad squares, are expected to open by about July.

Before the end of the summer, Hubway locations are expected to sprout in Brookline and Cambridge, expanding the network's reach beyond Boston city limits.Hubway launched last summer in Boston with 61 stations and 610 bicycles. Hubway riders logged more than 140,000 rides before the season closed on Nov. 30, according to the City of Boston. The system attracted more than 3,700 members in 2011 and almost 30,000 casual users.

Hubway offers three membership options for riders: an annual membership for $85; a casual, three-day membership for $12; or a casual 24-hour membership for $5. Rides less than 30 minutes are free with any membership. Longer rides cost from $1.50 for just under an hour to $75 for rides lasting between seven and 24 hours. Registered annual members receive a 25 percent discount.

Never mind that we still don't have 61 stations in Boston and in fact have fewer stations than last year.
Click to expand...

Rough comparison of what the 2010 launch would have included under our plan. Dotted line is somervile border

somervillemap.jpg



2012 of course, would have been much denser if things had gone according to plan.
 
HenryAlan said:
William Penn really knew what he was doing when he designed that city. It's still one of the most thoughtfully laid out and situated downtowns anywhere in North America.
Click to expand...

Too bad it's 20th and 21st century residents turned it into what it is today. Was in Boston this week with my New Yorker brother and sister in laws and they both exclaimed how Boston got it right while Philadelphia just has not. They couldn't get over how much more pride in place and cleanliness exists in Boston and how lacking Philly is in those two regards. Too bad, because you are right, Philadelphia really DID have the planning/layout headstart.
 
I didnt think philly was dirty at all. Looked just as clean as Boston
 
My last time in Philly (2008) I stayed across the street from City Hall. I was floored by how dirty that part of the city was and how aggressive pan handlers were. But then again, Independence Mall was beautiful, friendly, safe, clean, etc.
 
I have to agree that Philly is fairly dirty. I was just there three days ago around North Philly and Fishtown, and it all had the same consistent level of grime to it. Not that I have a problem with dirty cities (I love NYC after all), but no way would I say it's as clean or well-maintaned as Boston.
 
General Rule for Philadelphia: Stay between Fairmount Ave. and South St. if you're not familiar with the city.
 
New bike lanes are coming this summer. I know Cummins Hwy in Roslindale is getting a major facelift, and it's one of the missing pieces in the city's ambitious bike infrastructure network, so I'm guessing bike lanes are going in there. Anyone know of where else they're planning for this year?


finally - hubway coming to JP?
 
^^ Re. bike infrastructure becoming "the hottest new planning trend," I wonder to what degree this is because we simply don't have the money to build any "real" infrastructure.

I realize most of us are into the biking thing because, well, it's sort of the fashionable thing these days all over the world. However, to play devil's advocate, is it not the case that painting part of a lane of a street to demarcate it for bikes is not "creating infrastructure" in any serious sense? Yes, it delights a few media-friendly groups -- yuppies, college students, environmentalists and, er, newspaper reporters. But the average person is not going to be riding a bike to work for a number of reasons: 1) Boston's climate doesn't accommodate biking to work most of the year; 2) even in good weather, the troika of a) sweat, b) risk to work clothes c) difficulty of taking anything to/from work is going to make it too uncomfortable an option for anyone who isn't a bit of a fanatic; and 3) most people working in Boston are coming in from the metro region and biking to work is too time-consuming to make sense.

Could it not be the fact that the city is devoting an inordinate amount of its attention to "infrastructure improvements" that benefit a small, albeit photogenic, part of the population rather than working with the state to find solutions to higher-impact infrastructure issues? Or that the media, rather than asking why there's no money to make transit improvements like extending the Green Line into Somerville any time soon or road improvements like fixing the state's many crumbling bridges, are placated by a relatively low-impact infrastructure program that happens to address the particular preferences of them and the social circles most reporters/bloggers tend to move in?

Just a thought ...
 
The cost of bike lanes are negligable when painted at the same time and by the same crews as regular road striping. They are effective at reducing congestion. What's not to like?

I'm also not a fan of the American attitude that bikes = poor people without money. That is a stereotype pushed by Ford & General Motors since the 1920s to shame Americans out of cycling as adults and into the automobile ownership racket.
 
Just one of several Hubway stations that were practically empty the last couple of days

Boston-20120420-00210.jpg
 
That means many more cyclists are leaving this station than arriving at it. Where is this one?
 
I'm really excited to see people using Hubway all around the city, but I've been especially annoyed about them for one particular reason: NONE OF THEM RIDE ON THE STREETS!!! Unless I see them along Mass Ave, Commonwealth, or Columbus--i.e. roads with dedicated bike lanes--most of the Hubway riders I've witnessed out and about ride on the narrow brick sidewalks of the South End and Back Bay.

It's really wonderful that more people are using the service, but I really hope the cyclists learn how to ride around the city properly.
 
Yeah, Ron. This was at corners of Tremont and Berkeley streets in the South End. Similar scene on Tremont Street facing the Common. Yay for success!
 
Thanks for the PDF link, I was wondering what was being planned for 2012. New bike lanes on brighton ave and comm ave look like great additions. Downtown also looks like it will be great by the end of the year. Still some serious gaps, but its been a lot of progress in 5 years.


I also love the above conversation

Person 1: "I dont see the point in bike lanes, theyre just paint"
Person 2: "I hate how hubway riders stay on the sidewalk in places without bike lanes"

:)



Oh and btw, itchy, one major flaw with your overly-generalzied post...


Only 20% of trips are commute trips. Even if not a single person bikes to work...who gives a shit? People can bike to stores, to events, for fun, etc etc, ie 80% of their trips.
 
Jass, you're missing my point.

It's that the city has been able to draw attention to bike lanes and show it is "improving infrastructure," when in fact the capital-intensive infrastructure needs (and the ones that are going to have the greatest positive impact on economic growth) in terms of transit and roads/bridges are being largely neglected/delayed.

You throw some paint down on the side of a few streets, please a few yuppies and college students, and you can distract people from real infrastructure issues.

I'm not saying bike lanes are bad -- they do serve to improve quality of life for a number of people during a few months/year (and a much-smaller number of people during the rest of the year). I would, however, posit that they're not a substitute for "real" infrastructure and ask whether cash-strapped governments are trying to pass them off as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top