Biking in Boston

Can you remind me with the post number for your question?

Post number 783 and 790 by American Folk Legend.

I agree that inline skates, skateboards, and bicycles can shorten pedestrian trips, with the first two allowed to be brought into buildings and MBTA vehicles at any time.

Then why do you continue to contest building infrastructure to allow people to easily ride around. And don't say it is because bikes are not used as much as cars, part of your argument have been cars have subsumed cars and been arguing that the bikes are only being used for recreation.

Automatic Transmission

"...bikes are not viewed as "work" unlike manual." Really? Empirical behavioral evidence suggests otherwise. Got any poll results or studies?

Manual transmissions address numerous problems:
1. Excessively low barrier to entry and compentency to drive.
2. Old people crashing into buildings while mistaking gas for brake while parking.
3. Uncontrolled acceleration - depress clutch and brake. Electronics limit RPMs preventing engine damage.
4. Children simply moving the gear shift to set idling vehicles into motion.
5. Energy loss in automatic transmissions.
6. People rushing from light to light instead of timing their approach to reduce shifting efforts and clutch wear. Manual drivers look beyond their hood to plan slowing and stopping. Its similar for cyclists wanting to conserve energy, since pedaling is work!

You telling me that I need to show you a study, when you are making a claim that one can correlate American's lack of interest in Manual Transmission equal to American's lack of interest for biking. You and I are both making a statements trying to based it on logic rather than scientific proofs. So if you want to argue that the standard for claims is for the rigor of scientific studies, then your that manual transmission can mean lack of interest for biking is null and void as my claim that people don't view manual transmission the same as pedaling on a bike.

There's no empirical behavioral evidence that suggest that claim. The one evidence you have is people like to park the bike at the bottom of hills, all that shows is people like to park the bike at the bottom of the hill and look to other ways to go back up. It doesn't say anything about manual transmission and a scientific rigor means you are not allowed to try and make that connection.

Have you ever rode a bike before? How much discomfort have you felt from pedaling? It is one of the major marvels to engineers of how well biking transfer energy. One giving work, but one barely feel anything. One have to ride quite a while before the biking goes from nothing to feeling like a chore - as like walking. You don't feel that much discomfort walking down the street do you?

But if you drop that rigor. Then I can point out that biking cannot be equated versus manual transmission because manual transmission is viewed at 100% work meanwhile biking is not viewed with 100% pedaling and even viewed with recreational elements. When in manual transmission viewed with recreational elements?

Not to mention that even if a person view the biking as work, there's visible counter balances like time savings (and remember biking is largely for city areas, so it is faster than cars). Your list of things like "not having to worry of stepping on the gas pedal thinking it was the brake pedal" is not something on most people's mind. Whereas "hey, I'm got to work 10 minutes earlier" is something people notice.

You have not adequately explained why Americans are more fearful or challenged to learn manual transmission than any other country in the world. I know automatics were heavily advertised in the US from 1950's-1970's. I don't know about automatic advertising in the rest of the world, or those barriers to acceptance.

Because every other country is like 80% manual versus 20% automatic while it is the reverse here. Everyone drives automatic here because everyone view automatic as the norm. It's inertia. We all drive automatic because we are too lazy to drive manual, we drive automatic because we view it as the default. And to go away from default means putting the investment to learn a new skill (driving stick).

You can draw a parallel to learning how to ride a bike. The difference is just about everybody in this country have that moment where their mom or dad taught them to ride a bike between 5 and 8. So a person living in the city and picking up a bike at 22 have no barrier. Learning to drive manual is not taught as much, so they buy the automatic car when they first look to pick up a car.
 
So, still no study and now you're claiming there's no study because of a conspiracy perpetrated by shadowy "Green Advocates." Please cite the research showing that the shadowy green advocates exist and that they're blocking the study showing that motor vehicles are becoming less efficient as they are increasingly made to yield to slower modes and that it's presenting a real measurable problem.

I googled "green transportation" and got about 124,000,000 search results.
I then searched on "fuel waste from city congestion" and got 3,040,000 hits.
US Treasury reports 1.9 Billion gallons of gas wasted due to traffic congestion:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2012-03-25/wasted-fuel-report/53776164/1
The second search result claims 3.5 Billion wasted gallons and pitches a parking spot finder application. Road congestion won't matter to them, but removing more parking is in their interest.

Our local advocate of traffic congestion is MassDOT: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/greendot.aspx
On a federal level, there are many places to look from dot.gov to sustainablecommunities.gov.

One can easily see locally, Alta lobbies for green along with the big funders of LiveableStreetsAlliance, or variations. Bikes belong is funded by bike makers. You can search online for IRS 990 filings for non-profits to see very little money comes from individual memberships. Backing is from corporations that benefit from the policies. Their green interest is the money with lib service to fool the public.

Companies that profit from road construction benefit from "livable streets" too! Adding curb extensions, tightening corners, and widening sidewalks all make projects more expensive and profitable for them. When fighting congestion, they do it for expanding highways only. Oh, and high speed rail, that could be a bottomless money pit with scarce customer demand.

If companies incur higher costs from congested city streets, medical insurance fraud or car insurance fraud, do they care enough to spend much fighting it? No, they just pass the cost along to consumers. Are individual consumers going to fight against the lobbies wanting more city traffic congestion? No, just a few individuals. When food stores experience higher wholesale prices from increased transportation costs, they all just pass it along to people.

I urge you to learn critical thinking and use of search engines to answer questions for yourself. It should be taught in school.
 
So again, any research to show that environmentalists are blocking studies showing that motor vehicles are becoming less efficient as they are increasingly made to yield to slower modes and that it's presenting a real measurable problem? And any studies to show that it's an issue in the first place? Or do you want to continue to evade the question?

I urge you to learn critical thinking and use of search engines to answer questions for yourself. It should be taught in school.

I went to schools that taught the use of peer reviewed academic journals. People citing Google generally got Fs.
 
Last edited:
It appears that Mark is too lazy to back his claims with actual data. Given the absurdity of his claims, I'm not surprised. There is a pattern running throughout these threads where he trolls by claiming facts that cannot be verified because a sinister and corrupt transit/bike/government lobby is hiding the data.
 
Then why do you continue to contest building infrastructure to allow people to easily ride around. And don't say it is because bikes are not used as much as cars, part of your argument have been cars have subsumed cars and been arguing that the bikes are only being used for recreation.
I support building bike infrastructure where it makes sense in terms of cost and benefit. If there is little benefit, little cost is warranted. The cost can be money, safety, traffic congestion, productivity loss, fuel waste, and pollution increase. If there is surplus pavement without double-parking and commercial/bus traffic, sure, paint for bike lanes doesn't cost very much.

I oppose taking away roadway from cars where scarce for exclusive use by the small minority of mostly male, professional, educated, bicycle users. It borders on elitist. Anybody could play squash or sail, but the demographics are also unbalanced.

HubWay data shows more recreational use in 2 weekend days than commuting use in 2 weekdays. More is not only. I don't claim only because its clearly not the case.

Manual transmission is just another example of how people prioritize comfort and time over a little money or other goals. People try to walk the least amount too, despite safety risks of jaywalking or trying to cross highways. They want to park their car or bike as close as possible to a destination. Downhill skiing is more popular than uphill skiing. Cycling downhill more popular than uphill.
Have you ever rode a bike before? How much discomfort have you felt from pedaling? ...

Then I can point out that biking cannot be equated versus manual transmission because manual transmission is viewed at 100% work meanwhile biking is not viewed with 100% pedaling and even viewed with recreational elements. When in manual transmission viewed with recreational elements?
You display ignorance of motor vehicles.

I have experience with racing bicycles, racing motorcycles, and racing cars. Apart from more jostling applied to the body (and less comfortable racing bike seats), there is great pleasure from each compared to baseline counterparts. There is no comparison between the fun of riding a dead feeling mountain bike from Walmart to a responsive, high strength steel framed road bike with light weight wheels and low rolling resistance tires. Other types of vehicles are much the same between responsive ones and not. BTW, I've not ridden high performance bikes with carbon or boron fiber, aluminum or titanium frames, but hear they miss some magic of great steel frames. I like the feel better on a CrMo steel Ducatti framed motorcycle than bikes with mild steel or aluminum frames.

Shifting on a performance car is a great pleasure missing from shifting on a bicycle. On a truck, shifting is also just work, but adds the option of engine braking. I suggest you learn to shift on a car and experience really driving.
Not to mention that even if a person view the biking as work, there's visible counter balances like time savings (and remember biking is largely for city areas, so it is faster than cars). Your list of things like "not having to worry of stepping on the gas pedal thinking it was the brake pedal" is not something on most people's mind. Whereas "hey, I'm got to work 10 minutes earlier" is something people notice.
Your points are disjoint. Due to congested streets and having to stop for red lights, does make many bicycle trips faster than observing laws on a motorcycle or car. Its unrelated to a learned behavior of engaging the clutch when starting or stopping at parking spots, thus preventing some accidents. That is just a freebie side benefit.
Because every other country is like 80% manual versus 20% automatic while it is the reverse here. Everyone drives automatic here because everyone view automatic as the norm. It's inertia. We all drive automatic because we are too lazy to drive manual, we drive automatic because we view it as the default. And to go away from default means putting the investment to learn a new skill (driving stick).

You can draw a parallel to learning how to ride a bike. The difference is just about everybody in this country have that moment where their mom or dad taught them to ride a bike between 5 and 8. So a person living in the city and picking up a bike at 22 have no barrier. Learning to drive manual is not taught as much, so they buy the automatic car when they first look to pick up a car.
If you did the default, you would just drive instead of bike! Staying alive on city streets requires far more education and skill than riding on a cul de sac when 8. Its a barrier to entry for many riders like a manual for drivers.

Sadly, we don't all have the health at 22 for our entire lives. Sports injuries prevent me from riding a bike or being comfortable riding a sport motorcycle. Bicycling isn't for everyone, but at 1% or less on a national scale and a few percent in some cities, still has much opportunity for growth. Letting people experience high quality is a real converter: audio systems, bicycles, cars, motorcycles, wine, whatever.
 
It appears that Mark is too lazy to back his claims with actual data. Given the absurdity of his claims, I'm not surprised. There is a pattern running throughout these threads where he trolls by claiming facts that cannot be verified because a sinister and corrupt transit/bike/government lobby is hiding the data.

I claim data not supporting policy is mostly not produced, analyzed, and published. Hiding data is less common, say for HubWay vs Capitol bike share, and both don't want to expose how few unique riders per day or week there are "trips" looks so much better, much like claiming growth in bicycling by percent instead of numeric changes, or plotting on a linear scaled chart with numbers of drivers, car poolers, bus riders, and walkers. Cyclists also like to distort numbers by lumping themselves in with pedestrians, because pedestrian numbers are so much greater. The same tricks get so repetitious from one bike blog to the next to greenwashed site to the next.

Here is one slide of Liveable Streets thanking their major backers as an example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/49752072@N04/7460824182/sizes/k/in/photostream/
 
Since there was something about weekend vs weekday, here's the number of trips over 72 hours in October (Sunday, Monday holiday, Tuesday) from data they gave out for a visualization contest a while back. MBTA bus GPS reports in the same period are below that in yellow, not that it answers any of the questions in this thread. (This was part of our contest entry, not something made just now.)

hubway_histogram.jpg

I looked closer at this and its interesting in comparison that trip data to data showing how many bikes are in use: http://www.codeline-telemetry.com/maps/bos-depletion.htm

What it demonstrates is recreational users take out a bike and use it for much longer than weekday commuters. The "trip" graphic makes commuter use look greater than recreation, while bikes in use is the reverse with much reduced numbers for weekday use and 99% of trips under 30 minutes. We would all get a better understanding if unique individuals were reported, because we're not sure what multiple check-in/out behavior is. Is a commuter just checking in and out twice to keep segments under 30 min, or are there two commuters? We can assume most weekend riders just want to go for one nice, long ride and pay the premium, since they are infrequent users.

I'm just wishing for more complete data here and letting the results fall where they may.
 
I'm sure the auto industry and it's lobbyists cower at the power and influence of the nefarious bicycling community.
 
I'm sure the auto industry and it's lobbyists cower at the power and influence of the nefarious bicycling community.

AAA does cower after being abused out west about 10 years ago. Instead of representing motorists and getting demonized for it, they focus on offering various discounts. There is even a greenwashed towing insurance company donating to green causes as a promotional instrument.

Bashing cars for being dominant is like bashing Armenians or Jews for having disproportionate money and power. Some sadly take glee in it and call them evil and the source of many ills.
 
Mark, that's why I specifically said town of Arlington. Gas taxes pay for interstate highways and state highways. Last time I checked Arlington didn't have a gas tax.
I answered before, but will do so again. State gas taxes can be used for roads other than just state highways.

Arlington roads are funded with local property and excise tax along with Arlington's share of state gas taxes + some share of other tax revenues called Chapter 90 funds, based on miles of roadway, population, and jobs. The distribution changes year to year and got a bump. Start reading here: http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/stateaid01a&sid=about

Other important state monies for cities and towns are in the "Cherry Sheets", including what the MBTA charges them: http://www.mass.gov/dor/docs/dls/mdmstuf/stateaid/cs2013.xls

Hubway funding sources were given on the City of Boston web site. Most was from federal public transit accounts. Boston also took money from its public health budget. The funds went for buying the bikes and stations for the most part. Hopefully operational costs will entirely be covered by users. I recall that the operational cost per bike is about $30,000. HubWay may have a more accurate number if you ask them.
 
I claim data not supporting policy is mostly not produced, analyzed, and published. Hiding data is less common, say for HubWay vs Capitol bike share, and both don't want to expose how few unique riders per day or week there are "trips" looks so much better, much like claiming growth in bicycling by percent instead of numeric changes, or plotting on a linear scaled chart with numbers of drivers, car poolers, bus riders, and walkers. Cyclists also like to distort numbers by lumping themselves in with pedestrians, because pedestrian numbers are so much greater. The same tricks get so repetitious from one bike blog to the next to greenwashed site to the next.

Here is one slide of Liveable Streets thanking their major backers as an example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/49752072@N04/7460824182/sizes/k/in/photostream/

So basically, you are giving suspicious to corporate capitalism to bikes and bike advocates.

There two things I want to point with this.

Sometimes advocates goals' and the desires of corporations do align. It doesn't happen to much as examples like the finance industry versus everyone else and etc, but it does happen. Obviously groups that advocate for infrastructure for bikes and street construction is going to have the tacit approval of bike makers and construction companies.

However, it seems you are arguing that the existence are rather than an alliance between the two groups, but instead front of bike companies and construction companies trying to fool the public and the government.

Okay, that makes some sense. Except that you are not giving the same treatment towards oil companies and car companies who obviously advocate the 1950's style of construction. You are giving a lot of scrutiny and dismissal of our claim that we believe bike infrastructure should be built but none towards car infrastructure?

Worse, you seem to be assuming groups like Livable Streets Alliance are only pushing profit agenda rather than finding allies who they are motivated by profit.

I support building bike infrastructure where it makes sense in terms of cost and benefit. If there is little benefit, little cost is warranted. The cost can be money, safety, traffic congestion, productivity loss, fuel waste, and pollution increase. If there is surplus pavement without double-parking and commercial/bus traffic, sure, paint for bike lanes doesn't cost very much.

Your measure of what makes sense and our measure seem to be quite different. Because are assigning far more benefits to bikes and less damage cause by congestion. You see to be very dismissal of the benefits of bikes and highly expansive of the costs.

But, perhaps we been going off on the wrong foot. But there been multiple posts back and forth on your arguments of usage, advocates groups, statistics, but we have not discussion too much on the very point of this debate:

What streets/trails of Boston/Cambridge should have bike lanes and those you believe are a waste?

We can start with this map:

http://trailmap.mapc.org/

Do you see areas that you says are says not have bike infrastructure? What areas should be car only and why?

I have a nag you might say that you need more data to determine the areas. Well, I'll say right now two points there.

1. Maybe there only so much data we can try before we just do it. For example, how much study did we done for Route 128?
2. You seem to have read and understand enough to make some educated guesses (or so I think), you should be able to say something rather than just dismissal.

Manual transmission is just another example of how people prioritize comfort and time over a little money or other goals. People try to walk the least amount too, despite safety risks of jaywalking or trying to cross highways. They want to park their car or bike as close as possible to a destination. Downhill skiing is more popular than uphill skiing. Cycling downhill more popular than uphill.

Except you are far too exaggerating the level of discomfort to biking. You are trying to make a case that people are not interested in biking by saying people are not interested in sacrificing comfort. That is true, but that truth only applies to biking if biking is that much more uncomfortable over biking. I disagree.

I oppose taking away roadway from cars where scarce for exclusive use by the small minority of mostly male, professional, educated, bicycle users. It borders on elitist. Anybody could play squash or sail, but the demographics are also unbalanced.

Okay, you do have a point there. Biking does tend to fall in the demographic of the young, male, professional, college-educated people.... Except this is Boston (and Cambridge). Where there are tons of the young, male, professional, college-educated people (and there's quite a number of female bikers too) There's 90,000 falling that age alone that in the college student bracket. And Boston/Cambridge are still able to retain quite a large number after graduation year after year (and we should aim to retain this demographic, and my understanding those falling in such age bracket are very interested in having bike infrastructure).

You display ignorance of motor vehicles.

I have experience with racing bicycles, racing motorcycles, and racing cars. Apart from more jostling applied to the body (and less comfortable racing bike seats), there is great pleasure from each compared to baseline counterparts. There is no comparison between the fun of riding a dead feeling mountain bike from Walmart to a responsive, high strength steel framed road bike with light weight wheels and low rolling resistance tires. Other types of vehicles are much the same between responsive ones and not. BTW, I've not ridden high performance bikes with carbon or boron fiber, aluminum or titanium frames, but hear they miss some magic of great steel frames. I like the feel better on a CrMo steel Ducatti framed motorcycle than bikes with mild steel or aluminum frames.

Shifting on a performance car is a great pleasure missing from shifting on a bicycle. On a truck, shifting is also just work, but adds the option of engine braking. I suggest you learn to shift on a car and experience really driving.

Okay, you got me that I have not driven in the same range of cars as you have as it seems. Perhaps there is some joy in driving stick over automatic. I should make a point to get a feel of driving something on the top end of cars as I had with other types of vehicles (or anything in general).

However, this does not dismantle my point. As the perception remains that most people do not see any joy in driving manual. People does not see peddling and biking in general with the same level of discomfort versus the idea of picking up on driving a manual car. There, my point still stands that you can't compare bikes versus manual in barrier of entry by feeling of discomfort.

Your points are disjoint. Due to congested streets and having to stop for red lights, does make many bicycle trips faster than observing laws on a motorcycle or car. Its unrelated to a learned behavior of engaging the clutch when starting or stopping at parking spots, thus preventing some accidents. That is just a freebie side benefit.

Expand how is my point is disjoint and what does that mean exactly to nullify it? My point is people can seeing and directly experience the benefits of biking much easier than manual driving in the city. This goes back to the larger point that biking is not perceived as work as much a manual.

If you did the default, you would just drive instead of bike! Staying alive on city streets requires far more education and skill than riding on a cul de sac when 8. Its a barrier to entry for many riders like a manual for drivers.

Sadly, we don't all have the health at 22 for our entire lives. Sports injuries prevent me from riding a bike or being comfortable riding a sport motorcycle. Bicycling isn't for everyone, but at 1% or less on a national scale and a few percent in some cities, still has much opportunity for growth. Letting people experience high quality is a real converter: audio systems, bicycles, cars, motorcycles, wine, whatever.

The perception of biking around the city versus getting getting a manual car - the biking as less of a jump. So my point still stands. And you can't take national percentages and applying to local policy. It is 1% nationally, but does that mean Boston is 1% or a few percent meaning we should not build the infrastructure we been praising?

But I guess that goes back to my question of what streets stated above. So lets return to that. As negative you seem to be about biking and giving investment to subsidies for it. What does that apply to Boston and its recent developments? Or future developments?
 
Bashing cars for being dominant is like bashing Armenians or Jews for having disproportionate money and power. Some sadly take glee in it and call them evil and the source of many ills.

Sorry, what? Are you saying cars aren't dominant or that Jewish people have disproportionate money and power? Wait, don't answer. Both ideas are beyond belief.
 
Sorry, what? Are you saying cars aren't dominant or that Jewish people have disproportionate money and power? Wait, don't answer. Both ideas are beyond belief.

Cars are just the popular evil enemy to suit political and other ambitions. It could be just as easily as Pol Pot blaming academics, Christian fundamentalists blaming Muslim fundamentalists for terrorism and oil prices. N. Vietnamese communists for threatening democracy across southeast Asia. Using terrorism to invade Iraq and spend ridiculous money on homeland security.

Which reminds me of the huge waste of fossil fuel by the US military. Armies run on their stomachs has changed to running on fuel. Pakistan and the Taliban both know cutting off fuel hurts an occupying force more than bullets. Photos of border crossings with miles of tanker trucks are striking.
 
Cars are just the popular evil enemy to suit political and other ambitions. It could be just as easily as Pol Pot blaming academics, Christian fundamentalists blaming Muslim fundamentalists for terrorism and oil prices. N. Vietnamese communists for threatening democracy across southeast Asia. Using terrorism to invade Iraq and spend ridiculous money on homeland security.

Which reminds me of the huge waste of fossil fuel by the US military. Armies run on their stomachs has changed to running on fuel. Pakistan and the Taliban both know cutting off fuel hurts an occupying force more than bullets. Photos of border crossings with miles of tanker trucks are striking.

Mark -- i thought that I was the "Thread Hijacker-Emeritus" -- you've taught the master a trick of two

Vietnam and Pol Pot, Armies crawling on their bellies, homeland security, and fundamentalists of all persuasions -- I thought that this thread was about biking in Boston

The only connection that I can devine from this is a bit devious -- so follow carefully:

Pol Pot's Khemer Rouge Army in Cambodia depended on material carried on bicycles on the Ho Chi Minh trail.

Before he had an eponymous trail and that before Ho was the object of rythmic chants (i.e. Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh the NFL is going to score a touchdown or something of the sort) -- Ho was living in Boston.

Back in the 1912 time frame -- before there was a Red Line to Dorchester where Corita Kent was later to paint Ho on a giant liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Tank, Ho lived in Dorchester and worked as a baker at the Parker House Hotel.

Ho probably rode a bike to the Parker House.

Oh -- lest we forget the other LNG Tank in Boston Harbor The Everett Marine Terminal opperated by Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC (DOMAC)* a wholey owned subsidiary of GDF Suez NA, is the source of much annoyance as the Tobin Bridge is shut by order of DHS and the Coast Guard whenever an LNG tanker transits the harbor.


* from the company's website
GDF SUEZ GAS NA

Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC

Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC (DOMAC) owns and operates a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import and regasification facility located along the Mystic River in Everett, Massachusetts (the Everett Marine Terminal). Since 1971, this facility has received over 1,000 shipments of LNG imported from various international sources, and in December 2010, the facility was the first LNG terminal in the United States to achieve this milestone.

DOMAC markets LNG in both liquid and vapor (regasified) form throughout the northeastern United States under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). DOMAC provides liquid, vapor, or combination sales services on a firm or interruptible basis. DOMAC's customers include local gas distribution companies (LDCs), electric generating facilities, natural gas marketers, and industrial end-users. These customers may contract for service for daily, weekly, seasonal, annual, or multi-year periods.

DOMAC does not use its facilities to provide open access transportation services, and therefore it does not offer storage or terminalling services to LNG shippers or importers, including its own affiliates.

DOMAC Facts & Figures

The Everett Marine Terminal has been operating longer than any other LNG import terminal in the United States. Between 1971 and 2003, it received approximately half of the LNG imported into the United States.

Currently, the Everett Marine Terminal meets approximately 20% of New England's annual gas demand. DOMAC's customers themselves store LNG purchased from DOMAC in satellite storage facilities located around New England; this LNG can satisfy an additional 15% of New England's peak gas demand.

The Everett Marine Terminal is home to two LNG storage tanks with a combined capacity of 3.4 billion cubic feet, or 42 million gallons. The Terminal's installed vaporization capacity (nameplate) is approximately one billion cubic feet per day, with a sustainable daily throughput capacity of approximately 715 million cubic feet per day.


I guess that I've still got the skill necessary to say:
"Tome este hilo a Cuba"


So I guess the post fits the thread after all!
 
When you even got whighlander is chiming in recognizing the absurdity of an argument, that's quite an achievement...
 
When you even got whighlander is chiming in recognizing the absurdity of an argument, that's quite an achievement...

Mon plaisir de mon ami, mais je dois dire

"Cuba sí NY Yankees no"

before I say

"Tome este hilo a Cuba""
 
Fair enough, no conspiracies, only aligned interests, be it countries, corporations, or organizations.

Shifting a manual is the least fun in the most appliance-like vehicles, much like bicycling is less fun in clunkers. Shifting a manual is work on congested streets, especially those redesigned to constrict traffic, waste fuel, and require large numbers of shifts up and down. The same sort of things that make bicycling less fun - slowing for pedestrians on bike paths and crosswalks, red lights, stop signs, car doors, and no room to squeeze by.

The bike map can't be evaluated in isolation. It needs to be seen with road, rail, and sidewalk demand. Bike paths are safest, but bicycling potential competes with rail potential, and pesky pedestrians and pokey riders drive racers to roadways. Cyclists want to focus on potential traffic instead of actual traffic while holding motorists to degraded service levels of actual traffic.

Shortsighted decisions were made over the past 4 or so decades when removed streetcar space or elevated rail infrastructure over road width was converted to sidewalk or excessive median. Planners didn't allow for safer bicycling and is expensive to reverse. The same type of thing should not be done with bike lanes - make changes that are easy to modify as needs shift.

Rutherford Ave has potential for bike lanes. Bridges over the Charles are often congested, so not so good. Roads with lots of double parking and truck/bus traffic are also less good for bike lanes. Trucks making deliveries parking in bike lanes seem more dangerous than wide, shared lanes. Bicyclists competing with MBTA buses have fared poorly.

MAPC has a wrong mission. They want to fight motorists to take over major routes instead of directing cyclists to safer, less congested routes. Taking over Mass Ave is a goal of theirs and cyclists pay the price with death and injuries. MAPC doesn't care, they are just casualties of war for them.

MAPC is bribing Arlington with landscaping to put bike lanes on Mass Ave. Removal of parking in Boston hurts businesses and city revenues while cyclists still have to battle buses entering and exiting stops.

Bicycling can help a few industries in Boston and Cambridge by raising the hipness factor and retaining more graduating students who go to start-ups. Unfortunately, this alone won't turn Boston hip. Later closing times and more/cheaper alcohol and entertainment licenses might help the lame social scene, necessary for keeping young singles. Ending laws against fun in general like letting people have a beer or wine on picnic or a music festival attracts freedom loving people.

Unfortunately, young singles often become coupled parents, move to larger quarters with yards in the suburbs and commute to their hip employers. The hip employer I worked for moved out to Waltham when most employees now lived in the burbs and office space was much less expensive. Some companies may want to stay in the city, thus need for a growing number of employees to get there from the suburbs, often in SUVs direct from dropping off the kids at school or day care, and the reverse going home.
 
Fair enough, no conspiracies, only aligned interests, be it countries, corporations, or organizations.

Shifting a manual is the least fun in the most appliance-like vehicles, much like bicycling is less fun in clunkers. Shifting a manual is work on congested streets, especially those redesigned to constrict traffic, waste fuel, and require large numbers of shifts up and down. The same sort of things that make bicycling less fun - slowing for pedestrians on bike paths and crosswalks, red lights, stop signs, car doors, and no room to squeeze by.

The bike map can't be evaluated in isolation. It needs to be seen with road, rail, and sidewalk demand. Bike paths are safest, but bicycling potential competes with rail potential, and pesky pedestrians and pokey riders drive racers to roadways. Cyclists want to focus on potential traffic instead of actual traffic while holding motorists to degraded service levels of actual traffic.

Shortsighted decisions were made over the past 4 or so decades when removed streetcar space or elevated rail infrastructure over road width was converted to sidewalk or excessive median. Planners didn't allow for safer bicycling and is expensive to reverse. The same type of thing should not be done with bike lanes - make changes that are easy to modify as needs shift.

Rutherford Ave has potential for bike lanes. Bridges over the Charles are often congested, so not so good. Roads with lots of double parking and truck/bus traffic are also less good for bike lanes. Trucks making deliveries parking in bike lanes seem more dangerous than wide, shared lanes. Bicyclists competing with MBTA buses have fared poorly.

MAPC has a wrong mission. They want to fight motorists to take over major routes instead of directing cyclists to safer, less congested routes. Taking over Mass Ave is a goal of theirs and cyclists pay the price with death and injuries. MAPC doesn't care, they are just casualties of war for them.

MAPC is bribing Arlington with landscaping to put bike lanes on Mass Ave. Removal of parking in Boston hurts businesses and city revenues while cyclists still have to battle buses entering and exiting stops.

Bicycling can help a few industries in Boston and Cambridge by raising the hipness factor and retaining more graduating students who go to start-ups. Unfortunately, this alone won't turn Boston hip. Later closing times and more/cheaper alcohol and entertainment licenses might help the lame social scene, necessary for keeping young singles. Ending laws against fun in general like letting people have a beer or wine on picnic or a music festival attracts freedom loving people.

Unfortunately, young singles often become coupled parents, move to larger quarters with yards in the suburbs and commute to their hip employers. The hip employer I worked for moved out to Waltham when most employees now lived in the burbs and office space was much less expensive. Some companies may want to stay in the city, thus need for a growing number of employees to get there from the suburbs, often in SUVs direct from dropping off the kids at school or day care, and the reverse going home.

Mark -- this post actually is both coherent and relevant to the thread with the possible exception of the:
Shifting a manual is the least fun in the most appliance-like vehicles, much like bicycling is less fun in clunkers. Shifting a manual is work on congested streets, especially those redesigned to constrict traffic, waste fuel, and require large numbers of shifts up and down.

Actually I like driving a manual transmission -- it gives you the sense of having some control in the era of multiple computers (current count is about 25 microprocessors and micro controllers in the 2011/2012 fleet) monitoring and deciding on most everything for you. A manual with a tach let's you make your own decisions on when to shift and how best to accomodate terain, traffic and trade-off performance and effeciency. -- But I digress......
 
Stumbled upon a site called Spinlister today. It is "a marketplace that lets you find the best bikes to rent online, whether from individuals or existing bike rental shops. Just type where you'd like to ride and Spinlister gives you the best bike rental options for that location. We connect you with awesome people and great bikes from around the world." Currently in beta in NY and SF. Seems like something that Boston would be included in eventually.
 

Back
Top