Biking in Boston

[Arlington]

To the DCR's credit, here come three new bike/ped bridges (as noted in the N. Wash St Bridge thread). Together, they are going to revolutionize access from Cambridgeside to MOS to Science Park/West End to Teddy Ebersole. Basically that whole dam end of the Charles. It goes a long way to making flat/easy/no-conflict circuit around the river.

for 2015:
Leverett Cir.-West End-Science Park-Teddy Ebersole $4m

for 2016
Royal Sonesta to Museum of Science waterfront ~$3m
Charles Circle to Esplanade @ Longfellow $12.5m
Charles Canal @ MOS $3m

Am I correct in reading those prices as the constructed costs (and not just design fees to Rosales + Partners?)

 

[DZH22]

Walking down the path and being nearly run over by a cyclist going 6 times your speed, or having a cyclist come within inches of striking your child or dog sucks. It really does.

Riding a bike on this "path" and having an uneven surface with no room to ride, especially not at speeds which you expect, while people and dogs constantly jump out in front of you, doing your best to avoid them, all while getting jeered and yelled at sucks. It really does.

Riding a bike in the road while cars are constantly yelling, honking, passing at unsafe speeds within inches of killing you sucks. It really does.

Driving a car on what you assume to be a highway, expecting to get to your destination in a timely manner, hence why you purchased an expensive fast vehicle in the first place, only to find a cyclist going absurdly slow for a highway (let's say 12 mph) is blocking your lane and making you very nervous and uncomfortable sucks. It really does.

Not to harp on this too much, but worth noting that the only common denominator in your list of "things that suck" is the cyclists.

You don't see 1/100 the level of hatred between cars and pedestrians as you do between non-cyclists and cyclists. Why is that? Oh, because you don't have pedestrians thinking they can run/walk fast enough to be in the middle of the street, and you don't have cars trying to drive down the sidewalk. The problem is that silly little 2 wheeled vehicle in the middle, that just wasn't built to "play nice" with cars or pedestrians.

If you don't ride a bike, chances are you're a "hater". It's not just me. It's not just a "if only DZH22 would change his mind, we would be perfectly at peace" type of problem. There is a deep rift and believe it or not, a lot of people are pretty damn annoyed about the increasing amount of bike lanes and bikes on the road, particularly at the expense of car lanes.

As an honest question, did the change for the exit from Storrow to Harvard (from 2 lanes to 1) have to do with accomodating bikes, or was this done for another reason? That particular ramp now sometimes has wait times of 20-30 minutes because the "left turn only" cars are no longer separated from the straight/right turning cars. It's an absolute disaster.

I don't see why it matters whether you are on or off the bike. Speed matters though. If you are acting as a pedestrian, either by crossing as one or riding on a sidewalk, slow down to a pedestrian speed - 3 mph or less, preferably less. Also always give peds the right of way.

Whenever I see a biker trying to cross at a cross-walk, my gut reaction is "BIKER'S AREN'T PEDESTRIANS!!!!!" and I don't let them go. If they get off the bike, I do let them go. It's a pretty simple concept. You can't have it both ways, as much as you wish you can. If you're on the bike, you're a vehicle. Stay out of the crosswalk unless you want to get flattened!

 

[Matthew]

You don't see 1/100 the level of hatred between cars and pedestrians as you do between non-cyclists and cyclists

You're kidding, right? You must not be paying attention. Believe me, it's there. And I've seen elderly pedestrians who may have not ever ridden a bike in their life completely unload on drivers who wouldn't yield in a crosswalk.

Stay out of the crosswalk unless you want to get flattened!

Regardless of how you feel, it's illegal to intentionally hit someone with your car. Even if they are in the wrong. So please think before you do something irresponsible.

And regarding the law, it actually doesn't say anything about bikes and crosswalks. Nothing at all. That's one of the problems with current law that I would like to see fixed: make it explicit, one way or the other.

But yeah, until then I typically dismount to use the crosswalk. I'm pretty good at hopping on and off. I'm also pretty good at dealing with drivers who don't want to yield to me as a pedestrian, which is quite frequent.

 

[DZH22]

You're kidding, right? You must not be paying attention. Believe me, it's there. And I've seen elderly pedestrians who may have not ever ridden a bike in their life completely unload on drivers who wouldn't yield in a crosswalk.

Yes, it's there. There's your 1/100th. I didn't necessarily say "outward" animosity. Just because I don't scream at every bike I drive past, doesn't mean I'm not secretly hoping you trip over the curb.

As someone who walks about 20 miles through the city every weekend, and drives/parks to get there, I am more than familiar with the dynamic between driver and pedestrian. The bikes are the X-factor, far too slow for the roads and far too fast for the sidewalks, and often come up suddenly/unexpectedly. Yes, a pedestrian will cross a street, but then they're out of the street.

By the way, I know people in cars who have been ticketed for failing to meet the minimum speeds of the road. Do the roads around here have legal minimums? For instance, if you're travelling in the road on Memorial Drive, with a clear path, and can't break 12 mph, shouldn't that be a ticketable offense?

Regardless of how you feel, it's illegal to intentionally hit someone with your car. Even if they are in the wrong. So please think before you do something irresponsible.

Well, of course! I don't try to hit anybody. I just don't let them go in the first place.

I'm pretty good at hopping on and off. I'm also pretty good at dealing with drivers who don't want to yield to me as a pedestrian, which is quite frequent.

Best way to get cars to stop is to take that first step into the middle of the road. Sounds dangerous, and probably is, but as you said cars don't usually intentionally try to hit you. They just often won't give you the benefit of the doubt if you're hesitating on the corner/side of the road. So cross your fingers and take that step!

 

[fattony]

You have completely crossed the line into trolling now. Please don't troll aB, that is what the Herald comments are for.

 

[DZH22]

You have completely crossed the line into trolling now. Please don't troll aB, that is what the Herald comments are for.

Just because we don't agree, doesn't mean my comments aren't as valid as yours. The city has bent over backwards to accomodate you guys. I mean, good for you for getting your initiatives through, but there's a silent majority that is negatively affected by this and I'm just pointing that out.

I don't think you quite understand what trolling is all about. It's about blind hate, devoid of facts, examples, or any other sort of argument beyond "GO EFF YOURSELF".

I may not like bikers, but I give the specific reasoning behind it. So go censor somebody else!

 

[Arlington]

Whenever I see a biker trying to cross at a cross-walk, my gut reaction is "BIKER'S AREN'T PEDESTRIANS!!!!!" and I don't let them go. If they get off the bike, I do let them go. It's a pretty simple concept. You can't have it both ways, as much as you wish you can. If you're on the bike, you're a vehicle. Stay out of the crosswalk unless you want to get flattened!

In a limited, "who has the right of way" sense, I believe DZH22 is correct that pedestrians must be yielded to in the crosswalk but cyclists, if mounted, don't have the high-priority right of way that would force DZH22.

At the same time, I believe Matthew when he says the law is silent on bikes in crosswalks, generally, and accept that this creates an ambiguity. I would personally prefer that a zebra be "bike and ped" but either way we've still got problems:

1)If it is peds only (bikers must dismount). THe clarity here is that once dismounted, cyclists are pedestrians and can take advantage of an unambiguous "vehicles must yield to pedestrians in crosswalk". THe problem is the likely and erroneous presumption by cyclists (when mounted) that the crosswalk confers on them any protection (which it wouldn't)


2) bike-and-ped. This would mix folks with right of way (pedestrians) with cyclists who either would have the ROW (which would be really hard for motorists to "see coming") or would not (but how would that work?)

Particularly where a bike path crosses mid-block as at Minuteman @ Lake St in Arlington or (Comm Ave Back Bay?)

On the Minuteman, today, its pretty obvious, given the "STOP" signs aimed at the bike path. At everyone's peril, ~85% of cyclists ignore the stop signs that are obviously 100% directed at cyclists. It is clear that the intent of the engineers was that bikes could ride across Lake St only after a Idaho-Red-Light kind of stop-and-proceed that basically never happens (instead, cyclists looking ahead and seeing pedestrians crossing and cars yielding, choose to blow the stop sign, intermix with peds in the crosswalk, and let pedstrians screen them from cars). Safe for the cyclists, Bad for peds. Infuriating to drivers (to see stop-sign running and "magic" cyclists)

As a motorist, I rely on pedestrians to "address" the crosswalk (to stand on its verge and look/lean into it or even wave a first step into it) so that I know they're about to claim their right of way. The problem with all cyclists is that the bike stifles the body language, and most cyclists don't toe up to the verge the way pedestrians do, and most are usually moving fairly fluidly into the crosswalk (see Lake St, above)

I don't have enough experience with how the Comm Ave "centerline path" promenaders interact with the Arl/Berk/Clar/Dart/Ex cross streets, (I'm only there nights & weekends) but it generally looks like the sort of stuff that we need a fix to.

 

[fattony]

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=active&q=trolling definition

troll2
trōl
verb
gerund or present participle: trolling
1.
informal
make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

 

[bigeman312]

While I disagree with most of what DZH22 is saying, I don't think he's trolling. There is a large contingent of people who feel exactly the way he does. Many people want to ban cyclists from using the roads, and view cyclists as the root of all urban travel evil. Obviously, I believe this is shortsighted and incorrect.

The one thing I agree with DZH22 about is speed minimums. I have no idea how it could ever be enforced for cyclists, let alone pedestrians, but we need speed minimums (and maximums) on more of our roads and bike paths. If you're a cyclist who travels 10 mph, 15 mph, 20 mph, or even 25 mph, it should be more clear whether you should be traveling on the Minuteman or Mass Ave (to stick with your example). Also, if you're a pedestrian, it needs to be more clear where you should be walking and/or running. Sadly, before speed separation ever becomes a common thing in this area, we need to improve our infrastructure.

Oh, and DZH22 (apologies if I am in fact feeding a troll):

I won't entertain your battle of the modes. While you may see my list and say that the "things that suck" are cyclists, a cyclist may see the list and see a commonality that the things that suck are non-cyclists. The problem is our infrastructure being unable to accommodate these various modes, not that these various modes exist.

 

[DZH22]

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=active&q=trolling definition

troll2
trōl
verb
gerund or present participle: trolling
1.
informal
make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

By this definition, the most trolling post of the day was probably you calling me a troll.

While I disagree with most of what DZH22 is saying, I don't think he's trolling.

Thank you

The problem is our infrastructure being unable to accommodate these various modes, not that these various modes exist.

Yes, that is a problem. However, the secondary problem seems to be, that for every "upgrade" made in favor of bikes, it negatively affects another mode of transportation, mainly cars. These bike lanes aren't being added to the existing road. They're often being added as a REPLACEMENT for what were existing driving lanes!

Also, they are often put in places that make "right of way" ambiguous, such as when trying to get onto the BU Bridge. If I'm crossing Comm Ave at the light, and there are bikers that are just laa deee daaa'ing down their lane while I'm trying to get to the bridge, this becomes a pretty dangerous situation. Mostly for the biker.

I understand that many of you are trying to encourage this mode of transportation, but the facts are there are still a significant more amount of cars on the road than bikes, and taking away the majority's (cars) driving lanes to appease the minority (bikes) isn't necessarily the best answer here.

 

[cden4]

As an honest question, did the change for the exit from Storrow to Harvard (from 2 lanes to 1) have to do with accomodating bikes, or was this done for another reason?

This is because of the Anderson Bridge reconstruction and is temporary. The sidewalk/path at the intersection is under construction, so MassDOT had to divert pedestrians and bicyclists into what was formerly the second exit lane (they have jersey barriers set up to guide people.)

Regarding your other point about the common denominator in all these given cases being bicyclists, you're absolutely correct. This is because according to the law, bicyclists can ride on the path or on the street. The problem is the path isn't great because it's narrow and full of pedestrians and the street isn't great because it's full of motorists who aren't expecting/don't want to deal with bicyclists in the roadway. If there was infrastructure properly designed for bicyclists, this wouldn't be an issue. (There actually IS supposed to be a separate bike path along Memorial Drive, but it's been a stalled project for many years.)

And I totally hear you about taking away from cars to giving to bikes. I can assure you that most planners and bicyclists don't want to make things more difficult for motorists. They just want to make it safer for bicyclists. And since there's only so much real estate to work with, that space has to come from somewhere. The good news is that recent examples have shown that taking space for cars doesn't have to make traffic flow worse. Sometimes it can actually flow better.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/8/6121129/bike-lanes-traffic-new-york

 

[davem]

for every "upgrade" made in favor of bikes, it negatively affects another mode of transportation, mainly cars. These bike lanes aren't being added to the existing road. They're often being added as a REPLACEMENT for what were existing driving lanes!

NYC did this. Citylab did a great writup, but to quickly sum it up, adding bicycle infrastructure decreased automobile delays up to 35%. Cycling increased somewhere around 160%, and buses moved through traffic easier. The biggest loss was around an average of 1MPH for cabs.

Essentially, by removing unnecessary through lanes and replacing them with dedicated turn lanes and cycling infrastructure, everyone's commute got markedly faster and safer.

You don't see 1/100 the level of hatred between cars and pedestrians as you do between non-cyclists and cyclists. Why is that? Oh, because you don't have pedestrians thinking they can run/walk fast enough to be in the middle of the street, and you don't have cars trying to drive down the sidewalk. The problem is that silly little 2 wheeled vehicle in the middle, that just wasn't built to "play nice" with cars or pedestrians.

Remember, bicycles came before cars, by a wide margin. It's the cars that weren't built to "play nice" with just about ANYTHING, not the other way around. Hence why SO MUCH money has been spent over the past two generations to modify our environment to cater to them. And then after all that time and money, we have a runaway greenhouse effect, chronic obesity, disastrous land-use patterns, longer commutes than ever before, and crushing average debt due to the near obligatory purchase of an object that begins deprecating the second you purchase it. There is a very good argument that all the money pouring into maintaining asphalt and traffic control devices is a large part of the reason why our modern civic institutions are underfunded, ugly, and falling apart.

Redesigning our entire environment to cater to motor vehicles was a great, innovative, amazing experiment. Just like modernism and urban renewal. It is an experiment that has horrifically failed, just like it's contemporaries.



As for pedestrians in the street or cars on the sidewalk, under the MGL, it is illegal for pedestrians to walk in the middle of the road when there is a sidewalk alongside it. It is also the law that cars can not drive on the sidewalk. What is blatantly legal is that cyclists have an equal right to take up any travel lane we want. Just like tractors in farm country, or Amish buggies, or wide load vehicles, or mopeds, or pedestrians in areas where there aren't sidewalks. Since the Romans started laying the first modern road network, streets have been for all users. There was only a very, VERY brief period in the history of roads in which the car was king, roughly the late 30's to the 90s. We are now getting back to a period in which it is being remembered that streets are universal transportation infrastructure, not an exclusive enclave of cars.

It's not just drivers that have to modify their behavior and learn how to share. Cyclists also have to learn how to obey the rules of the road and ride safely. The issue is you've got an entire culture raised with the idea of a bicycle as a plaything ("silly", you said?), unlike most of the rest of the world. The learning curve is very steep on both sides of the spectrum, and right now it's at the tipping point.

Also, they are often put in places that make "right of way" ambiguous, such as when trying to get onto the BU Bridge. If I'm crossing Comm Ave at the light, and there are bikers that are just laa deee daaa'ing down their lane while I'm trying to get to the bridge, this becomes a pretty dangerous situation. Mostly for the biker.

It's not ambiguous at all. If the bike lane was a car lane, and the bike was a very underpowered car, what would you do? If there is a bike in front of you and you can't safely* pass it, then match their speed and wait behind. Is dropping your speed from 25 to 7 for a block really going to effect your trip time that much? Especially when chances are you're going to hit a light in a block or two anyway?
*Safely = 4' of clearance handlebar tip to car side mirror.

I average about 16MPH when I ride. Trust me, I hate slow, meandering cyclists just as much as you do. Probably even more, because passing them is far more dangerous for me than you (not to mention that pedaling at speed takes one hell of a lot more effort than pushing on an accelerator). But the law is that senior takestheirtime is in front of me and has the right of way. Do you have a conniption when grandma is doing 5 under the speed limit, or is it just what happens?



Speaking of ambiguity for a moment however, I will briefly touch on an issue that Massachusetts seems to not have addressed. In a car, the "proper" way in which to make a right turn when there is a bike lane to the right is to "merge" into the bike lane, and turn from there. Why is this not reflected in the law or the safety pamphlets that occasionally go out? It would eliminate the whole confusion on cyclists having the right of way to go straight when there is adjacent right turning traffic, and do away with right-hooks entirely (since cyclists would either have to stop for someone making a right, or merge into the travel lane and use the space vacated by the car to safely pass). Ideas?


Now if you will all excuse me, I'm going to go ride my bike downtown in 20 minutes for free. Versus an hour on the T or 40 minutes to drive (not including finding parking).

 

[HenryAlan]

So a 10 foot wide concrete sidewalk is not big enough, but a terrifying road that's barely wide enough for a car is OK to add bikes to?

I suspect you are trolling, but in case you aren't, Matthew clearly explained why, and was not remotely snarky about it.

By the way, everytime these articles are up on places like Boston.com, you'll notice that the "top rated comments" are almost always anti-bicycle. Your snarky responses to me here just reinforce why most of us who don't ride bikes can't stand the few of you that do. You are a nuisance to me as a pedestrian, and a nuisance to me as a driver. But it's never YOUR fault, now is it? It's always the pedestrian's or car's fault. Well, newsflash, you are by far the biggest offenders, and I look forward to hearing about more of you getting arrested for recklessness in the future.

Yep, trolling.

 

[Matthew]

Yes, that is a problem. However, the secondary problem seems to be, that for every "upgrade" made in favor of bikes, it negatively affects another mode of transportation, mainly cars. These bike lanes aren't being added to the existing road. They're often being added as a REPLACEMENT for what were existing driving lanes!

That's actually largely not true in the Boston area. NYC and other cities have done more in this regard.

In Boston, the vast majority of bike "infrastructure" was created by using extra space that was not really designated for anything else. For example, it was quite common for Boston streets to be designed with a 14' wide outer lane and an 8' wide parking lane. Both of those are larger than needed. You can easily restripe the street to have a 10' travel lane and a 7' parking lane, and then put a 5' bike lane between them. A really crummy bike lane, but it's one that basically doesn't change anything about the operation of the street for motorized vehicles.

That was a pretty common thing to do. For example, Comm Ave.

Also, they are often put in places that make "right of way" ambiguous, such as when trying to get onto the BU Bridge. If I'm crossing Comm Ave at the light, and there are bikers that are just laa deee daaa'ing down their lane while I'm trying to get to the bridge, this becomes a pretty dangerous situation. Mostly for the biker.

I don't feel that Comm Ave at BU Bridge is ambiguous. It's a bit terrifying for the faint of heart, but the markings are quite clear. If you are making a right turn or merging across the bike lane, you just need to merge with the bike first, then move onward. As Dave said, this is something that should be taught with driver's ed materials... it's the law.

I understand that many of you are trying to encourage this mode of transportation, but the facts are there are still a significant more amount of cars on the road than bikes, and taking away the majority's (cars) driving lanes to appease the minority (bikes) isn't necessarily the best answer here.

The streets are public ways, open to all travelers. The government can impose certain regulations for safety's sake, and they do. I really don't see how it's productive to push the the line of reasoning that car drivers deserve exclusive use of our public city streets.

For one thing, you should have an interest in seeing more people ride bicycles: the more people that ride bicycles, the fewer that drive cars and congest the streets that you want to drive upon. Perhaps in some cases induced demand will cancel out that effect, but not always. On local streets it's easy to see that a lot of people who might have, in past years, gotten into a car to run an errand or go somewhere within a few miles, are now riding a bike. That's lowered traffic. On Comm Ave in Allston, for example, the Green Line + use of bicycles have resulted in significantly reduced traffic volumes over the years.

But really, it's a moral question. If streets are truly public spaces for everyone to share, then why has our public policy privileged only those rich enough to afford automobiles and able enough to drive them? And furthermore, it's not even that government has spent large amounts of resources on enabling motor vehicle travel -- hey look, it's obviously a necessary thing -- it's that government has spent large amounts of resources actively enabling high speed, DANGEROUS, motor vehicle travel on local city streets. Dangerous to pedestrians as well as bicyclists, dangerous to communities that have to deal with the fallout from the inevitable crashes, property damage, injuries and loss of life. In the meantime, we have to beg and plead just to get basic stuff like curb ramps and accessible signals installed -- after literal decades of neglect by the city. Why do people have to die on our streets before the city will take a look?

If everyone would just go a bit slower and more carefully when driving around city streets, honestly, most of these problems would simply evaporate. And I suppose the same advice would apply to people who able to bike at speeds that would be regarded as too fast, whatever that may be.

 

[Arlington]

NYC did this. Citylab did a great writup, but to quickly sum it up, adding bicycle infrastructure decreased automobile delays up to 35%. Cycling increased somewhere around 160%, and buses moved through traffic easier. The biggest loss was around an average of 1MPH for cabs.

...basically the cabs could not longer opportunisticly "speed weave" around everyone else and so lost a little, but everyone else gained by better sorting of vehicles into "slots". The most aggressive drivers have the most to gain today by lane-changing and speeding & slamming brakes as they piece together space by stealing it from everyone else's margin of safety.

Anyone who actually "games it out" or who has seen NYC's new patterns can see that 1 through lane with turn lanes "hung off it" when needed does a much better job of reducing conflicts and eliminates aggressive/opportunitistic lane changes.

Sadly, motorists, have knee-jerk recourse to counting lanes, not movement-conflicts.

Soon the Town of Arlington will rebuild its section Mass Ave and, unfortunately, the engineers lost and superstitious asphalt-jealous cars won and got two lanes inbound--which are predicted to work worse because which you'll never quite know where the car in front of you intends to go. Move right? You're going, eventually, to have to slow behind someone turning right. Move left? You're going, eventually slow behind someone turning left. In the face of that, you'll get dangerous, last-second lane changing. All we can say there will be "I told you so" and "don't let this happen to you"

 

[rinserepeat]

and you don't have cars trying to drive down the sidewalk.

you apparently do not spend any time in the southern end of the city...

 

[rinserepeat]

what disturbs me is that DZH22's attitudes often translate to SOME drivers thinking it's ok to "teach us a lesson" while we're out legally riding bikes on a public way - like the guy who yelled at me to "get on the sidewalk" a couple months ago - or the truck driver who purposefully buzzed me last week.

a lot of us bike because it's the only way we can afford to live around here.

 

[DZH22]

what disturbs me is that DZH22's attitudes often translate to SOME drivers thinking it's ok to "teach us a lesson" while we're out legally riding bikes on a public way - like the guy who yelled at me to "get on the sidewalk" a couple months ago - or the truck driver who purposefully buzzed me last week.

a lot of us bike because it's the only way we can afford to live around here.

It disturbs me that you insinuate that my dislike for bikes automatically means I'm going to try to kill you. You sound like the type of guy who deserves whatever reactions these people have had.

By the way, just yesterday a pickup swung into the oncoming lane (my lane) to avoid a bicycle. Not sure where I was, maybe Sudbury. The bike was on the other side of the street, and yet I'm lucky I didn't suffer a head-on collision. Every time a driver gets impatient/frustrated, they do something risky and it puts every other person on the road at risk in a way that doesn't happen without the additional obstacle. In this case, every person who would rather drive ~40 (speed limit) vs ~15 is forced to swing into the oncoming lane. It endangers the lives of everybody on the road.

By the way, a couple bikes swung in front of me on Mass Ave yesterday (out of their bike lane) just as I was going to try to beat a light. Thus, I missed the light (longer than a 12 second delay for all of you who like to harp "12 seconds!!!", which is also disingenuous when you consider how long it can take for a line of cars to pass a bike on a busy road, and how it slows the entire flow down) oh and by the way, these bikes didn't seem to care that it had turned red. They rode right in front of the cross street and the guy there with the green light had to stop short! Typical behaviors of the bicycle crowd.

Just curious, since some of you seem to think everybody should stop driving and start biking, what do you do in the winter? In rain, snow, extreme temps... is it still your preferred mode of transportation?

 

[Arlington]

Transit is a popular alternative for all or part of many cycling commutes in foul weather. I happen to have access to a car and a parking spot. The MBTA's pedal and park program provides covered rack space that is perfect for cyclists who can only half-do rain, heat, or snow.

By car or bike I make sure to give due deference to buses and the 15 to 50 people they represent.

Thanks to having professional, attentive drivers, and moderate, predictable speeds, buses do surprisingly well sharing exclusive lanes with bikes. (And moving more people on less asphalt than cars.

 

[underground]

The city has bent over backwards to accomodate you guys.

So where exactly is the Big Dig of Bike Infrastructure? You know, the one that cost billions of dollars and left the majority of downtown torn up for years on end?

By the way, a couple bikes swung in front of me on Mass Ave yesterday (out of their bike lane) just as I was going to try to beat a light.

Sorry, what?!