Well, its the classic Massachusetts compromise: We can't agree how to improve transportation. But we can always come together and make all modes of transportation awful for every one, with bicycle lanes that just randomly stop and throw you into traffic, subway cars thirty years past their expiration dates, and car swallowing pot holes.

Pick your poison.

Personally, you'd have to pay me a lot more to work in the "outskirts" where I would probably have a substantial drive to work. The quality of life downgrade would be pretty big.

I live in Somerville with kids. I don't see any glaring deficiencies with the schools.

Its more like an ad hominem attack on the sub. Thus the downvotes.

I hope they catch him.

Would you really call the turn from Belgrade to Corinth "sharp"? It looks quite gentle to me.

I don't think you'd need major changes; I can think of some minor ones. Narrow down that turn, with a truck apron of if that is problematic for trucks. Harden up the center line on Corinth street near the tip of that tringle to force slower turns. Raise the crossings in those slip turns.

Realistically we should also look at wtf is wrong with the road that this sort of thing can happen so easily.

It looks great. So at our current rate of like 4 miles of track every forty years or so, this should only take like half a millennium to complete?

He would make it collapse on purpose, then pave the tunnels in an attempt to sell more Teslas. He would them tweet that traffic congestion was solved.

This is sort of a long term solution, but some other countries have "traffic gardens", which are basically parks with a little road network in them where kids can practice navigating according to road rules. We should probably build some.

Of course, that doesn't help for people moving here from else where, who haven't ever ridden as adults. I just tell them "wrong way".

Wait is that place (P&K) actually good? I always ride by there, but I guess it doesn't look to inviting so I never thought about it much.

I think for off-street paths like that, they also use fewer layers of asphalt than roads. In the few places where you can see the sides from erosion, it definitely appears thinner. But I can't find a specific design standard for this.

> 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

Road wear is proportional to roughly the forth power of axel weight. So compared to a car, bicycles basically don't cause any: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_weight#cite_ref-13

A reasonable question; I can think of a few different ways to answer it.

We could look at other places with safe cycling infrastructure, and compare to their statistics (the Netherlands has around 1.4 killed per 100 million kilometers cycled, for example).

We could also answer it with surveys on the perception of safety. This has some downsides, because it is subjective. But the subjective feeling of safety is also important, because facilities that do not feel safe will not be used.

We could also look at the deaths and injuries that do occur, and consider if they are really bizarre black swan events (person on bicycle eaten by escaped zoo lion), or things we actually do know how to prevent/greatly reduce, like doorings, right hooks, etc.

Right now, we often see people die from events we know could be mitigated by better infrastructure, and that such things could be practically deployed.

My thoughts:

While I don't t think this was a good moderation decision, I think I do somewhat understand the reasoning behind it. I am pretty much in favor of a rapid roll out of a complete network of bicycle infrastructure as rapidly as possible, removing whatever minimum amount of parking is necessary to achieve that. But, even as a supporter, many of these bicycle related posts are very repetitive. People supporting the change bring up the same points they brought up last time a similar change was rolled out; opponents trot out the same objections, which are then disputed in the same way. I feel like I could write a computer program to have these conversations for me.

On top of that, many times these discussions get sort of nasty. Like, even though I think the status quo is bad, I recognize that many people have adapted to it in various ways and it probably has some upsides for some one. There's no need to castigate some one because they prefer to drive for some trip or another. And it's not like the other side of the debate is any better; its a lot of useless "Some one using mode of transportation X did something bad once!". This being the Internet, some one will always read a post in the worst possible way, and they are the most likely one to reply.

So, those are the reasons I can imagine for implementing this policy. I think trying to justify it with an anecdote about an expectorating cyclist was not a very good explanation, however personally enraging that might have been.

Now, why I don't think it is a very good policy: Changes to the roads and infrastructure more broadly are news. Its important for people to, firstly, be aware of the specific changes. And I suppose if this is a discussion site, to have the option to discuss them.

That said, I'm not sure what is the best way to have a less repetitive and mean discussion. Maybe a weekly or bi-weekly mega-thread?

Ah; I have misinterpreted your criteria. If you only plan to go once a month, those places are all probably fine. It still matters a lot where you are commuting to though.

It's a perfectly reasonable comment. If traffic is a primary concern, one simple way to avoid traffic is to not drive.

I am not sure if I am over-emphasizing the "traffic" part of your post, but the best way to avoid it is to live somewhere you don't have to drive.

Of the cities you specifically mentioned, only Burlington meets the time-to-Boston criteria you specified, at least if there is any appreciable amount of traffic. Public transit options in Burlington basically do not exist, so you would be driving always. I am not sure where you plan to be commuting to, but you are going to hate life if you try commuting from the Worcester/its suburbs to Boston on a daily basis.

Here is a rough map of places that are a 45 minute drive to Charles/MGH in rush hour (just a point I picked in Boston): https://app.traveltime.com/search/0-lng=-71.07145&0-tt=45&0-mode=driving&0-time=a1668002455030&0-title=Charles%2FMGH%2C%20Cambridge%20Street%2C%20Beacon%20Hill%2C%20Boston%2C%20Suffolk%20County%2C%20Massachusetts%2C%2002114%2C%20United%20States&0-lat=42.36121. I'd say that is kind of optimistic though, and the outer fringes would not get you that travel time very reliably.

We could try some traffic gardens, as a way to teach children and establish some norms. I've heard a few parents around Somerville/Cambridge discussing this, but not concrete plans.

Living in or near Boston doesn't have any bearing on being admitted to MIT, or most other schools in and around Boston.

That's just what an AI would say.

Is this some kind of AI experiment?

The idea that bicycle infrastructure is useable only by 20 to 30 year old able bodied people is ridiculous though. Bicycles are a practical mode of transportation for many many trips, that are inexpensive, emit no pollution, and take up relatively little space. While it's true that some trips are best served by car, our transportation system over prioritizes them to a ridiculous degree.

There are cars in Holden, and you need one to get any where? Joel Scott Rt compleatly unwalkable. You can live there if you want, but I would not like to.

The public schools in Cambridge are actually pretty good, and you get to live next to your job in Cambridge.

I don't know by what ludicrous metric Holden has "better infrastructure", or is considered "walkable". I mean, yes, it is technically physically possible to walk in it.

Crime is also pretty low, although yes, Holden is lower.