ClarkFable t1_iwcan53 wrote
Reply to comment by crazicus in Paint-only bike lanes on one of Cambridge's busiest bike routes will get upgraded with physical protection in 2023 by streetsblogmass
Yah, but maybe official project plans shouldn't overstate their case with biased data? Decisions should be made with the best possible info, not trumped up stats. It's called science. Otherwise you end up making bad decisions.
crazicus t1_iwcd0kd wrote
Is it biased though? It’s simply true that at rush hours in peak season, bikes make up half of the traffic on the road. Also, it’s far beyond any reasonable threshold for getting protected bike lanes. Even if the bike numbers went to zero in the winter (which they don’t), it would warrant protection here.
ClarkFable t1_iwce5m7 wrote
> It’s simply true that at rush hours in peak season, bikes make up half of the traffic on the road.
No that's not necessarily true. If you read my comments, above (edited to include data). Looks like they used peak hour bike usage from September and compared to to average usage from February for cars, and full year averages for transportation. So you have month of year bias, and peak versus average bias.
Which isn't very surprising if you spend a significant amount of time on Hampshire street.
crazicus t1_iwcgzxp wrote
Even if you think that that’s enough to make it show that bikes are a vast minority, it’s still enough people per hour to justify protection.
ClarkFable t1_iwckkn1 wrote
Everything is a cost benefit. So while you might be correct, you can't know for certain unless you have real data.
crazicus t1_iwcn7lw wrote
700+ bikers in an hour is real data.
ClarkFable t1_iwcsopi wrote
Yes, I understand you don’t care how many cars actually use the road. You’ve made this quite clear.
crazicus t1_iwcv0kr wrote
What? This isn’t about the cars at all. The space for bikes has already been allocated years ago, the oldest image on Google StreetView for Hampshire St is in 2007 and it has the same lanes. This is a conversation about whether that space gets protection, it’s not taking any road space from cars. Do you even know what we’re talking about here?
ClarkFable t1_iwcwgfy wrote
Unless I am mistaken, they are narrowing the vehicle travel lanes, as well as getting rid of parking and some loading zones. And to be clear, I'm not even set against the changes on Hampshire st., I am for being forthright in the presentation of relevant data to the community.
crazicus t1_iwcx7gt wrote
You are mistaken.
> “We’re just doing an introduction to the project tonight, looking for broad feedback on safety issues, parking and loading needs, and things like that. There’s no specific design yet,” said Elise Harmon-Freeman, communications manager for the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department of the City of Cambridge, on Tuesday evening.
They have been forthright with their data. They say exactly when and where they collected it. Not sure what more you want.
ClarkFable t1_iwcyav6 wrote
My first post explained how the statement about % of travel modes in OP's article is potentially misleading (i then demonstrated how it is misleading by referring to additional data--at some other commenters request). And here is the project plan that notes the impact on vehicle lanes, parking and loading. https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/2023/hampshirest/hampshirestreetprojectbrochureonline.pdf
My work here is done, unless you can think of something else to argue about. Cheers.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_iwqiwlx wrote
How many people drive around with a living room set taking up 6 times as much road space as a bike while spewing pollution
IntelligentCicada363 t1_iwgal4i wrote
The city has had explicit policy since the early naughts to reduce car usage.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_iwpou4k wrote
I don’t think the city did a cost benefit analysis before ripping out the trolleys and making everything for cars back in the 40s/50s/60s.
ClarkFable t1_iwpq9d9 wrote
So you are arguing that we have a tradition of stupidity that we should maintain? Brilliant.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_iwqidli wrote
You found one poor comparison in the cities brochure and then deduce we need to stop all construction because maybe there aren't as many bikes as cars on this stretch of road, which totally definitely for sure isn't completely meaningless because it isn't even up for debate if there is data that support this is a heavily trafficked route by bikes in general.
ClarkFable t1_iwqqux8 wrote
>You found one poor comparison in the cities brochure and then deduce we need to stop all construction
I made no such claim/deduction.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_iwqsi5l wrote
Right, you just took the time to do all that research because you have a passion for urban data analytics
ClarkFable t1_iwqsuu5 wrote
>Right, you just took the time to do all that research because you have a passion for urban data analytics
I did it because another commenter asked me to--after I noted that the numbers cited in the news article seemed highly suspect.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments