| This should not be “ either/ or” All should have an investment in what you propose- reducing pollution, congestion, accidents. But one size does not fit all. Some cities do not lend themselves to congestion pricing without a major investment in good public transit. We also need to reduce the cost of public transit, where it exists. We need short and long- term approaches that lock in investments that cannot be undone by changes in administrations, local, state or federal.
Charging drivers more hits low income folks harder than most of those in towns like Lincoln. Charging drivers more has profound impacts on rural communities. Charging drivers more has a profound impact on long haul trucking- a life line for rural communities and our national economy.
Without more inclusive and wholistic thinking, we will never move forward. It will the back and forth seen here. It will mean short term” solutions “ will be a reflection of the loudest, most persistent, well- funded voice. It will not serve, long- term, any of the goals identified. And, it will definitely not serve the public good- all the public…those on 2 wheels, those on 4, those on 18 and those on foot. Namaste. Sent from my iPad This argument has been put forth for years and has largely been debunked. The better solution is to charge drivers more as the benefits for us all of reducing vehicular traffic are FAR GREATER than attempting to mandate licenses or tax cyclists.
Putting licensing or fee requirements on cyclists are ineffective and counter to our larger societal goals of reducing traffic, limiting road fatalities, and combating climate change. First, the vast majority of people who cycle already are licensed drivers and car owners and therefore already pay to use our roads. Second, cost of use is exponentially higher for drivers of cars, both for individuals and for cities and towns, and both in terms of construction, environmental, and health. Third, getting more people out on bikes and on foot improves conditions for everyone, including motorists, by reducing both congestion and pollution.
John
PS Take a look at the positive impact of congestion pricing in NYC. From a recent Drexel study:
Exhaust from gas and diesel-powered vehicles is one of the largest contributors to urban air pollution. These fossil fuel-powered vehicles produce large amounts of air pollutants, such as fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) that increase pollution levels in surrounding neighborhoods and harm the health of local residents. Breathing even low levels of PM2.5 and NO2 increases your risk of respiratory and cardiovascular disease and can contribute to premature mortality. Older adults and children are particularly sensitive to the health impacts of air pollution, and air pollution spikes are a common trigger for “episodes” or exacerbations among individuals with respiratory diseases such as asthma or COPD. Because of the health threats of air pollution from fossil-fuel powered vehicles, policies that prevent fossil-fuel powered vehicles from polluting dense residential areas are important for protecting public health. For example, UHC researchers have found that NYC’s clean bus program successfully reduced levels of harmful air pollution in the neighborhoods immediately surrounding bus routes. Congestion pricing also has important implications for road safety. After implementation, cities with congestion pricing experienced large short-term and long-term decreases (over 50%) in road traffic crashes in congestion pricing areas as well as surrounding areas, including when compared to expected crash rates had congestion pricing not been implemented. While crashes decreased overall, the number of fatal and severe collisions among motorcyclists (~17%) and bicyclists (~13%) increased in the initial year, but then decreased in subsequent years, and the temporary increase in crashes may have been driven by increases in the motorcycle (+15%) and bicycle trips (+ 66%). These positive road safety effects may be amplified when paired with programs to reduce motorist speeds, such as Vision Zero and Complete Streets road designs, which are currently operating in NYC, which can reduce bicyclist and pedestrian injuries and deaths. Fast Company, February, 2025: https://www.fastcompany.com/91272434/a-million-cars-have-disappeared-what-nyc-is-like-after-one-month-of-congestion-pricing We need to be careful with designing for ALL modes of transit. We also need to think more creatively about how to ensure safety for wheeled transit using our roads. With licensing, we have a mode to pay for roads and track compliance with regulations. All wheeled transit has a vested interest in this- safety and decent roadway surface and design. Has licensing for all wheeled transit ever been discussed? That would put all wheeled transit, bikes included, on a level playing field and with a vested seat at the table. Sent from my iPad Just because there are a few anecdotes about bikers doing dangerous things, that doesn’t mean that we should condemn biking. First of all, we should look at the data, which someone posted in an earlier reply. Of course, there will always be bike accidents. The question is whether they are going down with these safety interventions, which they are. And second, if we vilify bikers, then we should just as well vilify drivers. I see drivers do crazy stuff all the time, putting at risk bikers, pedestrians, and other vehicles, while also polluting. Maybe we shouldn’t allow anyone to drive vehicles too , if we’re not going to provide good access for bikers. Let’s get rid of roads for passenger cars too, if a few people doing crazy things is a reason to get rid of a mode of transit. On Tuesday, I saw a cyclist take off from a sidewalk in Harvard Square, into a crosswalk where there were pedestrians with no protective equipment, then cycle on through a red light and through another crosswalk with more pedestrians. Minutes before that, I saw two people on a motorized skateboard with no helmets going the wrong way down a side street, fast. Not a great situation in Harvard Square these days.
A few months ago, I was going down Brattle St and passed a side street on the right where a cyclist was lying in the intersection waiting for paramedics. It was where cars turn right and have to do it across the bike lane, which is to their right, without a sight line of a potential cyclist who may be coming up behind them. Sends chills down the spine every time I pass by.
So you interpret “false” how you want, but it’s super dangerous for everyone out there in Cambridge these days.
I need to respond to this, because for some reason biking and bike lanes are becoming a hot button issue in the Boston Mayor's race and it seems out here as well. I can tell you, as someone who has biked for over 20 years in Cambridge and Boston without bike lanes, and in recent years with bike lanes, it is now a million times safer. You would put your life on the line every time through Porter Sq, down Boylston St, around the common, in JP, etc.: just look at all the white bike memorials. Presently, it's a joy to ride around town. To say bike lanes are a hazard to everyone is false. If you don't trust my anecdotal account, see data below from Cambridge showing decreased numbers of incidents, and of the incidents, there are far fewer resulting in serious injuries. Biking is the best way to get around Cambridge/Boston/Brookline. You can travel end-to-end in minutes compared to driving or most public transit. There are bike racks for parking, so visiting stores and museums is cheap and easy, far easier and cheaper than parking has ever been. There are many forms of bikes now. You can use a scooter or e-bike, which is great for hauling cargo and/or not arriving somewhere sweaty. For those who can't walk, jog, or bike and refuse public transit, non-drivers take cars off the streets and allow taxis and buses to flow smoother around town. As long as people drive, there will never be enough room on the streets to prevent traffic, and never enough parking for all the cars. We could try tearing everything down and paving the whole state, but even then, I doubt there would be enough lanes to prevent traffic, so it's better to provide a multi-modal transit approach. Lincoln <image.png>
<image.png>Other feedback… Under public transit, there’s nothing about the trains. Enhancing train service is better than adding more buses to the roads, right?
And the question about bike lanes and walking paths fails to address the fact that bike lanes are a huge hazard for everyone. If they were safe, I would want more of them, but I work in Cambridge, and I can tell you that they’re not safe - for pedestrians, for drivers, or for cyclists. It’s been a huge hit to have bike lanes constructed. It would make me not move to Cambridge, the way people ride in the bike lanes. They act like pedestrians moving at 30 mph, swerving through cross walks with people in them, blowing through red lights and stop signs, crossing lanes of traffic regardless of right of way, and using the sidewalks at will. It’s the worst.
It does seem like the survey has a certain view in mind and is looking for affirmation rather than information.
Good morning, Lincoln!
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) has developed a Greater Boston Priority Climate Action Plan and is looking for feedback from residents. I am passing along the information in hopes you’ll take 5 minutes or so to respond to the survey. This is open to anyone in the “Greater Boston region” which covers almost 170 communities, so please feel free to share the links with friends and family! I have completed the survey and it really is pretty quick. Thank you! Jennifer
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [email protected].
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [email protected].
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [email protected].
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
|
