Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One possible semi-fix is to actually charge to use highways or major roads, with flexing prices depending on demand at the time. If such a system were in place, people would be encouraged to leave earlier and some employers may alter their start times to satisfy employees. I personally think overall things would be much better in such a system. I'm not claiming I have specifics about how to set this up, but just that it is a possibility.
I would like to see something along these lines as well. Maybe even a congestion charge like London has.
But to Timbeline's point about the poor having the hardest time of it, they're needs to be something in place to mitigate that. My thought would be to expand parking at select Commuter Rail and Rapid Transit Hubs, increase frequencies and schedules and offer Zone 1 fares from those points to enable drivers to bypass the surge pricing and/or congestion charge if they want.
Off the top of my head, North Beverly, Woburn, New Stop along 128 in Waltham by Exit 26, Riverside (Green Line with express trains), 128/University Park (maybe run the Orange Line this far too), Canton Junction, Braintree (both CR and Red Line) would all be good "hubs" for keeping automobile traffic on the outside of the 128 belt. Obviously a massive investment would have to take place to support this kind of boost, but it could be offset by returns on congestion charges/surge tolls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeePee
We could also try and take the mystique and exclusivity of cycling culture in the inner city and act like we've been around like other older cities that have figured this out. I have been commenting on how the bike paths are getting congested and then i stop to think. When i see 6 bikes stopped at a light that looks terrible to me, but imagine if it were 6 cars. It makes no mathematical sense why people (in cars) hate cycling so much, Why is it an us vs. them
Agreed, but we need some significant infrastructure improvements first. I won't bike even though it's the quickest way into work for me. I won't do it because it's dangerous right now. We don't have enough separated bikeways, the ones we do (i.e. Staniford Street, Commercial Street, etc) lead nowhere or are used as loading zones for cars, cabs and ubers; and cars and trucks are not conditioned to "share the road" at present.
And I see both sides of the "why people hate cycling" so much argument. From the cyclists perspective, it's dangerous, cars are oblivious to bikers, and we don't have good infrastructure yet. So it's challenging. From the car (and pedestrian) standpoint, cyclists get in the way and often ignore traffic signals. As a pedestrian, I've almost been taken out by cyclists while I have the right of way in a crosswalk more than I ever have by drivers (who also suck). I'm sure most bikers are fine. But the ones that aren't really stand out. I would be willing to wager that if infrastructure was improved, this would be less of an issue. I'd love to see an effort to make at least three (from the north, south, and west), continuous bikeways into/out of the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
More and better mass transit is really the key.
Yes. It starts and ends here. Everything else is a bandaid.
[quote\It really doesn't make sense. Drivers benefit the most in many ways from both mass transit and cycling. Each person using those means is another car off the road and less congestion.[/quote]
Yes they do. And more viable options means more freedom of choice for everyone. I know some people who would rather sit in traffic for hours on end than try to use a mass transit alternative. I know some who wouldn't even consider riding a bike. But if you improve transit and cycling options, you make it easier for the stubborn driver to remain a stubborn driver.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,935,179 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjimmy24
How about surge pricing for automobiles and using some portion of it to fund the T with specific attention paid to lower income areas?
There are creative solutions out there, but politicians aren't rewarded for creativity at the ballot box (quite the opposite), sadly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeePee
Problem there is...those low income areas are now turned into high income areas solely because of the proximity to the T. It really goes to show you the value transportation has.
Also true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Yes. It starts and ends here. Everything else is a bandaid.
Absolutely. The problem is the mindset of people. Infrastructure (mass transit or otherwise) is seen as a cost, when its shown over and over that it returns more than it spends, when done wisely. Is a company just seeing a new production machine as a cost? Or are they calculating the return from their investment and deciding it is fiscally advantageous to make the investment? Infrastructure is no different. Ugh. So simple.
There are creative solutions out there, but politicians aren't rewarded for creativity at the ballot box (quite the opposite), sadly.
Also true.
Absolutely. The problem is the mindset of people. Infrastructure (mass transit or otherwise) is seen as a cost, when its shown over and over that it returns more than it spends, when done wisely. Is a company just seeing a new production machine as a cost? Or are they calculating the return from their investment and deciding it is fiscally advantageous to make the investment? Infrastructure is no different. Ugh. So simple.
Well i think it goes back to this:
The infrastructure upgrades would help existing residents a little bit but the more important thing is setting the table for increased density via TOD. Long time residents might see this as an investment made for someone else's benefit, someone who doesn't even live around here and who you might not even want around here.
Is that logic sound? I don't think that it is, like most of us here have been saying increasing infrastructure and density can increase property values and bolster economic growth. That is not a given though, and it will necessarily come at a cost, and it will necessarily impact quality of life in the area. The nature of that impact will vary from case to case and whether or not that is a positive impact will be largely subjective.
Hate to say it but revitalizing the older cities in MA is out of the question entirely. That’s the only place late concentrations of immigrants and minorities are able to bth live and work in this state and they have virtually no disposable income to fuel beautification projects or stimulate the economy, or even upkeep their homes really. They are the dumping ground for poor, newly arrived, and marginalized. Building more densely would be the only way to allevitate the tremendous social burden those cities carry. I suspect those cities will continue a social-and quite frankly economic-deterioration. Them bodegas barbers and non profit just don’t get it done that’s why the drugs are they-that’s how they make ends meet.
Lowell is the only major city in MA to date to have experienced a sustained renaissance and even that’s been over for about a decade really. Lowell is okay but if that’s he best you can do when you go all hands on deck for 15 (1994-2009) years it’s pretty sad.
Lowell is a pretty ugly city with outright poor walkability by NE standards. Akin in some ways to Worcester, which has also steadily improved over the years with none of the same fanfare. The reason these cities could improve at all is because of the schools. Umass system alone has a 6+ billion dollar impact on the state economy each year. Education and healthcare is the largest sector of the state economy
People are more likely to invest in places with schools and the schools themselves invest back into the cities. It's interesting how this model works consistently well in MA compared to the CT cities. I'm not sure what is the reason for that but in terms of this state it is very effective.
In my home town we had this empty buildings for so long
At the same time the whole downtown area has become safer and livelier than ever. I don't think that is a coincidence. It makes me wonder what Umass Dartmouth is doing in NB and Fall River and what they could be doing to educate and enrich their environment
And I see both sides of the "why people hate cycling" so much argument. From the cyclists perspective, it's dangerous, cars are oblivious to bikers, and we don't have good infrastructure yet. So it's challenging. From the car (and pedestrian) standpoint, cyclists get in the way and often ignore traffic signals. As a pedestrian, I've almost been taken out by cyclists while I have the right of way in a crosswalk more than I ever have by drivers (who also suck). I'm sure most bikers are fine. But the ones that aren't really stand out. I would be willing to wager that if infrastructure was improved, this would be less of an issue.
A big share of the problem is the bike messenger industry, their dangerous and reckless behavior goes largely unchecked by the city. Start regulating them better, I bet the overall bike culture will change.
A big share of the problem is the bike messenger industry, their dangerous and reckless behavior goes largely unchecked by the city. Start regulating them better, I bet the overall bike culture will change.
Not even a little bit. Bike messengers are concentrated in a 2ish square mile radius of the financial district. So unless you are driving around that area mid day, And if you are don't expect a smooth breeze in a vehicle with the absence of bike couriers... The soul purpose of them in the first place is to get packages to other buildings.. And the only mode of transport that can penetrate the solid mass of densely packed cars just happens to be 10 pound bikes. So let's get into the whole chicken and egg situation here.
We could also try and take the mystique and exclusivity of cycling culture in the inner city and act like we've been around like other older cities that have figured this out. I have been commenting on how the bike paths are getting congested and then i stop to think. When i see 6 bikes stopped at a light that looks terrible to me, but imagine if it were 6 cars. It makes no mathematical sense why people (in cars) hate cycling so much, Why is it an us vs. them
I'm a pedestrian inside 128 so I have a somewhat neutral perspective. Why do people in cars hate cyclists? It's hard enough to watch out for other cars on narrow streets crowded with cars. Adding in cyclists who are always hard to see, some who do really stupid things, and some who are aggressively rude and it's too much for many inner-city drivers to handle. In their minds it's the stupid and rude cyclists that are the problem--and they are a problem--but even if every cyclist were perfectly behaved I still think it's just too stressful for drivers.
"“Preliminary investigation has revealed that the truck was stopped at the intersection of Museum Way and O’Brien Highway, waiting to take a right turn onto Museum Way from O’Brien Highway,” the release said. “The bicyclist was also stopped, on the right side of the truck, waiting to take the same turn. When both the truck and bicyclist began to make their right turn, the bicyclist was struck by a tire of the truck"
This is where designated, separated bikeways save lives. This is how many, if not most, of these accidents happen. It's the main reason I won't ride, and it's probably one of the reasons that there's a visible segment of "rude" cyclists who blast through red lights at intersections - it's safer than stopping and waiting like they're supposed to. Most of the cyclist deaths I've read about are the same as this - "Rider stopped at light, waiting to turn right is crushed by car/truck also turning right." I haven't seen many where it's "Rider blows through red light and is hit by oncoming car."
Not even a little bit. Bike messengers are concentrated in a 2ish square mile radius of the financial district. So unless you are driving around that area mid day, And if you are don't expect a smooth breeze in a vehicle with the absence of bike couriers... The soul purpose of them in the first place is to get packages to other buildings.. And the only mode of transport that can penetrate the solid mass of densely packed cars just happens to be 10 pound bikes. So let's get into the whole chicken and egg situation here.
So it's OK for an old lady to get knocked over and fracture her pelvis because "somebody needed their package delivered"??? If a FedEx driver goes .5 mph over the speed limit, they have their birthrights taken away. I would see them all over DT. Are they the only offenders, no. But like with bad driving, it's all contagious. They were certainly one of the earlier contributors to the whole cyclists being above the law phenomenon.
I do fail to see why drivers get angry with the responsible cyclists though, never bothered me in the slightest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
