As I’m sure you’re aware, even amongst avid cyclists there is contention about ‘bike lanes’. My own statement is ‘The finest bike lane is a shared roadway.’

I was a member of the Cambridge Bicycling Committee during the investigation prior to the Vassar Street sidepath. The Committee at that point was undecided. I had already put myself down as opposed, as I am a Forester-type vehicular cyclist, and he has shown scientifically and demonstrably that vehicular cycling is the safest and most secure. However, the Committee itself is chaired by a person who has a pathological hatred of John Forester, and who thinks that all cycling needs to be on a tricycle at 5 kilometers per hour.

During a Webinar conducted by the Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals on February 17, 2010, Cambridge’s Cara Seiderman, one of the presenters, stated that there had been no crashes on the Vassar Street facility away from intersections.

I know that there have in fact been such crashes, as I have received communications from two persons who were involved in serious bicycle-pedestrian collisions on the Vassar Street facility. In at least one of these, the pedestrian was taken away in an ambulance.

I received these communications because I had posted comments about the Vassar Street facility, which people involved in the crashes had found with a Web search. It stands to reason that other crashes occurred which were not reported to me.

My posting about the Vassar Street sidepaths is accessible online. It addresses some of the issues Paul Schimek raises, and a few others such as snow clearance.

Roadways should be designed to safely accommodate all types of vehicles, including bicycles, scooters, and bicycle-driven delivery vehicles. If a good case can be made to enhance and expand a parallel sidewalk to better accommodate children, such a secondary facility may be a good thing if appropriate measures are taken in the design to ensure that actual safety is not being replaced by mere perceived safety.

One of the greatest dangers of cycle tracks is where they intersect cross streets. Automobile and other drivers usually anticipate pedestrians crossing at a certain speed and there is usually plenty of time for all parties to stop. If a cyclist is riding on a sidewalk (or cycle track) at even a modest speed and crosses a street or driveway, there is a far greater chance that a collision will occur than if the bicycle had been traveling and visible in the roadway.

Even where there are few cross streets or driveways, a cycle track is, at best, superfluous. Such is the case for a portion of Vassar Street and this will likely be the case for the proposed Binney Street facility. Western Avenue is an entirely different story – a cycle track there would be nothing but a hindrance for experienced cyclists and a danger for less-experienced cyclists.

I agree with Decker on this one. It’s not that I think that the additional revenue should not go to “climate emergency related” activities, it’s that I believe all expenditures, regardless of revenue source, should be subject to the same budget process as everything else. The “climate activists” seem to feel that they should be entitled to a dedicated revenue stream and that’s plain ridiculous. The justification given is that the RPP fees are now prescribed by ordinance so that 100% of the funds are dedicated to activities related to the Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordinance passed in 1992. The current idea is to amend that Ordinance not only to increase the RPP fee but also to expand the range of permissible uses of the revenue.

The matter was properly referred to both the Ordinance Committee (as one might expect) and to the Finance Committee as per Decker’s request. This seems completely appropriate. While I don’t wish to criticize Toomey’s position, it does appear to be at least in part politically motivated, i.e. to secure votes. On the other hand, since the idea of a fee increase originated with Kelley, there is plenty of reason to believe that Decker’s skepticism may also have a political basis. Indeed, many a City Council meeting has degenerated into a personal conflict between the two.

Regarding Reeves’ nonsensical claim to be “the green councillor”, more than one person has noted that when he got a free SUV as Mayor, he was happy to drive wherever and whenever he wished with free gas provided by the City. He was also known to park illegally on the street near his house.

Another issue is that the Blue Hills Reservation is not a point destination. If a hike begins at Houghton’s Pond or the Trailside Museum, will a bus get you close to that? I have never seen a bus on any of the east-west roads in the Blue Hills and I’ve been there hundreds of times. The bus is really only an option if you’re starting at Shea Rink in Quincy.

Now that I’ve done my best to torpedo the notion of getting to hikes without a car, I have a request. I will soon be taking over as Chair of the Local Walks/Hikes Committee of the AMC Boston Chapter. If anyone would like to volunteer to put together a practical guide of the best ways to get to various hiking locations without a car, I would love to post it on our website: http://amcboston.org/walks. We have some of that information, but we could really use an update.

I would also like to figure out a good way to facilitate carpooling, so if you have any good ideas, I’m all ears.

I’d support charging $300 for parking stickers if nonresidents were also allowed to buy them, and if short-term metered parking were allowed in all permit zones.

The city’s reports on this project say that the most common bike accidents involve cars turning right onto Western Avenue not yielding to bikes. This is exactly the type of accident that off-street cycle tracks cause.

I think sharrows would be a great idea, but Cambridge’s traffic engineering staff considers them a measure of last resort, using them only where there’s no possible way to fit a bike lane or cycle track. They added bike lanes through Harvard Square rather than sharrows, even though the design of the relocated Holyoke Gate #1 bus stop leaves buses no choice but to block the entire bike lane and part of the right-hand general lane.