5 ms·

"Without bikes, I'd just walk and metro." Exactly my point. You wouldn't buy a car. People who live in Boston/Cambridge only use their car to get out of the

"Without bikes, I'd just walk and metro." Exactly my point. You wouldn't buy a car. People who live in Boston/Cambridge only use their car to get out of the city, not travel within it. For people outside of the city coming in, bikes are not a replacement (trains and buses are). Now if the plan is to have fewer people coming into the city, then bike lanes are great for discouraging that, but I'm going to guess that is not what the cities want. For example, I have a new startup and since we mostly live outside of the city proper and are tired of commuting in (especially to the nightmare of Kendall Square), we're setting up shop in the suburbs where there is unfortunately no public transportation.

andrewliebchen 12y ago
Commuting from out of town to Kendall Square is a great example of multi-modal, depending on where you live in the suburbs or surround towns. Since it's on the Red Line, if you're coming from Lexington/Concord, you could easily park your car at the massive Alewife garage, and take the 20 minute T ride to Kendall. Or, I know this is a dramatic suggestion, you could move to Cambridge. You could encourage your employees to move to Cambridge. Then you'd be able to walk/ride to work. You'd probably have to give up your yard, and perhaps pay rent instead of a mortgage.
graeme 12y ago
I feel you're quoting me out of context. I used to not live near a metro. If I hadn't had bikes then, and could have afforded a car, I would have driven. My point was that all factors count. In cities without metros, some people still take transit and bike, but more people take cars. In cities with poor biking, some people still metro and bus. But the more non-car options you have, the easier it is the not have a car. You're making the argument "since bikes are not required in most cases, they're not useful". But you could say the same about any of the other four factors I listed.

andrewliebchen 12y ago

Commuting from out of town to Kendall Square is a great example of multi-modal, depending on where you live in the suburbs or surround towns. Since it's on the Red Line, if you're coming from Lexington/Concord, you could easily park your car at the massive Alewife garage, and take the 20 minute T ride to Kendall. Or, I know this is a dramatic suggestion, you could move to Cambridge. You could encourage your employees to move to Cambridge. Then you'd be able to walk/ride to work. You'd probably have to give up your yard, and perhaps pay rent instead of a mortgage.

graeme 12y ago

I feel you're quoting me out of context. I used to not live near a metro. If I hadn't had bikes then, and could have afforded a car, I would have driven. My point was that all factors count. In cities without metros, some people still take transit and bike, but more people take cars. In cities with poor biking, some people still metro and bus. But the more non-car options you have, the easier it is the not have a car. You're making the argument "since bikes are not required in most cases, they're not useful". But you could say the same about any of the other four factors I listed.