I love jets, but I couldn’t agree more. Flyovers are a fucking stupid way to celebrate anything. Especially for some stupid sports event that only about 1% of the population even knows about or gives a shit about.

I feel like the flakes are moving a bit to fast vertically. Otherwise phenomenal work.

Because if he goes more than a few pages, he knows he’ll bore you to death?

I’d still probably go with B&H.

Rent for you would be anywhere from $1300-2000. Totally doable

>Why would the city not be able to run housing at least not taking a loss?

Because it's basically impossible to run truly low income housing at a profit in a city. It also geographically concentrates low incomes in a way that's suboptimal (something the AHO plan tries to avoid). But just so we are clear, when you say "city run", you mean owned/subsidized and operated, right?

More city run housing is a bad idea. It’s a inefficient waste of resources. The current AHO plan basically has developers paying for everything, and can create large amounts of affordable housing with mixes of different incomes.

So is the obvious interpretation that the building of the stadiums had little to no impact, and if anything stopped an upward trend in deaths?

Using averages before and after doesn't seem to make much sense, especially if there is an overall growth in construction.

So AI for sure.

combination of lack of mass and lack of strong magnetic fields (also correlated with mass) which would shield it from some atmosphere stripping radiation.

>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.

>You found one poor comparison in the cities brochure and then deduce we need to stop all construction

I made no such claim/deduction.

So you are arguing that we have a tradition of stupidity that we should maintain? Brilliant.

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.

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.

Yes, I understand you don’t care how many cars actually use the road. You’ve made this quite clear.

Everything is a cost benefit. So while you might be correct, you can't know for certain unless you have real data.

> 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.

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.

None of the articles that quote that number provide a source, but if you need some support, here's what I found with 10mins of googling, TL;DR: the data they used is biased towards pro bike usage because they used a peak bike usage month (September). It also looks like they compared rush hour cycling usage to average car usage (although you can't tell that for certain from the source).

I think this is the source (page 2) of the numbers in the article, and guess what? The numbers cited in the article are perhaps unsurprisingly pro-cycling biased from the get go, note the qualification about the different time periods from when the data was collected "Bike counts taken on a weekday evening in mid-September 2019. Car counts from February 2018. Transit data from 2018 " Further, it looks like they compared rush hour cycling usage to average car usage (although you can't tell that for certain from the source) : https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/2023/hampshirest/hampshirestreetprojectbrochureonline.pdf

Proof of bias because of seasonal effects: p. 3 (showing January counts falling to less than a third of peak trips in September) . Note this data isn't specific to Hampshire St., but the seasonal trends are clear enough Jhttps://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/Bike/EcoCounter_Trends.pdf

Don't forget to downvote for increased visibility! I know facts are scary to the mob.

I’m sure it matters what part of the year you are looking at. No way it’s that high in January, like not even close. But in the fall when schools in session I can believe it.

Edit (copying the my response to someone below who wanted data):

None of the articles that quote that number provide a source, but if you need some support, here's what I found with 10mins of googling, TL;DR: the data they used is clearly biased towards pro bike usage because they used a peak bike usage month (September). It also looks like they compared rush hour cycling usage to average car usage (although you can't tell that for certain from the source). I think this is the source of the numbers in the article, and guess what? The numbers cited in the article are perhaps unsurprisingly pro-cycling biased from the get go, note the qualification about the different time periods from when the data was collected "Bike counts taken on a weekday evening in mid-September 2019. Car counts from February 2018. Transit data from 2018 " :

https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/2023/hampshirest/hampshirestreetprojectbrochureonline.pdf Proof of bias because of seasonal effects: p. 3 (showing January counts falling to less than a third of peak trips in September) . Note this data isn't specific to Hampshire St., but the seasonal trends are clear enough https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/Bike/EcoCounter_Trends.pdf

Are there any good example intersections?

How good are they at snow removal for bike lanes in Cambridge in general?

I think we mostly agree. In his defense, being a mod is mostly thankless, so it doesn't take much to just make you want to say "fuck it". If we are Monday morning QBing this thing, I would probably have just made a pinned biking megathread and moved everything there (until the multiple biking posts per day died down). I also probably would have restricted my bans to those clearly in violation of the rules (e.g., brigading and/or making relentless personal attacks). At the same time, I almost certainly would not have used an anecdotal experience as a platform to launch a tirade.

Most of the time, brigading resolves itself if you just wait them out, but it's a huge pain in the ass in the interim.

Seriously. Basically the mod folded like a lawn chair and handed power over to someone whose aligned with their interests. So like if the NRA brigades this sub, are we going to get a gun rights supporter as a mod next?

To the brigadiers who pulled off this stunt, well played. You don't have my love, but you have my respect.