Read on Twitter
Wow, Philadelphia is technically very close to this, if it weren't for councilmanic prerogative. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-02/how-d-c-s-mandatory-bike-lane-law-happened?cmpid=BBD020221_CITYLAB&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=210202&utm_campaign=citylabdaily
DC has essentially passed a law saying if a street is set up for a certain type of infrastructure, the infrastructure has to go in. The community/city councilmember can't block it.
This has led to -- OMG -- better community meetings.
Which makes sense. If you go into a meeting knowing something that's good for the community is happening, you can discuss *how* it will happen -- not how you can stop it.
Imagine the law required the 11th Street bike lane and you didn't have all these people show up threatening violence in an attempt to stop it. https://www.gridphilly.com/blog-home/2020/1/15/threats-fly-at-south-philadelphia-meeting-to-discuss-bike-lane-changes
Unfortunately, threats of violence and long-discredited arguments against better street infrastructure still hold weight when the councilmember has final say over how a street looks.
(As I think I noted a week or so ago, one argument against a long-planned upgraded bike lane happening right now, is that 'protected bike lanes actually make it more dangerous for cyclists'.)
And the thing is, if City Council passed a similar bill (which got rid of Councilmanic prerogative), it'd go a long way. Just imagine: "‘Listen, we have to put a protected bike lane in, it’s mandated by law."
And the thing is, we wouldn't have to do much to make this happen! We already have the basic blueprints from 2012. We'd just need to get rid of the "veto for whatever reason" power at the legislative level. https://www.philadelphiastreets.com/images/uploads/resource_library/cs-handbook.pdf
