Biking in Boston

[bigeman312]

A couple projects that are colored yellow in the MAPC map, but I can't find updates online. I am wondering about their status, if anybody has updates:

• People's Pike
• Emerald Necklace (Route 9 Crossing)
• The connection between the Fens and Ruggles that is shown as funded in the MAPC map, but I know nothing about

 

[Roxxma]

The pedestrian head-start is a fabulous invention: it formalizes the reality that street crossing pedestrians have priority over left-and-right turn makers. With 3 seconds head start, they've often cleared the "conflict" part of their trip before the cars get the green

I wish this was the case on the Boston side of the River. Pedestrian lights make no sense here and there seems to be no coherent policy as to how they are set up. Because of that, people (rightly in most cases, IMO) ignore them. For example, in the South End, the intersection of East/West Brookline St and Washington St only has a walk signal across Washington only when the button is pushed and that is concurrent with the green to cross Washington. There is no reason for a don't walk when the light is green (not to mention, a very long wait at times). When it turns red, the walk signal to cross East or West Brookline Sts is on, regardless of whether or not the button is pressed. A block away at the intersection of East/West Newton and Washington Sts, the pedestrian signal is always concurrent with the green (and has a delay in green after the walk signal comes on to cross Washington). Further down on Mass Ave, the walk signals are automatic with the green, but only until 7 or 8 PM, when for some reason, they must be button operated. At Clarendon and Columbus, there is an exclusive walk phase, but when Clarendon has the red and Columbus has the green, there is a walk phase to cross Clarendon on the Back Bay Station side because it is a no turn on red and there is no conflict. A few blocks down at Clarendon and Tremont St, the exclusive walk phase is similar as to that at Columbus, but there is a don't walk signal to cross Clarendon when it has the red (and a no turn on red) and Tremont has the green. Again, no conflict, and no reason for a don't walk signal. Boston really needs to come up with a policy that is not the current incoherent intersection specific hodge-podge (fewer exclusive phases -drivers should expect to yield for pedestrians on turns, and pushbutton operated phases should be the rare exception, not the rule.). I'm surprised Walk Boston hasn't lobbied for this.

 

[Matthew]

WalkBoston has lobbied for these changes... BTD hasn't done much of anything. They wrote it into the Boston Complete Streets textbook and that's about it.

 

[sm89]

I wish this was the case on the Boston side of the River. Pedestrian lights make no sense here and there seems to be no coherent policy as to how they are set up. Because of that, people (rightly in most cases, IMO) ignore them. For example, in the South End, the intersection of East/West Brookline St and Washington St only has a walk signal across Washington only when the button is pushed and that is concurrent with the green to cross Washington. there is no reason for a don't walk when the light is green (not to mention, a very long wait at times). When it turns red, the walk signal to cross East or West Brookline Sts is on, regardless of whether or not the button is pressed. A block away at the intersection of East/West Newton and Washington Sts, the pedestrian signal is always concurrent with the green (and has a delay in green after the walk signal comes on to cross Washington. Further down on Mass Ave, the walk signals are automatic with the green, but only until 7 or 8 PM, when for some reason, they must be button operated. At Clarendon and Columbus, there is an exclusive walk phase, but when Clarendon has the res Columbus has the green, there is a walk phase to cross Clarendon on the Back Bay Station side because it is a no turn on red and there is no conflict. A few blocks down at Clarendon and Tremont St, the exclusive walk phase is similar as to that at Columbus, but there is a don't walk signal to cross Clarendon when it has the red (and a no turn on red) and Tremont has the green. Again, no conflict, and no reason for a don't walk signal. Boston really needs to come up with a policy that is not the current incoherent intersection specific hodge-podge (fewer exclusive phases -drivers should expect to yield for pedestrians on turns, and pushbutton operated phases should be the rare exception, not the rule.). I'm surprised Walk Boston hasn't lobbied for this.

If you report each location to the new "Boston 311" they will look into it. If BTD doesn't agree, they'll list their reason when they close the case. If you object to their findings, call back 311 and ask to speak to the Engineer who closed the case. It's actually a very easy (though sometimes long) process.

WalkBoston has lobbied for these changes... BTD hasn't done much of anything. They wrote it into the Boston Complete Streets textbook and that's about it.

If you push for "systematic changes" then it turns into a huge daunting project. If residents report problem intersections as they come across them then there's a much better chance of improvement.

 

[CantabAmager]

I'd rather see intersections redesigned in a way that makes sharing the road by automobiles feel natural. We don't want to add layer upon layer of control devices. Maybe there are some specific oversize intersections that could benefit, but I wouldn't want to see bike traffic lights everywhere.

We need the Idaho Stop made official policy as our primary upgrade to bicycle traffic control. The Idaho Stop is free to install and allows bikes to proceed before the light turns green for cars.

Eh, an Idaho stop is an intermediate step at best. I don't think it helps the situation of bikes in any meaningful way. At the end of the day, it's a question of what Boston wants to get from bike infra - if it's just a token "we kinda care about bikers" move, then yes an Idaho stop fulfills that goal, I guess. If the city wants to elevate bicycle infra to the point where two-wheelers can offer a realistic alternative to automobiles for both commutes and the home-to-store/bar/appointment trips then bike-specific traffic control devices are an absolute, mission-critical, necessity.

It's not by any means the only useful improvement - segregated lanes are far more important - but these lights are an essential part of the infra in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Utrecht, Groningen - all the best cycling cities in the world utilize them. They're fundamental parts of the system. In all those cities cars operate in much the same way they do in the US, it's not like the US' circumstances are so unique that what works in NL wouldn't work stateside, sure LoS codes in the US preclude certain modes, but that is a political, not engineering, issue.

I see the question over biking in Boston as purely political and economic (hence why I asked about the costs - lights aren't cheap as I understand), the engineering challenges have largely been solved, all that Boston needs to do is pair each intersections' dynamics with the best existing model. "Mixing" traffic seems to me, to be a red herring - segregating bikes from cars is best practice, mixing is at best a compromise when no other alternatives are possible.

 

[cden4]

So partially, the walk signals suck because BTD loves favoring cars when they can. Hence why some automatic signals end at a certain time of day, since they say there are fewer pedestrians during off-hours and they don't want drivers to wait if there's a good chance no one is crossing. I disagree with this philosophy, but in any case...

The second reason is that a lot of signals have shitty controllers that don't allow for overlapping pedestrian phases. I know, for example, that the one at Clarendon and Tremont cannot support making one non-conflicting leg say walk automatically in addition to the exclusive all-walk phase. (This is also true at Boylston St and Arlington St.) They need to upgrade the equipment..

Lastly, there is a certain bit of incompetence as well. For example, a concurrent walk signal that is only triggered by a button makes no sense if the green traffic signal is going to come up automatically anyway. (Another annoying case, though, is that if a green signal is on a loop detector and is only triggered at certain times of day when a car pulls up, BTD will not make the concurrent walk signal come up with that green unless someone presses the button. Their excuse is that the walk phase would extend the green for too long and drivers would have to wait. So instead of making drivers wait another 10 seconds, they make pedestrians wait another 2 minutes while they press the button and wait another full cycle.)

The whole situation is ridiculous. BTD just needs to do what Cambridge did and make all the traffic signals and walk signals automatic and remove all the push-buttons. If you have a coordinated network of signals, this should make traffic flow better anyway, since you don't have to worry about who's pressing a button or which cars are triggering which signals.

 

[Arlington]

Free advice for Boston:
Half of signals--those at wide & busy intersections in what I'd call the Congestion Pricing Zone (from Mass Ave to Seaport north of the SW Corridor /NEC)--should be modernized (head start for peds/bikes) and the other half should just be ripped out and replaced by 4-way/All-way stops (assuming that intersections have been necked down to 1 lane feeding in from each direction, but left 2-lanes "out" for fire-clearance etc)

For most of their day, most traffic lights are just ridiculous, encouraging a a run-and-gun lottery mentality where all that matters is "making" a light instead of watching the other cues/conditions on the road.

 

[DZH22]

If the city wants to elevate bicycle infra to the point where two-wheelers can offer a realistic alternative to automobiles for both commutes and the home-to-store/bar/appointment trips then bike-specific traffic control devices are an absolute, mission-critical, necessity.

Honest question: In December through March, particularly when there's snow on the ground, are people still biking? If not, could this really be a realistic transportation alternative to automobiles if it's pretty much untenable to ride for ~1/3 of the year, every year?

 

[Arlington]

Honest question: In December through March, particularly when there's snow on the ground, are people still biking? If not, could this really be a realistic transportation alternative to automobiles if it's pretty much untenable to ride for ~1/3 of the year, every year?

Your definition of "realistic transportation alternative" needs some work, and a far-suburban mindset is showing (in the far suburbs there is only 1 mode, the car, and there are no alternatives)

In T Zone 1A and the Hubway service area (which is roughly our definition of "Boston" for "Biking in Boston") if one is a multi-modalist, all modes are alternative to all others. I assume many 3-season cyclists do a mix of walk, bus, rail, or car when they're not biking. Hubway can shut down Dec 1 or Jan 1 and not reopen to April and yet the multimodal network keeps working.

I keep my '95 Subaru parked in my driveway for use about 60 days a year, take transit another 30, and bike for the rest. But, yeah, I throw the old Subaru into blizzards when I'm not biking or on the T or have to do a carpool.

I'd also recast your "1/3 to "1/4", though: This past winter was really only unbikable Jan/Feb/Mar due to a mixture of cold and snow. (Obviously, a well-equipped hard core keeps going year round and tend to be activists, while the political "mass" of cyclists is active May to October)

I'd also say that it'd be ok (on very narrow streets) to have a contra-flow lane 5' wide designated for bike travel 9months of the year and snow piling as "swing space" the other 3. (but cleared, if possible for actual bike use even then)

Bikes are good at sharing with all kinds of other road uses (Bike-Bus, Bike-Ped, Bike-Snow).

Arlington's Minuteman Trail was originally 3-seasons of biking and, in winter, reserved as a cross-country ski trail. But there were enough cyclists that they switched to plowing it. Further out in the burbs (where there is less commute-biking) bike-ski is still a good 9 month / 3 month plan.

 

[Matthew]

Biking doesn't have to be "3 season" only. Just like people have learned how to prep and drive cars in the snow, you can learn to prep for biking in the snow. I only stopped biking for the worst 3 weeks of February. And only because I didn't want to get my 'fancy', new bike THAT dirty. My street was a gooey pile of icy slush for most of the month, and I got frustrated enough finally that I took my shovel and hand shoveled the slush away when it warmed up a little bit, so I could finally get back to riding. The T was useless, so I was just walking to work for those weeks, and since the sidewalks were largely uncleared (except by BU), I was walking in the middle of the street anyway. No other choice. May as well ride.

If you don't mind getting the bike dirty (e.g., by having a 'beater' bike for the purpose), then it's a very effective way of getting around in the snow. A good beater bike is something simple and solid, maybe even single-speed to avoid clogging up the little derailleur parts. Pick up an old used one and strip off the fancy parts. Get thick, knobby tires -- like for mountain biking.

Really, regarding tires, it's the same advice you get for driving a car in the snow. Your biggest enemy is ice. You can get studded bike tires to deal with that if you really, really want... or you can just learn to avoid ice and go slowly and carefully.

Clothing-wise, you just wear the kind of gear you'd wear to go skiing. Works pretty well, and the biggest danger is working up a sweat and overheating. Have good bike lights (always should!) and use them even in the day.

I'd definitely have gotten a beater bike if I was going to be here for the winter again, and bike all 366 days (2016!). When you got the set up and the gear right, it's really the fastest way to get around in the snow. The T is a mess and can't be relied upon when you need it most. And many drivers stay off the roads. The city will never seem to get with the sidewalk clearing program, but pumps tons of effort into cleaning the roadways down to dry, bare asphalt. In fact, the studded tires may be complete overkill because of Boston's obsession with clearing to asphalt. The ironic result is that biking is easier than walking in the wintertime.

I was hardly alone. The numbers drop but there are plenty of riders out there who still see the advantages. You may have to change your normal routes. The Paul Dudley White path is nice when all the tourists are too scared of the cold to use it, but once it starts snowing the DCR refuses to clear it, so you need to know how to stay along the city streets that actually get cleared of snow.

If you're really awesome you can get one of those "fat bikes" with the ridiculously thick tires. They look really heavy but actually are relatively lightweight. Those can tackle just about any terrain -- including uncleared DCR paths. I've been seeing them a lot more this past year.

 

[bigeman312]

I'm a 10.5-month primarily bike commuter (aspiring to be 12, but roughly February 15 - January 1 isn't bad around here), and a 1.5 month primarily public transportation commuter.

I agree with some of the sentiment above. It isn't that biking is an "alternative" to driving for me. It's my primary mode. Walking and public transportation are "alternatives." Should it be the only viable mode? No, CYCLING NEEDS AN ALTERNATIVE. Most cyclists will not bike in at least one of the following: extreme cold, darkness, icy conditions, heavy precipitation.

The question should not be framed: is cycling a viable alternative?

Rather, the question should be framed: what should the encouraged multi-modal transportation options be?

Boston would not function well if the expectation was for everyone to walk everywhere. We no longer live in a society where that is viable.

Boston would not function well if the expectation was for everyone to bike everywhere. Too many people are deterred by the aforementioned obstacles.

Boston would not function well if the expectation was for everyone to take public transportation everywhere. We all know that public transportation and walking go hand-in-hand. You still need a mode of transportation to get to/from the "station."

Most of all, Boston would not function well if the expectation was for everyone to drive everywhere. We all know the geometric constraints, and the fact that having to lug a massive vehicle everywhere is not something this city is/should be equipped for. The economic barriers to entry are also notable to this mode.

So, is biking viable? Yes. Can it be the only mode? No, just like everything else.

 

[Matthew]

Right. A lot of my advocacy work has focused around getting walking, biking, transit, and light car usage (taxi/zipcar/rideshare/or ownership) to all play nicely together. Because they complement each other.

Of course city geography has a big effect. I have some theories about how a walking-oriented city over a certain size absolutely needs heavy rail transit for local service; while a biking-oriented city can get by with 'just' surface transit (e.g. buses and trams) and leave high-throughput railroads for longer, regional trips. Not well developed ideas, albeit. Just general observations... A walking-oriented big city can support good biking as well, but not without the strong backbone of heavy rail transit to carry the stunningly massive travel flows inherent in such an environment. A bike is a very efficient kind of vehicle, space as well as energy-wise, but it is still a vehicle that requires space to move and be stored. For example, take NYC: You can fit many, many more bikes on the streets compared to the number of cars that fit. But if you somehow convinced everyone to bike, there would still be huge, huge traffic jams... of bikes. Because the subways move THAT many people. Sadly the politics there are so fucked up that car issues dominate the conversation even though cars only account for a small percentage of overall travel in the city.

Anyway, I digress...

 

[CantabAmager]

Right. A lot of my advocacy work has focused around getting walking, biking, transit, and light car usage (taxi/zipcar/rideshare/or ownership) to all play nicely together. Because they complement each other.

Maybe you (and others, please! Even you DZH!) can offer some thoughts on the following then:

I's not naively claim that instituting a fully, 100% functional bike infra system is an easy or even worthy task in Boston. (I think it's worthy, but political opposition is such that there's a ceiling on what's immediately achievable). However, I've often wondered why Boston doesn't allocate it's resources in more narrowly targeted neighborhood goals, to the detriment of a city-wide system. Here's what I mean by that:

Density of bike lanes is arguably more important than general coverage - that's a maxim that holds true in Europe and the US. I can't find it now (it's bookmarked somewhere on my comp), but there was interesting study out of U of Minnesota (I believe) that found that density of specific infra induced more to use an American system than "connectivity" of the system - i.e. segregated street lanes are better than rail-to-trail. It's not that the community path system isn't useful (it's certainly less contentious politically, probably why Boston's system in that regard is fairly well developed - even compared to Amsterdam or Copenhagen), it's that those "preferred routes" generally don't allow for cyclists to use their bikes for much else other than leisure rides and commutes. And even then, I can say from experience that most of the bike commuters I know in Cambridge don't utilize the off-path systems anyways - they're a bit too loopy/hard to reach for effective travel (though I fully recognize people do use them, I'm just talking from personal experience here).

Why doesn't (or what's the reasoning for inaction) Boston and Cambridge double down on specific, geographically defined neighborhoods for full build-out? The problem intersections in Boston currently lie nicely within the "box" made by Mass Ave (east), Harvard Ave (west), Comm Ave/Beacon St/Brighton Ave (north), and Huntington (south). If I'm looking to target one area as a "trial" region for a proper build-out, it's there. If MassBike, Livable Streets, et al can have a "this is what were talking about!"-example, it makes advocacy in other areas easier as there's a tangible, close-by example of just what kind of benefits bike infra offers. I can imagine how annoying it must be for those involved in bike advocacy to hear the "I've just been to Copenhagen - why don't we just do that!"-line. Wouldn't it better/easier to say "I've just been to Allston, the South End should really follow suit!". Those areas are similarly connected via high-capacity public transit (ok, ok - it's the B, but you know what I mean) that offer an alternative in the event of adverse weather/construction disruptions. To boot, there's already a decent start to build off of in the upcoming Comm Ave re-design. I'd rather see Allston/LA/and the E-W arteries fully built out than the continuing "low-hanging fruit here, low-hanging fruit there, take what you can get when you can get it" approach. I don't even live there, but it'd make a case for improved facilities in my neighborhood so much easier.

Cambridge is in a similar position, I'd rather see any and all efforts directed to grade-separated infra in the Port, Kendall, Coast - even if that's detrimental to efforts elsewhere in the city. I know that's a hard-ask politically, but I don't think scattershot improvements are a better guiding mantra, when all is said and done.

 

[Matthew]

I would say (a) politics and (b) what resources?

Politics is what drives the process, unfortunately that's the way of the world. It's not good to be perceived as excluding large parts of the city, even if that's technically merited. It also doesn't help that there's multiple jurisdictions: the box you described includes a large part of Brookline, for example. But effectively what you describe does happen in bits and pieces. There's been more focus on fixing things in Boston proper, Allston and Jamaica Plain than in other parts of the city. Because that's where the loudest voices come from. There's a similar effect in Cambridge and Brookline.

It just doesn't look like much because there aren't many resources in the first place. Keep in mind that most 'bike infra' here in Boston is actually just the 'door zone' restriped with a little bit of paint. We haven't actually seen what real deployment looks like yet. It's just getting started, with Connect Historic Boston pulling in some Federal money, and Comm Ave Phase 2A relying on the once-in-a-generation street reconstruction need. Mass Ave was rebuilt in sections just a few years ago but there was little appetite for change at Public Works: the result is a nasty stroad with massive lanes for cars, a tiny bike lane, and an even tinier sidewalk. Even the one major concession -- taking away on-street parking near Berklee -- was just a matter of paint.

But I don't think it's necessarily right to just focus on one part of the city. Maybe when there's money to actually redo a large chunk of streets with protected intersections and such (but again, that usually only comes about when streets are ready for reconstruction, so in a fairly arbitrary order). But you don't need to leap to fully protected intersections and separated bike lanes in order to make good strides in safety and comfort. Yeah, there are some places where that's the only solution, and Boston is unfortunately stuck in a position of having large amounts of travel funneled towards a small set of 'main streets' that connect the neighborhoods together. But a large amount of walking and biking travel is on side streets that will never see a protected lane even in a full Dutch-style buildout. Tackling speeding and preventing what the British seem to call 'rat-running' can help a lot. Applying filtered permeability could make life a lot more pleasant, and it's been done plenty in American contexts. Doesn't require full rebuilding of streets, just some clever placement of bollards and a change in priorities.

 

[Arlington]

A very compelling and helpful video about right-turning-trucks and cyclists, essentially summarizing graphically (and with occasional audio) our points made here.

The author's point is that 4 cyclists have died this way in 4 years [i bet it is a pretty decent share of all fatal biking accidents in Boston Metro]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154590449688084

 

[chmeeee]

Everybody that rides a bike in the City should watch this video to understand what a trucker can and cannot see. (mentally mirror the video, it's British)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU


Personally, I don't think we should be allowing vehicles with blind spots that big on our roads. I do not understand how in 2015 we cannot solve that blind spot problem with some combination of mirrors, cameras, and/or sensors.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Wouldn't a single curved mirror be capable of showing everything, including the blind spot, but make everything look a little fatter?

 

[Randomgear]

The facebook post that Arlington posted was by Paul Schimek, former Boston Bike Czar and known to be opposed to nearly any bike infrastructure.
And yes Mr, Shimek, it is law for drivers to make sure it is safe to turn: MGL c90 sec14: No person operating a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall make a right turn at an intersection or driveway unless the turn can be made at a safe distance from the bicyclist at a speed that is reasonable and proper.


I had forgotten the video that former Boston Bikes interim Director Kris Carter starred in. It's very good and a new version for Boston area cyclists should perhaps be made and promoted at every Boston Bike event.

I don't buy those diagrams as an accurate description of what happened in Cris Weigl and Dr. Kurmann's deaths, they greatly oversimplify the collisions. In both cases the tractor trailer pulled into the leftmost lane before beginning their right turn and none of he posted diagrams show that. The still that the BPD posted on Twitter clearly shows how far to the left the truck driver pulled before beginning his turn.
The truck driver needed to take the turn far, far slower than he did to allow himself time to scan for vulnerable road users, and allow cyclists time to be able to understand the truck turning movement and be able to take action in time to avoid a collision. A slower turn may also have allowed the truck to make the turn from the right lane, if not the right turn lane, instead of from the left lane making the turn far less confusing to other road users.

edit: PS, Andrew Fischer noted the MGL chapter and section in an email chain that I received. I copied (and pasted) it directly from the MaLegislature.gov website.

 

[Arlington]

American Community Survey Report Who Drives to Work? Commuting by Automobile in the United States: 2013

On page 18, you'll see that top-income earners ($75k+) had a big increase in bike usage (from 1.1% of commutes to 2.4% of commutes) between 2006 and 2013. I suspect that in Boston, it is a much higher share (in both periods) and probably a higher increase.

The poorest groups went from using bike 3.1% to 3.6% of commutes. and the middle bikes grew from 1.9% of commutes to 2.9%

So in percentage terms, the biggest culture shift has come among the rich accepting bike commuting as a mode.

 

[bigeman312]

American Community Survey Report Who Drives to Work? Commuting by Automobile in the United States: 2013

On page 18, you'll see that top-income earners ($75k+) had a big increase in bike usage (from 1.1% of commutes to 2.4% of commutes) between 2006 and 2013. I suspect that in Boston, it is a much higher share (in both periods) and probably a higher increase.

The poorest groups went from using bike 3.1% to 3.6% of commutes. and the middle bikes grew from 1.9% of commutes to 2.9%

So in percentage terms, the biggest culture shift has come among the rich accepting bike commuting as a mode.

Or, another likely explanation: younger workers who bike to work are now breaking into the "top earners" category.