Biking in Boston

HenryAlan said:
And therefore, the problem is bike lanes? What kind of crack is Ed Flynn smoking? The problem is a business model that refuses to pay the true cost of delivery service and the Councilor wants bike riders to pay that cost with our blood.
Click to expand...

Eagerly awaiting the good councilor's proposals to support adoption of cargo e-bikes, if he's interested in actually unclogging the delivery traffic.
 
KCasiglio said:
MassDOT has released its statewide Bike-Ped gaps analysis. It only considers MassDOT roadways, but it's an absolutely remarkable resource for planners and advocates.

Experience

experience.arcgis.com experience.arcgis.com
Click to expand...
Is the tool new or the data? For example I noticed that they label the Mass Ave bridge as needing separation, even though it's had it for a handful of years now? (also all the labels misspell 'separated bike lane')
 
Badusername said:
Are the Greenway surface roads not MassDOT? I was surprised to not see it here.
Click to expand...
They are in fact under City of Boston jurisdiction, per the Road Inventory. I'm surprised by that as well.

sm89 said:
Is the tool new or the data? For example I noticed that they label the Mass Ave bridge as needing separation, even though it's had it for a handful of years now? (also all the labels misspell 'separated bike lane')
Click to expand...

The tool is new, and relies on the Bike Facility Inventory which I will be the first to say is a flawed dataset*. You'll notice in your example it's only indicating the Cambridge side of the bridge as a gap. Sure enough, go into the facility inventory and you'll see that the data source for the Cambridge side is the City of Cambridge, and the data source for the Boston side is Toole Design Group. My suspicion would be that the inventory was updated for the Boston side recently and hasn't been for the Cambridge side.

*The first thing you'll notice is a bunch of lines where there very obviously is not any bike facility. The inventory if you look in the data table is indicating where there are planned facilites in addition to actual facilities. However it A: does not visually differentiate between the two, which is nonsensical for a public facing map, and B: is VERY generous in what counts as a planned facility. This is not "it's been programmed and we should expect it when the TIP funding comes through in 2027" it's, to use my local example, "this was indicated in the Quincy bicycle master plan" which is no actual guarantee of it ever being built. Consequently, the bike lanes that actually exist on Centre Street in Qunicy aren't indicated at all, whereas bike lanes over the Water Street bridge which are basically "the city said it'd be nice to have some day" are. The gap analysis does not include "planned" but unbuilt facilities, so it will still mark an unbuilt planned facility as a gap, as we can see with Willard Street in Quincy.
 
KCasiglio said:
They are in fact under City of Boston jurisdiction, per the Road Inventory. I'm surprised by that as well.



The tool is new, and relies on the Bike Facility Inventory which I will be the first to say is a flawed dataset*. You'll notice in your example it's only indicating the Cambridge side of the bridge as a gap. Sure enough, go into the facility inventory and you'll see that the data source for the Cambridge side is the City of Cambridge, and the data source for the Boston side is Toole Design Group. My suspicion would be that the inventory was updated for the Boston side recently and hasn't been for the Cambridge side.

*The first thing you'll notice is a bunch of lines where there very obviously is not any bike facility. The inventory if you look in the data table is indicating where there are planned facilites in addition to actual facilities. However it A: does not visually differentiate between the two, which is nonsensical for a public facing map, and B: is VERY generous in what counts as a planned facility. This is not "it's been programmed and we should expect it when the TIP funding comes through in 2027" it's, to use my local example, "this was indicated in the Quincy bicycle master plan" which is no actual guarantee of it ever being built. Consequently, the bike lanes that actually exist on Centre Street in Qunicy aren't indicated at all, whereas bike lanes over the Water Street bridge which are basically "the city said it'd be nice to have some day" are. The gap analysis does not include "planned" but unbuilt facilities, so it will still mark an unbuilt planned facility as a gap, as we can see with Willard Street in Quincy.
Click to expand...
The surface roads near the greenway that were created by the Big Dig were only recently transferred from MassDOT to the City (in the last several years).
 
Interesting looking group ride on Sunday, led by Peter Furth of Northeastern, regarding at risk bike infrastructure. This is from the Boston Cyclists Union's slack.
Bike tour of threatened bike and bus infra this Sunday! All are welcome to join a STAN (Sustainable Transportation at Northeastern) tour of threatened bike and bus infrastructure, led by Professor Peter Furth. In Boston City Council and elsewhere, the Cars-R-Us crowd are calling for getting rid of bike lanes and bus lanes on Tremont Street, Huntington Ave, and elsewhere. We've already seen the Boylston Street bus lane eliminated, and flexposts have been removed from the Mass Ave Newmarket-area bike lanes. We'll tour all these places and more to get an idea of what's at stake. Sunday, April 6, depart at 10 am from the Blue Bikes stand on Columbus Ave at Northeastern's Renaissance Garage.
Click to expand...

1743684865649.png
 
www.bostonglobe.com

Amid tensions over bike lanes, city releases new recommendations for Boston streets - The Boston Globe

The overarching message of the nine-page memo: pump the brakes and listen to community feedback.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
The memo suggests prioritizing “consensus over speed” to improve project communications, establishing a clear timeline for future temporary projects, and identifying alternative solutions to replace flex posts that protect cyclists.
“In many neighborhoods, residents have expressed concern that there are too many flex posts in the road, creating confusion and visual noise,” according to the memo. “We recommend that Streets [the city’s Streets Cabinet] rightsize the number.”
The review followed intense lobbying from Back Bay business leaders, notably Meg Mainzer-Cohen, head of the Back Bay Association, and wealthy businessman Jay Cashman.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BOS2BON said:
So instead of the "ugly" flex-posts, is BTD going to use something tougher, like concrete barriers?
Click to expand...

If they're serious about the aesthetic concerns they have options.

Screenshot-2023-11-22-at-8.03.42 AM.jpg



300-E-and-700-S-protected-intersection-IMG_0328.jpg


180522EFrossard_ATarantino_RDazzle_2718Md.0.jpg


14782752196_8607f026cf.jpg


and, sure, I would love some beautiful or bespoke bike facilities! Perhaps I'm cynical though that I'm not expecting these to be the end result.
 
I don't think the Globe article accurately reports the findings and recommendations. While it's clear that the outreach portion of the research was mostly a conversation with Mainzer-Cohen, there are nevertheless some more thoughtful and positive elements. It's clear that they want to reduce the number of flex posts, but there is also a lot of language about replacing them with more permanent streetscape improvements, such as those depicted in the images posted by @KCasiglio. There is also a call for a published, comprehensive network plan. There sort of is one, but it's fairly old at this point. A refresh isn't a bad idea, now that we have better data about what works. While I think it's possible to read the report as anti-bike lane, that's not really my takeaway at all.
 
KCasiglio said:
If they're serious about the aesthetic concerns they have options.

View attachment 61595
and, sure, I would love some beautiful or bespoke bike facilities! Perhaps I'm cynical though that I'm not expecting these to be the end result.
Click to expand...
I feel like this first photo is right up the Back Bay's alley (not their literal alleys though please) for permanent protection for bike/bus lanes (I would also prefer grade separation for bikes PLUS these!)
 
HenryAlan said:
I don't think the Globe article accurately reports the findings and recommendations. While it's clear that the outreach portion of the research was mostly a conversation with Mainzer-Cohen, there are nevertheless some more thoughtful and positive elements. It's clear that they want to reduce the number of flex posts, but there is also a lot of language about replacing them with more permanent streetscape improvements, such as those depicted in the images posted by @KCasiglio. There is also a call for a published, comprehensive network plan. There sort of is one, but it's fairly old at this point. A refresh isn't a bad idea, now that we have better data about what works. While I think it's possible to read the report as anti-bike lane, that's not really my takeaway at all.
Click to expand...
I actually wholeheartedly agree that the city needs a comprehensive plan that should be followed, and a lot more consistency on lane construction, and what materials are used, etc. There absolutely is way too much visual noise. Now, the issue is, is the city actually going to follow through with a quality plan that implements consistent design and strategy (which would be good), or is this language just cover to basically undo a lot of necessary safety improvements? I guess we will see.
 
FK4 said:
I actually wholeheartedly agree that the city needs a comprehensive plan that should be followed, and a lot more consistency on lane construction, and what materials are used, etc. There absolutely is way too much visual noise.
Click to expand...

I think one can hold these opinions simultaneously (as I believe you do) with an understanding that safety should take precedence over aesthetics, particularly in the short term. Removing the flex posts without clear communication and planning is a misstep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top