Biking in Boston

I also drive a lot so I think some of my wariness just comes from observing how intense drivers behave at certain intersections. Some roads and intersections just have crazier energy, and those places make me much more scared to be on a bike in the road. Mostly, they’re places where lanes drop or where people pull slick shit, trying to cut other cars and switch lanes to make turns of drive fast.
 
bigeman312 said:
I’m default pro traffic calming and bike infrastructure, and biking is both my primary mode of transportation and my livelihood, so I don’t want to come off as anything other than pro-bike and just trying to learn and gather information.

Do a lot of people currently bike on Chestnut Hill Ave? I use Hammond, Washington, or Harvard as my north-south routes through Brookline, and even after this project, you’d still have to deal with the Route 9 crossing to the south if using Chestnut Hill Ave as a corridor for anything more than just neighborhood trips.

Does anyone have data on counts by mode on this corridor? My gut reaction is that every dollar spent on traffic calming and bike infrastructure on Chestnut Hill Ave would be better spent on Beacon St, unless I’m shown some data that supports prioritizing Chestnut Hill Ave, when Beacon St has many stretches with absolutely no bike infrastructure whatsoever.
Click to expand...
A personal anecdote but I've biked this stretch many times to commute southbound out of the city from Brighton, and every single time bar a few I've encountered at least one other poor sap biking it. It's the most logical way to get to/from Lee St. and subsequently Newton-Allandale-VFW's extra-wide and safer-feeling bike gutters. The more common cyclist in this area though has been the exercise/sport cyclist and I've only seen a handful of apparent commuters on the route. With more and more ebikes being purchased I have been seeing an uptick in bike riders just about everywhere I'd considered too dangerous and unpleasant to bike such as on Rt9/Boylston between Brookline Village and the reservoir.
 
The Town of Brookline will present three new plans for Chestnut Hill Ave on May 8. Two of them include some type of bike accommodation but the third has none. As much support as possible is needed in order to insure that protected bike lanes are installed on Chestnut Hill Ave.

Project page:

Chestnut Hill Avenue Improvements | Brookline, MA - Official Website

Chestnut Hill Avenue has been identified in the Roadway Maintenance Plan for preservation treatments, and the Town proposes to incorporate bicycle improvements into that project.
www.brooklinema.gov www.brooklinema.gov

Link to register for the meeting:

Meeting Registration - Zoom

brooklinema.zoomgov.com brooklinema.zoomgov.com

You can also send your comments to transportation@brooklinema.gov.
 
One concept will be to restore Chestnut Hill Avenue to a similar cross-section to how it is today, which would not provide any bicycle safety improvements and would instead have narrowed travel lanes in both directions and large painted shoulders.
Click to expand...
So basically waste town money on road paint that people will drive over and still speed and ultimately be a giant waste money? The only reason I even see this being proposed would be so folks can point to "safety improvements" five years down the road and say "see, we told those safety improvements wouldn't work".
 
cubbe8 said:
And that’s what the residents want…

Click to expand...
Woof! I get that some folks want convenience in front of their property, but they do not own the ROW, so the city ultimately needs to do what is best for the town as a whole and not just what Chestnut Hill Ave folks want.

I mean a balanced alternative would be to do a two-way cycle track on one side and maintain on street parking on the other side and then take the drive lanes down to 11' wide. A "multi-use path" wouldn't really work in this situation because the trees that line the street would interrupt such a path and we really shouldn't be looking at cutting down those trees.
 
I wish we were making data driven decisions here.

If we find that 1% of road users are cyclists and 10% are pedestrians, that should result in a different design than if 1% are pedestrians and 10% are cyclists.

There is a finite amount of political capital that exists to implement bike infrastructure, especially if it ends up being underutilized. If this corridor has very little usage and political capital is burned here, it makes improvements to high-ridership corridors like Beacon St less likely.

Even if your goal is to work towards the entire Boston area being car free as soon, it’s important to make sure that you aren’t penny-wise, pound-foolish by burning through political-capital inefficiently. That’s why data here would be crucial. It certainly doesn’t pass the sniff test as a vital corridor for robust bike infrastructure.

I’d love to be proven wrong, not with anecdotes, but data.
 
While I understand where you're coming from, in regards to transportation - or more importantly Right-of-Way Equity - the data will almost always be skewed. Many social programs in general will end up with skewed data. I would be interested in seeing the walkers/cyclists/drivers data, but I'd be willing to bet that we would see approximately 90% (if not more) shown as car users and that remaining 10% being skewed toward pedestrians. Now if we were to remove the driving lane aspect from the ROW usage, I see more value in a dataset there where maybe the idea of a multi-use path does makes sense.

Seeing as Brookline adopted a Complete Streets Initiative in 2016 and as of 2023 Toole Design Group has requests for improvements along the route (both pedestrian and bike, be sure to turn on the "see what others have shared" feature), it should see improvements. I would argue - anecdotally - that major thoroughfares/connector roads should all be able to have space for people/bikes/cars, it is just up to politicians (doubtful) and advocacy people to frame ROW Equity in a light that makes sense.

Toole in 2023 also showed Lee Street (connects the CHA at Route 9) has a bike lane, albeit a unprotected shoulder lane, so bike infrastructure along CHA would essentially be completing a North/South connection from town line to town line. So from a logic standpoint, I would argue that bike infrastructure should be completed along CHA as a part of Brookline's overall build out.
 
bigeman312 said:
I wish we were making data driven decisions here.

If we find that 1% of road users are cyclists and 10% are pedestrians, that should result in a different design than if 1% are pedestrians and 10% are cyclists.
Click to expand...
Yes, and even if it's the 10% cyclist, 1% pedestrian, I'd nevertheless place priority on the sidewalk. If there is room for both sidewalk and bike improvements, then great, but if not, the pedestrian is the higher priority to me.

That said, current data might not be too useful. Think about how the people who resist bike lanes always comment that they never see any bikes on the street as justification for not building the lane. We all know that is nonsense, because it completely ignores the folks who would ride on a protected bike lane, but won't ride in mixed traffic.
 
HenryAlan said:
That said, current data might not be too useful. Think about how the people who resist bike lanes always comment that they never see any bikes on the street as justification for not building the lane. We all know that is nonsense, because it completely ignores the folks who would ride on a protected bike lane, but won't ride in mixed traffic.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this conclusion.

On the other hand, I’m inferring that you are pre-emptively pushing back on those who conclude that mode share is static and doesn’t respond to infrastructure changes, which is also an incorrect conclusion.

Mode share data is useful, but also mode share responds to infrastructure changes. That’s important to recognize.
 
when looking at the biggest missing links in a connected bike network, I'd argue that missing-link streets with the highest driving mode-share actually need protected bike infrastructure the most. Yes, if you pave over the entire city in wide driving lanes, more people will drive. If you close every street to be bicycle & transit only, more people will bike and take transit. The WHOLE point of the infrastructure is to encourage shift in mode-share, away from a polluting, negative-externality mode to a positive-externality one.
 
sneijder said:
... I'd argue that missing-link streets with the highest driving mode-share actually need protected bike infrastructure the most. ...
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree with this.

Let's break down what you are saying, with a hypothetical (becuase mode share data is unfortunately lacking):
  • Street A: Two driving lanes, 25 mph, wide shoulders, average sidewalks, 99.9% automobile mode share and 0.1% cycling/micromobility share.
  • Street B: Exactly identical street, with two driving lanes, 25 mph, wide shoulders, average sidewalks, 50% automobile mode share and 50% cycling/micromobility mode share.
You are prioritizing protected bike infrastructure in Street A. That's what logically follows from your argument. You are saying that, even though protected bike infrastructure would help more people on Street B, that you don't care. Street A is your focus. You will piss off more drivers and help fewer cyclists. That's backwards.

What you may be trying to say (but aren't saying) is that missing-link streets with the most hostile road design actually need protected bike infrastructure the most. Oftentimes, you see mode share depressed due to hostile road design. If that was what you meant to say, I'll give you that out.
 
bigeman312 said:
On the other hand, I’m inferring that you are pre-emptively pushing back on those who conclude that mode share is static and doesn’t respond to infrastructure changes, which is also an incorrect conclusion.
Click to expand...
I'm not clear what you are saying here. Are you saying that it is incorrect to conclude that mode share is static? Or are you saying that it's incorrect to suggest that it isn't? To be clear, I'm suggesting that it isn't. Change the infrastructure and the mode share will change. We've seen this repeatedly in Boston and other cities that have built up networks of bike routes.

bigeman312 said:
You are prioritizing protected bike infrastructure in Street A. That's what logically follows from your argument. You are saying that, even though protected bike infrastructure would help more people on Street B, that you don't care. Street A is your focus. You will piss off more drivers and help fewer cyclists. That's backwards.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for @sneijder, but my take on the comment was that we should prioritize locations where we can move mode share the most. If it's at 50% for Street B, the bigger achievement is likely to come from focusing on Street A.

bigeman312 said:
What you may be trying to say (but aren't saying) is that missing-link streets with the most hostile road design actually need protected bike infrastructure the most. Oftentimes, you see mode share depressed due to hostile road design. If that was what you meant to say, I'll give you that out.
Click to expand...
Hostile design is definitely a good description for Chestnut Hill Ave.
 
HenryAlan said:
I'm not clear what you are saying here. Are you saying that it is incorrect to conclude that mode share is static? Or are you saying that it's incorrect to suggest that it isn't? To be clear, I'm suggesting that it isn't. Change the infrastructure and the mode share will change. We've seen this repeatedly in Boston and other cities that have built up networks of bike routes.
Click to expand...
I’m saying that mode share is not static.

bigeman312 said:
Mode share data is useful, but also mode share responds to infrastructure changes That’s important to recognize.
Click to expand...

I thought that made it clear. It must not have. Sorry!

HenryAlan said:
I can't speak for @sneijder, but my take on the comment was that we should prioritize locations where we can move mode share the most. If it's at 50% for Street B, the bigger achievement is likely to come from focusing on Street A.
Click to expand...

We definitely have incompatible outlooks, then. I’d rather focus on regional mode share than forcing a mode share on each street. That’s accomplished by prioritizing building a network people are going to actually use and making sure it’s safe for those who use it, not by ignoring high-use corridors.

A real local example would be deciding which intersection should receive priority when building cycling protections: Charles River Bike Path at N Beacon St or Leo Birmingham Pkway at Market St. I’m firmly in the camp that prioritizing the intersection where people are actually riding (Charles River Bike Path) is what encourages modal shift regionally and helps more people. You are not. We won’t see eye to eye.

HenryAlan said:
Hostile design is definitely a good description for Chestnut Hill Ave.
Click to expand...
Compared to what? Compared to most roads in Brookline? Definitely not. I’d call it average. I’d call Hammond Pond Parkway or Route 9 hostile. Chesnut Hill Ave has shoulders for most of it and good sight lines. It’s a pretty basic, average road for cycling.

I’d definitely call the approach to Chestnut Hill Ave from the south side of Route 9 to be incredibly hostile design, though.

Compared to most roads in Amsterdam? CHA is absolutely hostile. Compared to most roads in the United States? Absolutely not hostile.

So then the question is, do we burn political capital turning an average road into a better one? Sometimes that’s worth it and sometimes it isn’t. I’m firmly in the camp that the average roads that are of above average importance for cyclists (as indicated by usage data) should be prioritized. You aren’t, so there really is no conclusion we’d agree on.
 
Last edited:
bigeman312 said:
I strongly disagree with this.

Let's break down what you are saying, with a hypothetical (becuase mode share data is unfortunately lacking):
  • Street A: Two driving lanes, 25 mph, wide shoulders, average sidewalks, 99.9% automobile mode share and 0.1% cycling/micromobility share.
  • Street B: Exactly identical street, with two driving lanes, 25 mph, wide shoulders, average sidewalks, 50% automobile mode share and 50% cycling/micromobility mode share.
You are prioritizing protected bike infrastructure in Street A. That's what logically follows from your argument. You are saying that, even though protected bike infrastructure would help more people on Street B, that you don't care. Street A is your focus. You will piss off more drivers and help fewer cyclists. That's backwards.

What you may be trying to say (but aren't saying) is that missing-link streets with the most hostile road design actually need protected bike infrastructure the most. Oftentimes, you see mode share depressed due to hostile road design. If that was what you meant to say, I'll give you that out.
Click to expand...
What is the Street B in this actual case? Fisher Ave would not be a realistic option with the elevation gain, Elliot St is totally out of the way.

I totally agree that there should be car-centric streets working in tandem with cycling/micromobility-centric streets, but there aren't the options there. Cleveland Circle is a hub that should be able to be accessed safely by bike from the south, and there really isn't a solid alternative here.

Regardless, Chestnut Hill Ave is a nightmare for cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians alike. I've felt scared as a pedestrian walking down that way, and I've sat at the Chestnut Hill Ave/Route 9 light for years of my life. I think seeing cyclists skip right on past the usual 10-15 cars that are waiting for a green might encourage more cyclists on the street.
 
Tangentially related, but there really needs to be BlueBike docks at Brookline Reservoir Park, Jamaica Pond, and even Lars Anderson. But then we'll have to start the discussion about bike accommodations on Clyde/Lee Street which is a whole other can of worms.
 
thepixelnation said:
What is the Street B in this actual case? Fisher Ave would not be a realistic option with the elevation gain, Elliot St is totally out of the way.

I totally agree that there should be car-centric streets working in tandem with cycling/micromobility-centric streets, but there aren't the options there. Cleveland Circle is a hub that should be able to be accessed safely by bike from the south, and there really isn't a solid alternative here.

Regardless, Chestnut Hill Ave is a nightmare for cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians alike. I've felt scared as a pedestrian walking down that way, and I've sat at the Chestnut Hill Ave/Route 9 light for years of my life. I think seeing cyclists skip right on past the usual 10-15 cars that are waiting for a green might encourage more cyclists on the street.
Click to expand...
I don't know if there is a "Street B" in this case. Chestnut Hill Ave might be a good candidate for robust cycling infrastructure. It might not. I'm simply arguing for:
  1. Making data driven decisions
  2. Prioritizing decisions that will help the most people
    • 2a. This means prioritizing streets where more people ride, when all else is equal
      • This point seems to be getting the most pushback, as the messages that I'm responding to are claiming the opposite to be true..
    • 2b. This means prioritizing streets with more hostile design, when all else is equal
 
bigeman312 said:
I don't know if there is a "Street B" in this case. Chestnut Hill Ave might be a good candidate for robust cycling infrastructure. It might not. I'm simply arguing for:
  1. Making data driven decisions
  2. Prioritizing decisions that will help the most people
    • 2a. This means prioritizing streets where more people ride, when all else is equal
      • This point seems to be getting the most pushback, as the messages that I'm responding to are claiming the opposite to be true..
    • 2b. This means prioritizing streets with more hostile design, when all else is equal
Click to expand...
I'm going to try one more time, then disengage from this. You are arguing against a strawman. As @thepixelnation pointed out, there is no street B, so it's not a question of prioritizing where people ride vs where people do not ride. There is a singular route, one that could be a decent option for bike riding with some infrastructure upgrades, but at the moment is not an option for all but the more hard core bike riders. People aren't pushing back against 2a, we are arguing that 2b is the only accurate description of current circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top