Biking in Boston

HenryAlan said:
Yes, but the Mayor doesn't seem as interested in bike lanes as she once was. I think the departure of Jascha Franklin-Hodge is likely also a break in prior bike lane momentum. I'm not super confident that we'll see as much success on this issue during term 2.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's sad to see her backslide on this, I thought the overwhelming victory would have been a sign to keep pushing forward.
 
FK4 said:
It’s really weird, who would want three lanes of traffic running through their neighborhood… you’d think they’d be all for it
Click to expand...
Weapons-grade NIMBY's cosplaying as historical preservationists. Same playbook this time...mealy-mouthed appeals to "we support this...but...not like that." Followed by full-on stonewalling and threats of litigation or (like the sidewalk ADA saga) actual works-gumming litigation. And the Beacon Hill Business Association then tag-teams to call in the F.U.-level money in the neighborhood to pull strings behind the scenes to help make sure nothing ever happens.

A disproportionate number of these organizations' clientele still drive 'horseless carriages' around those 18th century streets and double-park them with impunity despite living in one of the most walkable neighborhoods in the city, so it's always going to be a cudgel of "Ooooh, but you're going to hurt our proud local businesses if people can't drive and double-park there." Their own fake "temporary" proposal during the pandemic for more outdoor eating space wasn't even allowed to be vetted by the city because it flagrantly violated the ADA at the sidewalk level (hmm...they do seem to have quite an objection to basic law-abiding accessiblity, no?), and because the emphasis was so transparently on the "temporary" that it wasn't even worth paying attention to. But they're clinging to their hurt fee-fees that "Well, we presented a plan and boo-hoo you wouldn't listen so we're taking our ball and going home...except for the litigation threats!"

I frankly don't blame the City for moving on in this specific instance. These associations are pros at waging a war of attrition over the stupidest things imaginable and deploying enough delay tactics to make it not worth the extra effort to steamroll. The City got wise to them after the whole multi-year sidewalk ADA saga. There are umpteen other neighborhoods that won't rake you over the coals with nuisance litigiousness for deploying bike lanes. It sucks for the people in the neighborhood who actually do bike, but there are other mouths to feed in the City as far as that goes and frankly we're not feeding them fast enough as the Wu Admin. in general has gotten much more reticent over the last year or two to push for bike lanes. This is a probably winnable battle if the City wanted to outlast the Associations' foot-dragging, but I don't get the sense right now that they really want to go against any stiff headwind. Maybe it's not the bravest stance for them, but it's eminently defensible when the money can be spent in other neighborhoods who won't Operation Chaos it.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
It sucks for the people in the neighborhood who actually do bike
Click to expand...
While true, I think the larger need for Charles Street bike lanes lies in the location that is by far the most logical route between Longfellow Bridge users and the Back Bay, South End, Theater District, Chinatown, etc. The existing alternatives add a significant amount of distance for riders coming off the bridge, and/or a lot of hill climbing. A two-way cycle track on Charles Street solves so many bike route challenges, and is a clear example of where we need to think beyond just the neighborhood itself.
 
Last edited:
HenryAlan said:
While true, I think the larger need for Charles Street bike lanes lies in the location as what is by far the most logical root between Longfellow Bridge users and the Back Bay, South End, Theater District, Chinatown, etc. The existing alternatives add a significant amount of distance for riders coming off the bridge, and/or a lot of hill climbing. A two-way cycle track on Charles Street solves so many bike route challenges, and is a clear example of where we need to think beyond just the neighborhood itself.
Click to expand...
I've seen so many people use River St northbound + ride on the sidewalk to reach charles circle... shhhh
 
sneijder said:
I've seen so many people use River St northbound + ride on the sidewalk to reach charles circle... shhhh
Click to expand...
Yes, I should have included salmoning and sidewalk riding among the less palatable options I listed. The point is that bike riders shouldn't have to pick among dangerous, legally questionable, overly hilly, or trip elongation routes, when there is a perfectly straightforward option that could easily be made available without any meaningful disruption to car traffic.
 
HenryAlan said:
that could easily be made available
Click to expand...
How easily, though? Remember...these Associations are very sue-happy. They successfully managed to gum up the installation of something as mundane as ADA sidewalk ramp crossings for several years with lawsuit chaos. Hell, it's taken years to even audit the general (horrible) sidewalk surfacing conditions on Charles St. because they've threatened to sue if anything other than period-accurate wire-cut brick (which is notorious for going uneven and posing accessibility hazards after a few winters' freeze-thaw) is used. It is a virtual certainty that they will try to do the same with bike lanes. If the City really wants this, they have to factor in legal bills as well as the cost inflation potential of a multi-year construction delay while everyone trades nuisance filings in court. Is it still a topmost priority when all of that has to be baked into the calculus? I'm not sure it is. Not every neighborhood has as many high-powered lawyers on the payroll, and time and money to burn as this one. And most other neighborhoods don't have the City's hands partially tied by as many ripe-for-abuse preservation laws and required committee buy-ins (like the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission, which tends to side with the Associations and not the City) as this one. If Wu's already gone politically more gun-shy on bike lanes in general, that chill is definitely going to disproportionately affect the ones that have as much litigious riff-raff to churn through as this one.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
How easily, though? Remember...these Associations are very sue-happy. They successfully managed to gum up the installation of something as mundane as ADA sidewalk ramp crossings for several years with lawsuit chaos. Hell, it's taken years to even audit the general (horrible) sidewalk surfacing conditions on Charles St. because they've threatened to sue if anything other than period-accurate wire-cut brick (which is notorious for going uneven and posing accessibility hazards after a few winters' freeze-thaw) is used. It is a virtual certainty that they will try to do the same with bike lanes. If the City really wants this, they have to factor in legal bills as well as the cost inflation potential of a multi-year construction delay while everyone trades nuisance filings in court. Is it still a topmost priority when all of that has to be baked into the calculus? I'm not sure it is. Not every neighborhood has as many high-powered lawyers on the payroll, and time and money to burn as this one. And most other neighborhoods don't have the City's hands partially tied by as many ripe-for-abuse preservation laws and required committee buy-ins (like the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission, which tends to side with the Associations and not the City) as this one. If Wu's already gone politically more gun-shy on bike lanes in general, that chill is definitely going to disproportionately affect the ones that have as much litigious riff-raff to churn through as this one.
Click to expand...
While I agree with your assessment of the Associations involved here, this discounts the options available to the city. Off the top of my head:
  • The state could pass legislation explicitly saying historic districts don't cover streets/sidewalks unless otherwise stated. This was already done in isolation for the ADA accessible sidewalks, and could be slipped into much larger piece of legislation. It's also an easy sell when you can point to multiple examples of ridiculous behavior by historic associations.
  • Reduce the number of travel lanes for pedestrian-first plazas. These could be vehicle accessible for commercial loading/unloading while peds would have the ROW everywhere by default. This helps quiet much of the parking reduction/elimination criticisms. The city could also choose to not advertise the fact that bikes would be welcome to use the plazas as well.
  • Quick-build lanes with paint and flexposts could be installed on a "temporary" or "pilot" basis without notifying the neighborhood. This would be contentious, but it's a lot easier to stop construction with a lawsuit than to revert it. If there's concerns about cars being present, use street cleaning or something similar as an excuse to get them out.
  • By the same token, the city could use the next major cycling injury in the area as evidence of dangerous conditions requiring an emergency fix. Unless there is clear precedent for this in state courts, the city is likely to be given the benefit of the doubt. This would be enough to build the lanes, even if there was a ruling against emergency powers in the future
Some of these are more realistic than others, from a legal/political perspective. But I find it difficult to believe that if a city administration wanted to get this done, they would have to go through years of lawfare beforehand to ensure it happened.
 
HenryAlan said:
While true, I think the larger need for Charles Street bike lanes lies in the location that is by far the most logical route between Longfellow Bridge users and the Back Bay, South End, Theater District, Chinatown, etc. The existing alternatives add a significant amount of distance for riders coming off the bridge, and/or a lot of hill climbing. A two-way cycle track on Charles Street solves so many bike route challenges, and is a clear example of where we need to think beyond just the neighborhood itself.
Click to expand...
Yes—this is a truly major link and it's a city-level, even region-level, issue. Which makes it all the more absurd that the city can't just squash the NIMBYs.
 
HenryAlan said:
Yes, I should have included salmoning and sidewalk riding among the less palatable options I listed. The point is that bike riders shouldn't have to pick among dangerous, legally questionable, overly hilly, or trip elongation routes, when there is a perfectly straightforward option that could easily be made available without any meaningful disruption to car traffic.
Click to expand...
I just ride against traffic on Charles St in the easternmost lane. It's not that safe, but it never feels terribly dangerous, and I feel like Im sticking it to the neighborhood when I do it. Also, it really isn't an option for me when Im in a hurry to go all the way to the Esplanade or over the Hill, they are both slower, and more energy consuming.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
How easily, though?
Click to expand...
In terms of engineering, project scope, and limited impact to traffic. Yes, the political and NIMBY issues you raise are certainly not easy. But my argument is that we shouldn't give any credence to them at all. Unfortunately, our politicians are not the kind of leaders who are willing to take that on.
 
  • Quick-build lanes with paint and flexposts could be installed on a "temporary" or "pilot" basis without notifying the neighborhood. This would be contentious, but it's a lot easier to stop construction with a lawsuit than to revert it. If there's concerns about cars being present, use street cleaning or something similar as an excuse to get them out.
Click to expand...
This is the only way to do it.
 

Bluebikes Station Expansion 2026-2030 | Brookline, MA - Official Website

Details on the proposed Bluebikes Station expansion 2026-2030 project.
www.brooklinema.gov www.brooklinema.gov
The Town will be hosting a virtual public meeting on February 26th from 6 pm - 7:30 pm; we hope to hear feedback and your suggestions as we think about where to locate new stations! Agenda will be posted here when it is available. Anyone is invited and encouraged to attend the public meeting.
Click to expand...
Below is the list of prioritized stations. Refer to the February 2026 presentation slides for specific proposed options for each location:
February 2026 Presentation Slides

2026​

  • Marion Street at Park Street
  • Pond Avenue at Leverett Pond
  • Harvard Street at Aspinwall Street
  • Babcock Street at Dwight Street
  • Beaconsfield MBTA Station
  • Browne Street at Still Street
  • Longwood MBTA Station

2027​

  • Dudley Street at Lee Street
  • Brandon Hall/Fairbanks MBTA Station
  • Brookline Avenue at Parkway Road
  • Washington Street at Griggs Road (South)
  • Dean Road MBTA Station
  • Hawes St MBTA Station
  • Coolidge Corner Library

2028​

  • Englewood Avenue MBTA Station
  • Babcock Street at Freeman Street
  • Larz Anderson Park
  • Warren Field

2029​

  • Clyde Street at Newton Street
  • Amory Park
  • Putterham Shops
  • Aspinwall Avenue at St Paul Street

2030​

  • Chestnut Hill Commercial Area
  • Independence Drive at Gerry Road
  • Bournewood Hospital
Click to expand...
brookline bluebikes.png
 
Last edited:
Good news regarding Chestnut Hill Ave bike lanes. Today the Brookline Transportation Board agreed to basically convince the NIMBYS on Chestnut Hill Ave that bike lanes are required and will coordinate with BTD for a full bike accommodation on Chestnut Hill Ave with construction to begin in Spring 2027.
 
cubbe8 said:
Good news regarding Chestnut Hill Ave bike lanes. Today the Brookline Transportation Board agreed to basically convince the NIMBYS on Chestnut Hill Ave that bike lanes are required and will coordinate with BTD for a full bike accommodation on Chestnut Hill Ave with construction to begin in Spring 2027.
Click to expand...
They need 13 months for paint?
 
So I'd like to draw AB's attention towards some the recommendations of MassDOT's micromobility commission, specifically the new classifications and restrictions on where they can be used. A lot of this seems targeted at Class 3 ebikes and the faster standing scooters, which would both need state registration, and be restricted from shared use paths amongst others.

My personal take, is that this sort of regulation will be really hard to enforce - and for the shared use paths, I personally would much rather see a speed limit set than a hard ban on specific devices - I can imagine someone commuting on the minuteman with a class 3 ebike not for the speed, but for the battery size and range.

273.jpg
270.jpg


 
Stlin said:
So I'd like to draw AB's attention towards some the recommendations of MassDOT's micromobility commission, specifically the new classifications and restrictions on where they can be used. A lot of this seems targeted at Class 3 ebikes and the faster standing scooters, which would both need state registration, and be restricted from shared use paths amongst others.

My personal take, is that this sort of regulation will be really hard to enforce - and for the shared use paths, I personally would much rather see a speed limit set than a hard ban on specific devices - I can imagine someone commuting on the minuteman with a class 3 ebike not for the speed, but for the battery size and range.

View attachment 70926View attachment 70927

Click to expand...

Yeah I was a little more diplomatic about it when I was questioning them during the presentation but trying to enforce shared used path usage by hardware via "micro ID" rather than on user behavior is nonsense, and their response being that it at least allows accountability after the fact of a crash shows they know it's nonsense too. As Galen put it, we don't ban a Maserati from school zones just because of how fast it CAN go. When a colleague asked what about bikes that are sold as one class but are able to be modified to make them go speeds that would register them as class III, the response was these would be considered class III regardless of whether the those modifications were made. I kind of understand why they would have to go this way, because it really is as easy as dragging a slider in an app for many bikes, but it sure seems to me like the better approach would be prohibiting companies (and these are mainstream companies, not janky jailbroken bikes) from allowing that feature in MA.

EDIT: and to be clear, there is a lot of GREAT recommendations in this report that I hope the state leg moves on with expediency. I just think they're missing the mark here on this, and I know many commission members feel the same. Perhaps it's something that's efficacy can be assessed in a few years and revisited if it's working as we expect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top