Biking the Boston 'Burbs (Trails, MDC, & Towns beyond Hubway area)

True.

A clear example would be the Reformatory Branch Trail. Forcing Bedford to do the eminent domain tripped up any improvements to the gap along Railroad Ave.
 
themissinglink said:
I hope that Millis, Medway, and Bellingham start work on their sections of the trail sooner rather than later. I've only heard some discussion about expanding the trail west of Medfield, but there aren't any serious plans as far as I know.
Click to expand...
The EGE said:
Millis Branch (Needham-Woonsocket): Intermittent freight service near Medfield; mild potential Medfield-Medway as a Franklin Line branch. Portions in Needham and Medfield have trails; Dover has been NIMBY about it. State-owned as far as Medfield; chopped up with a mix of owners further south. (Woonsocket actually owns a section in Blackstone where it meets the SNETT.)
Click to expand...
I reached out to the Open Space Committee in Medway to ask about plans for a rail trail in place of the former rail ROW. This was their (disappointing) response:
Thank you for your interest. A rail trail would be great. The Open Space Committee has researched it extensively. It is not feasible in Medway. Property owners on either side of the track actually own their "half" of it. As such the town does not have the right of way to build the trail.

We have researched trying to create a trail from Holliston street to Oakland. There are several private homes whose land and driveways cross through the area that make this challenging.
Click to expand...
I'm confused by the claim that "property owners on either side of the track actually own their "half" of it". According to the MA Parcel Viewer, the Town of Medway owns the vast majority of the ROW, until you get to West Medway (aside from two parcels, highlighted below). Plus, people have been using the old railroad ROW as an unofficial trail for at least 20 years, if not more. There are even "no motorized vehicles" signs for the ROW in two separate places, since so many people use the ROW for walking and biking. It's gonna suck if every other town along the former rail ROW has a rail trail except for Medway.

It looks like two properties between Oakland Street and Holliston Street have encroached onto the ROW; I've highlighted these parcels in red:
Rail trail.JPG


A rail trail through Medway is still listed as a "priority trail" on the Massachusetts Priority Trails Network Viewer (by MassDOT):
rail trail 2.JPG
 
Last edited:
www.boston25news.com

Child riding bicycle struck, seriously injured by SUV in Wellesley

WELLESLEY, Mass. — A child who was riding a bicycle was rushed to a Boston hospital with serious injuries after they were struck by an SUV in Wellesley on Thursday morning, authorities said.
www.boston25news.com www.boston25news.com

Looks like a cut through between 9 and 16. Exactly the kind of street that needs some speed humps. Here's hoping for the best for the kid.
 
Governor Healey Secures $153 Million in Federal Transportation Funding

  • Belmont ($23.44 million):Phase 1 of the Belmont Community Path, a component of the Massachusetts Central Rail Trail. (Project ID 609204)
    • The Belmont leg of the Massachusetts Central Rail Trail (MCRT) will be implemented in a two-phase approach, with Phase 1 being the stretch between the Fitchburg Cutoff Path at the Cambridge line to Belmont Center, and Phase 2 being Belmont Center to the Waltham line. The proposed project constitutes Phase 1 of the Belmont leg of the MCRT, and will be an off-road, shared-use path, which includes a 0.18 mile north-south connector between communities and the town’s many resources and amenities, which will provide safe, non-vehicular access under the active Fitchburg rail line to and through the high school campus (soon to be middle/high) and an east-west facility that would extend 1.11 miles from the Clark Street Bridge through town center to Brighton Street, connecting the Town’s center to the existing Fitchburg cut-off path, which leads to the Alewife Station, the Minuteman Bikeway and other destinations Cambridge, Boston and beyond.
Click to expand...

The completion of this project will extend the continuous network of paved shared use paths through Belmont Center to the Clark St footbridge.

From extensive personal experience, I'm very excited for this upgrade over the well-traveled Pleasant <> Concord <> Underwood/Trowbridge <> Hittinger <> Brighton route. Not that the aforementioned alternative is particularly heinous, because it isn't, but it will be so nice to have a viable car-free shared use path from Belmont Center to Cambridge, Somerville, Arlington, Lexington, and Bedford, with the largest gaps in that network being less than 500 ft.
 
bigeman312 said:
Governor Healey Secures $153 Million in Federal Transportation Funding



The completion of this project will extend the continuous network of paved shared use paths through Belmont Center to the Clark St footbridge.

From extensive personal experience, I'm very excited for this upgrade over the well-traveled Pleasant <> Concord <> Underwood/Trowbridge <> Hittinger <> Brighton route. Not that the aforementioned alternative is particularly heinous, because it isn't, but it will be so nice to have a viable car-free shared use path from Belmont Center to Cambridge, Somerville, Arlington, Lexington, and Bedford, with the largest gaps in that network being less than 500 ft.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this leave the Waltham section by Beaver Brook as the last bit of the MCRT inside 495 without clear plans for construction? Surprised that's taken so long, given the existing MBTA right-of-way and the only abutter being a suburban office park
 
BeansTheCat said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this leave the Waltham section by Beaver Brook as the last bit of the MCRT inside 495 without clear plans for construction? Surprised that's taken so long, given the existing MBTA right-of-way and the only abutter being a suburban office park
Click to expand...
  • After Phase 1 of the Belmont Community Path is completed, there will be a gap of approximately 1.7 miles between Clark St, Belmont and Beaver St, Waltham. This gap is two segments:
    • Belmont: Phase 2 of the Belmont Community Path
    • Waltham: Belmont to Beaver St (the Waltham section by Beaver Brook)
I'm sure we'll see a substantial increase in cyclist volume on the Pleasant <> Trapelo <> Waverley Oaks <> Beaver corridor that bridges that gap, in the meantime.
  • There is an approximately 1.6 mile gap between Wayland and Subdury for which construction is planned to begin next year.
  • The western Hudson and Berlin section is not yet funded.
It's quite possible that within five years, the 1.7 mile Belmont/Waltham gap is the only one remaining betweeen Hudson and Somerville.
 
The latest update I've seen on the planning process for Phase 2 is from 2023, but I expect that once Phase 1 is completed, there will be a stronger push to move forward with it.
 
We're moving offices and thus I've been going through a ton of old files for the bike-ped program. Among many gems was a letter written to CTPS advocating this exact path be built in 1983 (5? I don't have it front of me.

Unirpnically glad 40+ years later that person's vision is being realized. Shame it took so long, but its a testament to the dedication of those advocating it and indicative of how deep the demand for these runs.
 
Haverhill introduces some big restrictions on e-bikes and scooters. No parking on city property, including parks and schools. Plus a restriction on riding e-bikes on any bike paths/rail trails.


The city began pushing for rules last June after a 12-year-old girl lost her life, and another young girl was hospitalized, following an accident. A Council subcommittee in August also struggled with a conflict between a then-proposed city ordinance and state laws. On a suggestion from councilors, School Committee members agreed to use their authority to ban so-called micromobility devices on school grounds.

The rules are aimed, in part, at Haverhill middle and high school students who quickly found a way around the School Committee’s new policy adopted in August banning the devices on school property. Calling the ban a safety measure, the Haverhill School Committee voted an emergency restriction all electric bikes, electric scooters, powered hover boards from school property just before school opened in September. Within days of the imposition of the ban, students began defying the rules by abandoning their vehicles, often under lock, on both city and private property near their school.

Councilors, however, passed on a suggestion from Ward 3 Councilor Devan M. Ferreira that the city allow e-bikes- riders to drive on the city’s network of paved rail trails.

In arguing in favor of allowing e-bikes with maximum speeds of up to18 miles per hour on paved rail trails, Ferreira argued a prohibition would harm low-income residents first.

“Considering our urban setting in the cheaper, more affordable transportation route that these e-bikes, the Class 1 version, provides, I would like to see the Class 1 e-bikes allowed on our paved bike paths,” Ferreira said.

Mayor Melinda E. Barrett, however, pointed out the former train track system that crisscrosses the city is open to pedestrians as well.

“My only hesitation on that is we have gotten complaints from people on rail trails that are paved that were either hit or near hits on those paths,” Barrett reported.

The Council voted 10-1, with Ferreira the lone negative vote, to restrict e-bikes from the paved paths as a safety measure.
Click to expand...

The actual text of the restrictions start at about 106 of this PDF.
 
BOS2BON said:
Haverhill introduces some big restrictions on e-bikes and scooters. No parking on city property, including parks and schools. Plus a restriction on riding e-bikes on any bike paths/rail trails.




The actual text of the restrictions start at about 106 of this PDF.
Click to expand...
Glad to see a municipality banning high speed vehicles from pedestrian spaces, when it's been demonstrated time and again that fatality rates sharply increase when vehicle speeds surpass 20 mph, not to mention the nature of the path changing in a way that feels much less pleasant, welcoming, and safe, discouraging lower speed users (pedestrians, small children, etc).

Not so sure about banning class 1 though, as I can certainly see Ferreira's argument in favor of small electric vehicles that go <20 mph.
 
bigeman312 said:
Glad to see a municipality banning high speed vehicles from pedestrian spaces, when it's been demonstrated time and again that fatality rates sharply increase when vehicle speeds surpass 20 mph, not to mention the nature of the path changing in a way that feels much less pleasant, welcoming, and safe, discouraging lower speed users (pedestrians, small children, etc).

Not so sure about banning class 1 though, as I can certainly see Ferreira's argument in favor of small electric vehicles that go <20 mph.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on the class 1 stuff. If the micromobility changes end up getting put into law, then e-bikes that are considered class 1 today WILL be allowed on shared-use-paths, so this might just be making extra work for the City of Haverhill that they'll have to undo down the line.
 
BOS2BON said:
I agree with you on the class 1 stuff. If the micromobility changes end up getting put into law, then e-bikes that are considered class 1 today WILL be allowed on shared-use-paths, so this might just be making extra work for the City of Haverhill that they'll have to undo down the line.
Click to expand...
As I understand municipalities are welcome to be more restrictive than the law but not more permissive
 
KCasiglio said:
As I understand municipalities are welcome to be more restrictive than the law but not more permissive
Click to expand...
That would make the most sense to me. The state is intending to protect the most vulnerable users (pedestrians, small children, etc) from higher-speed micro-EVs, not trying to prevent municipalities from being arguably overly cautious about seperating lower speed micro-EVs from the most vulnerable users.
 
BOS2BON said:
Haverhill introduces some big restrictions on e-bikes and scooters. No parking on city property, including parks and schools. Plus a restriction on riding e-bikes on any bike paths/rail trails.




The actual text of the restrictions start at about 106 of this PDF.
Click to expand...
To be blunt I would describe the restrictions as either idiotic, regressive, or both, a bit akin to trying to ban cars from public roads in 1905. The only way I can reasonably explain a rule like that is the the councilors fundamentally do not understand what an e-bike actually is, and they think they're all electric dirt bikes or something that can go 50mph. (Which you would know isn't the case if you had read the proposed statewide regulatory framework...)
 
Serious question. Could a policeman reasonably tell the difference, just by looking at a distance, between the different e bikes? If not how should they effectively enforce a ban on the ones that shouldn't be there without banning them all?
 
Scott said:
Serious question. Could a policeman reasonably tell the difference, just by looking at a distance, between the different e bikes? If not how should they effectively enforce a ban on the ones that shouldn't be there without banning them all?
Click to expand...

They can't, which is why trying to build a regulatory framework around hardware capabilities and not speeds doesn't make sense to me.
 
Scott said:
Serious question. Could a policeman reasonably tell the difference, just by looking at a distance, between the different e bikes? If not how should they effectively enforce a ban on the ones that shouldn't be there without banning them all?
Click to expand...
It depends. Generally the actual difference is in the motor's power and therefore the maximum possible speed, but also the illegal ones do tend to be noticeably larger even if they don't strictly have to be. If I were writing the legislation the 'soft' criteria would be maximum speed and tire width.

In the Dutch context enforcement (where it is done, some work needs to happen there...) is generally done with speed measurement radar guns and what are essentially mobile treadmills where they can just floor it and see how fast it goes.
1791812255373.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top