Biking in Boston

sm89 said:
If you're going to spend a good chunk of money on improvements, then full separation is preferred. Even with cars traveling slowly, parents and their children won't feel safe biking through in a shared lane. That's the main goal here: safety for everyone.
Click to expand...

I know I keep harping on this, but the peanut, as proposed, doesn't look safe for how commuting cyclists and automobiles will use it, which accounts for about 99.9% of the people using it. I'm not sure we need too much weight placed on the feelings of children when designing this intersection for safety. Anyone who feels unsafe riding in traffic is always welcome to walk their bike on the sidewalk and in pedestrian crossings. The vast majority of people on this bike corridor are experienced urban cyclists.

Green paint on the right side of the road doesn't make it safer than riding single-file with traffic. Follow the green path around the peanut. At every exit street there is a conflict between a car exiting and a bike proceeding by making a sharp left turn. All it takes is one car who doesn't signal before exiting to cream a cyclist who thought they were safe to proceed. Or one cyclist to not crane their neck all the way around to see a car approaching behind them with their signal on.

Sometimes people get dogmatic about separation=safety. It isn't always that simple. By having a green paint for bikes along the edge, they have essentially created a 2-lane rotary with all the problems that come with that. It is simply unnecessary for this intersection and degrades safety.

In Dutch roundabouts you'll see completely separated bike paths that cross exit roads at 90 angles with enough space for significant sightlines between the cars and the bike path crossing. This peanut isn't like that at all.
 
fattony said:
I know I keep harping on this, but the peanut, as proposed, doesn't look safe for how commuting cyclists and automobiles will use it, which accounts for about 99.9% of the people using it. I'm not sure we need too much weight placed on the feelings of children when designing this intersection for safety. Anyone who feels unsafe riding in traffic is always welcome to walk their bike on the sidewalk and in pedestrian crossings. The vast majority of people on this bike corridor are experienced urban cyclists.

Green paint on the right side of the road doesn't make it safer than riding single-file with traffic. Follow the green path around the peanut. At every exit street there is a conflict between a car exiting and a bike proceeding by making a sharp left turn. All it takes is one car who doesn't signal before exiting to cream a cyclist who thought they were safe to proceed. Or one cyclist to not crane their neck all the way around to see a car approaching behind them with their signal on.

Sometimes people get dogmatic about separation=safety. It isn't always that simple. By having a green paint for bikes along the edge, they have essentially created a 2-lane rotary with all the problems that come with that. It is simply unnecessary for this intersection and degrades safety.

In Dutch roundabouts you'll see completely separated bike paths that cross exit roads at 90 angles with enough space for significant sightlines between the cars and the bike path crossing. This peanut isn't like that at all.
Click to expand...

+1 "Fully Separated" except for 11 critical car entrance and exit points in the inner car rotary.
 
fattony said:
I know I keep harping on this, but the peanut, as proposed, doesn't look safe for how commuting cyclists and automobiles will use it, which accounts for about 99.9% of the people using it. I'm not sure we need too much weight placed on the feelings of children when designing this intersection for safety. Anyone who feels unsafe riding in traffic is always welcome to walk their bike on the sidewalk and in pedestrian crossings. The vast majority of people on this bike corridor are experienced urban cyclists.

Green paint on the right side of the road doesn't make it safer than riding single-file with traffic. Follow the green path around the peanut. At every exit street there is a conflict between a car exiting and a bike proceeding by making a sharp left turn. All it takes is one car who doesn't signal before exiting to cream a cyclist who thought they were safe to proceed. Or one cyclist to not crane their neck all the way around to see a car approaching behind them with their signal on.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that the peanut was the right option. My point was that any shared facilities should be out of the question if it's a large-scale reconstruction like this. I am aware that experienced cyclists are the majority, but that's only because they're the only ones who feel comfortable riding through in the current facilities (door zone bike lanes and sharrows).
 
sm89 said:
I wasn't saying that the peanut was the right option. My point was that any shared facilities should be out of the question if it's a large-scale reconstruction like this. I am aware that experienced cyclists are the majority, but that's only because they're the only ones who feel comfortable riding through in the current facilities (door zone bike lanes and sharrows).
Click to expand...

Bend Cambridge looks best to me and seems to be fully separated while in the Square. The extra separation in the peanut only seems to be on the outside of the square where the BCU wanted to promote the idea of continuing separation by putting the bike lane on the other side of the parking, which I don't think is prevented by any of the other 3 schemes.
 
Boston also posted a great page about their experiences with separated bike lanes so far, focusing on winter maintenance: https://www.boston.gov/news/how-were-using-separated-bike-lanes-winter

Small differences between Beacon Street and Mass Ave are being tested against each other, such as having the flex posts in different parts of the buffer zone, and how they are attached to the asphalt. Beacon Street (posts in the middle of the buffer space and with bases paved into the asphalt) is winning it seems. Most of the Mass Ave posts got plowed away during the first storm back in January.
 
Scipio said:
Boston also posted a great page about their experiences with separated bike lanes so far, focusing on winter maintenance: https://www.boston.gov/news/how-were-using-separated-bike-lanes-winter

Small differences between Beacon Street and Mass Ave are being tested against each other, such as having the flex posts in different parts of the buffer zone, and how they are attached to the asphalt. Beacon Street (posts in the middle of the buffer space and with bases paved into the asphalt) is winning it seems. Most of the Mass Ave posts got plowed away during the first storm back in January.
Click to expand...

It's not a test. They needed 10ft between the curb and flex post for street sweepers, etc. They had that room on Beacon, but not Mass.
 
Ah, thanks for the correction. The page read like they were doing A/B testing.
 
Re: Beacon St Somerville Cycle Track

The new eastbound Beacon St cycle track in Somerville had some ice on it earlier this evening; I have no idea whether the city is planning to improve snow / ice clearing in the future.
 
Tower-dwellers and office workers: If your building has a front desk or maintenance person, ask to borrow their snow shovel and dig out 3 bike spaces on the sidewalk in front of your building. We can do this.
 
Here's a plan from Northeastern to put bike lanes on the very constrained part of Longwood Ave through the Longwood Medical Area:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzqrHcMTliw

Can't say that I love it, but it's probably the best that can be done while still keeping two-way traffic moving along the street.
 
Longwood Ave bicycle infrastructure

Assuming that they did accurately measure the street width and figure out how much can fit there, then yes, I think that Longwood Ave bike lane proposal is about as good as can be done if we assume a project scope that excludes the possibility of rebuilding curbs or building a protected cycle track, and therefore the paint they recommend should be applied as soon as the snow plowing season is over.

If negotiating with private property owners and rebuilding curbs and such is potentially in scope in the somewhat longer term, then note that just to the west of Brookline Ave on Longwood Ave, the building to the south has a very wide sidewalk, and it might be possible to convert some of that sidewalk to a cycle track, and on the north side of Longwood Ave is a parking lot; moving that fence wouldn't be all that physically difficult if the owners of that lot were willing to let it shrink a bit. But whether a protected cycle track could interact well with the intersection is an open question.

A first phase of a Longwood Ave protected cycle track project might want to consider focusing on Muddy River path to Brookline Ave, although I'm also not sure how well the current condition of the Muddy River path accomodates biking.
 
Re: Longwood Ave bicycle infrastructure

Joel N. Weber II said:
Assuming that they did accurately measure the street width and figure out how much can fit there, then yes, I think that Longwood Ave bike lane proposal is about as good as can be done
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Some project managers will demand 11 foot lanes. others will go to 9.5 feet
 
Boston posted their design for the South Bay Harbor Trail:

https://www.boston.gov/sites/defaul...7/2017-0126_south_bay_harbor_trail_design.pdf

The basics are an inbound buffered bike lane over the Fourth Street bridge, an outbound buffered bike lane over the Broadway bridge, a two-way multiuse path that connects to the Albany Street bike lanes, new bike lanes on Dot Ave and an odd jughandle offramp cycle track to connect the Broadway bridge to the existing Harborwalk by Gilette.

At first glance I was pretty confused looking at the plans and so hope there is a great system of signs to direct people through the area. Just based on where it is there's no way this will be a pleasant experience due to the highway ramps and high-speed traffic on the bridges. But it's a safer link between South Boston and the South End as long as people understand how to use it.
 
Scipio said:
Boston posted their design for the South Bay Harbor Trail:

https://www.boston.gov/sites/defaul...7/2017-0126_south_bay_harbor_trail_design.pdf

The basics are an inbound buffered bike lane over the Fourth Street bridge, an outbound buffered bike lane over the Broadway bridge, a two-way multiuse path that connects to the Albany Street bike lanes, new bike lanes on Dot Ave and an odd jughandle offramp cycle track to connect the Broadway bridge to the existing Harborwalk by Gilette.

At first glance I was pretty confused looking at the plans and so hope there is a great system of signs to direct people through the area. Just based on where it is there's no way this will be a pleasant experience due to the highway ramps and high-speed traffic on the bridges. But it's a safer link between South Boston and the South End as long as people understand how to use it.
Click to expand...

I bike through that area all the time.

I really don't have any issues crossing either bridge in traffic. It is not the most pleasant ride in the world, but it is not particularly dangerous either. The drivers are pretty well behaved with bikes in the flow.

I do question the utility of marked bike lanes without some kind of separation (which is how I am reading the diagram). I think cars will just drive right over them (like they do on D Street in Southie).
 
Is that a new overpass coming into Albany St? EDIT: or, underpass I guess?
 
correct, under 93. there is a connection between the 2 Frontage Roads there. the bike path will be to the south of the existing road.
 
^ You think about it, this is an impressive amount of bike and pedestrian friendly infrastructure.

I think we are really headed for critical mass where this all starts to work together.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I bike through that area all the time.

I really don't have any issues crossing either bridge in traffic. It is not the most pleasant ride in the world, but it is not particularly dangerous either. The drivers are pretty well behaved with bikes in the flow.

I do question the utility of marked bike lanes without some kind of separation (which is how I am reading the diagram). I think cars will just drive right over them (like they do on D Street in Southie).
Click to expand...

I went to the meeting about this a couple of months ago. A lot of people were disappointed with the lanes on the bridges, but the upshot is they only have so much money right now, and they need to spend it quickly before they lose it, so they can't do much more than paint new lanes on the bridges. They want to get something in now, and then revisit once the bigger Melnea Cass project happens.
 
The current South Bay Harbor Trail drawings are an example of a designer "falling in love with their project". They are so focused on making the SBHT great, that they propose ruining or at least very negatively impacting every other cross bike connection that doesn't need it. Why on Earth would they build the bridge's bike lane forcing all bikes onto SBHT? A majority are heading down Berkeley into the Back Bay. There's a maze of lanes circling Foundry St, but what about bikes to and from W Broadway? The path itself looks great, but all of the connections to it are horrible and counterproductive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top