Biking in Boston

[jbray]

But we're not asking the drivers to themselves mode switch to bikes, but rather trying to convince them that (enough) other people will be willing to do it if biking were safe and convenient. Maybe all the suburbanites who only hang out with other suburbanites would feel that way, but they surely can fathom how many ubers & personal cars we can take off the road if all the college students, other young fit people, and crazy biker enthusiasts (like me) would use bikes for all of their intercity trips. Right? Riiiight???

This is the essence of the argument with diehard drivers. (It works for transit improvement as well).

These people, when stuck in traffic, are never self-aware enough to realize that they are part of the dreaded traffic they are stuck in. They always project traffic as being "other guys" who are in their way. If you can convince them that a given alternate mode improvement (bike lanes, transit, etc.) will get those traffic causing "other guys" out of their way, there is a chance that they will become supportive of the efforts. It just can't be about them, personally.

The problem here is that these two points converge into illogical thinking. The removal of a parking or driving lane means less room for cars and not using a car is seen as "out of touch with reality". So now, from their perspective, people out of touch with reality are going around and making traffic worse because, again from their perspective, no reasonable person would ever mode shift to a bicycle (trash like: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT RAINS? CHECKMATE CYCLISTS!). That's why the, "I never see anyone using the bike lane" line gets thrown around in the conversation as it helps them solidify their perspective that ultra-niche, wealthy, liberal terrorists with an N=12 have foisted their lanes on the remainder of N=the rest of the population. The studies dedicated to how the perceived safety of the network negatively impacting those who wish to use it lay ignored because that's theory (to them) and when you give them real life examples, "That's Europe and this is America, it'll never work" (see also: "America was built for the car"). This is why my example of one mile is so small but also includes the end to end number. With our most recent studies into accelerating speeds out of traffic lights, ~25 ft between cars is the optimum gap and anything smaller ends up equalling that 25ft gap by the time all the cars stopped are allowed to move through a given light. This results in just 211 bikes to remove one mile of car traffic. The last time I use this argument, I got a the stock rundown:

Appreciate the thought. I also like to bike. I believe the data shows most of our neighbors prefer cars in their daily lives. Families, the infirm, elderly, etc are not going to change because there’s a plastic bollard. I support bike lanes, off the major driving arteries, with seasonal changes that match our usage.

It should be noted, that while I do use the occasional blue bike (1-3 times annually), I am not a cyclist. Like many of you, I see the benefit to our overall transportation network and advocate for it because it dovetails with transit improvements that I am more personally affected by.

 

[Stlin]

So a question to sate my curiosity... When they do the assessments of where to put in parking protected bike lanes, do they take into account the uses occupying the neighboring buildings and sidewalks?

For example, Central Sq - that stretch of Mass Ave westbound has a lot of bars, where in the evenings people often are inebriated and use the bike lane as an extended sidewalk. That conflict isn't necessarily safe for either pedestrians or cyclists, and the parked cars can disguise where the curb is.

In that setting, I'd almost rather not have the protected bike lane - it seems safer to be in a traditional painted lane outbound of the parked cars. I know it's a vast minority of the time, but in the evenings when the bars are busy seems to be by far the most conflict prone stretch of bike lane I've ridden.

know it's intentional, but it feels like street furniture or otherwise physically separating sidewalk uses from bike lane might be very useful - such as on the East bound side, the bike lane runs around the outside of outdoor dining bump outs, which serve to keep the bikes and pedestrians separate.

 

[#bancars]

Sad news from Newton, and unfortunately the Globe continues to frame these stories extremely passively, e.g. "A bicyclist died following a crash with a UPS truck in Newton on Monday evening, officials said."

Bicyclist killed in crash with UPS truck in Newton was beloved Tufts medical professor - The Boston Globe

Alex Bohm, 57, of Newton, was taken to Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, where he was pronounced dead, law enforcement officials said Tuesday evening.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[lainpimicaja]

Hampshire St protected bike lanes between Broadway and Inman Square in Cambridge are taking shape: https://urbanists.social/@StreetsblogMASS/110969857575229313

During rush hour, the majority of road users are often on bike. Hopefully that increases with the Inman Square project nearly done and the rest of the separated bike network building out across Cambridge.

 

[sneijder]

So a question to sate my curiosity... When they do the assessments of where to put in parking protected bike lanes, do they take into account the uses occupying the neighboring buildings and sidewalks?

For example, Central Sq - that stretch of Mass Ave westbound has a lot of bars, where in the evenings people often are inebriated and use the bike lane as an extended sidewalk. That conflict isn't necessarily safe for either pedestrians or cyclists, and the parked cars can disguise where the curb is.

In that setting, I'd almost rather not have the protected bike lane - it seems safer to be in a traditional painted lane outbound of the parked cars. I know it's a vast minority of the time, but in the evenings when the bars are busy seems to be by far the most conflict prone stretch of bike lane I've ridden.

know it's intentional, but it feels like street furniture or otherwise physically separating sidewalk uses from bike lane might be very useful - such as on the East bound side, the bike lane runs around the outside of outdoor dining bump outs, which serve to keep the bikes and pedestrians separate.

Not sure I agree with that. Ped conflict with bikes is always safer and much lower injury risk than ped conflict with cars or bike conflict with cars. And plus, we're talking about drunk people stumbling around for maybe ~5 hours a week while this is a major bike thoroughfare that is used at all times of day.

Also, don't forget that bike lanes are car infrastructure. The pipe dream solution here is just to pedestrianize all of central square anyway, so that bikes aren't squeezed into a 4-foot lane adjacent to the sidewalk.

 

[DAVE]

Such an important gap filled in the bike network near completion. I am wondering how they plan to address the Melnea Cass/Mass Ave intersection. I basically had to just bike over during a walk signal to the southhampton side (which ended up being fraught with cars taking a right trying to run me over) and to be able to connect to the rest of Mass ave.

 

[cburns]

I've ridden this too (picked up a nail in my tire the first time... ugh). Disappointed they didn't resurface the entire stretch before painting, but this is a HUGE improvement.

Regarding Mass/Cass, they intend for ped signal usage to cross back (just as they do at Mass/Columbia.

 

[#bancars]

It appears that Cambridge has begun work on the extension of the Grand Junction Multi-Use Path:

 

[ritchiew]

There's this editorial today, suggesting some more things we could do to support biking in Boston

When building bike lanes isnât enough - The Boston Globe

Yes, it is a critical first step to getting more people out of their cars and onto bikes. But government, business, and civic groups can do more to encourage cycling.

www.bostonglobe.com

The suggestions all seem fine: more Blue Bikes; subsidize e-bikes; bike safety classes.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something about the editorial that irks me, though. There are these weird lines like

At some point it will take more than just infrastructure to get people onto bikes.
....
now is also the time to press for new and innovative approaches to encouraging, cajoling, and incentivizing more people to try the bike.

No... it really is mostly just the infrastructure. Build more bike lanes and improve the ones we've got. Make biking safe and convenient, and people will do it. Cajoling people into biking sounds annoying and doomed to fail.

Meh, that's me nitpicking. Glad to see (slightly muddled) support for good bike infrastructure.

 

[HenryAlan]

Agree, on balance it's a good editorial, but I definitely get your point about rubbing the wrong way. Along with what you've mentioned, they give voice to the idea that if you don't see a bike in the bike lane, the infrastructure is not being used. Similarly, they assert that BPS should look at adding bike training to the PE curriculum, but ignore that several schools in Boston already do this. Rather than pretending BPS doesn't have an interest, it would be more useful to acknowledge that there is not much funding available under current budget strictures. The schools that do it are using funds raised by parent councils, which is a different problem from it not happening at all.

 

[RandomWalk]

With my experience as a cyclist, driver, and pedestrian in Boston, infrastructure really does influence my desire to bike. I have near zero desire to be in mixed traffic with gig drivers. Their livelihood depends on volume, so they will do really stupid things to shave seconds off a task.

 

[#bancars]

Yeah, it's hard for Boston to jump from the ~2.5% range it is in right now to the 5-10% range seen in Camberville (or Portland or Minneapolis for that matter) mainly because of the really bad gaps in the bike network. Cambridge and Somerville (especially Cambridge) are getting to the point where you can get to 75-80% of the city largely cycling on routes that are low-traffic, off-street, or with protected infra. It makes a huge difference.

 

[lainpimicaja]

There's this editorial today, suggesting some more things we could do to support biking in Boston

When building bike lanes isnât enough - The Boston Globe

Yes, it is a critical first step to getting more people out of their cars and onto bikes. But government, business, and civic groups can do more to encourage cycling.

www.bostonglobe.com

The suggestions all seem fine: more Blue Bikes; subsidize e-bikes; bike safety classes.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something about the editorial that irks me, though. There are these weird lines like


No... it really is mostly just the infrastructure. Build more bike lanes and improve the ones we've got. Make biking safe and convenient, and people will do it. Cajoling people into biking sounds annoying and doomed to fail.

Meh, that's me nitpicking. Glad to see (slightly muddled) support for good bike infrastructure.

Absent from this editorial's argument re: bike infrastructure is its quality and connectivity, both of which are much stronger in Cambridge given their policies and plans there. The density of that higher-quality network is much greater, too, which certainly impacts the cycling rates. Boston's network is much more disconnected and the size of the city is much larger.

 

[sneijder]

Absent from this editorial's argument re: bike infrastructure is its quality and connectivity, both of which are much stronger in Cambridge given their policies and plans there. The density of that higher-quality network is much greater, too, which certainly impacts the cycling rates. Boston's network is much more disconnected and the size of the city is much larger.

I wish a bit more attention was paid to the quality of the pavement too. A car's shocks can largely absorb bumps and cracks but on a bike you can get thrown off the pedals or seat or your bag could fall out of the basket, which deters anyone but young, fit, experienced riders. Cambridge does a great job resurfacing the street right before they do any quick-build installations (see the new Hampshire St build, Inman Square, Garden St, Mt Auburn St, Lower Mass Ave installations. But Boston just takes an old car or parking lane which is saddled with paint markings, potholes, uneven sewage covers, uneven patches of repaired pavement, and throws down a flexpost and paint. The lane is safer from cars but still an unpleasant experience as you're jostled about, especially with lower profile road bike tires.

Since asphalt lasts MUCH longer with just the weight of bikes on it, that resurface of the bike lane is several orders of magnitude higher ROI than fixing a car lane (in $ spent per road user).

 

[lainpimicaja]

I wish a bit more attention was paid to the quality of the pavement too. A car's shocks can largely absorb bumps and cracks but on a bike you can get thrown off the pedals or seat or your bag could fall out of the basket, which deters anyone but young, fit, experienced riders. Cambridge does a great job resurfacing the street right before they do any quick-build installations (see the new Hampshire St build, Inman Square, Garden St, Mt Auburn St, Lower Mass Ave installations. But Boston just takes an old car or parking lane which is saddled with paint markings, potholes, uneven sewage covers, uneven patches of repaired pavement, and throws down a flexpost and paint. The lane is safer from cars but still an unpleasant experience as you're jostled about, especially with lower profile road bike tires.

Since asphalt lasts MUCH longer with just the weight of bikes on it, that resurface of the bike lane is several orders of magnitude higher ROI than fixing a car lane (in $ spent per road user).

Good point - A no-brainer way for Boston to take this on is for their public works folks to look at their repaving schedule and then have the bike planners work in tandem with that so that the city can design and stripe bike lanes when they repave. If the city has a strategic bike lane plan, they could leverage that and the repaving schedule to eventually get most of the quick-build bike lanes done within a relatively short period of time (also an opportunity to put more $$$ toward repaving program).

 

[king_vibe]

You can’t bike on lanes that get announced and never built.

 

[HenryAlan]

Yeah, it's hard for Boston to jump from the ~2.5% range it is in right now to the 5-10% range seen in Camberville (or Portland or Minneapolis for that matter) mainly because of the really bad gaps in the bike network. Cambridge and Somerville (especially Cambridge) are getting to the point where you can get to 75-80% of the city largely cycling on routes that are low-traffic, off-street, or with protected infra. It makes a huge difference.

Yes, the gaps are definitely one of the larger problems in Boston right now, but my sense is that we are only 2-3 years away from this problem largely being solved.

I wish a bit more attention was paid to the quality of the pavement too. A car's shocks can largely absorb bumps and cracks but on a bike you can get thrown off the pedals or seat or your bag could fall out of the basket, which deters anyone but young, fit, experienced riders.

Agreed. Take Columbus Ave., as an example. When the paint lanes between Mass Ave and Dartmouth went in, I switched from riding the last bit of South West Corridor park for my commute to using Columbus. Those lanes seemed god sent at the time, as such infrastructure as there was, wasn't very good. Now we don't want to see that type of lane, but I'm still comfortable enough on them. Nevertheless, I can't stand riding that section of Columbus anymore, because the surface is complete disaster. To really ride that route, you need a third eye, to watch the pavement, while the first two look at parked cars to the right, and moving cars to the left.

 

[grand_junction]

There's this editorial today, suggesting some more things we could do to support biking in Boston

When building bike lanes isnât enough - The Boston Globe

Yes, it is a critical first step to getting more people out of their cars and onto bikes. But government, business, and civic groups can do more to encourage cycling.

www.bostonglobe.com

The suggestions all seem fine: more Blue Bikes; subsidize e-bikes; bike safety classes.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something about the editorial that irks me, though. There are these weird lines like


No... it really is mostly just the infrastructure. Build more bike lanes and improve the ones we've got. Make biking safe and convenient, and people will do it. Cajoling people into biking sounds annoying and doomed to fail.

Meh, that's me nitpicking. Glad to see (slightly muddled) support for good bike infrastructure.

Yeah, it rubbed me the same way, and it indicated to me that the author(s) hadn't spent much actual time getting around the city on a bike.

I guess if you travel by car primarily in the city (and spend a lot of time in traffic), it will seem like the city has prioritized bikes, but spend any time commuting in major corridors in the city and it's easy to realize how fragmented it is. Crossing the Longfellow into Boston and going from protected lanes on the bridge and on corridors in Cambridge, you're hit with two dangerous, traffic congested streets with no infrastructure (Cambridge and Charles St.) Spend any time commuting in the financial district and downtown and it's the same -- you're lucky if you even have painted lanes.

Cambridge and Somerville have high rates of bike commuters not because they've spent all their time on promoting cycling, but because they've just made it accessible to do so.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Yeah, it rubbed me the same way, and it indicated to me that the author(s) hadn't spent much actual time getting around the city on a bike.

I guess if you travel by car primarily in the city (and spend a lot of time in traffic), it will seem like the city has prioritized bikes, but spend any time commuting in major corridors in the city and it's easy to realize how fragmented it is. Crossing the Longfellow into Boston and going from protected lanes on the bridge and on corridors in Cambridge, you're hit with two dangerous, traffic congested streets with no infrastructure (Cambridge and Charles St.) Spend any time commuting in the financial district and downtown and it's the same -- you're lucky if you even have painted lanes.

Cambridge and Somerville have high rates of bike commuters not because they've spent all their time on promoting cycling, but because they've just made it accessible to do so.

I made this same comment on the Globe Website. The bike infrastructure in Boston looks underutilized because you still cannot get there from here on it. The bike infrastructure in Cambridge and Somerville is utilized more because it is connected sufficiently to be useful.

The bike infrastructure in Boston is still in the category of dead end streets and roads to nowhere -- they are also not very heavily used.

 

[ant8904]

Yeah, it rubbed me the same way, and it indicated to me that the author(s) hadn't spent much actual time getting around the city on a bike.

It also rubs the wrong way the opening lines and headline and etc all sounds like it is about to start arguing for the stick approach and "force" people to bike. Opponents already have preconceived ideas, we don't need the advocates make arguments that sounds like what they keep thinking.