Biking in Boston

okin15 said:
Every intersection in Cambridge has a No Turn on Red sign (assuming none have been removed/fallen off).

More effective than these wordy signs would be either more arrows at intersections (green circles are pretty ambiguous for drivers)
and/or these type of no right turn lighted signs:
View attachment 56592View attachment 56591
Admittedly they are controversial / sometimes cause confusion, but I'd rather have drivers accidentally not making turns, than them accidentally making turns.
ALSO, drivers will like that there are times they can make a right on red if peds don't have a walk signal. (Enviromentalists like us cyclists might like that too sometimes?)
Click to expand...
I like the graphical-ish of those things but I don't see why you would want them to LED signs vs retro reflective standard signs.
 
Stlin said:
You know, it's been a few years but I previously read a study that said basically the opposite - all else being equal pedestrians tend to read asphalt as being for speedy vehicular traffic, and generally read concrete as being primarily for walking. Generally you even see that paradigm continue in sidewalk level grade separated bike lanes - asphalt bike facilities, concrete pedestrian. Even without green paint, individuals have long been conditioned to see concrete as "safe," compared to asphalt. Staying on the concrete is something a lot of kids are taught. The material difference is enough to create that separation - of course in the SW corridor proximity to the roadway confounds that. If the sidewalk was buffered from the curb, I think all else would be appropriate.

Also, I would tend to disagree that asphalt is seen as the "nicer" material - its definitely the cheaper to install and resurface, and cost has historically been disproportionately weighted in path construction. I think concrete tends to be aesthetically better - it has sharper edge finishes (asphalt tends to crumble) and the lighter color creates better contrast against natural greens. Plus, If I recall correctly, concrete as a material tends to impose a speed penalty on cyclists (due to joints and shifting) but not most pedestrians, which leads to it being somewhat preferred in shared environments due to a decreased differential. I know that UMass Amherst at least has been replacing it's asphalt paths with concrete as part of its current landscape vision.

(As an aside, I think red brick is the "nicest" sidewalk material discounting its maintenance and accessibility challenges - hence why a lot of nicer concrete paths go for brick accents.)
Click to expand...
This perspective, while appreciated, does not align with the reality of the Southwest Corridor.

I use then Southwest Corridor regularly and attend the redesign meetings. It’s well understood that the sections with the lowest pedestrian compliance are those with concrete pedestrian surface. One could argue that it is due to the fact that the concrete surfaces are also sidewalks next to roads and that is the larger factor at play, and I agree with that, but the surface is a compounding factor.

While you present “pedestrians” Here as a monolithic group, it’s important to make the distinction between walkers and runners. I’m a cyclist, first and foremost, but I also travel on my own two feet. When I walk on the Southwest Corridor, I stick to the pedestrian paths. When I run on the Southwest Corridor, I stick to the asphalt. My experience is not unique. Just sit and observe pedestrian behavior and you will see this in action every day. Heck, I just had a conversation with somebody about running (unrelated to infrastructure) who referred to the cycling asphalt as the “running path” and the pedestrian concrete as the “walking path.”

Runners prefer asphalt because it is easier on the joints than concrete. It is softer and absorbs more impact, reducing stress on the knees and hips. Concrete is harder and transmits more impact back into the body, which can increase the risk of joint pain and injuries.

Runners who have dealt with foot pain or shin splints or knee pain or hip pain while running, like myself, will choose asphalt over concrete. The reality of the material and its impact on your body will override the theory that you presented here.
 
bigeman312 said:
This perspective, while appreciated, does not align with the reality of the Southwest Corridor.

I use then Southwest Corridor regularly and attend the redesign meetings. It’s well understood that the sections with the lowest pedestrian compliance are those with concrete pedestrian surface. One could argue that it is due to the fact that the concrete surfaces are also sidewalks next to roads and that is the larger factor at play, and I agree with that, but the surface is a compounding factor.

While you present “pedestrians” Here as a monolithic group, it’s important to make the distinction between walkers and runners. I’m a cyclist, first and foremost, but I also travel on my own two feet. When I walk on the Southwest Corridor, I stick to the pedestrian paths. When I run on the Southwest Corridor, I stick to the asphalt. My experience is not unique. Just sit and observe pedestrian behavior and you will see this in action every day. Heck, I just had a conversation with somebody about running (unrelated to infrastructure) who referred to the cycling asphalt as the “running path” and the pedestrian concrete as the “walking path.”

Runners prefer asphalt because it is easier on the joints than concrete. It is softer and absorbs more impact, reducing stress on the knees and hips. Concrete is harder and transmits more impact back into the body, which can increase the risk of joint pain and injuries.

Runners who have dealt with foot pain or shin splints or knee pain or hip pain while running, like myself, will choose asphalt over concrete. The reality of the material and its impact on your body will override the theory that you presented here.
Click to expand...
Of course you're right about runners seeing it differently, and I should have mentioned that. I'll concede that what I read was likely focused on more functional "transit" sidewalk uses in a city/planned landscape area, rather than a path that sees recreational use.

If I may since you're a runner, is asphalt actually the best material? My understanding from my track running friends is that the difference from concrete is marginal, and that they'd all prefer to run on even softer surfaces - dirt, gravel, grass, rubber. Would something like that as a shoulder/ additional width to the bike path be optimal? My understanding is that DCR has recently been open to softer materials - the most recent Mem Drive Phase 3 plans call for both an adjacent aggregate path and a flexible porous pavement material on the other side, (which I think is rubberized) and the newest path they installed in Wellesley is fully rubberized. Cambridge has also installed several segments of rubberized sidewalk over the past few years, though admittedly primarily for tree wells and stormwater drainage.
 
Stlin said:
If I may since you're a runner, is asphalt actually the best material? My understanding from my track running friends is that the difference from concrete is marginal, and that they'd all prefer to run on even softer surfaces - dirt, gravel, grass, rubber. Would something like that as a shoulder/ additional width to the bike path be optimal? My understanding is that DCR has recently been open to softer materials - the most recent Mem Drive Phase 3 plans call for both an adjacent aggregate path and a flexible porous pavement (rubberized) material on the other side, and the newest path they installed in Wellesley is fully rubberized. Cambridge has also installed several segments of rubberized sidewalk over the past few years, though admittedly primarily for tree wells and stormwater drainage.
Click to expand...

Also an active distance runner, and you're correct. Yes, asphalt is absolutely preferable to concrete, but the rubberized sidewalk is definitely even better!
 
Stlin said:
Of course you're right about runners seeing it differently, and I should have mentioned that. I'll concede that what I read was likely focused on more functional "transit" sidewalk uses in a city/planned landscape area, rather than a path that sees recreational use.

If I may since you're a runner, is asphalt actually the best material? My understanding from my track running friends is that the difference from concrete is marginal, and that they'd all prefer to run on even softer surfaces - dirt, gravel, grass, rubber. Would something like that as a shoulder/ additional width to the bike path be optimal? My understanding is that DCR has recently been open to softer materials - the most recent Mem Drive Phase 3 plans call for both an adjacent aggregate path and a flexible porous pavement material on the other side, (which I think is rubberized) and the newest path they installed in Wellesley is fully rubberized. Cambridge has also installed several segments of rubberized sidewalk over the past few years, though admittedly primarily for tree wells and stormwater drainage.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all counts.
  • Concrete is great for sidewalks that primarily serve the purpose of low-speed pedestrian transport (and wheelchairs and other mobility devices, too of course).
  • Asphalt is a good “middle path” that can effectively serve everyone. It is useful for both transportation and recreation for pedestrians (walking and running) as well micro-mobility vehicles. This is why it’s a common go-to material used on suburban multi-use trails.
  • Unpaved trails (dirt, gravel, packed soil, etc) is favored by many runners, walkers, and cyclists for being soft on the joints and offering varied terrain, which can reduce repetitive strain and keep one mentally engaged.
Unpaved

Many runners and cyclists prefer unpaved trails to paved trails, and have gear specifically catered to that pursuit. On the other hand, it is less accessible and limits the volume and speed at which one can travel over the trail. We’ve seen this play out in the debate over the Reformatory Branch Trail.

Paved

Many runners and cyclists prefer paved trails to unpaved trails, and have gear specifically catered to that pursuit. Basically none of them prefer concrete to asphalt, though.

SW Corridor

The SW Corridor is trying to be many things to many people and that’s where we see these conflicts arise.

Having two asphalt paths (one for pedestrians and one for cyclists and other micro-mobility vehicles) is a compromise that would best serve most users of the corridor.

EDITED TO ADD: With the upcoming closure of White Stadium, I and other runners who use that for its softer surface will be displaced and running elsewhere. Harry Downes is one natural option. For myself (and others in Jamaica Plain and Roxbury), the asphalt paths of the SW Corridor are a natural place to shift to.
 
Last edited:
as02143 said:
I like the graphical-ish of those things but I don't see why you would want them to LED signs vs retro reflective standard signs.
Click to expand...
because they turn on and off depending on the light cycle.
Sound confusing? You wouldn't be the only one. But just like anything, it'll be old hat if there are enough of them.
 
HenryAlan said:
You raise an interesting question. I've always kind of assumed it was about positioning of the two paths, more than it was about the surface. But, as I think about it some more, I think there perhaps is an intuitive preference for asphalt. I'm thinking about the Arobroway paths around Forest Hills and the Arboretum. The path from Washington St. to the entrance of Franklin Park features a sidewalk more removed from the street, and yet people tend to use the bike path for walking and running. Likewise for the path from the Forest Hills Arboretum gate to South Street, pedestrians tend to select the bike path, which is closer to the street and further from the park.

As a frequent user of these paths, both on bike and on foot, I have to be intentional about not walking on the bike paths, which seem like the more natural choice.
Click to expand...
The human mind works in mysterious ways. SWC up by Roxbury Crossing at least has the asphalt bike path as also the much more direct path to take than the sidewalk which makes more sense, but every time I'm on the separated bike lanes on Rt. 9 in Brookline I encounter people walking on the narrow, plant separated bike path rather than the much wider concrete sidewalk.
IMG_6183.jpeg
 
okin15 said:
because they turn on and off depending on the light cycle.
Sound confusing? You wouldn't be the only one. But just like anything, it'll be old hat if there are enough of them.
Click to expand...
I think for safety you want no turns on red all the time rather than some of the time based on the signal timing?
 
as02143 said:
I think for safety you want no turns on red all the time rather than some of the time based on the signal timing?
Click to expand...
Yeah in my experience with one such time based intersection in Braintree, if it's allowed some of the time people will treat it like it's allowed all of the time.
 
Koopzilla24 said:
The human mind works in mysterious ways. SWC up by Roxbury Crossing at least has the asphalt bike path as also the much more direct path to take than the sidewalk which makes more sense, but every time I'm on the separated bike lanes on Rt. 9 in Brookline I encounter people walking on the narrow, plant separated bike path rather than the much wider concrete sidewalk.
View attachment 56643
Click to expand...
Part of the issue is these still look like asphalt paths, and this is confusing since most asphalt paths people are allowed to walk on. The red asphalt in the netherlands makes it very clear what space is for cars, walking, and bikes.
 
as02143 said:
I think for safety you want no turns on red all the time rather than some of the time based on the signal timing?
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting allowing rights on red. I'm suggesting protecting peds and cyclists with a lit-symbolic "No Right Turn" sign in addition to a "No Turn on Red" sign.
Example (with a scofflaw driver):

I do think you could get cute and allow some rights on red in certain cases where there are neither bike nor ped conflicts, but that's a second discussion.
 
okin15 said:
I'm not suggesting allowing rights on red. I'm suggesting protecting peds and cyclists with a lit-symbolic "No Right Turn" sign in addition to a "No Turn on Red" sign.

I do think you could get cute and allow some rights on red in certain cases where there are neither bike nor ped conflicts, but that's a second discussion.
Click to expand...
more examples:
including one in Lynn:
 
The intent of those electronic RTOR signs is to allow a right during a left turn overlap (so say allow NB and SB rights when EB and WB have protected lefts). There arent peds going during this phase in any direction. The sign is then illuminated when EB/WB (using example above) has the green. It could also be illuminated if there is an exclusive ped only phase but really in almost all cases in an urban setting, there should be concurrent ped phases.
 
sneijder said:
Part of the issue is these still look like asphalt paths, and this is confusing since most asphalt paths people are allowed to walk on. The red asphalt in the netherlands makes it very clear what space is for cars, walking, and bikes.
Click to expand...
Most of the issue is people are obnoxious and ignore rules.
 
FK4 said:
Most of the issue is people are obnoxious and ignore rules.
Click to expand...
Although that is certainly true, I'm not sure it's most of the issue. I think people are mostly just clueless. The truth of the matter is that if somebody isn't a bike rider, they very likely have no idea that these are explicitly not mixed use paths.
 
HenryAlan said:
Although that is certainly true, I'm not sure it's most of the issue. I think people are mostly just clueless. The truth of the matter is that if somebody isn't a bike rider, they very likely have no idea that these are explicitly not mixed use paths.
Click to expand...
Henry, literally every single segment of the Southwest Corridor Path has posts with graphic signs showing that one way is for bikes and the other is for pedestrians. There's not ambiguity here. People dont care. For the few people that truly dont notice, they dont notice because they dont care. I know people love to come out of the woodwork here and argue that it's the same everywhere, but I have never been to any city, anywhere, where the movement culture -- including autos, bikes, and pedestrians -- all demonstrate such consistent carelessness for any sort of rules or consideration for anyone else. There is a carelessness and an antipathy to any sort of order to things here that is observable from sidewalk to crosswalk to highway.
 
Your welcome to that opinion, but believe it or not, people legitimately don't notice those signs. And yes, I suppose in many cases it's because they care more about something else, such as interacting with their phone, or the conversation they are having with a walking companion, etc. But I really do think this is better explained by Hanlon's Razor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top