Biking in Boston

No, I'm not talking about a city-wide pedestrian zone. Even in the picture above that's not true. Except for limited and carefully considered circumstances, pedestrian-only streets tend to be mistakes. Actually, the architect behind the ubiquitous mall design, Victor Gruen, envisioned cities as pedestrian-only zones with giant parking lots on the periphery. He wound up creating the template for the suburban shopping mall. In the end, he retired a broken, bitter man back to his native Vienna.

Jacobs identified small blocks as critical to success because they offer more opportunities "to turn the corner" and make walking easier, more interesting and varied. The same principle applies here too: being able to cross at frequent intervals is just as important as being able to turn the corner frequently. So I don't think your plan would work out very well.

Since pedestrians already walk freely on bus lanes and the Green Line (I watch it every day) I don't think it's that big of a problem. Certainly, most streetcar systems were built expecting that originally. Rapid transit should be grade-separated.

check out this video
 
jass said:
And why should jaywalking, a "crime" invented by the auto lobby to shift the burden of traffic fatalities from drivers to pedestrians even be on the books, much less enforced?


edit: woops, saw your name, youre a troll.
Click to expand...

I just want to chime in at this point to chill your snark Jass. I'll go on the line right now to say the man is not a troll. You're free to disagree on whatever he said, but I can't let you go with your snark. Check his past posts. Just because his screenname is MassMotorist, it doesn't mean to be flippant.
 
A couple questions:

Does anyone know if Hubway has plans to remain open throughout the winter? I've heard rumblings and I know that other cities that are at least as cold as Boston have bike sharing systems that remain open throughout the winter.

Also, are there plans to add redundancy to Columbia Point? As it stands, riding to the "University of Massachusetts Boston" Hubway station would be an extreme gamble. It's over a mile from the nearest other station.
 
jass said:
To add on the avalanche, look at cities where jaywalking is a crime thats enforced.

LA. Phoenix. Houston.

Seeing a pattern? It kills walkability. It kills vitality.
Click to expand...

I think for better or for worse, the auto-centric design of those cities (including the grid layout) results in the necessity for strict jaywalking laws. It's not the laws that kill the walkability, it's the design.

jass said:
You know what standing a corner, looking at a steady red hand for 60 seconds when theres not a single vehicle in sight says? It says youre being punished for being a pedestrian. That even the non-existent vehicles are a notch above you in the importance scale.
Click to expand...

The purpose of traffic law is often misconstrued. For the most part, enforcement of traffic law should be contingent on an underlying safety violation and should be used sparingly. If a pedestrian crosses the road against a signal when there's not a car in sight, to me there is no violation. Similarly, if I come to a red light at 3 AM and there's clear sight lines and no one on the road in any direction, and I proceed after stopping, that shouldn't be a violation either.

Smarter traffic systems with properly timed and actuated signals can fix these problems to some degree, as can revisions to the laws.

A good rule of thumb is that if more than 5% of the population violates a particular law on a regular basis, there's probably a problem with the law and not with the "violators". To me, jaywalking citations should be reserved for occasions where someone runs in front of traffic or almost causes an accident through sheer negligence or inattentiveness. If limited to those circumstances, the fine should certainly be more than $1.
 
massmotorist said:
A good rule of thumb is that if more than 5% of the population violates a particular law on a regular basis, there's probably a problem with the law and not with the "violators". To me, jaywalking citations should be reserved for occasions where someone runs in front of traffic or almost causes an accident through sheer negligence or inattentiveness. If limited to those circumstances, the fine should certainly be more than $1.
Click to expand...

Reckless endangerment is an actual crime on the books that could be enforced in the event that you do something really stupid.

How about this - instead of setting the fine for jaywalking at $40 and opening the door for jaywalking citations to be abused, we keep jaywalking at an unenforceable $1 and have Reckless Endangerment (including reckless self-endangerment) be a $40 fine?
 
massmotorist said:
I think for better or for worse, the auto-centric design of those cities (including the grid layout) results in the necessity for strict jaywalking laws. It's not the laws that kill the walkability, it's the design.
Click to expand...

I agree to some extent but... Manhattan. Wide streets, grid pattern but no enforcement of jaywalking laws. The result is much better than say Phoenix or LV.

Auto-centric design is one thing. Grids are another.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Reckless endangerment is an actual crime on the books that could be enforced in the event that you do something really stupid.

How about this - instead of setting the fine for jaywalking at $40 and opening the door for jaywalking citations to be abused, we keep jaywalking at an unenforceable $1 and have Reckless Endangerment (including reckless self-endangerment) be a $40 fine?
Click to expand...

Do the same for speeding fines, and you've got a deal.
 
bigeman312 said:
A couple questions:

Does anyone know if Hubway has plans to remain open throughout the winter? I've heard rumblings and I know that other cities that are at least as cold as Boston have bike sharing systems that remain open throughout the winter.

Also, are there plans to add redundancy to Columbia Point? As it stands, riding to the "University of Massachusetts Boston" Hubway station would be an extreme gamble. It's over a mile from the nearest other station.
Click to expand...

Hubway isnt big on information. As such, at this point (as far as I can tell, correct me if Im wrong) theyve made no announcement on closing date.

Last year they began closing before Thanksgiving and were gone by December 1.

What I HOPE is that this year they play it by weather. Last year, the system could have stayed until January, as December saw no snow. The date they chose was picked well in advance and had no real world relevance.


Winter isnt an issue with cold, the issue is snow plows, as most hubway stations are in the street. The plows dont give a shit, and theyd bury the stations and bikes, or worse.

Stations on sidewalks and plazas could remain....but Hubway prefers not to (the original RFP was for a 365 day system)

Montreal and Toronto pull up for winter, but DC doesnt, and NYC apparently wont.



Yup, Hubway has a few terribly spaced stations, because the lack of redundancy means its a danger to use them. Umass in its current form is useless because of the risk. Ridership is almost nothing , as theres barely 3 trips a day at that station, vs some that see 50+ transactions a day.

As they like their secrets, we have no clue if or when theyd add more. Umass itself is big enough to have three stations, to support intra-campus trips and provide the necessary redundancy for longer trips.
 
massmotorist said:
I think for better or for worse, the auto-centric design of those cities (including the grid layout) results in the necessity for strict jaywalking laws. It's not the laws that kill the walkability, it's the design.



The purpose of traffic law is often misconstrued. For the most part, enforcement of traffic law should be contingent on an underlying safety violation and should be used sparingly. If a pedestrian crosses the road against a signal when there's not a car in sight, to me there is no violation. Similarly, if I come to a red light at 3 AM and there's clear sight lines and no one on the road in any direction, and I proceed after stopping, that shouldn't be a violation either.

Smarter traffic systems with properly timed and actuated signals can fix these problems to some degree, as can revisions to the laws.

A good rule of thumb is that if more than 5% of the population violates a particular law on a regular basis, there's probably a problem with the law and not with the "violators". To me, jaywalking citations should be reserved for occasions where someone runs in front of traffic or almost causes an accident through sheer negligence or inattentiveness. If limited to those circumstances, the fine should certainly be more than $1.
Click to expand...


Ive heard that in LA people can get ticketed for stepping off the sidewalk once the flashing begins, even if theres ample time to cross.

Youll never see a car get ticketed for turning left after the light turns yellow or red though.

Problem is, cops supposedly dont have discretion. You break the law, you break the law.

I agree that other laws exist....reckless endangerment, failure to yield and so forth. Those can be crimes.

All jaywalking means is you crossed outside the crosswalk or without the signal. That shouldnt be a crime, ever. Throwing yourself in front of a vehicle is a whole different manner.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
I agree with you. All I'm really asking for is that some consideration be given to the impact that a city-wide pedestrian zone would have on transit, and I'll I'm trying to say is that there is a benefit to the city to bar pedestrians from freely walking up, over, and down bus lanes and Green Line tracks.

I think the ideal utopian downtown street is a high-speed lane in the center for buses/streetcars, a narrow bike reservation separating the high-speed lane from everything else (25~35 mph bicycle speed limit), then one or two low speed (5~15 mph, STRICTLY enforced, goes for bicyclists as well) general traffic lanes, and finally an extra-wide sidewalk. There would be no on-street parking.

Pedestrians would be free to walk up and down the sidewalk and in the street as they please, but would not be allowed to enter the transit lane nor the bicycle reservation except at transit stations, which would double as the points where you cross the street.

Now, just in case my use of the word utopian was not enough of a tip-off, I don't think that we're ever going to get even close to that... but it'd be nice to dream.
Click to expand...

This sounds substantially worse than what we have now.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
I agree with you. All I'm really asking for is that some consideration be given to the impact that a city-wide pedestrian zone would have on transit, and I'll I'm trying to say is that there is a benefit to the city to bar pedestrians from freely walking up, over, and down bus lanes and Green Line tracks.

I think the ideal utopian downtown street is a high-speed lane in the center for buses/streetcars, a narrow bike reservation separating the high-speed lane from everything else (25~35 mph bicycle speed limit), then one or two low speed (5~15 mph, STRICTLY enforced, goes for bicyclists as well) general traffic lanes, and finally an extra-wide sidewalk. There would be no on-street parking.

Pedestrians would be free to walk up and down the sidewalk and in the street as they please, but would not be allowed to enter the transit lane nor the bicycle reservation except at transit stations, which would double as the points where you cross the street.

Now, just in case my use of the word utopian was not enough of a tip-off, I don't think that we're ever going to get even close to that... but it'd be nice to dream.
Click to expand...

And the pedestrian still loses out. You're designing for thru-traffic. "Extra wide sidewalks" are a planning disaster. No one with a brain is building extra wide sidewalks anymore. Pedestrians are punished for thru-traffic and can't cross except at transit stations? Seriously? What is this? What the holy fuck is the point of a downtown if it's only a passage way for drivers and tricycle riders to go somewhere else!?J>!K??!!?j irrrlfaskjlif

Where is F-line? Help me out.
 
jass said:
Ive heard that in LA people can get ticketed for stepping off the sidewalk once the flashing begins, even if theres ample time to cross.

Youll never see a car get ticketed for turning left after the light turns yellow or red though.

Problem is, cops supposedly dont have discretion. You break the law, you break the law.
Click to expand...

If that's true then it's wrong and it should be stopped. Police need to have discretion, but you can't rely on discretion in matters where the majority of people break the law and enforcement of the law is profitable for the government. It creates perverse incentives. Police discretion only works where the natural inclination is heavily tilted towards leniency and stricter punishment means more hassle for all involved.

jass said:
I agree that other laws exist....reckless endangerment, failure to yield and so forth. Those can be crimes.

All jaywalking means is you crossed outside the crosswalk or without the signal. That shouldnt be a crime, ever. Throwing yourself in front of a vehicle is a whole different manner.
Click to expand...

The MHD CMRs defining jaywalking are relatively reasonable. If there's no crosswalk within 300 feet it's not jaywalking. They should be improved upon to allow crossing if there aren't cars present. But at the same time, if someone starts crossing a bustling four-lane street during rush hour with 2 seconds left until the light turns green, that warrants a citation (but for an "infraction" rather than a "crime").
 
jass said:
I think the whole helmet thing is extremely stupid. Let people do what they want.

And yes, Im against seat belt laws as well. I always wear a seat belt, but so what if I dont? Not your problem, its mine.

Exception in both cases for children. An adult is an adult. They can judge their own risk.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that, just so long as we're prepared not to provide emergency treatment to anybody who is uninsured. Of course, we might not have time to check on that when emergency treatment is indicated. From a practical standpoint, we still have to treat every accident injury. As such, society still has an interest in not allowing stupidity.
 
underground said:
Please end this stupid ass bike/car/pedestrian culture war. The idea that one group has a lockdown on good or bad behavior is idiotic. You saw a biker do something stupid? Awesome. I saw 20 pedestrians and 5 drivers. There outta be a law!!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's tiresome. Am I the only person who uses all three modes of transportation? It seems that way whenever there is a discussion like this. There are jerks in every mode, there are idiots in every mode, and there are courteous, safety conscious users in every mode. The best approach is to develop an understanding of where things overlap, where they differ, and how that might inform behavior for each group.
 
HenryAlan said:
Yeah, it's tiresome. Am I the only person who uses all three modes of transportation? It seems that way whenever there is a discussion like this. There are jerks in every mode, there are idiots in every mode, and there are courteous, safety conscious users in every mode. The best approach is to develop an understanding of where things overlap, where they differ, and how that might inform behavior for each group.
Click to expand...

No. My partner and I also own a car. He's the one that primarily drives, as he works in Needham. Luckily there is permit parking on my street, so parking is usually a breeze.

I'm actually a much more cautious driver in the city because of the fact that I'm also very often a pedestrian (taking the T to work everyday) and occasionally a cyclist. I also teach (ok, yell at) him about driving safely to accomodate all modes of transport like check twice, save a life.
 
bbfen said:
And the pedestrian still loses out. You're designing for thru-traffic. "Extra wide sidewalks" are a planning disaster. No one with a brain is building extra wide sidewalks anymore. Pedestrians are punished for thru-traffic and can't cross except at transit stations? Seriously? What is this? What the holy fuck is the point of a downtown if it's only a passage way for drivers and tricycle riders to go somewhere else!?J>!K??!!?j irrrlfaskjlif

Where is F-line? Help me out.
Click to expand...

There would be a transit 'station' at the corner of every single block, and most of them would be rather spartan. (i.e., shelter and bridge so you can walk over inside of in front of.)

Remember, these are buses and streetcars - for the most part, they'd only be stopping on request. We can throw up stations every 400 feet if we wanted to.

I don't feel like pedestrians are being punished in this setup - they can walk freely everywhere except in the high-speed transit/bike reservations, and again, since this is a perfect universe, there's a safe place to cross every ~400 feet.

Why are extra-wide sidewalks a bad thing?
 
400 feet is too long between crossings. Just look at the "B" line. They try to fence it off, but people go around the fences anyway. People want to cross. They do not want to add 400 feet to their trip because of bad design.

Mode segregation at the street level does not work.
 
Matthew said:
400 feet is too long between crossings. Just look at the "B" line. They try to fence it off, but people go around the fences anyway. People want to cross. They do not want to add 400 feet to their trip because of bad design.

Mode segregation at the street level does not work.
Click to expand...

I think my flaw here is that I'm still assuming that things will be designed with members of the bottom 1% (of intelligence) in mind - that, if you don't make at least a nominal effort to say 'you can't cross in front of this bus,' someone's going to try and beat the bus and get whacked.

What about mode segregation to keep the buses away from pedestrians?
 
Why would you keep buses away from their customers?

This reminds me of the same kind of thinking that surrounds train stations with "greenspace."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top