Biking in Boston

[HenryAlan]

We don't need cycle tracks all over the place, just a few corridors in to which we can funnel most of the traffic. The Southwest Corridor bike path is a good example of the concept, albeit about twice as long. It is heavily utilized by cyclists coming from all over Rozzie, Hyde Park, JP, and Roxbury, and probably quite a few from West Roxbury, Mattapan, and even Dorchester. If you live roughly Southwest of the city, your bike commute consists of three parts:

1. Getting to the corridor
2. Riding in the corridor
3. The final stretch downtown

Very few people consider any alternative option for the middle part of the ride, so for that 4 mile stretch, there really doesn't need to be another protected path within a fairly wide distance.

 

[Lurker]

The problem with that Henry is accessibility at the last quarter mile to desired locations. What's the point of biking if it has the same limitations are public transit in the final short stretch?

 

[HenryAlan]

The problem with that Henry is accessibility at the last quarter mile to desired locations. What's the point of biking if it has the same limitations are public transit in the final short stretch?

People can manage the short distances. Think of the cycle track as a highway for moving a large volume of bikes.

 

[jass]

So after Cambridge gets on board, there will be 2 miles of cycle track from almost-Porter to almost-Kendall. I sincerely don't mean this sarcastically - do you think 2 miles of cycle track will be transformative?

Is this going to be the tip of the iceberg erasing parking to make cycle tracks? Up next: Broadway (both of them), Cambridge St, Somerville Ave, Prospect, Main St. Mass Ave... Because if its not, then we don't need to ruffle feathers in both cities for 2 miles of cycle track.

So no cycle tracks until we get all the cycle tracks.

Got it.


And you do realize for a bike, 2 miles is a mid sized ride?

People can manage the short distances. Think of the cycle track as a highway for moving a large volume of bikes.

Except with that analogy, all the highway off ramps lead to 8 foot wide dirt paths.

 

[fattony]

So no cycle tracks until we get all the cycle tracks.

Got it.


And you do realize for a bike, 2 miles is a mid sized ride?

That's not it exactly. I'm a cyclist, although not for my daily commute. I love bike lanes and sharrows and I really appreciate the dedication that Cbridge/Sville have for improving conditions for cyclists.

What I'm questioning is whether or not a track is needed at this location and/or others around town(s). 2 miles of track with a large and notoriously dangerous intersection in the middle doesn't sound like the best choice to me. Conventional bike lanes work OK here and I'm questioning if we'll see a real benefit from changing to a track or if it will just be a new set of headaches.

I'm open to sound reasoning to support the track, but "cycle tracks are highways for bike" is a description not a convincing argument. Why does this 2-mile stretch need a bike highway? Just because of high cyclist volume? The track doesn't affect congestion.

Most important to safetly - how is traffic (bike, car, and ped) going to be affected at Inman Sq? Both before and after the Cambridge half is complete? Right now that intersection has painfully long lights for ped crossings and getting a green light is no guarantee it is safe to step on the gas. What kind of dance will be needed to shift the bike traffic from conventional bike lanes into the track?

 

[choo]

^ I think those are all worthy considerations, but not insurmountable obstacles.

I think the track actually helps. Its a high traffic corridor for all modes, and I think separating makes better sense here. Bike lanes often become the place to dump snow from the street and shoveled out cars, a quick place to double park while not completely blocking auto traffic, and things careless drivers (and bikers) just ignore by going into them or staying out of them.

I think in Inman, the separation helps. Lights will be coordinated, when buses pull through, they don't block the whole lane. Cars, people and bikes all have an expectation of where they should be. I think you will see a lot more people use this corridor if they put a track or just repaved and did a nice bike lane, and given that, I think the track is the better one to have.

 

[HenryAlan]

That's not it exactly. I'm a cyclist, although not for my daily commute. I love bike lanes and sharrows and I really appreciate the dedication that Cbridge/Sville have for improving conditions for cyclists.

What I'm questioning is whether or not a track is needed at this location and/or others around town(s). 2 miles of track with a large and notoriously dangerous intersection in the middle doesn't sound like the best choice to me. Conventional bike lanes work OK here and I'm questioning if we'll see a real benefit from changing to a track or if it will just be a new set of headaches.

I'm open to sound reasoning to support the track, but "cycle tracks are highways for bike" is a description not a convincing argument. Why does this 2-mile stretch need a bike highway? Just because of high cyclist volume? The track doesn't affect congestion.

My thinking here is that the cyclists can operate more safely with the track. While we obviously can't build such infrastructure everywhere, it does make sense to place it where a high volume exists, or where we want to encourage a high volume. When I ride in a heavily used corridor, I have to not only pay attention to existing road hazards, but increasingly also have to be aware of hazards created by bicycle congestion. It's safer to only have to concern myself with some but not all of these hazards. There are sections along the Lalemont trail, in fact, where in my judgement, the congestion is the greater hazard, and I'll ride on the parallel streets. The point is, a cycle track provides an opportunity to segregate hazards from one another, and is worth doing when the volume exists.

Most important to safetly - how is traffic (bike, car, and ped) going to be affected at Inman Sq? Both before and after the Cambridge half is complete? Right now that intersection has painfully long lights for ped crossings and getting a green light is no guarantee it is safe to step on the gas. What kind of dance will be needed to shift the bike traffic from conventional bike lanes into the track?

I am not all that familiar with what happens at Inman Square for bikes, whether there is something unique that should concern us. That said, I assume at least part of your concern regards bicycles dumping out of the cycle track and on to the main road, and whether or not that is a safety concern. I don't particularly know why it would be. We have other examples of off the street bike paths ending at busy intersections or feeding on to a busy street. Generally there is some delay or some inconvenience, but the situation isn't inherently unsafe. Maybe you can give me some more descriptive information, to help me understand what you are pointing out.

 

[fattony]

I am not all that familiar with what happens at Inman Square for bikes, whether there is something unique that should concern us. That said, I assume at least part of your concern regards bicycles dumping out of the cycle track and on to the main road, and whether or not that is a safety concern. I don't particularly know why it would be. We have other examples of off the street bike paths ending at busy intersections or feeding on to a busy street. Generally there is some delay or some inconvenience, but the situation isn't inherently unsafe. Maybe you can give me some more descriptive information, to help me understand what you are pointing out.

The part bugging me most is that the NW bound bike traffic (towards Porter) has to cross 2 lanes of auto traffic to enter the cycle track. That either happens right at the intersection of Hampshire and Cambridge, or a little further up on Beacon St.

Can anyone explain scenarios for that transition to happen safely and orderly? Something that cyclists will actually comply with? (Too many seem to have difficulty with our fancy new traffic control devices like red lights and one-way signs).

For extra credit, can anyone make a scenario without adding to the 60 sec red-light time for a ped crossing?



EDIT: I'm a big idiot. The so called "cycle track" is on BOTH sides of the road, even though only one side is separated from auto traffic. I misunderstood that there was 2-way bike traffic in ACTUAL cycle track that is shielded by parked cars. The other direction has a pseudo-cycle track (read: bike lane). So the crossing traffic problem above is not a problem at all.

http://www.somervillema.gov/sites/default/files/1-28-2013-Presentation-Reduced-Size.pdf

 

[HenryAlan]

It sounds like you are describing a cycle track on only the SE bound side of the road, with two way traffic. That isn't what the artist's rendering shows:

Wouldn't bikes bound for Porter simply continue on the side of the street they are already on, and feed directly on to the same direction, one-way track?

 

[fattony]

It sounds like you are describing a cycle track on only the SE bound side of the road, with two way traffic. That isn't what the artist's rendering shows:

Wouldn't bikes bound for Porter simply continue on the side of the street they are already on, and feed directly on to the same direction, one-way track?

Yes. I was amending my above post as you beat me to the punch.

 

[HenryAlan]

It's a little hard to tell, but I think the less protected path is still raised above street level. Probably the biggest safety feature is the elimination of parking, though.

 

[jass]

What I'm questioning is whether or not a track is needed at this location and/or others around town(s). 2 miles of track with a large and notoriously dangerous intersection in the middle doesn't sound like the best choice to me. Conventional bike lanes work OK here and I'm questioning if we'll see a real benefit from changing to a track or if it will just be a new set of headaches.

According to the city, its their busiest bike route. So it makes damn sense to make it the safest, as it benefits the most people.

"Why this route and not x before?"

Because projects are scheduled around major milestones. If x is going to get a complete drainage remake in 3 years, then thats when they should get their cycle track. if this street is due for a major project, then it has to be done now.

Conventional bike lanes may work ok, for current users. But what of all the people who dont bike because they dont feel safe in a bike lane?

Its like saying y street (no bike facilities at all) works fine. Yeah, for the one person who doesnt give a shit it might, not for everyone else who stays home.

 

[fattony]

According to the city, its their busiest bike route. So it makes damn sense to make it the safest, as it benefits the most people.

"Why this route and not x before?"

Because projects are scheduled around major milestones. If x is going to get a complete drainage remake in 3 years, then thats when they should get their cycle track. if this street is due for a major project, then it has to be done now.

Conventional bike lanes may work ok, for current users. But what of all the people who dont bike because they dont feel safe in a bike lane?

Its like saying y street (no bike facilities at all) works fine. Yeah, for the one person who doesnt give a shit it might, not for everyone else who stays home.

My prior criticisms of the cycle track were based on a misunderstanding of the proposal. I thought they were cramming all the bike traffic to one side of the street and expecting everything to magically flow smoothly. As HenryAlan pointed out, this proposal doesn't do that and it doesn't disrupt the flow of traffic the way it seemed to me at first. At the Cambridge city line the 2 separate cycle tracks (I personally don't think a "mountable curb" makes a cycle track, but I'll have to concede to the authorities) convert to conventional bikes lanes.

I actually like the proposal now that I understand it. I agree with you that since Beacon needs considerable road work ASAP, this is a good time to make major changes.

 

[davem]

My biggest issue with cycle tracks is passing. I usually average 16-18MPH on a 2-4 mile ride which is faster then your average cyclist. I've found that even with an 8' track people tend to go in the middle and passing Sally Slowpoke on her cruiser with panniers on both sides becomes dangerous. I usually wind up just mixing with traffic and forgoing the track altogether. With traditional bike lanes passing is far easier. I also don't like not being able to merge across lanes if I need to make a left, and having to cross with perpendicular traffic instead.

 

[Shepard]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but bikes willstill have just as much a right to take the lane in the road even when there is a cycle track, correct?

 

[HenryAlan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but bikes willstill have just as much a right to take the lane in the road even when there is a cycle track, correct?

Yes, but it is difficult to move from the cycle track on to the road, so cyclists choosing to do so are likely planning to not use the track at all. However, the drivers on any road with a cycle track will be fairly angry at a cyclist who makes that decision, and will most likely believe that the rider is breaking the law. This is one of the reasons that some in the cycling community oppose bike lanes and other efforts to set aside space for bikes, as it implies that bikes should only be in that space, and nowhere else.

 

[TallIsGood]

If there is a separated bike lane, why be in the car lane? If bikes are in the car lanes, why have separated bike lanes? I usually drive faster than the average driver, but am not allowed to drive in the breakdown lane or on the sidewalk to avoid having to slow down. Sounds like people are trying to have it both ways with this one.

 

[davem]

If there is a separated bike lane, why be in the car lane? If bikes are in the car lanes, why have separated bike lanes? I usually drive faster than the average driver, but am not allowed to drive in the breakdown lane or on the sidewalk to avoid having to slow down. Sounds like people are trying to have it both ways with this one.

Because MGL Ch85 Sec11b or plain english.

Bikes are not segregated traffic other then on limited access highways. They are classified as vehicles under the MGL. They have full use of any lane designated for general traffic PLUS exclusive use of bike facilities. They may also ride on the sidewalk outside of "commercial districts" however that is generally frowned upon by the community at large.

 

[fattony]

Because MGL Ch85 Sec11b or plain english.

Bikes are not segregated traffic other then on limited access highways. They are classified as vehicles under the MGL. They have full use of any lane designated for general traffic PLUS exclusive use of bike facilities. They may also ride on the sidewalk outside of "commercial districts" however that is generally frowned upon by the community at large.

^^ What he said.

Those facts are usually a surprise to people, often even experienced cyclists.

I was surprised when I first learned the sidewalk rule, but there are several places when a sidewalk is safer than the road for everyone (e.g. on a parkway with a raised curb and no bike lane or shoulder). I don't worry about frowns, I just slow down to walking speed when near pedestrians.

 

[George_Apley]

Because MGL Ch85 Sec11b or plain english.

Bikes are not segregated traffic other then on limited access highways. They are classified as vehicles under the MGL. They have full use of any lane designated for general traffic PLUS exclusive use of bike facilities. They may also ride on the sidewalk outside of "commercial districts" however that is generally frowned upon by the community at large.

Of course, they're also subject to all the traffic laws by which auto drivers must abide. Drivers may misunderstand that bikers have equal rights to the roadway, but lots of bikers misunderstand that they in turn have to obey the rules of that road.