Biking in Boston

[FitchburgLine]

^ I would infinitely prefer to see transit over that ROW than a bike path. Obviously both simultaneously is ideal, but bikes can be put on residential roadways. Trains cannot. If they do pave a path in some way that precludes double tracking, it is as good as guaranteeing single track for another generation or 2. That is sad - the MBTA's weaksauce DMU dreams lack connections to the existing network, but it at least creates SOME kind of crosstown service. DMUs are a hamstrung mode right out of the box. DMU over non-grade separated single track is borderline useless and is very very unlikely to be implemented at all.

I could not agree more. Preserving a 2 track ROW with space for grade separation at all intersections, especially Mass Ave, should be the absolute highest priority. What's the best case for this bike path, a few thousand users per day? Versus, with the light rail UR option, reliving every single transfer choke point on the T in one fell swoop and adding tens of thousands of riders from the Cambridge and BU area.

 

[kjdonovan]

Maybe driverless BRT buses on this corridor in 30 years? Allow for both bicycle and bus transit in a truly BRT route that maximizes the space while minimizing the infrastructure. If Grand Junction is going to get a big once-in-a-generation facelift, then perhaps it's not a total squander for it to be pavement rather than rails. Maybe light rail will be passe in another generation...

 

[fattony]

Maybe driverless BRT buses on this corridor in 30 years? Allow for both bicycle and bus transit in a truly BRT route that maximizes the space while minimizing the infrastructure. If Grand Junction is going to get a big once-in-a-generation facelift, then perhaps it's not a total squander for it to be pavement rather than rails. Maybe light rail will be passe in another generation...

It certainly has merit as a BRT corridor since the prospect to lay new rail in metro Boston is so infinitesimal. You can run trains over GJ from Allston to Kendall and NS, but not really anywhere else that isn't already served. Good luck laying new rail down into LMA and up into Everett and Chelsea. Buses, however crippled by auto traffic, can at least theoretically cannibalize roadways for BRT lanes.

But don't buses eat up more ROW than trains? How would buses make it easier to squeeze more service into the limited width available? Our DMU express concept (done right) will have reasonable headways with high reliability. The bus will have better headways, but still have bus-level reliability if it mixes with traffic at all.

 

[George_Apley]

BRT does eat up more ROW than trains. The facelift for GJ should be as LRV. If you can do a path alongside that's great, but it shouldn't just be an excuse to not improve bicycle access on streets in East Cambridge and MIT.

 

[rinserepeat]

I could not agree more. Preserving a 2 track ROW with space for grade separation at all intersections, especially Mass Ave, should be the absolute highest priority. What's the best case for this bike path, a few thousand users per day? Versus, with the light rail UR option, reliving every single transfer choke point on the T in one fell swoop and adding tens of thousands of riders from the Cambridge and BU area.

MassDOT's rather optimistic estimates for that line is a grand total of about 15-18k riders a day - with somewhere between 2000-5000 new riders in the system - over the next 20 years. it's not going to be 10s of thousands.


the bike path would probably be used largely by MIT students - but it's also a crucial link toward connecting the somerville community path/minuteman to the emerald necklace paths and potentially the SW corridor - all of which already serves several thousand riders a day even in their current disjointed state. Once this happens (along with stuff happening in Brookline and Boston), suddenly we have a real backbone for a network of largely off-street paths stretching all the way from the southern end of Boston to concord...

 

[Matthew]

It seems that a two-way busway needs about 24 ft of cross-section. Maybe if some kind of guideway was installed then less. LRV could squeeze into a few less feet. Plus, the mixed use GJ pathway could serve as the now-required emergency egress way (similar to GLX/CP).

In general I'm extraordinarily skeptical about BRT. I think it's overblown B.S.; the improvements should be applied to every bus line, not just special ones. If you could cannibalize auto lanes for BRT lanes then you could easily take them for LRV lanes too.

On a related note, you know there are some old-timers out there in Cambridge who are very worried that MassDOT is trying to create some kind of highway interchange using the GJ bridge and would oppose paving, as well. I doubt that would ever happen, but it's something to keep in mind.

 

[Arlington]

The 2024 vision for the Grand Junction is already for DMUs (diesel "light rail" that can share freight tracks) between North Station, and Allston (West Station).

As long as they keep space a mostly-double-tracked ROW, I don't see a reason for BRT dreams to choke off this bike path.

Folks should also be aware that even at close headways, given the low speeds and short vehicle lengths, both BRT and DMUs can tolerate some single-lane pinch points (that's the proposed solution with the Silver LIne to Chelsea--at key points there will be a traffic light controlling which direction can use the single lane through a pinch point).

We don't do it much in the USA, but it is quite common in Europe where there's always the odd historic arch or short tunnel single track that needs to be shared by 2 directions.

 

[Matthew]

I've seen single tracking segments on some modern light rail installations in the USA.

VTA, Austin come to mind immediately.

 

[George_Apley]

With the grade crossings, I think it's totally stupid for the GJ to be used for DMUs. BRT if you must, LRV preferably. Don't waste the GJ on DMUs, it's not suited for that sort of service.

 

[datadyne007]

Hubway will be adding these stickers to all their bikes:

 

[paperless paul]

The grand junction was 3-4 tracks wide to Main street, so fitting in full blown transit with a path shouldn't be too difficult. There are a few pinch points where MIT built over the ROW, but it's still not too bad. At the bridge itself, if they ever need to use both bays a bike path could be cantilevered off either side, again not too too difficult.

Where it's tough is north of main street, where theres not room for much more than two tracks.


Honestly though, other than the Charles River crossing, I think it's a waste of money. I think a better use of funds would be improving/installing a real eastbound cycle track on Albany St, Portland St, and Medeiros Ave; along with a westbound one on Vassar St, Galilei Way and Fulkerson St, and tying them in to a crossing on the Grand Junction bridge. Other than Galilei Way they are basically back streets already, and have better connections to the cross streets (aka where people are actually going) then a segregated path facing the backsides of MITs labs. Not to mention, just like the SWC, Minuteman and Charles River BIKE paths, it will likely be mobbed with pedestrians walking five across on the wrong side, dogs on retractable leashes stretched all the way out, unsupervised children darting out from behind trees, and everything else people bitch about on Uhub.

I agree with this and other similar sentiments. As a frequent city biker I am all for dedicated trails and biking infrastructure, but I have yet to see a good argument for this specific path. I rode down Vassar yesterday, it has a fully dedicated bike line and little traffic. According to google so does Brookline and Sidney and Albany is not a bad bike street either.

And as stated here, these streets offer much better interconnection to the street network.

I am not sold on sending the Urban Ring through here, but the opportunity should definitely be studied and not sacrificed for a massively redundant bike lane.

Ditto the BU bridge is already much better for bikes. But at worst spend the bike money making this crossing better.

 

[rinserepeat]

I agree with this and other similar sentiments. As a frequent city biker I am all for dedicated trails and biking infrastructure, but I have yet to see a good argument for this specific path. I rode down Vassar yesterday, it has a fully dedicated bike line and little traffic. According to google so does Brookline and Sidney and Albany is not a bad bike street either.

And as stated here, these streets offer much better interconnection to the street network.

I am not sold on sending the Urban Ring through here, but the opportunity should definitely be studied and not sacrificed for a massively redundant bike lane.

Ditto the BU bridge is already much better for bikes. But at worst spend the bike money making this crossing better.

There have been several cyclist deaths at the corner of mass ave and vassar over the years - one even after they installed that cycletrack (which, IMO, isn't the greatest design). The problem is that vassar is regularly used by large vehicles - I'd agree with you if large vehicles were banned from vassar, but an off-street path through there connects the MIT campus, and it would get a lot of use.

 

[Arlington]

Hubway will be adding these stickers to all their bikes:

Stop at Lights
Yield to Peds
Ride with Traffic
Avoid Sidewalks
Watch for Doors
Wear a Helmet

All of which are perfectly sensible, much needed, and hard to see actually happening as much as they should.

Also, we need to make the Idaho Stop the law around here. Like raising the speed limit, its better that the law shape the likely behavior than it is to have wide disparities in behavior because the law is half-observed and half-scoffed (I've seen lots of near bike-bike crashes as cyclists disagree on how to behave in intersections)

So the Idaho Stop, for bikes is:
Stop Sign = Yield (slow, and give right of way, be prepared to stop)
Red Light = Stop Sign (stop, then proceed when safe)
{EDIT: Bikes always yield to crossing pedestrians}{edited at Fattony's suggestion}

I love this part of the Wikipedia article:

The law originally passed with an education provision, but that was removed in 1988 because "youthful riders quickly adapted to the new system and had more respect for a law that legalized actual riding behavior."[3]

 

[fattony]

I love the Idaho Stop. Like you say, it shapes the law to codify a safe practice that people do instinctively.

So the Idaho Stop, for bikes is:
Stop Sign = Yield (slow, and give right of way, be prepared to stop)
Red Light = Stop Sign (stop, then proceed when safe)

I would add a third essential item to always be listed in the description of the Idaho Stop that helps people understand it better and heads off objections from people who suggest that it elevates bikes above peds:

1) Stop Sign = Yield (slow, and give right of way, be prepared to stop)
2) Red Light = Stop Sign (stop, then proceed when safe)
3) Bikes always yield to crossing pedestrians

 

[Matthew]

Idaho stop only applies when nobody else (ped, driver, bike) is around, anyway.

 

[paperless paul]

There have been several cyclist deaths at the corner of mass ave and vassar over the years - one even after they installed that cycletrack (which, IMO, isn't the greatest design). The problem is that vassar is regularly used by large vehicles - I'd agree with you if large vehicles were banned from vassar, but an off-street path through there connects the MIT campus, and it would get a lot of use.

I'm obviously very sad to hear about the fatalities here, and I am not a frequent user of the area. I offer these thoughts simply to consider all the alternatives.

(1) The turn from Vassar to Mass Ave would have the same problems / solutions as a turn from Mass Ave to tracks.

(2) Traffic seemed very light here, I did not pass a single vehicle on the street during it's length, although it was a Saturday. The only other traffic I saw was 8 MIT kids walking 3 canoes down the center of the street. It hardly felt like a busy travel lane.

(3) One could improve the lane design, but I only count 4 crossings over 0.7mi and these are parking lots, not even streets.

(4) Any path along the tracks would obviously encounter many LRT vehicles.

(5) There remain at least two other viable parallel paths, plus Amherst Alley, which I did not include before.

 

[cozzyd]

On Saturday's, traffic there might be light, but on weekdays it is very congested.

 

[rinserepeat]

I'm obviously very sad to hear about the fatalities here, and I am not a frequent user of the area. I offer these thoughts simply to consider all the alternatives.

(1) The turn from Vassar to Mass Ave would have the same problems / solutions as a turn from Mass Ave to tracks.

(2) Traffic seemed very light here, I did not pass a single vehicle on the street during it's length, although it was a Saturday. The only other traffic I saw was 8 MIT kids walking 3 canoes down the center of the street. It hardly felt like a busy travel lane.

(3) One could improve the lane design, but I only count 4 crossings over 0.7mi and these are parking lots, not even streets.

(4) Any path along the tracks would obviously encounter many LRT vehicles.

(5) There remain at least two other viable parallel paths, plus Amherst Alley, which I did not include before.

1 - the issue is turning trucks. They're really bad along mass ave - I watched a cement truck up in central square not bothering to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk - the same day police were a block over busting cyclists for running the light for the pedestrian crossing. plus, that section of mass ave has some really distracted drivers, tourist buses, shuttles...

2 - during the week it can get busy, and you get impatient motorists - even on parallel streets.

3 - they allow parking right up to curb cuts - this is very bad practice and extremely dangerous - especially with a cycle track. you need to remove at least two or three parking spaces before the curb cut if there is a cycle track. these are also busy parking lots with a lot of entering/exiting vehicles during rush hour.

4 - how is this a problem? - it's a rail line.

5- amherst alley is not a viable path - it only connects the dorms along memorial drive, and not useful for commuters or anyone attempting to get to the northern end of campus or beyond. the whole purpose of the grand trunk path is that it is a direct link from the BU bridge all the way through kendall and up to the future somerville community path. Have you ever biked through kendall during the week?

 

[cozzyd]

The worst part for biking in Kendall is the intersection of 3rd, Broadway and Main. Main to 3rd is a very common path but you have to weave through pedestrians.

 

[Uncivil_Engineer]

From an overall standpoint, it's easy to see why Cambridge might want to use this to tie the Community Path to the Esplanade. However, it is worth noting that there are already plans to tie the west end of the community path to the river via the Watertown Branch ROW and that some artful bike infrastructure in North Point could effectively tie the east end of the SCP to the east end of the esplanade. However, even if these alternatives reduce the need for a through route, the portion that becomes least necessary is Main Street-Memorial Drive, which is by unhappy coincidence one of the only places double track and a path could coexist.

North of Main Street, Portland/Medeiros is narrow, lacks bike lanes, and can back up during peak hours. This is probably where an off-road path would be most beneficial for connecting Kendall/MIT to Somerville, but it's also where the ROW is narrowest.

Between Main and Memorial Drive, the Vassar cycle track provides a fairly good option aside from the heavy truck usage on Vassar/Galelei/Binney (used as a Memorial Drive alternative for accessing MIT and Kendall). The issue that I've encountered with Mass/Vassar (and also what I think caused the most recent death) is trucks turning from Mass Ave NB to Vassar EB across the NB bike lane. A Grand Junction path wouldn't do much to solve the issues of turning traffic for Mass Ave bikers, but if the grade crossing were eliminated for increased rail traffic it could provide bikers/peds with a grade-separated Mass Ave crossing. Additionally, I would imagine that a lot of the traffic along this segment is heading to/from MIT or Mass Ave and thus might be using street routes anyway.

The Memorial Drive underpass provides a nice (though constricted) grade-separated crossing of Memorial Drive, and it would be nice to establish a strong link between the two river paths at that location via the rail bridge since the BU Bridge-Boston Esplanade connection is so tedious. However, this would force single tracking over a short distance.

If everyone's on the same page, it's totally possible to have both rail and bike usage of the corridor. The concern I have going forward though is that Cambridge will attempt to handicap future Grand Junction rail service (which didn't receive a very warm welcome the last time it was raised) by building the bike path in such a way that precludes double-tracking and other improvements.