Biking in Boston

[pixelsand8]

Grrrr. Worse yet, the cyclist was probably heading to the bike paths along the river. These sort of "last mile" black holes for Boston biking are literally killing people.

This is the main reason I do not consider it safe to use cycling as a primary means of transportation in the city, and why I'd have serious problems if somebody I was emotionally close to was doing such. This is a massive black hole though, of which there are many. Plenty of other smaller death traps which can be more deceptive and come in the middle of otherwise "safe" routes. There really isn't a way to get most places by bike without putting yourself in some kind of danger, imo.

 

[Arlington]

How much you want to bet it's a DCR intersection?

Most maps show the DCR owning at least on the east/river side of the northbound onramp, and the probably control the margins of the MVP on the west side. I suspect you are right.

Contact your State Representative and State Senator about this.
https://malegislature.gov/people

 

[Matthew]

This is the main reason I do not consider it safe to use cycling as a primary means of transportation in the city, and why I'd have serious problems if somebody I was emotionally close to was doing such. This is a massive black hole though, of which there are many. Plenty of other smaller death traps which can be more deceptive and come in the middle of otherwise "safe" routes. There really isn't a way to get most places by bike without putting yourself in some kind of danger, imo.

The same could be said for walking...

or for that matter, driving. About 35,000 Americans die in car crashes every year...

Can't let the fear get to you.

 

[pixelsand8]

The same could be said for walking...

or for that matter, driving. About 35,000 Americans die in car crashes every year...

This is true in rural areas for driving but I believe fatality rates are lower in the city, because outside of highways traffic moves much more slowly. Plus when it comes to highways in urban areas it's mostly divided interstates which are safer than two lane winding country roads.

As for walking, you generally have more control than on a bike, and more time to assess different situations before they become a problem. Aside from freak incidences like that Back Bay crash that killed the couple on Beacon, I'd imagine most pedestrian deaths are due to not paying attention and thus easily avoidable. Even then you really only have to pay attention at conflict zones, such as cross walks and intersections.

With cycling you need to pay constant attention to all directions around you and anticipate much further ahead as you are moving so much faster than on foot, and you have to do this with an elevated heart rate as you are physically exerting yourself. It's incredibly fatiguing mentally and it's not entirely reasonable to expect one to keep that level of alertness up constantly. Problem is, even a short mental lapse at the wrong time can mean death.

Can't let the fear get to you.

It's not so much letting fear get to you but rather determining what risk is and isn't acceptable. In most cases I don't think cycling is an acceptable risk when you have public transit or (maybe) automobile access. I still do ride a bike sometimes as in many cases it's by far the most efficient way to get around, but I don't really enjoy it. I'm a single male though so I can take those kinds of risks.

 

[Matthew]

Well, while driving you have to be alert for everything around you and anticipate much further ahead while you are moving so much faster than on foot.

But I suppose most people don't have elevated heart rate while driving, and are protected by two tons of metal and fiber glass when they do screw up or get unlucky. So there's that.

I don't personally find it incredibly fatiguing mentally to bike in Boston, but I don't go that fast either, so maybe that's a difference.

I do think you're coming awfully close to victim blaming by claiming that most pedestrian deaths are "due to not paying attention and thus easily avoidable." The Back Bay crash is not the only case of pedestrians being killed on the sidewalk (edit: or in the crosswalk with the signal, as it were) this past year that I can remember off the top of my head. A man was killed on the side of the (poorly named) Cummins Highway. And a child was killed by a driver who ran off the road near Bowdoin Street in Dorchester.

In addition, many of the cases of pedestrians being struck and killed occur in places that you would consider to be "gaps" in the street network that you brought up. For example, the woman that was killed on Christmas Eve on Columbus Ave and Amory. Or the fellow who was killed trying to walk along Allston's Cambridge Street about a month or two ago.

 

[Arlington]

I consider motorists dumb (self-centered, actually) when they don't turn on their headlights If you, as a driver, never ask: what do other drivers need from me? Then you won't use your turn signals and only turn on your headlights when you need them to see, and miss the idea that your lights help others see you, and turn signals are for both visibility and "intention"

Many dumb motorists are saved by "the herd" that doesn't let them disregard motoring rules as often as, perhaps, they'd like--only the first guy in line can run a red light when you're in a line of cars. So while many motorists may be risky, we don't see quite as much risky behavior.

But risky cyclist behavior is far too great a share of all cyclist behavior.

Cyclists--despite being in a clearly more-vulnerable vehicle-- are clearly not applying the lessons & laws of vehicle/road safety to themselves, and in doing so show that they are "missing" the need to coordinate their own behavior with those that they share the road with for their own safety:

-While cars are required to have head & tail lights, many cyclists chose not to (even though, as the sales staff at Bicycle Belle in Somerville says: the headlight is required by law, and the tail light is required by common sense). Here, the herd" saves drivers (the manufacturers build lights & controls in), and on some motorcycles, the headlight is always on and often "pulses" but cyclists are making idiosyncratic and risky choices to not use lights at all.

-While cars are required to have reflectors and turn signals, many cyclists chose low-visibility garb, tiny reflectors, and don't even use the most minimal gestures to indicate directional intentions. Drivers, in their "big" cars are saved from the "can he see me?" question simply by square footage of carbody paint.

-Blowing through red lights on the right also means putting at risk the cyclists who have stopped for the light. Too many times (as a now-daily bike commuter) I've been driven into the door zone as I start after a red by a cyclist who is at full speed because he never intended to stop for the red at all. No motorist has ever done that to me.

-Sidewalk-to-Roadway transitions "at speed" put you in places that no motorist can reasonably anticipate (we think that's how the cyclist was {hit} by the Boston garbage truck in the South End); this is particularly true when you come off the sidewalk moving in a direction that opposes the nearest car lane. I see this a lot at both Alewife Brook Pkwy and Broadway (Arl-Smvl) and at Alewife Brook Pkwy @ Mass Ave (Arl-Camb)

 

[Balerion]

-Sidewalk-to-Roadway transitions "at speed" put you in places that no motorist can reasonably anticipate (we think that's how the cyclist was killed by the Boston garbage truck in the South End); this is particularly true when you come off the sidewalk moving in a direction that opposes the nearest car lane. I see this a lot at both Alewife Brook Pkwy and Broadway (Arl-Smvl) and at Alewife Brook Pkwy @ Mass Ave (Arl-Camb)

Was that the incident in July at Mass Ave and Columbus? There was never much follow-up reporting that I could find, and I hadn't realized that the cyclist was killed, as several initial articles said he/she was expected to survive.

 

[Arlington]

Was that the incident in July at Mass Ave and Columbus? There was never much follow-up reporting that I could find... several initial articles said he/she was expected to survive.

I am going to assume I got that wrong, and have changed my post to "hit".

Don't let that the guy was only near-killed distract from the problem of sidewalk to street transitions; and do let the lack of follow-up reporting emphasize that a lack of good reporting means that none of us are learning what we need to.

 

[Matthew]

I think that a lot of the people riding bicycles without lights or reflectors tend to be people who are not well-informed about the safety issues for whatever reason. Around here, the ones I see tend to be clearly immigrants who are using bicycling as their primary means of transportation because its cheap and they need to get around to work and such. It's highly likely that they never have stepped into a bike shop. We have folks that try to reach out to them, get them free or cheap safety equipment, but it's hard -- especially when they don't speak English and my Spanish is terrible (much less my Portuguese or Chinese). As for college kids, well, sometimes they are just being kids. You can try to help, but they may not care.

Generally though, enthusiasts have lights. Lots of lights. My friend even has a special light that shines a laser-drawn picture of a bicycle on the ground. I have two lights that were cheap and I wouldn't care if someone peeled them off my bike and stole them, because I could just replace them.

Regarding sidewalk-to-roadway transitions, this is why we teach people that sidewalk riding is dangerous, in general. It's a tough slog, because for many people it's counterintuitive to say that riding on the sidewalk is dangerous (although it is legal outside of business districts). They won't believe you. And there are exceptional cases where it's not. For example, the Dudley White bike paths are technically sidewalks on Memorial Drive.

Riding on the roadway requires a basic understanding of how car drivers behave, and the more you know about driver psychology the better. My girlfriend never drove and just learned to bike. I don't know how to explain to her all the accumulated knowledge that I have from years of driving and biking experience. What comes completely naturally to me might be very stressful for her when she tries to go on her own. It's a genuine puzzle to me.

 

[Arlington]

I think that a lot of the people riding bicycles without lights or reflectors tend to be people who are not well-informed about the safety issues for whatever reason.

On Mass Ave in Cambridge-Arlington, you're getting a lot of "starving post-Docs" and tech types, whom I can't figure out:

1) Any other quarter-million to half-million dollar asset that they'd have on them they'd treat like a Faberge egg, but they won't even wear a helmet to protect their education.

2) Or they bike like they're still on a leafy car-restrained campus somewhere, or perhaps are anticipating the immunity they'll feel once they buy that Audi.

3) Or they're racers from Lexington or Arlington Heights, who've chosen Mass Ave 'cause the Minuteman bikeway is too slow.

We know from cars that it isn't so much speed that kills, but differences in speed (hence Google's decision that its self-driving car will "speed" rather than risk more accidents). Its actually bikes that end up having the greatest and most dangerous variation in speed and "road manners".

It may violate some kind of cyclist-libertarian ethic, but we need some uniformity of behavior amongst cyclists and with motorists, because the differences are hurting or killing people.

 

[bigeman312]

It may violate some kind of cyclist-libertarian ethic, but we need some uniformity of behavior amongst cyclists and with motorists, because the differences are hurting or killing people.

This is a good point and true for all modes. When you see people on the bike paths wandering aimlessly texting or on their cell phones, or with dogs haphazardly running across the path, there is no safe way to incorporate a bike going 10 mph, let alone 20 mph.

I have no idea how this can be accomplished, but routes where the expectation is (regardless of mode) sustained speed remains between 15-30 mph, routes where sustained speed remains between 10-20mph, and routes where sustained speed remains between 8-15mph all need to exist simultaneously.

There are arterial roads that features cars going as fast as 40 mph alongside cyclist going as slowly as 8 mph, and this is unsafe.

At the same time, there are "bike" paths that feature cyclists going 20 mph alongside aloof, cell-phone using, off-leash dog-walkers going 1 or 2 mph, in sporadic directions, and this is unsafe.

 

[Arlington]

Let the process begin with wider, better-signed, multi-use paths:



The image above comes from an article discussing a proposal to greatly increase the pedestrian space on the Brooklyn bridge.

Same thing should be happening on rail-trails already...some kind of physical clues where the "invisible wall" between modes is, and more space (probably on the margins) for aimless walking and dog-stops.

 

[Balerion]

Mayor Walsh Wants ‘Truck Side Guards’ on All Vehicles Contracted by the City

A positive step for bike safety. It's low-hanging fruit, but I'll take it.

 

[Arlington]

Have we discussed this here?
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/5738626/how-and-why-bicycle-deaths-happen-in-the-us/in/5579561

If a full 40% of fatalities come from being rear-ended, it really underscores the need for rear-facing lights (preferably flashing) and for a rearview mirror. The mirror because 40% is coming from a direction most cyclists aren't checking. If the 16@I93 fatality was not at the crosswalk (which'd make it either a t-bone or a right hook), then the odds are that the motorcycle ran down the cyclist.

 

[Arlington]

Mayor Walsh Wants ‘Truck Side Guards’ on All Vehicles Contracted by the City

A positive step for bike safety. It's low-hanging fruit, but I'll take it.

It is. And there's the answer to the question above of whether the Columbus Ave hit was fatal: it may have been the side-guards on the truck that kept it from being so.

 

[timsox6]

I honestly hope Alford Street is bike-able now, as the next best option for crossing the Mystic is the sidewalk on the Mystic Valley Parkway (Route 16) near where this cyclist was killed.

So I have an interesting question for this forum: I did a project over the summer that looked at connecting the Bike to the Sea path to Boston. We proposed (this was based mainly on imagination): taking it from Everett, bringing it under Revere Beach Parkway, down along the Rockport/Newburyport Commuter Rail line, bumping over towards Rt. 99 (through casino site), and crossing over the Mystic onto Rutherford Ave. But we didn't propose using the Alford St Bridge, as we thought it was not bike-able: we proposed building a new pedestrian and bike bridge parallel to Alford St, using the pilings/foundation of where the elevated orange line tracks once were, which I believe remain in the river to this day. Could that work? Note that this is entirely a fantasy, but has some basis in fact. I don't know the cost of building this bridge or the status of the El infrastructure.

 

[Matthew]

This is a good point and true for all modes. When you see people on the bike paths wandering aimlessly texting or on their cell phones, or with dogs haphazardly running across the path, there is no safe way to incorporate a bike going 10 mph, let alone 20 mph.

I have no idea how this can be accomplished, but routes where the expectation is (regardless of mode) sustained speed remains between 15-30 mph, routes where sustained speed remains between 10-20mph, and routes where sustained speed remains between 8-15mph all need to exist simultaneously.

There are arterial roads that features cars going as fast as 40 mph alongside cyclist going as slowly as 8 mph, and this is unsafe.

At the same time, there are "bike" paths that feature cyclists going 20 mph alongside aloof, cell-phone using, off-leash dog-walkers going 1 or 2 mph, in sporadic directions, and this is unsafe.

Yeah, one of the big mistakes of current law is that it makes its distinction purely by mode -- a rather artificial criteria. I believe that it makes a lot more sense to regulate based on speed and geometry.

For example, I can ride on my bike at 1-2 mph (slower than walking) and maintain a smaller cross-section than walking my bike. Yet, the current law assumes that walking my bike is more pedestrian friendly. It's not true, but that's what it says.

And I feel that someone riding their bike at 5-8 mph can mix safely with pedestrians (basically jogging/running speed). Whereas someone going 10-15 mph is probably a bit too fast to mix with pedestrians. Same mode, two different characterizations.

And on street with cars, if they're going 10-25 mph then they can safely mix with bikes going 10-15 mph. Most likely. But if they're going 30+ mph then you probably want some kind of separation (increasing in quality depending on conditions).

And cars can even mix with pedestrians if they're going slow (~5 mph) -- the main obstacle would be the awkward amount of space that a vehicle takes up, so there would need to be enough room.

But bikes I think are really quite natural at inhabiting multiple worlds just based on speed. It's so easy to swap between being "a pedestrian" and being "a bicyclist" at low speeds that it's practically no difference. Hop off, hop on, etc.

 

[paperless paul]

A comment on the Alford St Bridge and the Northern Strand Community Path (NSCP).

The Alford St Bridge bike path is now complete and in great shape. While the adjacent travel lanes tend to be either very fast or stopped, there is a good deal of space and it overall makes for a great bicycling connection north.

Particularly when coming from the west: Memorial Drive, North Point Park, North Bank Bridge, Paul Revere Park to Warren St/ Main St (Charlestown) to Sullivan Square. This path gives you a fast straight ride, much of it separated or with relatively few conflict points with cars, and with few lights. I have done the Mass Ave to Revere Beach Pkwy (RBP) this way (5+ miles) in under 20m even rigorously obeying all the lights. The other direction is less pleasant primarily because of Sullivan Sq (lots of traffic, long lights and tricky conflicts).

Unfortunately getting from Alford St across Rte 16 (RBP) to connect to the NSCP is very difficult. I haven't personally found it too challenging, but I tend to go in bright sunshine, good weather and low traffic times. Otherwise, it must be really tricky.

The proposed bicycle plan for Everett includes continuing the NSCP along the MBTA ROW under RBP. There is virtually nothing in the way here, except the MBTA fence. It's infuriating that this connection can not be worked out as the area currently consists of gravel piles and dead tracks. It's almost as bad as the ridiculous Muddy River / Fenway MBTA stop to Park Drive connection and illustrates the extreme lack of co-ordination and leadership to tackle inter-derpartmental transportation challenges in Mass.

I grant that in this case, crossing the live MBTA tracks presents a more costly challenge and makes . The Everett plan provides for a connection to Alford St and a crossing at the extreme southern end of the peninsula (casino site) at the Mystic River. There is already an underpass to the train tracks here. And then winding along the river to Alford St. (Although it's not clear how a northbound bike trip would work for this).

It would be better if there was a more direct connection to the Alford St/Boston & Sullivan Square desire line. Either by a new connection following among the south side of RBP with a ramp to either side of Alford St. Or possibly as part of the proposed pedestrian bridge at the future commuter rail site.

There should also be easy / clear connections with (east) Beacham St and Second St and Wellington Station. While many proposals for connections and Mystic River crossings refer to the Earhardt Dam or the existing abandoned piers at Alford St, these solutions will take decades to develop. In the meantime there is no good connections to these places, but there are much easier and less expensive options available.

Finally, the NSCP is a great resource. Although I would propose bike priority at some of the crossings (i.e. no stop sign) but stops for cars at the smaller roads. Better visibility at the edges of these roads. Hopefully the Revere part will be done soon. And paving or at least a much better surface at Saugus which is currently closer to gravel than crushed stone. And some movement on the Lynn section. That city is atrocious for biking.

 

[bigeman312]

Yeah, one of the big mistakes of current law is that it makes its distinction purely by mode -- a rather artificial criteria. I believe that it makes a lot more sense to regulate based on speed and geometry.

For example, I can ride on my bike at 1-2 mph (slower than walking) and maintain a smaller cross-section than walking my bike. Yet, the current law assumes that walking my bike is more pedestrian friendly. It's not true, but that's what it says.

And I feel that someone riding their bike at 5-8 mph can mix safely with pedestrians (basically jogging/running speed). Whereas someone going 10-15 mph is probably a bit too fast to mix with pedestrians. Same mode, two different characterizations.

And on street with cars, if they're going 10-25 mph then they can safely mix with bikes going 10-15 mph. Most likely. But if they're going 30+ mph then you probably want some kind of separation (increasing in quality depending on conditions).

And cars can even mix with pedestrians if they're going slow (~5 mph) -- the main obstacle would be the awkward amount of space that a vehicle takes up, so there would need to be enough room.

But bikes I think are really quite natural at inhabiting multiple worlds just based on speed. It's so easy to swap between being "a pedestrian" and being "a bicyclist" at low speeds that it's practically no difference. Hop off, hop on, etc.

I agree. The issue lies in the differing expectation of what a "trail" should be. Most, if not all, of the trails in the Boston area were designed with recreation in mind more than transportation.

I propose that every section of trail (I'm excluding sidewalks) be converted into one of these options (many would require little to no build to fulfill these characteristics). Obviously this is complete fantasy and would probably be unenforceable without a societal shift and a lot of time for people to become accustomed to this system:

1. A "Multi-Use Trail," (3-10 mph). These should occur near entrances to transit stations and where space is constrained. There should be a stripe down the middle denoting that people stay to the right and flow in an orderly manner. There should be a 10 mph speed limit on these sections. Walkers, dog-walkers, etc. should be encouraged to stay to the right.

2. One path with "Bike Lane," (6-15 mph) and "Sidewalk" (<6 mph). These can occur where there space is somewhat, but not entirely constrained. Traffic going less than ~6 mph needs to use the sidewalk, i.e. walkers. I could see runners choosing between the two and/or using the bike lane to pass slower people on the sidewalk. Faster traffic should stay in the bike lane, i.e. cyclists, skateboarders, etc. There should be a stripe down the middle denoting that people stay to the right and flow in an orderly manner. There is a 15 mph speed limit in the bike lane.

3. Two separate paths, one signed as a "Footpath" (<6 mph, essentially the same as a sidewalk, just not adjacent to the bike lane) and one signed as a "Bike Path" (6-15 mph, which is essentially the same as a bike lane, just not adjacent to the sidewalk). A 6 mph speed limit should exist on the footpath (probably an informal speed limit). The footpath would not need any pavement markings. The bike path should have a stripe down the middle denoting that people stay to the right and flow in an orderly manner. A 15 mph speed limit on the bike path. These should occur where space is not an issue. One must walk their bike on the footpath, while pedestrians should be discouraged from using the bike path. Strollers, dogs and young children should be banned from the bike path. Pedestrians can only choose to use the bike path for running and must be aware and stay to the right.

In addition, lightly used side streets should be converted to "Bicycle Boulevards" (10-25 mph), anywhere it makes sense to do so. These are open to motor vehicles, but have actual operational 25 mph speed limits, with many traffic calming features, and adjacent sidewalks for pedestrians. I'm not sure how to prevent cars from going over 25 mph without signing it as 20 mph or wasting a lot of resources on enforcement/education.

 

[HenryAlan]

Same thing should be happening on rail-trails already...some kind of physical clues where the "invisible wall" between modes is, and more space (probably on the margins) for aimless walking and dog-stops.

Unfortunately, visible clues are subject to the limitation that pedestrians must see and respect the information. The pedestrian and bike routes on the Lalemont path are clearly marked, and pedestrians are if anything more likely to walk on the bike sections. I have even been yelled at by pedestrians for riding my bike on a path that is clearly marked for bikes.