Biking in Boston

Arlington said:
+1

Buses, you wrote that the Esplanade driveways were "easy outs", but you only can believe that as someone who has seen Storrow and the Esplanade many times, and happen to know the layout. (Recall that conditions were dark and rainy in the incident we are discussing)

To take CSTH's point further, you cannot even call them driveways, only "curb cuts" (if that)

And the meaning of "driveways" (or curb cuts) is not "Easy outs" nor "sidewalks nearby" nor "turn here for safety" but rather "dead end" or "head on collision possible" and would lead a lost person on bike or car to conclude that Storrow West is a winding but wide street (such as the 1960s/70s era 'burbs have) and on which cyclists are welcome.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I don't think giving this cyclist excuses makes any sense. There are always cyclists on the OBVIOUS bike trail adjacent to Storrow that is accessible by these "curb-cuts" one of which is indeed a driveway with a parking lot. They are easy outs. There's nothing else to call them.

Dark, rainy, possible tourist, unfamiliar surroundings that could be mistaken for a bike-appropriate road, no signs to signal to cyclists, sure... fine excuses all. But considering that this hardly ever happens (unlike the Storrowing truck/bus phenomenon), it seems clear that the vast majority of cyclists with a decent head on their shoulders (even the unfortunate out-out-towners) manage to recognize the Esplanade as the place to bike.

Perhaps dark and rainy is the only reason this person ended up on Storrow, which sucks to them. But if it was me; I'd notice that the lanes were narrow with no shoulder and cars were (likely) honking and zipping around me at speed. I'd be looking for the first place to get the hell off of that road. There are at least three locations to do that between Leverett and Mass Ave...
 
Well it technical is legal (although not wise) to bike on Storrow Drive.
 
cden4 said:
Well it technical is legal (although not wise) to bike on Storrow Drive.
Click to expand...

I once asked a higher-up at DCR about that (out of curiosity, not an intention to ride there) and he claimed that Storrow counts as a limited-access road (therefore no bikes, no walking, no horses).

Of course, DCR being incompetent as they are, that could be wrong info. But it doesn't really change matters either way. Damn thing is a nasty highway that shouldn't be a nasty highway, but until that's fixed....
 
If there's no sign saying it's prohibited, then it's legal :)

And so far I haven't seen any signs... but again this is DCR we're talking about.
 
cden4 said:
If there's no sign saying it's prohibited, then it's legal :)

And so far I haven't seen any signs... but again this is DCR we're talking about.
Click to expand...

No signs then it is not illegal. And this means signs at ever possible entry point.

Also DCR regulations only give them authority to regulate where bikes can go in the park lands; not on the parkways. For the parkways State DOT rules apply, it has to be truly limited access (Storrow apparently meets this, although there are a lot of unregulated driveways and entry points around the Esplanade and Beacon Hill) and it has to be signed (per MGL).

Of course you are still insane to be biking on Storrow!
 
Matthew said:
I once asked a higher-up at DCR about that (out of curiosity, not an intention to ride there) and he claimed that Storrow counts as a limited-access road (therefore no bikes, no walking, no horses).

Of course, DCR being incompetent as they are, that could be wrong info. But it doesn't really change matters either way. Damn thing is a nasty highway that shouldn't be a nasty highway, but until that's fixed....
Click to expand...

http://www.jasonandfischer.com/c_rowinsky1_complaint.php

If I could ever find out what happened with this case, I would be happy. While Storrow was not part of the complaint, Memorial Drive and Soldier's Field Road were.
 
Yeah, Storrow doesn't begin until the BU Bridge technically. None of the other roads mentioned (Rt 9, Rt 28, SFR, Mem Drive, Jamaicaway) are fully grade-separated. They also mostly have sidewalks (in varying degrees of disrepair). At-grade intersections and sidewalks are generally not characteristics of limited-access roads (albeit I am not sure if that is a legal requirement for the designation).

Generally speaking, legal designations aside, mixing 35+ mph traffic with bicycle riders is probably not a good idea. I don't think that riders should be asked to mingle with cars going 35 mph or more. But at the same time, I'm not going to tell advanced vehicular cyclists like John Allen or Paul Schmiek that they can't try. Provide the separated, protected bike lanes for normal people, and if the vehicular cyclists refuse to use them, so be it -- it's their problem.

There's also the case that some sections of 35+ mph traffic really should not be 35+ mph. For example, Memorial Drive around Harvard and MIT. Nobody should be driving 35+ mph there. It's really unsafe and puts many people walking and biking at risk -- walking and biking on the sidepaths much less the paved way. For example, a few weeks ago I was biking along the sidepath near the Andersen Memorial Bridge when some crazy woman suddenly made an illegal left turn at high speed from Memorial Drive onto the bridge, nearly clipping me in the crosswalk (yes, with the walk signal running). Typical.
 
CantabAmager said:
Maybe you (and others, please! Even you DZH!) can offer some thoughts on the following then:

I's not naively claim that instituting a fully, 100% functional bike infra system is an easy or even worthy task in Boston. (I think it's worthy, but political opposition is such that there's a ceiling on what's immediately achievable). However, I've often wondered why Boston doesn't allocate it's resources in more narrowly targeted neighborhood goals, to the detriment of a city-wide system. Here's what I mean by that:
Click to expand...

Another take on this question, from Portland (OR):

http://bikeportland.org/2015/08/04/big-bike-investments-loom-debate-goes-neighborhoods-need-145972
 
Road repaving observations?

Is Cambridge the only city around here that systematically and on an ongoing basis grinds and repaves bad asphalt?
- Mass Ave @ Rindge is being redone currently
- I'm very grateful they redid a tiny stretch on Oxford St (at Hvd's Mallinckrodt lab)

Somerville and Medford seem to wait for a crisis to ripen (and over-ripen) before doing anything.

Arlington likes to overlay tar-and-chip (which is cost effective but bad for bikes for about the first week or two 'til the chips get ground into the tar)

How're Boston and Brookline doing?
 
Matthew said:
Another take on this question, from Portland (OR):

http://bikeportland.org/2015/08/04/big-bike-investments-loom-debate-goes-neighborhoods-need-145972
Click to expand...

That's surprisingly apposite to my question, thanks for the link.

I will say I admire people that bike - I just got back from another year-long stint overseas and, right now at least, I'd rather just walk and use the T. I don't like fighting for space and I don't like not knowing what kind of infra I'm going to find if I go somewhere new. That's what inspired to above comment - a full-neighborhood build-out at least assures that when I/you/we get here, there's nothing to worry about as long as people practice basic etiquette. That I think will drive adoption more so than coverage - but I'd argue Boston nor Cambridge has a coherent goal in either category. I get that "take what you can, when you can" might be the only option on the table, though.
 
Arlington said:
Road repaving observations?

Is Cambridge the only city around here that systematically and on an ongoing basis grinds and repaves bad asphalt?

How're Boston and Brookline doing?
Click to expand...

Boston does systematically grind and repave , at least on the tiny residential streets. My little neighborhood has had one small street repaved each of the last three years and only one was in really poor shape. As far as the larger arterials go, it doesn't appear to systematic but more of a major repair after someone in the administration finally complains about it - as when Menino famously spilled his coffee when his chauffeured SUV hit a large pothole. I can't seem to remember what street that occurred on.

The Brookline Transportation Board has stated in one of there Board meetings recently that the smaller sidestreets (Babcock St is the one I remember) are on a repaving schedule, but they do look for damage and bump streets up on the queue if they get too damaged as a few were this past winter.
 
CantabAmager said:
I don't like fighting for space and I don't like not knowing what kind of infra I'm going to find if I go somewhere new.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is a real source of stress. I usually look at a Google Maps satellite view to see if there are bike lanes or at least sharrows (I'm not sure those do anything, but it makes me more confident) in a new area I'm biking to. But then you still get there and you might have no idea how some intersection works (like the crazy stuff around Harvard Square).

I do look forward to a day when I can just expect protected bike lanes/intersections in major cities.
 
Google Streetview and Strava heatmap are the two resources I use when trying to find a safe route through unfamiliar territory. Usually it works pretty well, until I went to New Haven a few weekends ago. That town never saw a road they couldn't overbuild.
 
Boston is putting in some sort of fix at Mass and Beacon over the weekend. Right now the pavement is milled down for repaving. Social media suggest a lane configuration change and flexible posts being installed once a new surface course is put down.

I’m glad to see action here after Anita Kurmann. Unfortunately it’s a reactive quick fix rather than designing and building the protected bike lane that has been on the city’s bike network plan for years.
 
I don't understand Boston's paving operations. A couple of years ago I lived on Pontiac St in Mission Hill. One month they milled and overlaid the street. There were a few trench patches here and there, but no pot holes or anything of immediate concern. Meanwhile there are streets like Huntington with gigantic holes and "wavy" pavement surrounding the trolley tracks and even just other small residential streets that are literally falling apart. I know they have something like a 10-15 year cycle, but it doesn't appear that they are using any metric. Just "ok our records indicate it's time for this street to be done".
 
sm89 said:
I don't understand Boston's paving operations. A couple of years ago I lived on Pontiac St in Mission Hill. One month they milled and overlaid the street. There were a few trench patches here and there, but no pot holes or anything of immediate concern. Meanwhile there are streets like Huntington with gigantic holes and "wavy" pavement surrounding the trolley tracks and even just other small residential streets that are literally falling apart. I know they have something like a 10-15 year cycle, but it doesn't appear that they are using any metric. Just "ok our records indicate it's time for this street to be done".
Click to expand...

I think roads like Huntington Avenue fall into multi-jurisdictional quagmires. It is a State highway (Route 9), a major road in Boston, with MBTA tracks down the road. The stars have to be totally aligned to get work done on the road, and it is typically as a major rebuild.
 
Last edited:
Here's the new Mass. Ave. and Beacon configuration from the Globe this morning:

intersection.jpg


and a link to the article: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/30/improvements-coming-mass-ave-intersection-where-cyclist-was-killed/Iptd6uURgJfHzj5bZ9wWXN/story.html
 
Anyone read the Jeff Jacoby piece today? http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...paign=bostonglobe:socialflow:twitter#comments

Don't bother to read it.

tl;dr version: Recent cyclist deaths make him sad, but the lesson should be that bikes don't belong on city streets at all. City streets are "meant for the cars, trucks, and buses that transport the vast majority of people moving through the nation’s cities" (actual quote) and those vehicles weigh far more than bikes. Also, bikes don't follow road rules, and are slower than cars - how dare they take a whole lane? The bike lobby is like Trump and must be stopped before they encourage more cyclists to kill themselves and slow down traffic.

Edit - for the love of god, don't read the comments either.
 
I like the top picture. Bicycle riders vastly outnumbering cars on the Longfellow inbound commute.

The op-ed really shows how the whole issue is about speed. His desire to speed on city streets is more important to him than anything else, or anyone else's life. All of the destinations of the city are accessible to him by automobile -- but if he has to slow down, well now that's a travesty to him...

Anyway, op-eds like this are a good sign. When inconsiderate people make complaints public, that means we must be doing something right.
 
Jeff just needs some pageviews, poor guy.

Just so it's clear what an "overwhelming majority" is, data from work commutes - 2006-2010 5-year CTPP:

Boston-Originating Workers (308,539), Mode-to-Work:
Drove Alone: 38.7%
Carpool (2 ppl): 5.7%
Carpool (3+): 1.9%
Car-based: 44.4%
PT: 32.9%
Bike: 1.4%
Walked: 14.9%
Other: 4.3%

Boston-Destination Workers (520,580), Mode-to-Work:
Drove Alone: 42.7%
Carpool (2 pp): 5.9%
Carpool (3+): 1.6%
Car-based: 50.2%
PT: 37.3
Bike: 1.1%
Walked: 8.6%
Other: 2.9%

Boston also has one of the highest rates in the US of non-auto mode utilization for non-work based trips.

So, clearly, an overwhelmingly majority of people moving through this city do so in cars. It's just so...uh...clear - I'm so glad our Puritan forefathers had the foresight to design our roads for cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top