Biking in Boston

Totally agree. It shouldn't be difficult to do both. The Boston Bikes Network Plan shows protected bike lanes on the Broadway Bridge and standard bike lanes on the W 4th St Bridge. A 2-way protected bike lane on the south side of the Broadway Bridge could serve as the main connector for the SBHT and also allow bikes to continue west on Traveler St avoiding the awkward traffic pattern for cars that disallows this. Two one-way bike lanes on the W 4th St Bridge would serve the cross-town bike traffic really nicely.
 
Re: Longwood Ave bicycle infrastructure

I'm wondering whether protected bicycle lanes along Longwood Ave from the Muddy River path to Avenue Louis Pasteur and then along Avenue Louis Pasteur from Longwood to the Muddy River path would be feasible.

There is a bit of a pinch point on Longwood just east of Brookline Ave, where eastbound traffic really wants both a travel lane and a bus stop, and westbound traffic seems to want three lanes; maybe the westbound right turns onto Brookline Ave could be diverted away from that intersection via Binney to physically remove that dedicated right turn lane from that intersection (and make the right lane on the narrowed road permit both right turns and straight through movements)?
 
Cambridge is having its first meeting on their rapid Cambridge Street separated bike lanes next week: https://www.facebook.com/events/1325711207506089/

cambridge_st_pbl_example_cross_section.png


Planning began last fall and the city hopes to blast through design and public process this spring in order to have them open for use in June.
 
Scipio said:
Cambridge is having its first meeting on their rapid Cambridge Street separated bike lanes next week: https://www.facebook.com/events/1325711207506089/

cambridge_st_pbl_example_cross_section.png


Planning began last fall and the city hopes to blast through design and public process this spring in order to have them open for use in June.
Click to expand...

That looks really good. Questions:

How much of Cambridge Street? Lechmere to Harvard Square?

How are they going to keep this swept and plowed? -- Boston can't figure out how to maintain 5 ft. protected lanes.
 
JeffDowntown said:
That looks really good. Questions:

How much of Cambridge Street? Lechmere to Harvard Square?

How are they going to keep this swept and plowed? -- Boston can't figure out how to maintain 5 ft. protected lanes.
Click to expand...

The current project is Inman Square to Quincy Street near Harvard. Not as good as the whole of Cambridge Street, but from what I've read, having protected lanes by CRLS is a huge motivator for this. I'll take it (especially since the Inman Square reconstruction will throw a massive wrench in Cambridge Street commuting soon anyway).

As for sweeping/plowing - Cambridge seemed to do a better job figuring this out on its two Mass Ave pilots this winter (which was the point of the pilot). I'm optimistic sweeping/plowing will be as good (or better) with a larger network--beyond the ops/experience side of things, more protected lanes may encourage the city to purchase more PBL-sized sweepers and plowers.
 
xrVg5IP.jpg


Looking toward North Station from the end of the Staniford Street cycle track...not sure if much has changed since the last noted progress here.
 
Brookline finally held it MassDOT 25% design hearing for the Gateway East project (Route 9, Washington St and Walnut St from Pond Ave to the old Brookline Bank Building).

New Schedule:
75% design sept 2017
100% design Feb 2018
TIP funding is now for 2018 (My understanding is that the delay from last year was caused by right-of-way issues)
Advertisement for bid: Aug 2018
Construction Start spring 2019

The response from the public was positive and while many people asked for even better bike/ped accommodations, no one asked about traffic!

w9k9jd.jpg
 
FK4 said:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...om-injuries/J0gR9oThi01sUBTSFpzTxI/story.html

Unfortunate. But, who the hell would ride on Comm Ave at 3am on a Saturday night/Sunday morning... I would never be on a major street at that hour. People, be safe.
Click to expand...

He was probably on the road for the same reason as everyone else, to get from point A to point B. Maybe he was heading home from a night out, or perhaps he was a restaurant worker who just finished closing up for the night.
 
FK4 said:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...om-injuries/J0gR9oThi01sUBTSFpzTxI/story.html

Unfortunate. But, who the hell would ride on Comm Ave at 3am on a Saturday night/Sunday morning... I would never be on a major street at that hour. People, be safe.
Click to expand...

Would Beacon St have be a better alternative?!? The Comm Ave mall is no bikes allowed. Newbury might have been a better option, but maybe that's not near where he began his trip or near where he was ending it. There are two lanes here on Comm. I find it odd in general that any driver would pick the lane closest to the parked cars. This could have happened on any street in any lane. A drunk driver could have even jumped the curb. Let's not blame the cyclist...
 
I'm haunted by my inability to see a headlight on the victim's bike in the media reports. I hope/wish he had a headlight and it was just knocked off and recovered at the site.

But what if the light(s) weren't there? The law (& insurance) will engage in a form of victim-blame-sharing: while this won't absolve the person driving of the "and run" part of the hit, if either vehicle did not have conforming markings (which are the "State Inspection" lights for the car, and for a bike are white headlight, red light or reflector, yellow pedal reflectors or anklets*) mean that things shift away from them.

The estate of the person killed cycling without adequate markings gets less justice--a lighter punishment for the other person operating and a smaller or none or delayed insurance recovery.

Is that a choice people on bikes know they are making when they save [$20 ~ $50] by not having such markings, or [20c ~ $2] by not replacing their batteries? We often say "ignorance of the law is no excuse" but, at least for any licensed activity (gun owning, car driving) we license because nobody really wants anybody to suffer the consequences of that particular ignorance.

Personally, I think it a cruel trick that it is even legal to sell bikes in Massachusetts which lack the headlights required to operate them after dark. I don't think it should be legal for a bike to roll out the door of any bike retailer (at time of purchase or repair), or to be delivered by mail, or resold on craigslist,** without an operable white front light visible at 500 [feet...30% more than a football field w/endzones].

Right now, bike shops must display a copy of the helmet laws, but not (as far as I know) some kind of operating summary of the laws (the massbike one, below, is a good one), and it is the likely-ignorant breach of these laws that are going to be enforced/cited to the great detriment of the person cycling (or his/her estate).

*see http://www.massbike.org/laws
** maybe used sales could be done with a disclaimer "this bike lacks the headlight required for operation on streets after dark"
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
I'm haunted by my inability to see a headlight on the victim's bike in the media reports. I hope/wish he had a headlight and it was just knocked off and recovered at the site.
Click to expand...

What does a headlight have to do with it? It wasn't a head-on collision.
 
sm89 said:
What does a headlight have to do with it? It wasn't a head-on collision.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any reporting​ on angle of impact (or rear visibility) but it may or may not matter. (The driver's insurer will assert that it matters greatly and may succeed) I was more focused on the way policy hinges on tiny low cost items and a weak education/commercial system.

Driver' claim in nighttime hit-and-runs is always "I didn't know it was a person; I thought it was a tree branch or Rock thrown" and "I feared for my safety; I drove home" Being hi-viz / in flagrant compliance is a good way to thwart this.
 
Last edited:
To the previous commenters, I'm not blaming the cyclist, I'm simply stating facts. People these days seem to have a great deal of trouble separating their wishes for what the ideal would be from what reality is. In this case, the reality is that in the middle of the night on a weekend, the roads are packed with drunk drivers and riding on any busy avenue is taking your life into your hands. This is completely independent of whether or not he had a job that got out late, or whether or not you wish that we had better bicycle infrastructure or wished that they were less drunk drivers or that more drivers to paid attention behind the wheel. Yes, accidents always happen, but as someone who used to work a job that got out at three in the morning, and biked home, when you're riding a bicycle, you are extremely vulnerable to injury and death, ESPECIALLY at night, and youhave to think about that all the time. I myself would never ride on Comm Ave at such an hour, because in my mind it's way too dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top