Biking in Boston

[HenryAlan]

Honest question to the serious bikers: how effective are the "Peds keep right" signs (with visuals) that some mixed use corridors have posted every hundred meters or so? My limited experience is that these are a simple intervention, while not perfect, that can work wonders.

I don't know how effective they are at modifying pedestrian behavior, but I definitely appreciate when the pedestrians stick to the right. If some cheap signs increase the percentage that do so, then I'm all for that.

 

[stevebikes]

The intersection at JFK Street appears to be a disaster every time I've been there, so using that as a positive example doesn't....seem like one to me.

It's so inadequate to handle the load that it frequently causes jams stretching all the way back up to Harvard Square. That stretch is also identified as a MBTA high delay bus corridor, as the 66/86 are heavily impacted by it, it's not just a "car" problem.

I'm sure there is some sort of surface intersection configuration that could work tolerably but I also expect that it will probably wind up a bit like the other side of the BU Bridge - and some seem not so fond of how many lanes wide that is, either.

I was driving on JKF recently, going south from Harvard Sq, trying to cross Memorial. Maybe two or three cars were getting through on each light cycle, because during the red light, the road on the bridge would fill up from people taking right turns onto it from Memorial, so by the time our side got the green, maybe one or two cars could fit without blocking the box, and then maybe a third could sneak at the end.

 

[BOS2BON]

I've been going to most of the redesign meetings and this is the drum I beat everytime. As a regular pedestrian and cyclist on the SW Corridor, there are sections with high compliance to the separation and sections with low compliance and it is clear what features work where it does that should be duplicated elsewhere on the path on the sections where it doesn't work:

• Asphalt pedestrian paths instead of concrete. For runners, asphalt is mush easier on the joints than concrete. Many runners (myslef included) will stick to the pedestrian asphalt sections, but avoid the concrete pedestrian sections, opting for the parallel asphalt cycling sections. One major step is to make sure that the pedestrian and cycling sections are both asphalt.
• Separation from the road. On sections where the pedestrian path is just a sidewalk next to traffic and the cycling section is further separated from traffic and within an actual linear park, serrounded by grass and trees on both sides, people gravitate towards to section that is separated from traffic, understandably. Adding a green buffer between the pedestrian path and the roads would go a long way towards people naturally gravitating towards the appropriate section.

For reference, the sections that work well and have relatively high compliance:

• Forest Hills to Williams St
• New Minton St to Boylston St
• Prentiss St to Ruggles St

Section that will be at least somewhat improved on the above parameters as part of the Columbus Ave Bus Lanes Phase II project:

• Heath St to Prentiss St

Sections that desperately needs some TLC with respect to the above parameters:

• Williams St to New Minton St
• Boylston St to Heath St

I agree about the separation from the road. Why would someone stick to a sidewalk adjacent to a wide, busy road. Especially if the bike path has tree coverage to provide shade. What I’m looking forward to the most about the redesign is the wider crosswalks. Dumping both the bike path and sidewalk into one tiny curb ramp always has a lot of bike/ped conflicts.

 

[kdmc]

I was driving on JKF recently, going south from Harvard Sq, trying to cross Memorial. Maybe two or three cars were getting through on each light cycle, because during the red light, the road on the bridge would fill up from people taking right turns onto it from Memorial, so by the time our side got the green, maybe one or two cars could fit without blocking the box, and then maybe a third could sneak at the end.

Didn't Cambridge just finish making Right on Red illegal city-wide? Or does that not apply to state roads?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Didn't Cambridge just finish making Right on Red illegal city-wide? Or does that not apply to state roads?

Doesn't apply to state/DCR roads.

 

[as02143]

Doesn't apply to state/DCR roads.

Doesn't apply - but many of the state roads' intersections are no turn on red. Mem Drive at JFK, included.

That being said, I think BOS2BON is not saying anything about turns on red, rather, when Memorial Drive has the green, all the right-turners fill up the bridge. Makes sense to me, as whenever I drive to Boston during commute hours coming from Watertown, my GPS tends to take me on Memorial Drive to that right turn and then a left at Soldiers Field Road and it seems like Cambridge travel is deprioritized.

 

[#bancars]

What exactly is the plan for this 12' bike path? There's no extra 12' in the existing road and sidewalk. Are they expanding the sidewalk south? Rebuilding part of the bridge over an active railway? This doesn't make sense they can just announce something like that and start next week. What's going on here?

Details now on DCR website here:

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/safety-improvements-for-the-bu-bridge-corridor-of-memorial-drive

 

[cubbe8]

Details now on DCR website here:

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/safety-improvements-for-the-bu-bridge-corridor-of-memorial-drive

View attachment 56538

This is a complete waste. They’re just raising the bike lane and removing the buffer. Not even fixing the broken concrete by the boathouse where the cyclist was killed. This is worse than adding concrete curbs to the existing buffered bike lane.

 

[BOS2BON]

Doesn't apply - but many of the state roads' intersections are no turn on red. Mem Drive at JFK, included.

That being said, I think BOS2BON is not saying anything about turns on red, rather, when Memorial Drive has the green, all the right-turners fill up the bridge. Makes sense to me, as whenever I drive to Boston during commute hours coming from Watertown, my GPS tends to take me on Memorial Drive to that right turn and then a left at Soldiers Field Road and it seems like Cambridge travel is deprioritized.

I was talking about the SW Corrudor redesign. But what you’re describing at the JFk intersection is something I’ve felt with as a pedestrian. It’s annoying when a right turning car is on the bridge and blocking the crosswalk.

 

[BOS2BON]

This is a complete waste. They’re just raising the bike lane and removing the buffer. Not even fixing the broken concrete by the boathouse where the cyclist was killed. This is worse than adding concrete curbs to the existing buffered bike lane.

Yep. There’s some really uneven pavement near the boathouse from some tree roots. Would love to see them make some improvements there too.

 

[as02143]

This is a complete waste. They’re just raising the bike lane and removing the buffer. Not even fixing the broken concrete by the boathouse where the cyclist was killed. This is worse than adding concrete curbs to the existing buffered bike lane.

Does the broken concrete have something materially to do with the crash?

 

[FK4]

That's a nice improvement, as is the newish speed warning sign approaching the blind passenger exit at Stony Brook. But the biggest need for the SW Corridor path is to figure out how to make it less appealing to pedestrians. I understand why people walk on the path -- they prefer mixing with bikes and other wheeled personal transport than the sidewalks that are often right next to high speed car traffic. But it can sometimes be very frustrating (not to mention dangerous) to deal with so much pedestrian mixing.

There’s a little speed/slow down sign with a LED smiley face, as you approach Roxbury Crossing. I think they should have constant signs like this saying things like “please be considerate of bikers”. And a lot of signs painted on the pavement as well telling people to stay to the right, not walk three abreast etc.

It’s probably unrealistic to think that for the stretches where it’s either the bike lane, or the sidewalk along the road, pedestrians are going to choose the sidewalk. That is, unless the city and DCR can figure out how to make the sidewalks MORE appealing.

Edit: I just saw this response after posting, which already said most of what I said in a more organized and detailed way!

I've been going to most of the redesign meetings and this is the drum I beat everytime. As a regular pedestrian and cyclist on the SW Corridor, there are sections with high compliance to the separation and sections with low compliance and it is clear what features work where it does that should be duplicated elsewhere on the path on the sections where it doesn't work:

• Asphalt pedestrian paths instead of concrete. For runners, asphalt is mush easier on the joints than concrete. Many runners (myslef included) will stick to the pedestrian asphalt sections, but avoid the concrete pedestrian sections, opting for the parallel asphalt cycling sections. One major step is to make sure that the pedestrian and cycling sections are both asphalt.
• Separation from the road. On sections where the pedestrian path is just a sidewalk next to traffic and the cycling section is further separated from traffic and within an actual linear park, serrounded by grass and trees on both sides, people gravitate towards to section that is separated from traffic, understandably. Adding a green buffer between the pedestrian path and the roads would go a long way towards people naturally gravitating towards the appropriate section.

For reference, the sections that work well and have relatively high compliance:

• Forest Hills to Williams St
• New Minton St to Boylston St
• Prentiss St to Ruggles St

Section that will be at least somewhat improved on the above parameters as part of the Columbus Ave Bus Lanes Phase II project:

• Heath St to Prentiss St

Sections that desperately needs some TLC with respect to the above parameters:

• Williams St to New Minton St
• Boylston St to Heath St

I think having an asphalt path instead of concrete is a really good point. I’m not sure if it’s just because I kind of intuitively know that pavement feels a little bit softer when walking then concrete, or if it’s the negative associations I have to sidewalks (as opposed to associating pavement walking spaces with paths that are not next roads), but I think that would be something very worth investigating on those brutal JP stretches. I’m guessing because of the MBTA and also Stony Brook culvert, it would be very expensive to narrow Amory and Lamartine (if there is even room to do that), but if that could be done, it might buy a few inches of space to put artistic buffers between sidewalk and road.

 

[#bancars]

New Grand Junction path extension is partially open:

 

[FK4]

New Grand Junction path extension is partially open:

View attachment 56562

This might have been a superior design for the SWC path — road, trees, sidewalk, tiny buffer, bike path. Instead of road, sidewalk, trees etc

 

[HenryAlan]

I think having an asphalt path instead of concrete is a really good point. I’m not sure if it’s just because I kind of intuitively know that pavement feels a little bit softer when walking then concrete, or if it’s the negative associations I have to sidewalks (as opposed to associating pavement walking spaces with paths that are not next roads), but I think that would be something very worth investigating on those brutal JP stretches.

You raise an interesting question. I've always kind of assumed it was about positioning of the two paths, more than it was about the surface. But, as I think about it some more, I think there perhaps is an intuitive preference for asphalt. I'm thinking about the Arobroway paths around Forest Hills and the Arboretum. The path from Washington St. to the entrance of Franklin Park features a sidewalk more removed from the street, and yet people tend to use the bike path for walking and running. Likewise for the path from the Forest Hills Arboretum gate to South Street, pedestrians tend to select the bike path, which is closer to the street and further from the park.

As a frequent user of these paths, both on bike and on foot, I have to be intentional about not walking on the bike paths, which seem like the more natural choice.

 

[FK4]

You raise an interesting question. I've always kind of assumed it was about positioning of the two paths, more than it was about the surface. But, as I think about it some more, I think there perhaps is an intuitive preference for asphalt. I'm thinking about the Arobroway paths around Forest Hills and the Arboretum. The path from Washington St. to the entrance of Franklin Park features a sidewalk more removed from the street, and yet people tend to use the bike path for walking and running. Likewise for the path from the Forest Hills Arboretum gate to South Street, pedestrians tend to select the bike path, which is closer to the street and further from the park.

As a frequent user of these paths, both on bike and on foot, I have to be intentional about not walking on the bike paths, which seem like the more natural choice.

It's probably true and for a number of reasons.
- asphalt is softer
- asphalt is what is used to pave "nice paths" (you'll never find a paved path through woods, eg, that is concrete slabs)
- asphalt is continuous (you're walking on a "ribbon" that takes you on a journey, rather than series of tiles that is more for short distance walking, or walking discrete, pre-determined distances for commercial or other task-oriented purposes. In other words, walking on a continuous paved stretch with no clear end allows one to enter into reverie.

There are probably other reasons. The psychology of all this is fascinating. In any case, I think it's definitely the case that if you have a walking and biking path next to each other, they should be the same material, and then you can aggressively paint each one to provide constant visual reminders which is which. The fact that, as I always rant about, Boston transport culture is just so anti-rule and anti-order of any kind is a major issue here, as well. We don't bother to use signage, and people ignore signage when it's there.

 

[bigeman312]

New Grand Junction path extension is partially open:

View attachment 56562

Which section(s) are open now? What are the termini of the open section(s)?

 

[okin15]

Doesn't apply - but many of the state roads' intersections are no turn on red. Mem Drive at JFK, included.

That being said, I think BOS2BON is not saying anything about turns on red, rather, when Memorial Drive has the green, all the right-turners fill up the bridge. Makes sense to me, as whenever I drive to Boston during commute hours coming from Watertown, my GPS tends to take me on Memorial Drive to that right turn and then a left at Soldiers Field Road and it seems like Cambridge travel is deprioritized.

Every intersection in Cambridge has a No Turn on Red sign (assuming none have been removed/fallen off).

More effective than these wordy signs would be either more arrows at intersections (green circles are pretty ambiguous for drivers)
and/or these type of no right turn lighted signs:

Admittedly they are controversial / sometimes cause confusion, but I'd rather have drivers accidentally not making turns, than them accidentally making turns.
ALSO, drivers will like that there are times they can make a right on red if peds don't have a walk signal. (Enviromentalists like us cyclists might like that too sometimes?)

 

[Stlin]

It's probably true and for a number of reasons.
- asphalt is softer
- asphalt is what is used to pave "nice paths" (you'll never find a paved path through woods, eg, that is concrete slabs)
- asphalt is continuous (you're walking on a "ribbon" that takes you on a journey, rather than series of tiles that is more for short distance walking, or walking discrete, pre-determined distances for commercial or other task-oriented purposes. In other words, walking on a continuous paved stretch with no clear end allows one to enter into reverie.

There are probably other reasons. The psychology of all this is fascinating. In any case, I think it's definitely the case that if you have a walking and biking path next to each other, they should be the same material, and then you can aggressively paint each one to provide constant visual reminders which is which. The fact that, as I always rant about, Boston transport culture is just so anti-rule and anti-order of any kind is a major issue here, as well. We don't bother to use signage, and people ignore signage when it's there.

You know, it's been a few years but I previously read a study that said basically the opposite - all else being equal pedestrians tend to read asphalt as being for speedy vehicular traffic, and generally read concrete as being primarily for walking. Generally you even see that paradigm continue in sidewalk level grade separated bike lanes - asphalt bike facilities, concrete pedestrian. Even without green paint, individuals have long been conditioned to see concrete as "safe," compared to asphalt. Staying on the concrete is something a lot of kids are taught. The material difference is enough to create that separation - of course in the SW corridor proximity to the roadway confounds that. If the sidewalk was buffered from the curb, I think all else would be appropriate.

Also, I would tend to disagree that asphalt is seen as the "nicer" material - its definitely the cheaper to install and resurface, and cost has historically been disproportionately weighted in path construction. I think concrete tends to be aesthetically better - it has sharper edge finishes (asphalt tends to crumble) and the lighter color creates better contrast against natural greens. Plus, If I recall correctly, concrete as a material tends to impose a speed penalty on cyclists (due to joints and shifting) but not most pedestrians, which leads to it being somewhat preferred in shared environments due to a decreased differential. I know that UMass Amherst at least has been replacing it's asphalt paths with concrete as part of its current landscape vision.

(As an aside, I think red brick is the "nicest" sidewalk material discounting it's maintenance and accessibility challenges - hence why a lot of nicer concrete paths go for brick accents.)

 

[FK4]

You know, it's been a few years but I previously read a study that said basically the opposite - all else being equal pedestrians tend to read asphalt as being for speedy vehicular traffic, and generally read concrete as being primarily for walking. Generally you even see that paradigm continue in sidewalk level grade separated bike lanes - asphalt bike facilities, concrete pedestrian. Even without green paint, individuals have long been conditioned to see concrete as "safe," compared to asphalt. Staying on the concrete is something a lot of kids are taught. The material difference is enough to create that separation - of course in the SW corridor proximity to the roadway confounds that. If the sidewalk was buffered from the curb, I think all else would be appropriate.

Also, I would tend to disagree that asphalt is seen as the "nicer" material - its definitely the cheaper to install and resurface, and cost has historically been disproportionately weighted in path construction. I think concrete tends to be aesthetically better - it has sharper edge finishes (asphalt tends to crumble) and the lighter color creates better contrast against natural greens. Plus, If I recall correctly, concrete as a material tends to impose a speed penalty on cyclists (due to joints and shifting) but not most pedestrians, which leads to it being somewhat preferred in shared environments due to a decreased differential. I know that UMass Amherst at least has been replacing it's asphalt paths with concrete as part of its current landscape vision.

(As an aside, I think red brick is the "nicest" sidewalk material discounting it's maintenance and accessibility challenges - hence why a lot of nicer concrete paths go for brick accents.)

I think first and foremost it’s about psychological association. Concrete=walking next to the road. Asphalt=paths that happen to be paved that wend their way thru parks and woods. And bike trails. And it’s softer on your feet and back. Anyway, there are many reasons why SWC doesn’t work, and many possible solutions to make it better by degree.

In many ways, concrete is nicer—it looks nicer and looks fancier. But for pleasantness of navigating *toward* somewhere else it’s not as good.

One exception is asphalt sidewalks especial when the curb is also asphalt—this screams horribly cheap in every way.