Biking the Boston 'Burbs (Trails, MDC, & Towns beyond Hubway area)

[Scipio]

Is there any momentum to extend the Bruce Freeman north into Lowell? From a quick scan on Google Maps it like there is intact right of way most of the way up to the active tracks.

 

[Randomgear]

Scipio,
Don't know about Lowell, but a friend told me yesterday that the BFT is also being extended to Concord. I haven't tried to find any news articles to verify it.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Is there any momentum to extend the Bruce Freeman north into Lowell? From a quick scan on Google Maps it like there is intact right of way most of the way up to the active tracks.

Pan Am still owns the Lowell Industrial Track, which was abandoned in '08. They have played very hard-to-get on even opening up a negotiating conversation, so nothing is happening and as of now it's not listed as an official project phase. It would not be all that hard to extend the trail north from its abrupt end at the shopping center to a trail head at Tanner St. downtown. It's fully grade-separated the whole way and the only portion that's off-limits is the immediate vicinity of the old wye with the Lowell Line. But right now it's out-of-sight/out-of-mind because Pan Am won't negotiate.

The Framingham-South Sudbury segment is still CSX-owned with the towns at a stare-down now into its eighth year over CSX's very high asking price. That's the much more consequential one, since the trail is hobbled if they can't get going on Phase III design to Route 9/Framingham State U.


MassDOT could probably intervene on both of these in a jiffy because they have made so many buys of Pan Am and CSX lines in recent years. They have 2 more upcoming transaction formalities to square:

• 5 miles of Fitchburg Line from Fitchburg to the new Wachusett station, from Pan Am
• the Milford Branch from CSX. The whole line from Franklin to Milford was leased by the T in 1988 for the Forge Park extension of the Franklin Line, and the lease has a built-in purchase clause at agreed-upon price indexed to inflation. CSX is handing over freight operations on the branch to shortline Grafton & Upton at the end of this year, and doesn't want to be somebody else's landlord on a line it doesn't use. So they will tap MassDOT on the shoulder and tell them to execute the clause and take it off their hands.

They could roll these abandoned ROW's as an addendum to either of those upcoming transactions. Just like they could've for any number of recent transactions. Bafflingly, they have completely ducked the issue...a complete 180 from years prior when they were aggressive about buying up landbankings, and a complete contradiction to their continuing aggressiveness at buying up active lines. It's not only held back the Freeman but has induced severe delays on construction of the Cochituate Rail Trail from Natick-Framingham because CSX is still holding that one for ransom. And has resulted in cancellation of the DCR-planned pave job of the Upper Charles Trail in Holliston, because when the state stiffed Holliston the town had to resort to a Plan B of cutting deal with CSX for $300/month in rent for use of the ROW as barebones crushed stone trail while the state keeps spinning its wheels indefinitely.

It takes years for the towns to amass enough money to pay the asking price, and these large private RR's do not react nicely at all when some local-yokel Selectmen gets mouthy with them. Which has indeed happened in Natick, Framingham, and Sudbury. And risks blowback to the state when those local sparring matches poison critical working relationships. Since the rest of the active and ongoing-construction Freeman Trail is a MassDOT-owned landbanking, it's nuts that they won't step in and secure the rest of the ownership. It's not hard, and they have a vested interest at a lot of levels. Including preventing the towns from going rogue when they get their hands on the ROW's or pouring gasoline all over relations with a couple very large for-profit corporations with a lot of state-level business dealings. I can't for the life of me understand what they're thinking letting this stuff linger like this. This is a Big Fuckin' Deal™ publicly-funded project, and yet they seem completely uninterested in covering their own asses on all that public money being spent by refusing to nip those exposed liabilities in the bud.

 

[BuilditDenser]

More good news for the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in Acton and Concord. I was driving through Acton the other day to visit family and I saw that early bridge work has started on route 2A. The giant piles of rail ties are all cleared, utility relocation is complete, and they are 75% done with erosion control.

At the Concord town meeting, they passed 4 articles that relate to the BFRT. The most significant, article 57, allocated $250,000 for the 100% design of phase 2b. This bridge will go over route 2 near the state police horse barracks and the concord rotary. The town meeting vote keeps phase 2b on schedule for the 2018 TIP phasing.

The BFRT went 4/4 and they all apparently were nearly unanimous. Hopefully other affluent suburbs can learn from Concord's surprising willingness to build trails (looking at you weston).


BFRT newsletter: http://brucefreemanrailtrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/BFRT-News-Spring-2016.pdf

 

[Scipio]

The Medford Bike Commission posted their bicycle infrastructure plan recently: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-sjps39txyd01TY1ZvLUVNYkE/view

This is a funding and willpower constrained plan that mostly focuses on sharrows and paint. The plan avoids removing travel lanes and puts most parking removal in the “long-term” category.

That said, there are some parts that look really good. The real opportunity in the plan is making use of Medford’s better than average street connectivity to create a network of bicycle boulevards (aka neighborhood greenways, class III bikeways, neighborways etc). Sharrows alone do nothing and may make conditions worse, but in most cases the sharrows are combined with smart bicycle boulevard treatments. I see mentions of:

• Modifying intersections with minor streets to allow free movement along the bike boulevard,
  
• Intersection treatments at major streets to handle discontinuities in the bike boulevard,
  
• Traffic calming to keep auto speeds low,
  
• Contraflow lanes on many one-way streets that are part of a bicycle boulevard to allow easy two-way travel,
  
• Signage to direct bicyclists along the boulevard

I think that a great bike boulevard is as good as or better than a compromised separated bike lane or a door zone painted bike lane. It would be better if the plan included some volume control to divert car traffic away from these bicycle boulevards, but this is a fine start.

If Medford goes on a sharrow-applicating spree AND includes the details that the plan calls for, then this could be pretty good. If they slap sharrows down on Harvard, Boston, Mystic, and some of the other truly nasty streets and call it a day then it’s going to be a huge missed opportunity. I do not see mentions of any sort of implementation plan. It would be really cool if Medford just went out and did this now given how cheap it is to move stop signs and put down some sharrows. But is any of this likely to happen? I don’t know Medford well enough.

 

[Arlington]

The Medford Bike Commission posted their bicycle infrastructure plan recently: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-sjps39txyd01TY1ZvLUVNYkE/view

This is a funding and willpower constrained plan that mostly focuses on sharrows and paint. The plan avoids removing travel lanes and puts most parking removal in the “long-term” category.

That said, there are some parts that look really good. The real opportunity in the plan is making use of Medford’s better than average street connectivity to create a network of bicycle boulevards (aka neighborhood greenways, class III bikeways, neighborways etc). Sharrows alone do nothing and may make conditions worse, but in most cases the sharrows are combined with smart bicycle boulevard treatments. I see mentions of:

• Modifying intersections with minor streets to allow free movement along the bike boulevard,
  
• Intersection treatments at major streets to handle discontinuities in the bike boulevard,
  
• Traffic calming to keep auto speeds low,
  
• Contraflow lanes on many one-way streets that are part of a bicycle boulevard to allow easy two-way travel,
  
• Signage to direct bicyclists along the boulevard

I think that a great bike boulevard is as good as or better than a compromised separated bike lane or a door zone painted bike lane. It would be better if the plan included some volume control to divert car traffic away from these bicycle boulevards, but this is a fine start.

If Medford goes on a sharrow-applicating spree AND includes the details that the plan calls for, then this could be pretty good. If they slap sharrows down on Harvard, Boston, Mystic, and some of the other truly nasty streets and call it a day then it’s going to be a huge missed opportunity. I do not see mentions of any sort of implementation plan. It would be really cool if Medford just went out and did this now given how cheap it is to move stop signs and put down some sharrows. But is any of this likely to happen? I don’t know Medford well enough.

Good summary. I'll have to go to an MBAC meeting and ask. My sense is that you'll see the neighborhood ones first: fewer cut-through commuters who might oppose it, and more neighborhood folks to support them. There were a few hasty lanes thrown down around election-time by the outgoing Mayor (who also created the MBAC), but the new Mayor (Stephanie Muccini Burke) made stuff like this an actual campaign issue of civic improvements. Rather than political gestures, I suspect she's going to start with small wins that build street-by-street support, particularly in places with schools, parks, or abutters who complain about cut-through speeders as it is.

So depending on how cooperative the DCR/MDC is on the absurdly margined Fellsway West, that's one that's practically begging for a bike lane to explain all the unused pavement (built as 3 lanes striped for 2)

In the category of "bike lanes abutters would love" I'm also picturing Fulton Street (north-south in the upper right quadrant) and High Street (Rt 60) as places that have over-wide pavement but one-lane's worth of traffic and chronic complaints about speeders near schools and parks. (Lawrence Road too, has 1-lane traffic schmeered on 1.75 lanes of asphalt, but neither school nor park)

I also agree that Boston Ave (on Tufts Hillside) and Mystic Ave (where it is 4 lanes and totally "not calm" are places that don't seem like the place to notch early wins. You could throw sharrows on Boston Ave and a gutter lane on Mystic but nobody'd use them and the effort would be mocked as a waste of money.

Separately, refresh your reading of the Mystic River paths plan, which is totally not within the MBAC's power to plan, but which was advancing to shovel ready as of last July. Fuzzy PDF This is has taken the combined heft of Sen Pat Jehlen and all 3 Medford-Somerville-Arlington State reps anywhere near the Mystic side of town, plus Sen Brownsberger.

But Medford is still a funny straddle of car-vs-Zone 1A transit, and on pinched streets (Boston Ave, Winthrop) I don't see it being politically useful/possible to try to wedge more bikes on just yet (Same way that Prospect St in Cambridge hasn't gotten any bike love).

 

[Scipio]

Three updates on the Bay Colony Rail Trail, which I haven't heard much about outside of F-line's post on Dover rail trail politics:

First, Newton opened just under a mile of trail at some point this winter as the Upper Falls Greenway. It's a wide stone dust surface that ends halfway across the Charles River:

On the other side of that bridge there is only 700 feet of right of way, then I-95. The old railroad bridge over I-95 was demolished recently, and I can't find anything discussing how to continue the Bay Colony Rail Trail around that obstacle. Either they do an on-street segment or find the $XX million to go over or under the freeway.

Second, Needham apparently opened their first 1.7 miles of trail today: http://needham.wickedlocal.com/article/20160429/NEWS/160426286. This segment runs from the Charles River on the other side of Needham to their town forest, with 3 miles and a lot of headache to link up to Newton's segment.

Third, Dover is having a town meeting on whether or not to take to authorize Dover to take out a lease the right of way in their town tomorrow. As always there are trail politics involved and organized supporters and opponents. To their credit, the opponents are being quite a bit less racist and hysterical than is typical in these fights, so good for them. Their overt concerns are things like horses and then environment. Skimming through the supporter's page and consultant reports I get a big whiff of exclusion, with quite a bit of ink dedicated to low usage numbers, not repairing the bridge to Needham, not paving the path, not building parking, not publicizing the path and more. I've never set foot or wheel in Dover but they way they talk about out-of-towners hiking their woodsy trails or riding their performance bikes on the road makes me want to.

 

[DBM]

Speaking of the Charles River, I believe this is the first full season of the Charles River Greenway bikepath extension going underneath the Elm St. bridge just downstream of the Moody St. falls in Waltham.

Pros: wrapping so tightly up against the old Cabot Mills. The literal crucible of New England's Industrial Revolution. It's hard to conceive of a more transformative place in global history--economically, socially, culturally, and of course technologically--and of course it's all the more sublime now because it's so tranquil and idyllic compared to what it must have been like ca. 1850.

Cons: the landing of the bridge is absurdly flush with the river level, even at moderate to low water levels. Just a minor flood event would cause serious degradation I think. Who signed off on such a seemingly reckless design? I guess the DCR ultimately, backstopped by various politicos... but was there really no other way to design it to not make it so absurdly vulnerable to inundation? Those hay coils will do nothing during a spring high-water event...

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

On the other side of that bridge there is only 700 feet of right of way, then I-95. The old railroad bridge over I-95 was demolished recently, and I can't find anything discussing how to continue the Bay Colony Rail Trail around that obstacle. Either they do an on-street segment or find the $XX million to go over or under the freeway.

MassHighway is building side abutments for a new bridge at close of the add-a-lane project, but sans deck. So there'll be possibility of a bridge if somebody else pays for it. The add-a-lane went into design before the ROW's formal abandonment was processed by the Surface Transportation Board, so it was originally designed to be rebuilt in-full with a 2-track deck rail deck. Obviously the deck was cut to save money once the abandonment became official, but the side abutments will still be built as-is to hold back the hillside. Deck and center abutments can be added later, at-will.

Of course, I doubt the town has anywhere near the kind of cash necessary to do that. And it wouldn't be particularly useful if they did splurge, only netting 2 more blocks of trail on the west side of 128 before dead-ending at Webster St. Tracks go active again at the Webster grade crossing for the T to shove stuff in storage behind Needham Heights. The reason they can't get across the Charles is that there's no access to Freemont St. through that row of private industrial backlots, and with Route 128 impassible that means no place for a trail head.

Not a perfect situation. Even if they can solve the backlot access for shooting over to Highland Ave., crossing the 128 interchange by foot or bike is a pretty terrifying experience. One that will soon be replicated further downstream at Kendrick St. when that new exit opens. I suppose if they can square the property access that leaves a somewhat safer shot down Reservoir St. to Central Ave. and the nearest 59 bus stop.

Second, Needham apparently opened their first 1.7 miles of trail today: http://needham.wickedlocal.com/article/20160429/NEWS/160426286. This segment runs from the Charles River on the other side of Needham to their town forest, with 3 miles and a lot of headache to link up to Newton's segment.

That one is totally unsolvable. Even the street grid is indirect enough that wayfinding between segments is futile. To be fair to the town, it was the trail lobby who decided to brand it all the same thing. The towns always treated them as totally separate projects for totally separate audiences, never to be joined.

Third, Dover is having a town meeting on whether or not to take to authorize Dover to take out a lease the right of way in their town tomorrow. As always there are trail politics involved and organized supporters and opponents. To their credit, the opponents are being quite a bit less racist and hysterical than is typical in these fights, so good for them. Their overt concerns are things like horses and then environment. Skimming through the supporter's page and consultant reports I get a big whiff of exclusion, with quite a bit of ink dedicated to low usage numbers, not repairing the bridge to Needham, not paving the path, not building parking, not publicizing the path and more. I've never set foot or wheel in Dover but they way they talk about out-of-towners hiking their woodsy trails or riding their performance bikes on the road makes me want to.

I'll believe it when I see it re: a path through town. They wanted the tracks torn up 20 years before they were ever abandoned because they didn't like miscreants walking the rails between freight trains. They're one of the worst--if not the worst--towns in all of Greater Boston for that kind of behavior. If they don't completely fuck everybody over by blocking off the bridge and letting nature swallow the ROW, then it's going to be passive-aggressively made non-useful by those exclusionary tactics. Which in turn means Medfield is probably going to mothball their plans as being not worth the money if the connection through Dover is impractical.

This is the big flaw in the whole trail plan. The two well-connected guys heading the trail lobby evangelized the hell out of it and got everyone on board, but artfully papered-over the threadbare commitments Dover and Medfield were giving the proposal. The second Needham and Newton committed actual money and design, their so-called "partners" stopped returning phone calls and the trail lobby lost any interest in mediation. Somebody probably should have seen that coming a mile away. It's not like Needham and Dover have ever been all that friendly with each other.

 

[The EGE]

Shiv the trail to Chestnut Street via the utility ROW, and the Chestnut+Highland gives a pretty direct path. That's realistically useful if you could get bike lanes plus maybe a few separated segments of trail in. Get that done, and a friendly route on the north end to either Eliot or Newton Highlands, and you have a useful commuting route for Needham, Newton Upper Falls, and Charles River Village even if Dover doesn't do anything.

 

[Arlington]

Speaking of the Charles River, I believe this is the first full season of the Charles River Greenway bikepath extension going underneath the Elm St. bridge just downstream of the Moody St. falls in Waltham.
...but was there really no other way to design it to not make it so absurdly vulnerable to inundation? Those hay coils will do nothing during a spring high-water event...

Isn't the Charles' level still controlled by dams at this point?

 

[bigeman312]

It needs to be resurfaced if it is to be anything more than a recreational trail. Here is what the surface looks like at its best:

A nice walking trail, don't get me wrong, but a far cry from commuting corridors in Cambridge and Somerville.

 

[bigeman312]

Regarding the CRBP, this Waltham link, and the under construction "Greenough Greenway" are positives. There is still a lot of work to be done. Continuing this momentum, the next steps should be to:

• upgrade the "bike path" from a generic sidewalk to multi-use trail standards (width, signage, pavement, trail markings/center-line) on the Boston side between O'Brien Highway and the Longfellow Bridge.
• improve the Cambridge-side crossings at Mass Ave and the BU bridge, where the heavy bike traffic is currently being treated like pedestrians.
• improve the Boston-side crossings at Cambridge Street, Arsenal Street, and North Beacon Street, where there isn't even a crossing signal or appropriate curb cuts.
• Connect the missing link along North Beacon on the Watertown-side, between Charles River Rd and Greenough Blvd.
• Fix the very confusing and dangerous Watertown Square crossing on the north side.
• Bridge the gap along California Street in Newton.
• Continue the path along the Watertown side, west of Bridge Street.
• Start bridging the gap between Prospect Street, Waltham, and "The Cove" in Newton.

 

[whighlander]

Three updates on the Bay Colony Rail Trail, which I haven't heard much about...

Third, Dover is having a town meeting on whether or not to take to authorize Dover to take out a lease the right of way in their town tomorrow. ....To their credit, the opponents are being quite a bit less racist and hysterical than is typical in these fights, so good for them. Their overt concerns are things like horses and then environment. Skimming through the supporter's page and consultant reports I get a big whiff of exclusion, with quite a bit of ink dedicated to low usage numbers, not repairing the bridge to Needham, not paving the path, not building parking, not publicizing the path and more. I've never set foot or wheel in Dover but they way they talk about out-of-towners hiking their woodsy trails or riding their performance bikes on the road makes me want to.

Scipio -- Sometimes you need to listen to the opponents -- they may have quite legitimate concerns, as property owners bordering a public recreational facility -- sometimes the recreating public doesn't have much respect for private property and boundaries.

I grew up in a nice quite large suburb of Hartford, and my parents' house was adjacent to a public park, with some attached woods that were contiguous with our own woods. We regularly had uninvited visitors not only in our woods, which was not much of a concern, but crossing our lower lawn and even picking fruit from our trees.

These were not local folk walking across the park, or even locals spending a day in the park with their kids. One side of our lot bordered a quite large parking lot for the park. People, often of high school+age would park in the lot, drink, and then go wandering about in the neighborhood. As most of the men of the neighborhood got old and passed-away, the widows who remained were often terrified by the "visitors."

These days, I live in East Lexington quite near to a small play area which borders a woody area about the size of Boston Common. Our neighbors, who actually border the woods, regularly tell of drinking and smoking parties [occasionally resulting in fires that need professional attention to extinguish them]. As avid dog walkers, we regularly pick-up broken beer bottles and other debris.

Note that both of the above situations involved places where a potential miscreant had to park and be "exposed" while making their getaway. The situation for someone living adjacent to a trail is "worse" in that the potential miscreant can "hit and run" with impunity. Even if the misbehavior is immediately discovered, no one is likely to be able to even identify the person as the "perp" could be a football field or more away from the site of their misbehavior in a minute.

Further note that the nature of the miscreants are quite diverse and they range from rich girls and boys just trying to have a smoke or drinking party away from their folks; to more serious criminally intended. They come in all colors, nationalities, ages, and presumably a variety of sexual persuasions, and gender identities. The one common characteristic of these misbehaving folks -- they don't care about public or private property.

 

[bigeman312]

That was a great Foreword for Diary of a NIMBY, by Professor Westy.

But in all seriousness, abutting property concerns should be heard. They shouldn't stop a public amenity with merit from existing, though. Rather, anyone who has reasonable, address-able concerns should help come up with a reasonable mitigation that both parties can agree to. That might mean a fence, for example.

 

[Arlington]

Whigh: The solution to the miscreants is making these places *busier*--almost by definition new visitors are coming to NOT skulk as miscreants do. Your problem was a *park* and people who sought it as a dead end to loiter in.

Miscreants seek dead-end places,isolated and infrequently used. Multiuse paths bring at worst "through users" but better and more likely "witnesses" and "alert citizens" who ruin the hideaway vibe.

Miscreants don't mis-create in road medians nor on sidewalks and they don't do it on well patronized paths. Just as local dog-walkers are 99% a force for good, so are joggers, walkers and bikers who have come from a bit farther away.

 

[whighlander]

Whigh: The solution to the miscreants is making these places *busier*--almost by definition new visitors are coming to NOT skulk as miscreants do. Your problem was a *park* and people who sought it as a dead end to loiter in.

Miscreants seek dead-end places,isolated and infrequently used. Multiuse paths bring at worst "through users" but better and more likely "witnesses" and "alert citizens" who ruin the hideaway vibe.

Miscreants don't mis-create in road medians nor on sidewalks and they don't do it on well patronized paths. Just as local dog-walkers are 99% a force for good, so are joggers, walkers and bikers who have come from a bit farther away.

Arlington -- depends on the time of day -- Sure at "Rush Times" potential miscreants are few and far between amongst the good citizens

However, turn the clock past midnight and the situation changes -- the good citizens are few and far between -- as the old adage says "Cat's away the Mice Play" -- of course lights can make quite a difference on a bike/pedestrian trail

 

[Scipio]

I recognize that abutters to new trail projects have very real and valid concerns about privacy and security – I was on the Upper Falls Greenway in Newton early this spring and could see right into people’s yards and houses. The trail is up on a high embankment and there isn’t a good barrier up yet. It’s actually kind of awkward.

But I believe it’s in a community’s best interest to solve these issues with fencing and landscaping rather than to let an old right of way decay and become feral, or lose it to abutter encroachment. It’s a slight and easily solvable pain for a few that comes with great benefits for the many. As I said, the opponents in Dover are being more adult than is usual in cases like this, but that’s helped because the proponents have already put forward a proposal for design, construction, and operations that is as exclusionary as possible.

 

[Arlington]

However, turn the clock past midnight and the situation changes -- the good citizens are few and far between -- as the old adage says "Cat's away the Mice Play" -- of course lights can make quite a difference on a bike/pedestrian trail

Past midnight all quiet, unlit, unobserved spots have this problem, whether they have a multiuse path or not.

So paths bring good whenever they're in use, and leave you no worse off when not in use. They are always a net win (though Dover comes pretty close to making a loser by insisting that theirs be *not* connected and therefore more a of a disused dead end, lowering its power to do good)

 

[Semass]

Two helpful little nuggets for Somerville, Medford, and Everett.
1. An MBTA project to repair and replace the bulkhead at the Charles Bus Facility includes a space for a multi-use path along the Mystic River. This will create an off-road connection between Draw 7 park/Assembly Square and Alford Street. This connects large amounts of Somerville and Medford (via Mystic Reservation paths) to all of Charlestown and the Harborwalk.
2. MassDOT is replacing the Route 16 Woods Bridge over the Malden River. The bridge will have pedestrian/bicycle underpasses on each side of the river. This connects Wellington to Malden Center and the Northern Strand Trail.
Lots of good connections throughout this area.