Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

RandomWalk said:
The path curving around the bollards near the Gilman entrance is going to be a source of conflict with cyclists.
Click to expand...
i was just thinking that Value Engineering is like the "person putting on clown outfit/make-up" meme.
 
Another approach they could have used to signal that the prevailing speed of the path is slower: meander the 10’ path across a 15’ ROW. Eliminating the straightaways would reduce the temptation to go fast. Maybe they could do the chicane thing. Just don’t do the Somerville “paint and hope” thing.
 
chrisbrat said:
A maybe-too-narrow path is better than no path, right? All the bitching about these new services and amenities before they're even open. And to think people in other parts of the country consider Bostonians to be grumpy and negative... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's not that we're complaining that it's not good enough - it's that there's a very reasonable argument that this is an inherently dangerous design based on the expected usage. It's very clear there will be a wide range of speeds from toddlers to e-bike commuters, which presents opportunity for conflicts. It's also clear that the reduced width of the path (and non-path clear area) reduces the margin of error avoiding collisions, especially while passing. On the existing portion of the path, if you have to swerve off the asphalt to avoid a hazard, there's a buffer of grass or dirt before you hit fence. On much of the new section, there's almost none.
 
chrisbrat said:
A maybe-too-narrow path is better than no path, right? All the bitching about these new services and amenities before they're even open. And to think people in other parts of the country consider Bostonians to be grumpy and negative... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I agree. It is narrower than ideal, but after all, a commuter rail line, a light rail line, plus the community path were all shoe-horned into a space that heretofore had only a commuter rail line.
 
I imagine it will be similar to the conflicts on the Esplanade in some area.
Click to expand...

I spent many years living near the Esplanade (it's where my son learned to ride!) and biking from place to place. Even when doing a long ride, such as from downtown to Concord and back, I'm content to go at a speed dictated by conditions. In some places that means cruising in top gear, and others it means going relatively slow due to traffic or people who decide that walking 5 abreast on a path is appropriate. A polite "excuse me" usually solves the latter. If I'm impatient, there's usually room to go off-piste for a bit to get around the blockages.

I've witnessed many bike vs. pedestrian collisions in my decade-plus living downtown. Most of the ones on the streets were the result of a pedestrian not looking and stepping out into the road, though a few were due to cyclists lane-splitting and crushing people in a crosswalk. That's actually how I got run into in Comm Ave in Back Bay. As for the half dozen or so that I've seen on the Esplanade, all were the result of cyclists going far too fast for conditions to warrant. When I'm driving a car and see kids playing near the road, I drive as if they're going to run into the road (and they do!). I ride the same way on the Esplanade or any congested portion of a path (I'm looking at you Minuteman).

My humble opinion regarding the Community Path is that it's geometry will prevent cyclists from gaining any serious speed with foot traffic present, and that the super-speeders will opt-out back to the streets, and I agree with others that motorized transport will be the real danger.
 
bigpicture7 said:
The serious commuting cyclists (of which my amazing wife is one) are probably not going to like me for saying this, and I truly mean no disrespect for it (I say this as someone who made a legit attempt years ago to become skilled and comfortable as an urban commuting cyclist and came close but didn't quite ever feel comfortable, so mostly withdrew from it)
Click to expand...
I'm a serious bike commuter, and I like what you are saying just fine. Most of us do like to go fast, when conditions allow for speed. But since we often are ourselves the vulnerable road user when sharing space with large, heavy, fast accelerating vehicles, operated by unserious drivers, most bike commuters are very aware of whomever else is using the path, and ready and nimble enough to adjust in order to accommodate other uses. This path won't play a role in my commute, but if it were geographically useful for that, I'd try it, and then, if too crowded by other uses, I'd switch back to a different route that worked better for my own purposes.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I am serious, based on my experience of riding my clunky, non-electric bicycle slowly on 8 foot wide paved paths. Pedestrians walking in groups and hogging the entire width is usually the problem. If they would just stay to the right of the centerline, then there is ample opportunity to safely pass and accommodate mixed modes. The one danger I experience is e-bikes and e-scooters zooming along at roadway speeds and almost hitting me and others. I think the solution are signs that say "Keep to the Right Except to Pass", and speed limits with speed limit signs for e-bikes and scooters, with violators getting ticketed. That will require some changes in laws, but certainly politically doable.
Click to expand...

As @RandomWalk said, kids can be chaotic. If its supposed to be a community path, then that should be accommodated for. Or just accept that families belong in the suburbs and the city belong to young childless professionals.
 
DominusNovus said:
...Or just accept that families belong in the suburbs and the city belong to young childless professionals.
Click to expand...

Ok, you struck a chord with me with what I hope is a sarcastic jab. I think your critique is sharp and pertinent. "Suburban flight" of maturing young professionals to raise their families is a huge issue for cities (that a lot of other issues trace back to), and there's no reason cities can't be better for kids/families than people seem to think they are.

If I merge yours, mine, Random's, and HenryAlan's points, I think what this is ultimately saying is that peoples' comforts and perceptions - beyond legalities, contract obligations, or "did we check this box?" - is what's going to drive usage of this path. If the design goal is "community path," then its a failure if that comfort level isn't there for a diversity of use cases.

For a lot of development topics, I am with @chrisbrat with the philosophy of "getting something done is better than nothing," but I am not aligned with that philosophy on this one. The super cyclist commuters are going to find a route to commute regardless of this path being here or not in the first place. Yet if the path is installed and feels unsafe, it will have an asymmetrically strong dissuasive impact on others. The thoughtful cyclists I've met at community discussions get this and are all about about "safe streets," not just a super speedy cycle track to the exclusion of good sidewalks, adequate separation, transit waiting zones, crossings, etc.

It's possible that the current path augmented with thoughtful signage, pavement markings and/or pavement colorings will make it feel safe/comfortable enough even at current width, but I am not sure yet. Either way, I categorize safety and comfort of the path as a core issue, regardless of "we got it built!"
 
bigpicture7 said:
Ok, you struck a chord with me with what I hope is a sarcastic jab. I think your critique is sharp and pertinent. "Suburban flight" of maturing young professionals to raise their families is a huge issue for cities (that a lot of other issues trace back to), and there's no reason cities can't be better for kids/families than people seem to think they are.
Click to expand...
50% sarcastic, 50% “we can’t complain that families keep moving to the suburbs if we keep making cities trendy playgrounds for 20-somethings.”

And for the record, my wife and I moved to Kingston after having our first child. We would have stayed in Quincy (de facto “the city”) if our house was big enough.
 
Last edited:
DominusNovus said:
50% sarcastic, 50% “we can’t complain that families keep moving to the suburbs if we keep making cities trendy playgrounds for 20-somethings.”

And for the record, my wife and I moved to Kingston after having our first child. We would have stayed in Quincy (de facto “the city”) if our house was big enough.
Click to expand...

That 50/50 blend is even better than pure sarcasm!
 
DominusNovus said:
I have more thoughts, but we've already derailed (pun intended) this thread enough. Maybe the whole generational divide in urban planning outcomes deserves its own thread, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Somerville isn't Manhattan, and it's really a nice residential area to raise a family, similar to North Cambridge where I grew up.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Somerville isn't Manhattan, and it's really a nice residential area to raise a family, similar to North Cambridge where I grew up.
Click to expand...

I agree somewhat, Charlie, but much of Somerville and pretty much all of the part of Cambridge this cuts through are composed of multi-unit dwellings. And the multi-unit vs. "we've got our own yard" is a main distinction regarding what many families consider departing for the suburbs (and then, of course, a ton of separate variables that correlate with that distinction).
 
bigpicture7 said:
I agree somewhat, Charlie, but much of Somerville and pretty much all of the part of Cambridge this cuts through are composed of multi-unit dwellings. And the multi-unit vs. "we've got our own yard" is a main distinction regarding what many families consider departing for the suburbs (and then, of course, a ton of separate variables that correlate with that distinction).
Click to expand...
Good points. North Cambridge probably has more single family or duplex units with yards than east Somerville/Cambridge. I can't blame a young family for wanting a yard. I didn't grow up with one, but I did have one when my wife and I were raising our three kids, and it is a plus.
 
Not a bad view.

D4F5BCA3-D1EE-44BE-BD03-61FA7EECF198.jpeg
8AFA91F9-03A4-4DBE-96CE-09FD01C3C8C3.jpeg
 
I noticed that some of the fancy lights at Magoun were not working recently, and the regular light over the fare validator too. I guess they must be getting close if they are getting a head start on the neglect.
 
RandomWalk said:
I noticed that some of the fancy lights at Magoun were not working recently, and the regular light over the fare validator too. I guess they must be getting close if they are getting a head start on the neglect.
Click to expand...
I've noticed across projects and agencies that new LED fixtures have a really high failure rate in the first few weeks post install. If they make it past that they seem to last but I've seen it at Park Street, at Ruggles, in the central artery tunnels, etc. sometimes upwards of 30% of the fixtures seem to fail. On the upside it seems that repairing these defects is in the contracts because they usually get fixed before the construction is done.
 
Dr. Rosen Rosen, I have to ask -- what is going on with your photos? They all look like they've been run through a Photoshop filter or something. This is not meant as a criticism, I just don't know why they look that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top