Exactly! If you take Conway/Arborough, the hill isn't as bad as Fairview, but then you are entering on to a narrow dirt track, which isn't suited to all bike types, nor even allowed for bike riding per park rules. And you are absolutely right about high speed bike riders, too. The route along the tracks makes sense and will be accessible for a far wider group of people.
Actually, the current plan has the worst of both worlds: @curcuas it does have bikes speeding down the last leg of the road in Peters Hill, and @HenryAlan it still has a somewhat flabbergastingly pointless uphill-downhill segment, since the path veers away from the tracks and goes up the hill to the road, then down to the South/Bussey intersection. While there is no way of avoiding elevation without building another boardwalk and bridge over South St, I think the least disruptive and also best way from a biker perspective would be to keep the bike path along the tracks all the way to South St. If there is concern about a sharp downhill incline heading into South St, put another stop sign on South. I just never understood why the plan from the beginning has been to run the path right through the middle of the park. It is a park, and it's not NIMBYist to not want a bike trail suddenly plowing through it, and that plan adds a steep uphill segment for no apparent reason.
In my opinion, the ideal path would be on a widened railway berm for the entire distance. The ROW is wide enough, it was actually three track at one point as far as Roslindale freight depot (now the upper MBTA parking lot). But I think there is a tension between the idea of the path as transportation and the idea of it as recreation. The plan attempts to thread that needle, and ends up with some compromises that definitely diminish the potential as a bikeway. Unfortunately, I don't think there is remotely close to a consensus on what people see as the best version of the path. But full build as currently envisioned is much better than only doing phase 1 and 2.
Isn't the third track area needed if an OL extension to Roslindale Sq is built (yes I know, CR conversion here is better but the OL extension is on City plans)
That's a good point, I had forgotten about the possibility of an OL+1 to Roslindale Square. My idea for keeping the path in the ROW only works if the Needham Line is converted completely. So even if everybody agreed on the primacy of bike transportation as purpose, we'd need a design that leaves open the possibility for three tracks in the ROW. All of which is to say that the current design is probably the only one that makes much sense.
This one has a ways to go in the approval process, but I definitely hope it happens. I've seen some tired old arguments pushback on neighborhood FB pages, but mostly Roslindale seems to be moving toward a strong majority favoring this type of infill near the Square.
at first I thought this was the one under construction. Didn’t realize there was another proposal—it would fit in very well with the one going up now. Hope it passes; the square would do better if density increased on its margins in my opinion.
You know what would be great: redo district zoning for density around the square and have new linkage to fund an Orange Line +1 extension to give the Square and Rozzie actual rapid transit (well, as rapid as our subways currently are at least).
This feels like a "buy the church a new roof and we're good to go" type of project.
Are there any meetings coming up for this thing? I’d go to support it. I just filled out a form on the BPDA development page supporting it, everyone here should do that (if you live nearby at least).
www.bostonplans.org
Check it out from halfway up the hill on Conway. Since youre standing above it, this, plus the new one built a couple years ago across the street, really give an impression. Im guessing same is true for up on Penfield/Pinehurst. I tried taking a pic but the camera doesnt do it justice.