Walsh: Comm. Ave. bike lanes part of broader plan to reduce traffic deaths

I think you may have been a little unfair, the time of the car is not ending. It probably shouldn't end either. These plans are good and significant steps in re-balancing the available modes of transit.

Fortunate or not, cars are likely to be a part of this mix for quite some time.

for it is with us.

Tried to explain that it would have been safer with four lanes of speeding traffic and no bike lanes, naturally.

Starting in 2009 a group of residents called the East Arlington Concerned Citizens Committee (EACCC) demanded that Selectmen include pedestrian activated traffic lights at busy crosswalks in the Mass Ave. where there weren't any. Despite 3,000 signatures from residents, our alternate plan for the street was ignored by selectmen, their traffic and bicycle advisory committees, and MassDOT. We fought for years for a safer, better road.

What they disliked most about our plan was that it advocated keeping 4 travel lanes with shared space for bicyclists as has been working well for decades. Since the Minuteman bike path is right nearby, more timid cyclists already have accommodation and there isn't a need for bike lanes. I remind people that Arlington isn't a college town, so bike lanes in Arlington make far less sense than on Comm Ave. through BU. Bike lanes in Arlington are to serve the traditional white, male, educated, professional commuting to work in Cambridge and perhaps Boston, and few others. Parents still much rather have their children ride on the bike path even if bike lanes were put on Mass Ave.

Advocates of bike lanes made bad claims that the travel lane forfeiture needed to make the two 5' bike lanes would make pedestrians safe. Plan designers even lied to residents about reduced pedestrian crossing distances (I've yet to file a complaint to the state to get their civil engineering licenses suspended for those lies), and claiming they made pedestrians safer. Just today I noticed Cambridge put a high intensity pedestrian activated crossing light on a two lane road (Concord Ave. by Alewife Gas), so narrow roads don't make them safe.

Anyway, the cost of putting in pedestrian crossing lights would not fit in the budget because priorities of the insiders was for sidewalk widening of already wide sidewalks, and adding $700,000 of landscaping to the one mile project. The widened sidewalks are to be taken up with shrub planters, sapling plantings, benches, bike racks, and forty $4,000+ cast iron, LED illuminated "pedestrian scale" streetlamps in an area with zero street crime.

Selectmen were in a little bit of a squeeze on putting in bike lanes. The Boston MPO and MassDOT have now adopted anti-car policies so that projects without bike lanes become unlikely to get funded. Bicyclists both within Arlington (like MassBike's former director) and state agencies had backed Arlington's project as key to their desire to expand bike lanes on major routes. If bike lanes were not part of this project next to a bike path, it wouldn't get funded.

I'm also upset at the double standard from Arlington Police (APD). They have STILL not released the name of the driver, only identifying her as 60 years old from Woburn driving a black Honda Civic. In December of 2013 when an elderly woman was killed crossing another unsignalized crosswalk on Mass Ave in east Arlington, Chief Ryan released the name right away. It also happens that that elderly driver had owned a gun shop in Arlington that was forced to close. APD seized his inventory of guns, and was sued for their return. So, there was bad blood and APD seems to have released his name out of vengeance.

The tragic cause of the crash can be found in accident data. Unsignaled crosswalks with no center median are more dangerous than no crosswalk at all. When jay walking, pedestrians don't automatically assume drivers see them and will stop. A little faded road paint pedestrians can see, but not drivers from a distance lure pedestrians into a sense of false security that is sometimes tragic.

So the science says to always augment unsignalized crosswalks with other more visible measures to alert drivers. They start with day-glow green-yellow retro reflective signs indicating the location of crosswalks, bump outs (which show little/no accident reduction), raised medians (showing 30-50% accident reduction, and finally high intensity pedestrian activated crossing signals (showing 69% accident reduction).
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/

So, while I'm just getting to writing this, I am still angry at people who rather use policy agenda and debate than use science to increase safety and efficiency.

And despite all those facts, you still opt to cycle through a city that, infrastructurally speaking, is a disaster for all modes of transportation.

Are you hoping to win the Darwinian lottery? Just to prove your point that cars are 2 ton pieces of steel being operated by distracted drivers at a speed more than necessary to be lethal when impacting another car, let alone a bicycle? Well, guess what, you're right!

I see no one putting a gun to your head forcing you to bike through this city, yet you do it anyway.

Good luck playing the lottery. I'll be rooting for you.

So, why not just call it that? Its all about continuing to treat drivers as second class citizens, just above cigarette and crack smokers.

If it were a real concept, people would laugh at it for being in conflict with reality. People are fallible so accidents happen. Pedestrian deaths on subway and train lines are written off as suicides, yet anti-car people assume none happen on roads either. Very intentionally, or by getting drunk/drugged and playing in traffic.

Use of the public roadways accrues to people, not vehicles.

You get those permissions to use a motor vehicle on a public way because "motor vehicle" not because "person".

Also, the vast majority of cyclists are licensed to drive, as the vast majority of people over 17 are licensed to drive.

...but it's still broken.

No, cars are safer because a steel cage offers more protection than a layer of Spandex.

And obesity doesn't kill millions of 20-year old Americans. It kills millions of 60-year old Americans. That makes a huge difference.

They have had such facilities in place for much of the last decade. The results: safer for pedestrians, safer for cyclists.

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/category/...

(yes, advocacy organization, but they do provide links)

Also, a peer-reviewed assessment concluded that:

RESULTS:

Installation of bicycle lanes did not lead to an increase in crashes, despite the increase in the number of bicyclists. The most likely explanations for the lack of increase in crashes are reduced vehicular speeds and fewer conflicts between vehicles and bicyclists after installation of these lanes.

Source: Am J Public Health. 2012 Jun;102(6):1120-7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300319

TL/DR: there have been MANY evaluations of such questions as you ask - nobody is avoiding them, they just haven't done your (very easily done) research for you.

This license is notoriously difficult to attain. Perhaps the US Driver's License should be equally difficult? Then we might see a decrease in car crashes.

I basically agree with you, but the dedicated bike lanes around MIT seem to be used appropriately. They are labeled as bike lanes and pedestrians generally steer clear of them and know to look for bikes if they need to use them to pass someone or something.

You can bike on it from about Green St. almost all the way to Memorial Drive.

Maybe they just haven't labeled it yet? (I hope, I hope.)

They were doing 20 mph and hit me with a 30lb metal frame. Happens all the time.

Either she meant that Comm Ave construction would start six to eight months after going out to bid, or she meant that coming up with a citywide master plan would take six to eight months.

Construction bids are only good for 30 days after proposal/opening (the City can't hold onto them and wait to open them for 6-8 months. Besides, contractors would withdraw left and right).

I'd venture your second guess is closer to the truth, however master plans often take upwards of a year to design due to the herding of the cats that want/need to provide input.

Edit to add: Looking at the section again, it's not that long of a streetscape and it actually is feasible for the work to be done that quickly. It's concrete with granite curbing working within the already existing roadway. It will be hell on daily traffic, but it can be done. They might even require the work to be done at night - which does add to the cost, but in the overall picture they may find that worth it. The liquidated damages will also provide incentive to completing it on time. Now if they can provide remunerative rather than punitive incentives, you might find more contractors willing to bid. I don't know.

Think about this: MassDot had the Craigie Dam Drawbridge replaced in 11 months (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/charlesriverbridges/CraigieDamBridgeCraig...). It's the metric tonne of forethought and preparation that allows projects to be completed that quickly.

edit: ABBQ is much better informed than I, please listen to him instead

Or her. She is kind of in the business. :)