Hey, there! Log in / Register
City proposes protected bike lanes along part of Comm. Ave.
By adamg on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 7:35am
The Globe reports on the plans for rebuilding Comm. Ave. between the BU Bridge and Packards Corner with "cycle tracks" that would use barriers to keep motorists out of the bike lanes.
The Herald froths about the goddamn tree-hugging dirty hippie socialists in Spandex destroying America thanks Obama.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
When was the last time you drove in this area?
If answer = "never" or "a long time ago", please go away.
Out of curiosity, how does a
Out of curiosity, how does a cyclist pay for damages that they caused - i.e. a motor vehicle collision from say running a red light or an illegal turn? Is there cyclist insurance?
If they're at fault, almost
If they're at fault, almost certainly out of pocket, as I don't believe cyclist insurance exists, and most forms of car insurance (if the person biking was also a driver) don't cover accidents on bike. Even if they did, the damage caused by a bike would most likely not exceed the deductible.
What about the case where a
What about the case where a negligent cyclist causes two or more motor vehicles to collide? Out of pocket? (Cyclist runs red light causing cars to swerve collide)
Nice theoreticals
The insurance industry keeps track of this stuff. I suggest that you ask them.
Ha Ha Ha. Cyclists don't pay for at fault accidents
is the short answer! Sometimes the insurance company will waive your deductible, though bodywork isn't cheap, even for bicycle dented doors and fenders.
If a cyclist hits your car and manages to take off, be comforted that if caught, they could face a $20 civil fine that they aren't penalized for not paying!
Statistics Please
Show us what a huge problem this is. Show your work. Link to citations and data.
Walsh to Flaherty: Quitcher bitchin'
More from the mayor on the Comm. Ave. plan - including his assertion it will actually lead to more revenue for local businesses than they will lose from the 73 parking spaces to be removed. Also, it's part of a broader citywide initiative to curb traffic fatalities.
For years, everyone's been
For years, everyone's been saying that it's dangerous to ride on the sidewalk. That made perfect sense to me. It avoided the risks from pedestrians, intersections, and driveways.
Now they change their mind and paint part of the sidewalk green or whatever.
Then there's the Kendall Square "solution" to the intersection problem: put in hideously complicated traffic lights, where you sit at a red light for 2 minutes for no reason, and then get a 10-second green for the vehicles going in your direction.
Even if you accept the wasted time, that does nothing for driveways, pedestrians, delivery trucks, bus stops, or piles of snow.
If you didn't read the
If you didn't read the article, don't feel obliged to comment.
I did read the article.
I did read the article.
They're effectively putting cyclists on the sidewalk.
Supposedly there will be "physical barriers between bikes and vehicles at intersections." I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, because by definition, an intersection is where paths cross.
Also note to the Globe: bikes are vehicles.
Not just about bikes
The protected bike lanes are understandably dominating the headlines, but there are a ton of other great features in the plan.
Pedestrians will get raised crosswalks parallel to Comm Ave at most intersections. (Unfortunately, BTD has thus far said no to requests for a crosswalk at Naples to access the Shaw's.)
The T is finally starting to roll out transit signal priority. Gillooly announced that the light at Babcock is currently giving signal priority to the 57 bus. BTD is also ready to give signal priority to the Green Line at Babcock and other intersections, but the T is waiting until they've finished implementing real time tracking on the green line.
Drivers will get more protected left turns both onto and off of Comm Ave. Along Comm Ave, there will be dedicated left turn lanes at most, possibly all, locations with a legal left turn. And at Agannis and Pleasant St, drivers will get separate left turn signals to turn onto Comm Ave, rather than sharing one phase.
There are still a couple of details I think could use improvement, but overall I was tremendously impressed by how much the design accomplished.
Transit signal priority in
Transit signal priority in Boston? Really? Has this been independently verified in the field?
Is it the system where the bus has to be behind schedule, and it radios the T control center, which contacts the BTD computer, which contacts the local traffic light control box? I have two problems with that scheme. We should be making buses faster, not just allowing them to catch up to the existing slow schedule. And the more complicated a system is, the more ways there are for it to screw up.
"at Agannis and Pleasant St, drivers will get separate left turn signals to turn onto Comm Ave"
Uh oh. That's a good way to waste everyone's time, especially transit riders on Comm Ave.
Flaherty, ugh.
Flaherty is apparently seething about lost parking meters, but where in anything does it say that parking meters are being lost?
There's still parking spots, so it stands to reason that there'd still be meters? They can go in the cycle track/parking buffer space, or they could go on the sidewalk. The city could even put in the one-box-many-spaces system that's on Newbury Street.
I imagine a small number of metered spaces may be lost due to a some realignment at intersections, but otherwise I can't figure out what Flaherty is talking about. (Which is about par for the course with him, I guess.)
Time has come
Bicyclists are citizens too and as the population of the Boston metro region grows, so will the population of cyclists who are more likely to be local and thus more likely to contribute to the local economy in a far greater amount than the random traffic citation. Safer roads are a benefit to all users, the inconvenience to wannabe NASCAR drivers is minimal and that piece of Commonwealth avenue has been terrifying to pedestrians and cyclists for decades. An end to tyranny the car is no longer king in Boston
infrastructure to solve problems
Developing safer infrastructure is the realistic, pragmatic approach. It is not a concession to special interests or creating special privileges for people who don't "deserve" it or whatever. It is an attempt to make our streets safer given that we cannot rely on everyone to know and follow the same rules all the time. All the ranting about bad behavior from people on bikes, in cars, or walking is pointless.
But good infrastructure can encourage better behavior.
If pedestrians, for example, have shorter and more predictable wait times to cross and more clearly marked crossings, they're less likely to jaywalk. Even painted bike lanes raise driver awareness about cyclists. And cyclists who have a safer, designated and marked lane are less likely to jump red lights to get ahead of speeding car traffic.
This is a problem area in part because you do have a lot of busy, distracted, sometimes clueless young people, most of whom are not boston natives--they can be completely daft about navigating city streets whether they're on foot or bike or--at BU--in a small late model BMW. The redesign won't fix all of that but it will help shove things in the right direction.
MAMILs
According to many cycle path proponents, the middle-aged males in Lycra are against segregated facilities for cyclists.
So as usual, Howie is talking out of his evacuation route.
Or the many cycle path proponents are doing that.
Whatever, I'll just ride a different route and avoid the whole thing.
It will take decades before they reconfigure even ten-percent of the roadways in this manner.
Pages