Devin Cole shows us the new cycle track - bike lanes marked off by more than just paint - along Brattle Street in Harvard Square.
HUGE upgrade for safety and access.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
I'm not going to be looking
By DTP
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 3:29pm
Well maybe you should. You refusing to look for them doesn't mean they aren't legally allowed (and encouraged) to be there.
It's not the wrong way if there's an actual legitimate lane going that direction.
this is new
By extra88
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 4:10pm
I've never encountered a street that's be one-way for one kind of vehicle but two-way for another before. Most people haven't and there should be a big effort to make people aware of this change (maybe not just signage in place but also advertising). A solid yellow line 4 feet from the curb isn't going to mean anything to anyone.
My peeve about bikes going the wrong way is on streets with existing one-way bike lanes or no bike lane at all. It's wrong when a car or motorcycle does it, it's wrong when a bike does it but those cyclists act like it's not.
As a separate topic, how are those parking spots in the middle of the road working? Do they still use individual parking meters on the sidewalk?
Try the last ten years, in Camberville
By anon
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 5:02pm
Come down Park in Somerville - Bikes can go straight down the hill into Cambridge, or uphill with the cars, but cars can only go one way up hill.
Contraflow lane
By SP123
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 5:37pm
It's called a contraflow bike lane, it's quite common even in this area. There's one on the other side of cambridge common, there are a bunch around Fenway and Brookline. Drivers need to be educated about them because they're not that unusual. Look both ways before crossing the street isn't some unheard of concept.
Word Games
By ElizaLeila
Thu, 07/13/2017 - 10:57am
If they're not unusual, then drivers should already be aware of it.
I get your point, but because they aren't in wide use in our area, they are a bit unusual. They won't be in a couple of years, if not sooner.
It's just something new to get used to. Please - increase driver education on it.
People get lazy with regards to one way streets, however. So this will be something of a re-learning of old habits. It's ok, old dogs can learn new tricks. :)
Here's the problem
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 07/13/2017 - 11:03am
The MA license test is already a total joke. Then there is no additional requirement that one keep up with changes.
This is why I firmly believe that we need to have a 5 question, open book exam when people renew their license every 5 years. Things change, and most people have to be forced to learn that.
Sounds good to me
By ElizaLeila
Thu, 07/13/2017 - 11:49am
I'd be fine with that.
Contraflow bike Lanes
By BostonDog
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 5:46pm
Cambridge has has contraflow bike lanes for a decade now. There's one on the other side of Cambridge Common (Waterhouse St.) and Scott St., among others.
They are safe.
None of those are on the
By anon
Thu, 07/13/2017 - 1:33am
None of those are on the wrong side of parked cars, or on the right side of the general lane. In all of those longstanding contraflow lanes, oncoming bikes are in the main roadway, to the left of the general lane. Where you would expect oncoming traffic.
Wrong side of parked cars?
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 07/14/2017 - 1:06pm
That would be ... which side again?
Ever been on a one-way street before? Wouldn't all vehicles be on the "wrong side" of the parked vehicles on the left side of a one-way street, by that "logic"?
There are even streets in the area that have parking down the middle - something that isn't all that uncommon in the US, either.
Bike lanes shielded by street parking are nothing new - they have had these in Cambridge for over a decade now in the Kendall Square area. It is only an issue when some putz decides to leave their car there.
Everyone is jumping down you
By blues_lead
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 7:19pm
Everyone is jumping down you throat, but I, as a ped/biker, absolutely see your point. I think the solution is to paint the lane through the intersection (green, probably) with big arrows on it. Not perfect, but helps drivers have an idea that something is happening and they need to look both ways for cyclists.
It's in the plan
By anon
Thu, 07/13/2017 - 5:44pm
Plans on the websites show green markings with bike symbols in both directions for the intersections.
Yes, this is standard
By DTP
Fri, 07/14/2017 - 9:22am
Yes, this is standard practice. The lanes most likely aren't technically finished yet, they're just letting people ride on them in the meantime because it's easier than trying to keep them fenced off or something.
Same thing as the Commercial St cycle track around the North End - they're still adding things like the green pavement treatments even though the cycle track has been rideable for months now.
Cars and trucks should be
By anon
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 10:57am
Cars and trucks should be banned from ALL of Cambridge. Give all of these cyclists jobs as pedi-cab drivers and get rid of taxi drivers and MBTA busses. Businesses need goods? Instead of trucks delivering their wares, someone should devise a large-scale bike which can transport goods and this bike could be powered by multiple cyclists. We'll have fresher air due to no vehicle pollution and all of these cyclists will be now be employed thus improving the economy. Why not give it a shot?
Below is the link the Cambridge Mayor's office...
By whyaduck
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 1:00pm
why don't you give her a call with your, um, suggestions and report back with her reply?:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/MayorsOffice
Earth shattering news
By anon
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 11:55am
Now if only someone could come up with do-able way to make people in Cambridge less arrogant and obnoxious; that would impress me.
Cantabridgian Here
By Pete X
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 2:51pm
Piss off, idiot.
thx for proving my point
By anon
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 3:08pm
Although I should really should add 'smug'. How else would you describe a demographic obsessed with political correction and whining about others being 'mean spirited', yet resort to a retort such as yours and the post below?
I'm not a snowflake; there are few people who could be described as snowflakes who were born and raised in NYC and Boston (JP, Allston, Somerville) in the 80s-90s in what could charitably called working class.
Special Bunny!
By anon
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 5:05pm
Don't like it? Don't live in Cambridge. Diversity doesn't mean making the world safe for insufferable twits like yourself.
WTF does 'diversity' have to do with anything?
By anon
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 10:52pm
And I'm willing to bet I come from a much more 'diverse' background than you!
Wow
By BostonDog
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 5:48pm
You make a blanket generalization of people in one of Massachusetts' largest cities and you're surprised when a resident tells you shut up?
If only someone could come up
By Scratchie
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 1:48pm
If only someone could come up with a do-able way to make non-Cambridge snowflakes less sensitive and fragile...
Who is being arrogant and obnoxious?
By anon
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 1:49pm
Seems like that would be the people who conflate "work hard to make their community better" and "take evidence-based action" with "arrogance".
Why stop with cars? I mean
By anon
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 12:26pm
Why stop with cars? I mean the trucks can also stop at the Cambridge outskirts and the entire city can become off limits to all vehicles. Who cares about business deliveries? Why should I support a business you would like to frequent with allowing deliveries when I may personally not choose to use that business? Anyone that lives in Cambridge and wants to drive to their job should move out of the city because it's not designed for cars or walk/bus/bike/etc to their car parked outside the city borders. I'm sure this will markedly increase the livability, property values and desirability of Cambridge.
Then again, perhaps that's the solution to increasing rent and property prices in Cambridge. Make the city undesirable enough and you have your traffic solution because no one will want to drive there at all.
Uh...
By blues_lead
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 2:23pm
Dude. There are cars, using the road, in the picture. I count about 10 motor vehicles? You can still sit in a steel cage spewing smoke on that exact stretch of road, and you can store it for a few hours should you desire.
No one has stopped your car. No one has stopped deliveries.
Anyone care to address all
By tofu
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 2:32pm
Anyone care to address all the logical fallacies presented in this rambling?
I'm scared to bike in these
By anon
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 12:36pm
I'm scared to bike in these lanes. Being on the wrong side of parked cars causes a visibility problem at corners. That's why you're not supposed to ride on sidewalks, except in places without any intersections, driveways, or pedestrians.
Subjective, but feels safer to me
By peter
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 2:00pm
I am usually wearing a high vis yellow jacket, a bright helmet, and a blinkie rear light even in the daytime. About as visible as I can get, and yet I am still constantly worried about cars right hooking me or left hooking me, because I have been through a lot of close calls.
But I am also constantly worried about being doored. At least now the setup protects me from dooring, and I can focus on not getting hooked at intersections. Also, I would hope that the drivers are paying attention to the road they are turning onto, else they'll be running over pedestrians in the crosswalk.
Doored
By JonT
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 4:06pm
I've been bike commuting in the Boston area for over 20 years, and have never been doored. The best way to avoid being doored is to ride outside the door zone. That is, ride at least 3 feet from parked cars.
Doored
By BostonDog
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 5:52pm
I've been doored when riding in the bike lane when someone abruptly decided to open the right hand door of a car waiting at a light in the travel lane. It would have been impossible to ride less then 3' from the cars as that would have put me too close to the curb. (There was no parking on this street.)
+1 on the passenger dooring.
By anon
Fri, 07/14/2017 - 7:49am
+1 on the passenger dooring. You used to be able to look out for cabs, who were a common source of this, but Uber/Lyft has added a whole new dimension of passengers unexpectedly hopping out and you can't be 3' from both the parked cars and the travel lane, so either you sit in traffic by taking the travel lane or you use the bike lane and risk dooring from one side or the other.
The new cycle track does not
By anon
Fri, 07/14/2017 - 11:25am
The new cycle track does not prevent dooring. Cars have been parking slightly into the buffer zone. Their doors extend a foot or two into the bike lane.
And unlike a traditional lane where you can move as far left as necessary (if you check over your shoulder first), in this cycle track you're limited how far you can stay from parked cars, without encroaching into the oncoming cycle lane, or getting too close to the curb.
Statistics
By anon
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 2:00pm
The people who installed these did so because the safety statistics say that they are safer than lanes that are adjacent to traffic.
The oft-cited studies have
By anon
Thu, 07/13/2017 - 1:58am
The oft-cited studies have fatal flaws.
The Rusk study of Montreal didn't make fair comparisons between streets with bike lanes and cycle tracks. They compared very quiet streets with cycle tracks, with busy commercial streets with lanes and on-street parking. Not surprisingly, the busy streets were more dangerous. http://john-s-allen.com/reports/montreal-kary.htm
Local cyclist Paul Schimek has this to say about the BICE Vancouver/Toronto study:
"The analysis was based on *only two blocks* of cycle track (Carrall St, Vancouver) out of hundreds of miles of road in Vancouver and Toronto. They found only 2 injuries on those 2 blocks whereas their method (which is highly questionable) predicted they would find 10. This is not exactly convincing evidence, don't you think?"
Oh My
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 07/13/2017 - 11:07am
We gots ourselves a "vehicular cycling" cult devotee.
Funny how VCCs always find "fatal" (read picayune or obscure or declared by fiat) flaws in the methodology of studies that don't support their religious beliefs, yet produce zero substantive studies of their own (and kill any efforts toward that when it is clear that the data don't bear out their hypotheses).
Vehicular cycling started out as an adaptive approach with some value, but it has sadly turned into a dogma for those who hate the idea of having to share their roads with a lot of other cyclists.
I provided two studies, along
By anon
Thu, 07/13/2017 - 7:00pm
I provided two studies, along with critiques. Here's another study, analyzing bike crashes on Comm Ave: https://www.scribd.com/document/240561402/Comma-Ve...
You provided...a bunch of insults.
You're an experienced bicyclist. How do you feel about the cycle tracks that have opened in the last few years? Do you really think https://goo.gl/maps/wUi9nDmXZRz is better than a traditional bike lane? How about https://goo.gl/maps/CNeU26J4WT62 and https://goo.gl/maps/3gA2xNcBrGm ?
Crashes on Comm Ave
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 07/14/2017 - 1:31pm
Where there is only recently anything approaching this sort of bike accommodation.
Okay.
Neither of your examples are peer-reviewed. You know why? Because John S. Allen (who lives in Maine and refuses to listen to anybody who lives in an actual city, BTW) and Paul Schimick are well-known ideologues in the Cult of Vehicular Cycling. They don't submit their "reports" or "analyses" to critical review, and both strenuously resist anybody questioning what they have done or concluded for decades now. My husband used to moderate a large local cycling listerv and I've been around the cycling community for a quarter century, so I know this.
You are going to have to come up with something far more substantial than the theoretical, unfiltered meanderings of a couple of well-known ideologues.
Right, because standard
By cden4
Fri, 07/14/2017 - 2:30pm
Right, because standard striped bike lanes are never blocked by delivery trucks and double parked cars :-D
In my experience, protected bike lanes are clear a heck of lot more often than striped bike lanes. Vassar St has gotten much better with pedestrians not walking in the bike lane. People are figuring it out.
Here are some studies showing
By anon
Thu, 07/13/2017 - 7:07pm
Here are some studies showing the dangers of sidepaths: http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/sid...
Bog entry != study
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 07/14/2017 - 1:57pm
These are not "studies" - they are not published, they are not peer-reviewed, they are not scientific, and they do not meet the standards of the planning community for factual and objective information.
What you have is a single biased person's 2002 "analysis". No actual data that is relevant to current conditions, etc. This is not local data, either, and the assumption of what constitutes "side path" is wrong, too.
Also not peer reviewed.
John S. Allen is a crank who is completely unfamiliar with urban cycling and yet demands that everybody follow his ideas about how urban areas should be configured.
Like I said above: he's been known to leave cycling groups because they don't "believe" and blindly follow his theories and actually refute his assertions with evidence and other mean things.
Typically no parking near intersections
By anon
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 2:03pm
These designs typically prohibit parking near the intersections -- and the best designs eliminate it with physical barriers.
Of course, you're always legal to ride with traffic in the motor vehicle lane.
Hope it helps! I never want
By anon
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 3:04pm
Hope it helps! I never want to see anyone injured or killed by a motor vehicle, be they on foot, a bike, a wheelchair, a segway, or what have you. With regards to the issue of cyclists on this thread upset with jaywalkers: as someone who walks everwhere in Boston and Cambridge, I can tell you that all too often crosswalk signals do not work and when they do, cars and bikes blow theough the intersection anyways! We walkers are MOST at risk and not everyone can physically dash out of you car-driving and bike-riding paths! Cyclists AND auto drivers MUST STOP for pedestrians in crosswalks. Stop gunning for us and stop screaming at us just because you have to delay your bike rides and car rides for a mere 30 seconds for those of us on foot and in wheelchairs trying to get across the street.
Hey now I can legally ride
By Rat
Wed, 07/12/2017 - 9:47pm
Hey now I can legally ride this street into harvard square instead of salmoning like I have been doing for a decade! Thanks Cambridge!
The lane starts at James
By anon
Fri, 07/14/2017 - 11:44am
The lane starts at James Street. So you'll need to salmon, or walk your bike, the short block from Mason Street.
wheelchair van access
By anon
Fri, 07/14/2017 - 11:39am
How are people who use wheelchair vans supposed to use this street?
Problems include:
1) Can the ramp reach down to the street rather than a raised curb? The dropoff from the road's crown/gutter makes this worse.
2) There might not be space at the end of the ramp for the wheelchair to turn, without the curb getting in the way.
3) The ramp would block the cycle track while it's deployed.
4) The chair user might have to go a long distance in the cycle track to reach the nearest curb cut.
Ever actually driven a ramp van?
By anon
Mon, 07/17/2017 - 9:37am
Note the spaces marked "VAN" at your local grocery store ... no curb!
I used to drive a friend for errands. She had a handivan. I never had a problem unloading her + a heavy chair in one of those spots. They handle pavement in wide open parking lots just fine!
Strawman.
Pages
Add comment