City Councilors Michelle Wu (at large) and Josh Zakim (Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Fenway, Mission Hill) will ask other councilors to join them tomorrow in urging the state to use barriers to protect bicyclists when the revamped Longfellow Bridge finally opens later this month.
At the regular council meeting, the two will formally ask other councilors to agree to a resolution calling on MassDOT to take one of the vehicle lanes on the inbound side and convert it to bicycle use, with something separating the cars and trucks from the bicyclists.
In their formal request, the two say the traffic disaster predicted when the state began shutting parts of the bridge five years ago never materialized, and that more people now commute by bicycle than when construction began. Also:
The incline on the first half of the inbound side of the bridge makes it particularly challenging to accommodate cyclists of varying abilities without a lane wide enough to facilitate passing.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete Longfellow resolution | 122.04 KB |
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
It's proven no such thing
By Roman
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 12:08am
Traffic on the river crossings is absolutely atrocious...much worse than ten years ago...and while it's not possible to pin it on the bridge being out, it's not possible to say the bridge doesn't have anything to do with it either.
Signals At Charles Circle Limit The Traffic Volume On The Bridge
By Elmer
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 1:06am
The one lane of inbound traffic currently in effect, feeds more cars into Charles Circle than can be cleared in a single light-cycle. Therefore, two lanes of inbound traffic wouldn't allow any more cars across the bridge than one. If you think otherwise, please explain how.
The same is true for outbound traffic. The traffic signals at Charles Circle throttle the number of cars approaching the bridge, When cars coming from each direction get their green cycles, they head to different places, with only one lane towards Cambridge.
Elmer is correct
By BostonDog
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 6:15am
It's the light which is the limiting factor, not the width of the bridge.
Need intersection width and storage space
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 5:44am
With only one bridge lane in or out of an intersection designed for two lanes crossing at a time, vehicles able to cross in a light cycle is halved. Two lanes getting a green light half the time does indeed mean one lane is sufficient flow, except at the endpoints where two lanes queuing and then crossing compensates for intersection turn taking.
Cambridge used this (hourglass shape) phenom on Broadway in front of the Volpe center and Marriot. The road drops a lane width between intersections for the sake of pedestrian safety. If you can figure another use for the space on the bridge, don't need the space to store twice as many cars, and the lane merging doesn't create more accidents, then sure, use that lane space for something else.
It won't help
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 8:09pm
The rate limiting factor at Charles Circle is that each roadway feeding the circle has to have its own turn. That means a cycle for the exit from Storrow Eastbound (all others stopped) and then from the Longfellow (all others stopped) and then from Cambridge Street (all others stopped) and from Storrow Westbound (all others stopped). And a pedestrian scramble cycle or two in there. That's a lot of time to make it through the whole circle, with additional time for drivers to clear the circle.
The number of lanes does not matter because of the number of possible destinations. It won't get more traffic through if most of it wants to head for Charles St. or Cambridge St. Feeding a 6' pipe into a shower head does not change the flow rate of the shower head.
Having sat for long waits for traffic to clear the bridge
By downtown-anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 8:04am
I have a hard time seeing that Charles Circle is the throttling factor. In its current condition the throttling factor is getting the cars to the light, not the light itself.
Nope
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 8:18pm
The limiting factor is that cars coming off Storrow get priority, and that the cycle has to be multi-phase due to the circle configuration.
No impact
By SteveE
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 8:20am
The improvements in signal timing have not been made yet at Charles Circle and as another poster said, they will help pull cars off the bridge. As there will still be two lanes at the circle no matter what, eliminating a lane on the bridge itself will have no impact whatsoever to traffic flow. The same number of cars will still flow into the intersection at the same rate.
I don't get the "no impact"
By downtown-anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 10:40am
It can take up to 15 minutes to cross the Longfellow from Cambridge in a car (when traffic stops moving around Portland St). The lanes entering Charles circle are frequently empty (for short periods) as the traffic feeding the two lanes has a slow time filtering into the two lanes. It is like opening up the end of a hose. Cars getting to the intersection can only get to the light so fast when there is one lane.
You most definitely will get more cars through there if there are two lanes feeding it.
Don't know if the MassDOT will collect before and after numbrers.
At least you are honest
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 10:55am
You include the congestion in Cambridge in your assessment - and don't just say "it takes 15 minutes!!!"
It takes me about 5-10 minutes to get from Portland Street to Charles Circle. That's because I take up a 1/10 the space that you do, and weigh about 1/25th when I do.
You think only one lane of
By Mike S
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 12:42am
You think only one lane of traffic from Boston to Cambridge is needed from 3-7pm? Are you insane??? Try driving inbound on Storrow Drive during that time and watch how it backs up as half of the traffic coming from the hospitals cuts across all lanes of traffic (slowing everyone down) to get to the left lane to go up the MFS road into Cambridge. Having the Longfellow back should (FINALLY) help reduce the awful gridlocked traffic at the end of Storrow.
Reduce Supply to Reduce Demand
By BlackKat
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 10:18am
Or not having cars should help reduce the traffic on the bridge. Stop driving to work. 90% of you could just telecommute anyhow and then you can work while not wearing any pants which should be everyone's goal.
That just isn't true
By Roman
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 3:36pm
and you know it. Not everyone sits at a computer from 9 to 5 (especially not the people who work at the hospitals) and not everyone who does sit at a computer from 9 to 5 can do so from home. Some people have real jobs, you see.
Real jobs?
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 8:08pm
Note the heavy utilization of bike facilities at hospitals. Almost like people who see heart disease every day get the message?
As for "real jobs" and all your other distinctions that you make to make yourself feel special, you might look into therapy for your inadequacy problems. You seem like a sad and defensive person who relies on bizarre dichotomies - many unearned - to feel competent and capable and ... special.
Yes. Actually, no lanes would be fine.
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 10:39am
There are other bridges and a dam. Use them.
In fact, most people don't use the Longfellow in their metal box prostheses. They use the other bridges.
Note that the request references times of complete no cars shut downs? Yes. Also, traffic counts count dear. Lots more bikes than cars - go look it up.
You need to get your facts straight about a place you never drive before you spew forth with the heat of a thousand global warming emissions based on your entitlement.
Travel is not an entitlement, it's a right
By Roman
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 3:37pm
Smug angry leftist is smug and angry. News at 11.
Exactly
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 4:03pm
That's why more efficient means should have precedence over road clogging smog machines that manufacture health problems for all.
Simple. You can always walk darling. You know ... put one foot in front of the other and move. if you can't walk, well, more room for your car if more people bike.
And if we all lived in walking distance
By Roman
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 7:59pm
that might even make sense. But we don't all live in walking or biking distance of where we need to get to. You can walk out to Acton and back all you like. I prefer something a little less 18th century.
Travel, yes
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 4:06pm
Private motor vehicle use?
NO
Even a very conservative supreme court ruled specifically DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT.
You can walk or bike if you don't like it. If your mommy lets you.
OK sure
By Roman
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 7:58pm
You're allowed to speak, but only using the words I say you can use.
Bull. Shit.
What the Supreme Court and a Lawyer say
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 8:32pm
Put down the sovereign citizen nonsense and read the legal reality.
Sovereign citizen?
By Roman
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 1:24am
I thought lefties believed in a nonbinary reality. But here you are telling me my only two options are to either be a sovereign citizen or a bike nazi.
That's all on you
By anon
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 9:20am
Pretty clear that these "dichotomies" that you decry are entirely in your own head.
Seems to be the only way that you can understand the world. Now you are just projecting it on others because you saw some words somewhere and used them.
"Right to Travel"
By anon
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 9:26am
Is Sovereign Citizen nonsense 101.
Don't use catchy phrases if you don't understand what is attached to them or where they come from.
More bullshit
By Roman
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 9:12pm
I bet you sovereign citizens also use the word "left" every once in a while, so you're going to need to immediately cease and desist your use of that word. It would be rather gauche...nay...downright [i]sinister[/i], for something like that to come out of your mouth at a cocktail party with like-minded people.
Freedom of movement is a fundamental right no matter what label you stick on it. Orwell is smiling down from atheist heaven at your little attempt at thought control by language control, but sorry, no.
Also, the Nazis breathed oxygen too.
Pffffffffttt
By anon
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 10:53pm
Orwell would want nothing to do with you in life or in the afterlife. Especially when you end your comment with "nazis also breathed oxygen." Orwell fought in wars against fascists like you.
Nope
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 4:41pm
nope
On the rare occasions when I
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 4:36pm
On the rare occasions when I drive, I find the Longfellow very convenient. It's nice to hop off Storrow eastbound and get a quick ride into Cambridge, without having to deal with the traffic by the Museum of Science or MIT/Central Square.
So taking a motor vehicle
By Boo Hoo
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 11:12am
So taking a motor vehicle into and out of the city during rush hour is inconvenient.
Boo hoo hoo.
Try taking the T on a shitty day or biking in 33-degree rain.
Yeah, that's a pain too.
Deal with it.
You aren't going to improve the throughput when the congestion is at the intersections at the ends. Lots ao on and off, lots of turning movements, lots of destinations being arrived at requiring slowing and stopping.
Budget for City Council itself not reviewed.
By theszak
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 7:37am
Budget for Boston City Council itself, for its own Offices and Budget for Boston City Clerks Offices aren't reviewed in a public hearing/meeting. For example Budget for Stenographic Services, a Bid not Advertised widely enough for competing contracts and routinely grandfathering in out of date technology/software. Up to date software would make Boston City Council a more open/transparent government organization for greater civic engagement
https://budget.boston.gov/img/pdfs/13-Non-Mayoral-...
City Council Positions .... # Staff
Administrative Assistants .... 22
Administrative and Technical Assistant .... 1
Business Manager .... 1
Central Staff Director .... 1
City Councilors .... 13
City Messenger and Senior Legislative Assistant .... 1
Compliance Director and Staff Counsel .... 1
Director of Legislative Budget Analysis .... 1
Legislative Assistant .... 1
Office Manager .... 1
Research and Policy Director .... 1
Secretaries .... 68
State Legislative Assistant and Budget Analyst .... 2
Television Operations and Technical Manager .... 1
Total .... 115
__________ _________________
City Clerks Offices Positions .... # Staff
Administrative Assistant .... 24
Administrative Secretary .... 1
Administrative Analyst Assistant City Archivist/Clerk .... 4
Archivist .... 9
Assistant City Clerk .... 1
City Clerk .... 1
Head Clerk and Secretary .... 1
Principal Administrative Assistant .... 1
Senior Administrative Assistant .... 1
Senior Administrative Assistant .... 5
Total .... 15
Hystorically correct???
By Gadsden
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 7:14am
But..What about the historically correct rivets placed in the historically correct bicycle lane protectors???
Seems to me that after spending so much taxpayer gelt upon this fabled historical bridge,we should not pass up the oppourtunity to spend even more borrowed money to make sure that this historic bridge is maintained historically....
Oh and um... bike lanes make sense in Peking,not the 21st Century America...
Can I get me a large dose of virtue signaling while I'm at it...
Historical Histronics
By BlackKat
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 10:22am
Okay fine, let's restrict the Longfellow Bridge traffic to it's original, historical components: subways and streetcars; bicycles and horse and buggies.
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e...
Don't see bicycles there
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 12:38pm
Cyclists don't like historically correct cobblestones. Cobblestones would slow vehicle speeds, so might be a great idea!
Cyclists owned the roads in 1910
By anon
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 9:55am
Look it up.
Back in the 1880s ...
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 10:34am
What car did you drive?
Cars are not historical. Meanwhile, some of our original roadways through the back bay/fenway were designed with cycling lanes. Fact!
The Longfellow opened in 1906
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 4:31pm
The Longfellow opened in 1906.
Historically correct would
By Virtue Signal Corps
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 12:04pm
Historically correct would allow for the trains,horses and carts/carriages, pedestrians, and bicycles in numbers far greater than automobiles.
There weren't many automobiles in 1906.
And they were small.
Just like some male members I deal with.
How would horsecarts be
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 4:35pm
How would horsecarts be better than cars? They'd still cause traffic jams and obstruct bikes.
In any case, the Longfellow is going to continue to carry cars in both directions. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't in touch with reality.
Speed
By anon
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 10:09am
You wouldn't have the speed problem caused by cars.
Lanes
By Bugs Bunny
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 8:38am
I don't like the lanes. I kept an open mind and tried them. There were a few Greg Lemond wannabes who were upset that my son wasn't going 30 mph in the protected lane. There's no need to swear at my son.
So it's not the lanes that
By tofu
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 11:26am
So it's not the lanes that were the problem, it was the spandex douches who can't pass you without swearing? Got it.
Really. Gregory Lemon is kind
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 12:07pm
Really. Gregory Lemon is kind of an old reference.
But for period correct cyclists, try Major Taylor!
Never let it be said
By Brian Riccio
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 8:54am
that our humble webmaster does not know his audience.
I believe that BCU's proposal
By cden4
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 10:17am
I believe that BCU's proposal is for a single lane across most of the bridge, fanning out to two lanes (rather than the planned three) approaching Charles Circle. The protected bike lane would be wide enough for one bicyclist to pass another on the uphill section, but narrower approaching Charles Circle. I think that's reasonable.
That worked out terribly on
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 12:43pm
That worked out terribly on the BU Bridge. Traffic getting onto the bridge in both directions is much worse than it used to be when it was 2 lanes each way all the way across. Riders of the 47 bus certainly don't appreciate it.
(Plus the bike lane is not safely usable in the southbound direction, since cars cut across it to take the curve, so much that the white line got worn away: https://goo.gl/maps/KJLHWxWXm792 . But that wouldn't be an issue for a barrier-protected lane on the Longfellow.)
You know why traffic is getting worse?
By anon
Fri, 05/04/2018 - 9:24am
Your driving.
My driving.
Too many people driving.
To find the cause of persistent traffic jams, check your vanity mirror.
Longfellow
By Theater Goer
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 10:41am
The perception of safety by novice or timid cyclists is far more important for many cycling advocates than actual safety. A little loss here is a big gain there, as far as generating ridership.
If it costs a bunch, even better. It is proof that they are worthy of spending and gittin'r done.
While more cyclists and exposure to drivers of more cyclists can lead to some safety gains, whether it overcomes the losses is not often the outcome.
Don't accept substandard infrastructure, other nations have already learned that half-hearted designs require replacement.
Send it back to the kitchen!
I'd much rather the monies spent on the "improvements" be spent on skills training and education of drive drivers and cyclists, including videos and publications, partly because I think it may so-perpetuate good behavior and reduce maintenance costs.
Of course, there is little political gain and few federal dollars available, fewer jobs created, and contracts to dangle, so it isn't surprising that transportation engineering and design companies, urban planners, and construction contractors aren't interested.
Some striping helps as guidelines, but even that, given that lane positioning is often fluid, and that most drivers and cyclists falsely expect cyclists to ALWAYS keep to the right makes it harder to practice proper operation and technique without confusion or butt-hurt drivers and cyclists. If people LEARN the confusion is reduced.
Nice list of assumptions
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 4:00pm
I would be interested in reading the sources from which your data and conclusions derive.
You are aware that one of the impacts of Hubway was that collisions with cyclists went down, yes?
These interventions are based on hard data - could you further enlighten us with yours?
Stop worshipping at the Vehicular Cycling Cult HQ.
What is the problem this is
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 11:01am
What is the problem this is trying to solve?
It's very rare for a car to hit a cyclist from behind by drifting into a striped bike lane not near an intersection. Meanwhile, protected bike lanes introduce a lot of problems for cyclists -- keeping it clean and snow-free, getting around obstructions, etc.
It sounds like the problem is
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 1:13pm
It sounds like the problem is fast bikes don't want to get stuck behind slow bikes.
And ...
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 4:04pm
There are a lot more bikes using the Longfellow than there are cars
How does building a wall next
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 4:32pm
How does building a wall next to the bike lane solve that problem? It makes it worse.
Even if a protected lane were two bike lanes wide, there could still be situations where a fast cyclist would want to move further over. For example, a slow-moving pair of cyclists blocking both lanes, or a beginner wobbling back and forth.
Taxpayers should pay for
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 11:42am
Taxpayers should pay for protected bike lanes for cyclists on the Longfellow and then ban them from riding their bikes on the Longfellow sidewalk. If you want to WALK your bike on sidewalks, then please feel free to along with us pedestrians, parents pushing strollers, people in wheelchairs. Beacon St. in the Back Bay, which I walk frequently is now a nightmare to cross. The cars are parked way into the street so it's now very difficult/impossible as a pedestrian to see over the SUV's and pickup trucks to safely cross at crosswalks because you have to walk way into the street to see if cars and bikes are going to run the red while pedestrians have the walk signal. Pedsetrians have lost their lives due to a**hole car drivers on Beacon St. and now it has been redesigned to be even MORE DANGEROUS for pedestrians. Josh Zakim, are you listening/ reading? I doubt it. Typically pedestrians and cyclists are local, while many auto drivers can be local and from elsewhere in Mass. and out of state. What blows my mind is the lack of common decency from cyclists, who are likely fellow city residents, to pedestrians! The light is RED. Pedestrains have the walk signal. Motor vehicles are stopped. Yet cyclists ILLEGALLY zip through their red light and nearly take out 5 of us pedestrians at a time we are trying to cross LEGALLY. Think about it and STOP doing it. I want to give a shout-out to the city cyclists who call out other cyclists for dangerous and idiotic behavior. I witness cyclists taking other cyclists to task more and more these days: THANK YOU. Lastly, to distracted a**hole drivers: pls f*ck off and stay off of Boston streets.
Motor vehicles stopping at
By anon
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 10:21am
Motor vehicles stopping at red lights? Where in Boston are you. I see drivers blowing red lights multiple times a day, every single day, without anything done by cops.
Please no two-way bike lanes
By Don't settle fo...
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 12:12pm
Please no two-way bike lanes!
"Another excuse oft heard is, 'Well... it's better than nothing' - often spoken in a defensive tone. It is a flawed argument, lacking vision, commitment and experience."
Mikael Colville-Andersen
citations needed
By anon
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 3:53pm
please explain what your problem is - use research and statistics
Approved unanimously
By adamg
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 1:14pm
Before the vote, Wu explained that although the state has agreed to put in those bendy, flexi things to separate cars and bikes, there's another issue on the inbound side: It's fairly steep for bicyclists.
What that means is that faster cyclists would have to go out in traffic to get around people who have to take the incline more slowly.
With two bike lanes, at least on the first half of the bridge from Cambridge into Boston, this would not be an issue. The bridge has effectively been down to one car lane for the past five years without gridlock, so it would work well, she said.
.
By blues_lead
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 4:00pm
.
Apt jargon for road rage bicyclists.
By theszak
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 4:32pm
Road rage refers to some vehicle drivers. When it's a bicyclist with road rage moving toward others what other apt jargon might be used?
It's called a strawman
By blues_lead
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 5:59pm
n/t
Plus ca change.
By be
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 2:06am
Remember August / September 1988, when the MIT / Smoot bridge was closed off, save for one lane? That's when I moved to Boston. Sold my car after I moved into the dorm. Never renewed my driver's license either; just chose to walk or take the T.
Nearly 30 years later, the ugliness continues. It's a tossup between who's worse: the cars (can kill me, but don't glide through stops) or the cyclists (flouting all rules of the road, with an entitlement mindset).
***
Anyway, the MIT / Harvard / Smoot Bridge has separate bike lanes, which the cyclists frequently ignore, in preference for the pedestrian walkways. I see this anywhere in Cambridge / Somerville, too, for that matter, with the cyclists riding the sidewalks instead of their bike lanes. Why would it be any different for the Longfellow?
Three reasons
By blues_lead
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 10:03am
If we create the protected lane on the Longfellow, none of these arguments will apply, so the ration of bikers in the bike lane vs. bikers on the sidewalk will improve.
But if you insist, we'll stop making infrastructure for users who violate laws, especially against pedestrians. Pity we have to immediately stop work work on the Longfellow right now, so close to it being done, and the closing of the Pike through Alston in a few years is going to be a shitshow.
Pages
Add comment