![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
samcoren.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
davis_squareI'd like to preface this post by saying that there's a Bike Committee Meeting Tuesday 11/18 7pm in the city hall basement lounge. These meetings are open to the public and if you're more interested in what's going on with this cycletrack business or haven't been to one yet before and you bike a lot around town you should go. Why? Because maybe if there were more people involved and aware of such projects it wouldn't have come to this....
Background: There's been a ton of hubbub about the Beacon Street Reconstruction project. Everyone agrees the street needs some major rehab, after all, it sucks equally for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. But people are in an uproar over removing parking from Oxford to Washington on the even-side of the street for the installation of cycletracks. Some cyclists have also voiced disagreement with the proposed design (not wanting it unless it could extend the whole length of the street, pedestrians using it as sidewalk extension, having to go up and down for every intersection/driveway, etc). Over 700 residents, business patrons, and business owners signed a petition against the parking elimination that was based on the flawed parking study, which was presented to the Transportation Director and the Mayor's office.
After the 11/13 public meeting about the track, the Board of Alderman passed a resolution requesting the office of strategic planning and development to consider alternatives, recognizing the potential consequences of such a large parking elimination on both businesses and residents on the street. It seems like there's a lot of rushing from the Transportation Department to move forward with presenting design changes on the cycletrack to MassDOT with little regard for actually getting changes vetted by the bike committee or the actual property and business owners of the street...
So what has changed between the design presented in October and November and this latest version and why is this "worse" for cyclists and the neighborhood in general than previous iterations? I'll walk you through it since it's a large doc. Unfortunately, you won't find this doc on the city's website yet, and I've been told that some of the Bike Committee hasn't even had a chance to see it. So in the interest of keeping everyone updated in a timely fashion, here you go....
View the full PDF here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/117151104/Design-Exception-Report-Reduced-File-Size-2
Old version propsed in October:
The previous design called for 7' wide raised cycletracks (the Bike Comittee originally wanted 8' based on previous minutes) on each side of the road from Oxford to Museum, and then Park to Washington Street - all parking would have been eliminated on the even-side of the street from Oxford to Washington. The Museum to Park and the Washington to city line sections were to have regular painted 5' bike lanes at street level (parking on one side for Museum to Park, parking on both sides for Washington to city line). Parking on both sides will remain on the Washington -> City Line sections that will have bike lanes.
New Version modfied in December:
Now instead of 7' tracks on each side...it'll be a narrower 6' raised cycletrack on one the odd-side of the street with a 3'' mountable curb. On the even-side of the street it will be a 9' raised cycle track the same level as the sidewalk with a 6'' non mountable curb for the Oxford/Museum and Park-> Washington sections. Parking will now be eliminated on the odd-side of the street for the cycle tracks and remain on the even-side (the 9' wide cycletrack part). Parking will be on the odd-side of the street for the Museum to Park St. stretch with the bike lanes. Also worth noting, a couple 83 bus stops on the park -> Washington section on Beacon are being proposed to be removed or relocated where the track sections are to be installed.
To recap the new design:
Oxford to Museum-> 9' raised Cycletrack with 6'' non-mountable curb, 7ft parking lane (even side) and no parking 6' raised cycletrack with 3'' mountable curb (odd side)
Museum to Park -> 5' painted bike lane, no parking (even side) and 5' painted bike lane, 7'' parking lane (odd side)
Park to Washington -> 9' raised Cycletrack with 6'' non-mountable curb, 7ft parking lane (even side) and no parking 6' raised cycletrack with 3'' mountable curb (odd side)
Washington to City Line -> Parking on both sides and 5' painted bike lanes
By the way the Washington -> City line section is where the majority of dooring incidents on cyclists happen since parking is higher turn over there and it's more of a commercial area due to the Inman Sq. proximity. It's also the part of the street that has the highest cycling volume. Oddly enough Ward 2 Alderman Mary Ann Heuston lives here and something tells me it's not a coincidence that parking isn't being proposed to be removed from her side of Beacon St where a segragated cycletrack would actually be the most beneficial...
As for changing the sides of the street with the parking elimination? Likely done in an attempt to appease business owners who were upset over losing their loading zones.
----
Note the wording on Page 19 of the PDF....emphasis mine:
"The section that has been requested by the City and Community includes the removal of on- street parking north bound and maintaining parking south bound. The full section will be: 10 ft sidewalks on each side, a 6 ft one-way cycle track in the NB direction (separated from the vehicular travel lane by a 3-inch mountable curb), a 11 ft NB travel lane, a 13.0 ft SB travel lane (including a 2.0 shoulder south bound), a 7 ft parking lane on the south bound side, and a 9 ft cycle track (separated from the parking lane with 6 inch vertical granite curbing). It is assumed that the 6 ft cycle track in the NB direction will also serve as a useable shoulder, as needed."
Use-able shoulder means cars and delivery vehicles can easily drive up on the track and park there for loading and unloading. What's the point of having the cycle track if cars are permitted to drive up on it at whim? At least with MIT's cycletrack on Vassar St. they had the decency tell cars to stay out: http://web.mit.edu/facilities/transportation/Vassar_Street_East_paths.pdf
Another thing worth pointing out is that the proposed design blatantly goes against cycletrack best practices:
In the "conclusions" section of the famous Copenhagen cycletrack study, that also happens to be featured in the recent copy of the plans on page 47 of this proposed design"
"3. [...] Roads with bicycle tracks and parking permitted are safer compared to roads with parking bans. Bicycle tracks that ends at the stop line at signalized intersections with no turning lanes should be avoided due to major safety problems."
The city has no plans for putting in left turning lanes at Beacon/Park and Beacon/Washington in this Reconstruction project - the two biggest crash sites for both cars and bikes on Beacon. According to Hayes Morrison, the Transportation Director, from an e-mail chain I had with her asking if there were going to be any turning lanes on Beacon:
"From a traffic operations perspective, a general rule of thumb is that an exclusive left-turn lane is probably warranted if the left-turning volume exceeds 100 vehicles per hour. At the Beacon Street / Park Street intersection, the projected 2032 future left-turning volume from Beacon Street onto Park Street is less than 60 vehicles in both peak hours. At the Beacon Street / Washington Street intersection, the projected 2032 future left-turning volume from Beacon Street onto Washington Street (in both directions) is less than 50 vehicles in both peak hours. The decision to not include exclusive left-turn lanes on Beacon Street took into the consideration the limited right-of-way and the relatively low volume of left-turning vehicles."
So apparently following a "general rule of thumb" is more important than doing what you need to do to improve actual road safety....even when there's data indicating that these are dangerous intersections (page 23 of the PDF) and that safe cycle track design encourages turning lanes at signalized intersections.
The thing about limiting the parking on the street (aka parking bans) for these tracks means that more people are going to be forced to turn into side streets (which already have extremely limited parking) than they currently are to find parking or turn around. More vehicles turning = more cyclists at risk for intersection collisions with cars, hence why the study recommends not eliminating parking in general for cycletracks. And let's not forget about the environmental impact from residents and business patrons who will likely end up regularly circling the street constantly looking for parking spots....
Other places where this design fails at following best practices? The nature of raised cycle tracks themselves . Check out these bits from NACTO on Raised Cycle Tracks best practices (http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/cycle-tracks/raised-cycle-tracks/)
"Typical Applications
Raised cycle tracks can be considered wherever a bicycle lane would be the standard recommendation. They may be most beneficial:
Along higher speed streets with few driveways and cross streets.
Maintenance
Raised cycle tracks may be incompatible with conventional street sweeping equipment and snow plow equipment, depending on their configuration. There should be enough shy distance on the adjacent roadway so that snow is not stored on the raised cycle track. "
The reason behind not putting tracks on roads with lots of intersections and driveways (Beacon has tons of these on the Oxford -> Museum section, not as many on the Museum-> Washington section thanks to the good ol' Academy of Arts and Sciences and fewer residences there) is that the track would need to blend down to street level for each driveway and intersecting side-street (see Vassar St cycletrack or the side of Concord Ave in Cambridge that has all those driveways.... ). It's also worth noting that cyclists tend to bike faster in seperated cycletracks as opposed to lanes which doesn't lend itself to safer cycling when there's always cars to watch out for peaking out of all those intersections and driveways...
Additionally the city is proposing 10 ft' sight triangles at driveways (see page 21 of the PDF) , which would further limit parking on the side of the street in which parking would remain (i.e. - where you used to be able to park 3 cars, you might only now be able to park 2, where you could fit 2 cars, you might only be able to fit 1 etc.). So for a city that repeatedly threw down our throats a few years ago that Somerville had an on-street parking shortage (states it specifically on the T&P website even!) and that requires all residents to purchase a permit for street parking, that just so happens to have the HIGHEST residential parking permit in the state...why further limit it for a cycle track design that is not only incomplete, but also against best practices for implementing them safely?
For those who previously complained that street parking in Somerville with a permit is a steal: I'd GLADLY pay a little more IF those funds went directly into stuff like repairing the sidewalks and repaving the roads more often, so we didn't have to resort to begging for federal money to repair our local roads like we're doing with Beacon Street.
And before anyone brings up the poor man who died biking on Comm Ave who hit the tractor trailer...that type of accident likely wouldn't have been prevented by a cycletrack since it occurred at an intersection. If you look closely at the study used on page 21 of the PDF you'll even notice how right-turn motor vehicle to bicyclist crashes (such as the one that happened on Comm Ave) can INCREASE after cycletracks get implemented.....likely because cars aren't paying as much attention to cyclists while turning when us cyclists are riding along in our own special lane.
This whole proposal right now is D-student quality work from the design, to the lack of communication with the neighborhood, to the severely botched parking study. Cycletracks can be really beneficial if they're designed properly on the streets where they're placed, but to be frank, as a cyclist, I'd take bike lanes over a terribly designed cycletrack any day...especially one that starts and stops and starts and stops on Beacon like the mess that's being proposed now.
The city of Somerville deserves better, don't you think?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-12-17 09:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-17 09:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-17 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-17 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-17 10:05 pm (UTC)Are you coming to tomorrow's meeting?
no subject
Date: 2012-12-17 10:16 pm (UTC)The street definitely needs better drainage. The homes near Sacramento near RF's flood a bunch and there are issues with storm waters overwhelming the sanitary sewer system. And one of the reasons why the street is so ridden with potholes to begin with likely has to do with a major lack of drainage...
no subject
Date: 2012-12-17 10:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-17 10:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-17 10:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-17 10:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-17 10:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-17 10:04 pm (UTC)I recall the Cambridge part being rebuilt some time in the late 1980s or early 90s. Neither part had bike lanes back then -- they were added within the past 5 years or so.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-18 01:21 am (UTC)if the cycletrack is raised up a little bit from the level of the road, how are the plows going to plow it in the winter? and if it's the same level as the sidewalk, does that mean property owners are going to be responsible for shoveling it? i can't imagine anyone is going to want to shovel (or pay someone to shovel) an extra nine feet of cycletrack, after they've cleared their section of sidewalk.
(i am all with the questions, because none of this makes any sense to me.)
no subject
Date: 2012-12-18 06:00 am (UTC)Not only is it complicated, it's incredibly unsafe. Accidents between cyclists and pedestrians are as bad for both players as a side-swipe between a cyclist and an automobile is for the cyclist... or worse. And every study ever on bike routes show that if you put the cyclist at the same height as the pedestrian, if you vary the width of the surface so that pedestrians would have to weave back and forth to be in "their lane," if you change what the route is from block to block so that no one can get used to it, people will have collisions. And then they're going to park delivery vehicles in it. Brilliant.
Plus if you have a commuter route that is packed of cycles from Somerville Ave in Porter all the way to Kendall Sq., why would a cyclist weave in and out of traffic to be on what is effectively the sidewalk for a short stretch in the middle of it?
Sorry, not to rant at you. I'm just ranting. This whole thing is a Boondoggle.
Every time I read something about this plan I have a "Somebody is wrong on the Internet" rage multiplied by the fact that it's happening here in my City.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-18 05:02 pm (UTC)and honestly, i keep wondering if someone's getting kickbacks somehow from this terrible plan, or if the ptb in their infinite stupidity have their own personal reasons for pushing this thing through. it's starting to look almost willfully badly conceived.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-18 05:39 am (UTC)As a life-long cycle-commuter I hate this plan a lot. People who park cars near there hate it. Who thinks this is a good idea? If you look up any planning documents on how to make a safe cycle-route this plan is in the appendices under "Don't!"
I re-iterate: If it is not safe to bike on, I won't use it. And I will keep using the street.
This whole thing make me SO ANGRY. You know what would make Beacon Street safer for automobile and cyclists alike? A well maintained road surface free from pot-holes. There. Done. Bike won't have to swerve to avoid things that drivers can't see (thus making the cyclist behavior look erratic). Auto drivers won't have to swerve around whole that make them lose control of their steering or cause costly damage (or both).
Toss in a couple street lights, because, hey, who doesn't love to actually see the road in the rain at night? And voila! a **far** safer place to ride and drive than this plan.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-18 02:11 pm (UTC)"Use-able shoulder means cars and delivery vehicles can easily drive up on the track and park there for loading and unloading. What's the point of having the cycle track if cars are permitted to drive up on it at whim?"
Shoulders can be used for parking or loading/unloading but only if they are signed as such. On most streets where MassDOT provides shoulders, they are intended to be used as bicycle accommodation, or for space for vehicles to pull aside when emergency vehicles are coming through, or for space for broken down vehicles to pull aside. The fact that one cycle track would have a mountable curb on Beacon St would primarily mean that vehicles could pull up onto it if an emergency vehicle was trying to get through or if they break down. (Note that the current bicycle lanes on Beacon St are intended to be used for this purpose.) The mountable curb would also allow bicyclists to enter the roadway if they needed to in order to pass other bicyclists. There would be no parking or loading/unloading allowed on it.
"The reason behind not putting tracks on roads with lots of intersections and driveways (Beacon has tons of these on the Oxford -> Museum section, not as many on the Museum-> Washington section thanks to the good ol' Academy of Arts and Sciences and fewer residences there) is that the track would need to blend down to street level for each driveway and intersecting side-street (see Vassar St cycletrack or the side of Concord Ave in Cambridge that has all those driveways.... ). It's also worth noting that cyclists tend to bike faster in seperated cycletracks as opposed to lanes which doesn't lend itself to safer cycling when there's always cars to watch out for peaking out of all those intersections and driveways..."
It is not accurate that a cycle track has to go up and down at each driveway. It can be designed in such a way that the cycle track stays at the same level at driveways and minor side streets. Vassar St is designed this way, as are the current plans for Beacon St. Concord Ave is often criticized for it's "roller coaster" design and is definitely not universally liked because of it. I also question whether bicyclists bicycle faster in cycle tracks than in bike lanes. Generally I would think the opposite would be true. Is there some study where you found this claim?
no subject
Date: 2012-12-18 05:48 pm (UTC)I'm bringing a letter from the Mayor with me to this meeting that says otherwise, Charile.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-20 03:55 am (UTC)You mean, like parking in the middle of a traffic lane is not allowed? People do double-park. People park anywhere they can get away with it. And "I'm just running an errand, I'll be gone in ten minutes" doesn't help the bicyclists forced into the car lane during those ten minutes.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-18 03:26 pm (UTC)With a cycle-track,
a) Cars have room to begin their right turn before crossing the bike lane, so they're less likely to block traffic behind them
b) Cars are more perpendicular to the bike lane when crossing it, enabling them to more easily look right
I realize there's the concern they'll turn right and just sweep over cyclists, but doesn't that already happen with bike lanes? Continuing the raised cycle-track through the intersection and painting it green could help mitigate that issue.
As an aside:
I commute by bicycle on Beacon St. to Kendall Sq. daily. I've seen cycle tracks in Paris and Amsterdam and generally I like them because I like efforts that can help bring cycling into the mainstream and make it a more viable, safer form of transportation for the average person who is not a cycling enthusiast. The average person can ride a bicycle but the average person does not want to ride with other cars. Ideologically, a road layout of "car - bike - parked car - buffer - peds" doesn't really make sense: put the cars together. However, I realize that a cycle track is not best for every road and I'm undecided about this one due to the many driveways and cross streets.
I realize cycle-tracks may not be optimal for the people for whom commuting is a track meet, but I find that slowing down by a few MPH doesn't significantly slow my commute time because of all the stop and go from the 13 traffic lights I cross on my ride.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-18 05:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-18 05:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-19 05:13 am (UTC)Also, is there a relevant email list or other topic-specific forum for Beacon Street business owners or others who want to be kept apprised of these shenanigans?
no subject
Date: 2012-12-19 03:21 pm (UTC)There is now a Beacon Street Somerville Facebook page, which I think Sam helped to create.
Here's the official City of Somerville website about the project.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-19 06:44 pm (UTC)It was only a 10 min chat. Mainly because no one was familiar enough with the most recent set of changes enough to really talk about them. Not even Sarah Spicer from the office of strategic planning, the only city rep there. She was assigned to update the committee on the design and project status. You'd think that with one of your big federally funded projects you'd be up to snuff on what's getting submitted by your department to the DOT? It's odd since they're relying on the committee to get community "buy-in" for this project.
My impression from the committee members is that there have been so many iterations of the design that it's getting hard to keep track of what's new - even for those inside the strategic planning office.
The committee is happy to have any sort of cycletrack at all and isn't getting to hammed up on details yet since it's still relatively early in the design process. I just wish they'd look at things from a community perspective in regards to Beacon St. If getting rid of that much parking wasn't a major issue, you wouldn't have so many residents and business owners and their patrons petitioning against it.
The President of the Chamber of Commerce attended the meeting and I thought it was kind of amusing that Ron was explaining to him his proposal to organize a historical ride around where Somerville's old businesses used to be. Ron, I love your heart for history (and it's a really neat idea, I'd totally do it), but he was there to represent businesses that are currently here and fighting for survival. To put it in perspective: It's like telling someone who just got dumped, "hey let's drive around and visit all your old exes houses and talk about all those great times you had together!"
Limiting parking poses a very real threat to the ones on Beacon St. You can shower us in more studies about Portland and NYC - even Mass Ave in Boston about improving things for small businesses but those cities have the good fortune of higher populations and better public transit. Portland also rarely has to take away large amounts of residential or commercial parking for their cycletracks and has a large population of year-round cyclists since their winters are mild.
Beacon has had empty commercial space looming for years even though the cycling rate has increased - I don't want to see anymore. Prospective merchants know it's mainly a residential area with low foot traffic and only has a lot of activity during weekday rush hour.
Residents with cars know that dealing with a situation that will permanently replicate street sweeping nights can end up pushing them out. Even those who don't keep a a car take advantage of our city's 2 visitor parking permit passes residents are allowed to get - some of them on the bike committee even. The general accessibility of the neighborhood is important to a lot of people who live here.
Why not just repave the road first and wait until we can get the money to bury the utilities so we can build an amazing cycletrack as complete and up to standard as we can possibly get it? There are tons of other things to talk about on Beacon Reconstruction too, like pedestrian improvements. I've had way too many close calls almost getting hit by cars and bikes crossing the street.
I don't want the Beacon controversy to overshadow a lot of really good work the bike committee is doing to make recommendations for improving cycling in the city in an official capacity: bike parking at t stations, extending the community path, more hubway locations, organizing fun rides etc. I'm appreciative a lot of things they've done - I recognize that I probably wouldn't bike on Beacon as much if there weren't a bike lane there. And they're definitely looking for new members to get involved. There's a lot of non-Beacon bike related stuff going on that I'd love to work on.
I'm really not normally a whistleblower type at all - I just love living here and care about my neighborhood. Let's all take a break for a bit on this ruckus and try to enjoy the holidays. 2013 should be focused on coming together, not apart, as a community to figure out solutions for Beacon that work.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-21 12:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-20 01:22 am (UTC)Somerville should focus on getting these basic things right before attempting anything more challenging. After all, if they do as terrible a job maintaining this new layout as they have the old, it will be even worse. The road will crack up again, the snow will be plowed onto the cycle path, the pedestrians will be playing chicken with the cyclists for the remaining uncleared area, cars without parking spaces will hang across the cycle-trail from overstuffed driveways or side streets, and we will be back where we were but with twelve feet less space to dodge in.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-21 07:18 pm (UTC)The new plan as I see it is a huge improvement over the old plan in that it keeps more streetside parking for the businesses on the South side of Beacon Street. Assuming that parking can be made available in the Star Market parking lot-- the net parking loss will be a lot less severe. More can be done though-- like charging more for parking so that people who have driveways use them or rent them out (with special cheap permits for low income individuals). Assuming gas prices continue to rise, this cycletrack will be seen as really helpful for people who will no longer be able to afford gas.
As for the few grumpy cyclists who don't like this plan (almost all the cyclists I talk to love the idea of a cycle track on Beacon)-- it's a variation on the Yogi Berra theme "nobody goes there any more it's too crowded". The cycle track will be crowded with people who now feel safe. Ten years ago, the very few cyclists who cycled then said the same things about bike lanes: words to the effect of bike lanes will be dangerous putting people in the door zone. Well, we need to weigh the danger of getting doored or hit in an intersection with the public health epidemic of obesity. The public health gains of bike lanes far outweigh the risks of getting hurt on a bike. Even with the risks of biking, cyclists live much longer than non-cyclists: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/