![[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_squareWhen: Monday Feb. 4, 2013, 6:30 p.m.
Where: Kennedy School, 5 Cherry St.
Project No.:607209.
Purpose: The purpose of this hearing is to provide the public with the opportunity to become fully acquainted with the proposed Beacon Street project. All views and comments made at the hearing will be reviewed and considered to the maximum extent possible.
PROPOSAL: | The proposed project consists of roadway reconstruction, curbing, ADA compliant sidewalks and ramps, drainage, traffic and pedestrian signals, crosswalks, street lighting, street trees, and roadway safety and operational improvements. Bicycle accommodations will be provided by use of designated bicycle lanes and bicycle tracks. Removal of on-street parking is proposed on the north side of Beacon Street from Oxford Street to Museum Street and from Park Street to Washington Street. A secure right-of-way is necessary for this project. Acquisitions in fee and permanent or temporary easements may be required. The City of Somerville is responsible for acquiring all needed rights in private or public lands. MassDOT's policy concerning land acquisitions will be discussed at this hearing. Written views received by MassDOT subsequent to the date of this notice and up to five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing shall be displayed for public inspection and copying at the time and date listed above. Plans will be on display one-half hour before the hearing begins, with an engineer in attendance to answer questions regarding this project. A project handout will be made available on the MassDOT website listed below. Written statements and other exhibits in place of, or in addition to, oral statements made at the Public Hearing regarding the proposed undertaking are to be submitted to Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer, MassDOT, 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116, Attention.: Project Management Section, Project File No. 607209. Such submissions will also be accepted at the hearing. Mailed statements and exhibits intended for inclusion in the public hearing transcript must be postmarked within ten (10) business days of this Public Hearing. Project inquiries may be emailed at dot.feedback.highway@state.ma.us | ||
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-02-04 09:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-04 09:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-04 09:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 11:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 02:47 pm (UTC)As for speakers, there was a very lengthy line of very impassioned biking advocates from a wide geographic area (some from far outside Somerville) who seemed to feel that the only safe proposal was a cycletrack. There were also a few local residents who were lamenting the elimination of 101 parking spaces, and some who indicated that cycletracks aren't as safe as advocates claim. One individual pointed out that building a cycletrack would impede crosswalks from one side of Beacon to the other, and that a barricaded cycletrack would disrupt bus stops and access to the sidewalk for the elderly and disabled.
My personal feeling is that cycletrack advocates are doing themselves a disservice by refusing to compromise on the project. The sentiment last night from these advocates (many from outside Somerville) was, we want all or nothing. Only a cycletrack will do, not a bike lane. I thought the alternative plan, to have wider, buffered (but not barricaded) bike lanes ought to make the vast majority of neighbors, businesses, cyclists, and motorists happy.
As someone who both bikes and drives, I'm cognizant to watch out for bikes when I'm parking, especially if there is a marked bike lane. When I bike, I stay in bike lanes where available, and stay vigilant for cars that might not be paying attention. Sure, it would be great if we lived in a city with super wide streets and ample parking. But we don't.
Hs anyone suggested putting angled parking (like on Bow Street) in the areas that will keep street parking, to triple the number of available spaces? The entire purpose of that was to protect cyclists from parking cars and seems to have worked quite well. It would increase safety and preserve the regular parking spots that would be lost.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 04:33 pm (UTC)Cycle tracks can be a good idea, but it's important to look at designs on a case by case basis. Frankly it's becoming woefully apparent that the design contractors are in way over their heads on this - it just falls short of delivering the promise of safer cycling for people who are too timid about using a regular bike lane on top of making it more dangerous for cyclists who wish or need to bike on the street (I'll explain the "need" part in a bit). Not because it's incomplete in regards to being able to run the full length of the street like many of the cycle track proponents would want you to think though.
The asymmetrical nature of it creates this false sense of separation on the 6' "mountable curb" side on one side of the street (North bound lane) where cars WILL park in it to load/unload since that side will technically be considered road shoulder and not have parking. Even the mayor states this is what will happen with delivery vehicles! What's the point of a "segregated" cycling facility that more or less just functions like an elevated bike lane or road shoulder? It will only complicate things because cyclists will be forced to either A. unmount their bike and walk on the side walk to get around it or B. descend into the travel lane unexpectedly in front of cars from another elevation onto a much narrower street than the one that currently exists. Cyclists will need to be able to use the road anyway because there's no shadow of a doubt that vehicles will be pulled up into that track, just as they do with the bike lanes that exist now.
On the other side with parking? Cyclists will be hidden from cars turning into driveways from the street behind rows of parked cars. With the bike lanes that currently exist now, cars can check their blind spot and be able to see a cyclist to avoid the hook. But with the cycle track? A dangerous game of Russian roulette even for those go out of their way to look before committing to the turn. Hopefully it's not someone's kid crossing a driveway at just the wrong moment - remember this whole thing is supposed to get more families biking together! Even with generous bump outs at intersections, it can be difficult for drivers to see cyclists whizzing by within the same area as pedestrians especially after dusk (I think I see maybe 50% of Beacon cyclists even using lights at night). As for dooring - the risk is not completely eliminated like promised - on this side of the street with retained parking, passengers don't tend to be as vigilant about checking "blind spots" before opening car doors as drivers [well, the drivers that do]. For much of the length of Beacon street you'll also have similar "door zone" bike lanes as you do today anyway.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 04:33 pm (UTC)Think pedestrians will stay out of the track? It's a mixed use neighborhood...resident and commercial drivers will unload stuff into the track. Ticket fairies will have to walk up and down it frequently since parking enforcement is promised to be heightened to ensure residential and business availability from a scarce supply. Runners will love using it. Waste removal workers will have to cross back and forth it several times to do their job. Hell the Vassar St track is smack dab in the middle of a campus with some of the brightest minds in the world and they can't get people to stay the heck out of that track! The potential for increased pedestrian/cyclist collisions is real, even with all the fancy trees and street furniture serving as a barricade between the track and the sidewalk.
Someone also mentioned the legal gray area that a "cycle track" presents in terms of accident liability - right of way issues will be nebulous and confusing since there aren't any laws regulating their use like there are for bike lanes and off-street bike paths.
There's too much of a robin hood like mentality from the bike community regarding the parking elimination and that needs to stop. Going to great lengths to count cars, propose even more restrictive parking regulations and beg private business public use of their property is meaningless at this point. Look at the design with a fine tooth comb like I did and you'll realize that this cycle track is more about perceived safety than actual safety. I get that people have been advocating for this thing for awhile and put a lot of sweat equity to even get to this point, but put your pride aside and let's figure out alternatives that make it a safer street for everyone.
I'm all for more infrastructure for bikes, but this is just a huge mess. A huge, giant mess on so many levels. People think by building this thing we'll magically get one step closer to the Netherlands where it's bike-topia. But really we'd be doing a better job of getting to that level by upgrading our drivers licencing requirements so that they're more cycling-aware and teaching everyone how to bike safely around cars from a young age first [just like the Dutch do...]. Education trumps poorly designed infrastructure any day, but I'd like to think that a better bicycle accommodation for Beacon Street can come out after this hearing than the one that's currently being proposed.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 04:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 07:38 pm (UTC)The mountable curb on the one cycle track is not a perfect solution, but the main purpose of it is to allow for vehicles to pull up onto it to allow an emergency vehicle to get through if traffic is particularly bad. The occasional oil truck may pull onto it for deliveries, but that's it. Any other use by motor vehicles is prohibited and will be enforced.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 08:44 pm (UTC)My main objection to cycle tracks isn't the loss of parking. It's that cycle tracks are a terrible idea for everyone involved.
Have any of the track advocates tried to use the new tracks on Concord Ave by Fresh Pond? I've found them unusable for several reasons:
- Multiple driveways and side streets, with terribly dangerous turning conflicts. Right-hook accidents kill people, and cycle tracks greatly increase the risk.
- The track dips and rises at each driveway, making for an uncomfortable ride
- Mail trucks park on the track. If a vehicle parks illegally in a bike lane, you can easily merge left into the next lane to get around it. If you're on a cycle track with a curb, even a mountable one, that's not possible.
- No way to make left turns onto or off the pond-side track, from any of the side streets or driveways
- Pedestrians walk in the track. (There are very few pedestrians on Concord Avenue, since it's car-oriented office buildings, but it would be a big problem on Beacon Street.)
no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 09:19 pm (UTC)Sidewalk narrowing isn't really out of the question and "cost prohibitive" is the city's favorite blanket statement excuse of the moment. In the city's proposed design a bunch of utility poles are going to be relocated on the south end between Washington and City Line anyway (which would narrow the sidewalk clearance since poles are being taken in) to get a wider bike lane with parking on each side. But oh wait..that's where the Alderwoman lives, so it's ok to keep parking there on both sides and spend a bunch of money to move the poles. Even when Mark Chase's data shows that overnight parking vacancy is higher there than the North end of Beacon where parking is getting cut....hmm?
On the community proposed design not all parking would be saved either because you'd be losing all the spaces that are currently *in front* of utility poles. You'd still be losing quite a few LEGAL parking spaces putting "bump ins" between each pole [there are quite a few], but not nearly as many as what's being proposed by the city and people would be able to load/unload in front of store fronts and their homes and businesses without blocking all bike traffic. That's called compromise, the neighborhood loses some parking but it's more evenly distributed throughout the length of the street, cyclists get a much more spacious and safe "door zone free" bike lane that provides better visibility between turning vehicles and cyclists. Pedestrians don't have to worry about getting nailed by cyclists crossing the track (they're all going to have to cross it), but they lose a few feet (but not as narrow as the 5' sidewalk to be installed at museum). It's not a major high foot traffic area to begin with so going from ~10' to ~7' shouldn't break too many hearts...unlike that stupidly narrow walk between Beacon and Porter Sq on Somerville Ave which has tons of volume...DCI's fine work too I might add.
So the buffered bike lane/bump in design could really be win-win-win, but maybe not for you because it won't look as "European." Maybe we could get an Amsterdam falafel house on Beacon to help. Do you like falafel, Charlie? We should get falafel sometime.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 09:56 pm (UTC)The places where they are relocating the utility poles is to move them about 1 foot or so so that there can be full 11' lanes and 5' bike lanes, unlike today where they are both a bit narrower than that. The City has said that this is possible, to move the poles up to a foot or so, since that doesn't affect the underground utilities. Much more than that is out of the question though.
I have no problem with compromise, but that word becomes very loaded when people have different starting points. In reality, the current plan is a HUGE compromise. The City AND bicycle advocates would LOVE for the cycle tracks to go all the way from Oxford St to Inman Square. But the City thinks that it would be unfair to take away that much parking. So in the section where there is the wall and will already be no parking on the south side, the City preserved parking on the north side and sacrificed the cycle track there. They also decided to preserve most of the parking between Washington St and Inman Square, sacrificing the cycle track there as well.
If your starting point for compromise is the City's current plan, and you are assuming the bicyclists are getting everything they want, you're sadly mistaken. This plan already is a HUGE compromise. A continuous cycle track for the entire length would be exponentially better than one that starts and stops, so giving up even a piece of that is already a very big compromise. Perhaps the City should have proposed what many people really want, which is to put the cycle tracks in for the entire length. Suddenly the City's current plan becomes a lot more reasonable.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-06 01:52 pm (UTC)In 25 years Beacon St will not have a cycle track. That can be because we make the right call here, or it can be because of the death of an 8-year-old. The second option also results in no more cycle tracks being built anywhere in Massachusetts ever, not even where they would be safe.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-07 03:02 am (UTC)I changed my mind, though, when the city changed the no-parking side of the street. The current proposal has them removing parking from the North (railroad track) side instead of the South (Cambridge Line) side. I walked up the street and realized that while there are still plenty of businesses on the north side that would be taking deliveries, almost all of them have their own off-street parking lot that could serve that purpose. The one micro-block that doesn't (Petsi Pies and Pho 'n' Rice) could be served by a loading zone on Sacramento Street that wouldn't disturb much. I also realized that many of the big apartment buildings along that side of Beacon have their own underground parking garages.
I am among the avid cyclists / pedestrians that thinks the cycle track is potentially dangerous, for all the reasons
That said: The artist renderings (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=504390972947126&set=a.504390849613805.135556.106715832714644&type=1&theater) of what the roadway would look like with a cycletrack was very compelling to me. It really transformed the roadway into something that was clearly much less about cars, into a more elegant multipurpose boulevard. So while I think bike lanes would be safer in this case, it wouldn't provide that huge sense of transformation.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-07 12:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-06 10:20 pm (UTC)