Letters on parking passes?

[intuition-ist.livejournal.com]

I just got a new residential parking sticker and visitor passes, and they have a big "B" on them. Somerville isn't going to districted parking, is it?

Comments

[samcoren.livejournal.com]

No bike facility is 100% safe so you have to figure out what makes sense on a case by case basis; especially in a dense neighborhood. We're not talking about the *idea* of cycle tracks being good - we're talking about this particular design and haphazard implementation. That's the problem with this - you're selling people on general concepts and not thoroughly explaining the reality of what the city is trying to build. Most of that 60% of "I would cycle but I'm concerned about safety" demographic you're trying to appeal to realize the ridiculousness of having a non-contiguous cycle track on Beacon Street. Cyclists who need to or wish to use the road will then have to deal with a much narrower street and be subjected to harassment.

And do tell me - how do drivers turning into a cross streets and driveways get used to looking for cyclists that are completely hidden behind parked cars? On the side without parked cars you'll only have 5' width of track because the mountable curb takes up a foot - the new bike lanes will be the same width by the way.... and cyclists wishing to pass one another or get around a a car parked on it will have to enter down the roadway.

The only way to have a safe cycle track on Beacon Street would be to eliminate almost *all* street parking on both sides - and that just ain't happening. The cycle tracks being proposed are nothing but a false sense of security and could end up leading to a lot more dangerous accidents than doorings.

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

I frequently ride on cycle tracks that have frequent cross streets and are in dense neighborhoods. I live about 40% of my time in Germany. The cycle tracks there have frequent road crossings, even more than Beacon street. These cycle tracks are much safer than riding on the street and most of the cycling community in Boston agrees. It seems to me you're just reaching for straw arguments with anecdotal proof to back it up. I understand that you're opposed to this project because you value 30 parking spots more than changes to Beacon street, but just go ahead and say it. Don't pretend you have the best interests bikers in mind. After all, few bikers that don't want to use the track can still ride on the road.

[samcoren.livejournal.com]

Straw arguments? I actually have more than my parking space in mind - I don't even plan on living in this neighborhood for another year or two regardless - likely well before this thing even gets built! I openly endorse an alternative treatment that takes away a pretty significant amount of parking throughout THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE STREET so wide buffer bike lanes of the same length can run the whole distance and you don't have to move as many utility poles. You want to keep people out of the door zone for the entire length of Beacon? This does that!

The city's current plan has more or less the same bike lane and parking conditions as we do today from Washington to City line and that's where more people are getting into accidents! Parking turnover is higher here because it's closer to Inman - higher parking turnover = more potential for dooring! It also just so happens that this end of Beacon is part of one of the highest crash clusters in the state because it's closer the infernal Inman Sq intersection. The city's design does *nothing* to fix the dooring issue for this section of road.

" I live about 40% of my time in Germany. The cycle tracks there have frequent road crossings, even more than Beacon street. These cycle tracks are much safer than riding on the street and most of the cycling community in Boston agrees."

Much safer or * perceived* as safer? Do me a favor and shed some light on what it's like to get a drivers licence in Germany vs. Massachusetts - the difference is rather startling and plays a major role in this. Also tell me about cycling safety education for children in Germany, I'm sure it's much more of a priority in Germany than the US - it certainly is in the Netherlands at least. You can cherry pick infrastructural elements all you want, but it's not necessarily going to mean that this is going to make the street any safer.

[intuition-ist.livejournal.com]

Hi guys, you seem to have gotten your biking discussion in my parking discussion...please start your own thread if you have such a lot of off-topic discussion to do?

[cden4.livejournal.com]

While buffered bike lanes are one option, the plan you refer to requires curbs to be moved outward (i.e. sidewalks narrowed) except where there are trees. One of the major limitations the City is working within is that the sidewalks cannot be narrowed more than 6" to 1' or so because there are utilities under them that cannot be moved. The curbs are being currently planned to moved slightly outward in the bike lane sections to gain another foot or so in the travel lanes, but that's as far as they can go.

Furthermore, wide buffered bike lanes typically invite double parking even more than traditional bike lanes or cycle tracks with mountable curbs do, mainly because a car can fit completely within the width of the buffered lane. Furthermore, cars are more likely to drive down them when the travel lane is congested. Just observe the buffered bike lanes on Congress St in downtown Boston to see what I mean.

[samcoren.livejournal.com]

Nope - not just trees, trees AND utility poles - there are far more of those than trees and quite a lot of spaces will be lost to accommodate them. Also there are ways to deter cars from traveling in them similar to how portland and NYC do their protected bike lanes. By the way, parked cars adjacent to travel lanes serve as visual friction and help slow traffic down....also stuff like raised cross walks, more cross walks, law enforcement, more signalization at intersections, etc. But why put so much effort into rebutting an unofficial alternative?

[cden4.livejournal.com]

Well you and others have claimed that there are other alternatives that are better than traditional bike lanes that don't require as much parking removal as the cycle track proposal. I am rebutting this particular one because people have been presenting it as if it is a viable alternative, with official-looking handouts at public meetings and now here. I want to set the record straight that this is not a feasible alternative given the constraints the City has to work with so that people do not think the City is ignoring other options.

[samcoren.livejournal.com]

It's a viable alternative from an engineering perspective and it's a better treatment for Washington to City Line than maintaining the status quo. The only thing they could come up with was increasing road width as anti traffic calming... but removing on street parking is also viewed as anti-traffic calming, so the constraints the city is working with are more flexible than you think.

[cden4.livejournal.com]

It's only a viable alternative if you can find a few extra million dollars to move the utilities under the sidewalks.

[samcoren.livejournal.com]

The feedback from the city's engineer said the only utility costs that would occur would be doing 12 utility pole relocations to accommodate the bump outs that would be too close to driveways and redo some of the drain covers... To a whopping estimated cost of 200k. No underground utilities would be impacted regarding water, sewer and gas. You'd likely be saving quite a bit of money by not installing 15.5' of cycle track and having to physically lower the road surface for it.

[cden4.livejournal.com]

I thought the main issue was that there are water and sewer lines underneath the sidewalks. If you wanted to cut back the sidewalks more than 6" to 1' you start to encroach on those utilities.

[samcoren.livejournal.com]

I think this is where you're confused. That issue would occur if you were moving the poles back as far as the sidewalk. You wouldn't want those big ol utility poles going down into the water, sewer and gas lines. You've got about 6" to a foot to move the poles back before that happens. Street pavement is fine to go over them though... Cambridge had no problem tearing up my street replacing all the gas lines.