The Somerville Esplanade

[heliopsis.livejournal.com]

I love the bike path, particularly the bit from Davis Square to Cedar Street. I walk from Willow to Davis several times a week on that path, and I love its green, quiet stretch through the bustling city. I have often thought, wouldn't it be great to have a café or a restaurant on the path, someplace with tables out on a patio opening onto the path. It would be the only place in metro Boston where you could have streetside service without having to compete with noise and fumes from cars and buses. It would be, dare I say it, positively Parisian, and I bet people would flock to it.

Well, the Carli Fence property is for sale, a long, thin stretch of land on the north side of the bike path, extending from Willow towards Davis Square almost to the artists' lofts. It's currently an industrial mess, all paved, a long, brick warehouse with its back to the bike path, and lots of chain link fence (after all, it was Carli Fence!) From Google Maps, it looks like the property is T-shaped, with the top of the T along the bike path and the leg of the T ending at Morrison Avenue.

I would love to see this property redeveloped as a cafe or restaurant which opens out onto the bike path, creating a destination on the path. It could have parking on the Morrison Avenue side. The north side of the path is residential, so I suppose there will be noise concerns, but with smart design that could be handled.

What I really don't want to see there is more luxury condos with a parking lot up against the bike path; or the brick back of a minimall. I'd like to see a development that takes the bike path seriously as a way to get around the city, and that celebrates the quiet, green space in the midst of a noisy, crowded city.

Comments

[heliopsis.livejournal.com]

See, I don't look at the bike path as a way to get around quickly. It's the scenic route, more pleasant than riding on the streets but certainly not more practical. You might want to move the bike path off-center for part of the way so that the restaurant etc. could expand a bit; and yes, you'd want a low fence of some sort to mark the edge of the restaurant's territory so you wouldn't have people moving their tables onto the bike path. If it were successful, it would mean more strolling and more gawking, and less efficient biking. Oh well. On the other hand, maybe it would have a bike parking lot, with an attendant; or a bike-through window. That would definitely get some gawking.

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

I don't think of it as a way to get around quickly either (it is, after all, manifestly unsafe to do so). But you said yourself that this development would "take the bike path seriously as a way to get around the city", and I don't think you can have it both ways. Something that's a serious way of getting around the city cannot also be leisurely, difficult to navigate, and unsafe at actual getting-around-the-city speeds. A good way of getting around the city has free-flowing traffic and commonly agreed-upon rules to facilitate the free flow of traffic (regardless of mode of transportation). You could frame this development as, say, "taking the bike path seriously as a community leisure resource," and that would be much more believable.

I still think it would probably impair *my* enjoyment of the bike path even as a leisure resource, which is why I chose the word "frustrating" (rather than, eg, "slow") in my initial comment; to me, the path is already basically not fun and a place I usually stay away from because of the amount of extra alertness I have to expend on the bike path to stay safe and to avoid unpredictable, lawless, and constantly shifting pedestrians and dogs, and my annoyance that many people seem incapable of taking responsibility for themselves/staying on the right side of the path/keeping dogs on short leashes/watching toddlers closely. Something that draws more people to the space, and encourages them to congregate, would probably make the path a completely hideous experience for me as a cyclist. I would probably appreciate it as a walker, and I can see significantly more casual cyclists than I appreciating it, so I'm not saying this is a terrible plan or anything (it could be quite nice :). It's just not consonant with a goal of converting the path into a better way of getting around the city.

[heliopsis.livejournal.com]

I have real sympathy with this. I remember biking the Minuteman Trail out to Bedford some years ago, and becoming so frustrated with amblers, toddlers, gawkers, and people standing stock-still in the middle of the path, talking on their cell phones. I was trying to get somewhere, and all these people were in my way.

The problem is that there aren't enough bike paths, of course. There's clearly a large demand for human paths in the summer, as evidenced by the crowds; but there's only the one path. It is a victim of its own success.

I think there are a couple different ways to "take the path seriously," and your comment helped me untangle these conflicting ways. On the one hand, we could try to have a thoroughfare which would make bicycle commuting safe and efficient. To achieve that goal, you want to limit access to the path and remove distractions—just like a major highway. On the other hand, we could try to have a path which has destinations of its own: businesses which encourage people to arrive on foot or by bike: a bicycle and pedestrian commercial district, if you like. It's this latter way that I was thinking about. I agree that creating new destinations on the Community Path will make it less effective as a thoroughfare, and that's too bad. But I think we already agree that it's not much of a thoroughfare today. I'd like to have a bicycle thoroughfare in addition to the charming Community Path that we have today, but until then I'll use Beacon-Hampshire for speed, and the Community Path for strolling.

Finally, I realised that I rarely bike on that path. I use it when I'm walking to the T stop, but when I bike to work, I never use the path. I cross it at the donut factory and playground, but that's all. So even though I call it the bike path, I rarely use it that way. Its official name is Community Path, and I have to admit that's more honest.

MURP murp murp.

[turil.livejournal.com]

Legally the Somerville paths are not "bike paths" since that term applies to roads that are legally open to bicycle traffic only. As far as I know, the only actual bike paths in the Boston area are the short, horribly designed sidepaths near Fresh Pond, near 2 block paths neat MIT's Stata Center on Vassar Street, and along the Orange line linear park near Mission Hill. In these cases, the paths are marked for bicycles exclusively, while there are adjacent sidewalks or pedestrian paths.

The roadways we often call "bike paths" like the Minuteman and the Somerville Linear Park are legally termed "multi-use recreational paths", or MURPs in the industry acronymic slang. They are not really designed for convenience of travel, and the legal speed limits are often quite low (15 mph on many paths).

The promotion of MURPs as "bike paths" or even worse as "commuter paths" is really misleading and creates tension between the people using the paths as recreational facilies and the people who want to use them as "bike superhighways".

Oh, and just for the record, the path that exists now around Davis Square is not actually called the "Community Path". The name "Community Path" is the working title of the project that will connect the existing "Linnear Park" to the Lechmere area and maybe the Paul Dudley White path. Hopefully, someday these paths will get more distinctive and/or creative names...

Re: MURP murp murp.

[yangelina.livejournal.com]

I'm not really clear on this - why would they call it the Minuteman Bikeway if it is a MURP? Doesn't its official name make it legally a 'Bikeway'?
I don't feel that the Minuteman has been 'promoted' as a bike path. For me, its name tells me that it's a bike path. I understand that it's also a MURP, but wasn't the original reason for building the Minuteman was for it to be a bike superhighway? I guess I'm wondering where it (or who) says that these paths are legally termed as MURPs, and why would that be if they've already name it a Bikeway.
I'd really like to understand this, specifically regarding the Minuteman, because I totally agree with you that there is tension between the 'bike path' users and the 'community path' users.
Also, I think there's a difference between a bike path and a bike lane. I use a bike path as a MURP and follow the rules (share the path, etc) and I use a bike lane as if I were a vehicle (bicycle traffic only). Where does it legally say that a 'bike path' is for bicycle traffic only? Is my understanding of 'bike path' vs. 'bike lane' incorrect?

Re: MURP murp murp.

[turil.livejournal.com]

Well, the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway is called that probably because the bicyclists who worked so hard to get it built wanted to encourage bicyclists to use it to commute, so they used "bike" in the name. But a bikeway is not legally a bike path. The distinction is verbally subtle, but legally vast.

And by "promoting" the Minuteman Bikeway as a bike path, I completely include the misleading name itself. Using the term "bike" at all is confusing in this case, as it makes it sound like bikes are supposed to have the ultimate right of way, but this is not legally true - the reality is that pedestrians have the ultimate right of way.

The legality of these things is determined by a number of different entities, most involving government funding, with others involving legal issues such as access and maintenance. I'm not absolutely sure about the Minuteman, because it was a somewhat pioneering, and unusual type of facility, but the vast majority of non-motorvehicle paths are funded and regulated under recreational (not transportational) departments of the federal, state, and local government, which is why they often suck for serious bicycle travel by their very design (including bicyclists being legally required to stop at all intersections, the path being closed after dusk, and low speed limits).

And you are absolutely right that there is a difference between a bike path and a bike lane. A bike lane is a travel lane in the vehicular roadway that is exclusively for bikes. A bike path is a seperate road unto itself (seperated from other paths and roads by physical barriers like curbs, landscaping, railings, and so on).

It is very confusing, isn't it! Traffic engineers and planners as well as lawyers and legislators all have a language unto themselves...

By the way, all these legal definitions are available in the Massachusetts State Laws (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90e-1.htm), and also often in professional highway (meaning "roadway", not just "limited access superhighway") design organizations such as AASHTO.

Re: MURP murp murp.

[ron_newman]

Community Path is in fact the official name of the path from the Brooks Pharmacy parking lot to its current endpoint at Cedar Street. As it is extended further east, the Community Path will grow.

Re: MURP murp murp.

[turil.livejournal.com]

Really? I had no idea! Who named it?