6 ms·

> "Local law now requires the city to erect vertical barriers between cyclists and cars on any roadway that’s rebuilt, expanded, or reconfigured" I'm all for b

> "Local law now requires the city to erect vertical barriers between cyclists and cars on any roadway that’s rebuilt, expanded, or reconfigured" I'm all for better bike lanes, but it seems kind of extreme to require this for all new roads [0]. I used to live in Cambridge and rode my bike quite a bit. I never felt like I needed a dedicated lane on every side street, just on the main drags (where some of the new protected bike lanes were amazing to have). [0] Actual ordinance available at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=5905&highlightTerms=cycling%20safety%20ordinance http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID.... I could be misinterpreting the language, and it seems they will allow for some very limited exceptions, but the default seems to be that a typical side street would have a dedicated bike lane. EDIT: after reading the actual ordinance again (and as a comment below pointed out), it seems that this only applies to streets that are rebuilt or improved and are part of the city's plan for streets that should include bike paths. In other words, most random side streets wouldn't get bike paths.

close04 8y ago
It's the perfect time to do it. Building the protected bike lane in the road design from the get go is the most effective way to make both cyclists and drivers happy and safe.
- chadash 8y ago
  I totally agree with you. If you are re-doing a road, that's the best time to build a bike lane. But I'm personally not convinced that it's necessary on every new road. I lived on a side street in Cambridge that saw maybe one car every twenty minutes. I was lucky to have a private driveway, but my neighbors would have been pretty angry if you took away their street parking to put in a bike lane on a street with very little traffic. In my opinion, there should be some additional criteria, such as needing a bike lane on any new street with expected traffic of more than one car every minute (or some reasonable time frame). As a biker when I lived in Cambridge, I always felt safe on side streets where I could just bike in the middle of the street and move over for the occasional vehicle, but I was much more afraid on major (or even minor) thoroughfares. I personally would love to live in a world where fewer people own cars in the first place because public transportation is so good, but that's an ideal that we are no where close to achieving, so a lot of people need to own cars.
  - tosser0001 8y ago
    This is going to get ugly in Cambridge because a lot of parking is going to be eliminated and people who used to be able to park near their homes will be parking on the side streets. People who live on those side streets are going to suddenly find it more difficult to find parking. I'm for adding bike lanes, but there are plenty of people who work far outside the city and who need to drive are going to find it intolerable. A lot of people will be forced to move, while the value of off-street parking will go up.
    - justtopost 8y ago
      And counter-productively, many of those who will move will now just have to commute further, no matter the infrastructure. Cars are no pancea, but they are far from obsolete outside dense city centers.
- bluGill 8y ago
  But it isn't the perfect reason. I live on a dead end road (road ends at the creek), it doesn't take much intelligence to realize the pavement is nearly worn out and so will be replaced soon. However because the road doesn't go anywhere, there is no need for any bike lane. If anything it needs a basketball hoop in the middle - all that hard surface is wasted on cars: let the kids play when there isn't a car coming.
mhb 8y ago
On a lot of streets, won't the only way to do this be to eliminate parking on one side of the street? Should be interesting.
- amalcon 8y ago
  This is what has happened so far. Retail business owners have... not been pleased (to put it mildly). Overall it's pretty clearly been a net gain, but there's definitely some short term pain there.
  - addicted 8y ago
    I don’t believe there is pain. All the studies in the US have shown that improving biking infrastructure immediately improves retail sales (it’s obvious why...you throw bikes in the mix, and walking is also a lot safer, and everyone who enters a retail store eventually needs to walk, so a nicer walking environment makes it better for all their customers). The complaints are likely a combination of general aversion to change, the fact that most retailers are likely drivers and identify as such and look at bike improvements as an attack on their group, and media reporting that focuses on those who lie on the extremes.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      >I don’t believe there is pain. All the studies in the US have shown that improving biking infrastructure immediately improves retail sales That generalization is vague to the point of uselessness. It really depends on the nature of the business in question.
      - r_klancer 8y ago
        One Cambridge business that has been vocally against bike infrastructure is a pharmacy. I understand why they would be against it, because much of their clientele is elderly. There's a new parking protected bike lane in front of their business, and there are fewer parking spots than there used to be (and those that remain are bang against the "car lane" on one side and the bike lane on the other) I fully support the law, but given that the proprietors treat us very well and know my wife by name, I haven't tried too hard to change their mind.
strictnein 8y ago
Don't they get snow? With vertical barriers I'm confused how a plow will be able to properly clear the street.
- NikolaNovak 8y ago
  In Ottawa, Canada that appears to be a realistic problem (according to my colleagues that live there; I have limited personal experience). They try to use the sidewalk-cleaning smaller machinery, but it's still a struggle due to shapes and barriers.
- amalcon 8y ago
  Most of the existing separated bike lanes are incorporated into the sidewalk, and therefore protected by the curb. There are a few that are "protected" by rows of parked cars or bolted-down pylons, but this would seem to not be legal under the new law. I'm actually not sure how they manage to get those bike lanes cleared, seeing as how the sidewalks are always covered in snow, but there seems to be some method.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    There are smaller vehicles that are used to plow just the bike lanes in some parts of the world. It probably doesn't matter so much though because the percentage of people who continue biking even in cold winter and with adverse snow conditions is quite low.
    - amalcon 8y ago
      It's true. It's actually very disconcerting how much less snow there usually is on the bike lane, than on the sidewalk it's built into. There are stretches where folks just walk in the bike lane, because the sidewalk is so unsafe.
    - hawaiianbrah 8y ago
      Maybe. I stopped biking in the winters in Cambridge purely because the pathways are impassable because of the snow. Not because of the weather.
jeffwilcox 8y ago
I think our cities are learning from what Scandinavia has been doing for ages. This is exciting news. Smart streets keep everyone safer and raise awareness to pedestrians and people with mobility issues, too.
ahoy 8y ago
Better bike infrastructure will encourage groups of people who don't currently bike to start. More protected lanes means more kids, more old folks, more women of all ages, will start cycling. And more cycling is a good thing!
- RHSeeger 8y ago
  There's many things that are good things. However, you need to balance them against the cost (money, space, time, whatever) required to achieve them. For some smaller roads, the cost might not be worth the benefit.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Encouraging people to exercise and not drive gas-powered vehicles is a net win for not only their long term health but also the environment. It's worth it.
    - gowld 8y ago
      Even if they use an electric bike and don't exercise, it's still good for pollution and congestion.
  - ahoy 8y ago
    Agreed, lets skip the automobile lanes and just put bike lanes on those streets :]
  - soperj 8y ago
    For smaller streets, just make them pedestrian & bike first.
  - tsieling 8y ago
    The cost of things should indeed be considered. Depending on region, tax money subsidizes every mile driven (one well done source here https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving-true-costs/412237/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving... but there are many, many others). A switch to cycling amounts to a much lower subsidy per mile, so if we want to talk costs then the argument for cycling infrastructure becomes even stronger.
addicted 8y ago
You’re not in the group of people who do not bike due to the lack of barriers. It’s possible that this group is extremely tiny, in which case it may not make sense, but whether existing bikers feel they needed it is not really the relevant question. But that’s only considering the “get more people biking” aspect. The truth is that protected bike lanes are statistically safer than ones that are not, so there is good reason to require it just to reduce injury or death even if it does not lead to an uptick in biking.
- NLips 8y ago
  If it reduces cyclist deaths, then in absence of other factors it will by definition result in a relative uptick.
otras 8y ago
Here's a map from the Globe of bike accidents reported to Cambridge police from 2010-2014 [0]. Unfortunately the map no longer loads for me, but the accidents are mostly along major roads and the area is still discernible, especially when compared side by side with a map of the area [1]. As the article says, Cambridge Street, Broadway, Beacon Street, and Mass Ave are all hot spots. Would love to see data combined with Somerville, since I'm sure the stretch of Beacon between Porter and Inman would be similarly populated. These are also only accidents reported to police, so I would bet they lean towards more serious accidents. [0]: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/05/map-bike-crashes-cambridge/fNI2tQaJOIoBvgXq66zXUM/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/05/map-bike-crashe... [1]: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3773046,-71.1224085,14z https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3773046,-71.1224085,14z
twoodfin 8y ago
It's required only during maintenance made as part of a pre-existing 5-year reconstruction plan on roads that were included in the 2015 Bicycle Plan (or any subsequent plan the Council approves). That's still a dramatic expansion from Cambridge's current separated bike lanes, but it's not "any roadway" as the article claims.
- duxup 8y ago
  That makes more sense. So I'm guessing their bike plan drew out routes and arteries and such for bike paths and the requirement just applies to those?
SECProto 8y ago
>I could be misinterpreting the language, [...] but the default seems to be that a typical side street would have a dedicated bike lane. I think the key here is that it's for any roadway that is rebuilt, expanded, or reconfigured. This is very rare for residential side streets in my experience - it would only come when roads are widened or curb lines are redone, which is more common on major streets and roads. Repaving is explicitly excluded. I also think the exceptions are not nearly as limited as you. While 12.22.040.B explicitly calls the exceptions "rare", basically as long as they can prove in a public report that it's impractical (for financial constraint or physical features/usage reasons), they don't have to do a bike lane.
mindslight 8y ago
I've got to wonder how this will actually help at intersections - are stoplights really going to get dedicated phases akin to walk lights? Are there going to be stop signs where cars cross the bike lane? I once hit a car on Mass ave (just south of Central Sq) that popped out across the bike lane (but stopping to oncoming cars), and I couldn't simply move left due to cars on my left. Luckily it was raining so the reason I couldn't stop was traction rather than having been going wicked fast. If there is simply a cut in a barrier for cars to go across at every existing sidestreet, it seems like more barriers constraining bikes (and visual noise for drivers) will make that even worse! I'll admit it's been over a decade since I've commuted city streets on a bike, and I've never personally seen benefit from city bike lanes. Worrying about being doored, pedestrians stepping off the sidewalk, cars pulling out, and avoiding road debris all require keeping far enough left, and the bike lanes I've experienced actually hamper that. The only times I've ever worried about cars straight up plowing me from behind (/ wind suck!) have been on suburban/rural roads.
oldjokes 8y ago
What this means is the rich get new roads, the poor don't. The cost of adding these lanes will be enormous, especially in tight areas where you may need to seize property or realign streets. Nobody will advocate for the poor areas to ever be redeveloped at these cost levels. The cycle continues.
- gowld 8y ago
  The rich get new roads anyway.
- ocschwar 8y ago
  Massachusetts has a de facto policy of no road expansions, and especially not land appropriations for road expansions, anywhere in the state.

close04 8y ago

It's the perfect time to do it. Building the protected bike lane in the road design from the get go is the most effective way to make both cyclists and drivers happy and safe.

chadash 8y ago
I totally agree with you. If you are re-doing a road, that's the best time to build a bike lane. But I'm personally not convinced that it's necessary on every new road. I lived on a side street in Cambridge that saw maybe one car every twenty minutes. I was lucky to have a private driveway, but my neighbors would have been pretty angry if you took away their street parking to put in a bike lane on a street with very little traffic. In my opinion, there should be some additional criteria, such as needing a bike lane on any new street with expected traffic of more than one car every minute (or some reasonable time frame). As a biker when I lived in Cambridge, I always felt safe on side streets where I could just bike in the middle of the street and move over for the occasional vehicle, but I was much more afraid on major (or even minor) thoroughfares. I personally would love to live in a world where fewer people own cars in the first place because public transportation is so good, but that's an ideal that we are no where close to achieving, so a lot of people need to own cars.
- tosser0001 8y ago
  This is going to get ugly in Cambridge because a lot of parking is going to be eliminated and people who used to be able to park near their homes will be parking on the side streets. People who live on those side streets are going to suddenly find it more difficult to find parking. I'm for adding bike lanes, but there are plenty of people who work far outside the city and who need to drive are going to find it intolerable. A lot of people will be forced to move, while the value of off-street parking will go up.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    And counter-productively, many of those who will move will now just have to commute further, no matter the infrastructure. Cars are no pancea, but they are far from obsolete outside dense city centers.
bluGill 8y ago
But it isn't the perfect reason. I live on a dead end road (road ends at the creek), it doesn't take much intelligence to realize the pavement is nearly worn out and so will be replaced soon. However because the road doesn't go anywhere, there is no need for any bike lane. If anything it needs a basketball hoop in the middle - all that hard surface is wasted on cars: let the kids play when there isn't a car coming.

mhb 8y ago

On a lot of streets, won't the only way to do this be to eliminate parking on one side of the street? Should be interesting.

amalcon 8y ago
This is what has happened so far. Retail business owners have... not been pleased (to put it mildly). Overall it's pretty clearly been a net gain, but there's definitely some short term pain there.
- addicted 8y ago
  I don’t believe there is pain. All the studies in the US have shown that improving biking infrastructure immediately improves retail sales (it’s obvious why...you throw bikes in the mix, and walking is also a lot safer, and everyone who enters a retail store eventually needs to walk, so a nicer walking environment makes it better for all their customers). The complaints are likely a combination of general aversion to change, the fact that most retailers are likely drivers and identify as such and look at bike improvements as an attack on their group, and media reporting that focuses on those who lie on the extremes.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >I don’t believe there is pain. All the studies in the US have shown that improving biking infrastructure immediately improves retail sales That generalization is vague to the point of uselessness. It really depends on the nature of the business in question.
    - r_klancer 8y ago
      One Cambridge business that has been vocally against bike infrastructure is a pharmacy. I understand why they would be against it, because much of their clientele is elderly. There's a new parking protected bike lane in front of their business, and there are fewer parking spots than there used to be (and those that remain are bang against the "car lane" on one side and the bike lane on the other) I fully support the law, but given that the proprietors treat us very well and know my wife by name, I haven't tried too hard to change their mind.

strictnein 8y ago

Don't they get snow? With vertical barriers I'm confused how a plow will be able to properly clear the street.

NikolaNovak 8y ago
In Ottawa, Canada that appears to be a realistic problem (according to my colleagues that live there; I have limited personal experience). They try to use the sidewalk-cleaning smaller machinery, but it's still a struggle due to shapes and barriers.
amalcon 8y ago
Most of the existing separated bike lanes are incorporated into the sidewalk, and therefore protected by the curb. There are a few that are "protected" by rows of parked cars or bolted-down pylons, but this would seem to not be legal under the new law. I'm actually not sure how they manage to get those bike lanes cleared, seeing as how the sidewalks are always covered in snow, but there seems to be some method.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  There are smaller vehicles that are used to plow just the bike lanes in some parts of the world. It probably doesn't matter so much though because the percentage of people who continue biking even in cold winter and with adverse snow conditions is quite low.
  - amalcon 8y ago
    It's true. It's actually very disconcerting how much less snow there usually is on the bike lane, than on the sidewalk it's built into. There are stretches where folks just walk in the bike lane, because the sidewalk is so unsafe.
  - hawaiianbrah 8y ago
    Maybe. I stopped biking in the winters in Cambridge purely because the pathways are impassable because of the snow. Not because of the weather.

jeffwilcox 8y ago

I think our cities are learning from what Scandinavia has been doing for ages. This is exciting news. Smart streets keep everyone safer and raise awareness to pedestrians and people with mobility issues, too.

ahoy 8y ago

Better bike infrastructure will encourage groups of people who don't currently bike to start. More protected lanes means more kids, more old folks, more women of all ages, will start cycling. And more cycling is a good thing!

RHSeeger 8y ago
There's many things that are good things. However, you need to balance them against the cost (money, space, time, whatever) required to achieve them. For some smaller roads, the cost might not be worth the benefit.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  Encouraging people to exercise and not drive gas-powered vehicles is a net win for not only their long term health but also the environment. It's worth it.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Even if they use an electric bike and don't exercise, it's still good for pollution and congestion.
- ahoy 8y ago
  Agreed, lets skip the automobile lanes and just put bike lanes on those streets :]
- soperj 8y ago
  For smaller streets, just make them pedestrian & bike first.
- tsieling 8y ago
  The cost of things should indeed be considered. Depending on region, tax money subsidizes every mile driven (one well done source here https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving-true-costs/412237/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving... but there are many, many others). A switch to cycling amounts to a much lower subsidy per mile, so if we want to talk costs then the argument for cycling infrastructure becomes even stronger.

addicted 8y ago

You’re not in the group of people who do not bike due to the lack of barriers. It’s possible that this group is extremely tiny, in which case it may not make sense, but whether existing bikers feel they needed it is not really the relevant question. But that’s only considering the “get more people biking” aspect. The truth is that protected bike lanes are statistically safer than ones that are not, so there is good reason to require it just to reduce injury or death even if it does not lead to an uptick in biking.

NLips 8y ago
If it reduces cyclist deaths, then in absence of other factors it will by definition result in a relative uptick.

otras 8y ago

Here's a map from the Globe of bike accidents reported to Cambridge police from 2010-2014 [0]. Unfortunately the map no longer loads for me, but the accidents are mostly along major roads and the area is still discernible, especially when compared side by side with a map of the area [1]. As the article says, Cambridge Street, Broadway, Beacon Street, and Mass Ave are all hot spots. Would love to see data combined with Somerville, since I'm sure the stretch of Beacon between Porter and Inman would be similarly populated. These are also only accidents reported to police, so I would bet they lean towards more serious accidents. [0]: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/05/map-bike-crashes-cambridge/fNI2tQaJOIoBvgXq66zXUM/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/05/map-bike-crashe... [1]: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3773046,-71.1224085,14z https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3773046,-71.1224085,14z

twoodfin 8y ago

It's required only during maintenance made as part of a pre-existing 5-year reconstruction plan on roads that were included in the 2015 Bicycle Plan (or any subsequent plan the Council approves). That's still a dramatic expansion from Cambridge's current separated bike lanes, but it's not "any roadway" as the article claims.

duxup 8y ago
That makes more sense. So I'm guessing their bike plan drew out routes and arteries and such for bike paths and the requirement just applies to those?

SECProto 8y ago

>I could be misinterpreting the language, [...] but the default seems to be that a typical side street would have a dedicated bike lane. I think the key here is that it's for any roadway that is rebuilt, expanded, or reconfigured. This is very rare for residential side streets in my experience - it would only come when roads are widened or curb lines are redone, which is more common on major streets and roads. Repaving is explicitly excluded. I also think the exceptions are not nearly as limited as you. While 12.22.040.B explicitly calls the exceptions "rare", basically as long as they can prove in a public report that it's impractical (for financial constraint or physical features/usage reasons), they don't have to do a bike lane.

mindslight 8y ago

I've got to wonder how this will actually help at intersections - are stoplights really going to get dedicated phases akin to walk lights? Are there going to be stop signs where cars cross the bike lane? I once hit a car on Mass ave (just south of Central Sq) that popped out across the bike lane (but stopping to oncoming cars), and I couldn't simply move left due to cars on my left. Luckily it was raining so the reason I couldn't stop was traction rather than having been going wicked fast. If there is simply a cut in a barrier for cars to go across at every existing sidestreet, it seems like more barriers constraining bikes (and visual noise for drivers) will make that even worse! I'll admit it's been over a decade since I've commuted city streets on a bike, and I've never personally seen benefit from city bike lanes. Worrying about being doored, pedestrians stepping off the sidewalk, cars pulling out, and avoiding road debris all require keeping far enough left, and the bike lanes I've experienced actually hamper that. The only times I've ever worried about cars straight up plowing me from behind (/ wind suck!) have been on suburban/rural roads.

oldjokes 8y ago

What this means is the rich get new roads, the poor don't. The cost of adding these lanes will be enormous, especially in tight areas where you may need to seize property or realign streets. Nobody will advocate for the poor areas to ever be redeveloped at these cost levels. The cycle continues.

gowld 8y ago
The rich get new roads anyway.
ocschwar 8y ago
Massachusetts has a de facto policy of no road expansions, and especially not land appropriations for road expansions, anywhere in the state.