Street Smarts

I attended the Wednesday, January 12 meeting about closing the gap in the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway in Arlington, and I have submitted the written comments that follow. But first, some links:

The proposed design options for the Minuteman path are described here:

http://www.arlingtonma.gov/Public_Documents/ArlingtonMA_DPW/projects/ArlCtrSafeTravel/ACST_MemoPres11212011.pdf

Adam Auster’s excellent report on Wednesday night’s public meeting is here:

http://tinyurl.com/ArlMtg

Laura Wiener, the town planner who is assigned to this project, and to whom comments are to be addressed, is reachable at

lwiener@town.arlington.ma.us, (781) 316-3091.

My comments:

Ms. Wiener:

I attended the meeting Wednesday night and I thank you for the opportunity to comment.

The gap in the path in Arlington Center is a serious problem indeed and I am pleased that an attempt is being made to address it.

On the other hand, there are serious issues with all of the options put forward. As someone else said at the meeting, the problems have existed for 150 years. They weren’t solved for the railroad and unfortunately, the political will doesn’t exist to solve them for the path. Nothing short of a grade separation would solve the problem of the gap in the path, so we’re stuck with some incomplete solutions.

Beyond this, however, I find the proposal as presented by the consultant to be incomplete in a number of ways. Several other commenters made the same observation. Any plan like this should include a crash history. I don’t see any. The plans also say nothing about signage, and nothing about signal timing other than that it will be “improved.” There are some additional issues not addressed.

The NACTO Guide, cited by one commenter, appears to be the source for some proposed design options. It is best understood as a cornucopia of designs imported from Europe, but lacking an examination of context and alternatives. It lacks official status and sanction, unlike the AASHTO guide (currently under revision, nearly finished draft version online: http://design.transportation.org/Documents/DraftBikeGuideFeb2010.pdf).

Many of the elements of the proposed “crossbike” and cycle track designs are nonstandard and would fall into the category of experimentation under the Federal Highway Administration, cooperating with the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices., http://ncutcd.org. The FHWA process offers review of a project and immunity from lawsuits in return for research into the performance of the installation. I strongly recommend taking this approach. There are important lessons to be learned here, on the most heavily-used multi-use path in the USA. I am a member of the Bicycle Technical Committee of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which meets January 18-20. I will bring this project to its attention.

Given the politically possible options, here are my specific comments.

With every option, pedestrians should continue using sidewalks. Signage needs to indicate the differing bicycle and pedestrian routes.

• In options 2, 3A and 3B, the right-turn lane to the right of a bike lane on Mass. Ave. before Mystic Street is conservative practice and consistent with design guidelines. The flaw in this option is that it does not maintain continuity of the path as a path, and is unattractive to the child and casual cyclists who flock to the path. However, none of the proposals should compromise the option of through bicycle travel on Massachusetts Avenue. Options 4 and 5, which separate path traffic from Mass. Ave. traffic, do compromise it.
• In the plan document, I see no attention given to bicycle travel on Mystic Street/Pleasant Street even as they affect to the path. How, for example, is a cyclist headed southbound on Mystic Street supposed to enter the path to head toward Lexington?
• Options 2 and 3A place a median refuge (called a “bike box” in the plans) to the right of motor traffic exiting Swan Place. As on 9th Avenue in New York City, the refuge should be placed in line with Swan Place, so bicyclists don’t have to merge out of the stream of traffic, and then back in again as they turn left into Mass. Ave. westbound. Path traffic dominates on Swan Place, and the occasional motorist waiting in line behind cyclists will probably be able to tolerate the delay — especially as cyclists already will be halfway across Mass. Ave. when waiting. See plans for 9th Avenue in New York City at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/rr_ite_08_9thave.PDF and note on page 3 of that document that the bicycle waiting locations are in the streets, not in the crosswalks.
• Option 3B, with the bike lane across Massachusetts Avenue at Swan Place, instructs cyclists to turn sharply right when exiting Swan Place, so they are to the right of right-turning motor traffic exiting Swan Place, then turn left to continue across Massachusetts Avenue, a recipe for confusion, delay and collisions. Again cyclists should be traveling straight across.
• Though some options show bike lanes extending up Mass. Ave. past Mystic Street, none of the options addresses the simplest option for through travel, and one that will appeal to competent, adult cyclists and reduce the burden on the intersection with Mystic Street/Pleasant Street: cyclists leave the trail at Mill Street and turn left onto Mass. Ave. at a traffic signal, continuing to Swan Place (and vice versa for northbound travel). Enabling these options also implies designing for through bicycle traffic on Mass. Ave. as already mentioned.
• Thanks to unusual signal timing, it appears that the diagonal crossing in Options 3A through 5 may be workable. It promises shorter crossing time, in one signal phase. However, the documents indicate that improvements would be made in signal timing without giving specifics. It is very typical in cases with special bicycle signal phases -  as seen for example in Washington, DC — see video at http://vimeo.com/33063126 — to minimize the added delay by making the bicycle phase very short, leading most cyclists to ignore the signal and/or take undesignated routes.
• A  “crossbike” is bound to be used for travel in both directions, including by pedestrians. Signal timing, types, locations,  and travel space must account for this. I draw special attention to the work of James Mackay, formerly bicycle coordinator of the City of Denver, in coordinating bicycle and pedestrian signals to account for the faster speed of bicyclists. (Unfortunately, I cannot find a reference to this online at present, but I will inquire of Mr. Mackay.)
• A couple of well-intentioned commenters recommended converting the sidewalk between Swan Place and Pleasant Street into a bikeway. That is only to perpetuate the current situation. This sidewalk passes doorways, and two driveways, with impaired sight lines, and is inadequate to carry bicycle traffic.
• The proposed 250-foot two-way “cycle track” or “protected bikeway”along Mass. Ave.in options 4 and 5 has a strong appeal to people who are fearful of riding on the roadway, yet the design shown repeatedly places cyclists in conflict with motor traffic. There are serious safety issues with this bikeway at both ends and at the two commercial driveways it crosses. I am very wary of this design, but there are ways its problems could be mitigated, by addressing the  streams of cross traffic which belie the term “protected”. Specifically:
  • At the Pleasant Street end, the plans show no effective means to prevent a confused or drunken motorist from entering the bikeway, as it may be confused with a travel lane of Mass. Ave. Motor vehicles could enter the bikeway either from Pleasant Street, turning right, or from Massachusetts Avenue heading eastbound. A similar situation on the West Side Greenway in New York City led to a fatal car-bike collision, see http://john-s-allen.com/galleries/NYC/wsgreenway1/Chelsea%20Piers/slides/DSCF0029.html . The consultant has suggested only colored paint as a countermeasure. This does not address the underlying hazard, and in any case, colored paint becomes invisible under many conditions of lighting and precipitation, and wears away. Measures installed on the 9th Avenue bikeway in New York City to prevent undesired movements by motor vehicles do address this problem.. See the photo album at http://john-s-allen.com/galleries/NYC/9thAve/index.html and the plans previously mentioned for examples. I am no fan of bollards in the middle of paths — cyclists also collide with them — but the traffic islands in the 9th Avenue installation are a better option, specifically designed to prevent unintended movements. Islands might be installed at the southeast corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Pleasant Street, for example by angling the end of path toward the “crossbike” so as to prevent entry from Pleasant Street or Massachusetts Avenue by motor vehicles. In connection with this, removal of a parking space nearest the corner might also offer some kind of a waiting area to avoid queued cyclists’ being delayed to the next signal cycle.
  • The proposed 10-foot-wide bikeway between a curb and a row of bollards is of minimal width to carry two-way bicycle traffic. It should be made very clear with signage that pedestrians are to use the sidewalk. As one inline skater remarked at the meeting, inline skaters take up a lot of room. They also are slower than bicyclists. They belong on the sidewalk. I also strongly recommend paving the brick sidewalk, so as to make it more suitable for inline skaters and people in wheelchairs, who are much slower yet. This also would allow leveling of the surface. Yes, I know that brick is historic and nostalgic, but it is a miserable travel surface. Take up the brick and put it down somewhere else where its deficiencies don’t matter.
  • The exit from the drive-through teller window at the bank halfway along the proposed bikeway is a nightmare. Consider the task burden which motorists would face here. First, they must look both ways for pedestrians on the sidewalk. Then, they most look both ways for faster bicyclists on the bikeway — the view of whom could easily be obstructed by groups of slower pedestrians. Beyond the bikeway in one of the options is a row of parked cars, and so motorists would have to  pull up far enough to see past them before entering traffic on Mass. Ave. — blocking the bikeway. A fundamental principle of traffic operation is to simplify the task burden so sight lines are clear and drivers need not look in multiple directions at the same time. Flaunting this principle is a recipe for confusion, delay and collisions. The bank driveway has to go if there is to be a separate bikeway here. Perhaps motorists could exit back to Mystic Street, or to Swan Street?
  • The parking lot east of the bank at Jam’n'Java, has a two-way driveway that would also cross the proposed bikeway unless closed off, see http://g.co/maps/wx9sa. This is an even worse nightmare than the drive-in teller driveway and was not mentioned in the documentation — or the presentation, unless in the few minutes at the start before I arrived. There was no discussion of it following the presentation.
  • As shown in the plans, northbound cyclists would have to cross to the wrong side of Swan Place, a two-way street, to enter the “cycle track”, approaching a corner where motorists turn right from Mass. Ave., and in one version of the plans, with sight lines obstructed by parked cars. Riding opposite traffic is illegal, and designing a facility which compels illegal and hazardous behavior is a recipe for  trouble. One commenter at the meeting proposed that Swan Place be made one-way. I agree. Making it one-way northbound with a contraflow southbound bike lane  and merging/crossing area could alleviate this problem with any of the proposals.
• There is also a possibility of a bicycle route crossing Massachusetts Avenue, then on back streets behind the Library, crossing Mystic Street to Wellington Street and reconnecting with the path at Spy Pond. This would be longer and I don’t suggest it as an exclusive route, but it would avoid the difficult intersection with Mystic Street/Pleasant Street.

If you wish to check my credentials, they are online at http://bikexprt.com/bikeres3.htm. I thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

In Lincoln –

http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=3190

Diane Lees interviewed me for The Outspoken Cyclist radio program which will stream at 5:30 PM EDT Saturday, April 23rd 2011at 5:30pm EDT at http://www.wjcu.org/media/audio/shows/outspokencyclist or on 88.7FM – WJCU from University Hts., OH. and be available from 6:30 PM at the same address as a podcast. Mostly we talked about my writing — Diane invited me to talk about bicycling advocacy on a future show.

Four students of Northeastern University professor Peter Furth have proposed a transformation of Lee and Clyde Streets in Brookline.

These streets in the southwest part of Brookline connect Route 9 at one end with Newton Street at the other, and are an important if not very heavily-traveled arterial route. The streets pass the Brookline Reservoir, residences and the Country Club Brookline golf course. Here is a Google map of the project location:

View Larger Map

A Look at the Project Plans

Plans for the project were posted on the Northeastern University Web site in April of 2009. Have they changed? I can’t tell you, because I can’t find any newer version online. If you know where I can find a newer version, please let me know.

There is to be a meeting about the project on March 14, 6:30 to 8:30 PM at at the Putterham Library in Brookline, and I encourage attendance at the meeting. The meeting announcement also mentions projects along Newton and Hammond Streets. All the information I have on these is in the brief summaries here and the descriptions indicate treatments much like those on Clyde and Lee Streets. For now, let’s go with the 2009 Clyde/Lee Street plans, which are public.

The project documents are here. In connection with the comments I am about to make, it will be most useful to keep the plan drawings open in a separate window on your computer screen so you can refer to them repeatedly. They are near the end of this document. It is a PDF document, and your browser should be able to open it with the free Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in. Start with the last page of the document and work upward. You will need to rotate the pages counterclockwise to see them right-side-up. That option is in the View menu in the Acrobat Reader. Zoom in far enough so you can read the text on the pages. You will have to scroll around some unless your computer has a very large screen.

Page P-7, the last page. shows cross sections. There is a roadway with two 12-foot travel lanes, and 2-foot offsets (narrow, striped shoulders). Turn lanes are added in a few places. To the left (west side) there is a sidewalk, and on the other side, a landscaped median and then a 12-toot wide service road.

The project would, then, narrow the roadway from four lanes to two, narrowing the striped shoulders which now exist along most of its length, and placing a service road behind a median along one side –as on parts of Commonwealth Avenue in Newton.

There are major difference, though. The Commonwealth Avenue frontage road, a legacy item from when streetcars ran in the median, is 21 feet wide, and bordered on one side by a sidewalk. It has one travel lane, and in some parts, parking is allowed along the side next to the sidewalk. Motor traffic is light. Motorists can exit into the main roadway at any cross street. . Bicyclists and runners do use the frontage road for travel in both directions, though crossing the intersections places bicyclists out of view of turning motorists, a known hazard.

The Newton Street End

Now, let’s move up to Page P-6 and look at the Newton Street end of the project and see how this service road is different from the frontage road on Commonwealth Avenue.

Suppose you are coming in a car from Newton on Newton Street, and you want to turn left to get to a house on the east side of the first block of Clyde Street. You can’t. You have to go past Clyde Street, make a U turn somewhere and come back to enter the service road.

Suppose you are riding a bicycle and want to use the service road. You can cross two legs of the intersection in crosswalks — waiting through, on average, 3/4 of a signal cycle — to enter the service road. Or, you might make the left turn as a driver, using the roadway, so your average wait is only the usual 1/4 signal cycle, but then, the roadway is to be only marginally wide enough for a motorist to pass you without intruding into the oncoming lane. With the roadway between vertical curbs, the farthest right you can ride is on the white line two feet from the curb to avoid the risk of a pedal strike. To avoid the risk of close passes, you must block the lane entirely. Very likely, motorists will object to your riding on the main roadway, expecting you to ride on the service road. The roadway doesn’t lead to many destinations along the service road, and vice versa.

If you are coming down Clyde Street from the north in a car, and headed for a destination along the southernmost block of the service road, you must turn left on Newton Street and then make a U turn to enter the service road. For all of the blocks north of Larkin Road, it appears that you must make a U turn from Clyde Street at Larkin Road –all of the gaps in the median north of Larkin Road are designed to prevent U turns. So, you may have to travel a rather long distance on the service road.

If you are headed south to a destination on the service road on a bicycle, you could on the other hand just take the service road, being careful to avoid all the other users.

About those other users: from Newton Street all the way to Sears Road (on drawing P-3), the 12-foot-wide service road would accommodate one-way northbound motor traffic as well as two-way bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

The Minuteman path in Boston’s northwest suburbs is 12 feet wide, and there are repeated complaints of conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians. Now, imagine the Minuteman path, but with local motor traffic including residents backing out of driveways, and the garbage truck, and the trash barrels put out onto the path because part of the plan is to eliminate the sidewalk and there is no grass strip either from Clyde Street to Larkin Road.

A bike lane on the 12-foot-wide service road is described with text in the drawings, though it is not illustrated in any of them. I assume that the bike lane is for southbound bicycle traffic. The standard width of a bike lane is at least 4 feet, and of travel lane next to a bike lane, at least 10 feet, with traffic traveling in the same direction. The garbage truck is going to be more than 8 feet wide and traveling north. When the garbage truck is blocking the service road, and someone wants to get out of the neighborhoods in a car, that could be interesting too.

Oh, and also, anyone in a car leaving a home on the east side of Clyde Street or a side street, and wanting to go south toward Newton Street would have to travel northbound first, and then make a U turn, because all of the gaps in the median south of Sears Road are designed to prevent entry from the side street. (Have a look at drawings P-5 and P-4.) At Sears Road, the main roadway is divided with a median, so motorists will have to continue further north on Lee Street before they can turn around and come back to the south.

Bicyclists would have it easier: they could head south in the Service Road and then turn right onto Newton Street with only a 1/4 signal cycle delay compared with turning right the usual way from the right side of the street, but if turning left onto Newton street, they would either be using the two crosswalks (3/4 signal cycle) , or to save time, they would cross Newton street on the left side of the intersection without the benefit of a traffic signal, turn lane or crosswalk. Many bicyclists do that kind of thing when they get impatient with indirect routes and long delays.

Comparison with Nonantum Road

As a brief aside, let me make a comparison with a recent road reconstruction which similarly has a multi-use path alongside the roadway: Nonantum Road between North Beacon Street and Watertown Square. Here is a description of that project. Nonantum Road also is being reduced from four lanes to two, but with a 3-foot shoulder on each side and a four-foot flush median in the middle. The median was specifically mentioned by the design team as reducing the risk of head-on collisions, and allows motorists safely to deviate slightly to the left to overtake bicyclists riding on the shoulders. The narrowing of the roadway made it possible to widen the path on the river side of Nonantum Road from 8 feet to 10 feet — a bit of a compromise, but on the other hand, the faster bicyclists have the option to use the roadway, which also is more convenient if making a left turn. Flexibility is maintained for changes in the traffic mix including a foreseeable increase in the use of motor scooters, which are not allowed on paths. The roadway of Nonantum Road will still be wide enough for traffic to pass in both directions if a vehicle breaks down. I am pleased to have participated in the public input on this project.

By narrowing the roadway to a minimum, the Clyde/Lee Street proposal does not afford any of these advantages. It will be awkward for motorists to overtake bicycles and mopeds. There will be an unnecessary risk of head-on collisions. Breakdowns will cause traffic jams. There is no provision for bus stops in the plan, either. If the bus stops, everyone stops.

The West Side

Now, let’s look at the west side of Clyde/Lee street. There are a number of residences along the west side. Bicyclists traveling to or from them will have to use the narrowed roadway, or else cross the grass median and the roadway to use the service road. Or, some will ride on the west sidewalk, and that is poor idea.

Left turns are to be blocked where Lee Street joins Clyde Street from the west, in drawing P-5, here in a Google Street View:

View Larger Map

This is an inconvenience for local residents and for bicyclists headed into the neighborhood to the west or to continue west on Warren Street and heath Street, a favored alternative to Route 9.

Now, let’s continue to look at drawing P-3. At Sears Road, motor traffic is required to exit the service road, which remains at the same 12-foot width and now carries only bicycle and pedestrian traffic — though several driveways cross it. Driveway crossings on paths are a known hazard.

The plans show no provision for bicyclists to cross from the path onto Warren Street westbound (drawing P-2). This is especially a problem because of the removal of the left turn at Clyde and Lee Streets.

North to Boylston Street

The path crosses Warren Street in a crosswalk on the east side of a roundabout, once again becoming a 12-foot wide service road, with no sidewalk. At Dudley Street, the service road becomes a path again.

Then the path proceeds to Boylston Street (Route 9), where it turns right and merges into the sidewalk along Boylston Street, making no provision for bicyclists or pedestrians to cross Boylston Street or turn left to enter or leave the path.

Conclusions

First of all, Lee/Clyde Street is presently one of the easiest arterials to ride in the Boston area for competent adult bicyclists. It is wide, relatively level, and traffic is relatively light. It is overbuilt, at the same time making it easy for motorists to overtake bicyclists, promoting speeding and creating an ungly expanse of pavement.

The Northeastern students’ proposal is supposed to create a facility that is attractive for children and novice cyclists. Let me propose that there are so many problems with this design that they seriously outweigh that potential advantage.

The students’ proposal will make Clyde and Lee streets slower and more inconvenient for adult cyclists without making it safe for children, and while causing serious inconvenience to motorists. Yes, all the greenery is nice, but we could have greenery while maintaining the flexibility and year-round usability of the street. Other options will work better, all in all.

I suggest that the street be reduced from four lanes as at present to two lanes with a flush center median which becomes a left-turn lane as needed, as on Nonantum Road. In this way, the width of the roadway could be reduced somewhat, allowing plantings alongside the street rather than in a median — where people get less enjoyment of them. There would still be width for bike lanes or shoulders, much wider than on Nonantum Road, and for sidewalks.

My proposal would avoid the hazards of mixing bicycle, pedestrian and motor traffic on a 12-foot wide service road. It would avoid the long detours and U turns for bicyclists and motorists alike. It would keep the main roadway wide enoiugh to accommodate changes in the traffic mix, bus stops, or breakdowns. Speeding on this street could be brought under control with moderate traffic calming measures such as speed tables and, dare I say it, enforcement.

Access in winter also is an issue. There has been little success in keeping mixed-use paths in the Boston area open in winter, either for bicycling or for walking. The Northeastern University students’ proposal offers no practical access for bicyclists in winter.

My proposal would not create a path separate from the main roadway, suitable for little children to ride. Neither would the Northeastern students’ proposal: it would create a path like the Minuteman path, only with motor vehicles traveling along it, entering it and crossing it at numerous locations. If there is to be a bicycle route in this corridor suitable for child cyclists, it will be away from roads — and/or make use of some of the very lightly traveled roads in the neighborhoods to the east or west.

There has been some rather pointed backlash against the students’ proposal. This letter to the Brookline Patch online news service accuses the proponents of secrecy about their plans while attempting to construct a bicyclists’ “Brookline hippieville dreamroute”. The letter is intemperate and unfair, but it’s how the proposal looks to some local residents. Can they, I hope, understand that some bicyclists have our own concerns about what is proposed, and would prefer something that would also appeal better to them?

I certainly don’t think that the Northeastern students’ proposal is a dreamroute. And also, I could add that there is reason for concern about the expense of the project: $3 million, in a time of tight municipal budgets. A project which is less ambitious, less expensive, better presented and friendlier to its neighbors has a much greater chance of acceptance and of success. I hope that my comments have helped to guide planning in that direction.

Massachusetts rules for driving are found in many different documents. These apply in different places, so depending on where you are, different rules may apply.

The most generally applicable rules for driving are found in Chapter 89 of the General Laws.

Specific rules which apply to bicyclists are in Chapter 85, Sections 11A through 11F.

This section fortunately prohibits cities and towns from prohibiting bicycle use, though not all act accordingly.

Additional rules which apply mostly to operators of motor vehicles are found in Chapter 90. Most of these are found in Section 14. This section includes some rules which ought to apply to all vehicle operators, including bicyclists, but don’t. The section also includes a couple of rules that do apply to operators of all vehicles, including bicyclists. There are some very nasty rules which apply to electrically-assisted bicycles and low-speed motor vehicles, and I have covered those in a previous post on this blog.

In none of these sections is there a definition of a bicycle. The City of Boston attempted to define bicycles as vehicles through a bill introduced in the 2009-2010 legislative session.

The bicycle is, however, already specifically defined as a vehicle in Code of Massachusetts Regulations 720 (CMR 720) — but this applies only on state highways. What is are state highways? Did you expect a simple answer? Sorry, this is Massachusetts! They’re not the same as numbered highways — you may have seen the signs that say “state highway begins” (or “ends”). Only those segments that are managed by the state are state highways. Many segments are managed by cities and towns.

However, the definition of “bicycle” in CMR 720 is actually one of the best anywhere in the country — it includes tricycles and avoids arbitrary distinctions based on wheel size etc. (The laws of many states assume that a bicycle with 20-inch or smaller wheels must be a child’s bicycle, though many folding bicycles and recumbents designed for adults have small wheels). Here’s the Massachusetts definition:

Bicycle. Any wheeled vehicle propelled by pedals and operated by one or more persons.

Vehicle. Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, including bicycles when the provisions of these rules are applicable to them, except other devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks and devices which derive their power for operation from stationary overhead wires.

Parts of CMR 720 are online, including, at long last, the rules for driving on state highways.

CMR 720 includes quite a number of rules of the road which are not in the Statutes. These have been in place for many years. I speculate that the Department of Public Works (which became the Highway Department, and now is part of MassDOT) saw that the traffic laws had important omissions — Massachusetts traffic law is the nation’s most disorganized and antiquated — and determined to fill in the gaps on roads within MHD’s purview. One rule of particular importance to bicyclists is the definition of limited-access highways and express state highways. Express state highways are defined:

Express State Highway. A divided arterial highway for through traffic with full or partial control of access and generally with grade separations at intersections

Note that these highways do not have to have full control of access — bicycles can be banned from highways which have trip generators along them. Limited-access highways are defined as:

Limited Access Highway. An express state highway with full control of access.

Signs must, however, be posted in either case, to put a bicycle ban into effect.

9.08: Limited Access and Express State Highways

(1) Effect of 720 CMR 9.00. 720 CMR 9.08(2) shall be effective on all limited access State Highways and express state highways where official signs have been posted prohibiting bicycles, pedestrians and/or horsedrawn vehicles.

(2) Limited Access and Express State Highway Regulations.

(a) Horsedrawn Vehicles. No person shall ride or drive a horse or a horsedrawn vehicle within the limits of or on any portion of any highway where official signs have been erected at the approaches of said highway prohibiting such traffic.

(b) Bicycles. No person shall operate or ride a bicycle within the limits of or on any portion of any highway where official signs have been erected at the approaches of said highway prohibiting such traffic.

(c) Pedestrians. No person shall use any highway for pedestrian or foot traffic purposes except in emergency, where official signs have been erected at the approaches of said highway prohibiting such traffic.

In practice, these regulations are loosely observed, and there are deviations in both directions. Some highways which do not meet the requirements where signs prohibiting bicycling are posted. For example, part of Route 88 in Westport, near New Bedford, is posted, though it is not divided and has wide shoulders which would be fine for bicycling. As noted, what is and is not a state highway is not at all obvious, as many numbered highway segments are owned by cities, towns and the DCR, etc.

There are also some rather quaint and redundant rules for driving under CMR 350, which applies to DCR property.

That’s where we get the wording of the signs indicating that parkways are “for pleasure vehicles only” — language which goes back to the days of horses and carriages, banning commercial wagons — but which now has been updated (and degraded) to apply to passenger cars and pickup trucks.

And — in CMR 700, there are rules for driving that apply only to certain specific roads and bridges
.

CMR 730 includes some rules for driving on the Massachusetts Turnpike — specifically, the meaning of certain kinds of traffic lights. Now, this is a bicycle blog, but I’m trying to be complete here. Also, I have long maintained that bicycle access to the shoulders of the MassPike bridge over the Connecticut River would be a useful improvement, providing a convenient and safe connection.

<a href="http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/cmr/cmrtext/740CMR11.pdf”>CMR 740 includes some rules for driving on the Tobin Bridge. this bridge doesn’t have shoulders, but, again, I’m trying to be complete.

Confusing? Disorganized? Yes, and more than I even used to think, because, now that the regulations are online, I’ve found rules for driving in more places than I ever know about before.

Electrically-assisted bicycles are becoming increasingly popular. Please see my post about them on my personal blog for more detail about this phenomenon.

This definition in Chapter 90, section 1 of the Massachusetts General Laws appears to cover electrically-assisted bicycles:

“Motorized scooter”, any 2 wheeled tandem or 3 wheeled device, that has handlebars, designed to be stood or sat upon by the operator, powered by an electric or gas powered motor that is capable of propelling the device with or without human propulsion. The definition of “motorized scooter” shall not include a motorcycle or motorized bicycle or a 3 wheeled motorized wheelchair.

(A motorized bicycle is defined in the same section as gasoline-powered and capable of speeds up to 30 miles per hour).

Bicycling advocates unfortunately weren’t paying enough attention when the legislation was rushed through when gasoline-powered “mini-motorbikes” were popular a few years ago. These look like ordinary motorcycles but are about half as big, and they are noisy and pollute. They appeal to teenagers. Electrically-assisted bicycles, on the other hand, are quiet, non-polluting, and generally appeal to a more mature clientele — mostly, to older bicyclists who aren’t as strong as they once were.

In section 1E is this horrendous wording, requiring operators of motorized scooters — that is, including electrically-assisted bicycles — to be licensed operators and to pass on the right.

Section 1E. A motorized scooter shall not be operated on any way by a person not possessing a valid driver’s license or learner’s permit, nor at a speed in excess of 20 miles per hour. A person operating a motorized scooter upon a way shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting scooters or bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to all traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the regulations contained in this section, except that: (1) a scooter operator shall keep to the right side of the road at all times, including when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way; and (2) the scooter shall be equipped with operational stop and turn signals so that the operator can keep both hands on the handlebars at all times. No person shall operate a motor scooter upon any way at any time after sunset or before sunrise.

20 miles per hour is no faster than pedal-powered bicycles travel, so it is arguable that licensing is not necessary. Passing on the right is usually unsafe and often impossible. For example, requires operators of motorized scooters are required to pass on the right side in a right-turn lane, then invite a right-hook collision when entering the intersection, rather than on the left.

This law needs to change.

My son brought home a copy of the Metro newspaper on Monday, January 26. He picked it up on the T, and the front-page headline was that Mayor Menino has introduced a bill to raise the fine for for bicyclists’ traffic infractions from $20 to $150.

There was a spirited rejoinder by Massbike Executive Director David Watson on page 2, to the effect that Massbike’s efforts have just given police the tools to enforce the law, and why not see whether it works with fines as they are.

The story is online here. I thank isolatecyclist for providing the permanent link.

The bill would be effective statewide.

My two cents on this: having repeatedly witnessed Boston police officers riding on the wrong side of the street, see for example

this Web page,

and for no apparent law-enforcement related reason, and as I have read accounts by Paul Schimek and others of improper police commands based on nonexistent laws, and directly contrary to law, I wonder whether the Mayor understands what a can of worms he has opened.

The timing is exquisite too, shortly before the annual bicycle program update presentation, which will thereby become more interesting.

The best outcome I can see from this development would be that the police will have to learn the law that applies to bicyclists, after repeated embarrassment due to attempts to enforce laws that exist only in the officers’ imagination.

I have posted my photos of Doug Mink’s Boston Harbor ride. Doug has posted many more photos, from this ride and from rides in previous years.

I had been hoping to take Doug’s ride for years but usually was on vacation when it happened. I wasn’t disappointed this year when I finally had the opportunity. Some observations:

In contrast to the old and sometimes rather shabby appearance of many parts of Boston, there is much that is new and impressive north of the Mystic River. Massport money and mitigation money from the Big Dig have funded some impressive new parks and paths — see Doug’s photos for examples. Local advocates have worked to shape these gains. Similarly, the mandate to build a new sewage treatment plant has resulted in a stunning structure at Deer Island, with an occasional whiff of sewer gas and a view of a very large wind generator too. It is possible to ride all the way around Deer Island on a path, with some superb scenic outlooks over the harbor as well.

On the East Boston waterfront, there is a park with some impressive outdoor sculptures, which you can see Doug’s and my photos.

Constitution Beach in Revere is a very nice swimming and picnicking beach, with very convenient access from the Blue Line.

All these things create a sense of place and a dynamism which remind me of the Chicago waterfront, which I also had the good fortune to visit this summer.

On the other hand, there are issues with design of bicycle facilities, and I also have documented some of these in my photos. Suffice it to say here that Massport and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority make some mistakes that compromise bicyclists’ safety — which might be expected, as bicycling is only tangential to their missions — but so does the City of Boston, in designing its streets.

Boston has been installing traffic-signal actuator loops that don’t work for bicyclists, and sometimes not even for motorists.

Installing the right kind of loops doesn’t cost any more — it’s merely a question of cutting a different set of slots in the pavement and laying a different pattern of wires in those slots.

Traffic signal actuator loops are, very simply, metal detectors — radio antennas buried just below the surface of the street, sending out a radio signal which is disturbed when a metal object appears overhead. The radio transmitter senses the different loading and triggers the traffic signal.

The older loop pattern — a plain square or rectangle — has a lot of signal spillage. The sensitivity has to be reduced to prevent triggering by vehicles in the wrong lane. The actuator then often does not respond to a bicycle or motorcycle. You can sometimes trigger it by placing your wheels over the wire at one side.

Actuator Loops, Lincoln Street at Cambridge Street

The newer type, with two rectangles side by side in a lane or a diagonal pattern, has very little spillage, and so its sensitivity can be increased. A metallic bicycle rim or frame should be able to trigger one of these. Same for a loop of very thin wire inside the perimeter of a carbon-fiber rim or frame…which in my opinion should be required equipment. For more information, you may read see my article about actuators, — and the other articles it links to.

Last year, Boston installed traffic signal actuator loops in Scuocco Square (Cambridge Street and New Chardon Street/Bowdoin Street). These actuators were of the type that is supposed to detect bicycles but the wires were placed incorrectly. Even a motor vehicle wouldn’t trigger one of these actuators, because the loop is after the stop bar. See photos. I reported the problem to a Boston city official in a position of responsibility to resolve the problem.

This summer, Boston installed actuator loops in Allston, at the intersections of Cambridge Street with Lincoln Street and North Harvard Street. These are not even the bicycle-sensitive type. Not only that, the ones on Lincoln Street are only in the left lane. A motor vehicle in the right lane could make a right turn on red but, unless another motor vehicle pulls alongside in the left lane, the traffic light will not turn green and there will be no safe or legal way to cross the seven lanes of Cambridge Street to the Turnpike underpass on the opposite side. See photos.

Actuator loops, Rosedale Road at Pleasant Street, Watertown

A few minutes before I discovered the Allston installation, I rode over a perfect, new bicycle-sensitive loop installation in Watertown, at the intersection of Rosedale Road and Pleasant Street. If Watertown can get this right, why not Boston?

I discovered these installations only by happenstance. I am quite sure that there are other examples, both good and bad. Please feel free to report them. Comments are open.

Regarding the recent fatal crash in Brighton: I understand that the cyclist was traveling down a rather steep hill on an arterial, Commonwealth Avenue, at speed, ran a red light and collided with a vehicle that was crossing on the green. Last I heard, it was unknown whether the cyclist ran the light intentionally, or failed to notice it, or there was brake failure.

Here’s a Google Maps overhead view of the intersection.

The cyclist was coming from the lower middle of the image (may vary according to your screen size) in the service road, which is the rightmost road.

The cyclist’s view (more or less) approaching the intersection is shown in Google Street View.

There was a Boston Globe news story about the crash.

The Globe article makes a lot of the cyclist’s not wearing a helmet. That might indeed have prevented the fatality, but as we all know, a helmet is only a last resort. A very serious issue when traveling on the service road is conflict with vehicles turning right from the main roadway — this is right-hook central and not only for bicyclists. Note in the street view that a car is proceeding straight across in the service road, but there is a green light for the main roadway as well. You can move forward and back along the service road and main roadway too in the street view and verify that they have the same signal phase. There also doesn’t appear to be a prohibition against turning right on red, even from the main roadway. However, the location of the bicycle and bicyclist following the crash suggest that she collided with a vehicle traveling from right to left, where there would be sight-line issues due to the building on the corner. The article includes a quote from Pete Stidman, and I agree with what he said. One thing he suggested was special signals; a longer yellow might help, but only a separate signal phase for traffic turning right from the main roadway would eliminate the conflict.