Some questions about bicyclists’ rights in Massachusetts

The bicyclists’ advocacy organization Massbike has as of today, November 27, 2018, posted a quiz online and promoted it in an e-mail, and the first question is “True or false: Massachusetts law considers a bicycle to be a vehicle.” Massbike says true, and gives this explanation:

It’s true! The law considers a bike a vehicle. According to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 85 Section 11B, you may ride your bicycle on any public road, street, or bikeway in the Commonwealth, except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bikes have been posted. You are to ride and follow the rules of the road, except where those rules apply specifically to bicycles, as is also noted in this section of the law.

I have other issues with the quiz, but let’s examine this one statement for now.

You are to ride and follow the rules of the road, except where those rules apply specifically to bicycles.

You are to follow the rules except when they apply to you? Sorry, try again.

Chapter 85, section 11B of the Massachusetts General Laws in fact says that

Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section, except that: (1) the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way…

and there are a few other special rules.

Do you see the word “vehicle “? I don’t. This section refers to Chapter 90, section 1, the definition section for special rules that apply to motor vehicles,  but that section also contains no definition of “vehicle”. There are only specific definitions of several types of motor vehicles. There is no definitions section at all in Chapter 89, the rules of the road chapter, though the word “vehicle” is used repeatedly in that chapter. A search of the General Laws turns up no definition of “vehicle” anywhere.

So, a bicycle is not a vehicle under Massachusetts law, because Massachusetts law has no definition of “vehicle”.

Turning back to Chapter 85, section 11B, it establishes the right to use all public ways, but  to what part of the public way? Massbike’s quiz gives a faulty and perilous answer to this question:

According to MGL Chapter 85 Section 11B bicyclists may leave the bike lane to avoid hazards or blockages. Riders do not have to stay in the bike lane. However, it is advised that you ride in it to remain predictable to traffic, riding in a straight line unless voiding a hazard or turning!

Considering that about 95% of urban bike lanes in Massachusetts are in the door zone of parked vehicles, I do not appreciate the advice to stay in the bike lane except when “avoiding a hazard or turning.” I can ride in a straight line and be predictable outside the bike lane and also avoid dooring and the six other hazards, that go with edge riding. If I am to be predictable, I need to leave the bike lane to prepare a turn, not only “when turning.”

Can we even assume that bicyclists have the right to leave the bike lane? Consider this, in Chapter 89, section 4B:

“Upon all ways the driver of a vehicle shall drive in the lane nearest the right side of the way when such lane is available for travel, except when overtaking another vehicle or when preparing for a left turn. When the right lane has been constructed or designated for purposes other than ordinary travel, a driver shall drive his vehicle in the lane adjacent to the right lane except when overtaking another vehicle or when preparing for a left or right turn; provided, however, that a driver may drive his vehicle in such right lane if signs have been erected by the department of highways permitting the use of such lane.”

For a bicyclist, the bike lane is the lane nearest the right side of the way available for travel and so this rule amounts to a mandatory bike lane law with only one limited and vague exception, a highly restrictive rule. A literal interpretation of the law requires bicyclists to stay in the bike lane except when it is  blocked by a stopped or parked vehicle, etc. I haven’t seen this issue raised in a court of law, but I’m not holding my breath.

In Code of Masschusetts Regulations 720, which applies only on state highways, there is a fine definition of “bicycle”:

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

CMR 720 also includes a a number of rules which are absent from the Statutes — trivial things like what a vehicle driver is to do at red, yellow and green traffic signals — absent from Chapter 89; rules for pedestrians and for drivers encountering pedestrians, etc. Highway Department regulations  are exactly the same for bicyclists as for operators of other vehicles, though a more restrictive lane rule may apply when a state highway has bike lanes. The definition of “bicycle” and the rules which are absent in the statutes have been in the Highway Department regulations for many years. My assumption is that the Highway Department, frustrated with the Legislature’s having left gaps in the law, filled them.

Posted in Advocacy, Laws | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Some questions about bicyclists’ rights in Massachusetts

Fatal crash of November 9, 2018 in Cambridge, Massachusetts

This morning’s fatal crash was reported by State Police as another in the string of tragic right-hook collisions which have become the largest cause of bicyclist fatalities in the Boston area. Once again, a bicyclist was crushed by a large truck which turned right.

The State Police report indicates that both were stopped, then both turned right. Whether the bicyclist intended to turn right, or turned right in an attempt to avoid the truck, is not clear and may not be knowable.

< http://www.mspnews.org/2018/11/bicyclist-struck-and-killed-in-cambridge/?fbclid=IwAR3skXiI9yISXwHtnMRlyucrAL37oKXN3NCw_y5SOCDCLwFDz8Im3zxWiuw >

Who arrived first? The police report doesn’t say. If the bicyclist arrived first, that would clearly establish that the trucker is at fault. However, establishing fault can only assign compensation and penalize the driver. It does not bring the bicyclist back to life.

Bicyclist, want to avoid crashes? Keep reading. I call these crashes tragic because they are preventable. To avoid right-hook threats, don’t be in the no-escape zone where the truck’s rear wheels off-track to the right if it turns. If the truck is waiting when you arrive, wait behind it. If the truck pulls up next to you, don’t pass its rear wheels, or if necessary, move out of the way. Better, forestall the truck’s pulling up next to you by waiting centered in the lane.

There is a sign on the back of large trucks and buses: “If you can’t see my mirrors, I can’t see you.” To that I’d add: “if you can see my mirrors, I still might not see you.”  And don’t trust turn signals. Just stay out of the no-escape zone and it will be very, very unlikely that you’ll be run over. More detailed advice is here:

https://vimeo.com/263377367

In social media, I have seen calls for better infrastructure and for education of motorists. Motorist education certainly is helpful, but it takes years to spread, as does infrastructure change, and much infrastructure installed in the name of preventing crashes is faulty: witness the installation at Massachusetts Avenue and Beacon Street in Boston which now forces all motorists to turn right from the left lane, like the trucker who killed Dr. Anita Kurmann at that intersection in September, 2015.

This type of infrastructure actually trains bicyclists that passing on the right is OK, not only here but everywhere, because the government officially sanctions it.

Bicyclists can prevent these crashes. Really! is this a taboo subject? Well, yes,  it is taboo with many bicycling advocates, because telling government officials that their infrastructure solutions don’t work alienates them, and it is taboo because it dashes the dream that change in infrastructure, stricter licensing and harsh penalties for motorists will make bicycling safe without bicyclists ourselves having to do anything about it.

You, bicyclist reading this, have by far the greatest ability to avoid crashes, here and now. I’m probably going to be accused of blaming the victim for saying that. But no, I’m not blaming the victim. I don’t want you to be one.

Indeed, several external measures also can reduce the risk, including intelligent infrastructure measures, requirements for safety equipment on trucks (an increasingly promising approach with the advent of conflict sensors), driver education and changes in the law. For more about the Kurmann crash including a description of such measures, see the lead article here:

https://www.crw.org/sites/files/wheelpeople/WPP201803.pdf

For a thorough examination of how to be safe and confident on a bicycle in the real world, today, on streets and on paths too, go here:

https://cyclingsavvy.org.

My credential? Among other things, riding in Boston and in cities all around the USA and Canada for 40 years without one single collision with a motor vehicle.

I am a CyclingSavvy instructor too and next spring, I’ll have a course where I can show you what I know and do.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Riding Lexington Street, Waltham, July 4, 2015

It should be noted that bike lanes have been installed on much of the stretch of Lexington Street shown in the videos. Videos showing the new conditions are in preparation.

Two videos, for now:

A demonstration of lane control in a slow, uphill bicycle ride on a suburban speedway, with light, fast traffic. How controlling the right-hand lane on a multi-lane street makes for safe overtaking by motorists. How traffic law permits lane control. How most though not all motorists respect bicyclists’ rights but even the others overtake safely when the bicyclist controls his or her space.

Another video of a downhill ride on the same street, later the same day, demonstrating lane control technique and with one incident of harassment by a motorist.

Posted in Uncategorized, Waltham | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Riding Lexington Street, Waltham, July 4, 2015

My e-mail in support of West Station

Alexander Strysky is the reviewer for the Massashusetts Environmental Protection Agency reviewer for the I-90 Interchange project in Allston. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation has backed off from plans for prompt construction of  anew West Station on the Framingham-Worcester commuter-rail line, which is an essential element of the project. My comment e-mail to Mr. Strysky is below.

***********

To: alexander.strysky@state.ma.us

Subject: I-90 Interchange project, EEA # 15278

Date: January 31, 2018

Dear Mr. Strysky:

I am writing in support of prompt construction of West Station as part of the I-90 Interchange project. West Station offers not only an alternative to increased traffic clogging the Turnpike and surface streets, but also north-south bus, pedestrian and bicycling connections, all the more important with the massive development project on the former Beacon Yards, and the option for a transit connection to Cambridge on the Grand Junction rail line.

I am pleased that Harvard University has stepped up and increased its commitment to this effort, but all other necessary measures must be undertaken so the prompt construction of West Station occurs.

Very truly yours,

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on My e-mail in support of West Station

My letter to the Globe about the Kurmann fatality

I’ve read the Op-Ed piece by Andrew Fischer and Alan Wright, “Killing Bicyclists should be a crime” in the Sunday, January 28 Globe.

I agree with Wright and Fischer that a charge of involuntary manslaughter against the trucker in the Anita Kurmann fatality is warranted, as he precipitously and illegally turned right from the second lane; also, that the police report on the crash is deeply flawed in holding Kurmann at fault. She violated no law. She did, however, ride into what a well-informed cyclist would have recognized as a potential deathtrap.

Any good which may be drawn from the Kurmann tragedy is in preventing others in the future. And, as cyclists in many recent tragic collisions, including Kurmann, have had academic connections, colleges and universities must understand that instruction in safe cycling would pay for itself, even if considered only in terms of avoided loss.

Posted in Boston | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on My letter to the Globe about the Kurmann fatality

Bicyclists always had the right, the Globe got it wrong

The Starts and Stops column in the Metro section of the Sunday, June 10 2012 Boston Globe, and in Boston.com, included a discussion of whether bicyclists are required to ride in bike lanes, under the subheading “Bikers get the right” and concluding that there is no such requirement in Massachusetts.

The article quotes Boston Bikes Interim Director Kris Carter:

Cyclists are not required to stay within marked bike lanes, Carter said via e-mail.

“This is for a variety of reasons – opening car doors, potholes, and utility covers, double parked vehicles – [that] sometimes prohibit safe travel in the bicycle lane,” he said.

Carter pointed me to the ­Bicyclist Safety Law enacted four years ago.

Among the law’s many provisions, it established fines for people who open car or truck doors into the path of bicyclists or other traffic (known as “dooring”) and made motorists liable for hitting bikes riding to their right.

The headline “Bikers get the right” is inaccurate. Both Carter and Globe columnist Eric Moskowitz convey the impression that the right to ride outside bike lanes is a novelty. In 1973, the late State Senator William Saltonstall (R, North Shore) introduced the previous major revision to Massachusetts bicycle laws. It included no requirement to stay in a bike lane, and no special “keep far right” provision, as exists in many other states. There was none before that either, and if you want to go into boring detail about that, go here.

Carter and the Globe convey a mixed message: bike lanes must be good, after all, they’re being striped all around the city. On the other hand, most of these are full of hazards — the opening car door, the right hook, the left cross, the pedestrian running out from between parked or stopped vehicles.

True, there’s generally somewhat more room for motorists to overtake bicyclists on bike lane streets, but still, whatever the law may say, bike lanes get motorists annoyed with cyclists who don’t stay out of “their” space, and encourage cyclists to ride into the hazards.

I’ve put a video online of a ride I took with a friend eastbound on Commonwealth Avenue, from Kenmore Square to and through the Massachusetts Avenue underpass. (See blog post with the embedded video and a description.). We choose our lane position to optimize safety and to keep moving. Sometimes we are riding in the bike lane. Often, we are not. When the bike lane is next to parked vehicles, we are at the very least riding on its left-side lane line to stay out of the door zone.

Here is a Google satellite view of where we rode. The salmon-colored marker is at the start of the ride. Hereford Street, where we finished, is at the right side of the image. Bostonbiker won’t let me embed the Google map, but you can view it here with all the Google bells and whistles — scrolling, zooming, etc.

During this ride, we also pass through the bike box at Charlesgate East. We reached it on a green light, so it did nothing for us. We merged out of the bike lane before we reached the bike box, and in the next block, we merged the rest of the way across to the left-side bike lane under the underpass.

That brings up another issue: the picture at the top of the article shows the bike box with the caption,

Cyclists stopped for a red light in the bike box on Commonwealth Avenue in the Back Bay. They provide the cyclist a safe space to wait ahead of cars at traffic signals. (John Blanding/Globe Staff)

Here’s the photo. This use is covered under the fair use provisions of copyright.

Photo from the Boston Globe Starts and Stops column, June 10, 2012

Photo from the Boston Globe Starts and Stops column, June 10, 2012

It’s clearly a posed photo. The bicyclists are all smiling for the camera. It’s unclear how they got to the positions where they wait, though that has to have been easier in light mid-morning traffic. The ones closer to the camera are headed for a forced merge where the lane they are in becomes a parking lane on the far side of the intersection.

I have a discussion of the bike box online, along with a video showing how other cyclists use it.

Posted in Advocacy, Boston | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bicyclists always had the right, the Globe got it wrong

Harvard Bridge connection to the PDW path: proposed improvement

Let’s look at how well bicycle routes around the Boston end of the Harvard Bridge (Massachusetts Avenue bridge over the Charles River) might be improved.

Here is a Google maps overview of the area. There are two special bicycle routes in the area: the Paul Dudley White bicycle path along the river, and the ramp from the path to the downstream sidewalk of the bridge (lower left in the picture). There are bike lanes on the bridge; bicyclists also ride on the sidewalks, and for some trips, have no alternative because the Paul Dudley White bicycle path on the Boston side connects only with the sidewalk on the downstream side of the bridge.

South end of the Harvard Bridge and Charlesgate as of 2017

South end of the Harvard Bridge and Charlesgate as of 2017. Click on the image for a larger view.

Up to the 1980s, there was only a stairway up from the Paul Dudley White Bicycle Path to the sidewalk.

Stairs from the PDW path to the Harvard Bridge, Boston end, 1970s.

Bicyclists could carry their bicycles up and down the stairs, and able-bodied pedestrians could use the stairs too, but there was no wheelchair access. Bicyclists headed toward Boston had to travel opposite traffic until they could cross Massachusetts Avenue. Bicyclists headed for Cambridge could ride on the narrow sidewalk until they reached the Cambridge end of the bridge; similarly, but in the opposite directions, for people headed to the path.

When the Harvard Bridge was reconstructed in the late 1980s, a ramp up to the sidewalk replaced the stairs, providing wheelchair access. Bicyclists could now ride their bicycles to and from the downstream sidewalk, too.

Ramp between the PDW path and Harvard Bridge, Boston

Ramp between the PDW path and Harvard Bridge, Boston.

Crossing from the upstream side of the bridge still required going to the crosswalk at Beacon Street, as I described in an earlier post:

Currently, there is no way to get down to the Paul Dudley White path along the riverfront on the upstream side of the bridge. This leads to bicyclists’ riding down to Beacon Street and then cutting across in the near-side crosswalk so they can use the ramp on the downstream side, resulting in additional delay and risk. There is an example of this in my video. Dr. Peter Furth has pointed out that there is inaccessible parkland just upriver from the Harvard Bridge. Comprehensive improvements would both make the path accessible and provide access to this parkland. Easy access to the path and to Back Street, on the inland side of Storrow Drive, would allow bicyclists to continue their trips on streets which are less troublesome than Massachusetts Avenue.

The route which bicyclists take from the bridge to the path is shown as the red line near the left side of the image below. I frequently see bicyclists taking this route.

Route from Cambridge to the PDW pathy on the Boston side

Route from Cambridge to the PDW path on the Boston side. Click on the image for a larger view.

The only other alternative to the route shown is to ride on the downstream sidewalk, and that can involve delay and hazards at the Cambridge end of the bridge.

There really needs to be a ramp on the upstream side as well — here.

Harvard bridge, seen from the west. Click for a larger view.

Boston end of the Harvard bridge, seen from the west. Click on the image for a larger view.

Notice that the ground slopes up almost to the level of the bridge deck at the right side of the image. Over Storrow Drive and the path, the bridge structure extends well below the bridge deck. These conditions allow for a ramp which connects with the bridge on solid ground, and extends less far over the water than the existing ramp. The proposed ramp is shown at A in the image below.

Making connections. Click for a larger view.

Making connections. Click for a larger view.

Connecting the ramp to the bridge on solid ground offers another benefit. A new path (at B in the image) can connect from the bridge to parkland which is presently inaccessible from Massachusetts Avenue. As I already mentioned, this possibility has been suggested before, by Dr. Peter Furth, in connection with a proposal to improve bicycle access over the Bowker overpass, (shown at the top right in the image). A similar proposal is described on the Web site of the Charlesgate Alliance, probably reflecting input from Dr. Furth. I developed my proposal entirely independently before discovering the materials on the Charlesgate Alliance site, and the routing of the paths is nearly identical.  The Charlesgate Alliance proposal does not include a ramp on the upstream side of the bridge. Instead, that proposal includes a new crosswalk across the bridge. Traffic is either fast here, or backed up from the traffic light at Beacon Street. I regard a crosswalk as a cheap and unsatisfactory alternative. Is the goal to make bicycle and pedestrian travel safer and more convenient, or to create an obstacle course for motorists?

I have shown a T intersection between the ramp and the new path. A roundabout might allow for smoother traffic flow. I have also shown curb cuts so bicyclists could move between the sidewalks and bike lanes.

The Bowker overpass is one of the great travesties of road construction in the Boston area, burying Olmsted parkland under concrete, and in poor repair (note all the patches) but that is a story for another place. Be it as it may, the parkland is accessible from the Bowker Overpass end by a route shown with an orange line at C in the image above. Here are some Google Street View images from points along that route.

Bowker overpass end of connection to parkland

The image above is from the Bowker overpass and shows how a connecting path could pass from Beacon Street under a ramp to Storrow Drive eastbound (right side of image), and then connect with an existing driveway which is used only occasionally by maintenance and emergency vehicles.

Continuation of route to parkland

Continuation of route to parkland

The route continues around the building also seen in the previous photo and under the eastbound lanes of Storrow Drive. Then the route turns and goes uphill toward Massachusetts Avenue.

service road and proposed path to Massachusetts Avenue.

Connection between service road and proposed path to Massachusetts Avenue.

Lawn-mowing equipment passes around the end of the wall in the image above. A few feet of the wall should be removed (or the path elevated) for more clearance from the roadway.

The ramp to the path is an engineering project of the same order as the existing ramp. Making the remainder of the connection would require paving only about 500 feet of path, and signage.

Posted in Advocacy, Boston, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Sheet of ice draws praise from advocates

Snowmelt drains across "protected" bike lane on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge

Snowmelt drains across “protected” bikeway on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge

The headline of the Boston Globe article with this picture is “Snowbank becomes accidental hero for area cyclists”.

The shiny area in the bikeway is meltwater from said snowbank. When the temperature drops below freezing, the meltwater becomes a sheet of black ice. This problem is unavoidable with a street-level barrier-separated bikeway. I discussed it at length years ago in connection with the 9th Avenue bikeway in Manhattan, a bikeway which, on the other hand, I have some nice things to say about.

Neither Steve Annear, author of the article, nor anyone quoted in it, makes any mention of the black ice problem.

From the article: “’I like this snowbank-protected cycle track,’ Ari Ofsevit, a local cyclist, said on Twitter.” Ari ranges widely, imaginatively and thoughtfully in discussing transportation improvements his blog. I usually agree with him, but not in this case.

The article cites Joe Barr, of the City of Cambridge:

Barr acknowledged that the snow mound separating the bike lane and the road has offered a sense of protection to cyclists, but he said it could also be masking damage to the base of the flexible posts.

“We won’t know that until we get some more melting. But it certainly looks good on the street,” he said.

And Richard Fries, Executive Director of Massbike, commented: “It’s great. It won’t last that much longer, but it does help to hammer into people’s heads [road] patterns and driving habits,” he said. “Because it’s there, it makes the existing bike lane more visible to drivers and more prominent.”

Segregation promotes a sense of entitlement on the part of the majority group –in this case, motorists. How do I explain to horn-honking motorists that I have to ride in “their” travel lane, now narrowed to make room for the barrier, to avoid crashing on a sheet of black ice?

Or for that matter, to progress at my usual 15 miles per hour so I’m not stuck behind a cluster of bicyclists who are traveling at 8 miles per hour?

Or to avoid being right-hooked and crushed under the back wheels by a right-turning truck at Douglass Street?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Drainage Failure on Causeway Street

I took the photo below around 10 PM on January 5, 2017 looking west on Causeway Street in Boston from in front of North Station. Here’s a link to the location in Google maps. The default view in Google Maps is from before installation of the bikeway, as I write this.

Ice patch , Causeway Street bikeway, January, 201

Ice patch , Causeway Street bikeway, January 5, 2017

Streets are crowned (higher in the middle) so water drains off. In winter, the center of the street clears once plowed, and stays free of ice even when plowed snow is piled in the gutters.

The bikeway in the middle of Causeway Street, not opened yet, has two storm drains visible in the photo, just behind the ice patch which extends most of the of the way across. The drains are not at the lowest point. Only heavy and continuous salting could keep ice from forming at this low point when water drains off the concrete barriers and freezes. The barriers slope toward the bikeway.

The  barrier on the left also impedes access to Lancaster Street (where the black car is turning out of the photo), the most convenient way to get to Merrimack Street and head toward downtown Boston from North Station on a bicycle. The concrete medians have mountable curbs opposite Lancaster Street so emergency vehicles can cross over the bikeway, but turning across one of these barriers on a bicycle could be dicey when icy, and require dismounting to get over a pile of snow.

The problem here reflects construction error, in that the lowest spot along the bikeway does not match the location of the storm drains — but there are some larger lessons to draw from this failure.

Much in street design rests on long experience and tradition. Civil engineers know how to crown and drain a street so well that design failure is rare. Design elements are robust enough that minor construction errors — say, a drain which is not precisely at the bottom of a dip — are unimportant. A puddle or ice patch may form but it is in the gutter where it doesn’t pose a serious problem. As already mentioned, the street will still drain if snow is piled at its edges. When snow is melting, meltwater usually will undercut it and find the storm drains.

But the bikeway here is much narrower and there is is much less room for error. Traditional techniques and equipment fail to accomplish what is needed. Placement of drains is much more critical. Paving machines are not designed to produce the smaller-radius crowning which would carry water to the edges. Even with crowning, the water would intrude into traveled width of the bikeway.

A well-designed shared-use path has a sideslope and will drain onto a grassy area on one side. This practice is well-known, though not always applied in practice. A sidewalk or Copenhagen-style raised bikeway adjacent to a street, if designed to drain properly, also has a sideslope, so water drains down the curb into the street. Most American urban sidewalks apply this design principle, as well they must. If they drained away from the street, they would flood the buildings alongside. The building owners and tenants would be unhappy, to say the least. But, if part of a roadway’s width is reconfigured into a sidewalk or bikeway, all the drains have to be moved, and that is expensive.

Most American on-street barrier-separated bikeways, even those at the edge of the street, were installed as retrofits, afterthoughts, and do not drain properly. I have an example of another bikeway with this problem online. A couple of bikeway projects in Cambridge, as much as I may have other problems with them, were installed in connection with street reconstruction which replaced all the drains. This worked for the bikeway on the south side of Concord Avenue — though not for the one on the north side, where many obstacles prevent proper drainage and snow removal. Blogger David Chase has posted about this.

A median bikeway between barriers, like the one here, could possibly drain if the surface had been left at its original height, or raised, with a sideslope and frequent cut-throughs in the barriers. That approach would avoid the need for additional drains. Snow would still pose a problem. The conventional waffle-iron drains here, without a sideslope, fail. Bicyclists will be riding through a puddle during and after every rain; through sand after snow has melted; and through ice after a freeze.

The problem here may be considered as one of engineering but also of politics, reflecting a rush to install special infrastructure for bicycling when the expertise and political will to apply best practices are lacking. This problem is especially acute in the USA but it also occurs in countries which are usually singled out as exemplary. As a general rule, it might be stated that planning and design of bicycling infrastructure reflect funding limitations, political pressure to “do something,” and planning, engineering and construction work which are behind the curve on best practices.

All of these issues arise with the Connect Historic Boston project, of which the bikeway on Causeway Street is one segment, and I have addressed the project more generally in previous posts on this blog.

Save

Posted in Boston | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Drainage Failure on Causeway Street

More comments on the I-90 Allston Interchange project.

Some important improvements: parkland along the Charles, an overpass over Soldiers Field Road and a  better Franklin Street overpass, but also same old, same old, People’s Pillar to Post instead of a People’s Pike. My comments following the December 8 public meeting are online. More extensive earlier comments are in another post on this blog.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on More comments on the I-90 Allston Interchange project.