Following the Urban Revolutions event on April 28 (see previous post on this blog), Cambridge resident Jessica Eckhardt spoke with Boston’s Bicycle Program director, Nicole Freedman. They had known each other as members of the bicycle racing community. Eckhardt also spoke with Jeff Rosenblum, who works in the Cambridge Community Development Department and who was a co-founder of Livable Streets. Following (you may have to click on a “more” prompt just below this) is Eckhardt’s account of the conversation.
May 4, 2010
April 30, 2010
Concord Avenue: City’s position, and comments
On April 27, Kelly Dunn, Community Relations Manager of the Cambridge Department of Public Works, sent the e-mail below to a number of people. One was Jessica Eckhardt, who lives near the project area. The sections below in quotes are Ms. Dunn’s e-mail and the other sections are Ms. Eckhardt’s and my response.
Dear Jessica,
Thank you for your input and suggestions regarding the cycle tracks on Concord Ave. I hope I can address some of your concerns.
A few years ago a comprehensive planning study of the area was completed. The Concord-Alewife Study examined the current support system for pedestrians and cyclists in the area, and looked at how we might enhance access through additional connections in the Alewife Quadrangle. I encourage you to take a look at the study: http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/cp/zng/concalew/concale_plan_all.pdf
We like what that study says, but on the other hand, your statement changes the subject. That study contains no mention of “raised bike lanes”.
As projects move forward, we hope to be able to implement some of the connections noted in the study. Regarding the overall design of Concord Avenue, there are a few things to note. The reconstruction that will happen is a complete right-of-way reconstruction, with reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs and drainage systems; this would happen in any case and is not being done specifically to create the raised bike lane.
So, the “raised bike lane” just sorta happened? No, the City is consciously taking advantage of the need to reconstruct the street and sewers to create the so-called “raised bike lanes”.
Why the quotes? By definition, both technical and vernacular, there is no such thing as a “raised bike lane”. Any lane is part of the roadway, at roadway level. A bike path is separate from the roadway, and standards for safe design apply to it too. Under the proposed design, neither the street nor the paths meet design standards that apply in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The raised bike lane is just that: bicyclists will be in the exact same location as they are now.
That statement turns attention away from the issues by discussing location instead of behavior. The statement makes a host of assumptions, first of which is that cyclists only need to ride in the bike lane. Yes, you can be in the exact same place, but your options are very different if you are behind a curb.
Consider access to and from the eastbound “raised bike lane.” To reach it from most entrances on the north side, cyclists will have to cross most of the way, dismount, lift their bicycles over a curb and remount. Eastbound cyclists on the south side will have to hop down a curb at most places to turn left. The difficulty and danger of crossing the street will strongly encourage wrong-way riding, a practice which Cambridge has correctly disparaged in the past and is ignoring with this project.
Also, cyclists may now merge out of the bike lane to allow motorists to turn right without conflict. This option is denied with the “raised bike lanes”.
This is not a sidewalk path and bicyclists and pedestrians are separated by a street furniture zone, where street trees and street lights are located.
We do anticipate pedestrians spilling over or choosing to use the “raised bike lane” for travel – also cyclists using the pedestrian strip. In some places, the available width for both is only 10 feet. Still, the most disturbing issue with riding on a sidewalk-level facility is not so much the conflicts with pedestrians. It is the conflicts with motor vehicles — when riding the right way and much more so when riding the wrong way.
No matter what the design, the north side of Concord Avenue cannot be a safe location for the novice and child cyclists the City wants to attract. There is heavy turning and crossing traffic, at way too many locations. We have suggested extending the multi-use path on the south side — which has its benefits and drawbacks — the most notable benefit is safety for the inexperienced and child cyclists, with only one driveway crossing in the same distance.
At intersections and driveways, the facility is a regular in-street bike lane.
This is inaccurate and reveals a serious misunderstanding. The design drawings show the facility coming down to street level within a few feet of each street or driveway. To operate as a bike lane, it would have to come down at least 100 feet farther away, so that cyclists and motorists could negotiate lane position before and after the intersection. The City is not unfamiliar with this concept, which it used in its Vassar Street project. With, on average, one driveway or street every 100 feet, allowing merging distance around intersections and driveways would leave the westbound facility a bike lane just as it is now, for almost the entire length of the project.
There will be added signage reminding motorists to yield to cyclists.
Right-turning motorists will have to stop and wait, rather than merging into the bike lane before turning. Expect congestion, and mistakes. Signs or no signs, left-turning motorists will be unable to see past vehicles in the westbound lane. The best a left-turner can do is to creep forward until his or her vehicle’s hood provides a warning to cyclists that they need to yield.
There is nothing about the design that changes where cyclists travel over a standard bicycle lane.
This statement ignores the need to cross the street, among others, as already discussed.
Turning movements are always a concern, on all roads, whether there are bicycle facilities or not. There is no evidence that a raised bike lane with this design would make the situation worse; to the contrary, it increases the visibility of the cyclist, as well as decreases the likelihood of other dangerous behaviors such as motor vehicles parking in the bike lane.
That is an astonishing statement. Such evidence has existed for decades. It follows from human factors analysis (e.g, that drivers do not have x-ray vision, as already discussed), and from safety studies on both sides of the Atlantic. See for example this review of research results. And, a recent, extensive study in Copenhagen confirmed substantially-increased crash rates for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike.
If everything about positioning is the same, how can a height difference of 6 inches — or less, when the facility slants down before a street or driveway — make the cyclists more visible, especially to left-turning traffic? Will the child cyclists be more visible? Will any cyclists be visible when to the right of vans, trucks and buses?
As to your concern about motor vehicles parking in the bike lane, there is ample parking in the adjacent industrial area, and besides, the bike lane is too narrow to park in. Parking there is rare, illegal and subject to fines and towing. If there is no bike lane, any illegal parking will be in the travel lane instead or with one wheel up over the curb in the “raised bike lane”.
It’s important for cyclists to feel safe; especially riders with children and others who would not choose to ride on major streets with high volumes and high speeds of traffic.
We find it very distressing that the City proposes to attract unsuspecting cyclists including children onto a facility that crosses 24 driveways and 7 streets in 3000 feet, with known and serious crash risks, by making them feel safe — when the option exists for a path with only one, signalized intersection on the other side of the same street. Is it acceptable to make people feel safe when actually creating hazards for them? There is a vernacular term for this action: “Pied Piper” and also a legal term.”attractive nuisance.” We vote to re-examine the project on the basis of true safety, rather than an illusion of safety.
The City is committed to supporting and promoting sustainable transportation, and making it available and accessible to all. Raised bicycle lanes have been proven to be safe, effective facilities, which enable more people to choose to bicycle.
We support sustainable transportation too. We ride our bicycles almost every day, and we desire real safety improvements. Please cite your sources and clarify whether you are stating that a “raised bike lane” with so many intersections and immediately behind a high curb has been shown safe.
The project will also have important benefits to other users, especially pedestrians, who will have a greater buffer from motor vehicle traffic and improved street crossings. It is also expected that narrowing the curb-to-curb width of the street will help to reduce speeds, which are currently excessive.
Then we would be trying to use the cyclists and the car-bike conflicts as a shield, sacrificing one group for the benefit of the other. See especially the table on page 3 of the Copenhagen study, which was limited to the most carefully-designed street-corridor separated bicycle facilities. It found streets with these facilities more hazardous than other streets — for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike. Many features of the Concord Avenue design increase the hazard far beyond that of the Copenhagen facilities. Please, Ms. Dunn, show us your evidence to the contrary. We can’t just take your word for what you say, when public safety is at stake.
Yes, speeds are sure to decrease when the motorists are brought to a complete halt to wait to turn right across the “raised bike lane” and to a crawl to try to avoid collisions when turning left. Speeds could easily be controlled with traffic enforcement or with other measures, for example, raised pedestrian crossings.
One of the primary goals of the project is to improve conditions for people walking and biking on Concord Avenue, while maintaining vehicular capacity. The number of travel lanes will remain the same as today.
A “raised bike lane” is not a bike lane. The number of lanes will be reduced by two. A cyclist, who has the right to use the roadway under the laws of the Commonwealth, will no longer have eastbound and westbound bike lanes on the road. Also, capacity for motor vehicles will be reduced because motorists will have to stop before turning right, and will have to creep forward (we hope) while turning left, to yield to cyclists they can not see.
The conditions for cyclists and pedestrians will deteriorate with the snow in winter and no place to put it. Even if the “raised bike lane” is cleared, it will remain partly coated with slush and ice.
A community meeting was held last spring and the project has been reviewed by community groups, the city’s bicycle and pedestrian committees, the disabilities commission, and the committee on public planting.
The Cambridge bicycle program likes push the envelope by imitating European practice. People who are not familiar with the research literature can easily be convinced that the grass is always greener in Copenhagen, and that all such innovation is positive. This project also plays into the widespread public misperception that bicycling on sidewalks is safe. Some European designs are faulty, and this project in addition reflects a poor imitation of European practice. It will create a situation far worse than possible alternatives, and a perception of safety without really increasing safety. That is not positive innovation.
I (Jessica) am requesting meeting minutes and a copy of the flyer that was supposedly distributed around my neighborhood. I also ask why Massbike was not informed of the construction project.
If you would like, I can add your email to my public notification list; you can also check the progress of upcoming work at our website as well: http://www.cambridgema.gov/TheWorks/
Thank you again for your comments. I will be sending out periodic construction updates at the work progresses. If at any time you run into issues, feel free to contact me or Dan Vallee, project manager.
Sincerely,
Kelly
Kelly Dunn
Community Relations Manager
Cambridge Department of Public Works
147 Hampshire Street
Cambridge, MA 02139
T: 617.349.4870
F: 617.349.4814kdunn *at* cambridgema *dot* gov
www.cambridgema.gov/theworks
[All contact information here is already available on the Internet; e-mail address has been altered to avoid contributing to harvesting by spam robots.]
April 27, 2010
New author, topic: bicycling; Concord Avenue
Hello, I’m John Allen, and I thank Bob Winters for welcoming me as an author on this blog.
My topic is bicycling. I am an active bicyclist; I ride both for transportation and for recreation. I lived in Cambridge from 1971 through 1979, and I have lived in the Boston area ever since. I have been active in bicycling advocacy since the founding of the Boston Area Bicycle Coalition in the late 1970s. I was a founding member of the Cambridge Bicycle Committee in the early 1990s. Over the years, I have paid a lot of attention to bicycling developments in Cambridge.
My opinions about the Cambridge bicycle program may confound your expectations, unless you have been reading my writings on other Web sites. While there are many good things that Cambridge has done, there are others which I find to have serious flaws. My work takes me to cities all around the USA and abroad, so I have had many opportunities to compare bicycle accommodations. There are cities I could hold up as examples — San Francisco, Albuquerque, Madison. In my opinion, Cambridge is not one of the more shining examples.
I will be posting later about developments over the years, but my present concern is with a construction project which has now started on Concord Avenue between Alewife Brook Parkway and Blanchard Road. Details of my concerns are explained on my own blog.
The City's before-and-after cross-section diagram of the Concord Avenue project
I have several general areas of concern:
- The plan is to narrow the roadway, replacing the present bike lanes — whose installation I applauded — with sidewalk-level bikeways. The north-side (westbound) bikeway, like the present bike lane, will cross 7 streets and 24 driveways into an industrial area — so there will be very many turning and crossing movements. Most car-bike collisions involve turning and crossing movements. I only consider the westbound bike lane suitable for bicyclists who know how to avoid the conflicts. The raised bikeway will not resolve these conflicts, but it will create a false expectation of safety for child and novice bicyclists.
- The bikeway is to slant down to street level at each of the streets and driveways, but only where it reaches one — not before, so there is no way for either bicyclists or motorists to negotiate lane position. The presumption is that westbound motorists will always look back to the right and yield to bicyclists overtaking on their right, and that left-turning eastbound motorists will yield to bicyclists — who can be entirely hidden behind westbound vehicles. The so-called “right hook” and “left cross” collisions are already the two most common types of fatal car-bike collisions in the Boston area. The proposed design offers a wealth of opportunities for these collisions to occur.
- Bikeways behind 6-inch-high curbs at sidewalk level make it inconvenient and unsafe for bicyclists to cross Concord Avenue — and in particular, to reach the eastbound bikeway from most of the streets and driveways on the north side. In this way, the design encourages wrong-way bicycling — which is much more hazardous than right-way bicycling, because the wrong-way bicyclists are where motorists do not expect them and where they are in conflict with right-way bicyclists.
- The high curbs also pose the risk of bicyclists’ toppling into the street.
- The present bike lanes drain and are plowed along with the rest of the street. The proposed bikeways, just behind the curbs, are where gutter splash will target bicyclists and where snow will be plowed from the street. The City claims that it will plow the bikeways, but I don’t expect that they will be cleared anywhere near as soon or as well as the roadway.
- Creating a separate, narrow bikeway can not account for changes in the traffic mix, some of which are already underway. Cargo tricycles, bicycle trailers and pedicabs will block the bikeway; mopeds aren’t allowed; electrically-assisted bicycles are faster than others and more likely to get into trouble on the bikeways, but slower than motor vehicles. Who knows what else the future will bring?
- The turning and crossing conflicts between motorists and bicyclists will increase congestion of motor traffic on Concord Avenue, and particularly in the single westbound travel lane.
- The south side of Concord Avenue is adjacent to Fresh Pond Reservation and has only a single driveway crossing in the project area — at a signalized intersection. There is already a path extending part of the way along the south side of Concord Avenue; there is a sidewalk the entire way, and many bicyclists already use these westbound to avoid crossing all the streets and driveways. A bikeway on the south side properly designed for two-way travel would accommodate child and novice cyclists safely and comfortably, and avoid creating congestion.
- The project does not conform to the specifications in the award-winning Massachusetts Project Development And Design Guide, widely regarded as the best in the nation. I understand that the project is funded by the Commonwealth. Nonetheless, the project somehow slipped through the review process. Though City officials claim otherwise, neither does the project correspond to good European practice. It is a weak imitation of European practice.
The City makes the indirect claim of “safety in numbers” for this project. That is, when there are more bicyclists, motorists become more attentive and better at avoiding collisions. I agree that this happens, but I don’t agree with it as the justification for an all-around poor design. When bicyclists are placed where motorists can’t see them, safety is only achieved when everyone slows way down — same way as when pulling out of a blind driveway. This type of situation leads to frustration and animosity, because transportation is about people wanting to go places — both bicyclists and motorists. And the planned westbound bikeway is so inherently hazardous that I don’t expect either safety or numbers!
My recommendations? Leave the bike lanes as they are. Install a two-way bikeway on the south side, if that is practical. Provide a couple more signalized crossings, with signals timed so traffic flows smoothly and/or median refuge islands. Also look to other east-west through routes. One is already rideable, and funded for improvement, the Fitchburg Cutoff path between Alewife Station and Blanchard Road, north of the commuter rail tracks. The City’s Concord-Alewife Plan describes another route to be developed south of the tracks.
Bicycling advocates learned of the Concord Avenue project rather late. Construction has already begun, and I’m not very hopeful that the project can be changed. But whether or not it is changed, I consider public discussion and awareness important. I welcome comments. Thank you for your attention!
February 25, 2010
Nominating a Cambridge Election Commissioner
Thursday, Feb 25 – The Cambridge Democratic City Committee (CDCC) will meet tonight at 7:00pm at the Central Square YMCA (820 Mass. Ave.) to nominate three people for one of the two Democratic seats on the Cambridge Election Commission. There are five candidates seeking this position (see below). The practice of each of the two major political party committees has been to rank their three nominees, but there is nothing in the law that either requires this or even suggests this practice. It’s only purpose is to pressure the City Manager to abide by the preferred choice of the political committee, and this choice is often dictated by which candidate is able to pack the meeting when the nominations are determined. There is also a history of using an exclusionary strategy to nominate three candidates as a group solely to ensure that one of the other candidates is not among the three nominees. (This is exactly what occurred last year with the Republican City Committee.) The City Manager is under no obligation to pay any attention to the pecking order of these political committees (nor should he). It’s unfortunate that he is restricted to only these three nominees, but this restriction dates back to the establishment of the Cambridge Election Commission in response to claims made about 90 years ago that the Democratic mayor at that time (long before Plan E) was nominating “Republicans in name only” to the Board of Registrars, the predecessor of the Election Commission.
While I have a long-standing practice of never endorsing individual candidates for public office, the choice of an election commissioner is an appointment to a City board and is not a public election (only City Committee members may vote). Because my interest in the Cambridge elections (for both civic and academic reasons) is significant, I will say that the best choice by far for this position is Tom Stohlman. He was a candidate in the recent municipal election and has been actively involved in the campaigns of other candidates over the years. He is not only one of the most likable and agreeable people I’ve met during my 32 years in Cambridge, he also has a lot of expertise in the mechanics of the Cambridge elections. He would also be the perfect choice to move the Election Commission in the direction of improved public information about our local elections. In terms of the interpersonal relations of the 4-person Election Commission and how the Commission will work with its soon-to-be-appointed new Executive Director, there is no doubt that Tom would be the ideal choice. This is not meant as a negative statement about any of the other four candidates, but only as an affirmation of just how good a choice Tom would be for this position.
Unfortunately, though I am a CDCC member, I teach a class every Thursday night and cannot attend this meeting. If you are a voting member and can attend this meeting, please cast a vote tonight for Tom Stohlman – preferably the top choice, but please make sure he’s on the list of three nominees and that the City Manager chooses wisely from these three nominees. — Robert Winters
Update: Not unexpectedly, Linda Pinti, Mushtaque Mirza, and Martha Older collaborated in a partially successful preclusionary strategy to box out the competition. They were able to get Linda Pinti nominated as 1st choice and Mushtaque Mirza as 3rd choice with Poly Cobb getting the 2nd choice. These are the same results as last time and there’s no reason to believe the City Manager’s appointment will be any different this time, so congratulations goes to Poly Cobb for successfully fending off the competition and virtually assuring her reappointment!
Unfortunately, the best candidate of all, Tom Stohlman, was not included among the three nominees to be sent to the City Manager. I once characterized the Cambridge Democratic City Committee as political hospice. I believe the shoe still fits. For those who might actually care, here’s how the vote went:
Round 1: Pinti 59, Cobb 46, Stohlman 5, Mirza 1 (Older withdrew from Round 1). Pinti has majority, so gets #1 nomination.
Round 2A: Cobb 51, Mirza 46, Stohlman 9 (Older withdrew from Round 2). No majority, drop lowest candidate (Stohlman).
Round 2B: Cobb 51, Mirza 51 (tie). After much debate, decide to revote.
Round 2C: Cobb 54, Mirza 47. Cobb gets #2 nomination.
Round 3: Mirza 63, Stohlman 25 (Older withdrew from Round 3). Mirza gets #3 nomination.
Had I been able to attend this meeting, I might have told the CDCC, all of its officers, and most of its members what I really think of them. Instead, I taught a great Linear Algebra class at the Harvard Extension School and had a greater impact in one evening than the CDCC has made all year. – RW
Attention Cambridge Democrats! Want to be an Election Commissioner? Fill out the questionnaire and submit it no later than 5:00pm on Monday, February 1. The Cambridge Democratic City Committee will have a public forum with all candidates for the three nominations on Thursday, February 11 at 7:00pm and a vote on Thursday, February 25 at 7:00pm (Central Square YMCA). [A Candidate is Qualified if s/he has completed and submitted a Questionnaire to the City Committee and has been present and responded to questions at a public hearing.]
Candidates who Submitted Questionnaires by the Feb 1 deadline are:
Polyxane S. (Poly) Cobb – Questionnaire & Resume
Mushtaque Alikhan Mirza – Questionnaire & Resume
Martha J. Older – Questionnaire & Resume
Linda Sophia Pinti – Questionnaire & Resume
Thomas J. Stohlman, Jr. – Questionnaire & Resume
December 22, 2009
Talking with the Evil Empire
Talking with the Evil Empire
On Dec 14, I commented on a City Council Order regarding a poll being conducted by Comcast. Here’s what I said:
I don’t know what the Evil Empire of Comcast is up to with this poll, but I’ll be happy to offer some feedback right here. It was not very nice to take away virtually all of the TV stations for Basic Analog Cable customers other than those that can be picked up off the air. Except for New England Cable News, CCTV, and the municipal stations, everything else recently vanished. Perhaps some stations would return if I got their digital service, but I expect that will require at least another $50 per month for the privilege of getting back some of these commercial-laden stations and it’s hard to justify this. I believe I’d have to pay close to $100 per month to see any Red Sox games. Meanwhile, Comcast is in the process of buying the National Broadcast Company (NBC) from General Electric for perhaps $35 billion. Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him to break up the trusts?
My inclination is to say good-bye to Comcast. I hope others in Cambridge feel the same way. Of course, I’m sure the Evil Empire will only try to find other ways to restrict access to television programs unless their trolls are paid handsomely in order to buy up even more media companies. Welcome to The World of More.
In response, Comcast’s Marc Goodman had this to say several days later:
I hope you would consider adding my comment to your recent blog post.
Hi, this is Marc from Comcast’s Boston office. Comcast and the City of Cambridge are negotiating a cable license renewal. Part of any cable license renewal is a process called ascertainment where the cable operator works with a third party to assess the interest of local residents in paying for access television and other cable-related needs that are outlined in an actual license. Comcast strongly supports access and CCTV. We look forward to coming to a mutually beneficial agreement for our customers, the city and the company in the months ahead.
And, just to be clear, the only channels that recently moved were from our Standard Cable package as part of our digital network enhancement. This digital upgrade allowed us to double the number of HD channels in Cambridge and introduce even faster Internet speeds of up to 50 Mbps. All current Standard Cable customers are eligible to obtain up to three pieces of complimentary digital equipment as part of this enhancement. And unlike our competitors, Comcast still chooses to provide an analog basic cable option.
As always, feel free to stop by our Cambridge service center at 88 Sherman Street or call us at 1-800-COMCAST or chat with us online at www.comcast.com.
After taking a few days to digest this, here’s my reply (Dec 22):
Marc,
I don’t know why I’m even wasting my time responding to you. Comcast is a predatory company, plain and simple. How else can one describe the practice of restricting access to all stations other than broadcast stations unless one is forced to pay upwards of $70 per month? Comcast chooses to not even offer an affordable package to someone who wants only to add a few basic additions to the most basic lineup. It is now rarely possible to see an old movie on TV because they are only made available on channels in the higher-priced packages. Doesn’t it seem strange that the price jumps from $6.50 per month to about ten times that amount to go from Basic Cable to the next available option?
The truth is that the only reason the City of Cambridge negotiates with you is because they must – there is no competitor willing and able to build a parallel infrastructure. City officials were very eager to talk to RCN or another company the last time the license renewal came up, but the up-front costs kept all potential competitors out – to the eternal detriment of Cambridge residents.
And “just to be clear”, the channels that disappeared recently from Basic Cable customers were most of the stations we used to get. Comcast’s analog basic cable option provides essentially the same thing that anyone can pick up with an antenna, i.e. what you can otherwise get for free. If you want to do me a favor and possibly salvage the Comcast name to at least one customer who is on the verge of quitting you, here’s a request: Give me a package that includes just the broadcast stations and public access stations plus a few Cable news stations and Turner Classic Movies, AMC, and perhaps Comedy Central and a few others at a total cost of around $25-30 per month (and not just a bogus introductory rate that will soon double). Then give me a quote for an a la carte addition of Red Sox games during the baseball season.
If you have an offer like that, we’ll talk. Until then, you are just another employee of the Evil Empire.
Robert Winters
Cambridge Civic Journal
http://rwinters.com