Professor Furth’s comments came in the context of the discussion of the tragic death earlier this month of a bicyclist near the intersection of Huntington Avenue and Forsyth Street in Boston. Many bicyclists are claiming that Huntington Avenue is especially dangerous as shown by this and earlier bicyclist fatalities, and the city has started to make some small changes in reaction.

Despite Furth’s assertion that I was behind the lack of bike lanes on Huntington, I was not working for Boston in 1995 when Huntington Ave was redesigned nor in 1999 when it was rebuilt (I worked for BTD August 2001 to July 2003). During the design process I supported removing on-street parking on Huntington Ave in order to have enough room for motorists to pass bicyclists without changing lanes (at least 14 feet of usable space). The city agreed, but the state insisted on a 2 ft left shoulder, narrowing the right lane.  An insider connection to the Highway Department got the state to modify the striping slightly — but not to the design I would have preferred. Also, along the long stretches where parking was retained the lanes remain very narrow lane (8′ parking and 10-11′ travel). Cyclists must ride in the middle of such lanes not to get doored (shared lane markings would still be welcome here, in the middle of the lane).

People think Huntington Avenue is very dangerous because they will get run down by high-speed traffic, and the four fatalities over the past 12 years seem to be proof of that. Therefore a bike lane — or better yet, a separate bike sidewalk called a cycle track — is needed, they say.  Well, it doesn’t seem to me that these fatalities, tragic as they are, tell that story:

* Dr. Ruth Michler, November 2000: Bicyclist was run over by a construction vehicle of a type that is not allowed to be on the roads because the driver cannot adequately see in front of him. Lesson: Provide more supervision for construction and harsher penalties for criminally negligent behavior such as the driver’s. In this case the state refused to prosecute the driver, I think, because he was not operating a motor vehicle as it is officially defined. I think they were wrong about the law, and if they were right about it, it’s a crazy Catch-22.

* Gordon Riker, April 2007. “The bicyclist . . . was riding between two lanes of traffic on Huntington Avenue when he was clipped by a taxicab” and then fell under the rear wheels of a dump truck.  Lesson: don’t overtake between lanes of moving traffic. Tell cyclists to stay behind other vehicles unless traffic is stopped and can’t move (and then, pass only slowly and carefully).

* Eric Hunt, April 2010. Bicyclist fell due to the trolley tracks (near South Huntington, where they are in the passing travel lane, not in the protected median) and then was hit by an approaching bus (or fell into the side of the bus). Lesson: Post warning signs about the dangers of tracks (removing them in JP has dramatically improved bike safety & convenience); teach cyclists to stay far away from them.

* Kelsey Rennebohm, June 2012: Bicyclist was apparently riding on the sidewalk when she fell into the roadway and underneath a passing bus. Lesson: Don’t ride on the sidewalk. Tell cyclists about the dangers of sidewalk riding, and make streets more bicycle-friendly.

All of these four fatalities had completely different causes, only three of them were close to the same location, and not one of them was caused by a cyclist operating normally in the roadway getting run down by a motor vehicle driver approaching from behind (the construction vehicle was not legally a motor vehicle and was not allowed to be on the road). So let’s get our stories straight, and take the right lessons from them.

The safe cyclist always rides far enough away from parked cars to stay out of the door zone. On Mass Ave in Boston, before bike lanes were added in December 2011, this meant using all of the 10-foot lane. Since the parking lane was removed on one side, there is obviously no door zone problem on that side, but much of the bike lane on the other side is within door range. Derrick Jackson’s preferred solution, a cycle track (a misnomer for a sidewalk for cyclists) would move from the frying pan to the fire by creating conflicts between straight-through bicyclists and right-turning motorists, by making the (narrowed) road effectively off limits for cyclists, and by increasing conflicts with pedestrians, who view all space where cars are prohibited as walking (or standing) space.  Among other problems.

And yet, according to the article, “A physically separated bike lane takes about 8 feet,” 3 more than the 5-foot bike lanes. Getting this extra 6 feet (3 feet on each side) would require removing the remaining parking lane. Yet if you remove all parking, you wouldn’t have any “deadly door” to worry about.

In the Mass Ave case, Boston could have made sufficient space by making the bike lane on the side without parking 4 feet instead of 5, and then making the bike lane on the parking side 6 feet instead of 5. With these dimensions (8 foot parking lane next to 6 foot bike lane), you can comfortably ride just inside the bike lane and still be out of the door zone. Now, it’s not intuitive to beginners that “cyclists should stay in [sic] to the left side of the bike lane in order . . .  to stay outside the radius of the doors of parked cars” (according to the City of Boston’s official advice). The common sense assumption is that you travel in the middle of marked lanes.  But the Mass Ave design is still much preferable to the most common situation in Boston, a 5 foot bike lane next to a 7 foot parking lane, which requires the bicyclists to be (at least partly) outside the bike lane to be safe.

When there is enough room for 14 feet to be divided between bike lane and parking, I would rather see a bike marking at least 11 feet from the curb — as is the standard for shared lane markings – so that even beginners are encouraged to ride outside the door zone.

Jackson pines for “bike tracks that have become iconic throughout Europe.” But if the current experiment on Western Avenue is a guide (and it is only one block without driveways or intersections), we are more likely to get something altogether less pleasant, like this:

“The first part of the incident is the part that no one witnessed (that I know of) and everyone has been filling in why that cop was chasing me.  What happened was I was riding up Amsterdam on the right hand side.  The black car that we now know was the police car was double parked in the right lane.  I started to pass the car on the driver’s side, when the driver opened the door into my path.  As a community of cyclists, I know you all must know this is a big danger and concern for those of us who bike in traffic. Anyway, I braked suddenly to avoid a collision.  A delivery bike behind me ran into me from behind because I had to stop so suddenly.  The driver of the vehicle and I had a brief verbal exchange, but I continued on in the right lane.  It was then that he got back in the car and pursued me.  I realized he was following and got scared, worried that this might be a severe case of road rage and who knows what he might do.  I crossed over to the left side of the street in order to shake him off.  This is where the witnesses’ stories pick up.  He skidded his car perpendicular to traffic, blocking my path.  Ok, now I’m REALLY scared.  I got off my bike and started to walk it up to the side walk between the parked cars. That’s when he got out of the vehicle and grabbed me from behind.   I started screaming for help and struggling thinking I was being assaulted or that he was trying to take my bike.  Suddenly, more cops showed up, and at that point I was turned over to the uniformed officers.  I was frisked, cuffed, and put in a police van, driven to the Central Park precinct (where the original plain clothes officer was from), and held for about an hour. I am not accused of running a red light.  The charges against me are disorderly conduct and reckless operation of a bicycle.”

“Hundreds of cyclists are killed, and thousands injured, each year while navigating the nation’s roadways. Bicycle riders can help prevent crashes by following a few basic rules of the road:

• Always wear an approved bicycle safety helmet to protect your head from serious injury when riding. [Good advice, but not a law for adults anywhere, and not something that will "help prevent crashes."]
• When riding with others, form a single line, one bike length apart, on the right–hand side of the roadway. [Only three states require single-file riding in most circumstances. While this says 'right-hand side of the roadway', it could easily be read as the right edge of the roadway, given that there's no statement anywhere about the importance of moving left to avoid hazards, keep away from right turning vehicles, or to get into position for a left turn.]
• Walk your bike across busy roads and intersections. [Not the law anywhere, not likely to improve safety, and definitely not a mobility improvement.]
• Use hand signals to show others that you are stopping or making a turn. [But how do you make a safe left turn?]
• Help other drivers to see you. Wear light or brightly colored clothing. [It is the law to have a headlight at night. They never mentioned this anywhere in the list.]
• On streets where cars are parked, watch for car doors opening into the roadways. [This assumes you will be riding in the door zone.]
• Avoid riding after dark or if the weather is bad. All cyclists are at risk during the hours of darkness. [A definite cramp on your mobility. You won't be able to cycle home from work much of the year. Again no mention of the required lights.]
• Give cars and pedestrians the right–of–way. It’s an act of courtesy, and it’s safer, too. [Yes, the most important rule: yield to cars at all times.]

I hope the League will take measures to improve the quality of information distributed by AAA.

It turns out that at least some of the AAA’s clubs provide ‘bike safety’ information directed at motorists. For example, the Mid-Atlantic club offers this advice:

Sharing the Road – How We All Can Make a Difference

Each year, there are more than a half-million collisions between motor vehicles and bicycles in the United States. Many of these incidents are the result of motorist, failing to properly yield to bicyclists. The following safety tips can make a difference:

• Motorists need to increase their awareness of bicyclists when making turns and remember to look for bicyclists when traveling in a straight line. [Unclear and not specific enough in terms of right hook and left cross.]
• Check for bicyclists along the edge of the traffic lane before opening car doors so you do not cause a collision when exiting your vehicle. [Fine, but should also mention that safe bicyclists ride out of range of opening doors.]
• Allow three feet of passing space between your car and the cyclist. Tailgating or honking can startle or fluster a bicyclist, causing them to swerve further into the driving lane. [Fine, except that 3 feet is insufficient if you are going fast or driving a truck.]
• Be patient. Remember, cyclists are moving under their own power and can’t be expected to go the same speed as cars. [And you might have to wait before it is safe to pass.]
• Pay special attention to blind spots. Due to their size and the location of bike lanes, bikes can often get lost in a car’s blind spot, so double check before changing lanes, making right-hand turns or before opening your car door on the traffic side when parked. [This seems to assume you will be turning right while leaving room for a bicyclist to pass on your right, rather than merging right before turning, as required. ]
• Bicyclists also should use bike paths and always watch for turning and parked motor vehicles. [Yes, staying off the road is the best way to share it.]
• Bicyclists should be encouraged to clearly communicate their intentions to motorists by using proper turn signals. [And use the proper lane position and yield before moving across the road.]
• Wearing helmets, visible clothing and using bike paths when available are key factors to ensuring a safe, pleasurable biking adventure. [Again with the bike paths -- but still no mention of lights.]

* Phoenix says: “You have the right to use . . . the sidewalks in business districts if you feel unsafe, unless posted signs say otherwise.” CORRECTION: You may never ride on sidewalks in business districts, and posted signs may prohibit sidewalk use elsewhere.

* Phoenix says: ”You have the right to ride two abreast on any roads with multiple lanes in the same direction. (If there is only one lane in each direction, you must ride single file, but may pass on the right.)” CORRECTION: You may ride two abreast at any time. However, the rider on the left must move right if failing to do so prevents someone from passing where it would be otherwise safe to do so.

* Phoenix says: “You must follow all traffic laws — that means stopping at lights and crosswalks and riding on the right side of the road.” CORRECTION: You may go when the traffic signal is green, but may not enter the intersection when it is red. You only need to slow or stop at a crosswalk when it is not controlled by signals and a pedestrian is in it or within 10 feet of your half of the road. You must generally use the right half of the road, not necessarily near the curb.

* Phoenix says: “You must keep to the right when passing a car.” CORRECTION: While you may pass on the right, it is almost always safer to pass on the left. Passing on the right leaves you vulnerable to motorists turning right across your path and puts you within range of opening doors of parked cars and even sometimes of motorists stopped in a queue at a light.

* Phoenix says: “You must signal your intention to stop or turn using either hand.” CORRECTION: The law that went into effect on April 15, 2009 added, “provided, however, that signals need not be made continuously, and shall not be made when both hands are needed for the safe operation of the bicycle.” Furthermore, the general rule on giving signals says that they must be made “before stopping said vehicle or making any turning movement which would affect the operation of any other vehicle.”

* Phoenix says: “You must give pedestrians the right of way when riding on a sidewalk, and give a shout before passing any pedestrian on the right.” CORRECTION: Almost correct. The law says “A person operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian,” but of course it doesn’t say “on the right.”

* Phoenix says: “You must carry all items in a basket, rack, or trailer.” CORRECTION: The law says, “The [bicycle] operator shall not carry any package, bundle or article except in or on a basket, rack, trailer or other device designed for such purposes.” The phrase”other device” leaves room for backpacks, water bottle cages, paniers, and even shopping bags. The point is that your hands must be free to operate the bike, not that you must use a government-sanctioned carrying mechanism.

More importantly, the summary of “bike laws” from the MassBike website, on which this short Phoenix article is based, is fundamentally misleading, because it summarizes the special rules that apply only to bicycles. The most important rules for safety apply to bicyclists and motorists equally. These include the rules about where to ride on the road, how to pass and be passed, how to make turns, and when to yield the right of way.

And in the lead article in the same special insert, there are a number of statements that could be contested, but none more so than this one which appears without refutation:

“When it’s car versus cyclist, the car always wins,” warns [Boston] Transportation Commissioner [Tom] Tinlin. His advice: “Back off and be safe.”

We’ve heard this canard many times before. It’s absurd and dangerous. You could just as well say, “When it’s cyclist versus asphalt, the asphalt always wins. When it’s car versus 18-wheeler, the 18-wheeler always wins.” So back off and be safe. Don’t drive your car on any road where big trucks are allowed. Don’t ride your bike except on soft grass.

Too many bicyclists are already scared into riding dangerously. “Back off” means keep far to the right edge of the road, preferably on the sidewalk. Ride facing traffic so you can see the cars coming and jump out of the way to avoid them. Ride in the door zone because otherwise motorists might get mad at you. People do these dangerous things because everyone has told them riding in the road means sudden death. And thus they suffer crashes and injuries. The last thing we need in promoting bike safety is people in positions of authority such as Commissioner Tinlin repeating this stuff.

Use as much of the road as you need and be safe. Happy bike week.

P.S. The AAA gets it even more wrong, with such “bike safety” advice as “Bicycles should stay to the right along the curb” and “Walk a bike across an intersection rather than riding.” See the post on the MassBike website.

Bicyclist narrowly avoids opening door -- Centre St, Jamaica Plain, Mass.

This bicyclist had to swerve as the oblivious motorist flung open her door on Centre Street in the heart of the business district where parking turnover is high and traffic is slow.

This Thursday the City of Boston will present its proposal for bike markings on South Street and Centre St from Forest Hills to Jackson Square in Jamaica Plain. The proposal will be:

* door-zone bike lanes (DZBLs) from The Monument to Lakeview St, except for a two-block section where the width dips below 44 feet, where shared lane markings (SLMs) are proposed;

* DZBLs on the uphill side only, and on the downhill side a narrow lane with an SLM in the middle, from Hyde Square to Jackson Square and from Sedgwick Street to Jamaica Street.

* SLMs elsewhere.

The parking lane be striped at 7 feet from the curb throughout the corridor. Some additional marking to indicate the door zone may be discussed.

Most people agree that riding in the door zone is not a good idea (except when deliberately going very slowly). But some DZBL proponents argue that a) DZBLs actually move people away from parked cars, and b) you won’t get people to ride outside of the door zone.

To use their own words:

a) “First, [the additional distance between bicyclists and parked cars found in the Hampshire St. Study is] 2.4 inches further away, not 2, and that’s merely the median (average) distance   It’s clearly in the author’s conclusion that a narrowing of the spread of distances was the significant finding. Namely, that far fewer people were riding very close to the doors. And when we talk about doors and the door zone, keep in mind that when you’re on the street and a door opens, inches definitely count.”  (Pete Stidman)

b) “The problem that you are trying to solve is how to get bicyclists to ride completely outside the door zone. Without removing parking or somehow changing the dimensions of the roadway, I don’t think any type of facility and/or education will be effective in doing so.” (Charlie Denison)

I have some responses to both points:

a) The Hampshire Street study in Cambridge found that bicyclists moved away from the curb after marking a solid line at 12 feet from the curb — but they moved by an average of less than 3 inches. A San Francisco study found that shared lane markings moved bicyclists away from the door zone by an average of 8 inches. The lead author of the Hampshire Street Study has agreed with my assessment that a wheel track 11 feet from the curb, not 10 feet, is the proper cut-off for being outside the door zone 85% of the time with a 6″ margin to spare. Only 11% of bicyclists in the study were riding this far away. I am currently doing some re-analysis of the study data. One reason that few were out of the door zone is that they did the survey at rush hour, mostly approaching intersections. Traffic on Hampshire Street regularly queues up for several blocks approaching red signals in the peak period. So some of the bicyclists in the door zone may have been slowly passing cars on the right instead of being stuck in traffic for several light cycles.

b) Boston has added Shared Lane Markings in the middle of the lane in several places, and proposes to do so in the Centre-South corridor–where there is only one travel lane in each direction. These markings are supposed to direct bicyclists to ride in the middle of the lane. If it is possible to encourage people to ride in the middle of the lane, surely it is possible to encourage them to ride outside the door zone where they will impede traffic much less (at those times where traffic is moving faster than bicycle speed). A bicyclist who rides with his or her wheel at 11 feet from the curb is safely out of the door zone and in most places in the corridor is leaving 10 or more feet for a 6-foot wide passenger car to pass without changing lanes. (In fact, most drivers will crowd or cross the center line in order to provide the bicyclist with plenty of extra room when passing.)

I propose a solid white line at 10 feet from the curb with a shared lane marking completely to its left. This will provide clear guidance that bicyclists are expected to stay out of the door zone. Another San Francisco study showed that using a 9 foot parking lane instead of a 7-foot one moves the average spacing of parked cars about 4 inches further from the curb. I don’t think this a significant concern. If it is, then a solid white line could be marked at 7 feet from the curb with a series of diagonal lines (gore stripes) between the lines at 10 and 7 feet — to indicate the buffer zone to be avoided. This design would be used consistently throughout the corridor, instead of the confusing alternation between DZBL and SLM that is proposed.

To my knowledge, no city has yet tried a SLM to the left of a line indicating the door zone (as distinct from a BL with the symbol to the right of the line, or an SLM with no line).  There is an opportunity to find out how effective this configuration is in pulling people away from doors. In any case we know that SLMs, even without a line, can be more effect than DZBLs in pulling bicyclists away from the door zone.

Please come to the meeting to support shared lane markings instead of door zone bike lanes. Defend the right of bicyclists to use as much of the road as needed for safety and travel. Don’t lure bicyclists into the danger zone. The details:

Thursday, April 29^th

Agassiz School cafeteria
20 Child Street, Jamaica Plain, Mass.
6 pm to 8 pm

“Bike accommodations” will be the first and major topic of the meeting.

That little stripe is not going to protect you,” Schimek said, explaining he is worried the bike lane message will be, “‘You novice cyclists, come out here. You see that bike lane, and you’re safe because that’s what a bike lane is for.

I believe I was trying to say that that the bike lane tells new bicyclists that they will be safe riding in it, even though in the proposed design they will be smack in the danger (door) zone. And this summary also got mangled:

Bike lanes suggest that bicyclists have to use them, when in fact they do not, Schimek said. That confusion can lead to more car-bike conflicts, and some research shows it leads drivers to come closer to bikes in the lane, he said. Bike lanes also lock riders onto the right-hand side of the street, when they should be on the left to make left-hand turns safely, he noted.

What I was saying is that most people act as if there is a legal requirement to use bike lanes, even if there is not. It is the bike lane stripes that can cause more conflicts, by encouraging motorists to keep left when turning right, encouraging bicyclists to pass on the right, and even suggesting that bicyclists should turn left from the bike lane. And then there’s this one:

An illusion is exactly what 5-foot bike lanes on Centre Street would be, Schimek said. He blasted the idea that bike lanes are good because they make potential riders feel safer as a “backhanded…indirect and disingenuous argument.”

The argument that I “blasted” is the one repeated in the article: even if door-zone bike lanes are more dangerous, having more bicyclists on the road will make all bicyclists safer.

Another mangled point:

Schimek noted that the city’s own design illustration for Centre Street bike lanes showed people riding down the middle of the lanes. In fact, riders are supposed to ride along the left-hand line in a bike lane to avoid dooring. Without education, new riders attracted to the bike lanes are set up for disaster, he said. And even if there is education, the lanes may be so narrow that riders are in the dooring zone anyway, he said.

Ruch had a copy of the illustration showing bicyclists in the door zone with bike lanes and outside the door zone without (see previous post). He did not communicate that point. Riders are not “supposed to ride along the left-hand line in a bike lane,” they are supposed to ride in the middle of the bike lane, following normal lane use expectations — and several studies show this is what they actually do. I don’t use the meaningless term (in this context) “education,” I prefer to talk about learning from experience (i.e., being doored, or narrowly avoiding a door), and training (from friends, books, or formal classes). The final point is that riding outside the door zone will probably put the bicyclist at least partly outside the bike lane. And thus we end up with the paradox that the only safe way to use these bike lanes is not to use them.

Ruch also makes this blooper:

The dispute is over methods—especially whether it makes sense to slightly reduce the width of car lanes on Centre and add 5-foot bike lanes.

Where are those “car lanes” on Centre Street? All I see — and all the law sees — is a road shared by cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, and, yes, bicycles.

News about the famous Hampshire Street Bike Lane study coming soon.

Concord Avenue 'Raised Bicycle Lanes' - Not Part of "Roadway"

Concord Avenue north of Fresh Pond in Cambridge has perfectly nice, five-foot bike lanes. They’re not even in the door zone, since there is no on-street parking. But Cambridge is planning to take them away, narrow the roadway, and force bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk. The bike lanes were striped 10 years ago as part of a successful “road diet” project. John Allen has posted a history and more information about the proposed project. The current project, whose limits are Fresh Pond Parkway and Blanchard Road, includes water main installation and started this week.  The planned “raised bike lanes” are at sidewalk level and in most places will be separated from the travel lanes by a 6-inch high curb. A bicyclist who strays too close to the edge of the “bike lane” risks falling into the travel lane. In other words, the new “bicycle lanes” are really “sidewalks”. A sidewalk by any other name is still a dangerous place to ride a bike at anything faster than walking speed. Look at the above excerpt from the construction drawings. They show clearly that the “roadway” includes the “travel lane” but not the ”bicycle lane.”  This turns out to be an important detail.

MassDOT’s Engineering Directive on Bicycle Accommodation says that “Bicycle accommodation shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 of the [Project Development & Design] Guide and the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.” What do those documents say? Chapter 5 of the Project Development & Design Guide says: ”Bicycle lanes are portions of the traveled way designed for bicycle use. .  .  . Bicycle lanes should be designated by a 6-inch solid white line on the right edge of the motor vehicle travel lane [sic].” (section 5.3.2.1).

The 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is more precise. It has the following definitions: “BICYCLE LANE or BIKE LANE—A portion of a roadway which has been designated by striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. ROADWAY—The portion of the highway, including shoulders, intended for vehicular use.” It further says that “A bike lane should be delineated from the motor vehicle travel lanes with a 150-mm (6-inch) solid white line.”

In other words, the official design manuals say that bike lanes are part of the roadway, not the sidewalk, and are separated from other lanes by lines, not curbs. The AASHTO bike guide also includes this helpful guidance: “Sidewalks generally are not acceptable for bicycling. However, in a few limited situations, such as on long and narrow bridges and where bicyclists are incidental or infrequent users, the sidewalk can serve as an alternate facility, provided any significant difference in height from the roadway is protected by a suitable barrier between the sidewalk and roadway.” The Concord Ave project clearly does not meet the requirements for exceptional designation of a sidewalk as a bike facility, and even if it did, the design guidelines require a barrier to prevent bicyclists from falling into the roadway — an important detail that Cambridge has not followed in this project.

Well, what if Cambridge just edits the drawings so that they say “bicycle path” instead of “bicycle lane”? One problem is that there is no design standard for a bicycle facility on the sidewalk that prohibits pedestrians; the only standards are for “shared use paths” — shared by pedestrians and bicyclists. Moreover, the Project Development & Design Guide says this: “Shared use paths are facilities on exclusive right-of-way with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles. Shared use paths should be thought of as a complementary system of off-road transportation routes for bicyclists and others that serves as a necessary extension to the roadway network. The presence of a shared use path near a roadway does not eliminate the need to accommodate bicyclists within a roadway” (Section 5.3.2.4). If Cambridge were to call the “raised bicycle lane” a “path” it would not be able to narrow the travel lanes to only 12 feet, as proposed, but would have to leave at least another 3 foot shoulder to provide the minimum 15 feet of room for motorists to comfortably pass bicyclists according to MassDOT’s Engineering Directive previously mentioned.

Ok, but does Cambridge really have to follow these design guidelines? To pay for this project Cambridge applied for and apparently received a grant from the Public Works Economic Development (PWED) Program, formerly administered by the Executive Office of Transportation, now part of MassDOT. So it would seem that MassDOT’s own Engineering Directive should apply.

If not, there is a higher authority. All traffic control devices in the U.S. must conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices published by the Federal Highway Administration. The manual has the following definitions:
“Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway that has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists by pavement markings and, if used, signs.
Roadway—that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel and parking lanes, but exclusive of the sidewalk, berm, or shoulder even though such sidewalk, berm, or shoulder is used by persons riding bicycles or other human-powered vehicles.”
In other words, a Bicycle Lane that is not part of a roadway does not comply with the manual.
Noncompliance with engineering directives and design manuals could mean that Cambridge would be held liable by a court in the event of a lawsuit by an injured bicyclist.

The Livable Streets Alliance endorsed the project, saying, “The Concord Avenue reconstruction plan pushes for best practice for street design. It includes well-designed and inviting facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists alike. Of particular note, there is a raised bicycle lane (cycle track) included as part of the project, a type of facility that has been gaining interest among the public, but which we currently have very few of.” WalkBoston endorsed it as well.

Seen in Berkeley, Calif, Ride on the Street, Walk on the Sidewalk

I remember seeing these signs in Berkeley some years ago. They are in complete violation of the MUTCD (wrong color, symbols, and font), but they do convey a useful message, particularly by citing the relevant city and state codes. I think (an improved version of) these signs would nicely complement Shared Lane Markings that I have suggested as an alternative to door-zone bike lanes in the Jamaica Plain business district. Perhaps a combined sign would do the trick, with an arrow pointing left under the Ride on the Street message and another arrow pointing right for the Not on the Sidewalk message.

Someone is sure to raise the “sign pollution” issue. Well, I can point to dozens of signs that could be removed from the corridor. I counted 10 “SLOW”" signs (or, less grammatically, “DRIVE SLOW”), and perhaps a few more have sprouted since then. These signs violate the basic principle of the MUTCD that signs should convey a clear meaning. How fast is SLOW? Only a little bit above the statutory 30 mph speed limit? Ironically there are no speed limit signs in the whole Centre-South corridor.

An even larger source of sign pollution are pedestrian crossing warning signs. They are haphazardly posted a block or two before a crosswalk and (rarely) near the crosswalk. Usually they are too high to be noticed. Boston has recently used these warning signs in a much more effective way: at the crosswalk, mounted as low as possible, with an arrow pointing to the crosswalk.  This helps alert drivers of the need to yield and reinforces the crosswalk pavement markings when they can be difficult to see (at night and after the thermoplastic begins to wear).

Tracks along Roadway Warning from Portland

The tragic loss of a young bicyclist this week reminds me of another warning sign that we really do need: to alert cyclists about the dangers of trolley tracks. This sign is used in Portland, Oregon, but nowhere else that I know of. It is not in the MUTCD. Fortunately, we no longer need them in the Centre-South corridor (since the tracks were paved over after being an unused hazard for 23 years), but we do need them in the remaining places that trolley tracks are in the road (not in a reservation): along the E branch from Heath St to Brigham Circle, and in Cleveland Circle.

Jackson Square Bike Lane Concept

A proposal for bike lanes on Centre Street between Lamartine St and Sunnyside St (near Jackson Square) was floated at the March 23 meeting of the Centre South Transportation Action Plan Citizens’ Advisory Committee. The 42-ft curb-to-curb width is just a bit too narrow for the bare minimum bike lanes proposed for Centre Street between Elliot St and Lakeview St. The necessary width would be obtained by eliminating parking on one side of the street only. (See the presentation, pages 56 – 61.) Currently there is about 21 ft (travel lane + parking lane) on each side of the street. The suggested new configuration is an 11 ft travel lane and 4 ft parking lane on one side and an 11 ft travel lane with a 5 ft bike lane, 8 ft parking lane on the other side. The remaining 3 ft would be used to widen the existing 8 ft sidewalk on one side. The proposal would leave on-street parking in front of most businesses that do not have on-street parking. This would be accomplished by switching the side without parking from the south side near Mozart Park to the north side near Bromley-Heath. Nevertheless, at least 37 on-street spaces would have to go.

The proposal would remove the door-zone threat on the side of the street where parking is newly prohibited. And the remaining parking lane + bike lane on the other side would be 13 ft wide instead of the 12 ft proposed for central Jamaica Plain, meaning that 1 to 2 ft of the nominally 5 ft bike lane would be safe for riding, rather than 0 to 1 ft. A slightly wider sidewalk would be nice, although the 3 ft could be used instead as a marked buffer area so the bike lane could be out of the door zone (more on that concept in a later post).

Two alternate proposals would use the space from eliminating a parking lane to widen the sidewalks, and would also narrow the travel lanes to 11 ft (with no bike lanes). In other words, safe cyclists would frequently have to ride in the middle of the lane, because there would be insufficient room for motorists to pass safely, particularly on the side next to on-street parking. These alternate proposals are clearly a dis-improvement from the point of view of bicycling.

But will it be possible to remove any parking? Michael Halle, a member of the CAC, is quoted in the JP Gazette. “Halle noted that the area is right next to a T station and a huge parking lot at Stop & Shop that he described as ‘underused.’  .  .   .  He said if on-street parking can’t be cut here in favor of bikes or pedestrians, ‘it can’t be done anywhere.’”

I know of three places in the Boston area where on-street parking has been removed, in part to improve bicycling conditions:

* Huntington Avenue between Opera Place and Longwood Avenue (adjacent to Northeastern, MassArt, the MFA, and Wentworth).

* Mass Ave, Cambridge, adjacent to MIT.

* North Harvard St, Allston, adjacent to the Harvard Business School (just last year).

(I can’t think of any other examples in Cambridge–anybody else know of any?) What do all of these examples have in common? Parking was removed immediately adjacent to institutions only, not where there were businesses or residents abutting the street. All these institutions have large off-street parking facilities. While the Jackson Square proposal attempts to avoid businesses, it is not really analogous to the three successful removals. We will see if this proposal is implemented.

Meanwhile, one important consideration for bicyclists in this area is that there is a significant downhill grade from Stop and Shop to Lamartine Street. Perhaps parking can be removed just in front of Bromley-Heath, on the uphill side, where bicyclists go slowly. If not, the centerline could be moved two feet so that the downhill side would have a narrow (11 ft) travel lane, which could be outfitted with a Shared Lane Marking in its middle, and the uphill side could have a wide (15′) travel lane (and an optional Shared Lane Marking 12 ft from the curb).  (A door-zone bike lane could be used instead on that side only, although this is not preferable to a shared lane, for reasons I’ve previously described.)

Meanwhile, we’re hoping that the (separate) Jackson Square project will fix the basic problem that the drop-off area needs to be adjacent to the station, not on the other side of the street. Who was the genius who designed that? It’s created delay and danger for probably 23 years now.