Tag: multi-use trail

Comments on proposed MassDCR amendments 302 CMR 11 + 12

Comments on proposed MassDCR amendments 302 CMR 11 + 12

July 24, 2019

Laura Dietz
Department of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114

Dear Ms. Dietz,

WalkBoston has reviewed the amendments to “302 CMR 11.00: Parkways, Traffic, and Pedestrian Rules” and “302 CMR 12.00: Parks and Recreation Rules,” and attended the public hearing on July 2, 2019 in Brighton.

This process should be put on hold until laws on micro-mobility and e-bikes are established by the legislature so there is cohesion between the law and regulations.

We also have some questions and comments based on our review:

  • What data are these proposed changes based on?
  • Are there any successes or failures in other states that MA is trying to emulate or avoid?
  • We have concerns about setting a limit of 20mph for shared use pathways. How was that speed limit established, and what is it based on? We need context sensitive speed limits, not one limit for all places. A 20mph limit is a speed limit that is recommended on residential streets, which include sidewalks for separation.
  • There are long section of definitions including BOULEVARD, PARKWAY, ROADWAY, STREET, but there is no definition of the different types of trails. Some of the suggested regulations describe ‘improved or natural surface trail’ vs. other types of trails; with no easy definition, this could lead to confusion.
  • Section 12.12(4) states they are ‘not permitted on improved trails less than 8 feet,’ would this mean certain sections of contiguous trails would allow/prohibit use?
    • Additionally, while we recognize the intent to create safe areas where there could be conflict, we fear that setting a regulation by width could have unintended consequences for future trail development.
  • The section on Violations/Fines/Penalties only includes info about parking.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Brendan Kearney
Communications Director

Dockless scooters have landed. Here’s what that means

Dockless scooters have landed. Here’s what that means

We’ve been thinking about writing about this issue for a while, but a little bird told us that fleets of dockless scooters were dropped unannounced into a few communities in Metro Boston today – which is why we’re publishing this on a Friday afternoon!

WalkBoston makes walking safer and easier in Massachusetts to encourage better health, a cleaner environment and more vibrant communities. New mobility choices are being introduced every day. Transportation options that are safe and get more people out of single occupancy vehicles can be positive additions to the mobility mix.

WalkBoston’s position

Sidewalks should be reserved for people walking or using wheelchairs. If users of micro-mobility devices are on the sidewalk, it is likely that the street is unsafe – and that needs to be fixed. We like how Walk SF framed this discussion: “The greatest threat to pedestrians is, of course, cars and trucks. The potential harm that automobiles can inflict on people is why Walk SF works every single day to make our streets and sidewalks safe – and make Vision Zero a reality.”

Where things stand in MA: July 2018

  • Smart phones have made on-demand mobility options easier to access.
  • More types of shared bikes: docked bikeshare bikes (BlueBikes, formerly Hubway) & dockless bikeshare (Lime, Spin, ofo, Pace/Zagster, AntBicycle, etc).
  • More types of wheeled options: scooters (Lime, Bird, etc), one-wheels, electric longboards/skateboards, etc. Additional mobility assistance devices that serve people with mobility impairments are also coming soon.
  • Longer-lasting, smaller batteries have made electric scooters, electric pedal-assist and fully electric bicycles (e-bikes) possible. These are not just being used for short term rentals in a shared ecosystem; people are also buying them for personal use.
  • Additionally, autonomous vehicle testing is underway in the city of Boston, with citywide testing recently granted; Massachusetts has also opened applications to test in 14 communities around the Commonwealth.

What cities and towns should do

Cities and towns can most effectively respond by rapidly implementing safety improvements that work, while also looking for win/win opportunities to advance mobility goals:

  1. Re-design streets to encourage slower speeds. The likelihood of a serious or fatal injury in a crash is drastically reduced when people are going slower.
  2. Create safe lanes for low speed travel. As more mobility options develop, a bike lane may be seen as the ideal place for their use. It can be, as long as users are going a speed that makes it safe and accessible to everyone else using it; at the same time, that lane needs to be a place where people feel safe and protected from larger vehicles.
  3. Ensure multi-use paths stay that way. Paths should be off limits to fully-motorized vehicles, no matter their fuel source. We recognize that these paths are linear parks that double as transportation corridors, but the parks should remain safe and comfortable places for people to enjoy. If electric pedal-assist bikes are allowed on multi-use paths, the paths should be low speed zones (10 mph). Any shared electric pedal-assist bikes should have a GPS-regulated governor to cap the speed. This technology is now being used as part of the new ValleyBike Share program in the Pioneer Valley.
  4. Create more bike and scooter parking so that people have a place to leave bikes and scooters and keep sidewalks and curb ramps clear for people walking, people using wheelchairs, and people with strollers or grocery carts.
    • Encourage (or require) mobility providers to provide parking or funding so that the municipality can add areas/corrals that fit into ongoing planning efforts.
    • Add more in-street bike parking on corners or near crosswalks to “daylight” the intersection. This can be a way to formalize the ‘no parking’ zone that exists close to intersections, while also improving sight lines. People can more easily see pedestrians who are waiting at a corner to cross if they are not blocked by a vehicle.
  5. Ensure that traffic signals work for everyone, not just people in cars. We have many reservations about “smart” or “adaptive” signals. Any signal timing changes should include a study of impacts on pedestrian safety and delay.
  6.  Rethink curb management. Delivery zones, short term drop-off/pick-up zones, flexible bike/scooter parking, food truck spots, temporary parklets, peak hour bus lanes, and other options are all on the table when the lane next to the curb is thought of as a flexible space rather than just a parking spot.

We look forward to continuing our conversations with municipalities and other stakeholders as they update regulations to respond to a changing mobility landscape. We also look forward to hearing from you about how WalkBoston should be weighing in on this and other issues that impact people walking!

Additional reading

Curbed: Don’t ban scooters. Redesign streets. Cities are regulating mobility startups, but ignoring the real problem—there’s still too much space for cars. (July 13, 2018)

Walk SF: Walk San Francisco Stands Up for sidewalks – our stance on electric scooters (June 27, 2018)

Slate: Give the Curb Your Enthusiasm. Worth billions but given away for free, the curb is arguably the single most misused asset in the American city—and one that, more than any giant investment in apps, sensors, or screens, can determine the future of transportation. (July 19, 2018)

Metro: Self-driving car testing expands in Boston, to 14 other Mass. cities and towns. Officials cleared the way to allow companies to test their autonomous vehicles on more Massachusetts roads. (June 22, 2018)

NACTO: NACTO Releases Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation As shared dockless bikes and scooters proliferate on city streets, guidelines aim to ensure the best outcomes for the public (July 11, 2018)

City of Boston: Autonomous Vehicles: Boston’s Approach (June 22, 2018)

Mass.gov: How to Test Autonomous Vehicles in Massachusetts (June 2018)

The Urbanist: Adaptive Signal System Kicks Pedestrians to the Curb (June 9, 2017)

Lenox Dale Walk Audit

Lenox Dale Walk Audit

Lenox is participating in the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Complete Streets Funding Program to secure funds for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects in town. Lenox has completed the first two steps to receive funding by passing a Complete Streets policy and submitting a Complete Streets Prioritization Plan. WalkBoston completed a walk audit in Lenox Center in the summer of 2016. Many of the infrastructure recommendations made in that audit were included in the Prioritization Plan. The Town of Lenox staff wanted to give Lenox Dale residents the same opportunity to participate in a walk audit to identify needed infrastructure improvements in the Dale.

Read the full report here:
WalkBoston-WalkAudit-LenoxDale

Burgy Village Center Walk Audit

Burgy Village Center Walk Audit

The Town of Williamsburg has engaged planning, transportation, and healthy community design experts in efforts to assess the vitality and safety of Burgy’s town center. Burgy’s town center is loosely de ned as the Route 9 corridor between Buttonshop Road and South Street. This walk audit is part of the town’s effort to address healthy aging through healthy community design.

Read the full report:
WalkBoston-BurgyVillageWalkAudit-Williamsburg

Comments on the Charles River Resource Management Plan

Comments on the Charles River Resource Management Plan

October 31, 2014

Secretary Maeve Vallely Bartlett
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

RE: Comments on the Charles River Resource Management Plan

Dear Secretary Vallely Bartlett:

WalkBoston reviews public planning documents to identify potential implications for pedestrians. The following comments are based on our review of this document:

We are very excited about the opportunities presented for potential improvements in the 3- mile long section of riverfront between the Harbor and the BU Bridge. Because the document gives each proposed improvement a priority ranking, we are able to sense where DCR is moving in its schedule to improve the Lower Charles River Basin.

Many of the improvements proposed are essential for all users of the parks and nearby neighborhoods. We commend DCR for its foresight in working toward protection from flooding that might be anticipated in the wake of Hurricane Sandy two years ago. Improvements to the dam between the river and the harbor will protect the basin, and much of the Back Bay and portions of Cambridge, from flooding.

We are also happy that DCR has been active in working on both the proposed South Bank Bridge behind North Station and the “drawbridge walkway” to be constructed as part of an MBTA replacement bridge. These measures will complete the connection of the riverfront paths with the Harbor Walk.

A related improvement is the proposed walkway behind the Science Museum that would provide connections into the museum, pass over the locks with a new bridge and perhaps through the state police barracks to connect with riverside paths and the existing sidewalk in front of the Museum. This improvement would add capacity of the paths around the basin by providing a new pathway for walkers and runners who currently have no option other than the narrow sidewalk that lies along the reconstructed Craigie Dam roadway.

The partnership of DCR and The Esplanade Association has resulted in proposals that are also moving forward. The relocation of Storrow Drive under one of the Longfellow Bridge arches will provide new park space. Overall goals of the Association’s Esplanade 2020 proposals include revitalizing the area around the Hatch Shell with redesigned paths, a café, and areas for audiences attending Hatch Shell performances. One of the recurring issues in the Hatch Shell work has been the mixing of pedestrians and bicycles at the proposed café that cannot be avoided until a high-speed bicycle path, separated from pedestrian ways, is provided under the Fiedler Footbridge.

We are very pleased the concept of providing separate paths for pedestrians and cyclists is a major feature of the report. In some cases, this kind of separation already exists, as in portions of the Boston Esplanade. In others, such as the Cambridge Esplanade, it will be a major improvement to separate paths for a substantial portion of the riverfront. This design provides high-speed bicycle commuters a special route away from quieter activities, such as strolling or playing with children. We trust that the users of the Cambridge Esplanade will benefit from a proposed greensward with trees and a slight differential in elevation that promotes safety by discouraging a mix of fast cyclists and slower users of the paths.

The report also cites several management issues that require relatively small expenditures. For example, the attention given to removing or controlling geese is important because the birds have become dominant in some sections of the Basin, interfering with safe, healthy and pleasant walking on paths near the River. Snow removal is extremely important to walkers and runners who use the riverside facilities during all months of the year.

However, WalkBoston is concerned that the aspirations expressed in the document do not extend as far as they might. We hope that DCR will explore giving more attention to the following issues.

Minimum widths for paths
The report points out that some stretches of paved paths are only five feet wide. This is insufficient to serve the mix and volume of users, often including both pedestrians and bicyclists. It is clearly inadequate for a multi-use path.

Reliance on multi-use facilities
Pedestrian volumes in the riverfront between the BU Bridge and Boston Harbor are significant. These volumes are reflected in user surveys undertaken by DCR and others, where “walking for pleasure” was shown to be the single most important purpose for many people using the parkland. In another survey, 55% of the respondents cited “congested pathways” as an issue they hoped would be addressed. In the same survey 86% of the respondents would support “separating paths by user types.” 67% of respondents reported a negative experience in using the park, with the majority citing the conflict of pedestrians and cyclists.

These surveys indicate that walkers desire safe and pleasant alternatives to multi-use paths. While it is not feasible to provide separate pedestrian paths along the full length of the corridor, it is clearly a desirable feature to include throughout the wider portions of the park. Multi-use paths would thus be limited to those locations where there are no other options such as narrow stretches of parkland or the recently completed North Bank Bridge.

Provisions for runners and joggers
One of the goals stated in the report calls for safe and continuous bicycle, skating and pedestrian access along the entire length of the park. We would add to that list of users the many runners and joggers who use River paths because they are relatively safe and removed from vehicular traffic.

While runners and joggers do not directly compete with pedestrians for space, they are better served by softer surfaces than asphalt or concrete. “Soft surface” paths have been discussed in locations such as the Greenough Boulevard reconstruction, where separate paths are proposed to serve cycling, walking and running. While the separation of walking and cycling paths is a recurring theme in the report, the possibility of also providing a separate path for runners is not. We would suggest including it in any revisions that might be forthcoming. The presence of so many “goat paths” adjacent to the paved paths clearly point to the need.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. Please feel free to contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner