Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

zeratul98 OP t1_iwcclbg wrote

The city's planning a renewal/redesign in their chunk of the path. It'll be interesting to see how they balance this being a park with it also being a commuting path.

It also sounds like the path hasn't been repaved since it was built 35 years ago. If that's true, that really speaks to the efficiency of spending on bike and pedestrian infrastructure

41

vhalros t1_iwdkecs wrote

> It also sounds like the path hasn't been repaved since it was built 35 years ago. If that's true, that really speaks to the efficiency of spending on bike and pedestrian infrastructure

Road wear is proportional to roughly the forth power of axel weight. So compared to a car, bicycles basically don't cause any: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_weight#cite_ref-13

17

IntelligentCicada363 t1_iwgap00 wrote

Which really makes the screeching from car people about bikers paying to fix the roads comical. Sure, I’ll contribute the fractions of a penny of road wear and tear that I cause.

5

vhalros t1_iwgejvb wrote

I think for off-street paths like that, they also use fewer layers of asphalt than roads. In the few places where you can see the sides from erosion, it definitely appears thinner. But I can't find a specific design standard for this.

3

Master_Dogs t1_iwcm45n wrote

> The city's planning a renewal/redesign in their chunk of the path. It'll be interesting to see how they balance this being a park with it also being a commuting path.

IIRC the Linear Park/Path was built prior to the Minutemen opening, so it wasn't ever really designed to handle the traffic it gets now.

I think they really just need to widen a few spots from 10 ft to 12-15 ft depending on space availability. That should leave plenty of park space. See how Somerville did their community path (ignoring the future path extension, which will have this same issue being a 10 ft path, thanks to GLX budget issues) for an example of how you can have a nice multi modal path with some park like amenities.

> It also sounds like the path hasn't been repaved since it was built 35 years ago. If that's true, that really speaks to the efficiency of spending on bike and pedestrian infrastructure

It helps that people walking and biking weigh a fraction of your typical compact sedan. And with most people opting for SUVs and pick-up trucks... We can see why the roads are trash. (That plus an overall lack of road / transportation in general maintenance in the last 20 years).

11

zeratul98 OP t1_iwcnlbd wrote

>See how Somerville did their community path

As someone who frequents this path, it's quite nice but arguably not wide enough. There's people taking leisurely strolls in large groups and cyclists biking through (sometimes also in groups). I think it'd be nice to see a contraflow bike lane down the middle of the path to provide some structure for where to expect cyclists.

>It helps that people walking and biking weigh a fraction of your typical compact sedan.

Agreed. It's nice to now have a real example I can point to to show people just how long bike infrastructure lasts

9

Master_Dogs t1_iwczj0s wrote

> As someone who frequents this path, it's quite nice but arguably not wide enough. There's people taking leisurely strolls in large groups and cyclists biking through (sometimes also in groups). I think it'd be nice to see a contraflow bike lane down the middle of the path to provide some structure for where to expect cyclists.

Hmm, yeah at peak hours it can get fairly crowded. I'd probably rather see dedicated bike lanes added to Highland Ave, plus cross streets (Willow, Cedar, and Lowell) and separated lanes on Broadway (only paint at the moment). That would provide some alternative dedicated routes for cyclists plus calm some of those streets so people can spread out more.

8

zeratul98 OP t1_iwd1nmm wrote

I'd like to see that too. To me though, the reality is that a separate bike path is better than a bike lane. No assholes parking in the path, no risk of doorings, no danger from cars turning, and probably an easier time plowing

12

albertogonzalex t1_iwczop8 wrote

I actually think the widths are just fine. There are rarely, if ever, crashes on the paths themselves. People on bikes, strolling, walking dogs, etc are pretty naturally prepared to share space.

5

zeratul98 OP t1_iwd2gl9 wrote

I don't think a lack of crashes is the only metric we should use though. If we want these paths to not just be for pleasure, but for actual transportation too, then bikes have to be able to move through quickly without making pedestrians feel unsafe (perception is really important here because it determines if people enjoy and use something meant to be pleasant). I suspect this will become an increasing issue as e bikes become more common

12

albertogonzalex t1_iwds8o5 wrote

I think this is a totally accurate take. And, couldn't agree more. I guess I'm coming from the place of opportunity-cost thinking. The value -add of going wider here (and even doing this project at all given the current conditions are sufficient - they need a lot of work. But I feel 100% safe riding with my kids currently) isn't nearly as important as creating new infrastructure (like safely connecting Assembly to Alewife along the mess of paths along 16 or accelerating/more aggressively improving any of the street projects currently going etc).

Let's cross the "need to make an off street path bigger bc use is so high that people don't use it" when we get there and use those funds now for all the areas we know people are being killed and many more people aren't riding at all bc of the actual safety reality.

2

zeratul98 OP t1_iwdyc1l wrote

Very true. At least one thing can be said for prioritizing this: it's likely politically easy. I imagine it's also pretty cheap. Since it's not disrupting car traffic there's no opposition from angry drivers, and there's no need to pay signalers all the time.

I can only imagine what an undertaking a proper Assembly connection would be. That whole area is a transit island full of missed opportunities. The parking to non-parking ratio is absolutely bonkers, the T station is poorly integrated and annoying to use, and the area is shockingly difficult and uncomfortable to navigate on foot.

5

swni t1_iwemea9 wrote

I went biking through at like 6pm once and for half of it I may as well have been walking. It is still very pleasant and much preferred to being on the street, but I could see someone using it for commuting at rush hour getting impatient after a while.

5

SheeEttin t1_iwew1wo wrote

Heck, I've biked it on the weekends for pleasure and even I kept having to nearly come to a complete stop behind someone walking in order to wait for a clear spot to pass them. Just make it a bit wider so cyclists can go zoom without having to dodge pedestrians! As a pedestrian I always try to make room for cyclists, but sometimes there just isn't any way. :(

3

ik1nky t1_iwd0mqd wrote

Good news! The plans for the redesign call for 12-14ft with 2ft buffers on both sides.

9

pattyorland t1_iwdo2o2 wrote

It's in pretty rough shape. Not due to damage from the weight of bicycles, but due to natural decay, lack of maintenance, and/or inadequate durability when originally built. https://goo.gl/maps/bq7XHhJvfkJWPHvw7

How often are streets repaved in this area?

8

massmanx t1_iwd48y2 wrote

I hope they buy or imminent domain the empty, non buildable, parcel of land at 12 Cameron ave. It’s the tiny lot that’s fenced in next to the ever source/former fire station with the mural.

I’m not saying it would add much to the small little park space right there. But it’s an overgrown eyesore that rarely gets shoveled in winter so so something better could probably be done with that land

9

massmanx t1_iwdx6xo wrote

I have in the past and even put it in the “neighborhood ideas” budget thing Cambridge offers. I’m no longer a Cambridge resident though so have far less of a stake/say these days, but it’s a great call out!

4

amyleerobinson t1_iwfjbbn wrote

Anyone know if they’re planning to turn that abandoned bus charging lot into park space? It’s near that tiny lot, where the new condos are going up.

2

myrealnameisdj t1_iwevrmm wrote

Can they improve the light cycle across Mass Ave at the end of this in the process, as well? The bike light cycle works well.

7

IntelligentCicada363 t1_iwgavrj wrote

Have they considered how much car drivers would benefit from being able to use this cut-through to 2? Cambridge Streets for ALL dammit!

−4