Showing posts with label Bicycling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bicycling. Show all posts
Monday, June 4, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Bicycles: Can we acheive harmony and respect?
The bicycle is a marvel. A human-powered machine of utmost simplicity. It is often referred to as the most efficient form of transportation around. Burns calories, not fuel. The bike is being rediscovered and celebrated around the world, as a cheap form of transportation suitable for young and old alike.
Enabling and supporting bicycling furthers many important public objectives. More bicycles means fewer cars on the road. Fewer cars means less congestion, less air pollution, fewer greenhouse gas emissions and less parking demand. These benefits accrue to everyone, not just the bicyclists. More bicyclists means more healthy physical activity, reinforcing Brookline Health Departments' Brookline on the Move initiative. A bike can be an essential means of transportation for someone who cannot afford or chooses not own a car. So, in making it safer to ride a bike by providing designated bike lanes and more convenient bike parking, we are supporting many worthy goals.
Improving bike safety will encourage more people to ride and therefore, more benefits will stack up. Mobility and access are improved for everyone, including those who do not drive. The air will be cleaner and safer to breath. People will get healthy exercise. Being on a bike lets us encounter our surroundings and the world in a more immediate and direct way, maybe even leading to more community involvement. With the new Hubway bikeshare system, visitors, employees and residents will have easy access to a convenient, healthy way to get around. Tourists will be able to enjoy more of what Brookline has to offer.
So, why is there so much animosity and derision hurled at bicyclists? Why is there so much vocal opposition and obstruction when it comes to improving conditions for biking in Brookline? We hear over and over how bad bicyclists are at following the rules and that they don't exercise prudent riding styles. No doubt there are few bad apples out there, for whom some scorn is justified. But this does not explain the militant anti-bike fervor we see. After all, there are plenty of motorists and pedestrians who behave badly too, but we never hear a collective call of hostility and degradation for motorists or pedestrians. The mean spirited disregard for bicyclists' safety is shocking and inappropriate. And yet, it seems to be accepted and tolerated. There is something bigger going on here.
For many years (since the 1950's) planning, infrastructure and street design have all catered exclusively to the automobile. Much of the American landscape has been transformed into a land of roads, parking lots and private garages, dominating both visual and spatial dimensions completely. Walking or riding a bike became precarious, dangerous and viewed with suspicion, perhaps a sign of social deviance or poverty. How inhumane those sub-conscious thoughts are, and yet in most places in the US this reality is all there is and going car-less is virtually impossible. Fortunately, Brookline was settled well before this time. We are blessed with compact walkable and bikable landscapes. We can get around to many of our destinations without driving a car. Trust me, we are envied for this aspect of our lifestyle. Yes, we have narrow streets. Yes, Massachusetts breeds a particularly forceful street behavior, pitting ourselves against those impeding our progress. All of these forces have carried over into the latest form of this conflict, Article 23.
Article 23, which will come before Brookline Town Meeting this spring, began life as a Home Rule Petition that sought to strip our Transportation Board of its authority to approve and implement a certain type of bike lane, called a contra-flow lane. This type of bike lane is suitable in rare and particular conditions where a short connector is needed to allow bikes to travel a safe and logical route on a street where cars have been limited to one-way travel. Opposition to the Home rule petition led to a re-working of Article 23.
So now, Article 23 has been amended to be a resolution calling for our T Board to draft criteria, with the explicit input of certain town boards and commissions, which will define when contraflow bike lanes may be appropriate and to describe what factors and relative weights will be given to various perspectives and concerns. In other words, our staff and T Board must justify and defend themselves to the satisfaction of their critics. These folks don't trust our professional Town engineering staff to utilize appropriate judgement and they don't trust our Transportation Board to be thoughtful and considerate of multiple stakeholders. This despite the fact that their decisions have not resulted in any safety problems and they hold multiple well-noticed hearings on each decision they make. It is hard for some to see the validity of doing anything on behalf of the bicyclist, despite the many benefits alluded to earlier.
It seems that the idea that bikes require any kind of specific treatment or accommodation really doesn't sit well with those opposed to bikes in the first place. There was a sentiment expressed that if bicyclists can't follow the rules, then we should not make any attempt to accommodate them. This is a catch-22, as it is the lack of accommodation that can make biking that much more challenging, leading to unorthodox riding behavior. It was argued that because pedestrians jaywalk and drivers park on the wrong side of the street, we can't legalize a bike route that might conflict with these other illegal behaviors. What? Here we see an articulation of a biased preference and unconscious hierarchy that prejudice some persons' world view. I don't hear bicyclists decry sidewalks and roadways because motorists and pedestrians don't always follow the rules. Treating bicyclists as a third class citizen is pervasive. Pitting one "mode" of transportation against the others fosters aggression, animosity and ill will.
We can't afford to think this way. Being safe and accommodating each mode appropriately is possible and necessary. What is lacking here is empathy. This isn't surprising. If you've never tried to ride a bike in traffic you cannot understand the degree of vulnerability you feel on a bike. You couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of how difficult it is to safely navigate a left turn on busy multi-lane streets on a bike. You would not understand why it seems like a bicyclist is swerving randomly, when in fact they are trying to stay erect by dodging debris and potholes at the side of the road. And yes, it might make sense and be safe for a bike to travel a short way down a road in a direction prohibited to cars. The adage "Same road, Same rules" is helpful because it establishes that the appropriate place for bikes is in the street and admonishes everyone to think of the bike as a vehicle. But, it is overly simplistic. A bike is fundamentally different, and infinitely more vulnerable. So let's try to be safe, courteous, conscious and empathetic out there. We don't need to impose more burdens on our Transportation Board. If someone doesn't like a decision they can appeal it to the Board of Selectmen. Let's send a message that we support bicycling and bike facilities. Vote no on Article 23.
Enabling and supporting bicycling furthers many important public objectives. More bicycles means fewer cars on the road. Fewer cars means less congestion, less air pollution, fewer greenhouse gas emissions and less parking demand. These benefits accrue to everyone, not just the bicyclists. More bicyclists means more healthy physical activity, reinforcing Brookline Health Departments' Brookline on the Move initiative. A bike can be an essential means of transportation for someone who cannot afford or chooses not own a car. So, in making it safer to ride a bike by providing designated bike lanes and more convenient bike parking, we are supporting many worthy goals.
Improving bike safety will encourage more people to ride and therefore, more benefits will stack up. Mobility and access are improved for everyone, including those who do not drive. The air will be cleaner and safer to breath. People will get healthy exercise. Being on a bike lets us encounter our surroundings and the world in a more immediate and direct way, maybe even leading to more community involvement. With the new Hubway bikeshare system, visitors, employees and residents will have easy access to a convenient, healthy way to get around. Tourists will be able to enjoy more of what Brookline has to offer.
So, why is there so much animosity and derision hurled at bicyclists? Why is there so much vocal opposition and obstruction when it comes to improving conditions for biking in Brookline? We hear over and over how bad bicyclists are at following the rules and that they don't exercise prudent riding styles. No doubt there are few bad apples out there, for whom some scorn is justified. But this does not explain the militant anti-bike fervor we see. After all, there are plenty of motorists and pedestrians who behave badly too, but we never hear a collective call of hostility and degradation for motorists or pedestrians. The mean spirited disregard for bicyclists' safety is shocking and inappropriate. And yet, it seems to be accepted and tolerated. There is something bigger going on here.
For many years (since the 1950's) planning, infrastructure and street design have all catered exclusively to the automobile. Much of the American landscape has been transformed into a land of roads, parking lots and private garages, dominating both visual and spatial dimensions completely. Walking or riding a bike became precarious, dangerous and viewed with suspicion, perhaps a sign of social deviance or poverty. How inhumane those sub-conscious thoughts are, and yet in most places in the US this reality is all there is and going car-less is virtually impossible. Fortunately, Brookline was settled well before this time. We are blessed with compact walkable and bikable landscapes. We can get around to many of our destinations without driving a car. Trust me, we are envied for this aspect of our lifestyle. Yes, we have narrow streets. Yes, Massachusetts breeds a particularly forceful street behavior, pitting ourselves against those impeding our progress. All of these forces have carried over into the latest form of this conflict, Article 23.
Article 23, which will come before Brookline Town Meeting this spring, began life as a Home Rule Petition that sought to strip our Transportation Board of its authority to approve and implement a certain type of bike lane, called a contra-flow lane. This type of bike lane is suitable in rare and particular conditions where a short connector is needed to allow bikes to travel a safe and logical route on a street where cars have been limited to one-way travel. Opposition to the Home rule petition led to a re-working of Article 23.
So now, Article 23 has been amended to be a resolution calling for our T Board to draft criteria, with the explicit input of certain town boards and commissions, which will define when contraflow bike lanes may be appropriate and to describe what factors and relative weights will be given to various perspectives and concerns. In other words, our staff and T Board must justify and defend themselves to the satisfaction of their critics. These folks don't trust our professional Town engineering staff to utilize appropriate judgement and they don't trust our Transportation Board to be thoughtful and considerate of multiple stakeholders. This despite the fact that their decisions have not resulted in any safety problems and they hold multiple well-noticed hearings on each decision they make. It is hard for some to see the validity of doing anything on behalf of the bicyclist, despite the many benefits alluded to earlier.
It seems that the idea that bikes require any kind of specific treatment or accommodation really doesn't sit well with those opposed to bikes in the first place. There was a sentiment expressed that if bicyclists can't follow the rules, then we should not make any attempt to accommodate them. This is a catch-22, as it is the lack of accommodation that can make biking that much more challenging, leading to unorthodox riding behavior. It was argued that because pedestrians jaywalk and drivers park on the wrong side of the street, we can't legalize a bike route that might conflict with these other illegal behaviors. What? Here we see an articulation of a biased preference and unconscious hierarchy that prejudice some persons' world view. I don't hear bicyclists decry sidewalks and roadways because motorists and pedestrians don't always follow the rules. Treating bicyclists as a third class citizen is pervasive. Pitting one "mode" of transportation against the others fosters aggression, animosity and ill will.
We can't afford to think this way. Being safe and accommodating each mode appropriately is possible and necessary. What is lacking here is empathy. This isn't surprising. If you've never tried to ride a bike in traffic you cannot understand the degree of vulnerability you feel on a bike. You couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of how difficult it is to safely navigate a left turn on busy multi-lane streets on a bike. You would not understand why it seems like a bicyclist is swerving randomly, when in fact they are trying to stay erect by dodging debris and potholes at the side of the road. And yes, it might make sense and be safe for a bike to travel a short way down a road in a direction prohibited to cars. The adage "Same road, Same rules" is helpful because it establishes that the appropriate place for bikes is in the street and admonishes everyone to think of the bike as a vehicle. But, it is overly simplistic. A bike is fundamentally different, and infinitely more vulnerable. So let's try to be safe, courteous, conscious and empathetic out there. We don't need to impose more burdens on our Transportation Board. If someone doesn't like a decision they can appeal it to the Board of Selectmen. Let's send a message that we support bicycling and bike facilities. Vote no on Article 23.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Sustainable Brookline Conference
Last Sunday a gathering was held at Wheelock College, called Sustainable Brookline. Coordinated by many individuals, most notably the ad hoc Steering Committee for a Sustainable Brookline, its stated mission was to "develop a coordinated strategy for making Brookline a truly sustainable community". Over 60 members of our community gave up their Sunday afternoon to meet, discuss and plan future coordinated actions. Don Weitzman of the Climate Change Action Committee ran the meeting with supreme efficiency, ensuring that everyone present was able to participate and the ideas continued to flow.
Many groups and individuals were represented. Each presented up to three "actions" that would bring Brookline closer to sustainability. Many, many good ideas came forward, some were clearly predictable, doable and valuable such as expanding recycling programs to businesses, others were more innovative and perhaps challenging to implement, such as the Conservation Commission's Green Streets program that seeks to manage storm water flows with vegetation. Building, energy and vehicle efficiencies were all pinpointed by numerous groups. Many spoke of the need to promote alternative transportation including bikes, transit and walking while reducing auto-dependence. Hugh Mattison spoke of the need to interest young people in street tree stewardship through a tree buddy program. The GreenSpace Alliance stressed the education of youth too in it's presentation, clearly thought was given to the need look ahead.
Our actions are intermeshed and carry rippling repercussions. Some of these connections were identified at the conference. Transportation Board policies impact the Bicycle Advisory Committee's planned bike routes. Implementing green building standards will redirect a building contractor's business. As my previous post outlines, our zoning ordinances' requirement for excessive parking has far reaching impacts on the livability of our community. Future discussions will hopefully bring into focus the benefits of promoting localized economies, food production and social structures.
And yet, the purpose of the gathering was no doubt in response to the growing awareness of the need for action to prepare for the changes that will undoubtedly come our way. Sitting in a room full of "environmentalists", (an antiquated term I feel because it now has a history of adversarial politics and "holier than thou" attitudes that have not been particularly constructive), took me back to the original Earth Day, I vividly recall participating in it. I was in grade school, I pinned a "Give Earth a Chance" button on my shirt and we cleaned up our play yard! It seems almost ridiculous that a species living on the planet had to have an Earth Day at all, but there it is, I guess we did. The river just down the street from my school churned and foamed a putrid green with the effluent from the paper mill just upstream. It eventually got cleaned up. I am sure everyone around me had similar memories. I recall too, learning in college courses about the true impacts of our industries and way of life. We studied natural resource economics, world food systems, community environmental field studies and resource dispute resolution, all trying to bring reason and humanity back to the center of things.
In truth we are all in this together, going along for the ride. We are all both part of the problem and potentially part of the solution. It was inspiring to see so many dedicated individuals who were truly trying to put forward positive solutions. I salute each and every one of you.
Perhaps future generations will read over the minutes of our meeting and think, "thank goodness they finally started to get their act together and tried to do something." Or perhaps they will say, "it was too late and they just didn't know it, and the things they talked about didn't make any difference anyway". There were those voices at the conference who urged a more drastic reaction and response. (Like what?, they didn't say.) Fear and panic do not seem very useful. While others spoke of the need to process and adjust. So in the end, I believe it was the middle road that was taken. A call for action within the state of things as we know them, never losing sight of the need to continually push ourselves for further progress.
While I do not have faith in technological solutions alone, as some do, I believe in our ability to adapt, change, evolve, and innovate. Solutions will be combinations of things more intertwined and complex than we can imagine, an infinitely dispersed network of problem solvers will come up with a great many things. So I guess I am a glass half full person. I thank the ad hoc committee for organizing the conference and look forward to seeing the progress we make working together towards a sustainable Brookline.
[where:02446]
Many groups and individuals were represented. Each presented up to three "actions" that would bring Brookline closer to sustainability. Many, many good ideas came forward, some were clearly predictable, doable and valuable such as expanding recycling programs to businesses, others were more innovative and perhaps challenging to implement, such as the Conservation Commission's Green Streets program that seeks to manage storm water flows with vegetation. Building, energy and vehicle efficiencies were all pinpointed by numerous groups. Many spoke of the need to promote alternative transportation including bikes, transit and walking while reducing auto-dependence. Hugh Mattison spoke of the need to interest young people in street tree stewardship through a tree buddy program. The GreenSpace Alliance stressed the education of youth too in it's presentation, clearly thought was given to the need look ahead.
Our actions are intermeshed and carry rippling repercussions. Some of these connections were identified at the conference. Transportation Board policies impact the Bicycle Advisory Committee's planned bike routes. Implementing green building standards will redirect a building contractor's business. As my previous post outlines, our zoning ordinances' requirement for excessive parking has far reaching impacts on the livability of our community. Future discussions will hopefully bring into focus the benefits of promoting localized economies, food production and social structures.
And yet, the purpose of the gathering was no doubt in response to the growing awareness of the need for action to prepare for the changes that will undoubtedly come our way. Sitting in a room full of "environmentalists", (an antiquated term I feel because it now has a history of adversarial politics and "holier than thou" attitudes that have not been particularly constructive), took me back to the original Earth Day, I vividly recall participating in it. I was in grade school, I pinned a "Give Earth a Chance" button on my shirt and we cleaned up our play yard! It seems almost ridiculous that a species living on the planet had to have an Earth Day at all, but there it is, I guess we did. The river just down the street from my school churned and foamed a putrid green with the effluent from the paper mill just upstream. It eventually got cleaned up. I am sure everyone around me had similar memories. I recall too, learning in college courses about the true impacts of our industries and way of life. We studied natural resource economics, world food systems, community environmental field studies and resource dispute resolution, all trying to bring reason and humanity back to the center of things.
In truth we are all in this together, going along for the ride. We are all both part of the problem and potentially part of the solution. It was inspiring to see so many dedicated individuals who were truly trying to put forward positive solutions. I salute each and every one of you.
Perhaps future generations will read over the minutes of our meeting and think, "thank goodness they finally started to get their act together and tried to do something." Or perhaps they will say, "it was too late and they just didn't know it, and the things they talked about didn't make any difference anyway". There were those voices at the conference who urged a more drastic reaction and response. (Like what?, they didn't say.) Fear and panic do not seem very useful. While others spoke of the need to process and adjust. So in the end, I believe it was the middle road that was taken. A call for action within the state of things as we know them, never losing sight of the need to continually push ourselves for further progress.
While I do not have faith in technological solutions alone, as some do, I believe in our ability to adapt, change, evolve, and innovate. Solutions will be combinations of things more intertwined and complex than we can imagine, an infinitely dispersed network of problem solvers will come up with a great many things. So I guess I am a glass half full person. I thank the ad hoc committee for organizing the conference and look forward to seeing the progress we make working together towards a sustainable Brookline.
[where:02446]
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Pedestrians an Afterthought?
You've got to wonder what they were thinking. The design of the new Beacon Street must have looked pretty impressive on all those drawings. Despite the excessive intuitive lane weaving that the driver must somehow have the precognition to execute, the autos for the most part seem to have been accommodated. After all that's what the highway department thinks its job is.
But what about all the other life that goes on around and across and in the road? It is, after all those of us who cross Beacon on foot, take the trolley, walk or jog along the sidewalks, ride a bike, shop, talk to our friends, window shop, attend Arts Festivals, tend our front yards and sometimes just sit on our front stoops to watch the world go by all on or along side historic Beacon Street. Just how much thought was given to the way all of this was going to work out?
If the intersection at Harvard and Beacon is any indication, not much. Stand on the southeast corner of this intersection and watch as the streams of pedestrians weave and dodge there way around the two huge signal boxes placed directly in the middle of the obvious travel path, not to mention the many poles, etc. These impediments are so intrusive, we are forced to dodge each other dodging the boxes and poles! Yes, we can manage I guess, although I think people in well chairs or on walkers would have a hard time of it. But managing is not the point is it?
This crossing should have been designed and planned to be plenty big, wide, clear and with a good flat surface and if we were really lucky it could have been aesthetically appealing with some nice T signage thrown in. Doesn't anyone know how to plan for pedestrians? Didn't anyone think about the amount of people on foot that cross this street daily. My experience with the St.Paul Street T stop has not been much better. Here we have crowds of people with suitcases destined for the Holiday Inn getting off onto a strip of asphalt only to find that they must circle around on a narrow little circuit of patchwork pavement wrapped around a few poles, signal boxes and planting beds. Again, no real thought was given to accommodating numbers of people or making it easy, convenient or pleasant. My friend Susan Bartek tells me that the narrow passage way was actually much smaller and it was only through her quick action as she watched this error being committed and called it to the attention of the Town and T that some slight accommodation was made. Pretty incredible that this kind of ineptitude is still going on.
In this day and age of global warming we should be doing everything we can to make walking, biking and riding the T the preferred transportation alternatives. Part of this means making sure the effort is made to design and build functionality for all transportation modes, especially when masses amounts of time, energy and tax dollars are being expended.
This seems to be a case where better, professional expertise in the form of design review and oversight were needed. Whether or not this was a failure of attention or a simple lack of staff resources, it revels yet another instance where the complexities of the governance we are in need of has outstripped our ability to provide it. And I'm afraid this seems to be happening on just about all fronts at once. Ours is a complex, dense and in many ways urban community and we are not really managing change let alone planning for the future adequately.
[Where: 1319 Beacon St., Brookline, MA 02446]
But what about all the other life that goes on around and across and in the road? It is, after all those of us who cross Beacon on foot, take the trolley, walk or jog along the sidewalks, ride a bike, shop, talk to our friends, window shop, attend Arts Festivals, tend our front yards and sometimes just sit on our front stoops to watch the world go by all on or along side historic Beacon Street. Just how much thought was given to the way all of this was going to work out?
If the intersection at Harvard and Beacon is any indication, not much. Stand on the southeast corner of this intersection and watch as the streams of pedestrians weave and dodge there way around the two huge signal boxes placed directly in the middle of the obvious travel path, not to mention the many poles, etc. These impediments are so intrusive, we are forced to dodge each other dodging the boxes and poles! Yes, we can manage I guess, although I think people in well chairs or on walkers would have a hard time of it. But managing is not the point is it?
This crossing should have been designed and planned to be plenty big, wide, clear and with a good flat surface and if we were really lucky it could have been aesthetically appealing with some nice T signage thrown in. Doesn't anyone know how to plan for pedestrians? Didn't anyone think about the amount of people on foot that cross this street daily. My experience with the St.Paul Street T stop has not been much better. Here we have crowds of people with suitcases destined for the Holiday Inn getting off onto a strip of asphalt only to find that they must circle around on a narrow little circuit of patchwork pavement wrapped around a few poles, signal boxes and planting beds. Again, no real thought was given to accommodating numbers of people or making it easy, convenient or pleasant. My friend Susan Bartek tells me that the narrow passage way was actually much smaller and it was only through her quick action as she watched this error being committed and called it to the attention of the Town and T that some slight accommodation was made. Pretty incredible that this kind of ineptitude is still going on.
In this day and age of global warming we should be doing everything we can to make walking, biking and riding the T the preferred transportation alternatives. Part of this means making sure the effort is made to design and build functionality for all transportation modes, especially when masses amounts of time, energy and tax dollars are being expended.
This seems to be a case where better, professional expertise in the form of design review and oversight were needed. Whether or not this was a failure of attention or a simple lack of staff resources, it revels yet another instance where the complexities of the governance we are in need of has outstripped our ability to provide it. And I'm afraid this seems to be happening on just about all fronts at once. Ours is a complex, dense and in many ways urban community and we are not really managing change let alone planning for the future adequately.
[Where: 1319 Beacon St., Brookline, MA 02446]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)