In a blog post titled, ‘Hey. that was our money!’ Paul Levy offers a different take on the decision by the Warren administration to undo curb cuts along Cypress Street in Newton Center.
Be sure and read the whole thing, but here’s an except:
I think there is an unreported back story: This is government at work in an election year. Many of my friends and neighbors complained to the Mayor’s Office about the change and the politically correct administration decided to cave. (I actually found that the intersection worked better with the change.) Why did they complain? First, the reconfiguration required a small change in driving habits. (Previously, traffic entering from Centre Street would have to yield. Now, the traffic from Cypress Street would have to yield.) Second, the road is still roughed up, without final paving, and traffic slows because of that. Third, the temporary signage at the intersection is not optimal. People are not yet used to the change, and so the improvement in traffic flow that was envisioned has not yet been achieved.
I’d love to hear what people think about Levy’s view that the decision was made too soon. Also; this is the second time in recent weeks that it’s been suggested that politics and NIMBYism is driving decisions at City Hall. Do you agree?
Left for Paul’s blog (don’t know if he’ll deign to post it).
Paul,
with regards to the comments by the chair of the Transportation Advisory Group.
The two elderly Newton residents were not struck in that intersection, both were struck at Centre/Pelham, further down the street: http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/newton/2012/11/two_elderly_pedestrians_hit_in.html
The number of legal travel lanes is brought up because prior to the change, there was one ‘legal’ lane but two functional lanes Northbound on Centre, helping ease bottleneck. It also left one northbound travel lane free for busses to stop.
I would guess that, after the reconfiguration (while school was still in session) you didn’t wait 15-30 minutes in morning queues on Cypress/Parker Street, as that traffic backed up all the way to Route 9 and beyond.
I’m with Dulles. Coming down Cypress/Parker into Newton Center is ridiculous now. I cannot even imagine what it would be like in the fall when school is back in session. The mayor did the right thing here, IMHO. Also I could be wrong but I don’t think his political fortunes are going to rise or fall on the Cypress St road project.
I read the article, and found also the comments to be interesting. I think Levy is himself playing politics here. My guess is that for some reason he doesn’t like Setti Warren, perhaps because he challenged someone that Levy liked for Senator a while back, and this is payback. He doesn’t want Setti re-elected as mayor.
The public can’t be consulted every time a street decision is made. This is one of those well-intended changes that simply didn’t work out as expected. The intersection didn’t work well before, and it wasn’t improved by this change. Perhaps it’s not fixable.
I’d like to know how much public opinion was elicited when the bicycle lanes were put in. This is a true nightmare. Little bikes are in the way of the travel of 3000-lb motor vehicles all the time. I continually come very close to them , unintentionally, here and in Brookline and in Boston, and sometimes they veer out of the bike lanes, for seemingly no reason, and can easily be struck. And the bike lanes often are within the auto travel lanes. And sometimes there’s no room for a bike lane and they travel in the way of cars. They themselves often don’t obey traffic laws and continually go through red lights if they think the traffic is far enough away. And the fact is that there are relatively few of them so that CO2 emissions and fuel consumption and normal traffic is not at all improved by their use. This is truly the oppression of the majority by a small minority of bicycle fanatics.
@Barry: I’ve always found Paul Levy to be very fair, open and not afraid to share his views. I doubt there’s a hidden agenda here, just a sincere analysis as he sees it.
And I think he makes some valid points, including this…
Dulles:
“Deign”??? Why would you use a term like that? That’s pretty insulting. I published your comment right away, and I replied to it there.
Barry:
You, too, asserting some political agenda on my part with no basis for that whatsoever. Go back and see that I supported Setti for mayor in his first race. I like him very much, personally, but that doesn’t mean I give up my rights to question decisions made by the city.
Emily:
The project isn’t even fully finished, and the signage is not done, and people are not used to the change. For example, you still see people coming down Centre Street and stopping to yield the right-of-way to those from Cypress.
But to your point: They could have tested half of the change without spending much money at all, i.e., just changing the right-of-way between Centre and Cypress traffic so that cars on the main thoroughfare would have the right-of-way. Could have done that for several months and see how it went. They could still try that.
Paul, Greg,
I’m obviously only guessing, but, since I am on these blogs a lot, I can say that I have almost never seen Paul post. Now, all of a sudden, in the middle of what will be a hotly contested mayoralty race, Paul is making accusations about Setti which I consider to be just guessing, about HIS motivations. While Paul may have supported Setti for mayor the first time, as he says, he may still be annoyed that Setti ran for Senate, which is what I said. The Newton Centre construction is an annoyance, of course, but not worthy of too much angst from someone of Paul’s stature, except that Ted and others see this as a weapon to be used against Setti, just as the nonsensical magnification of the Engine 6 issue is.
So, Paul, let me ask you this. As a Newton resident, how did you like the fact that Ted wanted to bring to Newton a Gitmo detainee, one who the article on the issue when it was killed by the BOA was described by
“Naji has been detained as an enemy combatant and alleged to be a member of terrorist group Lashkar al-Tayyibi. Naji has said he worked in a legally operated charitable wing of the organization.”?
This is more important to me than questioning an erroneous attempt to fix or reverse a fix of a traffic problem, which admittedly existed.
@Barry, Paul Levy chaired Newton’s first Blue Ribbon Commission on fiscal matters. As the former head of the MWRA and leader of the Boston Harbor Cleanup, I think he has a unique perspective on public projects and public process. And my experience has been that Paul knows his own mind and is not afraid to share his thoughts. You could learn a lot by listening to him.
Ted,
I know Paul’s background and I respect it. That’s why I question his involving himself in a petty squabble like this one. He rarely bothers to “share his thoughts” on these blogs.
And why would you want to specially invite to our city someone who was brought to Gitmo because he was a member, regardless of the role he officially played, of a known terrorist organization?
The ability to recognize and admit a mistake is sadly lacking in the public sector, where you’re playing with other people’s money. To the degree he was involved with reversing the ill conceived and poorly designed roadway changes in Newton Centre, Mayor Warren deserves nothing but praise. What was the Mayor supposed to do when a large majority of the motoring public, bicyclists and pedestrians were justifiably complaining about the impact on them of the reconfigured roadway and traffic patterns? I can’t think of another instance in Newton where there was such universal disdain for roadway changes, not directly associated with a larger construction project. It doesn’t speak well for the Mayor that he allowed the Newton Centre project to begin with. But it’s praiseworthy that he didn’t follow up that mistake with the typical denials and finger pointing that so often comes with politics. Thank you, Mayor Warren, for listening, and having the courage to fix this problem. You likely saved most of the bloggers on Village 14 from sitting in Newton Centre traffic a few extra hours over the next year.
If tomorrow Setti Warren announced he is bringing Bain Capital to Newton, creating hundreds of highly technical jobs and tens of thousands in city revenue, the editorials would immediately be saying it was election year motivated.
Crazy everyone is eating their own this year. Even crazier that they are using pure hearsay and conjecture — residents met w the mayor and he caved, or residents met w the mayor and he accused other parties… The same people making unqualified statements should remember their training about correlation/causation etc. Childish
What Hoss said.
As a Newton resident who often traverses the intersection of Centre and Cypress, both as a driver and pedestrian, I was dismayed to learn that the city is planning to return this intersection to its previous configuration. For all of those Newton residents who have suffered for years driving north on Centre Street, and whose residential streets were overrun by cars diverted from Centre street, this is a very disturbing development.
For many years, driving north on Centre Street through this intersection has had delays at all times of day, even Saturdays. It was a rare rush hour when the traffic wasn’t backed up at least a quarter of a mile, and sometimes more than half a mile. The actual waiting time was compounded by the stress of navigating through the intersection itself with its strange configuration. Frustrated drivers would divert, speeding through residential streets at all times of day.
After the changes earlier this summer, the improvement on Centre Street has been dramatic, with almost no backups. People who previously would do anything to avoid driving north on Centre Street are now choosing that as the route of choice, instead of driving through residential alternatives. To all of those who have waited for years for the city to address the problems on northbound Centre Street, to undo these improvements would be a slap in the face.
Of course, I am aware that northbound traffic on Cypress and Parker streets has gotten worse as a result of these changes, which gave northbound Centre Street the right of way. During the construction in Newton Centre and on Route 9 there were unacceptable backups on these streets. However, I have observed this intersection at many times of day during the last couple of weeks. Often there is no backup on Cypress at all, and even during rush hour the backups are smaller than the backups used to be on Centre Street at the same time of day. This is not surprising given that the traffic study a few years ago found that there were fewer northbound cars entering this intersection from Cypress than from Centre. Even that study understates the difference, because the drivers on Centre Street were there despite the backups — anyone who could possibly avoid driving north on Centre Street was already doing so, whereas it will take months before the Parker and Cypress street traffic similarly adjusts downward. While some people will have a longer drive than they used to as a result of the current configuration, overall delays have been reduced.
Furthermore, the intersection in its old configuration was unnatural and dangerous. Cars driving north on Center Street needed to avoid cars coming from almost directly behind them to the right and cars in front turning left onto Cypress, leading to numerous accidents. It required a brave pedestrian to cross the Centre Street crosswalk with drivers’ attention already overloaded from negotiating these traffic streams. In the new configuration the situation is improved because the drivers going north on Cypress only have to interact with the cars going in one direction on Centre Street, as is true for right-turning cars at any normal T intersection.
I hope the DPW will do what is right for the City of Newton overall, and keep the intersection in its new, sensible configuration. They have already had plenty of input from people adversely affected during the construction, but they haven’t heard the other side of the story. If you are one of the many people who has benefited from the change at Centre and Cypress, please let your Aldermen, the DPW Commissioner, and the Mayor know.
Mike, it is interesting that you credit the Mayor for this decision. In another email, Dave Turocy told the aldermen it was his call.
Some of the aldermen, myself included, question whether DPW had authority to reverse the changes without coming back to the board under Section 26-15:
Here was Mr. Turocy’s reply:
Now, I have a lot of respect for Dave Turocy. But before we spend a whole lot of tax dollars to undo changes paid for with a whole lot of tax dollars, and work on another plan that will cost a whole lot of tax dollars, I think we should have a comprehensive review and a public discussion, rather than a strong public reaction, albeit perhaps a reasonable one.
I should add that up until last week, the city’s traffic planners and engineers were saying that they thought that the intersection could be made to work well once the timing of the traffic lights in Newton Centre was properly adjusted. I am not sure what, if anything, changed their evaluation of the situation. But I could guess.
Barry,
I write on my own blog every day, usually about health care issues, but also from time to time about infrastructure issues. I read a lot of other blogs but don’t usually comment on them. The only reason I responded on this one was because I saw that you had questioned my motivation. Your assertion on that front simply has no basis in fact.
Mike,
You say that “A large majority of the motoring public, bicyclists and pedestrians were justifiably complaining about the impact on them of the reconfigured roadway and traffic patterns.” I don’t think there is any proof that it was a large majority. Yes, there were complaints, but there were also people who thought that the change was sensible, especially shifting the right-of-way from Cypress Street drivers to Centre Street drivers. That is still a concept worth testing, in my view.
I live within 2 blocks of this intersection and travel through it in my car, on my bicycle, and by foot hundreds of times per year. The old configuration was awkward and unsafe in many respects.
Barry,
Like it or not, bicyclists have a legal right to use the road, and more and more bikers are taking advantage of that legal right, whether or not you and other drivers find them “a true nightmare” or the “oppression of a minority.”
Bike lanes may be an annoyance to some drivers, but in the long run they do clarify how bikes and cars can share the road, and have made biking demonstrably safer where they’re used. I’m not sure what you mean by lanes “in the travel lane.” There are no bike lanes “in” a car travel lane. There are some places, such as on Beacon St., where the car travel lanes were wide enough to permit bike lanes to be added adjacent to the one marked car travel lane. We all know that drivers had been creating an extra lane on Beacon where there was no painted second lane. Now that space is for bikes. Quite a few drivers still use that space, especially heading uphill eastbound towards Hammond Pond Parkway. That’s illegal, however, and the Newton police have started to ticket for the offense. (If you’d like to risk a $100.00 ticket for driving up a bike lane, no sweat.)
Where there are “Share the Road” signs and “sharrow” markings on the road, it’s wise as a driver to look out for cyclists. There are only going to be more of us. Please continue to be as careful as I’m sure you are.
Bike Newton is working on making cycling safer for everyone. One of our latest pushes has been for all the elementary schools to take advantage of the Newton Police-sponsored elementary bicycling education program, and to have middle schools adopt a nationally-recognized bicycle safety curriculum (which takes all of one day out of PE for 6th-graders). If you’d like to make sure bicyclists adopt safer habits, please help us encourage the Newton education dept. to mandate that kind of safety instruction in all schools.
But please, folks, don’t let me or Barry derail this discussion, which is about the changes at Centre & Cypress. I don’t know what machinations drove the change, but I tend to agree with those who wonder why it a) wasn’t given more time (I live nearby, and I’ve only just begun to change my habits myself) and/or b) why the change in right of way wasn’t piloted for several months first. I would love to have seen it given at least enough testing time to justify the expense, and I even live on a cross-street that will almost certainly see more traffic as people adjust their routes.
Paul – Unless you write a Ward 6 blog (which may be the case), one has to wonder why you wrote about an issue of absolutely no interest to the vast majority of your readers. That’s where the skepticism comes from. You can be big idea thinker or you can get down into weeds, but you can’t do both. When you try to turn a “weedy” issue into a big idea, it just doesn’t resonate.
@Ted– Whoever decided to change it back, deserves credit for that decision. I don’t know if it was the Mayor or the head of DPW. And I respectfully submit that the time to worry about the cost in tax dollars, was before these ill conceived [my opinion] changes were made. It’s astounding to me that the City would spend money on a project like this, when I’ve got potholes in my neighborhood that could swallow a small car.
@Paul– Fair enough. I don’t know that a majority of the public was complaining. But it was certainly a majority of the bloggers. I also live just a few blocks from the intersection, and drive that route everyday. I agree the configuration was awkward. I don’t agree it was particularly unsafe. I believe narrowing the roadway made it less safe for bicycles, which is a point I’ve heard raised by several cyclists.
So the president gave a “if I had a son” remark and in Newton that translates into “if he had been my son, I would have wanted someone from the country which wrongfully detained him to care”? Shouldn’t that say “to care for him”? Who on earth of a mistakenly detained son would like him to live with his captors? That makes no sense unless you’re trying to piggyback on Obama’s statement.
Thanks for the advice, Jane. In seven years of writing the blog, I have written about things large and small, national and local. Readership keeps going up.
As I look at my blog statistics, there is no support for your assertion these kind of things are “of absolutely no interest to the vast majority of your readers.” It may be that what doesn’t resonate with you does with others, in that such columns often evoke connections with their own local issues.
@Paul Levy,
Since you’re keeping an eye on Village14: Did you attend the meetings at Newton City Hall to discuss the Centre/Cypress intersection reconfiguration problems? Did you download and review the Traffic Solutions reports on Newton Centre’s intersections? (thanks to @Ted Hess-Mahan weeks ago for providing a link for watchful readers).
Your blog is written in a way that suggests to me that you drew conclusions based on incomplete and/or inaccurate information about the traffic patterns in Newton Centre’s intersections. I don’t think you did the proper research beforehand to understand the cascading series of traffic issues from the Centre/Cypress changes.
As for use of the word “deign”. I honestly did not mean to use it in a sarcastic or insulting way, but instead used the word in its original meaning. You are a public executive who “owns” your blog page. The blog site states that you review and approve any comment prior to posting, meaning reader comments appear at your sole discretion. I, on the other hand, left a dissenting comment as an anonymous poster. The word accurately represents the disparate power relationship.
Thanks for your timely response, Paul. As is often the case on the blog, I write quickly and sometimes don’t get my central point across. So I’ll give it another try – your blog post comes across to me as politically motivated. When I see Ted and Greg, who supports him, taking on the issue then it raises doubt in my mind. If you also support Ted, that’s perfectly fine, but this thread seems more politically based than substantive on the issue.
Woah! Jane, if I’m supporting Ted Hess-Mahan for mayor don’t you think I’m the one who should make that announcement?
For the record, I’ve not endorsed, donated or committed my support to any candidate for mayor or any other municipal office. If I change my mind about that, I’m not shy, I’ll let folks know.
I have said that I like Hess-Mahan’s decision to run for mayor because I believe contested elections with qualified candidates is good for our democracy. That’s not the same as saying he’s getting my vote.
Dulles:
Re: “The word [deign] accurately represents the disparate power relationship.” True, and sorry for misinterpreting your use of it. But I post all comments unless they contain ad hominem attacks, profanity, or confidential information about people.
I don’t keep an eye on Village 14. I was led to the story by my blog tracker. I read the Tab, but I don’t recall seeing detailed information about the intersection before construction began or about meetings on the topic. My unscientific survey of neighbors produced similar comments about public input.
Jane,
Is Ted running for something? As for Greg, I have no idea whom he supports for any office.
@Irwin Jungreis, @Paul Levy — here’s the single biggest issue, and it has nothing to do with northbound traffic whatsoever. The primary issue is *southbound* traffic that turns left onto Cypress Street.
There is enough space for about 6-8 cars at most in the left-hand turn lane, southbound between the Beacon/Centre intersection and the Centre/Cypress intersection. Once that left-hand turn lane fills up (when Centre Street experiences heavy traffic, and left turners yield), additional left-turning cars gridlock the adjacent Beacon/Centre intersection. This is a very scary prospect for the adjacent intersection, which already tends to gridlock eastbound on Beacon approaching Langley Rd.
To prevent this multi-way gridlock threat, the top priority for Centre/Cypress is to pull cars away ASAP from the adjacent Beacon/Centre intersection. To do that, *all* southbound traffic (whether turning left on Cypress or going straight on Centre) must have priority.
I believe that’s how the original Centre/Cypress intersection evolved: To get southbound traffic out of the way, Centre Street northbound got a Yield. As northbound Cypress St. right-hand merging onto Centre doesn’t interfere with any southbound traffic, it got no restrictions.
Great explanation. So why did they decide to change it?
Hi Paul,
What’s your blog address?
Greg,
Why isn’t Paul’s blog on the blogroll? Just curious.
It would be interesting to study the traffic at that intersection in terms of where people are actually going when they pass through there at rush hour. Are people heading to or from work in Boston, stuck in traffic just a stones throw from a T stop?
It’s on the blogroll: Not Running a Hospital
Paul, I think the engineers said that old configuration was considered unusual, that drivers on Centre northbound unfamiliar with the intersection would not expect turning traffic in front of them to have the right of way. (Where else have you seen an intersection like this?) Also, the odd merging with ambiguous lanes in the intersection was unsafe. It would be interesting to see if the causes behind the accident statistics back this up. As locals, we know that the only way to get through that intersection to/from Cypress was to drive aggressively and assert right of way. That helped with traffic flow, as dulles says, but it hardly makes for the safest configuration.
Paul, Thanks.
Jane – traffic in Newton Centre affects more than just Ward 6. A lot of Newtonites pass through there on a regular basis as they cross the city.
Steve R.,
Drive west on Longwood Avenue in Brookline. The bicycle lane is dead in the middle of the one-car-wide auto lane. And, as someone pointed out, prompting my response, the bike lane in front of Appetito in Newton Centre is a nightmare because the bike lane is between the only forward lane and the right turn lane and, if someone is waiting to make a left turn, cars must sit and wait or drive through the bicycle lane.
Sorry, but legally bikes may have RIGHT to be there, but practically it is not RIGHT that they interfere so much with auto traffic, the principal mode of transportation for humans.
You may be committed to bicycling, but I see it as a fun thing, not a way to get around. As I said, aside from the risk of being hit by a car (or a car door if someone opens his door from a parked car as you are passing), I don’t want to bicycle in the rain, snow, heat, freezing cold, or, in fact in any weather if I’m going somewhere important, since I’d arrive in a pool of perspiration.
Editor’s note: In an effort to keep this thread on track, I’ve deleted a comments here. We can, and no doubt will, discuss Gitmo detainees elsewhere.
Greg,
Let’s hope we do. The Gitmo thing is an important issue and an aid in judging who should be mayor of this city.
Hi @Paul Levy, far as I can tell, the reasons the change was decided to be made were some combination of (a) Giving priority to left-turning traffic is a “wrong” configuration. (b) Having traffic on Centre yield to continue on the main road also is a “wrong” configuration. (c) From the discussion at City Hall, it sounded like traffic engineers looked at Cypress Street only and concluded that despite the high volume, Cypress never appreciably backed up: True if you look at Cypress above the Parker Street merger. It sounded like they missed Parker Street’s volume. (d) There were never legally two lanes at the northbound Cypress/Centre intersection; traffic engineers considered this broken and in need of fixing (hence the curb bumpout bottleneck). (e) The City got a bunch of money earmarked for traffic improvements, and they’re going to spend it.
Alternatively, the City could put a traffic light at Centre/Cypress synchronized with Centre/Beacon, to get left-turning (southbound) traffic out of the intersection, and then give priority to Centre St. at all other times. A general model for this is West Concord’s Comm. Ave./Main Street (Rt. 62) intersection. Also I think no-left-turn for Cypress traffic to turn left onto Centre (northbound) is common sense and needs to be kept.
I’ve thought for decades that there needed to be a traffic light at that merge for safety. As it was configured, it was unsafe, confusing to anyone who didn’t already know the rules, and right of way tended to be governed by the Boston algorithm (complex function of of vehicle size and chutzpah). Well-timed lights can make a huge difference at intersections like that one.
@Barry Cohen, I’m sure it won’t change your opinion, but I don’t believe there is a dedicated bike lane on Longwood, only “sharrows” where bicycles are recommended to ride, giving cues to drivers as well.
@dulles, I think the no left turn from Cypress was always on the books, whether or not there was a sign. Legal or not, I think the volume making that left turn movement was always very low.
The additional traffic signal was discussed, but I guess it’s not as trivial as it sounds. I hope it will be considered again in the future.
Adam,
Not being a bicycle enthusiast, I had never heard the term “sharrow”. According to Wikipedia,
A shared-lane marking or sharrow[1] is a street marking installed at locations in Australia, Canada, and the United States. This marking is placed in the center of a travel lane to indicate that a bicyclist may use the full lane.
So, according to this, if a bicycle is in front of me on Longwood Avenue and is in this lane, and I, moving faster catch up to it, I need to slow up and follow it. That’s what I meant. He has no obligation to get out of my way.
Am I wrong?
Barry, that’s pretty much the idea. The markings are a reminder that the bicycle has the right to take the lane and depending on the position of the sharrows cars may or may not have enough room to safely and legally pass at that point. In most cases I’ve seen sharrows used in the middle of the road only for short distances, generally where traffic moves slowly to avoid parked car “door zones”, but the sharrows either move over to the side or other accommodations, like bicycle lanes, are made further down the street to let cars safely pass.
Adam,
QED. Exactly what I said. I didn’t mean that the bicycle lane occupied a driving lane and that cars were prohibited. That would be even more ridiculous.
So, to my point, this is the tyranny of bicycle enthusiasts, that I have to drive at about 8 mph or whatever the cyclist chooses to lope along at, and I have no options.
@Barry … the bicyclists aren’t the worse part. What about the tyranny of those damn pedestrians. They push those pedestrian light buttons or cross streets in a crosswalk whenever they choose and you have to bring your car to a full stop.
Sharing is hard. It means you don’t always get your own way all the time.
Jerry,
I’m speechless. Are you serious?
LOL Jerry
I don’t want to go too far down the bicyclists’ rights and responsibilities rathole, as it feels off-topic (perhaps a new thread?), but – my morning ride takes me through Newton Centre via Cypress. My feeling is that the new curb placement squeezes the shoulder so much that it is dangerous for bikes approaching the intersection.
As for Paul Levy’s article, I think he raises some good questions, particularly as to how long were they going to test this before undoing the work? There may be a good answer to that, but it was definitely worth asking. I’m not sure I agree with the article, but it made me think a bit more about what I don’t actually know about the process (which is to say I don’t necessarily disagree either. How’s that for wishy-washy?).
One comment (not on the traffic):
To Jane/Barry, I don’t see the point of questioning Paul Levy’s posting on this blog. I post all the time, but I also definitely care about who will be mayor. Are we going to go through this dance every time we get a new commentator until election season is over? Anyone can post, evaluate their comment in its own context.
Paul, post here all you want. Another voice is always welcome.
fig……
I wasn’t questioning his right to post, or whether or not he can add to the value of the discussions here. I think he can. I just observed, right now, from what he wrote on his own blog, the topic of this one, that he may be out to de-rail Setti’s candidacy in an election season, because for some reason he doesn’t want him to be re-elected. That’s my supposition, just as he has a supposition about Setti’s motives in reversing the Newton Centre configuration.
As a Newton resident, he should voice his opinions about candidates. But, let’s be clear if there are ulterior motives in postings, which he claims I err about. In the past, some staunch supporters of candidates posted under pseudonyms, mainly on the TAB blog, and were taken to task for hidden agendas.
Barry said, “So, according to this, if a bicycle is in front of me on Longwood Avenue and is in this lane, and I, moving faster catch up to it, I need to slow up and follow it. That’s what I meant. He has no obligation to get out of my way.
Am I wrong?”
I don’t believe you’re wrong Barry, and I would agree that can be a nuisance, but bikes do get to use the roadways, and there are some places, like that Longwood stretch, where the sharrow markings are probably designed to remind drivers that bikes do have rights too. [From someone who doesn’t ride nikes.]
After thinking about this situation for awhile I would want Turcozy (sp?) to try to experiment on solving the tough intersections. If he felt that he would be “in trouble” after every failed attempt, he may not get creative with solutions in fear that it would be used against him. I would not lay any blame on anyone (believe it or not). BUT, I would want to learn from it.
Here’s a problem with another intersection that’s simple to fix. I’ve commented on this before. The traffic signal at the intersection of Walnut and Washington changes from normal operation to 4-way flashing red every night at 11pm. I’ve seen countless cars on Washington blow through that flashing red light. There are several unique factors to this intersection that contribute to drivers not noticing the flashing red. It’s a recipe for a very serious accident. I’ve been told the City changes to flash mode at 11pm, because it saves money. I’ve also been told a new cost-saving traffic light will eventually be installed, and the City will make that fully functional 24 hrs. Meanwhile, the people responsible for this are playing the equivalent of Russian roulette with people’s lives. Since the responsibility ultimately falls on him, Mayor Warren should order the DPW to make the existing signal fully operational 24 hrs a day. I really don’t want to be writing an “I told-you-so” post, after the inevitable tragedy takes place.
Fig – Without question, anyone can post any thoughts about issues on a blog. I never expressed a concern about Levy posting here, but he like everyone else around this place should expect questions and push back. Nothing more, nothing less. I thought the exchange was quite respectful. He even made a joke about it.
Barry is giving Dorothy Rabinowitz a run for her money:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/03/wsj-editorializer-the-bike-lobby-is-an-all-powerful-enterprise/
nathan,
Thanks. Interesting interview. I don’t agree with everything she says, but Rabinowitz is an excellent columnist. She’s correct that Bloomberg is an autocratic leftist (no drinks bigger than 16 oz.). And she’s correct that decisions are being made in a lot of places that favor bicyclists to the detriment of automobiles, probably because they have an energetic and dedicated lobby.