Hey, there! Log in / Register
The stupidity of a one-way Charles Street
By adamg on Thu, 08/13/2009 - 8:32am
That recent Globe piece on unruly bike riders featured a photo of a bicyclist going the wrong way on Charles Street. Sean Roche explains why the bicyclists had no choice: There is no legal way for a bicyclist to head north from Beacon between the Storrow entrance and Bowdoin Street, because all the roads are one way towards Beacon.
... The picture of supposed biker carelessness is more damning of a city that doesn't provide any accommodation on a stretch that really needs it. But, it's not just bikers who are shortchanged by the configuration of Charles St.
Quite obviously, allocating all the space between the curbs to either parking or auto travel doesn't serve the needs of those on two wheels. Less obviously, the three lanes of one-way travel ill-serve the neighborhood. Three lanes of one-way traffic serve one principal purpose: moving traffic. Local merchants don't benefit from through traffic. Nor do the folks who live in the area. ...
Ed. oldtimer note/question: I seem to recall Charles used to go the other way, but one night, DPW crews reversed the direction on orders of Kevin White, who wanted to limit the flow of hoi polloi on the street. Do I remember correctly?
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Charles Street reversed
It's true - Charles Street has been one-way for as long as I can remember (40+ years that I'm willing to vouch for) but it used to be one-way in the opposite direction.
Dunno about limiting the flow of the hoi polloi, though - when I was a teenager (late 60s/early 70s) it was a bustling street full of much funkier antique shops than the current bunch, an excellent head shop, and of course the Frye boot shop, among others. Foot traffic was a much more important aspect of the street than car traffic.
Charles Street reversed
From memory (it's a little fuzzy since I was young), I think it was in the early-to-mid-80s (83-84?).
Yes, Charles Used To Go The Other Way
I don't remember the details concerning the switch, but my best recollection is that the change occurred sometime around '74 or '75. However, I was pretty much constantly stoned then, so maybe I just imagined it.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
address traffic problems in Charles Circle
I think it was done to address traffic problems in Charles Circle and the roads that feed into it, especially Storrow Drive westbound.
I've heard that
Happened before my time here - but have heard the same Kevin White story - and if you suggest they put it back to funnel traffic out of Boston you will get an earful from the residents. Maybe we need one of those apolitical authorities Adam posted about earlier this week to set the traffic rules? Didn't the mayor say he wants the BRA to control BTD? The BRA is above politics so that would be good right? :-)
Nonsense
Any bike can go up the Storrow entrance to Mt. Vernon St and back into Beacon Hill. You get off of the entrance lane before the "Cars Only" sign and never enter the high speed lanes at all.
There are a few blocks that are close to Cambridge St that are difficult to reach from Mt. Vernon, but then again, you can go around to Bowdoin to reach those in less distance anyways at that point.
There are legal ways to do it that don't require going the wrong way on Charles. Although, based on all of the other street directions, it was pretty stupid to reverse Charles without compensating on the other streets.
Kaz is right. Just because
Kaz is right.
Just because it's a royal PITA, doesn't mean it can't be done. laws are laws, and this cyclist broke them.
Re: Nonsense
Can you really get to most parts of Beacon Hill by biking up Mt. Vernon St.? I'm looking at Google Maps (which I know is not always best at showing the proper one-way directions, but it's all I have to go on right now), and based on its data, biking up Mt. Vernon St. won't get you anywhere except back to Beacon Street very quickly.
You can head north to Pinckney easily, but Pinckney just dumps you onto Charles St. or Embankment Drive (Storrow) (if West Cedar weren't one-way southbound, it'd be a different story). And if you could stay on Mt. Vernon all the way to Joy Street, you'd be able to reach most anywhere except those few streets near Bowdoin which Kaz mentioned--except the last portion of Mt. Vernon, before Joy Street, is one-way westbound and thus inaccessible.
So it looks to me like bikers have no way to reach most of Beacon Hil except by taking Beacon all the way over to Bowdoin. If someone can correct any of the above, please do so.
Define "most"
If we split the Beacon Hill neighborhood at Pinckney into North and South, then all of South Beacon Hill is accessible by bike from Mt. Vernon. (with the exception of the southernmost block of Joy St and easternmost block of Pinckney which have to be accessed from the North around the State House whether you're riding a bike or a car).
As for North Beacon Hill, cars have to drive up Storrow to Charles Circle and then descend in from Cambridge St or turn right onto Revere St from Storrow Drive. Bikes do have the option of using the sidewalk for the 2 blocks on Storrow between Mt Vernon and Revere St or going around the right on Bowdoin and around the State House or onto Cambridge St and then descending in, just like cars have to do.
There's nothing magical about Charles St reverse driving that saves a bike anything but a few blocks of pedaling and not having to drive on 2 blocks of sidewalk (completely unused sidewalk, btw, pedestrians basically have absolutely no use for that sidewalk there).
Use Google Maps and place a marker at Beacon and Charles, then tell it to find directions to a second marker anywhere else in the Beacon Hill neighborhood. Switch between car and walking to see the difference in "straightest path if you ignore one-ways" vs "legal driving path". I don't think you can come up with a path that costs more than about an extra quarter mile to do it right.
NB - Be aware that Google will not let cars turn off of Storrow onto Revere for some odd reason, so you will have to mentally correct for that in any calculations.
Yep, I remember when traffic on the street was reversed
I was going to Emerson College, so I was intimately familiar with Charles St.
Can't wait to see tourists out on public bikes next year
This is just the tip of the iceberg...
I appreciate that the cost of the proposed bike rental system is going to be covered by someone other than the tax-payers, but do safety officials really think that a city like Boston is ready for people who aren't familiar with biking etiquette, rules and laws going all over the city?
Unfamiliar?
I dunno - tourists from other places might actually be MORE familiar with biking etiquette and rules (if not with the local laws - but are those really all that unique?) than the folks who live in Boston and seem to believe that that gives them carte blanche to ignore laws, rules, and courtesies.
I'm thinking you're probably right
I think people in Boston are less familiar with traffic laws than in other places. There's been insurance-company research to back this up too.
I have plenty of anecdotal evidence too, from people who've actually verbalized a misinterpretation of traffic laws.
Dude who totaled my car came out of his car yelling at me for not stopping at the intersection (at which I was on a main street with no sign or light, and he was coming off of a side street with a stop sign).
People I've gone out walking with who start to cross against the big red hand, then yell at cars to yield to pedestrians. I mention that we have a big red hand, and they tell me that "you don't need to look at those, because pedestrians always have the right of way."
Oh, and all the drivers who routinely do stuff like passing when there's a double yellow line, treating red lights like stop signs, going tearing around corners in residential neighborhoods. And it isn't like any of this is enforced when in view of a cop, so I think a lot of people view traffic laws as unenforced laws, much like laws on the books prohibiting fornication and blasphemy.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Im pretty sure pedestrians
Im pretty sure pedestrians do have the right of way, all the time, even when the big red hand is around. Its not logical, but thats what Ive heard. Can someone dig up the actual law? Maybe its a mass law vs boston law, or something like that.
Somewhat related, but if you want people to respect the big red hand, start by making sure it isnt tell you not to cross when its obviously safe to do so.
For the 20th time: RIDING ON SIDEWALKS IS LEGAL IN MOST SITUATIONS IN MASS.
As for the bike share, the idea is that currently, the small percentage of the population who bikes on our city streets are those who are more likely to break the law. Once the majority bikes, the majority will follow the law.
lets put it like this: Say 2% of the population will always break the law. Say 3% of the population currently bike in the city. Of that 3%, 1.5% (or 50% of the 3%) fall into the category of people who will always break the law.
Once 20% of the population bikes, thenonly a small minority will break the law.
Further, theres safety in numbers. When everyone is more aware of bikes, biking becomes safer for all, and those who are inclined to break the law may decide that they no longer need to. On top of that, a counterflow bike lane becomes politically feasable because the argument that "nobody would use it" dissapears.
Pedestrian Right of Way
IIRC, pedestrians do always have the legal right-of-way, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to cross whenever you feel like it (as many Bostonians seem to think).
Just to clarify...
..I didn't mean that's what you were saying.
Pedestrian right-of-way
According to the pdf here:
http://www.eot.state.ma.us/common/downloads/pedpla...
Pedestrians at a crosswalk with a traffic signal have to wait to cross until they have a signal allowing them to do so. This is alluded to in M.G.L. chapter 89, section 11 ( http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/89-11.htm ), where it states,
"When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be so to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk.."
(there's more to that sentence, but you get the point)
Yep, and people just proved my point
By posting that pedestrians always have the right of way. They absolutely do not.
Pedestrians need to wait for the frickin walk signal, and they need to be in a crosswalk.
(Some aspects that vary by locality include whether every intersection is an implied crosswalk even if not painted, and/or whether someone may cross if there's not a crosswalk/intersection available within X feet of where they're crossing.)
But there's not anywhere I know of where pedestrians have the right of way when there is a BIG RED HAND TELLING THEM NOT TO FREAKIN CROSS. And they certainly don't in Massachusetts, as Emily just verified.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Massachusetts state law says peds have the right of way only
in MARKED crosswalks that are not governed by traffic signals. There are NO local exceptions to this law. Nor does the law recognize the concept of "implied" crosswalks. The crossing HAS TO BE MARKED to be a legal crosswalk.
As for the cconcept that pedestrians have absolute right of way above all other road users at all times, this is simply a long-running myth that continues to be perpertuated by the pro-pedestrian lobby. Sort of like the lucridous idea also being perpetuated that states how ticketing a pedestrian for jaywalking constitutes a violation of a person's Fourth Amendment rights.
Pedestrian lobby?
Such a thing exists?
If only they wielded sufficient power, we could finally ban most private automobiles from urban centers.
It would be big step towards utopia.
Hm. Perhaps Nike and Rockport now have more money available for lobbying than General Motors...
Hmm...
Not sure what you're talking about with pro-pedestrian lobby, but yes, there are a lot of myths surrounding pedestrian rights. I suspect a lot of this comes from driver's ed courses and auto insurance companies telling you that for all practical purposes, pedestrians have the right of way. Meaning you just don't go and mow jaywalkers down because you have no legal obligation to stop. You still have a moral obligation to stop. But this then gets misinterpreted by people who think it means that it's OK for pedestrians to walk wherever they damn well please.
That being said, I've been told by my homies in the City of Boston law department that a pedestrian can legally cross the street outside of a crosswalk if there isn't a crosswalk within some number of feet that I forget offhand (300?). And especially in rural places, common sense really needs to play a role. There might not be a crosswalk painted (or an intersection even) for a mile or more on some stretches of road, so you cross when it's safe to go. The locality not painting crosswalks doesn't mean that pedestrians are confined to one side of the street for the next mile. But in the city where there are crosswalks and even pedestrian walk signals? Ya use em.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
pedestrians do not have the right of way on the red hand....
If a vehicle goes down a street through a green light and a pedestrian crosses against that street through a red light and red hand, the pedestrian is at fault if he/she is hit. Unless you can say the vehicle was reckless going through the green light, I have seen pedestrians found at fault for these accidents.
appalling
I'm continually baffled and amazed at the idiocy of pedestrians (and drivers as well) in this town. I work on Boylston and I constantly see mothers pushing baby carriages against the walk signal, what looks like groups of elementary school kids led by adults, old ladies, all dodging traffic and playing Frogger their lives. Last year I saw a woman hit and killed on Newbury as she jaywalked. It's freakin ridiculous and moronic. Go to any other large western city and you rarely see this. In some places like Germany, people never cross against the light, even when there's no traffic. Boston has a budget problem? Issue tickets to these retards. It also makes the city seem even more like a provincial backwater.
As you said, it seems as if
As you said, it seems as if traffic laws are rarely enforced. Drivers, cyclists and pedestrians routinely and willfully break the law every single minute in this city. My latest favorite, which I saw on Mass. Ave. near Comm. Ave. a few weeks ago: 3 hipsters sat cross-legged in the middle of Mass. Ave. in front of oncoming traffic. What was that about?? That one truly boggled the mind!
Not sure about the logic
I'm not sure about the logic that claims that when a larger portion of the population bicycles, by default more of them will be law-abiding. I'd say that 100% of Bostonians are pedestrians at least some of the time, and I don't think that pedestrian compliance with traffic laws is much better than bicyclist compliance.
I tend to be obsessively law abiding when I commute to work. I HATE it when a car endangers my life by passing too close or turning right in front of me to save the few seconds it would take to wait patiently or pass safely. In turn, I feel that it won't hurt me to take a few seconds to wait for a light, go the extra 2 blocks to not go wrong way down the street, walk a block on the sidewalk instead of riding.
Unfortunately dramatic exception sticks in your memory much more than the boring norm. You probably would never remember me waiting patiently beside you at a stop light, or taking my turn at a 4 way stop, but you will definitely remember the tattooed messenger who wove through four lanes at full speed while texting.
Although increased cycling population helps safety because motorists become more used to not only seeing bikes, but looking out for them, I think the best way to increase traffic law compliance is a combination of better facilities ( I'm much more comfortable waiting at a light when I know that I'm in a dedicated bike lane and not in the middle of a free for all scrum at each light) and enforcement.
Fall of 1982
is when Charles Street was reversed. From the Globe:
Until the fall of 1982, when Mayor Kevin White reversed it to mollify his neighbors on the Hill, Charles street traffic went northward toward the Longfellow Bridge, Storrow drive and the Central Artery. Now anyone leaving the Common garage must turn left or right at Beacon street. "You're forcing people to go around in circles," says Jon Rotenberg of the Newbury Street League. "It's ludicrous."
Re: bicycles, when I moved to North Carolina last year, one of the delightful things I observed here was that bicyclists obey the traffic rules - they stop at red lights and wait for green, they keep their place in the queue of red-light traffic, they signal upcoming turns. And for the most part, cars respect them (with a couple of glaring exceptions I've witnessed). I realize that cyclists in Boston do some of the things they do because insane automobile drivers force them into it - I was always terrified when I tried to ride a bike in traffic - but the fact that no one enforced any rules on either form of transportation (or on pedestrians) led to almost everyone acting badly at one time or another.
Yes, that's right: it's all
Yes, that's right: it's all the fault of those mean drivers!
I believe in fairies and unicorns too.
Get on a bike, wait at a
Get on a bike, wait at a light. When the light turns green start to pedal (itll take a second to balance). You WILL be harassed. After a couple of times, waiting at the red no longer seems like the best idea.
I have no doubt I would be
I have no doubt I would be harassed, as I am from time to time as a pedestrian by cyclists and drivers alike. However, to say it's only one group's fault is silly.
That's the price you pay for living in a city -- you have to toughen up a bit and walk, ride and drive sensibly and watch out for those who don't. It's not all kittens and ponies as it apparently is in North Carolina. If you think Boston is bad, please stay away from NYC. You would be eaten alive.
easy solution
walk your stupid bike.
However...
... if your bike scored a 132 on the Stanford-Binet, it can probably walk itself.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Storrow Drive
Storrow Drive in Beacon Hill has a sidewalk, which as it's not a business center (at least, not on Storrow Drive), you can bike on. So there is a way to go at least from Mt. Vernon St. to Charles Circle legally...