It's really too bad that the opposition to this proposal are so angry, which was clear at the community meeting where opponents were not civil at all. No one has a "right" to parking on a public street. On the other hand, pedestrians and cyclists have a "right" to safe transport. If cyclists can't be protected by theninfrastructure of roads, then it will be up to the courts to start protecting them, which means criminal charges for negligent and dangerous driving that results in cyclist injury and death.

I don't feel bad for any of the people in that part of Somerville. They voted for BOTH Curtatone's + Heuston. As the J. Geils Band says "Serve You Right To Suffer", LoL!!!

Some elements of a cycletrack may not be fully addressed by current MassDOT standards, but a MassDOT standard is a means to an end, not an end in itself. They can and should be continually updated to reflect current needs and best practices with the goal of creating the best quality streets.

Bravo to the City and State for including a cycletrack in this project - this WILL make Beacon St safer for cyclists and a better street for everyone (except those who think the public space of the street is best used as their personal parking lot).

"For time and the world do not stand still. Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." (John F. Kennedy)

I am very glad Senator Jehlen finally spoke up on this subject. I know she lives around the corner from the proposed project.

I agree with her (and Ms. Coren). Segregated lanes, on a road with driveways and cross streets, makes no sense. Eliminating a hundred parking spaces to marginally increase safety for bikers on a stretch of road less than half a mile long is a waste of time, money and aggravation.

The mayor wants to run for governor. The mayor will not BE governor. Does he think that his form of "urban mayoring" will appeal to anyone in Metro West? To anyone in the North Shore? To anyone even close to Central or Western MA?

He has bent backwards to interest groups for projects that get his name in the papers and on stage with Michelle Obama. Somerstats. Cycletracks. Happiness surveys. Street festivals. Over-reliance on the GLX that isn't coming. IKEA, which left. Big condo developments.

He has done nothing to make people want to STAY in Somerville long-term, whether they have been here for decades or just moved here last year. You cannot afford enough living space to raise a family here anymore - all the housing stock is 2 bedroom condos. You can't park anywhere in the city - which is fine if you're a hip 20-something, but not if you actually have a family. The schools remain mediocre even if you COULD afford a big-enough home. He needs to work on the fundamentals, not the gloss. Or he needs to be voted out.

First of all, you do readers here a disservice by falsely stating that the City has added back "significant" parking spaces. How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Can you kindly provide a citation to a binding City document that indicates that the City has secured significant additional parking. There have been rumors, but nothing official. And parking ¼ mile from your home is not too attractive to the elderly and disabled(remember them?).

Parking: Additionally, according to the City's documents they plan to remove 60% of the parking. But more importantly, MassDOT has indicated on their review of the plan that to provide the sight lines needed to make cycling safe on this mini cycle track, "It is unlikely that much of this adjacent [to driveways] parking can safely remain as currently planned." So even MORE parking will need to be removed!

And Charlie, it is particularly disingenuous of you to try to paint the residents and business owners of Beacon Street - your neighbors - as implacable Tell me just what has been proposed that has been unsatisfying to "some people." So far the only significant change the City has proposed to its original plan is to switch the side of the street that parking will be on.

Safety: If cycle track are as safe as you indicate, why would the state of Illinois have just declared a moratorium on their construction for a few years while reliable data is collected? Because they are not safe for streets like Beacon.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/12/l-street-cycle-track-cause-frustration-among-drivers-82756.html

Very interesting article/video about a contentious cycletrack just built in Washington DC that eliminated 150 spaces. Note that:

1) DC has biking weather 11 months out of the year and virtually no snowfall, so snow doesn't impact the number of available street parking spaces

2) The girl in the video featured said the reason she sold her car was that it was too difficult to park even before the cycle track was put in (so, parking would be even WORSE with the track there)

3) This one mile stretch of L Street in DC has at least 6 parking garages, is mostly commercial space, and is serviced by FOUR different Metro stops, so it won't impact current residents of that area.

Cheers to Sen. Jehlen for speaking out against this ill-conceived attempt by star-struck politician(s) and carpetbagger technocrats to bulldoze another vanity project through our city neighborhoods. As the above commenter notes, it's especially the elderly and the disabled who will have the hardest time dealing with this proposed change, and it's about time the administration started taking their concerns into consideration.

Here is an article about some of the most recent research about the safety of various bicycle facilities. Essentially, bike lanes lanes are safer than shared lanes and cycle tracks are safer than bike lanes.

"And protected bike lanes (ie cycle tracks) – with actual barriers separating cyclists from traffic – really make a difference. The risk of injury drops for riders there by 90 percent." (relative to the same street with no bicycle facility)

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/10/dedicated-bike-lanes-can-cut-cycling-injuries-half/3654/#

Regarding the MassDOT Design Guidebook, it has not been updated in many years, which MassDOT itself recognizes. MassDOT currently supports cycle tracks in this project and in others. There is very good guidance out there (for example the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide) for how to properly design them, and they are utilizing those guidelines.

http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/cycle-tracks/

Regarding some residents being impossible to please, I will just say that the City has made numerous revisions, first by moving the parking to the south side, which reclaimed about 5-10 parking spaces (and also serves the businesses without off-street parking better). Now they are negotiating to get 35 to 60 new off-street spaces. It's not a done deal, but it does genuinely seem like the City is very serious about it. This will in some ways actually be better than the on-street parking that it replaces for two reasons: the spaces would be resident (or business only), and it would not have the same street cleaning regulations. And now that the City is attempting to put in raised crosswalks and cycle track crossings at the side streets, fewer parking spaces would need to be eliminated near the intersections. Even with these changes, some people are still as angry as ever, distrusting everything the City says and essentially insisting that not one parking space is lost (especially in front of their house), regardless of the actual usage of parking on Beacon Street. As I've said before, I'd love to have the cycle tracks all the way to Inman Square. I'm willing to reluctantly concede that because I recognize how important on-street parking is to many people. It's unfortunate that some people are unwilling to even give a little for the benefit of others. Perhaps I should be just as angry that the cycle tracks don't go for the entire length and not so willing to compromise.

I think the City should go back to the drawing board on this whole project. It strikes me that a final plan should prioritize safety, accessibility, livability, and efficiency...in that order. I think these goals can be accomplished without falling into this cycle track versus on-street parking argument, which is polarizing and overlooks the many other traffic calming and safety enhancements that can further the same goals. I would like to see something more far more bold and innovative (inspired by the "Poynton Regenerated" experiment in the UK (see youtube). For example, we could build a "Shareway" -- a thoroughfare that includes a mix of pedestrian, bike, bus, and auto infrastructure. The Beacon Street Shareway would prioritize pedestrian uses first. Sidewalks would be continuous. Instead of pedestrians having to "cross the street," other users would have to slow down and "cross the sidewalk." Put another way, we would substantially increase the number of crosswalks, make all crossings raised, and include several shared-use plazas along the Shareway--where all users would intermix (no lanes, no curbs, etc.). Between the shared-use plazas, there would be segments of the Shareway with dedicated lanes for shared vehicle and bike use. Rather than a cycletrack or a conventional bike lane, a conspicuous diagonally striped "sharrow zone" would encompass ~60% of the vehicle lane to indicate shared use. On-street parking would be maintained; traffic speeds lowered; safety improved.

Want to call a spade a spade here: this whole thing is about "Call me Joe" Curtatone wanting to put "first federally funded cycle track" on his resume. That's what's driving it. He clearly could care less for the needs of his own constituents, who have made their opposition to this thing very, very clear. He would rather put the interests of special interest cycling groups whose members spend 10 minutes a day in Somerville over those of us who live here.

What's making it such a bad piece of urban planning is that the consultant the City hired is the same one it hires for every city project, Design Consultants, Inc. and they are not very good if this plan is representative of their work.

I'm grateful that Sen. Jehlen spoke up at this meeting against this ill-begotten plan. It is not anger at the root of the objections to this proposal, despite Mr. Denison's repeated efforts to spin it that way. If a person enjoys the ability to park near their home, that's a very reasonable thing. If a cyclist, like myself, feels that cycle tracks like the one proposed are intrinsically unsafe, that's also a very reasonable position backed up by plenty of research and experience.

I vigorously object to attempts by cycle-track zealots to marginalize those who question this plan as extremists and as angry people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

AHM,

You and I have already discussed these issues of bicyclists in our city and surrounding towns. I have given up my car as a result of the daily abuse by cyclists who refuse to adhere to the laws of the road and common courtesy. Now, I am subjected to the other pack of rude, obnoxious entitleists who have descended like vultures upon our city--the MBTA. That will be my next blog.

It appears the hidden agenda here is a much greater problem and it's come to this region in a tidal wave of gentrification. The vested interests and their benefactors are doing everything in their power to drive out the remaining locals in every way possible. First, they take their neighborhood supermarkets away (Foodmaster's), then, they put bike lanes everywhere, convert two family homes into condos by stealth, bring in shops, restaurants and bars locals would never attend.

The bigger picture of what is happening on Beacon Street is this: They know that locals who live in those neighborhoods have been long term residents, many need cars for their growing families and elderly parents. If they succeed in removing the parking, people will eventually get too discouraged to remain. Beacon Street is the last old neighborhood in Somerville, second to WH, which I don't see changing for obvious reasons some of us know why.

I wish I had attended this meeting. If there is another, I will plan to be there. You must organize your neighborhoods and fight back. File a petition with the state.

Keep writing to Pat Jehlen, explain your hardships for losing the parking spaces. I don't believe this plan will work, it would cause too many accidents by the lack of visibility by people exiting the parking spaces, driveways, density of transients & motorists exiting side streets. I know this area very well & have experienced the roadways as a former cyclist, motorist & pedestrian. I have had three very close calls w/ cyclists over the past 2years due to their failure of abiding by motorists right of way of a right turn. They all had sufficient time to hit their brakes, while my directional was on, but sped up instead. Cambridge LE have been issuing fines to many cyclists who go through stop signs, red lights, dangerous intersections, as well as cutting off motorists who are attempting to make a right hand turn. There have been too many serious accidents, many avoidable, disturbing & fatal, some young adults in their prime of life, stripped away due to a lack of foresight & personal responsibility. The medical community is alarmed by these deadly accidents & serious head injures as we all should. LE has determined that the majority of accidents are due to the carelessness of the cyclist. No motorist wants this on their conscience. Loss of life is difficult enough under circumstances which are unavoidable--something needs to be done about that before more lives are lost.

The militant cyclists won't stop until every car is off the road. They only care about themselves.

The arguments against the cycle track from the residents of Beacon street are the same that the Kennedy's use to oppose windmills outside of their estate. Simply find some that support your opposition to your "NIMBY" ideals and propogate wildly. The facts are the fact. The majority of residents to NOT oppose the cycletrack, just as they didn't on Vassar Street or on Western Ave. Check out those areas! The property values are increasing, cyclists and are safer, and the cars move smoothly and safely down the road. I'd been studying this issue for years, I have seen cycletracks increase the value of neighborhoods and businesses in Helsinki, Cambridge, New York, Portland, et al. We can do better. We have nothing to fear but fear of change, and Somerville is better than that. For real data, see this post: http://somerville.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-misinformation-abounds-about-beacon-street-cycletracks

Speaking of Vassar Street, here you go:

http://bostonbiker.org/2011/12/28/cyclist-killed-in-collision-with-18-wheeler-in-cambridge/

Be sure to read the comments, a real eye-opener to the sentiment of cyclists on this site of motorists, especially trucks. There was a full investigation which cleared the driver of negligence. The cyclist was wearing dark clothing, no bike reflectors, riding up Vassar in the rain at 8pm in January. Furniture was left on the bump-out curb and driver was trying to clear it while making the turn. I'm not certain they were able to determine the exact location of the cyclist upon impact, however there was enough evidence to clear the driver. Some believe the cyclist was riding up Vassar towards Mass Ave. With poor weather conditions at night, there are several or more possibilities--wet road could have played a major role in this terrible accident. The community of Cambridge has been deeply disturbed about this accident including members of the institute. The cyclists are always quick to blame the drivers and post misinformation which leads to these arguments and division among the public opinion. The heaviest cost of all is the loss of life, but no one ever thinks about the major lawsuits involved which are then transferred to auto insurance hikes costing thousands of dollars. Also to entities which no one discusses. As soon as these accidents occur, the lawyers line up and start rallying around "those responsible".

You should do some in depth research before mentioning Vassar--

Be sure to read the comments:

http://bostonbiker.org/2011/12/28/cyclist-killed-in-collision-with-18-wheeler-in-cambridge/

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/cambridge/articles/2012/01/09/bicyclists_motorists_pedestrians_make_dangerous_mix_at_massachusetts_avenue_and_vassar_street_in_cambridge/

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1980202208/Pedestrian-dies-after-being-hit-by-truck-in-Cambridge#axzz2Mtii7O65

There was a full investigation of the accident which cleared the truck driver. The cyclist was wearing dark clothing, with no reflectors. The accident occurred in the rain, around 8 p.m., 12/2011. Furniture was left on the corner which driver needed to clear in order to make the turn. There was uncertainty of direction of cyclist upon impact and road conditions were slick due to rain. The community of Cambridge as well as members of the institute were deeply distressed about this terrible accident. Loss of life is the highest cost, however, few fail to consider the long term effects on car insurance which is transferred to all motorists. Other impacts are lawyers circling the wagons trying to see how many they can label as "responsible parties".

http://bostonbiker.org/2011/12/28/cyclist-killed-in-collision-with-18-wheeler-in-cambridge/

Daniel:

Do the research on Vassar Street before you comment.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1980202208/Pedestrian-dies-after-being-hit-by-truck-in-Cambridge#axzz2Mtii7O65

http://bostonbiker.org/2011/12/28/cyclist-killed-in-collision-with-18-wheeler-in-cambridge/

Daniel:

Do the proper research on Vassar before you comment:

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1980202208/Pedestrian-dies-after-being-hit-by-truck-in-Cambridge#axzz2Mtii7O65

Somerville Girl, you say you gave up your car because of cyclists? Are we really supposed to believe that? There are many cyclists who flout traffic laws, but for every one, there are a thousand motorists who ignore speed limits, stop signs, red lights, and crosswalks. And unlike cyclists, who only in freak occurences cause death, motorists kill thousands of people every year—motor vehicle injuries are the leading cause of death among children in the US: http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/child_passenger_safety/cps-factsheet.html

And I could only find data for NYC, but motor vehicles crashes (numbering over 198,000) led to 15,000 pedestrian and cyclist injuries and 155 deaths. Now take cyclists (and pedestrians!) out of the equation: 124 motorists and passengers died and over 38,000 were injured as a result of motor vehicles.
http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/01/31/nypd-15465-pedestrians-and-cyclists-injured-155-killed-in-traffic-in-2012/

Tell me again you gave up your car because of the “daily abuse by cyclists.”

And one article about a cyclist death does not render cycle tracks dangerous or ill-advised. Just because the driver was cleared of negligence does not mean that he was not negligent--just look to the cyclist death in Wellesley (or myriad other collisions) as evidence of that.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/child_passenger_safety/cps-factsheet.html

Cyclists in Somerville who continually violate the local sidewalk cycling ordinance (and City Hall looks the other way, tee-hee...)

http://vimeo.com/55565560

Guess seniors and the disabled should walk in the street to accommodate
sidewalk cyclists, eh?

kshugrue,

Yes, I dislike driving in this area and prefer to walk, although, that has also become somewhat hazardous due to cyclists using crosswalks and sidewalks MEANT FOR PEDESTRIANS. Painted signs on the sidewalks, posted signs read- NO BIKES. I wonder what prompted that decision?

I challenge you & anyone who disputes the hundreds of accidents on our roadways due to the carelessness of cyclists--contact the Boston Globe, ask to see their data provided by law enforcement (be mindful of those unreported) on the accidents in Cambridge alone. I'm not sure if SPD would be willing to share since it would obviously conflict with the agenda of its administration, but you might be able to find a frustrated cop who is willing.

I personally know a seasoned veteran of MSP who has confided that 99% of all vehicle/cyclist accidents are the fault of the cyclist. Due to the narrow political agenda which is leading the way--developers use our city as their CASH COW while politicians make history--we the long term WORKING CLASS taxpayers of this city continue to be SHORTCHANGED.

I have dealt with this issue as a homeowner who rents two separate apartments and I am sick of this elitist attitude. The majority should rule and there are still many locals in this city. The reason they don't get involved is because they HAVE A LIFE--they work, raise families and take care of elderly parents. Most importantly, they do not make ongoing, frivolous demands of our politicians.

Continued:

During the past year, I have had 3 very close calls with cyclists--First case, speeding cyclist (Mass Ave) while I was taking a right turn,burned bike rubber. The second, was outside the bike lane, screamed into my passenger window at a stop,said I, "crossed into his lane". His failed attempt to chase my car onto Memorial Dr. proved I was dealing with a PSYCHO. Third, I was parking my car--drove into two empty spots. A female cyclist with no helmet, tried to pass my drivers side, hit front bumper, fell into my prospective parking space. I immediately stopped my car, helped her up, SHE apologized for POOR JUDGEMENT, admitted seeing my directional. I am not willing to drive around this area of the city waiting for the day I hurt or kill a risk taking cyclist who is clueless about the laws of the road and lacks common sense. If cyclists were held accountable for their violations as motorists-forced to reg/w/ license plates for accountability and psycho-cyclists would get reported, like the one who screamed into my car--then we would see improvements on the roads.

CPD pulls cyclists over in Cambridge for vehicle-RT-turns. I have witnessed them on many occasions. I also have a tenant from CT who has been riding a bike for years, but refuses to ride in this area due to the ignorant cyclists who speed past her as she obeys the rules and actually stops at stop signs, red lights and in dangerous intersections. But, hey, I guess she must be wrong as well!

Charlie,

The cyclist was wearing dark clothing at 8pm in the rain. The truck was not committing any traffic violation, the turn was allowed. The cycle tracks on Vassar have created wider sidewalks to allow for both pedestrian and cyclist. If the road was wider, maybe this accident could have been avoided. There is also street parking which is too narrow for a truck that size to pass, but it's allowed. Did you read the final report? There was no mention of the cyclist exact location from reliable sources.

"While the driver was cleared of the charges, that doesn't mean that the driver wasn't to blame. So I would be careful to judge who is at fault based on our legal system. It still tends to let motorists off easy when it comes to injuring or killing cyclists". LE reports?

So not only are motorists, long-term residents who need parking spaces, bicyclists with common sense to know tracks are wrong for this location, but now the entire judicial body also "discriminate against cyclists", when they fail to use precautionary measures while entering dangerous roadways.....anyone else you should add to the list?

How about dogs and cats who also travel on the roads and sidewalks, can we find a way to also blame them for what reckless cyclists fail to do to protect themselves and those who's lives they ruin when they are forced to live with the tragedy? Have you ever once thought about the drivers who wished reflective clothing could have prevented the accident?

Charlie,

Whether there are cycle tracks or bike lanes built directly on sidewalks to be shared by vehicles leaving driveways and interlocking passages between buildings whether it be Vassar or Beacon Street, dangers increase. Cyclists do not yield to pedestrians and pedestrians are unaccustomed to sharing this area with cyclists, same for the vehicles. When towns enforce their own bylaws in order to give cyclists "free reign", while federal laws continue to enforce the same rule applies to cars and cyclists, we clearly have a problem.

I am one of those people who believe cyclists do not belong on our roads. My reasons are of safety for all and concern of the growing number of deaths of cyclists, in many cases could have easily been prevented if added precautions were taken. And frankly, I don't care how people feel about my opinions. I am entitled to them as anyone else. When rights are slowly eroded by one class of people, while the others gain fair too much privilege, that is a violation of our constitutional rights to live in a free society...."to live, be free and prosper" seems to only apply to a certain class and culture of our society and many people also believe this to be true. I wager many are bicyclists who have moved to this region and continue to dictate the expensive changes which the working class with continue to pay for many years to come.

There are many cyclists who lack basic real life experience, never have driven a car.

Charlie: just a couple of points:
1. Since your bias in favor of this project has been made manifest by your posts, you have lost all credibility as a "reporter" on this topic. You have clearly forfeited your right to publish articles about this project labeled as news stories. Anything you publish on this subject should, in journalistic tradition, be labeled as "opinion." Not to do so purposefully misleads readers that you are objective and reporting events objectively. You are not.

2. When I come to work at 6:30 every morning both sides of Beacon are filled with parked cars. Very few empty space. At that time those parkers are residents and not employees of nearby universities or T commuters as the City claim. One question for you and all the other advocates of this plan: when there is no parking on one side of Beacon, and the other side is bumper to bumper with parked cars, where will all the cars that are now on the left side of the street fit into all the cars on the right side of the street. If we can all get along without 50% of the parking, as you stated, please answer that question. This is a real, on-the-ground problem for those of us who live and work here, not a generalized theoretical one as it is for you and many of the folks pushing this plan.

And yes, for the record, I do feel that the voices of the people who live and own businesses on Beacon, who actually have significant skin in the game, should count for more than people who do not.

I hope the Bike Committee doesn't try to throw its weight around and put "the squeeze" on Senator Jehlen. She has taken a good hard look at the City's cycletrack proposal, listened to neighborhood and business concerns and come to her own conclusions about the matter...

Myself and other Somerville residents will be keeping an ear to the ground on this, bet your bottom dollar....

How ironic! Senator Jehlen has a progressive track record, and here are these cyclists, many whom tout themselves as "progressive" (cycling is great for the environment, etc.), yet they gang up on her because she DARES to oppose a flawed cycletrack proposal...

Does she have any kind of track record herself of opposing cyclists? NO! Yet these my-way-or-the-highway clowns lather up in a childish snit and go after her because she takes a critical view of a flawed proposal.

Beware, folks, the Spandex Nazis are cracking their bullwhips and donning their jackboots...

Domenic,

Obviously, there is much more at stake than a bike track. Who are the vested parties and who is building the bike track? Are the two joined in holy matrimony? Sounds like more conflicts of interest to me.

Pat is one of the best politicians in our state. She is always there for our elderly and working class. You are right--she is a person of integrity and is not afraid to stand on what she believes in.

There must be a reason why they are unwilling to examine other bike track proposals. I wonder how many private investors are involved? The Green Line extension is calling...Union Square stop is just around the corner. Oh, I can just hear those construction crews banging away. How many will be vested in all those soon to be built mega-condos? I wonder how many other conflicts of interest we will be reading about before the entire city has completely transformed.

I think it's time to break out the shovels and dig for the real dirt to this story. When bullies get angry, it usually means they're losing.

Hang in there, Domenic.

Morrison, your posting reeks of arrogance and condescension..."Folks who are flipping out about a...sensible, safe street redesign..."

You mean the many neighbors and business owners who oppose this flawed and unsafe proposal?

Hey, YOU look in the mirror!

Some of the cycling opponents here need to go to Amsterdam or Copenhagen. They have tons of "cross" streets, windy roads, and other things that "interfere" with uninterrupted cycle tracks. Oh, and the weather in both cities more or less sucks. It's dark, cold, rainy, and snowy for much of the year. It's darker, wetter, and colder than the Boston area, that's for sure. Just because it hasn't happened here yet doesn't mean it won't happen. If you build it, they will come!

People seem to forget that most Boston-area streets weren't originally designed with cars in mind. This isn't McGrath highway - Beacon is an old street car route. We *want* the street to be more pedestrian friendly - that's why people were livid about the lack of new crosswalks where they are sorely needed on North Beacon - the designer is not balancing complete streets at all in this proposal. This is being focused too much as a "cyclists rights" issue regarding the cycle track and bike infrastructure - thing is cyclists have a *right* to use the roadway even if there is a bicycle sidepath (which is what a cycle track is) on Beacon Street - but that road is about to become much narrower and *less safe* for cyclists as a result - and there will be a need for cyclists to use the street even if they aren't "vehicular cyclists" because cars will have the ability to park on one side of the cycle track. Beacon is really not that wide of a street - I don't understand all the hang ups on physically narrowing it, when there are other traffic calming tactics to use. This is what happens when people decide to use textbook thinking and cherry picking infrastructure elements over common sense. This isn't about being "anti-bike lane" because a bike lane IS NOT a cycle track/sidepath - a bike lane is on the actual roadway. Given the constraints and conditions of Beacon Street, bike lanes are more appropriate for the vast majority of the street.

I live in a condo with four units. Two adults in each. That's 8 people who, in total own 6 cars. But our building is only about two car-lengths wide. So if we all have a "right" to park in front of our homes, how on earth can six cars park in two spaces? I live on a block with lots of condos, two-family homes, and rentals. It's simply not possible to build streets in a way that allows everyone to own a car and park it close by.

Somerville is changing and if we want to accommodate the growing number of people who want to raise families here, we have to give them safe options for getting around. Trying to give everyone the "right" to park in front of where they live is a fool's errand.

So what if my family visits me on a bike? My family has less of a right to safe travel on the road than your family has to park?

My neighbors use their garage as storage for their stuff, their driveway for a basketball court, and park their cars on the street. But I guess we need all of that road space for private automobile storage!

Mr. Morrison,

Tell it to the growing number of pedestrians who are landing in the ER with head injury's due to being struck by reckless bicyclists--one just recently. Making our streets safe for EVERYONE should be a group effort. Many people who drive cars cannot ride a bike due to health reasons, some relating to anxiety. People of reason are not interested in adhering to ridiculous demands of one minority, whose self-created dictatorship is about a plan which could potentially create more accidents, landing them in the ER or worse.

I really don't wish to have a dialogue on this thread unless it is constructive and addresses safety for everyone on the roads, especially pedestrians since they are the most vulnerable. So far, I have read a lot of opinion and distortions on this proposal for Beacon Street from those advocating for it. And much anger towards those who are not glorifying your idea and grooming your fragile egos. Some people obviously cannot handle constructive criticism, but it is essential if you wish this project to succeed. Have you got those stats yet from the SPD and CPD, as well as the local ER's? Be sure to post your findings on the site, including how many pedestrians and their serious injuries while you're at it. I don't believe bicycles belong on our streets or sidewalks. That is my opinion and I am entitled to have one, even it is not aligned with yours. I am not confident any plan on Beacon St. will work. Residents need parking.

PS: What you should be advocating for is MANDATORY BICYCLE SAFETY CLASSES and HELMETS. Topics would be, "How to use common sense while riding a bike", "How to yield to pedestrians", "Why entering a crosswalk could be hazardous to a pedestrians health", "The road is not a highway: How to recognize stop signs, red lights and other important safety signs".

There now seems to be a great push to educate the wandering mind of a street cyclist--let's hope it works.

Also, I believe we need increase of police presence on our roads where bike lanes exist and do not exist, but are traveled frequently by cyclists. If they break a law, (right hook, failure to yield to a vehicle with signal light on..I have seen trails of cyclists unwilling to stop for a motorist that wants to make a right) they should be forced to go to the station and pay a fine. Make it an inconvenience, maybe it won't happen again. Three strikes, you cannot ride again.

They should have to abide by same laws as motorists. I also believe they should be forced to register their bikes and have a license plate on their seats. So if they are in violation, or decide to engage a motorist (like myself) in an aggressive argument on the road, the motorist can report them to the police (snap a picture of their plate) and turn them in.

Maybe then we would see some changes in their behavior on the roads. Until then, forget it.

Wow SomervilleGirl, you crazy.

You do realize that the idea that the big issue that needs to be resolved here is bike-on-pedestrian danger (one just recently!) and bike-on-car danger is inconsistent with observable reality, right?

I don't like this proposal, but you're not helping 'your side' here.

I'm not helping "my side", Freudian slip. In addition to the above, I propose those who ride bikes on the road, pay for them as motorists in excise tax. It appears you want it all for free and have the rest of us pick up the tab.

Are all bicyclists Mass Residents? Let's see the list. They should also be forced to take out insurance as motorists so when they put a pedestrian in the ER, their insurance will pay for it as motorists. We pay for their accidents. Do you own a condo or pay rent? Also, a law that only those who own a home/condo, pay property taxes, reg.in MA, can ride a bike.

Do these proposals all sound ridiculous? How does it feel? They all seem reasonable to me. What about removing all these items from motorists? No excise, car ins., license plates or reg's. I wonder how the roads would be then? Crazy?

When a bicyclist impairs the ability of a motorist or pedestrian they are putting that person's & others in as much danger as what you are preaching 24/7 about motorists.

If we all have to drive with eyes on the bicyclist who is not abiding by the rules of the road, we are driving as a potential risk to others since the reckless cyclist is like a stray bullet--you never know where they will end up. There are many instances where cyclists dart out into traffic, ride the yellow line, ride at a fast pace on crosswalks where pedestrians are at times forced off into the roadways.

LE should show web camera footage of these violations at your next meeting.

I am being honest, unlike a lot of people who are intimidated by the cyclist rogues, I will not go along just to appease your ill conceived agendas. I find this type of cyclist to be an annoying menace. Are they trouble makers or deeply troubled?
I hope the residents of Beacon St. are able to keep all parking spaces. There is a hidden agenda that needs to be addressed. In my opinion, the changes on Beacon St. they want so badly will reshape the neighborhood. As supermarkets have been forced out to make way for the gentrified preference of retail--so will the two family homes. When the local grocer is driven out, so are the local working class to make room for those pushing for more condo development. When the parking spaces are removed, the locals will leave their neighborhoods. For a growing family who relies on their vehicles for dropping children off at school, going to work, after school activities, grocery shopping--having a bike track to intrude on their time and convenience, many will give up. That's what the cyclists and developers want and this proposal for a bike track will help them achieve that goal.

I do not see any benefits to the residents who need parking on Beacon St. The same for existing businesses--soon they will be no use to the cyclist occupied neighborhood. So how many Starbucks & frozen yogurt stores will you plan to replace existing businesses? One for every block? How many Davis Sq.'s copy-cats must we have in the city? Change it to Stepford.

When a bicyclist hits a pedestrian, in many cases, they ride on! Zero accountability. Who is left paying for care of the injured person lying on the road? Lots of people, except for the one solely responsible. This transfers to more tax dollars taken from the people who had nothing to do with that accident.

Insurance premiums keep rising for all the accidents caused on roadways--and many injuries are caused by cyclists, either to themselves or to others.

What about the lawsuits? Do the cyclists go to court to testify of their involvement in lawsuits created by them? Again, we see others paying for their negligence.

Motorists do not get the same free pass as cyclists. That is because they are identifiable and held accountable where cyclists never are since they are not expected to live up to the same standards.

I have dealt with this issue as a motorist and now a pedestrian. I gave up my car primarily for the reasons I have addressed. If I am driving in an area that is occupied by too many cyclists, many who are not abiding by the laws of the road, it is too difficult to navigate. Now as a pedestrian, I must always practice hypervigilance when I step onto the signaled crosswalk. There are many cyclists who do not care when the pedestrian has the right of way, because they feel entitled to do as they please.

So, unless all cyclists make a unified stand to address these issues in their own camp, these problems will not change.

Drivers kill hundreds of Bostonians every year. Unless all motorists make a unified stand to address these issues in their own camp, these problems will not change.

I'm here to tell you many drivers are now overwhelmed by bicyclists who are breaking the law. If they put enough cameras up around the city, they would see how many are actually contributing to the accidents. For some reasons you feel you should be entitled to more, but I'm shocked at the callous attitude toward residents who are being dismissed for their disagreement towards the Nike tracks. Once bicylicts decide to grow up and take responsibility for their careless actions maybe there cam be change. Until then it is you who are making this. Impossible for any workable solution.

It is obvious the agenda is their desire to force out the local community and replace it with their own. They want to live in a city that is completely transformed by condos and corporate retail. If the renters are gone, so are the former home owners. The reason Harvard and Central Sq. has been so popular over the years is due to it's unique style unlike shopping malls in suburbia who only caterer to a certain clientele.

You can call this whatever you want and maintain your stance on having a bike track because it makes the community better. But I'm not buying it and neither are the hundreds of people who grew up here in working class neighborhoods.

Since the stampede of rogue cyclists have come to town, we have been plagued with noting but problems--many are fiscally related due to mounting lawsuits against the cities due to accidents but more importantly the senselessness of these tragedies resulting in loss of life as well as those having to live with it.

I have been driving for over 20 years almost daily, in this area. I can tell you with complete honesty, that I see more cyclists violating laws and riding bikes without using good judgement, more than I see cars driving recklessly.

If cyclists are riding their bikes between the hours of 8 p.m. and 7 a.m., that is an entirely different scenario of bad judgement.

Some will admit these cyclists never lived in the city or driven a car. So how are they prepared to ride on streets?

Somerville Girl, your statements get more myopic and absurd as this conversation, which I think is mostly with yourself, goes on. You cannot say that you "really don't wish to have a dialogue on this thread unless it is constructive and addresses safety for EVERYONE on the roads" and then in the same post say, "I don't believe bicycles belong on our streets or sidewalks." What happened to EVERYONE?

There is not enough space to point out the hypocrisy and inanity in your many, many posts.

Study Finds Higher Number of Pedestrians Hurt by Bikes, "About 1,000 pedestrians are injured statewide each year due to accidents involving bicyclists, and 55% of the incidents occur in NYC, according to a study..."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/study-finds-higher-number-of-pedestrians-hurt-by-bikes/

"The increased enforcement comes three weeks after 55-year-old park volunteer ...was struck by a 61-year-old cyclist in on West Lake Drive, leaving her so badly injured that doctors kept her in a medically induced coma".

"And in June, 37-year-old actress Dana Jacks suffered brain damage after a cyclist collided with her in the same spot. She’s planning to sue the city, citing the very lack of enforcement...".

"The fliers that were handed out on Thursday offer the usual safety tips, such as “do not bike with a dog on a leash” and “cyclists and skaters must travel clockwise.”

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/49/dtg_bikecrackdown_2011_12_09_bk.html

"The Rape of Our Neighborhoods", by William Worthy (1976, Book), explains these very takeovers and tactics used to drive out the local residents to make way for corporate driven development.

Somerville Girl,
The full statement in the article you cite: The number, while small compared with the number of pedestrians injured by cars, is a much higher figure than an earlier study by the same researchers found."

Injuries in motor vehicle crashes nationwide= 2.24 million (70,000 pedestrians; 51,000 cyclists)
Motor vehicle fatalities nationwide= 30,246 (4,280 pedestrians; 618 cyclists, 11% under the age of 16)
Hospitalizations for bicycle/pedestrian crashes nationwide=1,000
(National Highway Traffic and Safety does not keep statistics on bicycle/pedestrian deaths because their numbers are infinitesimal)

And although the article reports that bike on pedestrian injuries are higher than believed, they still declined 15% from 2007 to 2010. During this same four year period, cycling in New York City increased over 50 percent.

Again, the problem is NOT bicycles.

Finally some sane voices against this ill-advised, vain-glorious project being pushed by Curtatone et al. and the anti-drivers ... because I don't believe that anyone who has driven the streets at 1:30 a.m. as I did last night, looking futilely for a parking space on a night prior to street-cleaning (I'm one of the hapless folks who do not have off-street parking, and this is my "punishment") , would be advocating the bike-path folly. I'm a few streets away from Beacon but I have no doubt that the exacerbated parking hardship, if the project comes to fruition, won't impact my neighhborhood as well, by adding to the parking-space dispossessed.

As for the righteous tone of the cyclists when it comes to their purportedly superior mode of transportation: THE most dangerous contingent of "vehicle" operators out there! They ride against traffic, run red lights, run crosswalks, come onto sidewalks, position themselves inches from moving cars (and of course it would be the car driver's fault if anything adverse happened); the entitlement they display is arrogance personified.

Senator Jehlen: Thank you for speaking out against the project. Please continue to oppose it. Maybe if the sizeable opposition can band together and plan constant, concerted protests rather than just settle for "having our say" at the occasional meeting or in Comments, we could stop it.