Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [MysticCrossing] Re: Meeting on the Wellington / Rt 28 Underpass

Expand Messages
  • Jon Niehof
    ... And probably illegal under Massachusetts law; hopefully the issue will be resolved in detailed design (if not in the plan!). The whole situation with Route
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 9, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- kenmedford <kenneth.krause@...> wrote:

      > Exactly. The lack of any bike-ped accommodations is a glaring
      > omission and important to note in comment letters.

      And probably illegal under Massachusetts law; hopefully the
      issue will be resolved in detailed design (if not in the plan!).
      The whole situation with Route 16 in particular and
      Malden/Mystic crossings in general has been something I've been
      keeping my eye on for awhile. MassBike/MetroBoston has been
      preparing comments on the plan; I'll dig in and make sure we
      have something on these projects in particular.

      Thanks for pointing this one out.



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
      with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
      http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
    • kenmedford
      ... Actually, these accommodations are REQUIRED by law, although you d never know it. Massachusetts is one of three states (the others are Oregon and Rhode
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 9, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Jon Niehof <jon_niehof@...> wrote:
        >
        > And probably illegal under Massachusetts law.

        Actually, these accommodations are REQUIRED by law, although you'd
        never know it.

        Massachusetts is one of three states (the others are Oregon and
        Rhode Island) to have a state law requiring the state department of
        transportation (in our case, the Massachusetts Highway Department;
        notice the nomenclature) accommodate bicycles and pedestrians into
        the design and construction of every project. The bill, enacted as
        Massachusetts General Law Chapter 87 of the Acts of 1996, was
        sponsored by Representative Anne Paulsen (D-Belmont). Sometimes
        referred to as the "Paulsen Bill", it was approved on May 20, 1996.

        The basic text of MGL 87 amends Chapter 90E of the General Laws, as
        follows:

        "The commissioner shall make all reasonable provisions for the
        accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic in the planning,
        design, and construction, reconstruction or maintenance of any
        project undertaken by the department. Such provisions that are
        unreasonable shall include, but not be limited to, those which the
        commissioner, after appropriate review by the bicycle
        programcoordinator, determines would be contrary to acceptable
        standards of public safety, degrade environmental quality or
        conflict with existing rights-of-way".

        Specific regulations and design standards have been developed for
        Ch. 90E. The law, as revised, provides the impetus for MassHighway
        to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into the planning
        of projects or to prove that such facilities are inappropriate for a
        specific project(s).

        New design standards for bicycle facilities are included in the 2006
        MassHighway Project Development and Design Guide. Standards call for
        5-foot minimum widths and 6-foot preferred widths for bike lanes and
        4-foot minimum widths for shoulders designated for bicycles.

        - Ken
      • Jon Niehof
        ... Ken-- I was replying to your message which said lack of ; lacking accommodation for cyclists and pedestrians is in violation of the Paulsen bill. I m
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 9, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- kenmedford <kenneth.krause@...> wrote:
          > --- Jon Niehof <jon_niehof@...> wrote:
          > > And probably illegal under Massachusetts law.
          >
          > Actually, these accommodations are REQUIRED by law, although
          > you'd never know it.

          Ken--
          I was replying to your message which said "lack of"; lacking
          accommodation for cyclists and pedestrians is in violation of
          the Paulsen bill.

          I'm familiar with the Paulsen bill, the new design manual (I
          commented on it), and the Romney 20-year transportation plan
          (which sadly appears to be dead now, as the revised version was
          MUCH better and something I was proud be part of). Unfortunately
          DCR has not adopted the MHD design manual as there is a strong
          resistance to either expanding pavement on parkland or doing
          anything that could be perceived as limiting the carrying
          capacity for high-speed motorists. Nonmotorized transportation
          (whether "business" or "pleasure") gets caught in the middle.
          Commissioner Burrington "got it" (as a cyclist) and I hope
          whomever is the new permanent commissioner will similarly
          understand the balance.



          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
          Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
          http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.