AWD 3302: Project Files

Project 3

Student id: m21

To select another student or project, return to the Project Page.

View XML Source View Formatted File

Mass Ave. Bike Lane Improvement

  • Chris Murphy
  • Attention to: To The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Massachusetts Department of Transportation

Table of Contents

  • Introduction
  • Background
  • Purpose
  • Action Plan
  • Feasibility
  • Conclusion

abstract

Boston is a city well known for its traffic congestion and bad drivers. In an effort to beat the congestion and go green, many people have turned to biking as an alternative method of transportation in the city. While Boston has become increasingly bike friendly over the years, there are still many problem areas, the two most prominent being Commonwealth Avenue and Massachusetts Avenue. These two roadways account for largest contributions to bike accident numbers in the city, with a third of the nine biking fatalities in the last five years occuring on these two roads ("Boston Cyclist Report"). Although Commonwealth Ave. has a higher total number of accidents, Mass Ave. has the most potential to increase the safety of bike travel through upgrades to the roadway.[i.n.]

Background

From the Huntington Ave. intersection to the Charles River Bridge is the most problematic section of Mass Ave. This stretch of road is characterized by poor road conditions, dark areas, and random sharrows,[i.n.] or shared bike/car lanes. It should also be noted that on a northern section of the road, the current safety measures of steel poles separating the bike and car lanes are actually a major threat to bikers at night, as they are very poorly illuminated. It is through poor maintenance and improper planning that Mass Ave. has developed into the unsafe travelway that it is today. The vast majority of Boston bike infrastructure has been installed very recently, with most improvements taking place within the last decade. Since 2008, over 90 miles of bike lanes and markings have been put in place. An additional 3600 public bike parking spots have also been installed in the same time frame ("Infrastructure and Network Overview"). It is clear that the city is still undergoing the process of becoming bike friendly and the improvements to Mass Ave. would be the next logical step in this process.

Purpose

In order to organize the necessary construction, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts must give funding to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT); the agency in charge of upgrades to roadways and transportation safety. The two major steps towards action being taken are approval by the Commonwealth, followed by the construction bidding process. At current processing rates, it would take approximately a year before any phyiscal work was done. Once started, it should take approximately one month or less to complete the project in its entirety. If persued[i.n.] immediately, the project could be finished by fall of 2017. When completed, the improved bike lanes will increase travel safety and efficiency for commuters while satisfying the demands of Boston bike advocate groups. The proposed project would include repaving most sections of Mass Ave, followed by creating clear markings for the bike lanes. It would also include reclaiming the areas around the Huntington Ave. and Boylston St. intersections, where mismanaged construction has left concrete barriers indefinitely blocking the bike lanes. Lastly, there would be lighting upgrades along the stretch from Newbury St. to the Charles River Bridge, where the roadway is very poorly illuminated at night.

Approach

To implement the changes, the first step that must be taken once funding is acquired is having the MassDOT hire out a private construction company to perform the upgrades. From there, a plan must be created to carry out the construction process with minimal disruption to daily traffic flows. Ideally, the ripping, paving, and repainting process could be completed along the 1.2-mile stretch within 2 weeks of night work. Since the installation/upgrade of streetlights on the sidewalks is a more intensive but much less disruptive process, it could take closer to a full month to complete.

Feasibility

The two main obstacles in the process are costs and disruptions to traffic flow. The latter problem could be best mostly resolved by limiting work to night shifts and if necessary, weekends. This would eliminate most lost revenues from employees being late or storefronts being inaccessible. Furthermore, since the department of transportation already has allotted budgets for roadwork and improvements, the funding problem is mostly a matter of securing those funds through petitions and demonstrations as to why the Mass Ave. upgrade is a pertinent problem. Several years ago the state approved Chapter 90, which allocated $200 million towards road repeairs ("Massachusetts wins $200 million in state funds for road projects"). The US DOT average for repaving a 4-lane, 1 mile stretch of road is $502,000 ("Paving Cost / Mile"). For the 1.2 mile stretch of repaving + light fixtures, the project would likely cost around $1.5 million. Given the funds available and the relevance of Mass Ave. to transportation, the listed improvements are highly feasible from a financial standpoint.

Since the entire stretch of road already exists, no clearing of any greenspace or natural elements would be required. As a result, the construction process would have no environmental impacts on the road or surrounding areas. [i.n.]

Conclusion

By taking action on this pertinent problem, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has the potential to increase both the usability and safety of bike travel along a major city road within its capital. If persued, the project would lead to an increase in city bikers and decrease in congestion due to cars. Viewed holistically, the changes will lead to improved transportation and efficiency in the city of Boston.

References

"Boston Cyclist Report". City of Boston. 15 May 2013. web 21 Aug, 2016. http://www.cityofboston.gov/news/uploads/16776_49_15_27.pdf

"Infrastructure and Network Overview". Boston Bikes. Web, nd. 10 Aug, 2016 http://www.bostonbikes.org/infrastructure/overview

"Paving Cost / Mile". U.S Department of Transportation. Web, nd. 10 Aug, 2016 https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Finance/GASB%2034%20Documents/PavingCostpermile.pdf

Ring, Dan. "Massachusetts wins $200 million in state funds for road projects" Masslive. 12 Jul, 2012, Web. 9 Aug 2016 http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/07/state_funds_fuel_road_projects.html

Peer review

Chris' public proposal is on the issue of bike safety on the major Mass Ave. and Comm Ave. The proposal is allocate funds to repave and repaint bike lanes in order to make them safer on these roads.

I'll first address the 2 areas to focus on in the paper. When looking at the scope "who", I took that as literally who this is going to effect. So in your case I think that would be MassDOT and the government in general because they'll have to foot the bill. The approach meanwhile, should outline how your proposal will be implemented. For example, how the lanes will be paved over what course of time. The second area was the strength of the feasibility section. In this section, you should show how its possible for the task to be done. I would split it up into 2 or 3 sections. First section could be economic, explain how much it would cost and how the funds could get allocated towards the task. The second could be environmental and show that it would not have any major environmental impact.

Some general schema comments: approach and feasibility should not have type attributes. Approach should have an execution or action element contained within a paragraph element. Feasibility should have economic, social, or environmental elements within a paragraph element as well. I would include some references to back up points that you are trying to make. Maybe include an article about the number of bike crashes on those roads to add credibility to your comments. I think your objective element under purpose could be taken out and just added to your approach element. The objective element should show why the project should show the actual purpose. I.e. that it would make biking safer, encourage more people to bike, and save fossil fuels. Overall its a well formed idea, just deciding what information to put in what section is tough given that the schema is very broadly defined.

Instructor Note

Good work here; I like the narrowing of your audience. Pay attention to the notes I added above, especially w/r/t revising the abstract. Overall nice work.