McGrory’s 20th-century perspective — that Boylston Street would be better if vehicle traffic could move unimpeded — is almost amusing. He’s certainly right about one thing, though: “There’s little middle ground” in this debate. He seems to feel that bicycles deserve their own space on the streets of Boston as long as they don’t ride on the streets he likes or cause him one minute of delay on his drive.
Nathaniel Woodward
Stockbridge
City has made a mess of what was a beautiful street
Thank you, Brian McGrory, for a timely and well-reasoned column about the changes to Boylston Street. Having worked in that area for 20 years, I was appalled, on a recent return visit, to see the chaotic mess this beautiful street has become. In general I applaud efforts to support commuters who pursue alternatives to driving a car into the city, but these changes have to make sense.
Leaving the bike lane discussion to others, I question the new bus line as not only intrusive but also unnecessary. In my experience, when there were three lanes, the bus was rarely slowed by traffic, and given that there are bus stops all along Boylston Street, it would seem the dedicated lane makes no difference in terms of bus speed or time of the commute.
As new efforts to move people through the city — by bike, car, or bus — are introduced, I hope that the architects of these changes are evaluating whether they achieve their goals and that they are willing to rethink things if they do not.
Pat Kelleher
South Boston
Long past time for vehicular traffic to make room on the roads
The Brian McGrory column criticizing the bike lanes on Boylston Street unfortunately follows the historical American ideology favoring motorized transportation. This is most evidenced by his complaint that “what used to be three through lanes … has been reduced to a maximum of two.” The headline itself, “Is the Boylston Street bike lane really necessary?” only serves to maintain the hegemony of motorized transportation, something which is way past time for change.
McGrory’s testament that various forms of transportation, such as delivery drivers, are “not going away” is a surrender to these drivers frequently double-parking and violating other regulations while often interfering with other vehicular traffic as well as cyclists and pedestrians. Nowhere to be found in his piece is the suggestion of enforcing laws.
Stating that there is insufficient walk time for crossing the street at selected intersections is a valid criticism, but more importantly, all roads should simply be safe for all users, including pedestrians.
We obviously need improved planning and good implementation. Cheap shots, though, are not helpful.
Robert Rosofsky
Milton
We should think even bigger: Imagine car-free boulevards
Brian McGrory is lamenting necessary and reasonable changes that haven’t been executed well. But the fact is we don’t need fewer bike lanes. What we need is fewer cars. For that matter, maybe we don’t need any cars on Boylston or Newbury street. They could be magnificent boulevards — no congestion, no chaos; more outdoor seating.
Not only in Copenhagen but also in numerous other European cities the concept works well: enough parking around the city center, public transportation, and a network of bike lanes. The result: vibrant pedestrian zones and commercial centers.
The Boylston Street bike lane is not the problem. Rather, it is the lack of a well-planned, visionary infrastructure concept for the entire city. But that requires all of us changing our relationship to cars, agreeing on funding, and accepting a period of construction. Either we do and come out much better at the end of it, or we keep living with traffic jams and a noisy, messy Boston.
Michaela Nielsen
Quincy
Meanwhile, pedestrians are left to dodge cars — and bikes
I thought Brian McGrory was spot-on in his criticism of the disaster that traffic on Boylston Street has turned into. It led me to wonder whether our municipal government is actually preparing Bostonians to participate in a new pedestrian olympics.
We have long competed for the greatest number of falls on broken pavements and close encounters with cyclists (old-fashioned and increasingly motorized) speeding on sidewalks as well as in bike lanes. A new competition would involve attempting to cross Boylston Street at intersections where it’s impossible to tell whether there’s oncoming traffic because cars and delivery vans are blocking the view. One popular event would be to identify the pedestrians who use the most colorful language in yelling at drivers and cyclists who come close to hitting them — or in describing the politicians who have created this mess.
Kathryn Ruth Bloom
Boston
I biked to Boylston Street to run an errand. In short: Thank you, Mayor Wu.
Contrary to what columnist Brian McGrory argues, people who bike to the Prudential Center, Copley Square, the Boston Public Library, or the restaurants and stores in Back Bay have an entitlement to Boylston Street equal to drivers.
On Sunday afternoon, I needed to pick up an item at a store in the Pru. Having commuted by bike to my downtown law office for decades, I knew the quickest way to get there and back was by bicycle. Thanks to the new bike lanes that Mayor Michelle Wu has championed, it took me little more than 15 minutes to get to the Prudential Center from Brookline by way of Beacon Street, Mass. Ave., and then Boylston. There was an available bike rack next to a street busker. I picked up my item and headed home, crossing Newbury Street, closed to vehicular traffic on Sundays in the summer and crowded with shoppers, tourists, and others enjoying the fresh air.
The round trip took me an hour, including the shopping. I couldn’t have done that in a motor vehicle.
I concede that the two vehicle lanes on Boylston were crowded with cars, but from what I saw, the cars moved about as fast as in the old days of three lanes for which McGrory longs.
Boylston Street was not built for only motor vehicles. It was built for people who travel on Boylston Street in many ways.
Thank you, Mayor Wu.
Andrew M. Fischer
Brookline
