POR 2017 #186 · Agenda item attachment · Aug 7 2017

ATTACHMENT B MEMORANDUM DATE: August 27, 2015 TO: Councilor Craig Kelley FROM: Wilford O. Durbin RE: Consistency Lacking in Enforcement of Biking-Prohibited Sidewalks, Use of "No Biking" Stencils Summary Over the past several years the city has greatly expanded its network of bicycle infrastructure, from bike anes, signals, raised pains, and turning lanes, all with the goal of improving the accessibility and safety o ambridge's streets to cyclists. While trying to make the roads safer for bikers, the city should als concentrate on making the sidewalks safer for pedestrians, especially in the busiest commercial districts where cyclists are currently banned from sidewalks. When bikers enter the sidewalk, their rights and A survey of the business districts in which riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is prohibited revealed a consistent lack of "No Biking" stencils or other markings declaring the extent of the ban. Many of the stencils are faded, or simply were never replaced after a crosswalk ramp was installed. Considering that not all of Cambridge's sidewalks are banned to bicycles; that bikers rely on the stencils to warn when they have entered a prohibited area: and further that the Cambridge Police Department (CPD) is reluctant to enforce the ban where stencils are missing, it is imperative that the city take measures to replace, maintain, and standardize stenciling in order to appropriately address sidewalk bicycling concerns. While bicycling on sidewalks presents a genuine public safety concern, enforcement of sidewalk bans should occur only as part of a systematic transportation program that also addresses street hazards, jaywalking, illegal parking, and other issues that endanger cyclists who do not ride on the sidewalk. Background Since 1997, Cambridge has prohibited the riding of bicycles on sidewalks in commercial districts such as Harvard Square, Central Square, Inman Square, and Porter Square, while allowing bikers to ride at a "walking pace" on unrestricted streets. The ordinance is codified in Section 12.8(b) of the Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation Regulations, which states: "No person shall ride a bicycle on any sidewalk described in schedule 4B attached to and made part of these regulations and which has been posted with appropriate signs." The CPD apparently takes the stipulation that banned areas be "posted with appropriate signs" at face value, and has consistently noted the reluctance of officers to enforce the ban where clear signage is missing. A search for clarification in exactly what "appropriate signs" means, however, yields few details. Because many pole-mounted signs are missing, often due to vandalism, the city relies primarily on stenciling to declare prohibited areas. Complaints that bikers disregarded the city ordinance prompted the Council to take action in 2004. Then, as now, the stencils were not maintained and many were missing. The Council sent a unanimous policy order on March 15 to then City Manager Robert W. Healy requesting an explanation "regarding the status of maintaining and improving methods for preventing sidewalk bicycling, including when faded stenciled signs will be repainted and whether pole-mounted signs have been removed and not replaced." City Manager Healy responded on April 12 that there were some 250 stencils applied around Cambridge, and

that "all faded and missing stencils will be repainted and any missing signs will be replaced...before the end of August." This issue came up again in 2006, however, when the whole Council referred the problem of bicycles on sidewalks to the Transportation, Traffic and Parking (TTP) Committee. During a June meeting, TTP Committee Chairman Craig Kelley again addressed residents' frustration to the CPD. Commissioner Watson stated that "Vigorous enforcement will be done on bike riding on sidewalks where stenciled," but that enforcement is "slowed" when stencils are missing from sidewalks, noting that 'It is hard to do enforcement when people do not know about the ban." Notwithstanding, the CPD issued a reported 1,059 violations for bikes on sidewalks in 2005. Findings At the request of Council Kelley, I conducted a survey on the placement and maintenance of "No Biking" stencils in four of the five commercial districts over several days in August, 2015. During the survey, every crosswalk ramp in the prohibited areas was checked, as well as the entranced from Harvard's campus. The findings of the survey are presented in the attachments. In each of these areas, the stenciling of "No Biking" warnings was consistently lacking. At the intersection of Cambridge and Hampshire streets that make up Inman Square, 26 crosswaik ramps lacked stencils; in Porter Square along Mass Ave, 65 ramps lacked stencils; in Central Square, 66 crosswalk ramps lacked stencils; and in Harvard Square, a staggering 177 stencils were missing from crosswalk ramps. Particularly around Porter and Harvard Square, it could be said that "appropriate signs" declaring the ban are effectively nonexistent given the absence of stencils. Turning to the definition of "appropriate signs," the survey yielded no further clarification. In addition to revealing a lapse in the maintenance of "No Biking" stencils, the survey also showed a lack of consistency as to where stencils should be placed. In some districts, stencils were placed on the periphery of the prohibited area, and then only intermittently in between, while in others stencils concentrated toward the center of the business district. Sidewalk ramps facing each other on opposite sides of the same street were not be unitormly stenciled, and ramps across larger roads seldom have stencils. At the corners of streets where two crosswalk ramps extend perpendicular to the other, both ramps are stenciled in some locations, while in others only one ramp is stenciled (some have none at all). Whole streets in the prohibited areas display no outward sign that they are regulated differently than those outside commercial districts. In many locations throughout the city where sidewalk cycling is banned, newly installed crosswalk ramps did not have a stencil, even when stripping was laid across the road, suggesting that the replacing of stencils is not included in maintenance protocol. Only in two locations (both in Inman Square) were pole-mounted signs noticed announcing the ban. The city appears to have abandoned it use of pole-mounted signs, relying entirely on the stenciling. Recommendations In the absence of "No Biking" stencils, the enforcement of sidewalk bans breaks down entirely. Bikers are not properly warned when they've entered a prohibited area, and become justifiably frustrated when cited for violating the ban when sidewalks are not properly or consistently marked. Police officers, in turn, are reluctant to enforce the ban when stencils are missing. Equally frustrated are pedestrians, especially seniors or people with young children in tow, who fear a collision with an errant cyclists.

Together with the Councils actions in 2004 and 2006, the present survey suggest that maintaining the stencits is a habitual problem. While steps must be taken to ensure that sidewalks remain "posted with appropriate signs," the city should also reconsider how this is to be achieved. The following recommendations propose a remedy to the problems of properly marking prohibited sidewalks and improving maintenance of the signs. • Replace pole-mounted signs: Formerly the subject of frequent vandalism, the pole-mounted signs may not be such a target now that acceptance of the prohibited areas has grown. • Change and standardize the placement of steneils: Currently, where applied the "No Biking" stencils are placed at the entrances to sidewalks, such as on crosswalk ramps and curb cuts. These locations may be susceptible to greater degradation than the actual sidewalks, especially during the winter, and are harder to maintain. This system of placing stencils is also labor intensive, making maintenance more difficult-an intersection may have as many as eight stencils in a relatively smail area. At the intersection of Mt. Auburn St. and JFK St. in Harvard Square, the city has avoided this redundancy by placing a single stencil at each corner, but because they are blocked by a pole, these signs are neither visible to cyclists nor in a space regularly used by pedestrians. Rather than placing the stencils on sidewalk entrances, the city should consider placing two stencils in the middle of the sidewalk, laying at one-third and two-thirds of its length, for all sidewalks greater than 100 ft. Sidewalks shorter than 100ft should be marked with one stencil. Stencils in the length of sidewalks, rather than at it periphery, also provide officers with a visible metric to gauge whether a cyclist has Incorporate repainting stencils into the protocol and all relevant contracts for replacing crosswalk ramps. • Investigate various stencil and sign designs, and placement.

Massachusetts Ave Surrounding Porter Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massaclusetts Willow Ave Fairfield St Orchard St Hadley St Pemberton St Cogswell Ave Summer St Hancock St Walden/st Allen St Cherry St Ashi and St Mead St. Creighton St Davenport St Regent St Richdale Ave Porter RO Hubbard Av Richdale Ave and 9 Upland Rd Mt Vernon St Mt Pleasant St Vincent St Roseland St Whittier St Walnut Ave Arlington St • Slewport Rd Lancaster St Beacon: forest St Avon HillSt Frost Washington Ave te ter Pk Agassiz St. Prentiss St St Prentiss St LoS Raymond St chusett Hurlbut! Garfield St Eustis St St Bowdoin St. Gray St Crescent St Fernald Dr Avon: Oxford St Sacramento St 500 1,000 Hudson St Feet Wendell St Shepard: KEY: Denotes missing "No Bike" Stencil on access ramps from Mass Ave. • Denotes missing "No Bike" Stencil on cross streets intersecting with Mass Ave.

Central Square Business District Lee St Central Square Clinton St Cambridge, Massachusetts St Paul St Bigeloy Austin Pk Vail Ct. Inmanist Sellers St Worcester St Prospect St Temple St Suffolk St Essex St ant St Plet Norfolk Washington St Bishop Allen Western Ave Pine St River St Massach Columbia St Green St setts Ave S School St Magazin Cherry Douglass Ste Franklin St Pearl Main S William St Cottage St Auburn St Brookline State St N 400 Blanche St Sidney Front St Feet Watson St Brookline Pl KEY: • Denotes missing "No Bike" Stencil

Inman Square Business District Inman Square Cambudge, Massachusetts Concond Ave ammond St Beacon St Houghten St SOMERVILL Camelia Ave CAMBRIDGE Clary St ambr Oak St Oakland St Marie Ave Highland Ave Hi ghi and Hampshire St Prospect St Carliste Cambridge St Inman Se Cambridge St Amory St Murdock St Peet St Mary Rd Tremont St KEY: • Denotes missing "No Bike" stencil on sidewalks running parallel to Cambridge/Hampshire Streets Missing "No Bike" stencil on pedestrian ramps perpendicular to Cambridge/Hampshire Streets

Harvard Square Business District Harvard Square Cambridge. Massachusetts Mason St Brattle St Ong. Cambridge St Appian Way farwell Pi Shurch St Peabody St (Broadvigy Hilliard St Felton St CONST Mt Aubur Brewer Oliftin Pl Gerry St Prescott St Marachus: Ware St unster St Bennett St University Rd den St Harvard St opton St Replyoke Eliot St Arrow St Remin gion St Charles Mill Mt Aubum St Trowbridge St ewolfe St Athens St Memorial Dr Mas Apthorp House Grant St Band. Boloco • Putnam Ave Green St Surrey St Cowperthwaite St Plympton St widge Weeks Randoiph Hall 4 Mount Auburn Street Franklin Se Russell Hail Mt Auburn S Bow St Community Garden KEY: • Denotes missing "No Bike" stencil Denotes a Harvard gate, no stencils were placed to notify bikers leaving campus. Palmer St has no markings to warn bikers that it is a banned street. The brick paved street is a heavily used pedestrian crossing and access road to delivery trucks.