Asked the City Manager to direct the Director of Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department to ensure that all sidewalks on which cycling is prohibited be clearly marked and that the markings be routinely maintained

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.