A walkable City Is not Necessarily a Bikable City
by KatieBy Art Allen, Transit for Livable Communities’ Communications Assistant
I lived in Boston for three years, and I can tell you the pedestrians own that city. In fact, I noted to a friend recently how, in Minneapolis, pedestrians will scurry guiltily across the street if a car is waiting—even if there is a “Walk” signal in favor of the pedestrian. In Boston, however, the pedestrian will cross the street without looking (an arrogant mentality—it actually got me hit by a car once), signals be damned.
Almost everyone in Boston walks. There are ads from the tourism board proclaiming Boston as “America’s Walking City.” The sidewalks are wider than anywhere else I’ve been. And the sheer volume of pedestrians keeps the cars at bay. If you look at any “most walkable” list, Boston is tops.
So I was a little confused when I read a recent story in the Boston Globe, which talks about Boston’s need to become more bike-friendly. Certainly the bikers go where the walkers go. Right?
Actually, not so much. As I thought back on my time in Boston, I recalled at least two friends who had their arms broken from getting hit by a car on their bikes. A young woman was struck by a car and killed on the street that ran adjacent to my school’s campus, and my last six months were spent noticing the white bicycle and flowers marking the spot. And when I think about all the biking amenities we have in Minneapolis, I start to recall a distinct absence of them in Boston: no bike lanes, no bike signs, barely any bike parking.
Boston is working on this problem, and according to the article history is in its favor if it takes the right steps. But the story of Boston’s bikability is a necessary warning for other cities: don’t confuse walkability with bikability.
