One way streets in Somerville

I took a Zipcar out this morning to drive to the other side of town to pick up some paint at an Advance Auto Parts. I ended up going the wrong way on one way streets twice during the round trip (which lasted no more than 40 minutes total). I didn't go more than 50 feet either time before realizing it and turning around.

Now of course I like to think of myself as a halfway decent driver so it made for a frustrating morning. How did I manage to make this same mistake twice? The answer is that Somerville absolutely has TOO MANY ONE WAY STREETS.

Seeing as I have a decent idea of the layout of the city, I know that Broadway, Highland, Summer, Holland/Elm and Somerville are the primary NW-SE routes in the city. Occasionally people aren't either going towards Boston or away from Boston and need to go NE or SW. The primary streets that run NE-SW in Somerville are College, Willow, Cedar, Lowell, Central, School, Walnut and a couple others. The NE-SW streets are the main issue.

On my trip, I started going SW on Central St, thinking I could take it all the way to Somerville Ave (since it goes all the way to Somerville Ave). However it turns out that Central St. is one way in the wrong direction between Somerville and Summer. So wrong way on one way #1 was crossing straight over Summer St. to continue on Central. Ooops, but no big deal, just turn around and take a right on Summer instead.

Wrong way on one way #2 was taking a right turn from NW on Summer onto Cedar. Seemed logical, since my destination was AT THE OTHER END OF CEDAR and I know that Cedar is two ways (although I obviously forgot that it changes at Highland) in certain parts. Although the first two wrong moves were pretty low key no big deal events, in this case the person behind me laid on the horn on green (and I interpreted that to mean YOU'RE NOT STARTING FAST ENOUGH, since I had already gotten that beep once on the trip). In turning my head to look and wave hello, I missed the sign (I probably would have missed it anyway) and started down the street until some very nice walkers actually used the english language to inform me I was going the wrong way. While I know they were not impressed by me, I certainly appreciate that they yelled out.

So that was in while driving an automobile. Having to take a longer path isn't really a big deal in a car. However the frustration I experienced today was a good example of how one way streets generally make it more difficult to "get around". Shouldn't the major roads in the city get me where I want to go?

Now that was in a car. On a bike following the one way rules can be considerably more frustrating. From my apt. to the nearest 24 hour supermarket in a straight line is about six tenths of a mile. The google walking directions are pretty much direct and the trip becomes eight tenths of a mile. On a bike however it's complicated.

To get to the supermarket by bike, I can go in a fairly direct route. By going the wrong way on a quiet one way street for about two hundred feet, I can basically take the most direct path, 0.8 miles. I can even avoid going the wrong way on a one way street and it only adds a tenth of a mile to the trip. However I would then have to take Highland Ave, one of the main streets in the town and certainly the least bike friendly on this particular trip.

To get home, because of the one way streets, despite the many roads I really only have one route option. That option is basically an entirely different route than the one I take to get to the supermarket. It takes me on two primary, busy roads, Elm St and Willow St, neither of which are particularly friendly to newbies, slower or less confident bikers despite bike accommodations on both.

This combination of not being able to return the way I arrived and having to take bike unfriendly streets turns what should be an ideal bicycle shopping trip into one that is unlikely to be made by very many bikers.

Because of this, Somerville will not truly be bike friendly until more streets are available for safe two way biking.

Bike Friendly w/o Appearing Bike Friendly 2: Traffic Calming

Earlier today I rode through the Back Bay to The Pour House. More specifically, I crossed the Mass Ave bridge and continued to take a left on Boylston St. For those that don't spend much time in the Back Bay, most of the streets are three lanes one way and most intersections are controlled with lights. There is no bike infrastructure anywhere to be found. When the light turns green, even a competent and strong vehicular cyclist must crank the pedals as hard as he can just to try to keep up with traffic. The worst part is knowing that every driver around has their foot heavy on the gas pedal, in a hurry to wait at or possibly beat the next light. It is certainly an uncomfortable situation, even before the cyclist has to make a left turn. Beginners and most intermediate cyclists will certainly avoid this area or choose to use the sidewalk.

What can be done to make this area more bike friendly? Traffic calming. By that I mean a couple things. The first would be raising the intersections to the sidewalk level, forcing drivers to slow for the sidewalks even when there are no pedestrians. In the back bay, raised crosswalks could be added mid-block on the long side of the block. Second, chicanes or slight bends could be added in the road to eliminate the drag strip feeling in this area. The combined effect of these treatments would make it much more difficult to accelerate hard out of every light when in a car. It would also lower the top speeds cars attain on the road without seriously impacting average travel time through the area.

Those two effects would combine to make bicycles fit into traffic much better. Bikers would no longer need to strain just to keep up. There would be less road rage since the speed and acceleration difference would be smaller. The improved pedestrian crossings would increase pedestrian traffic and safety. Drivers would be forced to play nice with pedestrians and likely with bikers as well.

There would also be a few nice side effects. By lowering the top speed and bringing it more in line with the average speed and the street grid, the sound and pollution effects of stopping and accelerating hard would be reduced. This would be especially nice for people enjoying the mall on Commonwealth Ave, and for residents of the area. Pedestrians would certainly take advantage of improved and mid block crossings. The increased bike and pedestrian traffic combined with lower vehicle speeds would also likely be a boon for businesses in the area, even though they are certainly already doing well.

In the near future, I will attempt to create a series on my strategies for making Boston Bike Friendly, neighborhood by neighborhood. The first will likely be the Back Bay.

Bike tracks and turn lanes in NYC

New York City has taken the initiative to install bicycle tracks on a number of the streets as you can check out in this video:

But if you look closely at 0:30, 0:52 and 1:05 in that film, you'll notice the straight through bike lane is to the left of the left turn pocket. I believe NYC is installing bike traffic lights in these locations so that the obvious conflict is avoided. However, at one point early in the film, a taxi is parked in the bike path in the intersection, obviously confused as to what to do. Bikers are riding in front and in back of him because they feel like they should rule the world and pedestrians are doing what they do in NYC.

I don't feel that installing a second roadway and signaling network will ever be as effective in the US as it is in Holland. I believe many if not all of these situations can be effectively avoided by rearranging the bike and turn lanes as shown below. I would like to see the bike track and turn path cross before the intersection. This would certainly require well thought out designs to allow drivers and cyclists sufficient time, visibility and slow speeds to make this work. The benefits would be the cyclist is then placed in a correct position at the intersection, and bike traffic lights are no longer required since the regular lights would function just fine (except for the issues they pose for cyclists anyway, which I'll cover in another post).

Awesome

The Evils of Traffic Lights

I believe traffic lights are one of the biggest obstacles to creating bicycle and pedestrian friendly areas. The fundamental function of a traffic light is to allow car drivers to pass through an intersection with some confidence that they won't get hit by crossing traffic. While of course this is a nice feature, there are some serious drawbacks:

• Traffic lights are designed to tell drivers when to go, when not to, and when their time is running out.
• When drivers are told when they can and can't cross an intersection, they naturally drop their awareness level.
• Because drivers are told how to behave and drop their awareness level, many things become a surprise that shouldn't be a surprise, like a pedestrian "jaywalking", a driver running a red or a car acting out of the ordinary.
• Because common, simple things such as pedestrians and drivers waiting for an opening to turn left have become a surprise, drivers sometimes struggle to accept the situation and respond by beeping or with general road rage.
• Lights allow vehicles to pass through intersection at a high velocity (30+ mph).
• This speed is typically well above a maximum safe pedestrian speed of 20 mph
• This speed is almost always too fast for intermediate and often advanced bikers to feel comfortable in the intersection, which is a car speed of about 20 mph max, possibly a bit lower.
• It has been shown that the slower someone passes in front of a store, the more likely they to stop at the store.
• In some cases intersections (particularly the "squares" of Cambridge and Somerville) are destinations for shopping or transit in some way or another. Facilitating "getting through/past" these areas seems counter intuitive, especially at high speeds.
  
• While cars pass through the intersection at high speed, opposing cars sit idle and waste gas and time at 0 mph.
• Although cars pass through signaled intersections at high speed and travel at high speeds between intersections, their average speed is much lower due to waiting times at red lights.
• Many times, even with sensors or cameras, cars must come to an unneccessary stop to wait for a green even when there is no crossing traffic.
• As anyone who was biked in the city knows, stopping and starting requires an enormous amount of energy. This is true for cars as well, but with cars it also involves much more noise and pollution (especially for trucks).
  
• Signaled intersections depend on drivers clearing the intersection in a certain amount of time.
  
• When the light turns green, drivers typically step on the gas.
• When drivers are stepping on the gas, it is more difficult and takes longer for them to stop or slow for obstacles like pedestrians or bikers.
• Drivers feel like they must get out of the intersection as soon as possible.
• On yellow lights, drivers are basically told they must speed up to clear in time.
• Traffic lights add an element of time to the driving experience that is otherwise lacking from the road. This probably subconsciously encourages people to drive fast in general.
  
• The feeling of having to get out of the intersection asap puts drivers at odds with pedestrians in crosswalks who may have to or want to take their time.
• Think about a driver turning right during a green who stops to wait for a pedestrian crossing the road he is turning onto. There may be more pedestrians and the driver might want to wait for them to cross, but the driver knows or thinks he must continue asap so that the queue behind him can also make it through the intersection. Thus the driver will creep up on pedestrians slowly and sometimes cut them off.
  
• Red lights cause vehicles to queue up into bunches. When there is a red, the road beyond the red is quiet and when the light turns green the pack is off to the races. This creates waves of vehicles on the roadway, quiet then busy then quiet then busy.
• Vehicles moving as part of a bunch creates a small region of heavy traffic which sometimes requires or creates the need for a larger than necessary road (Alewife Brook Parkway - Rt. 16).
  
• Cars moving as a cluster, which is basically traffic, along with the wider roads that are neccessary, create an uncomfortable situation for both bikers and pedestrians.
  
• Since bikes are supposed to stop for red lights, they are forced to stop and wait with the pack of cars that they would like to try to avoid.
• When bikers are stopped at red lights and they see open road on the other side of the intersection and they see their pedestrian comrades crossing at will, they quickly realize it seems crazy to stop for red lights on a bicycle. Add to this the vastly increased field of vision and maneuverability of a bike, and the chances of a biker stopping until green drop dramatically.

I'll probably edit this post more in the next few days, but as you can see I'm not a big fan of traffic lights. Since removing traffic lights seems like a crazy idea, I'll be sure to post some thoughts on how to do that in the near future.

Good Bike Lanes 1

This article includes this picture of a bike lane:
Notice that there is a buffer between the outside edge of the bike lane and the parked cars. Also notice that while the biker is riding down the middle of the bike lane, he seems to be out of the door zone since the lane is positioned properly. The buffer next to the car lane also seems fine in this case since the biker obviously won't be turning left at this spot.

This design requires a fair amount of width on the road. However, if need be, the bike lane itself could be made narrower if a similar buffer is kept on either side. The buffer between the bike lane and the car lane could also be narrower to save some space, however narrowing either would certainly see a slightly smaller number of bikers because of a higher perceived risk.

The only thing I wonder about in this image is the design of the moving car/bike buffer. An ideal buffer would indicate to cars that they should only use the bike lane when turning right and when parallel parking. However it should also indicate to bikers that they are vehicles on the road and if a car is double parked or if the biker needs to turn left, they can and should merge into the wider left lane. I think almost everyone in the United States knows the basic rules of the road since we are so fond of automobiles. Why make infrastructure that contradicts that knowledge?

Continuation of previous post

The follow up to the article linked below.

This time somebody used some measuring tape. Again, it seems to me the bike lane should only cover the part that the guy measured with his tape. Even if that means a narrower bike lane.

Short and sweet summary of the previous post

I just read this post on bostonbiker.org and saw this picture:
The gist of the post is that bikers should ride in the green area, since the red area is the door zone area. Instead of making wide bike lanes in the door zone and then telling people not to use them, shouldn't we just make the bike lane narrower and place it where the green line is? I'm pretty sure we could do this without requiring more road width. In place of the red, unusable bike lane we could just install the diagonal/hash line danger markings. This would then give parkers some breathing room as well. Cyclists would still have a lane to "feel safe" in, but they would be encouraged to ride in the correct position on the roadway.

Be sure to read that post as well, since it spells out one view of the reasoning behind installing bike lanes.

Making Bike Lanes Work 1: Less (width) is more (safe) if properly placed

I'm guessing pilots aren't trained to land along the left edge of the runway. When I learned to drive a car, I don't remember my mother teaching me to hug the yellow line or to keep the right tires on the dirt just off of the roadway (I grew up in rural VT where there are few curbs). Why not? because lanes and stripes are on a passageway for a reason, to indicate where planes or drivers should be. "Drive between the lines" seems pretty simple, and most people assume that means they should position themselves in the middle of the lane. Simple right? Not with bike lanes of course. The quote below is taken from this pamphlet from MassBike:

Beware of the door zone! Ride at least 4 feet away from parked cars, even if there is a bike lane, or traffic trying to pass you.

Now take a look at this picture:
So I've always been taught to ride down the middle of the lane, but I also want to follow MassBike's safety advice and stay 4 feet from parked cars. In the example above, it is simply impossible to do both. The proper bike driving technique in this case is to ride six inches outside of the inside bike lane stripe, if not further towards the center of the road.

I think a good compromise, if not ideal solution is well described at the end of this post:

Here is an idea for the city planners. If you must park cars on Coleman Blvd. put a four foot “Door Zone” next to the parked cars. (Clearly marked “Door Zone.”) If necessary make the bike lane only eighteen inches or two feet wide at the point.

I feel this makes more sense than making a five-foot bike lane, then advising cyclists (On some obscure website.) to only use the outside one foot of the lane. Coleman Blvd. is a wide road; if necessary make the traffic lanes narrower and lower the speed limit.

This makes sense to me, since with bike lanes, when people get in or out of their cars, they often try to be considerate and only open the door enough to squeeze in. This method might encourage that and encourage riding in the correct position at the same time. If a two foot wide bike lane is too narrow (and it might be), then there could be a 2.5 to 3 foot buffer, or a four foot buffer with one of those feet within the parking zone, encouraging people to park close to the curb.

Combined with a number of other treatments (also detailed in "Making Bike Lanes Work"), I think some of the benefits of bike lanes can be preserved and at the same time make them less engineering ethics unfriendly.

Bike Friendly w/o Appearing Bike Friendly 1: Left Turn Pockets

I will be pointing out road designs and infrastructure that are very bicycle friendly without actually being bicycle specific in any way. First topic: Left Turn Pockets.














Have you ever made a left turn driving a car on a busy, fast moving road with two lanes going in the same direction you are? Did you worry about drivers coming up fast from behind you and hitting your backside as you waited for opposing traffic to clear? Did you feel like those drivers were getting impatient and frustrated as they had to slow down and wait behind you or swerve at a fast pace to the right lane to go by? Yeah it stinks I know. Imagine trying to make that left turn (from the left lane of course) on a bicycle. No way!

Left turn pockets allow left turning traffic to slow down and wait without impeding the roadway. It gives both bike and car drivers a relief from the high speeds of the main lanes. Not only that, but if a bike is in the left turn lane, any cars behind the biker in the same lane end up being a safety buffer for the bicyclist's back side. This means less frustration and more safety for drivers and bikers alike.

Another post on door zone bike lanes

I've touched on this already and will again, but I think it is a huge problem. Placing bike lanes in the door zone of parallel parked cars is not wise. It encourages novice bicyclists to ride in harms way in the wrong position on the road, as well as to make incorrect and unsafe turns. I only took one engineering ethics course, but I believe those ethics would dictate that it is better to not have a bike lane altogether (or wiser markings such as properly placed sharrows) than it is to encourage poor bicycle driving. This link explains this in more detail. Poor infrastructure leads to poor biking and poor biking will never get cyclists the respect they deserve both on the road and when designing the roads.

An easy fix for the door zone bike lane problem

The solution is called back in angle parking:
As I mentioned in my second post, although I really like the idea of bike lanes, there are some serious issues with many of them as they currently exist. The worst is the door zone bike lane issue, depicted here:

The solution removes the door zone in the bike lane problem and is safer than drive in angle parking, where the parking spots and cars go the opposite way. This takes up a greater width of the road, but allows more cars to be parked in a given length of one side of the road than parallel parking. By removing parking altogether on the opposite side of the road as the angle spaces, road width may actually be freed up (for wider sidewalks or bike lanes of course) without seriously impacting the parking supply on the road. By varying which side of the road has parking, chicanes can be implemented, turns can be made tighter (or wider) and intersections could be improved, all of which benefit every user of the road. Here's some bad GIMP-work for you:
Apparently Burlington, VT uses back-in angle parking. Here is their informative write up on it.

2059: A look back at the last 50 years in sports.

In the last 50 years, sports fans world wide have been forced to re-examine their beliefs like never before. Since Pete Rose, Barry Bonds and Manny Ramirez were inducted into the Hall of Fame, baseball fans in particular have come to reject much of the reporting and opinions that their parents and the press once preached. The eldest of us will fondly remember the days when names like Rafael Palmeiro disapeared as a result of "performance enhancing drugs", as they were called in those days.

The same people who reminisce fondly of baseball around the turn of the 21st century will be the first to admit that they have changed their opinion with time. Just as our parents recalled Ted Williams and Hank Aaron, we fondly recall names such as Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, Albert Pujols, Mark McGuire and Manny Ramirez. We remember berating many of those same names for using steroids and other drugs. Many people once called for them to be kicked out of the game altogether. The worst, however was a simple asterisk symbol, used to indicate an achievement was somehow tainted. Roger Maris was the first to receive the treatment and the asterisk became the official way to insult Barry Bonds. Fewer recall that neither was a favorite of the fans or of the press.

Today, we teach our kids the most fundamental fact about professional sports. Pro athletes do not compete against the past, nor do they compete against the future. Babe Ruth never batted against Roger Clemens, Tiger Woods never seriously competed with Jack Nicklaus and Michael Phelps never raced Mark Spitz. The fundamental rule of sports is everyone plays under the same rules, and everyone does everything they can to gain every advantage that they can. Many professional athletes break the rules, and sometimes they get caught for it and are punished. Perhaps most importantly, the rules change in sports.

The sports world finally realized that every pitcher Bonds faced in the final years of his career played under the same rules as he did. All of them wanted to and were paid to be the best and all of them had every opportunity that Bonds did to do so. Every other batter in the game faced the same pitchers and the same rules and had all of the same opportunities as well. Most wonder why it took so long to realize that during his long career, and particularly towards the end of it, we were witnessing The Greatest Home Run Hitter That Ever Lived. We have come to realize this doesn't in any way diminish the previous holders of that title, Hank Aaron and The Babe himself.

Most importantly, we have realized that when it comes to history, we can't simply rely on our fond memories. We often forget that Babe Ruth was a notorious drinker and Pete Rose was once banned from baseball for betting on the game just like we forget that Mark McGuire's arms and Barry Bonds' head were impossibly large.

Roger Maris' asterisk was because many thought a recently extended season gave him an unfair advantage. Many used to think Barry Bonds should be expelled from baseball simply because public opinion and the rules changed just as his career was coming to a close. We don't have any less respect for basketball players of the early part of the century just because the hoop had not yet been raised to 12 feet. All of those players competed against others who were playing under the same rules and all of those players played to the best of their ability and gained every (in most cases legal) advantage they could. The players don't change the rules and the change has in no way diminished their accomplishments.

This topic hits a personal note for the writer. As a native of Vermont, I grew up a New England Sports fan and in my college and early professional years was proud to cheer on my teams during the most successful sports times a city has ever seen. After watching the Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics falter for as long as I could remember and hearing my dad swearing at Drew Bledsoe year after year, I had the good fortune of celebrating four super bowl victories in nine years, three world series victories and plenty of success in basketball. I also had to endure the pain of having my teams called cheaters, which I often considered to be a direct insult to me personally.

Some may recall the Patriots were accused of stealing signs. Most have now come to realize that stealing signs is a natural part of the game and is in fact why we give signs in the first place. It seemed to me growing up that to penalize a team for stealing signs would be akin to banning signs and then penalizing a baseball team for pitching out after hearing the opposing coach yell "STEAL ON THIS PITCH".

A few years after falling in love with David Ortiz and his 15th and 16th inning magic way back in 2004, I opened a newspaper on the subway (they used to print those on paper, you know) to see a picture of David Ortiz with a large white asterisk.

The minute I saw that picture I was proud to have paid little mind to the media when 'A-Rod', as Alex Rodriguez was called (or just as often "something that rhymes with 'a'"-rod) was accused of taking steroids. I can not overemphasize how much I appreciate the struggle many of these baseball players went through in those years. I was elated when Major League Baseball finally apologized to those players who trusted that their names would never be revealed for the results of a drug test. That test and those players are one of the biggest reasons we have a game free of drugs today.

So when you hear of the allegations against players today for using microchips and nutrition as an unfair advantage, don't forget the lessons I learned when I was young.

First (of many) thoughts on Bike Lanes in the city

Let me start by saying as an avid biker, you should not be surprised that I am a big fan of bicycle lanes on city roads. Done right, they make it clear to both car and bicycle drivers that bicyclists belong on the road and that biking is a legitimate form of transportation. Not only do they make it easy and safe for cars to pass bikers provided both parties are in their respective lanes, but they also give bikers a bit of a relief from feeling like they have to "keep up" with traffic. Having used and observed the bike infrastructure in Cambridge and Somerville for the past few months, I am also certain that they promote biking to a certain extent, although if that is the only goal, I'm sure there are better and more effective ways to do that.

On the other hand, there are some serious drawbacks to bike lanes as they currently exist. The first drawback is the most obvious and serious one: this and this . Many car travel lanes are in the door zone and it isn't a problem for a simple reason: a moving car will wreck an open door! But it doesn't work for bike lanes because an open door will wreck a moving biker!

The other big issue, it seems to me, is a simple one. Bike lanes are striped with solid lines. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a safety measure of some sort or what but it just seems wrong. If there are two lanes of traffic moving in the same direction, there is typically a dashed line between them right? Isn't that standard? Not with bike lanes. The big problem here is it seems to be a message to bikers to stay within the bike lane and to cars to stay out of it. While in general that's a good idea, the fact is when cars make right turns and park, that car should (carefully) move into the rightmost lane, in this case a bike lane (I'm pretty sure they teach somewhere when you get your license). When bikes need to turn left, they shouldn't be doing it from a bike lane on the right side, they should do it from the left most lane (again, basic rules of the road). If this doesn't happen, bikers get "right hook"ed and bikers do stupid things. MassBike teaches vehicular cycling, which means if a bike is going straight and a car is turning right, the car should be positioned to the right of the cyclist and the cyclist should most likely be in the wider car lane. I think dashed lines between moving lanes do a much better job of sending this message.

Finally, why do we spend money on paint to do this? If I'm driving a car that's say seven feet wide, I'm pretty sure I'll figure out that I'm not supposed to use the lane that's five feet wide when there's a ten or twelve foot lane right next to it. Likewise if I'm on a bike I'll realize that there's a lane intended for me! I'm pretty on top of like that. I'm guessing this person knew that that wasn't going to work well, and s/he didn't need a sign to tell him/her. Again, this in many cases encourages poor vehicular bicycling. When a car needs to use the narrow lane it should and when a bike needs to use the wider lane it also should.

So although I like bike lanes, for these reasons I think we need to be careful in implementing them, and I'll go into some of that in the future. Thanks for making it this far!

Glass bottle deposits should be a quarter

I have a bunch of reasons for starting this blog, including thoughts on bike infrastructure to living in the city to politics to whatever else I feel like. For those reasons, when starting a blog, the content of the first post is difficult to choose. Anyway I'm going with the deposit amount on glass containers, ie the amount you can get for returning them. In general this amount is around 5 cents or so, at least here in New England. It should be raised to at least 15 cents (tripled), maybe a quarter even. Why? I think it would seriously cut down on the amount of broken glass strewn on the roads and in yards. If you needed to vent and felt like smashing something and you just happened to have a glass bottle in your hand, would you break it in the street and forfeit your five cents? I sure would! But what if that glass bottle was worth a quarter? Wouldn't you be more likely to save it and get your money?

More valuable glass bottles mean fewer bottles smashed in the street. Fewer bottles in the street means generally safer/more attractive places to live. I took a group bike ride this morning and was amazed how many times I had to swerve to avoid broken glass in the road. Would more expensive bottle returns perhaps encourage bicycling in a roundabout way?

Now obviously you can't just go and up the glass deposit without also changing cans and plastic bottle deposits. I believe glass is nearly 100% recycleable and is almost certainly better for you than plastic soda bottles. I don't know what needs to be done about this one, but I'm sure it gets into some tricky math as far as how to balance the deposit amount or make them different to encourage glass vs plastic or cans vs plastic. Making glass more viable to bottlers might just mean more glass bottles and thus more broken glass. Who knows?

And yes I know a higher deposit would make beer more expensive. But you can get the deposit back!