Newton Streets and Sidewalks

128 to become permanent parking lot

2011-06-29T05:16:00.002-05:00

The Metropolitan Area Planning Council warns that 128 is going to see 77% more traffic between Route 3 and the Turnpike ... and then proposes band-aids: shuttle buses.

The projected increase in traffic is going to be fueled by new development. Why not meet the new demand with a supply of mass transit? Why isn't the answer new rail or bus rapid transit?

The right orientation on Boylston Street

2011-06-29T05:02:00.003-05:00

Encouraging news on the Chestnut Hill Shopping Center front: the developer intends to re-orient the buildings to engage Boylston Street.

It’s a project that in certain respects has its back to Boylston Street, and we’re going to turn it into a project that has its back on no one.

It's a shame that NED didn't have the same attitude a block away.

Ding, dong, the Atrium is dead

2011-06-28T05:58:00.002-05:00

Wondering about the future of the Atrium, Tiffany's has been the piece that didn't fit. Given the overwhelming decline of the Atrium, why had Tiffany's stayed? With Tiffany's, could mall-owner Simon still make a go at high-end retail? Given competitor Chestnut Hill Square coming online soon, could the Atrium attract high-quality retail tenants (or retain the two that are left) without it's marquee tenant?

At least one question answered: Tiffany's is moving across the street to the Mall. (Apparently, it's been public since April. I just saw it here.)

Gotta believe that that's it for the Atrium.

Hess-Mahan: Bike racks were not extorted!

2011-03-30T10:57:00.002-05:00

I have tweaked the Board of Aldermen for extracting bike racks from Beacon Street as a special permit condition. Aldercritter Hess-Mahan weighs in with a defense:

Oy! "Extorted"? Really? Please!

The special permit laws provide that when a special permit granting authority (SPGA) approves a special permit, it may impose conditions that are intended to mitigate the impact of the project. That is exactly what the Land Use Committee and the Board of Aldermen, as the SPGA, did in this instance. The BOA granted a special permit waiving the requirement that B Street provide additional parking in Newton Centre for its proposed expansion. As a condition, Land Use proposed, and B Street agreed to require bike racks that were intended to encourage people to ride their bicycles to Newton Centre instead of driving their cars, thereby reducing the demand for parking spaces.

As the Chairman of the Land Use Committee, I have worked tirelessly with the planning department and my colleagues trying to erase the antiquated and incorrect notion that every special permit requires a "public benefit," which has no basis in the law and bears the indicia of paying "tribute" rather than providing mitigation for the impact of special permit projects.

Please do not unfairly malign our efforts to improve the special permit process. I am also working on amending the parking regulations. But until they are changed, we must apply the law as it is written.

My position continues to be that the parking requirement that necessitated the special permit application is a bad law. So, any condition put on its waiver is unwarranted.

But, Alderman Hess-Mahan deserves credit for his committee's continued good outcomes on parking waivers and for wrestling with these issues.

B Street B Racks

2011-03-30T08:47:00.008-05:00

Updated: According to Aldercritter Hess-Mahan in the comments, Beacon Street only reimbursed the city for installation and that the cost was covered by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Makes the condition a little more palatable.

As attentive readers may recall, as part of the absolutely correct decision to grant B Street (then Pie) a parking waiver, the Land Use committee ~~extorted from~~ negotiated with the owners a commitment to pay for installation of food-themed bike racks.

Here they are. Around the corner from the restaurant and in front of a bank.

Maybe it's wishful thinking. With the way things are going in Newton Centre, maybe the tide has turned and the bank will be replaced by a restaurant. Doubt it.

The likelier explanation is that there is no room in front of the restaurant. The sidewalk is too mean and narrow.

At a minimum, though, the B Street-supplied racks ought to have some permanent recognition that they were donated by bStreet.

Newton Centre Racks

2011-03-30T08:34:00.008-05:00

Here are the new racks in Newton Centre (that I've found so far). Send pictures of other new racks anywhere in Newton and I'll post them.

Next to Bigelow's on Sumner, near the corner of Langley.

In front of Tete a Tete on Beacon, near the corner of Sumner.

In front of Zoots and Peet's, on Beacon.

On the corner of Centre and Beacon, near Piccadilly Square.

At the corner of Beacon and Herrick (yes, that's Herrick, not Union), in front of Bank of America.

On Centre, near Cypress, in front of Piccadilly Square.

Maryland hand-me-downs

2011-03-24T11:36:00.002-05:00

What a stunning denunciation of the state of our transit system that we are leasing trains from Maryland, just to keep things afloat. Maryland's investment in its system is so much better than ours that their surplus markedly upgrades our regular fleet.

Really, really deplorable.

A sign that opening day is upon us

2011-03-24T09:06:00.007-05:00

What's in the bag? A parking meter that has been installed on Beacon Street near Audubon Circle/St. Mary's Place in Brookline. Perhaps more importantly, it's just a few blocks from Fenway. Attention-paying readers will recall that Brookline is instituting market-based meter rates on Red Sox game days as a way of ensuring that there is turnover of spaces during games. Space turnover means that businesses in the area, particularly restaurants, don't suffer because all on-street parking is consumed by game-goers.

What does that have to do with this meter-in-a-bag? You can't do market-based rates with old meters. You've got to have new technology. Hence, the appearance of this meter -- and a bunch more on Beacon. They've been installed in time for opening day and the institution of the new game-day rate policy.

High-speed rail and walking to a village

2011-03-18T20:54:00.003-05:00

One of the key arguments in favor of inter-city rail is that it will improve opportunities for air travelers.

Last year, nearly a million people flew between Logan and JFK or LaGuardia (and presumably several hundred thousand to Newark). High(er)-speed rail between Boston and New York would provide a more competitive alternative to flying, which would reduce the demand for flights. Reduced demand for flights to and from New York would up limited terminal space and takeoff/landing slots for flights to destinations that cannot be easily served by rail, basically any place outside the Northeast corridor.

If you want more and better air travel choices, encourage rail improvements to remove congestion from airports.

That lesson scales. Better mass transit for commuters takes drivers off the roads, making less congestion for those who need to commute by car. Better bike accommodations encourages people to bike rather than drive, when they can, freeing up space for drivers who can't bike -- too far, picking up kids, &c. Better pedestrian accommodations encourages people to walk rather than bike or drive, ...

The larger point is that mobility options are not anti-car (or anti-air travel). They are pro-mobility. Everybody wins.

Magical things happening in Newton Centre

2011-03-18T20:47:00.001-05:00

Dear Mayor Warren,

Just wanted to let you know that, sometime today, a squad of bike-rack fairies seemed to have hit Newton Centre, sprinkling magic post-and-ring bike racks all over the center.

Just wanted to let you know. Could be a city-wide epidemic.

Pics tomorrow.

Fondly,

NS&S

Bike lanes and priority bike lanes, what's the difference?

2011-03-08T06:29:00.002-05:00

In light of the regulatory hurdles to "real" bike lanes in Newton, given the actual amount of on-street parking for long stretches of key roads (Beacon, Comm. Ave., Walnut, Parker, Langley, &c.), and given the necessity to provide more explicit bike accommodation than striped shoulders to attract less experienced cyclists to the streets, there's a strong case to be made for so-called priority bike lanes.

In practical terms, though, one might ask: what's the difference? The difference boils down to whether the outside, left edge of the bike lane is solid or dashed. That's it.

If the outside edge is dashed, a bike lane is not exclusive to bikes. The dashed treatment is seen wherever bike lanes cross intersections or where the bike lane slots between the travel lane and a right-turn lane. The clear intent of the lane, even when dashed is to provide a safe haven for bicyclists. It's just not as rigidly exclusive.

Where parking is currently allowed, but rarely used, the priority bike lane should be superior to the striped shoulder. It should be just as effective at keeping cars in the travel lane and out of the shoulder. It should be more effective at delineating space for bicycles, attracting inexperienced cyclists. And, if anything, it should act as a mild discouragement for the otherwise legal parking.

A net win that can be accomplished without regulatory change.

Is a "real" bike lane preferable? No question. Better to have parking prohibited, even where it's rarely used -- maybe especially where parking is rarely used, since there's little downside. But, the difference isn't worth the fight. Not now, at least. Put in priority bike lanes, which will improve accommodation and spur ridership growth. Revisit the issue when the demand is higher.

How bikes and legal parking can co-exist

2011-03-04T07:00:00.000-05:00

Alex: Priority bike lanes.
Watson: What is the solution to the conflict between parking regulations and traditional bike lane rules?

As I discussed below, there are long stretches of Newton streets on which we want to have bike accommodations where there isn't a lot of parking, but parking is legal and the street is not wide enough for travel lanes, bike lanes, and parking in the shoulder. Because parking is legal, bike lanes are not permissible. (Note, some of these same roads have stretches where parking is legal and regularly used (at least during the day). Those stretches are a different case.) And, striped shoulders -- legal for parking and separate space for bikers where no one actually parks -- are not sufficient accommodations to attract new riders to the streets.

In sum, we've got shoulders that are currently available for biking and for parking, but without real demand for the parking and no way to make it more inviting to ride in them.

The answer to the problem is some sort of hybrid treatment of the shoulder that designates it's a place for bikes to ride, but also acceptable for parking. Putting a sharrow in the shoulder isn't a good idea, because sharrows designate -- as the name suggests -- a shared space for moving cars and moving bicycles. We don't want to create an invitation for cars to drive in the shoulder.

But, priority bike lanes might work. Priority bike lanes are, essentially, bike lanes with the bike lane stencil, but using dashed lines rather than solid lines to demarcate the lane. Priority bike lanes indicate to bicyclists and motorists where bikes are expected to travel and where motorists are supposed to yield to bicyclists. They are typically used where there is no other facility for bikes and bicyclists need to ride in the travel lane. They set out a space for bikes that cars may also use.

For the problem of the regulatory conflict on our street's shoulders, they may be perfect. Because they define a shared space, there is no need to undo parking regulations to install them. The combination of the striped line and the stencil should provide motorist with notice to expect bikes and to be careful. The stencil will invite the less advanced rider. And the dashed line will allow the accommodation to co-exist with the seldom used right to park.

There may be some design niceties about whether it might be good to bring a priority bike lane a little into the travel lane, But, otherwise, that's it: a bike lane with a dashed line rather than a solid line. The answer to the regulatory conflict that prevents us from taking full advantage of the space in the shoulders.

Paying for paving

2011-03-03T23:52:00.002-05:00

We're wrapping up a winter with unusually high snow removal costs. And, we've got an epidemic of potholes that are going to have to be fixed.

This might be a good time to reflect on the fact that maintaining a traffic infrastructure costs serious money and that we expect road conditions that exceed our willingness to pay for them. It's time for a higher gas tax, with a distribution to municipalities for roadway maintenance based on traffic volumes and a significant distribution for transit and other alternative transportation.

What's the real conflict between bikes and parking?

2011-03-03T22:34:00.004-05:00

It is an article of faith that, in Newton, there are two major impediments to bike accommodations: too narrow streets and legal parking. Combine them and they eliminate the possibility of bike lanes. There just isn't room in the right of way for travel lanes, bike lanes, and parking. That requires at least 20' -- 9' travel lane, 4' bike lane, and 7' parking shoulder -- and more like 23' in each direction. So it's posed as an either or: bike lanes or parking.

But, maybe things aren't as bad as they seem.

Along the streets where parking is principally overflow parking, there is no real competition for space between bikes and cars. The shoulder is predominantly available for cycling and a striped shoulder separates bikes from traffic pretty well. But, because of regulation, that nice space for biking can't be designated as an official bike lane. A bike lane can't be striped where cars can legally park.

For long stretches, it isn't a conflict between actual cars and actual bikers, but a conflict of regulations.

On those long stretches of road, why isn't a striped shoulder enough? From my own experience (principally on Beacon and Winchester) the stripes keep the cars out of the shoulder. But, the goal is broader than making life safer for the bikers on the road now. We want to encourage more riders. And, unfortunately, the stripes don't attract new bikers to the shoulder.

Less advanced riders, the riders we need to attract to our city streets, don't feel comfortable without more explicit bike accommodations.

So, what are we to do? One option is to disallow parking, at least from the stretches where parking is infrequently used. That's certainly a better balance of accommodation for bikes and cars: full time access for bikes at the expense of occasionally used parking. But, it invites a political battle.

What if there were a way to create bike accommodations that attract new riders without taking on the parking regulations? The answer lies in this bit of reality. If the regulations did allow parking and a bike lane to co-exist on these up-for-grabs stretches of road, the actual incidence of parking wouldn't be too much of a concern. Occasionally, a biker would have to go out into the road. Not ideal, but much better than what we have now. And, not too different than what you see with the occasional illegally parked car in official bike lanes in other cities.

Next up: the solution.

Riverside lot not for Newton residents

2011-01-10T07:11:00.003-05:00

Natick man got a ticket from Wellesley the day he parked in Newton, in the Riverside lot. Funny story. Wellesley town staff used a hand-held ticketing scanner, supposedly coded not to issue tickets, to do a license-place survey of cars in the Riverside lot. But, they accidentally issued tickets on the surveyed cars.

Why is Wellesley doing a survey of an MBTA lot in Newton? Because the town wants to know the transportation choices that its residents make. And, enough of them are presumably using the Riverside lot to matter. And, apparently, folks from Natick, too.

How, exactly, is this good for Newton?

How the aldermen helped kill the Atrium

2011-01-08T07:21:00.004-05:00

The Atrium has a bunch of flaws*, but when you ask people why they don't like to shop there, the number one complaint is parking. Not "they don't have any stores I like." Parking. It was parking when there was William-Sonoma and other now gone stores were there. It was parking when the economy was humming along.

Parking. Parking. Parking.

People hate it.

But, when you consider the Atrium from a land-use perspective, the number one thing it's got going for it is parking. It's a building with over 100,000 square feet of retail space and around 20 surface parking spaces. It's a giant parking structure with a few stores above it. By comparison, the first phase of Chestnut Hill Square is going to have just under 250,000 sq. ft. and 699 surface parking spaces. To be fair, the planned but not guaranteed second phase will have a 300+ space parking garage when the 90-100 residential spaces are built. And, the second phase will eliminate about 100 surface spaces. But, in the end it'll be about 600 surface spaces.

So, what's the board got to do with this?

In a not-even-perfect world, we'd have a lot more structured parking. Surface parking encourages sprawl, creates run-off problems, &c. But, structured parking is at least marginally less appealing for shoppers who drive. So, a mall -- like Chestnut Hill Square or the Mall at Chestnut Hill -- will be a more appealing option than something like the Atrium, which is served almost exclusively by a parking garage. When Land Use and then the full board capitulated to New England Development's one-less-surface-space-and-we-walk threat**, they not only doomed Chestnut Hill Square from a land-use perspective, but they made things worse for the Atrium in this particular regard. It's not only a competing mall within spitting distance, it's a competing mall with more surface parking.

Obviously, this is a regional problem. Making more structured parking at Chestnut Hill Square wouldn't undo the attraction of the surface parking at the Mall at Chestnut Hill or the Chestnut Hill Shopping Center or any of the dozens of surface-parking surrounded shopping options in the area. But, it sure would have been nice if the board had not reduced the incentive to provide structured parking.

* Pedestrian access across the front is awful. The wall along Florence Street is inhospitable. No open space. Possibly even not enoughsurface parking.

** The irony, of course, is that New England Development built the Atrium and it's underground parking garage, which undoubtedly cost 2 or 3 times per parking space what an above-ground garage would cost, and built it with far more capacity then has ever been met by demand.

The bridge is out of the bag

2010-12-13T15:02:00.004-05:00

Shots of the Lower Falls bridge now that it is fully stripped and painted and no longer in a baggie.

In the last shot, the wood under the tarp appears to be the new surface for the bridge.

Alderman Baker is good at what he does

2010-12-07T09:08:00.003-05:00

Watching Lisle Baker at work last night, I couldn't help but wish that he and I shared the same values. More so than any of his colleagues, he's willing to say I'm not happy with what I see and I want an answer or change. He's civil. He's well-prepared.

Most importantly, he's patient and tenacious. He doesn't get discouraged or distracted if the first answer he gets is not an answer he likes.

Drive-thru open space

2010-12-02T23:12:00.010-05:00

Though the rezoning that New England Development requested for the Chestnut Hill Square site will not obligate them to provide open space, there is universal recognition that open space is important enough that they ought to provide a little on a site that may include up to 100 residential units. It's important even if there end up being no residential units.

The open space provided is really inadequate. The measure of its inadequacy is the lengths NED goes to take credit for open space. Here's the open space map provided by NED:

A will probably be a nice little space. Too small to really act as a "garden" for the 100 residential units, but a real open space. Note, however, that it could only be open space. Squeezed between the apartment building to the right and the parking lot to the left, it's a leftover squib of land. There's no way it could be developed.

B is a pedestrian plaza. It's all hardscape. And, its virtues are likely oversold. But, it's arguably open space.

C and D are a stretch. They are primarily passages between the two buildings on either end of the parking lot. Such passages are a good enough feature that we should overlook the fact that they too are oversold as open space, in this case as potential gathering spaces.

E is too small to matter. I hope that it functions as a lively outdoor cafe, as advertised.

It's F and G, though, that really take the cake. They are bigger together than either the garden or the plaza. Take them off and the paucity of open space would be glaring. You can understand the developer's desire to have them on the map. But, calling them open space is an insult to the city.

Take a closer look. Click on the picture to see it full sized. Then come back. The unshaded part is F.

It's the world's first drive-thru open space! A car-centric innovation brought to you first in Newton.

It's part of the driveway. It includes parking spaces. Handicap, to be sure, but parking spaces. You can't get to a a quarter of the upper lot parking spaces without driving through one or the other of these so-called open spaces. No one will or could linger without getting run over. You might as well call all of the parking lot open space.

Again, there's no explicit legal requirement to provide open space. But, the developer wants a zoning change and a special permit to build what it's building. And open space is a quid pro quo for that very valuable benefits that the zoning and special permit confer. So, the board order (in its draft form), includes language stating that the site has open space. And, by recommending the board order, six of the city's alderman consider this open space. Paved. Parking lot. Driveway.

Sidewalks on Boylston St.

2010-12-02T07:02:00.008-05:00

At the Land Use meeting on Tuesday, city attorney Ouida Young got into a heated exchange with Alderman Deb Crossley about a draft board order finding related to pedestrian accommodations. At one point, Young said that Route 9 is not pedestrian-friendly and never will be.

The comment is unfortunate on at least four levels.

First of all, it's not accurate. There are parts of the corridor that are quite pedestrian-friendly. Here's the situation in front of the Capital Grille. Decent sidewalk. Huge grass berm. Wide shoulder before the travel lane.

Second, it is dismissive of or ignorant of the fact that, regardless of the quality of sidewalk, people use it.

Not caring about pedestrian accommodations is a real screw-you to the people who use those sidewalks by people who only drive on Route 9 and cannot imagine walking beside it.

Third, it fails to acknowledge that the Chestnut Hill Square proposal doesn't just fail to provide good pedestrian accommodations, it makes the existing conditions much worse. Here's a picture of the sidewalk in front of the site. Again, wide shoulder, a grass berm, decent sidewalk.

Here's a picture from NED's materials. NED has since agreed to put a berm between the sidewalk and the roadway, but the berm is no wider, the sidewalk is no wider, and the shoulder will now be an active turning lane for a large portion of traffic into the site. Bottom line: the situation is worse.

In front of David's, as the NED rendering shows, it's much worse. The roadway widening eliminates or (possibly) reduces a very wide berm.

Fourth, it's not consistent with what many of us understand is the city's policies on promoting pedestrian mobility. It is critical that we make it easier and more attractive to walk around our city. Car traffic is destroying our quality of life. It's killing the planet. The infrastructure needed to support our car dependence creates sprawl. We have to take every opportunity possible to actively promote walking.

No, Route 9 is not the most attractive place in town to take a stroll. But, it is a tremendous opportunity, nonetheless. There are people, lots of people. It's the densest residential area in the entire city. There are destinations. The Mall at Chestnut Hill, the Chestnut Hill Shopping Center (lower mall), the shops on Boylston across from the shopping center, the Atrium, Barnes & Noble and Milton's, Hammond Pond, MIshkan Tefila, Webster Conservation, Longwood station, &c.

If we connect those people and places, if we create a network of really good pedestrian accommodations, we can get people out of their cars. Not all of them. Not all the time. But enough to make a difference.

Route 9 and its traffic is an impediment, but there is no reason to give up on making a walkable district. In fact, if anything, Route 9 and its traffic should be a constant reminder of why we need to promote walking.

So, it's incredibly discouraging to hear from city staff, the lead negotiator on the board order that's going to define New England Development's responsibilities, that promoting pedestrian mobility on Boylston St. is a waste of time.

Land Use fail on Chestnut Hill Square

2010-12-01T00:30:00.004-05:00

On the substance, there's lots to say about tonight's 6-2 Land Use vote to recommend a board order granting a special permit to New England Development, but here are three little bits of atmosphere that give a sense of why there wasn't a better outcome:

The board order includes and makes reference to a site plan that counts as open space active parts of the site driveway, as in space that cars will regularly drive through
City Attorney Ouida Young got into a heated debate with Alderman Deb Crossley, arguing that Route 9 is not pedestrian-friendly and won't be pedestrian-friendly
The three Ward 6 alderman were non-participants in the discussion, despite the site's proximity to and impact on the neighborhood

A thoroughly discouraging outcome.

Lower Falls Bridge in a bag

2010-11-15T15:27:00.003-05:00

Pretty impressive operation to strip/delead the Lower Falls bridge without contaminating the Charles River.

Once the infrastructure is stripped and repainted, it will get its pedestrian deck.

CHS -- Allow parking on Boylston?

2010-11-15T08:48:00.011-05:00

According to New England Development, one of the major constraints on the Chestnut Hill Square proposal was a prohibition against parking along Boylston St. (Rte. 9). It makes sense. Parking in the front setback (the area between the street and the front of the building) is a big no-no. It deadens the street and makes it pedestrian-unfriendly (if not hostile). Just about any big-box retail suffers from parking in the front setback.

But, keeping parking off of Boylston St. has some particular consequences for Chestnut Hill Square that may be worse than allowing it.

The intention of the restriction against parking in the front setback is to have new development engage the street and create a retail streetscape. But, for reasons good and bad, the developer was never going to put storefronts on Boylston St. And, because of the depth of the site, the developer understandably wants to have multiple retail fronts.

So, the retail in Chestnut Hill Square faces inward. And, Boylston St. gets the back of a building hard up against the street, with a narrow sidewalk (orange). There's a huge parking lot to navigate to get from the north retail building to the south buildings (green). And, there's a dangerous crossing to get from the north building to the west residential/retail building (red).

Since we're not going to get retail along Boylston St., maybe it's a good idea to relax the no-parking-in-the-front-setback restriction and reduce or eliminate the worst problems of this design.

If the north building and the sea of parking simply switched places, the design would get a whole lot better -- even with the blight of a parking lot along Boylston St.

The retail buildings would all be close together and the circulation area much more compact and easily navigated by foot (orange). The crossing between the north retail building and the west residential/retail building would be much safer (A). And, there would be an opportunity for wider, tree-lined sidewalk along Boylston St. (green).

Take it a step further and divide the north building in two.

Keep the idea of a mid-parking lot sidewalk (D), to connect from the sidewalk on Boylston St. to create a nice pedestrian spine through the development (B). Passage from the Milton's building to the east (C) and the residential/retail building (A) would be much safer.

Ironically, this configuration makes retail entrances along the north side of the building attractive to tenants (shown in orange along with retail along the gap), so there might end up being parking in the front setback after all. But, given the peculiarities of the site, it may be a compromise worth making.

We're not going to get the ideal development -- one that engages Boylston St. But, we can get a better development.

Smart talk about parking at Chestnut Hill Square

2010-11-07T07:22:00.004-05:00

The Land Use committee is turning into the go-to resource for smart parking policy. They granted Panera Bread, the station diner, and Pie parking waivers, essentially lifting parking requirements from Newton Centre.

At Thursday night's Chestnut Hill Square working session, parking was discussed in all the right terms. There was no discussion of parking minimums. The discussion about the number of spaces required was driven by what the developer said he needed, in other words, by market demand. The aldermen, particularly Susan Albright and Deb Crossley, pushed on the developer's stated need, as the city should. Alderperson Albright kept pushing the developer to shift spots from surface to structured. Alderperson Crossley proposed waiving some setback requirements to allow more levels on the parking garage. And, there was even discussion about charging for parking! (More on that in another post.)

The parking situation at Chestnut Hill Square is still not close to ideal. But, at least the city is having the right kind of discussion.

Chestnut Hill Square -- designed in danger

2010-10-31T06:25:00.013-05:00

Probably the key connection in the entire Chestnut Hill Square plan is a connection not made: the connection between the north retail building (A) that runs along Boylston St./Rte. 9 and the residential/retail building (B) to the south and east.

In its pedestrian circulation plan (the image above), New England Development has not include a crossing between the two buildings. While it seems odd to leave out such a short and obvious crossing, it's a matter of safety: a crosswalk there would be too close to the development entrance.

Omitting a crossing, NED is proposing that people wishing to go from A to B will go south through the parking lot to the south retail, cross two driveways, and walk down the residential retail building. In fact, one of three things will happen, two of them bad. As NED hopes, some people will take the long march, which will keep them on foot, in the development, and a little healthier. More likely, people will be put off by the hike and not go to both spots in the same trip, which is bad for the development.

But some people will act like pedestrians often do, and simply cross the driveway. While pedestrian accommodations encourage walking, the lack of accommodations don't necessarily prevent walking. For an illustration of this truth, just wait a few minutes along any major street in Newton when sidewalks full of snow force people on foot into the road.

By creating demand for a crossing at a spot that they say is too dangerous to provide a crossing, NED has designed in a dangerous situation. The developer ought to be obligated to eliminate the danger.

Fortunately, the solution seems to be straightforward: create an overlap between the north retail building and the residential/retail building farther away from the development entrance, by moving the north retail building south (into the site), making the north retail building deeper, by creating a deeper sidewalk-cum-pedestrian plaza, or some combination of all three. Moving the whole building south is consistent with providing a better sidewalk along Boylston. Making the building deeper is consistent with breaking the two buildings into one to relieve the blank facade along Boylston.

But, somehow, NED has to connect the dots.

Possible gas tax reform

2010-10-31T05:47:00.004-05:00

According to this Josh Barro post, there's a compromise under consideration in Washington that would extend the Bush tax cuts in exchange for a switch to an ad valoremgas tax. The misguided priorities and the deficit havoc of the Bush tax cuts are beyond the NS&S jurisdiction, but adoption of an ad valoremgas tax would be a step in the right direction.

Currently, the federal and state gas taxes are fixed: the federal tax is 18.4 cents-a-gallon. Meanwhile, gas prices have gone up.

Really, this change shouldn't be thought of as a tax increase - instead, think of it as canceling the annual gas tax cut. The federal gasoline tax hasn't been raised since 1993, when it was set at 18.4 cents per gallon. That means it has fallen by a third in real terms over that period - if the tax had kept pace with CPI, it would sit at 27.8 cents per gallon today.

In the meantime, "spending on road construction and maintenance grew almost exactly in line with the economy from 1994 to 2008 - a 102 percent increase." As a consequence, "[f]ederal, state and local governments grew road spending faster than road revenues by borrowing more and by diverting general tax revenues to spend on roads."

It's just math. Federal and state gas taxes are too low.

Read the whole post. Barro has some excellent analysis of the relationship between road and highway spending and related revenues.

Ultimately, though, simply stemming the backward march of gas-tax revenue is not enough. We need to make up lost ground. We need to account for the impact of increased fuel economy. And, we need to capture more of the costs of driving from those who drive (or consume goods that have been shipped). One of the virtues of switching to an ad valorem gas tax, though, is that it has no immediate impact, but preps for the future.

Chestnut Hill Square -- Pedestrian Connection J

2010-10-27T08:29:00.012-05:00

The predominant features of Chestnut Hill Square as proposed are a big blank wall along Boylston St./Rte. 9 and a big parking lot surrounded by strip-mall like retail. It's not a very friendly pedestrian model.

It is not overstating the case to call the back side of the retail building along Boylston St. blight. Combined with the widening of Boylston St. to 8 lanes, it's a complete sacrifice of the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in favor of car traffic. It's hard to imagine how it could be worse.

While the predominant problem is the design's mean sidewalk hard up against traffic, part of the problem is the sheer length of the blank wall along Boylston. If the single building were simply broken into two, with a nice gap, it would be more pleasant to walk along and would provide an alternative route for pedestrian circulation.

Vast parking lots with retail on the sides are the apotheosis of car-centric design. It doesn't get much more pedestrian hostile. New England Development attempts to mitigate that with two pedestrian boulevards (B and C) from the south retail strip to the north. As noted, the boulevards don't really enhance the connectivity of the residential/retail building to the north retail building.

There are two different purposes that the boulevards are intended to serve. Theoretically, they allow or encourage people to park in one spot and then shop in multiple buildings. It just doesn't seem likely that a shopper is going to come to Chestnut Hill Square, go to one building, and then wander down the boulevard to the other side of the development. More likely is the case of someone who walks from off the property who uses the boulevard to get to a destination on the other side of the property.

Since the latter is the more likely use case, why not just have a single, wider, more appealing pedestrian boulevard (D)?

Combine a gap along Boylston St. (A) with a single pedestrian boulevard (D) and the result would be an organizational spine connecting Boylston St. to the pedestrian plaza feature at the south buildings (E) and on to the proper entrance from Florence St. (F). Such a spine would greatly mitigate the car-centricity of the site.

Splitting the front building in two and moving the store side farther north would have an interesting collateral benefit. It would create an overlap with the residential/retail sufficiently removed from the development entrance to allow for a crosswalk, curing the present design's isolation of the residential/retail building and solving the pedestrian circulation issues identified here. It would also solve a concern raised by the developer's traffic consultant of traffic turning left (east) to enter the parking lot near the north retail building possibly causing back ups to Boylston St. This design would move the left turn farther from the entrance, allowing more queuing space.

Chestnut Hill Square -- Pedestrian Connection G

2010-10-27T05:27:00.007-05:00

The best connection of the proposed site is at the northwestern corner. Not coincidentally, it's also the most prominent corner for visitors arriving by car. But, there are still serious unmet challenges to good pedestrian access and circulation.

Ideally, the retail in the north building would have Boylston St./Rte. 9 as its front. Barring that, getting to the north retail (E) from the northwest corner is as direct as it could be. A to D is a straight line. The walk along from D to E isn't short, but it promises to be a much more friendly path than it's northeast counterpart.

There is a substantial entrance at D. The entrance at D seems designed to catch the attention of drivers, but it provides a collateral benefit to pedestrians. A building front, with glass and doors, is much more hospitable to pedestrians than the building's back. Plus, there's no dumpster or loading dock along this side of the building. And, of course, pedestrians can enter at least one store right at D!

What's definitely not good is the sidewalk in front of David's (B). Currently, there is a very wide shoulder and a very wide grass berm between the sidewalk and traffic. When New England Development is done with its widening, the only thing between pedestrians and traffic will be a measly 2' shoulder. Again, New England Development is making things substantially worse for pedestrians. Pedestrians need more room than a bare-minimally ADA compliant 5' wide sidewalk and a tire-width shoulder.

Also unfortunate, there is no way to get directly from the northwest corner to the residental/retail building (F). A nice direct path would be along the Capital Grille property. All that's missing is a paved section at G and a crosswalk at H. Given how direct this path is, it's hard to imagine that people won't use it, even without a paved section or crosswalk.

Another option would be to provide a sidewalk on the west side of the main driveway (I) and a crosswalk across the residential/retail building's driveway (J). Because the sidewalk along B is so crummy and because the path along the Capital Grille is so much better, this is an much less attractive alternative.

What's to be done here?

Make the sidewalk in front of David's no worse than it is now. There should be an equally wide grass berm. While there's no way that the shoulder will be as wide, the developer should compensate with some street trees.
Make the connection along the Capital Grille building. A small section of sidewalk and a crosswalk will pay big dividends.

Chestnut Hill Square -- Pedestrian Connection F

2010-10-26T08:00:00.006-05:00

Chestnut Hill Square needs to connect to all of its neighbors. And, there is a terrific -- unmet -- opportunity to connect to the Capital Grille/office building to the west. Fortunately, capitalizing on the opportunity shouldn't be that difficult.

The office building (A) is just feet from the residential/retail building. But, there's no accommodation across the driveway (B). That seems like a no-brainer. Add a crosswalk at B.

Once on the residential/retail building's sidewalks, the office workers would have the same difficulties discussed here. There's no way to easily cross to the north retail building because there's no accommodation at C.

Whether heading to the north or south retail, the workers have the challenges discussed here. They will have to cross the driveway (as proposed, unaccommodated), pass by the dumpster, and then recross the driveway to get to the south retail/grocery/medical office/fitness center and, perhaps, wind their way back north to the north retail building, via the long and circuitous route described here.

The route from the office building to the south complex could be made considerably easier and more direct by establishing a sidewalk along the southish/westish side (E) of the residential/retail driveway, which is also discussed here.

Once the office workers are across the driveway, the share the same problems as other pedestrians starting from the southwest corner or from the residences. But, crossing to the residential/retail building could be easier. And a sidewalk could remove the need for two crossings and make a nicer, more direct route to the south complex.

Wouldn't it be just as simple to wear a helmet?

2010-10-26T01:12:00.002-05:00

Airbag helmet. Video has to be seen to be believed.

Would make a good supplement to a helmet, though.

First do no harm -- CHS and sidewalks

2010-10-21T08:13:00.003-05:00

Not only does the proposed design for Chestnut Hill Square fail to make things better for pedestrians along Boylston St./ Rte. 9, it makes things worse. Substantially worse.

All things considered, things aren't that bad for pedestrians along the site. There's an enormous shoulder between the travel lane and the sidewalk. There's a decent grass buffer. And, there are bushes and trees.

Things aren't great along the Mall at Chestnut Hill side (the north side). But, there is, effectively, a big gap between the travel lanes and the sidewalk.

The proposed plan is going to bring traffic right up to the sidewalk. The sidewalk is going to be no wider than is required by the ADA. And, on the south side, the sidewalk will be hard up against the back of a building, with no windows at the street level.

Making things worse for pedestrians is not a Complete Streets-approach to traffic design.

Chestnut Hill Square -- sidewalks along Boylston/Route 9

2010-10-19T20:15:00.005-05:00

At tonight's Land Use working session, Deb Crossley asked a good series of questions. Why aren't the sidewalks along Route 9 wider? Why aren't there street trees and buffers? She wants the sidewalks to be attractive enough to encourage pedestrians.

New England Development's traffic engineer Jeff Dirks answer suggests that the developer's hands are bound. They are restricted by right-of-way, utilities, and ADA requirement of 5-foot sidewalks.

That's just not true. What's preventing wider sidewalks are the extra travel lanes and the position of the northern building. Dollars to donuts, the state would have allowed them to widen the sidewalk and add buffering on the northern side. And, the design of the southern sidewalk is completely up to NED. They are building travel lanes on their own property. They could just as easily make wide sidewalks in addition to or instead of travel lanes.

The city should demand top-level sidewalks.

NYC-bound buses returning to Riverside

2010-10-19T20:01:00.002-05:00

Buses to New York City returning to Riverside Station. And, cheap.

Chestnut Hill Square -- Pedestrian Connection E

2010-10-19T06:11:00.014-05:00

You can't really talk about the pedestrian connections at the southwest corner of the Chestnut Hill Square site without talking about the internal circulation from the entrance to the residences. What starts well, ends badly.

Be sure to click on the images to see them full-size.

There is a nice, protected, tree-lined pedestrian path (A) from Florence St. to the driveway in front of the residences (B). But, there is nothing that will bring pedestrians to the path. There are no sidewalks on Florence on either side of the path (C) and (D). And there's no crosswalk connecting to the other side of Florence. It's sort of a path from nowhere. (Or, to nowhere if you live in the residences.)

The crosswalk at B seems fine, but, do they really need a 20-foot wide driveway?

While this path is fine to the residences, what do you do if you want to go to the other retail buildings? Having crossed the driveway, pedestrians will have to walk by the dumpster and loading dock (G), re-cross the driveway they've just crossed, and then cross a driveway (F) over to the other retail building.

Why not just have a sidewalk (preferably wide and tree-lined) on the other side of the driveway (E) and avoid the over-and-back driveway crossings and the pass by the dumpster/loading zone?

It gets really crazy imagining the path from the southwest corner to the retail building along Boylston St./Route 9. For those of you counting at home, that's five driveway crossings along a very circuitous route, much of which is through the parking lot. It's likely that people will cross over at H, which has no pedestrian accommodation.

It's not just folks coming off the site who face a long, circuitous route to the front retail building. It's the route for residents, too.

There is another way to get from the residence/retail block: across a raised crosswalk (I). But, that doesn't connect to the other buildings. It's the primary route from the parking lot to the residence/retail block, particularly for those using handicap spots.

It's too bad. It's the best driveway crossing on the site because it incorporates a raised crosswalk. Because it is more direct, this may become a unplanned for, but used path. Better to plan for it and add accommodations across the parking lot to the nearer cross-parking lot walkway.

The final use case to consider is the resident who wants to walk to the west, to the Atrium or Imperial Towers. According to the plan, this (above) is the route the resident is supposed to take. Crazy.

If there were a crossing and a sidewalk along the west side of the entrance (J), the route would be much more direct.

Even better, put a crossing at K and a sidewalk along entrance along the David's property, which entrance the developer controls (so is free to squeeze in a sidewalk).

The best solution would be to take advantage of the existing sidewalks and crossings along the Capital Grille building. It would be a nice direct path. All that would be needed is a sidewalk from the Capital Grille driveway to the Boylston St. sidewalk (L). Obviously, the developer doesn't control what happens on the Capital Grille lot, but the option should be explored. In the worst case, NED should create a connection to the Capital Grille lot (more on that later), that could be completed later.

The takeaways on this section of the site:

The whole plan needs more sidewalks -- along Florence Street, along the residence driveway, along one of the entrances from Boylston St./Route 9
More crossings, particularly to connect the residences to the north retail building
The design needs to better address explicit use cases: this person getting from a specific point A to a specific point B. For example, from the residences to Imperial Towers.

Chestnut Hill Square -- Pedestrian Connection D

2010-10-18T22:19:00.004-05:00

While the planned pedestrian connection in the southeast corner of the proposed Chestnut Hill Square site is an unmitigated disaster, there is a potential solution: create a pedestrian entrance at the point along the property closest to an internal sidewalk.

Sacrifice a parking spot or two, and there could be an entrance that is a short hop across the parking lot to the sidewalk (A). Given the contour of Florence St., it wouldn't add much length to the walk to avoid the straight shot across the parking lot (B) for the more attractive, safer, and more comfortable route to the crossing at A (represented by the orange line).

It would require more than just creating a sidewalk along Florence St., an entrance, and a crosswalk. The sidewalk that pedestrians would land on is pretty mean (C) and could stand to be widened. But, it does lead straight to the pedestrian plaza that NED touts as the core of the development.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a no-brainer.

Chestnut Hill Square -- Pedestrian Connection C

2010-10-18T21:46:00.003-05:00

Chestnut Hill Square's connection to the southeast simply fails. How does someone from the neighborhood get to the grocery store? To the residences? To the bus stop? Especially with the entrance to the parking lot closed, there's simply no safe, comfortable, and attractive access to the site from the southeast.

As noted earlier, even New England Development's own circulation plan drops pedestrians at the edge of the parking lot, to fend for themselves (A). Not only is it the edge of the parking lot, it's probably the spot along the southern border of the site that is most distant from any sidewalk ... it's the longest possible walk across a parking lot.

There's no provision for a sidewalk to accommodate any neighbors traveling along the north side of Florence Street (B) ... from as far away as the apartments on Hammond Pond Parkway or as close as the building next door. And, there's no sidewalk on the other side of the so-called pedestrian entrance (C). There is no excuse for not having a sidewalk along a commercial property.

This whole section indicates that NED didn't even try.

Fortunately, this one would be easy to solve: a pedestrian entrance at the point where the street is closest to the sidewalk.

Chestnut Hill Square -- Pedestrian Connection B

2010-10-18T21:18:00.005-05:00

The eastern edge of the development is a bit of a no-man's land, and shows the best and the worst of New England Development's pedestrian accommodations.

On the one hand, it demonstrates the openness to connection with whatever gets developed -- if it gets developed -- to replace the Barnes & Noble and Milton's buildings. It would have been great if those properties were part of a whole master plan. And, NED's design hardly constitutes a master plan. But, it does signal that NED isn't going to prevent CHS's eastern neighbors from joining the party.

On the other hand, it could have been more.

It's an okay place for a crosswalk, bringing pedestrians to the sidewalk (A) of the south retail/commercial building. But, it's really limited to connecting to parking spaces (B). There's a grade change along to the back of the site, but C could have included a nice, protected sidewalk.

Helmet-less Tom Brady

2010-10-18T21:10:00.003-05:00

Wearing a helmet is a good thing. With a few exceptions, I haven't been on my bike in 15 years without one. Won't let the kids ride without them.

But, we can take things a little too far. Tom Brady pacing his son as he rides a scooter. Probably not essential that he wear a helmet. It's great that he's out riding.

Call off the dogs.

Chestnut Hill Square -- Pedestrian Connection A

2010-10-18T08:13:00.007-05:00

The northeast corner of the Chestnut Hill Square lot is a good measure of New England Development's commitment to pedestrians. It's not great.

There is potentially meaningful pedestrian traffic to that corner: from Avalon, from the apartment buildings on Hammond Pond Parkway, from next door at Barnes & Noble and Milton's. Yet, there is no sense of the corner as a gateway or main entrance to the site. This is in striking comparison to the northwest corner, which is treated like a gateway, largely because it's the corner that motorists are likely to see.

It appears that the principal route is meant to be along Boylston St./Route 9 to the entrance/exit, along the side of the north retail building, and onto the retail sidewalk. (Avalon is to the left in the bottom of the following diagrams.)

It would be better if there were only a single lane of traffic to cross (A). But, at least there's a pedestrian refuge. There doesn't appear to be very good sight lines for cars coming off Boylston turning left into the site (B). So, that crossing might be a bit hairy.

But, once across the entrance/exit, pedestrians are ill-treated. It's a mean little sidewalk with no street trees or other vegetation to separate people from cars (C). It takes the pedestrian past first the building dumpster (D) and then the building loading dock (E).

It seems likely that pedestrians may choose to take a slightly more direct, and likely safer route.

While there is no crosswalk at A, it's not likely to have a lot of traffic. There's no refuge at B, but cars will undoubtedly be going slower than they would at the corner above (also B).

Taking this route, pedestrians avoid the dumpster, but not the loading dock (C).

As with the "main" route, there is a distinct lack of green -- trees, lawn, bushes.

The most successful aspect of this corner is the direct connection to the Barnes & Noble and Milton's sidewalk. To New England Development's credit, they have not created any obstacles to connection with neighboring properties (even if they haven't exploited all the potential).

There's a nice crosswalk from sidewalk to sidewalk (A). But, pedestrians will still have to cross in front of the loading dock (B).

Recommendations:

In an ideal world, the retail space would be facing Boylston Street, and this would be a whole different design. (More on that in a later post.) But, given this retail configuration, this entrance to the site needs to be safer, more comfortable, and more attractive for pedestrians. Specifically:

Open up the east end of the north building with an entrance similar to the west entrance
Wider sidewalks
Green -- trees, lawn, shrubbery -- between the sidewalk and the street
A crosswalk across the Milton's lot entrance (A in the middle diagram)
Raise the crosswalk across the driveway (A in the last diagram)
Better camouflage the dumpster and the loading dock

Toward a unified rule for biking safely

2010-10-14T08:30:00.006-05:00

Biking on the road can be complicated -- and, obviously, dangerous. There are a lot of different situations, which require different kinds of alertness and preparedness. But, there are a bunch of problems that can be avoided by following one simple rule: when car traffic slows, watch out!

How could the woman on bike avoid hitting the man on foot yesterday? The report indicates that traffic had stopped. Traffic doesn't stop just to give cyclists a reminder of how much more efficient biking can be. Traffic stops for some activity that's likely going to have an impact on the bicyclist. In this case, traffic stopped for a pedestrian in the crosswalk. In the case of the man hit this summer at Beacon and Grant, traffic stopped to allow an eastbound car to turn left on Grant into the path of the cyclist. In the case of the woman hit on Beacon and St. Thomas More, traffic stopped to allow a car to turn.

Whatever traffic is stopping for either poses a potential threat to a cyclist (a turning car) or is a potential victim for a cyclist (a pedestrian entering the roadway). If you're on a bike, be ready to stop, get hit, or hit someone else.

Abiding the rule is not going to prevent every harm. It won't protect you from getting hit from behind or doored. But, it covers a lot of situations.

Car-shaped bike rack

2010-10-14T05:35:00.004-05:00

A neat rack that makes a statement.

From Inhabitat

Pedestrian circulation at Chestnut Hill Square

2010-10-13T22:57:00.006-05:00

There are eight potential points of connection between Chestnut Hill Square and its neighbors and various issues of internal pedestrian connectivity. I'm going to address each separately and then update this post with links.

The connection points:

On Boylston St. at the east side (A)
To the Milton's property on the east (B)
On Florence St. at the east side (C)
On Florence St. on the midpoint of the property (D)
On Florence St. at the west side (E)
To the Capital Grille building on the west side (F)
On Boylston St. at the west side (G)

Internal circulation can be considered in the following terms:

Between the residential building and the other buildings (H)
Between the residential building and the various connection points listed above (H)
Between the two commercial buildings (I)
Along Boylston St. (J)

More car on pedestrian crime

2010-10-13T22:54:00.002-05:00

Reports that a pedestrian hit an eighth-grader was crossing Beacon at Hancock (no crosswalk). An older driver didn't see him. The boy ended up with a broken nose.

Bike on pedestrian crime

2010-10-13T22:44:00.002-05:00

A 24-year-old woman on a bike hit a 61-year-old man on foot and in a crosswalk on Beacon (presumably) near BC. Presumably because the Wicked Local Bike Blog (didn't even know there was one) says the cyclist was in a crosswalk in Newton.

There is no excuse for a cyclist hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk, especially when traffic has stopped for the pedestrian. The kinetic energy of a cyclist can mean serious injury to a pedestrian. Cyclists have to take care to make sure that they don't put pedestrians in jeopardy -- or even cause anxiety with close calls.

An irony that never gets old

2010-10-04T09:49:00.000-05:00

New England Development insists on the necessity for two left-turn lanes to handle traffic volumes, but publishes a picture of Boylston Street with just five westbound cars and six eastbound cars along the entire length of the development.

CHS Pedestrian Plan -- on NED's terms

2010-10-03T18:30:00.002-05:00

An analysis of pedestrian accommodations really ought to start with New England Development's own Pedestrian Circulation plan. The picture does not tell a good story. Assuming that all the planned pedestrian circulation is high-quality (it's not), on its own terms the pedestrian circulation plan is inadequate.

The picture above is NED's own submission to the city. (I added the letters A-E.) Click on it for a larger version. Go here for NED's original, without the letters.

Neighbors from the south and east are essentially not provided for. The pedestrian path stops ominously at the edge of a huge parking lot. See A. And, surprisingly, there is no accommodation at the point on Florence St. closest to the grocery store building. See B.

What's really disappointing -- and odd -- is the failure to connect the planned residential building with the rest of the development. NED itself is saying that there is no direct pedestrian connection between the residential building and Retail C (the building along Boylston St./Rte. 9). See C. If someone who lives in the residential building wants to walk to a store or restaurant in the Retail C building, she's expected to cross two drives to get to Retail B and then cross a big parking lot to get to Retail C. Another oddness, there is a raised crosswalk from the parking lot to the residential building, apparently to satisfy handicap parking requirements, but not otherwise integrated into the pedestrian circulation. See D.

And, there's no pedestrian connection to the Capital Grille building at all. See E. If integration is going to mean anything, then there needs to be integration to all of CHS's neighbors. Certainly, we would hope and expect that people who work in the Capital Grille building would eat in the CHS restaurants, use the CHS health club, and shop in the CHS shops. They need to be able to walk.

This is not good pedestrian circulation. It's not good integration. And, the story gets even worse when you look at the quality of the pedestrian connections.

Road diet in Cambridge

2010-10-03T18:05:00.003-05:00

While we're considering adding lanes to turn a portion of Boylston St. (Rte. 9) into a super-highway, Cambridge is taking a lane out of Galileo Way in Cambridge. Earlier this year, Boston took travel lanes out in and around Kendall Square to make way for bike lanes.

Sure Newton is heading in the right direction on this?

CHS -- Trees on Boyston Street

2010-09-30T10:12:00.003-05:00

As planned, the sidewalk between Boylston Street (Route 9) and the proposed Chestnut Hill Square is inadequate. There is not enough separation between pedestrians and cars. The sidewalk is too narrow and there isn't a buffer of street trees. And, there's an opportunity to provide a cycle-track*.

This one should be easy to solve. It's a simple question of math. The sidewalk needs to be 6-10 feet wider. There are fourteen columns (north/south) of parking between the front building along Boylston Street and the other buildings on the interior of the lot. Move the front building 6 feet closer to the interior buildings and you eliminate 14 parking spaces. A more than fair trade: street trees for parking spaces. (There is almost certainly too much parking already.)

Another trade: take one lane out of the proposed roadway widening. Again, another fair trade: space for people on foot or on bikes for lanes for people in cars.

As the various issues with Chestnut Hill square go, this one ought to be easy.

* A grade-separated path dedicated for bicycles.

Newton/Brookline comity Land Use style

2010-09-30T05:26:00.003-05:00

Notwithstanding the rude treatment the owner of a Newton business got from Brookline selectfolks, Aldercritter Ted Hess-Mahan and his Land Use colleagues were very gracious to and solicitous of the concerns of Brookline neighbors of the proposed Chestnut Hill Square development, particularly on the point of access to Florence Street.

The big surprise was the lack of neighborhood unanimity on the point.

What safety means

2010-09-28T08:26:00.003-05:00

One way to reduce pedestrian-related incidents is to discourage pedestrians from, well, pedestrian-ing.

From this Boston.com article, it appears that the conditions on a stretch of Perkins St. near Jamaica Pond are so pedestrian-unfriendly that people are no longer crossing. While this reluctance to cross undoubtedly reduces the potential for car/pedestrian conflicts, it's hardly a good safety outcome.

Brookline/Newton comity

2010-09-26T05:20:00.003-05:00

From the Brookline TAB, this nugget regarding a recent Brookline selectmen meeting and a proposal to move a liquor store from 1327 Beacon St. to 1198 Boylston St.:

There was some shouting at the meeting, as Selectwoman Jesse Mermell tried to allow a Newton business owner to speak, and was cut off by Selectwoman Nancy Daly.

“I have to object. Hearing from a Newton business, that they don’t want competition from Brookline, is offensive to me,” said Daly.

Is this really the precedent you want to set when Newton aldermen are about to take up a the Chestnut Hill Square proposal? And, Boston's going to consider a proposal to develop the former Circle Cinemas site?

Parking at Newton North

2010-09-13T22:11:00.003-05:00

Converting the demolished old Newton North High School to a parking lot is a bad idea. The current parking constraint (240 spaces shared by faculty and students, and restricted street parking), will drive better student commute choices, which would stick, except for the undermining effect of a big new parking lot. A community garden, park, or outdoor classroom would be a far better use of space than more pavement.

And the policy for issuing student parking permits should not be 'first come, first served' as it is currently. Students should have to justify the need to drive a car by demonstrating that walking, biking or taking a bus is not practical. Incentives for student carpooling should be created. Exceptions should be made for disability, but those who drive for sheer convenience should pay for the luxury and cost to the neighborhood.

Legacy Place: not pedestrian friendly

2010-09-12T06:25:00.001-05:00

Hiking in the Blue Hills and looking over Dedham, a new friend volunteered (totally unprompted): "Legacy Place isn't very pedestrian friendly."

Interesting to us in Newton because Legacy Place is the closest example of what is planned for Chestnut Hill Square: come off a main route into a big parking lot surrounded by retail. To the developer's credit, New England Development has planned some tree-lined pedestrian paths through the parking lot, but those are a weak compromise compared to more urban, more village center-like model where there is curb-side parking and more parking behind and to the side of retail. (Obviously, Newton Centre is the exception.)

It's not clear who the party truly responsible for the proposed layout of Chestnut Hill Square is, there are a number of candidates, but the combination of a very long blank wall on Boylston Street/Route 9 and retail surrounding a big parking lot is going to be a design we are all going to regret.

Child hit by car on Parker Street

2010-09-12T06:20:00.009-05:00

The TAB/Wicked Local Newton reports that, on Friday, a twelve-year-old boy was hit by a car on Parker St., between Ridge Rd. and Glenwood Ave. We'll have to wait for the police report to know what happened, but some thoughts and observations ...

Inevitably, someone's going to say that Parker St. is too dangerous to be crossed by a twelve-year-old. As made clear by this incident, that's a fair observation. But, the question is whether it should be. A twelve-year-old ought to be able to cross Parker or Beacon or Washington or Walnut or ...

We should not be forfeiting streets to cars only. Streets can connect or divide neighborhoods. Kids on both sides of Parker go to the same schools. It shouldn't require an adult -- and particularly not a ride from an adult -- to visit a middle-school friend.

Another likely response is to request a crosswalk at Parker and Browning. The address noted in the article as the site of the incident is about 1,000 feet from a crosswalk at Cypress and about 600 feet from a crosswalk at Daniel St. (rough estimates using Google maps to measure). It's simply not reasonable to expect that pedestrians are going to walk 1200 to 2000 ft out of their way to avail themselves of the protection of a crosswalk. Especially not tweens and teens.

But adding a crosswalk is not necessarily the right answer. We already have a cross-walk compliance problem in the city. The crosswalk at Parker and Daniel is heavily used, but you can stand there and wait for up to ten cars to pass before one stops. Adding another crosswalk, which would be lightly used, will just lead to more non-compliance.

The real problem is design. From end-to-end, Parker St. is a ram-rod straight invitation to speed. There is routine police presence nabbing speeders at Parker and Daniel St., but the speeds are high nonetheless. Only traffic calming interventions are going to make a meaningful difference.

Just for fun -- the horse bike

2010-09-12T06:12:00.005-05:00

Riding a bike with these horse accessories wearing full spandex kit will probably make heads explode.

I may wait for the unicorn version.

From Gizmodo.

New bike lanes -- thank you and more please

2010-09-11T06:34:00.003-05:00

This is the north-bound version of new bike lanes on Walnut Street between Homer Street and Commonwealth Avenue, right in front of City Hall.

They are terrific. Any bike lanes, especially on already well-traveled bike routes, are terrific. So, we bike advocates ought to be thankful. We also need to continue the campaign for more bike lanes.

This is a very short stretch on an important north/south corridor. Walnut between Homer and Beacon already has nice wide shoulders, which could be converted to official bike lanes. South of Beacon is a long-contested stretch. The stretch north of Comm. Ave. leads to Newton North, and should be made as bike-friendly as possible to encourage students to ride to school. Homer between Walnut and Centre is being repaved, and should be a candidate for bike lanes. &c.

So, thanks. And more, please.

Soldier Ride -- Labor Day

2010-08-30T06:27:00.003-05:00

Looking for a ride on Labor Day? Check out the Soldier Ride to support the Wounded Warrior Project. Leaves at 10 AM from the North Bridge Visitors Center in Minute Man National Historic Park.

Construction pending in Lower Falls

2010-08-28T05:29:00.006-05:00

Evidence that work is imminent to convert the existing rail bridge in Lower Falls to a pedestrian bridge.

The shot above is from the Wellesley side. The hay bales may be related to also impending construction on the former Grossman's site.

This is a post along the approach from Concord Street.

These are marking on Concord Street at the entrance to the approach to the bridge.

What the hell is going on?

2010-08-27T13:49:00.005-05:00

Updated: As Universal Hub reports, the man who died was a Andrew McAffee, an emergency-room physician and epidemiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital. He was, apparently, riding a scooter, not a motorcycle. The comments to the Universal Hub post include the text of an e-mail sent to hospital staff.

--

Yet another death ~~on Newton streets~~ on Newton-area streets. The TAB/Wicked Local reports a motorcycle rider died in a crash with a car on Beacon Street and Reservoir Road near BC.

Would a seatbelt have saved Adam London?

2010-08-25T15:03:00.004-05:00

Updated: In a follow-on Wicked Local/TAB article, Howard London says his son was speeding:

And he was speeding—I know he was speeding—and he was told not to.

My heart goes out to the London family. I don't think there is anything harder or sadder than burying a child. And, I admire the hell out of Howard London for, so soon after Adam's death, acknowledging that Adam wasn't wearing a seatbelt and promising to promote seat-belt use.

But, when a crash is bad enough, seat belts don't make a difference. Based on the pictures, Adam's was a horrific crash. A seat belt may not have saved him. And, if that's so, it's going to take more to prevent a repeat.

We all need to wear our seat belts. I haven't driven or ridden in a car in probably 20 years without buckling up. But, we also need to get drivers to slow down. And, we need to redesign unsafe streets to make them safer.

TWLTLs have failed on Needham Street, make room for bikes

2010-08-23T06:18:00.003-05:00

Most of the mile of Needham Street is three-lanes: two lanes in each direction sandwiching what is called a two-way left-turn lane or TWLTL. Here's the theory behind a TWLTL. A driver wanting to turn left into one of the abundant driveways along Needham Street pulls into the center lane and waits for a gap in traffic that's going in the opposite direction. Traffic in the same direction can proceed. The turning car doesn't block traffic. And, the turning driver can wait without anxiety until a safe gap for turning appears.

It's a similar theory for a driver making a left turn into traffic. Once the driver has a safe gap in the traffic she's crossing, she can turn into the center lane. From there, she can wait for a gap in the traffic she's joining. The left turn is broken into two elements that don't require simultaneous gaps in both directions.

Great in theory. But, after years of observation on Needham Street, definitely not working in practice. So, the TWLTL is a waste of real estate, real estate that could be put to much better use for bike lanes. No, not bike lanes in the center of the street. Re-stripe to put the travel lanes together and put nice big bike lanes along the curbs.

McDonald's drive-thru is a bellwether

2010-08-22T21:18:00.003-05:00

What does Needham Street want to be when it grows up? Because, right now, it's not one thing or another.

For starters, the Needham Street corridor is one of the economic engines of the city and one of the few areas in the city with real growth potential. But, it is hobbled by some serious traffic issues, many of which stem from -- or are at least exacerbated by -- half-assed, piecemeal development. The city should tread carefully, as decisions made on a lot-by-lot basis may limit what can be accomplished if a vision is ever articulated.

Reasonable people might venture that the best use for Needham Street is to allow or encourage the kind of strip-mall, auto-centric development that exists now. There are already a number of uses that are distinctly auto-centric and pedestrian-unfriendly: drive-in oil-change shop*, a service station, a tire store, and a largish hardware store and lumber yard. Even the uses that could be part of a walkable commercial district are pedestrian-hostile, like the configuration of the New England Mobile Book Fair, International Bicycle Center, and Newbury Comics/Dunkin Donuts**. A drive-thru McDonald's is entirely consistent with the neighborhood.

On the other hand, with the addition of the Avalon apartments and the likely Northland mixed-use development at the west end, it's not just another stretch of strip malls. It's a residential neighborhood. It's now a place that could support -- and be revitalized by -- pedestrian-scaled, walkable commercial areas.

The whole length of Needham Street isn't going to turn into Newbury Street any time soon. But, the parcels nearest to Avalon should certainly be considered for the potential to support a retail streetscape. Adding a drive-thru would make such a streetscape all but impossible.

Again, it's a shame that there is not master plan for the corridor that would allow us to test the drive-thru against a shared vision for Needham Street.

* With another just around the corner on Winchester.

** One of the great missed opportunities in recent years was the failure to have Dunkin Donuts built with a shared parking lot with Newbury Comics. Instead, there are two separate, difficult to use lots with their own curb cuts.

McDonald's drive-thru on Needham Street

2010-08-20T03:43:00.003-05:00

Let's start with the bottom line. There shouldn't be a drive-thru McDonald's on Needham Street.

As a general matter, a drive-thru McDonalds promotes driving and the eating of junk food. We want to reduce both. Arguably, the city shouldn't be in the business of regulating what people eat. But, unquestionably, the city has a role in discouraging bad transportation choices.

The more interesting questions involve the impact on Needham Street. It's troubling that there is no agreed-upon vision of Needham Street that would allow us to say, yes or no, a drive-thru is consistent or inconsistent with the vision. Without such a vision, a proposal like this gets addressed outside any context. And, it's context that makes a drive-thru more or less appropriate for Needham Street.

Drive-thru restaurants are inimical to a pedestrian-scaled, destination-type commercial district, with shared parking and clusters of walkable retail. A drive-thru guarantees a single restaurant surrounded by a sea of asphalt. The restaurant is permanently isolated from other retail establishments, making it unlikely that people will park in one place and shop in a few places. The traffic generated by a drive-thru will make the sidewalk less pedestrian-friendly. In short, a drive-thru restaurant, by design, can never be part of -- and discourages the transformation to -- a walkable commercial district.

To be sure, with a couple of minor exceptions, Needham Street is not a walkable commercial district. But, there is no reason it can't be. The immediate impact of adding a drive-thru is probably limited to additional traffic, provided that plans do not include an additional curb cut. After all, this McDonald's is already an island in a sea of asphalt. But, the long-term impact of a drive-thru is to postpone, probably for decades, any possibility that that stretch of Needham Street becomes a walkable commercial district. And, that's a shame.

Keep in mind this McDonald's neighbors: an enormous apartment complex to one side and an office complex to the other. This is an ideal part of the city for a bunch of dense retail. Imagine that, instead of this one McDonald's on this location, there were two restaurants, with a nice sidewalk (with seasonal outdoor seating) and shared parking. And, some retail in front of Avalon. And, ...

Yup, free parking still costs too much

2010-08-17T14:09:00.003-05:00

Economist Tyler Cowen isn't exactly an early-bird to the party, but he makes the case against free parking in a New York Times column:

Is this a serious economic issue? In fact, it’s a classic tale of how subsidies, use restrictions, and price controls can steer an economy in wrong directions. Car owners may not want to hear this, but we have way too much free parking.

Matt Yglesias had a different take on the problem, comparing free and underpriced parking to Soviet-style price controls:

People generally understand that there were shortages and long lines for things in the Soviet Union because goods weren’t priced according to supply and demand. And people generally understand that, in general, price controls will tend to lead to either gluts or shortages. And yet few people understand that this same principle applies to on-street parking. In many places, it’s hard to find and that’s because it’s not priced properly.

More food for thought.

Unsafe riding will get you killed

2010-08-16T16:47:00.003-05:00

While it's not an open-and-shut case of reckless riding, first person accounts on Universal Hub of the crash that killed 24-year-old swim coach Marly Pineda in Brighton make it highly likely. Not for the feint of heart.

I was the 1st car at the red light looking to go straight onto Kelton Street. There were no cars at the red light coming from Kelton but one was driving from a distance. The light turned green, and just like anyone coming up to a green light, the car just proceeded to drive through the intersection as he should. Right when he got to the cross walk a biker (girl, mid-late 20's) FLEW through the intersection with no caution whatsoever and got SMOKED by the car!

Also here:

I saw it too. Was waiting at the red light on Comm Ave. The driver from Kelton Street didn't have a chance to react. The bicyclist came from nowhere, way too fast down the Comm. Ave hill, and ran the red light. The driver was not going fast, and the driver had the green light.

If these accounts are accurate, the young woman was riding at a good clip, didn't see anyone in a limited field of vision, and went through the intersection, which others describe as among the worst in Boston.

Does it really need to be said? If you're not careful on a bike in traffic you could get killed.

Car hits bike at Horace James Circle

2010-08-16T16:44:00.002-05:00

Fortunately, the cyclist was not badly injured. But, Horace James is not a friendly place for non-motorists.

More on Hammond Pond Parkway and Horace James to come ...

Via Universal Hub.

To every rule, there is an exception -- angry driver edition

2010-08-16T16:39:00.003-05:00

Okay, it's not just the inattentive who pose a risk to cyclists. An angry motorist drove through a Brookline park chasing after a cyclist before being stopped by the police.

Via Universal Hub.

The kids are all right

2010-08-16T10:51:00.002-05:00

Friend of NS&S Andrea Downs has a neat article on boston.com about how four school kids got the town to set a $50 fine for blocking a bike lane. We suggest enforcement start on Beacon Street between Park Drive and St. Mary's Place.

Seems hard to imagine, though, that there wasn't any fine before the lads started lobbying.

Two types of drivers

2010-08-16T10:01:00.001-05:00

One of the best t-shirts I've seen in years:

There are 10 types of people in the world.
Those who get this t-shirt and those who don't.

But, I digress.

From a cynical cyclist's perspective, there are two types of drivers:

Those who hate us
Those who are going to kill us

I had this insight the other day as a commercial van driver in the lane I was in honked at me. The people who get angry at bikes honk, which is tedious. But, the angry drivers are rarely -- in my experience -- the ones who are involved in close calls. Most people just aren't homicidal.

Almost to a person, the people who cut me off, are abjectly apologetic. "Sorry, I just didn't see you." That also seems to be the case in the recent car v. bike incidents where the cyclist was not at fault.

The notion, if generally true, that the inattentive driver, not the hostile driver, is the greater threat to cyclists has important implications for both the we've-just-got-to-get-along crowd and the same streets/same rules approach. The get-along advocates stress the need for mutual respect. But, a lack of respect doesn't make streets unsafe for cyclists, it's a lack of attention. And, there is no logical causal connection between bad cyclist behavior and inattentiveness. It just doesn't make sense that a driver, consciously or otherwise, is going to decide to be inattentive as a response, for instance, to seeing cyclists ride through red lights. ("Damn those two-wheeled scofflaws! Next right turn I take, I'm definitely not looking in my side-view mirror!")

The same streets/same rules advocates suggest that mutual respect for existing rules will make the roads safer and calmer. It's not clear that existing rules prevent conflicts. The driver who ran over a bicyclist on Comm. Ave., for instance, was not cited and the cyclist was blamed though he was engaged in perfectly legal conduct. And, any policy that relies on strict adherence to the laws of the road is bound to fail. Motorists and bicyclists routinely flout the law. (More on that in another post.)

The reality is that bikes and cars are radically different beasts and engage in radically different behaviors on shared roadways. To prevent incidents, we need to do what we can to separate bikes from cars. And, we need both motorists and bicyclists to understand and recognize the opportunities for potential bike v. car conflict and avoid them. The potential bike v. car conflicts are different than car v. car conflicts. The specifics of the rules are almost irrelevant, especially by focusing on the rules that are the same. Ultimately, the same/same philosophy masks or distracts from the need for motorists to engage the road differently than they have before. And, it falsely suggests that law-abiding is all that bicyclists need to do to stay safe.

You don't have to like me. Just don't kill me.

Pedestrian ahead!

2010-08-13T10:15:00.003-05:00

Speed and proximity. They are the two factors that lead to both pedestrian anxiety about and actual bike v. pedestrian conflict. If you are walking and a bike whizzes right by your shoulder, it's disconcerting and unpleasant. A person on foot is highly maneuverable (no momentum) and may dart left or right or stop suddenly without warning. So, there is a high risk of a bad outcome.

People on bikes are bigger than pedestrians -- bike plus biker plus gear -- and less forgiving. And, bikes are faster. Keep in mind that the squared variable in mv² is v, velocity. So, bikes have a special obligation to watch out for and take care of pedestrians when sharing the road (as in crosswalks) or shared paths.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently because, as previously noted, I've been riding the paths along the Charles River to accommodate camp drop-off for Princess NS&S. (I really did get stung, I didn't really give up the bucolic route!) I'm following two simple rules that I encourage others to follow:

Give a wide berth when passing a pedestrian, particularly from behind
If you can't give a wide berth, slow to just faster than the person you're passing

What's a wide berth? Depends on the speed, but at least three feet and ideally five feels right.

What about yelling "On the right/left"? If you need to warn the person you're passing that you're passing, you're going too fast or coming too close. Plus, in my experience, yelling something just heightens the risk that the person will do something unpredictable. (Does he want me to move left? Is he coming on my left?) And, it's just downright annoying.

When I'm riding in traffic and a driver honks just to warn me that he's behind me, it's aggravating. I'm in traffic. I know cars are going to pass, I don't need to be reminded. And, if it's a dangerous situation, slow down until you have room to pass slowly. I feel the same way as a pedestrian among bikers. Get by me safely ... and silently ... or cool your jets.

Finally, the anxiety and risk created by a high speed differential between bikers and pedestrians makes most shared paths a lousy place for faster riders. We should stick to the streets or just take our time.

Sharon Tramer

2010-08-13T01:18:00.003-05:00

I was surprised and saddened to learn yesterday of the death on Monday of Sharon Tramer.

Sharon was a Bike/Ped Task Force stalwart and a regular at our monthly meetings. A lovely woman with a ready laugh, she cared deeply about making Newton better for bicyclists and pedestrians, especially children and the elderly. And, she was optimistic that through hard work and with good intentions we really can make a difference.

Sharon was also active in Newton Safe Routes to School and WalkBoston.

She'll be missed.

WalkBoston sent this e-mail, which includes visiting hour and memorial service information:

We are sorry to share the news of the death of Sharon Tramer, a long-time WalkBoston board member. Sharon passed away on Monday, August 9th, 2010. She was an active advocate, assisting in nearly all of our annual meetings, hosting walks and serving on the Newton Safe Routes to School Taskforce. We remember Sharon warmly as an enthusiastic and supportive contributor at our many events, especially in our early, formative years.

Visiting hours and a memorial service will be held on Friday, August 13 at the Faggas Funeral Home in Watertown at 551 Mt. Auburn Street. Visiting hours are from 1 - 3 and a memorial service from 3 - 5.

We extend our condolences to Sharon's friends and family, and we will miss her.

The Irony of Same Roads, Same Rules

2010-08-12T21:52:00.003-05:00

The Same Roads, Same Rules campaign was prompted in part by the fatal bicycle accident of Eric Michael Hunt last April 7.

Yet Eric's accident illustrates just why the roads are not the same: he apparently got his wheels caught in the trolley tracks.

The same physical road surface is experienced differently by bicyclists than it is by motorists.

The same track or pothole that is scarcely noticeable to a motorist may be fatal to a bicyclist.

Good outcome, wrong mechanism

2010-08-12T09:24:00.005-05:00

So, according to Ted Hess-Mahan*, Land Use co-erced Pie into paying for custom bike racks as a condition of a special permit waiving the parking requirement for more seats:

For its special permit, Pie agreed to pay for custom bike racks in Newton Centre. Check out the fork, knife & spoon. http://bit.ly/conPfy

Good that Newton Centre is getting some more bike racks. The novelty bike racks are fun. There is a nice symmetry here: Pie gets seats not by providing car parking, but bike parking. In fact, it suggests a re-write to the ordinance. Allow the parking requirement to be filled with either car or bike parking.

But, in the end, it really is the city's obligation to provide bike racks. And, a decent outcome doesn't change the fact that the parking requirement is out-dated, counter-productive, and bad for our village centers. Using a bad regulation to coerce a small-business owner to donate a bike rack does not equal good government.

Where are they going to go? That's a narrow sidewalk. (If they could get Bank of America to put them on their property near the drive-thru exit, fabulous.)

*This ~~Tweeter~~ Twitter thing is pretty nifty!

Pie-prosal passes Land Use

2010-08-11T11:40:00.004-05:00

Ted Hess-Mahan tweets:

It took longer than I thought it would, but Newton's Land Use Committee voted to recommend approval of special permits for Fiorella's & Pie.

Don't know what conditions they extracted from Pie, but another step in the direction of sane parking policy (if not actually sane rules).

For those counting at home, that's three parking waivers in Newton Centre in the last several months. The next step is to remove the requirement for a waiver.

The $40K man

2010-08-09T11:53:00.004-05:00

Beyond the jaw-dropping fact that somebody would spend $40,000 in an effort to block bike lanes, there's not much to the Globe story about Eric Berger, the Arlington man who doesn't like that town's plans to make Mass. Ave. more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly. He doesn't think the plans are a good idea. He's spent all that money trying -- unsuccessfully -- to stop them.

Some irony in Berger's claim that the nearby (and parallel) Minuteman trail is so well-established that on-street accommodations on Mass. Ave. are not necessary.

San Francisco adopts demand-based meter pricing

2010-08-09T11:08:00.002-05:00

San Francisco's meter prices will vary based on location and time of day to reflect demand for the spaces. Appears to be the largest-scale implementation of a Donald Shoup's fundamentally simple proposition: too low meter prices lead to sub-optimal use of parking spaces.

Car-free Crystal Lake -- tomorrow from 1 to 4

2010-08-07T08:52:00.006-05:00

Thanks to the good efforts of Alderman John Rice -- and sponsored by the Bike/Ped Task Force, Bike Newton, and the Newtonville Neighborhood Council -- Lake Avenue will be closed to cars and trucks from 1 to 4 tomorrow. (The sign is waiting to fulfill its destiny closing off the street.)

This is the first of a series of street closings John's organizing. Such car-free events are known globally as cyclovia and locally as NewtonStreets (we're flattered!).

So, tomorrow, go out and enjoy Crystal Lake in a whole new way!

Battered Biker Syndrome

2010-08-03T06:08:00.001-05:00

A driver chatting on a cellphone almost hit Jonathan Simmons, the Globe's On Biking columnist. When confronted, she told him he had no business on the road. His response? He wrote a column wondering how biker behavior has contributed to the "road rage" and proposing a 10-point share-the-road pledge, six of which points apply exclusively to bikes and one of which applies only to pedestrians.

Let's break this down. Biker nearly gets killed. Biker promises to make drivers less angry.

These are classic symptoms of someone in an abusive relationship. You harm me or threaten to harm me. It must be something I'm doing. I'll be a better person. Promise.

Suggesting that there is some causal relationship between cyclists' behavior and the woman's potentially fatal actions is just wrong. Let's be clear. There is absolutely no behavior on the part of a cyclist that excuses or explains a motorist putting a cyclist in jeopardy. There is nothing that cyclists do that excuses or explains a motorist being ignorant of cyclists' right to the road.

Nothing.

Certainly, there are cyclists out there doing things that are wrong and things that are technically illegal. Let's identify and address those behaviors. But let's not even suggest that those behaviors somehow justify the anti-bicycle sentiment that's demonstrably out there on the road. Especially -- and this also reflective of abusive relationships -- because of the inherent power differential in the motorist/biker relationship: motorists' attitudes and behaviors can get a cyclist killed or seriously injured.

Perhaps most importantly, its foolish to think that drivers are going to respect cyclists and give them plenty of safe cushion if we could just convince those pesky two-wheeled scofflaws to stop at red lights. Dangerous driving, road rage, and rampant violations of the rules of the road pre-date the recent surge in bicycling. Cyclists have just become another target for the bad actors in our car-dominated culture.

Dangers of off-road bike paths

2010-08-02T20:12:00.004-05:00

After dropping Princess NS&S off at camp at the New Arts Center (she loves it!), for the first time in months, I took the path along the river to get to East Cambridge. My reward: a bee sting.

It can't be coincidence. I'm sticking to the streets!

Summer Reading

2010-08-01T06:54:00.001-05:00

Before I go sit on a beach for a week, I thought I'd provide everyone with some summer reading: 31 resources (web pages, government guidelines, local and state planning documents, peer-reviewed engineering and medical journal articles) about making Newton more bicycle friendly.

(cross-posted at Newton Bikes.)

Critical Mass goes mainstream

2010-07-31T08:15:00.002-05:00

Critical Mass is a self-organizing bike ride held throughout the world in cities; in Boston it happens the last friday of each month, beginning at 5:30 at Copley Square. I have been ambivalent about this ride because of a few bikers who actively antagonize motorists, but what I saw yesterday made me more comfortable about being an open supporter of this fun ride and recurring political statement ("Who's streets? Our streets!").

To explain why, let me start with some observations of the ride yesterday, which by my estimate numbered about 300, and moved from Copley Square through the financial district, over to East Cambridge and down Mass Ave to Harvard Square, over to Allston, down Comm Ave to BU, kenmore square to Brookline Ave and into the Fenway, at which time I peeled off and headed home.

Some observations:
- about 40% female; 60% male.
- youngest I saw was 8 yrs daughter with mom; oldest was a 60 yr old man.
- most honking cars' drivers were smiling.
- only a couple bike-car conflicts - one biker jerk was weaving in front of oncoming auto traffic - giving a bad name for all.
- pedestrians, seated outdoor cafe people, waving, smiling, lots of thumbs up and passing high fives.
- we got a spontaneous boston police escort bringing up the rear; had his lights flashing but no siren. The officer used the bullhorn on a couple occasions to ask the group to stay in the lane, and said THANK YOU!
- Firefighters at a Boston station gave us the thumbs up.
- As many women as men were willing to stand in the intersection to hold traffic while the group passed through.

To summarize, I am seeing lots of smart young people, men and women, for the most part asserting their legal right to the road, not looking for trouble.

Some ask, why friday at rush hour? Isn't this set up to antagonize motorists? I don't think so. If I put all those bikers in cars instead, traffic would be much worse. Friday at 5:30pm is actually a really nice time for a ride and convenient for working people - bikers should not be relegated to the streets when it is inconvenient for them, but convenient for motorists. And a good portion of the ride actually happens past rush hour. The ride is no more unnecessary than the many tourists in cars driving around during the same time.

Is holding the intersection wrong? If so, then there is a double standard, because it is common to do this on the city-sanctioned bike friday convoys.

Define reducing carbon footprint

2010-07-29T10:50:00.002-05:00

Mayor Warren told the newly convened Transportation Advisory Committee, that its mission is to help the city figure out how to reduce its carbon footprint. Completely the right goal, but it has to be very carefully defined.

Are we trying to reduce Newton's overall carbon footprint? Today, some number of tons of CO2 are emitted from Newton's streets every day. Is the goal to reduce that number?

Or, are we trying to maximize Newton's contribution to carbon reduction efforts regionally or, dare we say it, globally?

This is not a trivial question. If the goal is to reduce Newton's carbon output, we'll want to encourage current residents to drive less, a noble and appropriate effort. But, adding residents to the city will inevitably offset any reduction achieved and will probably increase Newton's CO2 output.

But, adding residents to Newton, especially around our transit hubs, would be one of the most environmentally effective things the city could do. Residents who live near transit are likely to produce less carbon than the average Newton resident, lowering our per-person CO2 output. And, residents who live near transit in Newton are likely to produce less carbon than they would living elsewhere in the Boston metro area.

So, what's the measure of our goal?

What Passes for a Traffic Study at Riverside

2010-07-24T04:23:00.003-05:00

In the world of simulation modeling, analysts routinely conduct what is called a sensitivity analysis. For a variable of interest (say vehicle trips in a traffic study), modelers tweak the value of an independent variable (say # of parking spaces) - increasing/decreasing it by some fraction, and evaluate how sensitively the output variable (traffic) responds.

The "Traffic Impact and Access Study" prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. for the developers of Riverside, has a glaring, fundamental flaw: it does not study the impact of number of parking spaces on traffic. This should be one of the FIRST things produced by a traffic study for a proposed development.

The study takes, as a given, the number of prescribed parking spots (2,720), and then estimates vehicle trips (and estimates that they will more than triple the current number of daily vehicle trips!).

Thus, probably the single most direct determinant of traffic is not studied in the traffic study.

At a minimum, this study should be extended to evaluate how the number of daily vehicle trips would change if the number of parking spaces were decreased by, say 1/3rd or 1/2, or increased by those fractions.

Going one step further, involving a glimmer of enlightened thinking about "transit oriented development", the analysis could then estimate how restricted parking would drive more use of the D line, the Commuter Rail from the western suburbs, and buses.

When this study is done, it will show clearly that more parking = more traffic. The number of parking spaces is currently prescribed to almost triple, from 960 to 2720. The number of daily vehicle trips is estimated to more than triple (3.25X, to be exact). This alone paints a picture of the tight relationship between parking and traffic.

In their original statement on the proposed development, the Auburndale Community Association stated as a precondition that no additional traffic could be generated from this development. Today we are facing more than a tripling. The question is whether we meant what we said.

Riverside neighbors need to understand that parking is the key lever on traffic. This is a far more effective focus than to focus on complicated freeway ramps and yet more pavement. More parking does not alleviate the traffic problem; it exacerbates it. The current plan allocates the most space to parking (748,000 sq ft), more than the office space and retail space combined. For "transit oriented development" this makes no sense.

Some Riverside neighbors are concerned that reducing parking in the development increases parking on residential streets. The straightforward solution is to restrict parking on residential streets by time period or to residents only, like they do in Boston.

More Pie (seating)

2010-07-19T08:12:00.008-05:00

In light of my support for the Panera special petition, somebody asked me what the city should do for all the existing restaurants in Newton Centre that have seating limited by the regulations that were waived for Panera. My answer: lift the restrictions on the existing restaurants.

Here's an opportunity to do just that. Pie wants more seats. Four and twenty more ~~blackbirds baked in the pie~~ seats.

They should get them.

We want more restaurants in Newton Centre*. We want the restaurants in Newton Centre to succeed. We want Newton Centre landlords to want restaurants as tenants. Imposing onerous, success-inhibiting parking requirements on restaurants is not the answer, unless the question is how can we get more banks in Newton Centre.

If it turns out that we need more parking, build some shared parking!

*And Newton Highlands. And West Newton. And Newtonville. And Auburndale. And ...

Brookline and Red Sox parking, cont.

2010-07-19T08:04:00.003-05:00

As recommended here and discussed here, Brookline is going to use meter rates to discourage on-street parking for Sox games, or profit from it.

When the rate for parking is too low, you get bad parking (Fenway patrons, not local business customers) and you lose a revenue opportunity. If it costs more than 20 bucks to park in a private garage for the game, why shouldn't be 20 bucks to park on the street?

Gridlock on the Charles

2010-07-18T22:21:00.004-05:00

A little outside the blog's normal scope, but the whole family hit Nahanton Park for the festivities as Charles River Canoe and Kayak celebrated the opening of their latest rental site. It's incredibly exciting that CRCK has made another section of the Charles available to the non-boat opening public. Judging by the crowd, I'm not the only excited one. Word is that Newton's Parks and Rec department was instrumental in making this beautiful stretch of the Charles more accessible.

With a flotilla of three kayaks, Son of NS&S and Princess NS&S took their grandfather on a paddle up between the marshes south of Nonantum Street along Cutler Park. A totally different experience than one gets starting at CRCK's Comm. Ave. or Brighton locations. Beautiful.

Check it out!

Saddest sign in Newton?

2010-07-16T05:32:00.004-05:00

This sign is on Beacon Street at Hammond Street. It rather pointedly reminds us that our new bike lanes come to an end.

Let's get that sign moved! First to Hammond Pond Parkway and then further west.

Bike Safety exhibit at the library

2010-07-14T04:33:00.002-05:00

NS&S contributor Steve Runge has curated a nifty bike safety exhibit at the Newton Free Library. It's on the second floor near the Young Adult desk, just off the main stairs in the front of the building.

Bike there. Check it out. Bike home more safely.

Sorting out what happened on Ward Street?

2010-07-11T05:58:00.003-05:00

Is anybody clear on the basics of the fatal crash this week?

We know, because he's told both the TAB and the Globe, that 81-year-old Detlev Vagts, in his car, hit 54-year-old Marcia Kearney, on her scooter, killing Kearney. But what transpired is murky.

In the TAB, Dan Atkinson reports:

[Vagts] said he was traveling west on Ward Street and Kearney was making a left turn in front of him onto Grant Avenue.

The Grant and Ward intersection is a T; only westbound traffic on Ward can turn left. So, Kearney must have been ahead of Vagts, traveling in the same direction.
The Globe's account:

Vagts was driving on Ward Street past Grant Avenue when he said Kearney’s helmet and body appeared suddenly in front of the car.

‘‘It was too late to stop; she was making a turn from my right to the left,’’ Vagts said. ‘‘It was really shocking to see her lying there.’’

Was he in the process of passing her? Was she riding on the far right and then slowed suddenly to turn?

Lights on Needham Street

2010-07-02T14:11:00.003-05:00

Traffic lights have been installed on Needham Street.

Pics and analysis to come.

Gonna help? Gonna hurt?

Newton Library staff: Read Tom Vanderbilt

2010-07-02T14:09:00.003-05:00

Over on the Newton Reads blog, someone (it's not signed) is recommending Traffic, by Tom Vanderbilt.

Read it. Report back in the comments.

Riverside, headlines, and the rest of the story

2010-07-02T13:06:00.005-05:00

The following is going to run in the TAB next week:

The headline on my op-ed last week -- Roche: Current Riverside proposal all burden, no benefit for Newton -- suggests that I might not have been clear. "All burden, no benefit for Newton" is language that describes the commuter lot at Riverside Station and, by implication, the commuter parking garage included in development designs. Regarding commuter parking, that's the right language. Whatever benefit to the T and commuters of commuter spaces, it is not a benefit that flows to Newton. We only bear the burden.

All burden, no benefit is not, however, language I would use to describe the the overall design. The op-ed focused on one particular, decisive aspect of the development; I did not have space to address the whole development. Forced to render judgment today, I'd probably give a thumbs down. New development plus commuter parking on that scale is going to produce too much traffic. But that doesn't mean that the development would be all burden, no benefit, only that the benefits -- and they are meaningful -- don't outweigh the burdens.

What are the benefits?

Commercial office space -- significant tax revenue with a relatively low services burden. There are no free lunches, but office space served by 128 and an existing T station is a relatively cheap sandwich. And, it's not totally out-of-character with its immediate neighbors -- a hotel and a large office building -- though the bulk is not going to be welcome by residential neighbors.
Dense residential -- immediately on the Green line, very green. The substantial residential component is consistent with Newton's Comprehensive Plan and most welcome, setting aside the impact of adding any children to city schools. (The conflict between the green benefit of dense residential around existing T stations and the legitimate concern that Newton can't afford more school children demands a city/state solution.)
Retail -- potential benefit. There ought to be more retail, to make it more of a walkable district, where many needs are met without a car. But, too much of the wrong sort of retail could just encourage more traffic. In any case, the retail should be better integrated with the residential and office space.
Open space -- pretty good. Apart from the cutesy grove-along-Grove name, the linear park concept is interesting and better than earlier proposals (a sign that the developer is listening and the design is evolving). Frankly, at this site, open space on the site is probably not as important as providing multiple outstanding paths through the site and to the green space around the site. Turn the state-owned green space between Recreation Road and 128 into a park, for instance.
Roundabouts. No matter how much traffic is ultimately generated by the development and whether or not there is direct access from 128, properly-designed roundabouts are going to improve Grove Street.

Not only did I lack space to give a comprehensive review, such a review would have been premature. There is an ongoing process where the developer has been presenting -- and will continue to present -- designs as those designs evolve -- in response to feedback from the community. In fairness to the developer and the process, it would not be fair to render judgment yet. Not until there actually is a proposal.

That process is noteworthy. Unlike any developer on any other project I've seen, this developer has included the community in the design process and responded. One notable example: another activist suggested making the stretch from Grove Street to the new back entrance two-way, making it the entrance also an exit -- a substantial, transforming, unorthodox change. The developer subsequently lobbied a reluctant Mass DOT, and that change is now part of the plan and will substantially reduce the load on the Grove Street entrance. I am aware of no developer on any project of this scope that has or would entertain, much less implement, such a significant change to their plans, in large part because the plans they present the community are final and not really open for real input. (As Chestnut Hill Square and Northland move forward, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.)

One only hopes that the developer will push to get rid of the commuter parking!

Not so happy pavement markings

2010-07-02T10:42:00.001-05:00

These are the pavement markings I mentioned on Monday, marking out where last week a Newton man drove over the double-yellow line and crashed into and killed a Chelsea man. This is looking west, with the eastbound lane to the left. Presumably, "POI" means point-of-impact. The path of fluid west and then into the westbound lane is, as I understand it, the path of the dead man's mini-van, post-collision.

Here's a picture looking the other direction, into the westbound path of the Newton driver. There don't appear to be any skid marks in front of the POI box. (I took these pictures on Tuesday.)

What if there were zero additional parking at Riverside?

2010-07-01T21:50:00.007-05:00

GaryR was audacious enough to raise this question in a comment on an earlier post. Let's entertain that seemingly crazy idea for a moment. Where would all the office workers have to come from? Let's see - it would be very difficult to drive there. Hmm. What other form of transport could one use? The green line?

The Green Line! (Also the Auburndale Commuter Rail stop, 10 min by foot from Riverside.)

All the empty morning reverse commute trains from Lechmere/Govt Center to Riverside would start to fill up with reverse, PAYING, commuters. Boston would see a revitalized real estate market, with new young professionals seeking rentals or condos in Boston, Brookline - heck, maybe even Newton - as a home base. Newton would be growing a healthy connection with Boston and itself along the D line corridor, rather than an unhealthy connection with sprawling exurbia. Riverside development would nurture the T, not I-95.

Is it not in the MBTA's best interests to promote T ridership, especially on empty trains that are returning anyway? Must we serve the exurbs rather than Newton-Brookline-Boston to fill office space with workers? What kind of exurban development pressure would the MBTA be further promoting by increasing parking so massively? Why wouldn't limited parking promote jobs for Newtonites (or relocating ones) right here in Auburndale or Lower Falls, or a couple stops down the line, raising local property values?

Is GaryR's question so crazy after all?

How 'bout them bike lanes!

2010-07-01T21:38:00.007-05:00

That's my personal favorite part of the new bike lanes on Beacon Street: the shift of the center line, the left-turn lane, and the westbound travel lane to make room for the westbound bike lane. (That's Hammond Street at the top of the picture.) Before the bike lanes, there was rarely room for a bike if traffic was queued at the light. Now, there's plenty of room. (Biker's beware, the bike lane doesn't render drivers magically attentive. Watch out for right-turning traffic!)

The next shot shows more or less shows the entire stretch of bike lane. (This one needs to be seen in full size. Go ahead and click on it and come back.) The seam in the foreground is the Boston/Newton line. The crest of the hill where the bike lanes vanish is Hammond Street, where the bike lanes actually end. It's kind of depressing that Newton's entire inventory of bike lanes can be captured in a single photo. But, you've got to start somewhere!

This is what you see heading eastbound, crossing over Hammond. To the left, in the westbound lane, you can see how the lane routes around the bus stop, to avoid conflict with the frequent BC shuttle buses.

Finally, just for fun, this is the golden spike of our regional bike lane network, the point where the Newton-applied stripe overlaps the Boston-applied.

Helmet counts

2010-07-01T21:25:00.003-05:00

Last week riding home from East Cambridge (hard by the Lechmere Station) to NS&S HQ in Newton Centre, I decided to count the helmet status of every rider I saw. Keeping in mind that it was a highly unscientific count (with a substantial bit of unreliability about my keeping the count correctly), the outcome was 66 with and 33 without. I wouldn't have had a prediction before I started, but it seems disappointingly low.

What did strike me was that the count was pretty close to even until I got to Coolidge Corner. It seems Newton folks are less helmet-averse. (Actually, it's probably that riders in Newton were more likely commuters than the quick-trip riders, especially near the colleges/universities I passed on the early part of the ride).

Also, a sartorial note. I did not see a single person in bike kit (bike shorts* and/or bike-specific shirts) without a helmet. Say what you will about the spandex-clad, they know what protects the noggin!

*Counting only those in bike shorts only. Yours truly and many others, I presume, wear bike shorts under regular shorts. No way to know who they are.

Princess NS&S on crosswalks

2010-07-01T21:15:00.003-05:00

I know this sounds too contrived to be true, but six-year-old Princess NS&S volunteered the following out of the blue this morning:

Daddy, you know what is also a safety zone? The lines in the street that you walk across.

Needless to say, she's not crossing the street by herself until she's had a little skepticism pounded into her. (Don't call DSS. I mean it figuratively.)

Again, though, her comments illustrate the appeal of street markings. They suggest a comfort zone that people want and expect in complete streets. The trick is to figure out how to make bike accommodations and crosswalks actual safety zones.

Call to action -- lower speed limits

2010-07-01T21:01:00.006-05:00

Be prepared to make a call!

Representative Kay Khan showing her value to the city and state has co-sponsored a bill to lower the prevailing speed limit to 25 MPH (from 30 MPH). That change will affect all roads without a specifically set speed limit and allow municipalities (like Newton!) to lower the speed limit on most roads without the cost, headache, and ultimate futility* of a state waiver.

This is a no-brainer. Call/e-mail/visit Chairman Vincent Pedone, House Committee on Bills in Third Reading. Contact info below. (House Committee on Bills in Third Reading? If I'd ever finished a Kafka novel, I'd probably say that sounds Kafka-esque!)

Thanks, Kay!

Here are the deets:

House Bill #4728

An Act Relative to Speed Limits

Lead Sponsor: Representative Denise Provost, Co-Sponsor: Kay Khan and others

How this bill changes existing law

Currently, speed limits on local roads are not set locally. Lowering a speed limit on a local road below 30mph requires state approval (MGL Ch. 90:18), and is based on a study of actual speeds of vehicles using the road.
Local petitions to lower speed limits currently must be made road by road, case by case, and the community bears the cost of each speed study.
H.4728 would lower the prevailing speed limit – the presumed speed limit “unless otherwise posted” – on local roads, in commercial districts, and densely settled residential districts, from 30mph to 25 mph.

Why lower the prevailing speed limit in urbanized areas from 30 mph to 25 mph?

At 30 mph, almost half (45%) of pedestrians struck by an automobile are killed; 50% are injured, leaving 5% that escape death or injury.
Lower speeds encourage yielding to pedestrians, watching for bicyclists, and increase the reaction time for drivers to respond to road conditions.
For every 1 mph reduction in speed, there is a reduction in vehicle collisions by 5% and a larger reduction in pedestrian fatalities.
Consider: A 10 mph reduction in the speed from 30 to 20 mph; Pedestrian-automobile accident fatalities drop from 45% to 5%.

Where is this bill now?

H.4728 was reported favorably out of the Joint Committee on Transportation and House Ways & Means. The bill, which has the support of Highway Commissioner Luisa Paiewonsky, is currently in the House Committee on Bills in Third Reading awaiting further action.

Call or Write TODAY to:

Chairman Vincent Pedone, House Committee on Bills in Third Reading
Room 20, State House, Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-2410
Email: Rep.VincentPedone@hou.state.ma.us

*Here's how I understand it. If you want the speed limit lowered in your neighborhood, you petition the city to petition the state. If the city decides to petition the state, a speed study is done and an 85th percentile speed determined. The 85th percentile speed is the speed above which only 15 percent of drivers drive. Here's the irony. If the 85th percentile speed is above 30 -- which might be the case if people are zooming down your sleepy residential street -- it works against you. The 85th percentile speed is presumed to be a safe speed, so there's no reason to lower the limit.

High prevailing speeds are a reason not to lower a speed limit. How 'bout them apples?!

Auburndale II - A Potential Green Mini-Corridor

2010-07-01T08:59:00.010-05:00

The heart of Auburndale Village was ripped up and exposed by the Mass Pike decades ago; yet the remnants along Auburn Street maintain a stubborn vibrancy against raw exposure to I-90. There is a great opportunity for development that restores a cozy village feel, provides an acoustic barrier and environmental health benefit, and, with excellent south-facing exposure, has excellent solar photovoltaic and green wall/green roof potential. Oh yeah, and provide Americans with Disabilities Act - accessible access (currently lacking!) to the Auburndale Commuter Rail Station, subsidized by the development. It utilizes currently unused and unvalued space, with existing building size and setback precedents that provide proof-of-concept. Here is an example of smart development that Riverside could take a page from.

What is wrong with this picture?

2010-06-30T08:07:00.002-05:00

Imagine two city-owned parcels of land side-by-side. One is impermeable asphalt, useful only for parking a car. The other is a verdant lawn, suitable for a host of healthy, recreational activities.

Which one should the city charge residents to use? Which one does the city charge residents to use?

The parcels in question are the Crystal Lake parking lot and the recently acquired picnic area next to it. It's free to park your car, but you have to pay to use the lawn.

Baffling policy.