Beacon Street is enormously varied in width. This causes some real problems with striping a shoulder for bikes.
If you stripe a consistent (car) travel lane—as the city did in its striping trial—you end up with shoulders that are so wide, motorists confuse them for travel lanes. If you stripe a consistent shoulder, you end up with an inconsistent width travel lane, which is also problematic.
So, which is it? Consistent shoulder width or consistent lane width?
How 'bout both!
Work from the outside, in. Consistent shoulder width (4 ft., I believe). Consistent travel lane (14 ft.). Where the curb-to-curb distance is greater than 36 feet, create a painted "island" with diagonal yellow stripes.
Eventually, when the road is repaved again, the city could make the road width consistent (one hopes with separated bike lanes east of Newton Centre), adding to the grass berm. Or, maybe turn the paint islands into real, landscaped islands.
That would be cool.
Another possibility is to create a buffer between the shoulder and the travel lane.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Beacon St. islands
Friday, August 24, 2007
Route 9 at Winchester/Centre
This is a rough idea of what I proposed for Route 9 and Winchester/Centre Street. Click on the picture for a larger version.
- Add a Two-Way Left Turn Lane, like what's on various parts of Needham Street.
- Add an island on the westbound ramp. (It's the triangle on the top.) The purpose of this island is two-fold:
- Create a single lane for turning left. You'd be amazed how often aggressive drivers will go around a waiting car's right than turn left across the front of the waiting car.
- Create a pedestrian refuge.
- Add an island on the eastbound ramp. (It's the diamond on the bottom.) This island also has two purposes:
- Create a a pedestrian refuge.
- Manage conflicting traffic at the bottom of the ramp.
The diagram doesn't show the improvements to sidewalks— especially the crummy sidewalk on the existing island on the east side of Centre Street—and narrowing the Curtis Street intersection.
Previously:More Needham Street (area) thoughts
Alderman Fischman on Needham Street
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Kids PMC ride in Newton
Here is something I didn't know anything about. There's a Kids PMC ride around the Wells Avenue Office Park on September 16th.
Anybody want to sponsor son or daughter of NS&S?
Parking in the Globe
If you're coming here from the Globe, welcome. What did you think of my op-ed? Leave a comment.
If you didn't see it, I have an op-ed in the Globe today in which I argue that on-street parking is too cheap in Boston.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
More Needham Street (area) thoughts
Is there any reason for the enormous crossing at Curtis and Winchester? I have (inelegantly) added lines to represent the curb lines in the picture above.
In addition to a roundabout at Christina and Needham, why not a roundabout at Winchester and Needham, too? Plenty of space. A roundabout could improve traffic flow through the intersection.
It looks like the Skipjacks renovation includes removing the parking spaces from in front of the restaurant and adding a little greenery instead. The lot between Skipjacks and International Bike now looks plenty big enough to house the very complementary parking needs of IBC and Skipjacks. Maybe IBC could be persuaded to share the lot, green up its front lot, and get rid of some curb cuts.
In fact, they could both use the eastern Avalon curb cut and have customers enter the parking lots from the back side.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Before this week's TAB comes out ...
A few comments on things from last week's TAB.
Five of the letters to the editors touched on traffic or transportation.
Responding to Jim Feldman's op-ed about bike accommodations in Newton (or the lack thereof), Leonard Wolfe wrote a letter chastising bicycle riders for their smugness and their lack of attention to pedestrians (last letter on the page). Mr. Wolfe has been hit by bikers twice and nearly hit another two times ... in the last year! There's no excuse for that. Bikers have to yield to pedestrians and be on the lookout for them. In a sense, bikers need to protect pedestrians.
It's really a shame that pedestrians view bikers with such hostility. Pedestrians and bikers should be natural allies. Bikers need to rehabilitate their image.
Mark Lichtenstein asked if Langley is ever going to be repaved (fourth letter on the page). Answer: Yes. In September.
Cara Lichtenstein uses the occasion of Alderman Mitch Fischman's op-ed on Needham Street to urge support for Senate bill 2029 and House bill 3694, which would relieve the MBTA of much of its debt (third letter on the page).
I have a letter about the Comprehensive Plan (first letter) and Barry Bergman has a follow-up to Adam Peller's letter from the week before (which was a response to Mr. Bergman's letter about my stop sign op-ed).
Those are a lot of traffic-related letters.
And, Chrissie Long has a long article about the Woodland Road speed tables. The article ends with a quotation from an admitted speeder who wishes more were done to educate Lasell College students to wear brighter clothing.
The guy has lived in the neighborhood for 21 years, knows that Lasell College kids cross the street—in dark clothing, and yet he still drives "maybe a little too fast down that road."
Is there any better explanation for why we need to lower roadway design speeds?
Beacon Street observations
Two interesting sights on Beacon Street from my ride in this morning.
The first was truly moving: a mother and two children crossing Washington Street on their bikes. A boy of about 7 was on a tag-a-long behind his mother and a nine-ish girl was on her own bike. What made it moving were the crutches strapped to the tag-a-long. They were clearly not temporary. It seems that the boy has some sort of disability. But, regardless of the disability, the family was biking to its destination. And, the crutch set up looked like riding was a reasonably frequent event.
Inspiring. If only more able-bodied children were encouraged to bike and walk!
The second was an automatic pedestrian detector on a mid-block crosswalk between Fairbanks and Marion Streets (I think). An automatic pedestrian detector, as the name implies, automatically detects a person about to enter a crosswalk and triggers a pedestrian crossing cycle.
I'm a little skeptical of technical solutions at crosswalks out of concern for the false negative, a pedestrian entering the crosswalk without having pushed the button or tripped the sensors. Obviously, the point of these automatic detection systems is to lower the false negatives by eliminating the need to have the pedestrian do anything. But, I wonder about having to rely on technology that can malfunction, especially when it can take a while for broken things to get fixed.
If the technology proves out, I think the automatic detection systems make a lot sense on busy roads, like Beacon Street. On busy roads, it's not appropriate to lower speeds for all traffic to pedestrian-friendly speeds. And, pedestrian-detection means that traffic flow is only interrupted when there's actually a pedestrian.
Apart from the cost, I don't think such a system makes sense on more residential streets. The point of traffic calming on side streets is to lower traffic speeds overall, not just when a pedestrian needs to cross. Pedestrian-actuated signals, automated or not, send the signal that motorists only have to slow when there is a pedestrian ready to cross. And, that's the wrong message.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Why stop?
I've argued against stop signs as traffic calming from what I'll call the random-compliance angle. If you put up stop signs where there is no right-of-way conflict to manage:
- Pedestrians will rely on the stop signs and expect that traffic will stop.
- Some motorists will recognize the stop signs as unnecessary and will not stop.
The combination of reliance by one party and non-compliance by another party has the potential for injury or worse.
But, there's another angle. Let's call it the excess-compliance angle.
The purpose of traffic calming is to slow traffic, not stop it. (This is not the case on our busier streets and intersections.) Sufficiently slowed traffic has time to stop for pedestrians. Pedestrians have enough time to react to traffic. Motorists are better able to stop for crosswalks, making crosswalks more useful for pedestrians. Slowing traffic reduces the severity of injury and the risk of death.
Our neighborhoods don't need to stop traffic flow to enjoy these benefits. Pedestrian traffic, while it should be a priority, is rarely as heavy as car traffic. (Not that we wouldn't like it to be!) Outside of school time, crosswalk crossings are especially infrequent.
It's unreasonable to bring every car to a full stop just so we can make conditions ideal for those occasions when there is a pedestrian.
The point of traffic calming is to balance traffic flow with pedestrian safety, convenience, and comfort. Appropriate traffic calming measures allow traffic to flow at a reasonable pace ... except when there is a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Stop signs stop the flow of traffic all the time, regardless of actual need to stop.
Which brings us back to the random-compliance problem. Non-compliance stems from the motorist's intuitive—and correct—understanding that a stop-sign is not needed to resolve a right-of-way conflict and that it is overkill to address pedestrian issues.
Why stop traffic when you don't have to?
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Livable streets v. passive safety
Laurence Aurbach on his Ped Shed site provides an invaluable framework for understanding the safety benefits of traffic calming .
The post, entitled Connectivity Part 7: Crash Safety, is too rich with information and insight to summarize adequately. I encourage everyone to read it in full.
One piece of Aurbach's analysis is useful in terms of addressing an objection to the the proposed Daniel/Jackson Street intersection redesign: the concern that that the proposed bumpout creates a new danger for motorists.
Aurbach compares two approaches to traffic safety (search for "safety first"). On one hand are the passive safety advocates, on the other are the livable (or complete) streets advocates. (Aurbach draws heavily on the work of Eric Dumbaugh's Safe Streets, Livable Streets: A Positive Approach to Urban Roadside Design (2005)).
Here's Aurbach on passive safety:
Passive safety assumes that driver error is random and impossible to predict, removes human judgment from the equation, and treats safety in a similar manner as structural engineering.
[...]
Passive safety calls for reducing all physical conditions that could conceivably be involved in traffic crashes. It means that anything drivers might crash into, like street trees, benches, parked cars and intersections, should be cleared away and minimized as much as possible. Guidelines based on the passive safety philosophy make livable streets difficult or impossible to construct.
In their objections to the bumpout, Barry Bergman and Neal Fleisher have made comments in a passive-safety vein. Mr. Bergman has said that the bumpout at the bottom of a hill introduces a new risk. Mr. Fleisher has said that the tighter confines of a redesigned intersection will lead to more accidents. Update: Mr. Fleisher rejects the characterization. See his comment to this post.
Livable Streets advocates, those that promote roadway design that enhances the pedestrian experience, argue that the additional potential hazards of livable streets—like the proposed bumpout—encourage drivers to exercise more caution, which reduces speeds, which reduces accidents.
The key factor in crash risk is design speed. Design speed is the speed at which drivers feel comfortable traveling; it is an entirely different concept than posted speed limits, which drivers usually feel are safe to exceed. Thanks to context, slow speeds prevail on livable streets. Drivers drive more slowly because the context signals the type of activity, amount of activity, and potential hazards that can be expected. Drivers “read” the context of livable streets and are impelled to exercise more caution.
Conversely, idiot-proof roadsides foster the illusion of safety and encourage speeding and lack of attention. High speed plus a lack of caution increases crash risk.
If you design to avoid or eliminate the risks that concern Messrs. Bergman and Fleisher, you make it comfortable for motorists to speed. And, they will.
Slower speeds are safer speeds. And, it's not just theory:
Traffic crash reports from a variety of countries are furnishing evidence that more pedestrian-oriented intersections, cities and regions are safer.
While I have a personal interest in the Daniel/Jackson intersection problem, the point here isn't just to promote my favored design. (Actually, it's my second favorite, but the City scotched the mini-roundabout.) I think that there is a larger point.
We need to recognize that the goal of traffic calming is to trigger the driver's immediate self-interest* to slow down. Stop signs don't trigger that immediate self-interest unless the stop sign is on an intersection where the motorist, by not stopping, risks hitting another car if he doesn't stop. Lowered speed limits don't trigger immediate self-interest because drivers respond to design cues in determining what's a safe speed, especially on roads they are familiar with.
We need to redesign our problem roadways to make drivers unwilling to drive fast.
*I say immediate self-interest because the threat of a ticket is too low to be a factor in driver attitude. The police couldn't do enough enforcement to permanently change driver behavior. There are frequent speed traps on Parker Street, for instance. Yet, Parker Street rarely moves at or below the speed limit.
Bergman on the bumpout
Barry Bergman has another letter in the TAB today about the Daniel/Jackson Street intersection redesign. (The letter is the sixth one down. Do read the first one, too.). Here's Mr. Bergman's letter in full:
I disagree with Adam Peller’s comments in his Aug. 8 letter regarding the design of the Daniel/Jackson Street project. The placement of the proposed bumpout, which has not yet been fully tested by the city, has been designed in a manner that deflects westbound Jackson Street traffic southbound rather than allowing it to continue through to Parker Street. If the purpose of the bumpout is for slowing down traffic, maybe traffic-calming measures should be instituted along a bigger section of Jackson Street rather than building a dangerous obstruction at the bottom of a long hill.
As Mr. Bergman knows, the City has responded to his and others' criticisms about the adequacy of previous trials by agreeing to do another, more complete round of testing after school begins. It's ironic that while Mr. Bergman has demanded—and will receive—further testing to validate the City's assumption that the Daniel/Jackson intersection redesign will not materially deflect traffic, he continues to press his hypothesis that, by his own standard, is also untested. Mr. Bergman makes a similar deflection point in his comment to my response to his first letter to the TAB (fourth letter on the page).
The planned trial is going to answer the deflection question. If there's material, unacceptable deflection down lower Jackson and onto Walter Street, then it seems pretty clear we'll be back to the drawing board.
I addressed in detail Mr. Bergman's concern that the bumpout, at the bottom of the hill, constitutes a danger. To summarize: the beauty of the bumpout is that every motorist is going to share Mr. Bergman's concern about the danger of going too fast through the intersection and slow down. Slower traffic is safer traffic!
Finally, Mr. Bergman is absolutely right about the need for traffic calming at other locations along the Daniel/Jackson cut-through. There should be something on Daniel to address eastbound traffic that goes too fast. There should be a raised intersection at the corner of Cypress and Jackson. There should be other measures to address other spots of concern. (While not strictly on the Daniel/Jackson cut-through, but in the near neighborhood, the corner on Cypress near the school merits some immediate attention.)
The need for other traffic calming, however, doesn't reduce the need for traffic calming at the Daniel/Jackson Street intersection to address very serious problems that are specifically attributable to the intersection's current design.
Let the trial begin!
Previously: Daniel Street Stop Sign
Why is handicap parking free?
I know that this one's going to get me into trouble, but here goes ...
In response to a Globe report on handicap parking-placard abuse, I wrote a letter to the editor that placard abuse stems, at least in part, from parking scarcity and too-low meter rates. (Full letter below.)
Thinking about it some more, I realized that there is another contributing factor: the free-ness of handicap parking.
Let me get one item out of the way. I am absolutely in favor of plentiful, convenient handicap parking. People with limited mobility absolutely have a right to park close to their destinations. I would not remove a single existing handicap space, on-street or off-.
But, there's no reason at all that handicap parking should be free. More precisely, there's no reason that handicap parking should be priced any differently than other spaces. If there were no difference between the price of handicap parking and other spaces, you'd remove one of the incentives for placard abuse.
Before you, dear reader, curse me for my insensitivity to the people who deservedly make use of handicap parking spaces, ask yourself this: why is it that parking—alone among all other aspects of private vehicle ownership and use—has a different fee for handicap and non-handicap users?
As far as I can tell:
- "Disabled" license plates cost the same as "normal" plates -- issue fee and renewal. ("Disabled" and "normal" are Registry terms, not mine.)
- All drivers pay the same rate for class D licenses.
- There is no Fast Lane discount on the Turnpike.
- There are no discounts for car purchase, gasoline, or other costs of driving
So why should there be a discount for handicap parking?
To be sure, if you put meters on handicap spaces, they are still more attractive because of their relative availability compared to regular spaces. But that's because all meter rates are too low. Higher rates would create regular vacancies and further diminish the distinct value of handicap spaces.
My full letter to the Globe:
There's no question that the abuse of handicap parking placards is a story of appalling immorality. But, it is also a story of parking scarcity and the poor management of the city's parking assets.
Metered on-street parking is scarce—in part—because the meter rates are so low. High off-street parking rates and the illegal ends people are willing to go to secure on-street parking tells us that the market will bear higher, market-based meter prices for on-street parking. Properly set market-based parking rates would create regular parking vacancies, reduce cruising for parking, and generate revenue that could be used in the immediate business district.
Market-based meter rates won't prevent handicap parking placard abuse, but it would remove one proffered excuse: that there are just no other spaces available.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Time for tolls on I-93
The Globe's reporting a likely toll increase on the Turnpike to pay Big Dig costs.
Higher, peak-priced tolls on the 'Pike would be welcome (with standard caveats about managing the impact on the complex transportation infrastructure).
But, it's insane that I-93 remains a free ride, especially given that technology exists to charge vehicles without erecting a single tollbooth.
Previously:
Peak pricing on the 'pike
Integrated traffic strategy
No pike toll, increased gas tax
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Langley Road bump out construction
This is an admittedly poor quality picture of construction of the Langley Road bump out.
The yellow ditch-digging truck's left-front wheel is parked where the sidewalk will extend into the street. Today a truck tire, tomorrow (or shortly thereafter) a school kid.
Speed tables up on Woodland Road
NS&S neighbor Adam reports that the speed tables are up on Woodland Road and that they are "beautiful."
Previously: Speed tables coming to Woodland
Alderman Fischman on Needham Street
In a TAB op-ed this week, Alderman Fischman has identified a number of traffic/pedestrian problems on Needham Street. It's not a tough challenge. Needham Street is a mess.
Here are my thoughts on four of them. I might address others later, but these are four I've thought a lot about.
Route 9
Strictly speaking, Alderman Fischman has identified a problem on Centre/Winchester streets and Route 9, not Needham Street and Route 9. (I'm not clear where Winchester starts and Centre ends.)
I've written about this problem on the NS&S wiki.
My recommendations are fairly simple:
- Better define the area under the bridge to create a middle turning lane, as is on Needham Street. There's plenty of room for a third lane. Unlike Alderman Fishman, I think the two-way left-turn lanes (TWLTL) on Needham Street help.
- Create islands at the intersection of the two ramps on the east side, to direct traffic better and to provide a pedestrian haven
- Generally improve the quality of the sidewalks from Walnut Street to Needham Street
Dunkin' Donuts
Here's a land-use problem that has serious traffic implications. Dunkin' Donuts and the next-door Newbury Comics have complimentary usage patterns. Most notably, Newbury Comics is closed during Dunkin's morning rush. Together, the two stores have need for maybe three-quarters of the combined spots. Yet, antiquated zoning and thinking result in two side-by-side businesses each with its own parking lot and its own curb cut.
The Dunkin' Donuts building is on the east side of the lot, oriented to the west, with parking to the west. Any of an number of settings would have been preferable. Imagine if the Dunkin' Donuts building were on the front of the lot, oriented to the street, parking in the Newbury Comics lot and behind the Dunkin' Donuts building, with access to parking through the existing Newbury Comic curb cut. You'd have a much more usable lot and one fewer curb cut. Throw in a couple of tables in front, and you have the start of a nice pedestrian way.
The Draft Comprehensive Plan would discourage just the kind of building that was built and encourage the kind of set up I've laid out as an alternative.
But, the building's built. What can be done now? Two, relatively cheap steps:
- Encourage Newbury Comics and Dunkin Donuts to work out an arrangement for shared parking in the two lots (Newbury Comics probably doesn't need the extra space in the Dunkin' lot)
- Build a sidewalk along the two properties that more clearly defines a path between the Newbury Comics lot and Dunkin' Donuts entrance and prevents/discourages parking on the sidewalk
Starbucks/Marshall Mall
It's important to recognize that this is probably the least bad part of Needham Street. While set back a little too far, the Pizzapalooza and Starbucks stores are at least oriented to the street with a nice, usable patio in front. While attached to a very problematic strip mall, Fresh City has outdoor seating, too. (The continued existence of outdoor dining here is proof positive that, as with Route 9, we shouldn't turn our backs on Needham Street as a pedestrian boulevard.) It's appropriate that there is a pedestrian crossing here.
Side note: Neither Starbucks or Pizzapalooza have a bathroom. When Family NS&S dines at Pizzapalooza and one of the two kids (3-1/2 and 6) have to use the facilities, Fresh City is the closest option. We use that pedestrian crossing and are very familiar with the lack of motorist compliance.
Alderman Fischman proposes a signal. I don't. If we put up lights at a handful of special crossings, we dilute the effectiveness of standard crosswalk markings and signs. We need to make it clearer that pedestrians have the right of way.
This would be a perfect place for a raised crosswalk. A raised crosswalk would:
- Alert motorists to expect pedestrians.
- Slow motorists so that they can more easily stop for pedestrians
- Undoubtedly create some breaks in traffic for cars exiting and entering Needham Street in the vicinity
- Slow traffic generally
- Be a much cheaper alternative to a signal
I wouldn't put in just one. I'd put two or three more down the length of Needham Street, including one near McDonalds and the Avalon entrance.
I should note that a raised crosswalk can be designed with a fairly shallow approach angle, so traffic doesn't need to slow to a crawl, but to a reasonable speed for this section.
While I rarely think enforcement is a long-term answer to traffic problems, this is one area where I think it could help. The City needs to ticket people who don't stop for pedestrians. This will help educate people that crosswalks are special places.
If we get to the happy situation of so much pedestrian crossing that traffic can't pass, then, and only then, we should rethink a light.
Christina/Oak Streets and Charles River Bridge
It helps to understand the problem. And, again, this is one with which I am more than passing familiar. For that last six years, I have passed through this section on a nearly daily basis to take the children of NS&S to day care and the summer camp bus stop.
As Alderman Fischman points out, this intersection has an awkward offset. The two streets -- Oak and Christina -- that join Needham are not directly opposite each other. When a four-way intersection has no offset, two left-turning cars going in opposite directions approach each other head on. This gives room to traffic passing through to pass to the right of the turning cars. Traffic flows around the left-turning cars until there's a gap to make the turn.
Because of the Oak/Christina offset, approaching left-turning cars can't stop facing head on. Instead, they have to go past each other. Waiting for a gap, they are tail-to-tail, not face-to-face. Having to go past each other makes it difficult for through traffic to get by, which further reduces opportunities for gaps. It's a mess.
A separate left-turn signal would only help the problem if there were room for a separate left-turn lanes on Christina and/or Oak. There isn't room. The room that's there is used to allow right-turning traffic to turn onto Needham, which is, after all, the major road. If you had a left-turn signal, left-turning traffic could get stuck behind traffic heading over Needham.
What's needed here is a roundabout, provided there's sufficient right-of-way. A roundabout would cure the problem caused by the offset. Regardless of you're eventual destination, everybody goes right to join the roundabout. And, everybody turns right to get out of the roundabout. Traffic in the intersection wouldn't compete as it does now.
A roundabout would also have two happy collateral benefits. It would slow traffic to a reasonable speed as motorists entered the commercial district. And, it would keep traffic flowing more efficiently than a traffic signal.
