Author: WalkMassachusetts

Comments on Policy of Guidelines for Outdoor Café within Public Ways

Comments on Policy of Guidelines for Outdoor Café within Public Ways

WalkBoston comments to the Boston Public Improvement Commission regarding:

“A Policy of Guidelines for Outdoor Café within Public Ways, Effective: September 1, 2017”

Submitted August 24, 2017

We would be happy to meet with PIC or other City staff to review and discuss our comments.

1. Pleased that new regulations will allow alcohol to be served on the “far side” of the sidewalk– a good change for the liveliness of the City.

2. Interesting and good to allow the expansion onto the curb and street areas—Curbline and Roadway seating. Again this creates new opportunities.

3. Technical issue: 2f should refer to the seating located within the restaurant’s property, not only that located within the City’s sidewalks. I think they have to approve both.

4. Technical issue: 14 should say “planters and their contents” because a lot of cafes have plant material hanging out far—even up to a foot. That subtracts that distance from the walking right of way.

5. Regulations should provide a simple table that indicates which department is responsible for different elements of the regulations – it might clarify that there are still many, many actors in the process.

6. Minimum dimension for path of travel 4 feet, preferred minimum is 6 feet – exclusive of street furniture or any other obstructions. Minimum should be 5 feet unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

7. Minimum sidewalk dimension to allow any cafe should be at least XXX feet – to ensure adequate POT plus dimension for café. The City should make this determination before finalizing the guidelines.

8. Modify the rule that the café should not occupy more than 50% of the sidewalk because that may not be appropriate for wide areas and may be insufficient for narrow sidewalks where there should be no café at al (see #2 above).

9. Require a minimum of 15 business days of notice for review by the public, and require that the plans available electronically so that upon request they can be reviewed by the public (much as the way in which BPDA now posts filings on line).

10. The cafe must be removed from the sidewalk when not in continuous use. The season can extend beyond May-September, but the cafe equipment and furnishings must be removed from the sidewalk if they are not used for more than ten days.

11. Set a schedule for fees and permitting costs – may be based on size, location, restaurant revenues, etc. but should be transparent.

12. Provide opportunities for pop up cafes for short-term (1-5 days) use.

13. Set a schedule and program for enforcement, including a point person for responding to public complaints when cafes are not following the rules (see attached photo).

Café of Restaurant XXXX on Tremont Street in the South End, little action taken after reported earlier this summer. We include this as one example where encroachment is taking place without being addressed.
Vision Zero Letter to Mayor Walsh

Vision Zero Letter to Mayor Walsh

August 15, 2017

Mayor Marty Walsh
Boston City Hall
Boston, MA 02201

Dear Mayor Walsh -­

Thank you for meeting with us last week to discuss Vision Zero and how we can work together to make our streets better for everyone.

We look forward to continuing the conversation with you on a walk, a bike ride and a bus ride in the coming months. In the meantime, we’ve outlined next steps discussed in the meeting:

1. Confirm your availability for World Day of Remembrance (WDR) on November 19, 2017. WDR is an international day of remembrance for victims of traffic violence. In Massachusetts WDR is organized by the Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition and includes a rally with speaking program on the steps of the State House, usually including families or victims of traffic violence and others. We hope you will join us at the event and give brief remarks. We are happy to work with your scheduling team on logistical details.

2. Work with Chief Osgood to schedule a walk and a bike ride with you. These will be informative, small group (3 -­ 5 people) opportunities so that you can experience a few places where we most need to improve walking and biking in the City. It would be ideal for both the ride and walk to take place before the end of the year.

3. Explore the possibility of supporting automated enforcement legislation. Passage of this legislation would be a huge win for the City of Boston, providing the police department with a new, proven tool to ensure more equitable enforcement of traffic violations. Wendy has already reached out to Katie King and both she and Katie will be back in touch with you once they have made a plan about next steps including reaching out to the ACLU and the Boston legislative delegation.

4. Reinstate State of the Hub as an annual event. The State of the Hub served as a valuable platform for sharing the City’s progress on the bike network and other street projects. We are happy to co-­host and help with this event as we have in years past.

5. Finding a solution for Sullivan Square/Rutherford Ave. Thank you for being open to learning more about this large, important and complicated project. Wendy has already reached out to Chief Osgood to continue the conversation and will get back to you once the community is able to review the complete traffic and transportation modeling information.

6. Support a successful Washington Street Bus priority pilot. LivableStreets is already coordinating with BTD to bolster support and excitement for the planned bus priority pilot between Roslindale and Forest Hills this fall. If your schedule allows, we hope you will ride the pilot with advocates to demonstrate your leadership and support for improved transit options in the City of Boston.

7. Work with Commissioner Fiandaca and others in BTD to update the City of Boston’s parking policies. This could include charging a modest fee for residential parking permits much like Boston’s neighboring municipalities and has the potential to be an important revenue source for furthering your Go Boston 2030 goals.

To help track the progress the City is making around these issues, the Vision Zero Coalition will be releasing its next Vision Zero Progress Report for the City of Boston in early 2018. We are happy to work with BTD to assess progress to-­‐date and to identify areas where the city can make additional progress before the end of the year.

Over the next few weeks, we would like to firm up some of the details around World Day of Remembrance, schedule the walk and bike ride, work with your staff regarding automated enforcement, and set a time for the next State of the Hub so that we can send an update to our various networks.

Thank you for your leadership and continued partnership.

Wendy Landman
Executive Director, WalkBoston

Stacy Thompson
Executive Director, LivableStreets Alliance

Becca Wolfson
Executive Director, Boston Cyclists Union

CC: Dan Koh
Chris Osgood
Gina Fiandaca
Vineet Gupta
Charlotte
Fleetwood
Stefanie Seskin

Comments on MassDOT Snow and Ice Control Program 2017 EEA# 11202

Comments on MassDOT Snow and Ice Control Program 2017 EEA# 11202

August 9, 2017

Secretary Matthew Beaton
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, MEPA Office
Attn: Alex Strysky
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Comments on MassDOT Snow and Ice Control Program 2017 Environmental Status and Planning Report EEA# 11202

Dear Secretary Beaton:

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Snow and Ice Control Program of MassDOT. We are commenting because pedestrian issues are not addressed in the Report. We provided similar comments in 2006, to the then Mass Highway Department.

While MassDOT has made significant strides to incorporate the needs of pedestrians into many of their project designs and safety programs, we are disappointed that the important accessibility, safety and mobility issues that un-­‐shoveled sidewalks, crosswalks and safety islands pose for pedestrians has still not been addressed in this document.

The Report covers many of the steps that the MassDOT will take to deal with the impacts of its application of chemicals on roadways. It discusses in detail the impacts that these materials have on pavement and the relative degree of effectiveness that the materials exhibit when removing snow and ice. It describes procedures that snow plow operators (whether state employees or service-­‐providers hired by the state) must follow, along with ways that the state will oversee the operations associated with snow plowing. In several of these discussions MassDOT comes tantalizingly close to describing potential impacts on pedestrian movement, yet there is no explicit acknowledgement that pedestrians have a stake in the way the state removes ice and snow from roadways and to the relationship between roadway and sidewalk snow and ice clearance. The only mention of pedestrians in the document is where MassDOT indicates that DCR has retained responsibility for sidewalks adjacent to a number of roadways where MassDOT has assumed responsibility for the vehicular travel way and that the MBTA has a plan for its facilities.

The impact of roadway snow and ice clearance on pedestrians
Pedestrians are clearly affected by the removal of snow from roadways and sidewalks and the effects of inadequate clearance that results in unsafe conditions for walking. After a snowfall in Massachusetts, it is possible to view city or town streets where the roadways are well plowed, but the sidewalks are impassable. Common public services such as postal deliveries or meals on wheels can be disrupted. Commuters and school children find their routes blocked. Un-­‐cleared sidewalks parallel to snow mounds can force pedestrians onto the street where pedestrian-­‐ automobile crashes are far more likely to occur. Even where sidewalks are cleared, pedestrian access at intersections is frequently blocked by roadway-­‐related snow mounds that impede safe walking through the intersection and un-­‐cleared snow mounds can prevent pedestrians and drivers from seeing each other clearly at intersection approaches.

The simple activity of walking is dramatically altered by the presence of snow. Snow mounds present a physical challenge to pedestrians, and walkers who are trying to cross mounds of snow to get to a safe walking route may have their attention diverted away from oncoming traffic. Intersections clogged with snow or snowmelt can challenge pedestrians trying to cross, again causing temporary diversion of attention from oncoming traffic. Drivers may not be able to see pedestrians forced onto roadways.

Sidewalks are found along many state roads throughout the Commonwealth, and some roads that were originally constructed without sidewalks now have them as a result of the continuing urbanization and suburbanization of the state. Adding sidewalks is now required for state roads as they are rebuilt and they are thus a standard element of the MassDOT roadway network.

The importance of providing safe pedestrian access in all seasons cannot be taken lightly. It is a matter of public safety, adequate transportation, social justice (many of our citizens who are pedestrian and transit-­‐dependent are lower income or elderly), and economic well being (we discourage elders and the disabled from staying in Massachusetts if they feel isolated and home-­‐ bound by wintry conditions).

The lack of sidewalk guidance does not seem to conform to the MHD Project Development and Design Guide, 2006 edition, which states:

“MassHighway, in its role as steward of our roadways, must consider a broad range of factors in maintaining (emphasis added) or improving this system, including:
• Safety for all users
• Functionality – the need for access and mobility
• Accessibility for people with disabilities…
• Input and participation from local constituents …”

The manual quotes state law:

“Chapter 87 of the Acts of 1996 requires MassHighway to ‘make all reasonable provisions for the accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic…’”

(Section 1.2.1, p. 1-­‐3) The manual continues with this Guiding Principle:

“Multimodal consideration – to ensure that the safety and mobility of all users of the transportation system (pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers) are considered equally through all phases of a project so that even the most vulnerable (e.g., children and the elderly) can feel and be safe within the public right of way….”

Section 1.2 Guiding Principles of the Guidebook, detailed in Section 1.2.1, p. 1-­‐3. Citing MassDOT’s 2017 policies as reflected on the current website,

“MassDOT is updating the Massachusetts Pedestrian Transportation Plan to improve conditions for walking throughout the Commonwealth.”

One of the core goals noted is to

“Identify policies and model practices to improve maintenance, year-­‐round usability and state of good repair of existing and planned pedestrian infrastructure.”

We urge MEPA to require MassDOT to explicitly incorporate policies and practices related to sidewalk, curb ramp and crossing island snow clearance in its Snow and Ice Control Program. The Program should address the issues noted below (much of the text is copied largely verbatim from WalkBoston’s 2006 comment letter).

Safety for both drivers and pedestrians
The state has determined that highway safety and vehicle mobility are high priority reasons for snow and ice removal. Clearing only the road is insufficient as a method for providing safety. Pedestrians crossing roadways or walking within the roadway constitute significant dangers for both drivers and themselves. The extent to which pedestrians use roadway pavements for walking is greatly expanded when sidewalks are left un-­‐cleared or when roadside snow mounds force people to clamber over them to cross streets. Many miles of MHD (now MassDOT in each instance below) roadways are paralleled by sidewalks and are thus critical components of the pedestrian (and transit) transportation networks.

Development of a protocol for determining who will be responsible for sidewalk snow clearance on MassDOT roadways
Sidewalk clearance responsibilities may well fall to several different parties including MassDOT, local municipalities, other state or local agencies, or private abutters. In order to “ensure the safety and mobility of all users of the transportation system,” this responsibility must be assigned, managed and enforced throughout the state. As the owner and operator of this transportation network, MHD should assume the job of leading the effort to determine how and by whom the sidewalks will be cleared.

The right of way as a basis for snow and ice removal
Municipalities throughout Massachusetts remove snow and ice from local roadways and establish methods for removing snow and ice from sidewalks. Yet the state does not take on the same responsibility for its roadways. Thus, local jurisdictions must provide for snow and ice removal from sidewalks along state roadways without substantial state assistance. Without coordination between the state and the municipalities, several issues emerge:

  1.  Intersections. The maintenance of a safe pedestrian passageway is critical at street crossings. The crossings are often blocked by snow plowing procedures that simply pile up snow evenly along the road, covering sidewalks, handicapped ramps and street corners, and forcing pedestrians to walk in the roadways. The responsibilities of the state and its agents in clearing intersections – including pedestrian access through the intersection – should be spelled out. Attention to this issue can help municipalities cope with comprehensive snow removal for sidewalks.
  2. Roadway use by walkers. When the state or its agents clear roadways of snow, safe pedestrian passage must be maintained. If the roadway is temporarily used as a substitute sidewalk because sidewalks have not been cleared pedestrian and vehicular safety is compromised. Snow removal frequently results in substantial mounds of snow paralleling the state highway that, in many cases, block the sidewalks and driveways connected to the roadway. Snow mounding as a method of disposal may exacerbate the problem of clearing sidewalks because of the sheer volume of the snow plowed onto the sidewalks.
  3. Planning. Streets can be designed to make plowing easier. Sidewalks might be placed at a distance from the roadway that is sufficient to accommodate snow plowed from the street. Snow fences could be located to control snow buildup on pedestrian facilities and help reduce 4 removal costs. The state should establish guidelines for improved design. Pedestrian safety islands should be designed to remain snow-­‐free after plowing operations.
  4. Research. The Report contains documentation of lane-­‐miles plowed under state responsibility. Perhaps research is necessary to document pedestrian miles on sidewalks along state highways and to show how state snow plowing policies affect pedestrians and how those policies need to be amended or supplemented. In addition to providing a plan for ensuring the clearance of sidewalks, It would be useful to know what financial and technical assistance the state might provide for communities and pedestrians during snowy conditions along state roads through a variety of funding sources such as CMAQ, safety funds or hazard elimination funds.

Coordination of local and state efforts
The method by which state and local coordination takes place is described briefly in the 2006 GEIR. This issue has not been addressed in the 2017 report, but remains an important issue for pedestrian safety.

  1. Division of responsibilities. As noted above, MassDOT should determine sidewalk snow-­‐ clearing responsibilities and how state, local and private entities will divide the work. A detailed plan for coordination is essential to determine precisely how the responsibilities will be divided, especially at locations where different responsibilities will abut or overlap. For example, at intersections where there are sidewalk connections into intersections, pedestrian crossings through intersections, and sidewalks along the roadways and across driveways. It is important for MassDOT to include information about pedestrian issues for inclusion in the plow route schedule each fall and for information to be disseminated by the MassDOT Districts.
  2. Sidewalk snow removal procedures. Written procedures can help clarify how snow is to be removed from sidewalks along state roads by agents other than the MassDOT. The state, municipalities or other state agencies can establish priority sidewalks that must be maintained for walkers right from the start of a snow emergency. One model has been prepared by the DCR, which works with the MassDOT to clear certain of its roadways. The state clears curb-­‐to-­‐ curb, and the DCR clears the sidewalks according to a predetermined priority rating assigned to each sidewalk. Some communities (e.g. Concord) clear snow from sidewalks along state roads according to a plan that has been developed in conjunction with the school department to facilitate safe access to schools. Priorities may need to be established for sidewalks leading to schools, transit, hospitals and clinics, business concentrations, and public services such as police and fire stations, as well as based on the density of pedestrian use.
  3. Bartering. A bartering process was described in the 2006 GEIR (Section 2.5.3, p. 29) as an informal method of coordinating operations, with the state taking on some municipal responsibilities. This method of coordination could be used to establish procedures for local communities. Coordination might be embedded in written agreements between the state and the cities and towns that define responsibilities for the details of snow removal. This process is no longer included in the Guide and we are curious how it has been replaced.
  4. Communication with the public. The public should be informed of policy decisions concerning snow removal on sidewalks, streets and at intersections, so that individuals can plan routes to work or school or for other purposes. One method is to place information delineating responsibilities on-­‐line so that can be widely distributed. A good example of delineating agency responsibilities for snow removal is laid out in the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s website at: http://eoeea.maps.arcgis.com/apps/SimpleViewer/index.html?appid=4a64ec9cf8ac4bb5a5bc 97e5e443e798 By laying out snow removal intentions, it may be possible to avert tragedies involving pedestrians walking in roadways.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Report. Please feel free to contact us for clarification or additional comments. We would be very pleased to work with MHD on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc:   Stephanie Pollack, MassDOT Secretary
Sam Salfity Director of SICP Operations
Jonathan Gulliver, Acting Highway Commissioner
Kate Fichter, MassDOT Assistant Secretary for Policy Coordination
Jackie DeWolfe, MassDOT Director of Sustainable Mobility
Pete Sutton, MassDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Coordinator

Comments on Beacon Street Redesign

Comments on Beacon Street Redesign

June 30, 2017

Gina Fiandaca, Commissioner
Boston Transportation Department
1 City Hall Sq., Suite 721
Boston, MA 02201

Re: Beacon Street Redesign

Dear Commissioner Fiandaca,

WalkBoston strongly supports the re-­design of Beacon Street to slow vehicular traffic and improve pedestrian safety. As the neighborhood expressed at the Public Meeting on June 12, 2017, the narrowing of the street will reduce the numerous traffic crashes, including pedestrian fatalities in the past several years. Moreover, the improvements will be implemented in the near term.

WalkBoston Supports Alternative 1, Option A
WalkBoston supports Alternative 1, the Preferred Design, which the neighborhood endorsed at the Public Meeting. This design calls for the removal of a travel lane, two one-­way travel lanes, a bicycle lane and parking on both sides of the street. The buffer between the bike and parking lanes will not only increase bicyclist safety, but also make cycling more comfortable.

Alternative 1 has two options at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue/Beacon Street. Of the two options, WalkBoston strongly supports Option A, which will retain the protected bike lane to Massachusetts Avenue and also preserve parking. Option B mixes bicycles and vehicles in order to provide a right hand turn for motorists. We believe the vehicle volumes do not necessitate this vehicular right turn and will be very dangerous for cyclists.

Traffic Signals Should Be Automatic with LPIs
Traffic signals in this downtown neighborhood should be automatic (no pushbuttons) and on throughout the 24-­hour period (except when signals are in flashing mode). WalkBoston also understands that leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) will be incorporated at all signalized locations. Finally, WalkBoston has noted that throughout the City, the concurrent green is on for a relatively short period of time. We request that the concurrent WALK remain throughout the concurrent vehicle green.

Increase Crossing Safety by Establishing No Right Turn on Red and Installing Tactical Medians
The City has installed No Right Turn on Red (NTOR) at intersections throughout the City where there are large volumes of pedestrians. We are pleased to see that the City is calling for NTOR at all intersections in this re-­‐designed section of Beacon Street.

Medians or refuge Islands provide safety at intersections for crossing pedestrians. WalkBoston requests that the City consider temporary medians through paint and flex posts at all crossings.

Re-­Assess Visitor and Resident Parking
At the Community Meeting many attendees asked that the City re­assess the assigned parking, which was established in the 1980s. The City expressed interest in working with the neighborhood to assess how curb space is currently used, and how a balance can be found to meet current resident, visitor, and delivery needs.

In summary, WalkBoston strongly supports the Alternative 1, Option A Design and looks forward to working with the City to implement and evaluate the design. Thank you for consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Dorothea Hass
Sr. Project Manager

Letter to Mayor Walsh-Massachusetts Zero Coalition

Letter to Mayor Walsh-Massachusetts Zero Coalition

May 17, 2017

Mayor Martin Walsh
City Hall
Boston, MA 02201

Re: Vision Zero

Dear Mayor Walsh:

When you announced the Vision Zero Action Plan in December 2015, we were proud to be your constituents. You demonstrated leadership when you stated:

“We know how to build safer streets. We know how to protect our most vulnerable road users, who are suffering disproportionately because of speeding traffic and distracted drivers. With this Action Plan, I am saying it’s time to act. It’s time to commit to eliminating fatal and serious traffic crashes from our daily experience.”

Which is why we were dismayed by your comments Wednesday afternoon on WGBH Radio.

On behalf of the Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition we invite you to work with us to fully fund and implement Vision Zero in Boston. We ask that you join us on Friday morning at 8 AM for a moment of silence for victims of traffic violence on City Hall Plaza. On behalf of those victims, we also ask that you apologize for the comments you made on the air.

Our streets are in crisis.

In 2016, fifteen people died while walking on Boston’s streets; a record-­‐breaking high for pedestrian fatalities. We are on track to see even higher numbers in 2017. Crashes overall are up. On average, at least two to three people walking are hit in a crash that results in an EMT call every day.

We need action from you and your administration, not victim-­‐blaming. When you said on the air, “Pedestrians need to put their head up when they’re walking down the street, take your headphones off … you’ve got to understand, cars are going to hit you,” you were reiterating a narrative that doesn’t stand up to the crash data your administration collects.

Most of the people killed while walking were children or older adults. In 2016, of the 10 pedestrian victims whose ages we know, four were older than 60 and two were younger than 3 years old.

This Coalition and your constituents look to you for action.

A week ago, hundreds of people attended the City Council’s FY18 budget hearing for the Boston Transportation Department to call for increased resources to make streets safer for everyone. After 2 the hours of questions from the council and public testimony, it’s clear from all sides -­‐ Boston is falling behind.

In your interview with WGBH, you said that the city is doing “everything we can,” but we know Boston is being eclipsed by peer cities in both resources and implementation. The City of New York spends about $20 per person on Vision Zero annually, and San Francisco spends $75 per person annually. Both cities have seen declines in overall traffic fatalities despite a troubling rise in fatal crashes nationwide. Boston is spending less than $5 per person, this is not enough.

Forty-­seven neighborhood groups applied for Neighborhood Slow Streets, a signature program of Boston’s Vision Zero initiative. Your FY18 budget recommendation only provides resources to implement two to three in the coming year.

At the current rate of implementation it will take more than 20 years to respond to just the first round of applications. Safety should not be a privilege afforded to only some Boston neighborhoods.

We recognize that there are many competing budget priorities and that rapid change on our streets will cost money. This year we suggest drawing on the parking meter fund. In the long term, we are here to work with you to diversify and increase the revenue streams available for transportation, for example through increased parking revenues.

Simply put, the Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition, and the thousands of people we represent, feel strongly that the 2018 transportation budget as currently proposed is insufficient to reduce the number of fatalities and serious crashes on our streets.

We hope you will take this opportunity to recommit to leading Boston as a Vision Zero city.

Thank You,

Vision Zero Coalition

CC: Boston City Council
Chief of Streets Chris Osgood
Transportation Commissioner Gina Fiandaca
Chief of Staff Dan Koh
Press
Public