crosswalk Archives - Page 2 of 3

Philip G. Coburn Elementary School Walk Audit

The safety of the walking environment is critical to both protect those children currently walking to school, and to promote the idea of walking to school to those students who live within walking distance. In December 2014, two crashes involving pedestrians crossing on Elm Street occurred on the same day. One crash killed a crossing guard at the Garden Street/Elm Street intersection just after she had safely stopped traffic for several students. The second crash occurred at the mid-block crossing in front of the US Post Office. These crossings are used regularly by Coburn School students and staff.

Read the full report here:

PhilipG.CoburnElementarySchoolWalkAudit-WestSpringfield

Beacon Street Multimodal Improvements Comment Letter-Somerville, MA

May 13, 2014

Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Alex Strysky
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

Mark Kolonoski
MassDOT Highway Division
Environmental Services Section
10 Park Plaza, Room 4260
Boston, MA 02116

RE: Comments on the Environmental Notification Form for the Beacon Street Multimodal Improvements and Streetscape Enhancement in Somerville, MA

Dear Secretary Sullivan and Mr. Kolonoski:

The Beacon Street project area extends from the bridge abutment at Oxford Street to Dickinson Street, a distance of approximately 1.1 miles. The project is intended to enhance pedestrian and bicycle movements with improved streetscape, wider sidewalks, a new cycle track/bicycle lanes, and new ADA compliant curb ramps. The project goal is to enhance the multimodal connectivity of the Beacon Street Corridor.

We have reviewed this project and offer the following comments:

1. Updated and continuous sidewalks on Beacon Street
The program for complete streets along Beacon Street will result in new cycle tracks and a significant reconstruction of both the street and the sidewalk. Sidewalks are to be updated and rebuilt to correct current deficiencies, including substandard slopes and lack of ramps at intersections. A sidewalk will be added to the south side of Beacon Street in a location where no sidewalk now exists. Adherence to this plan is essential for the safety and convenience of all users of the sidewalk.

The proposed sidewalks will replace the existing 10’-11’ wide sidewalks with new ones of substantially the same width. Retention of this dimension as a minimum is extremely important because some space within the sidewalk will accommodate other uses, such as trees. In only one portion of Beacon Street, where there are space constraints due to an existing stonewall, will the 10’-11’ width be precluded; we note
that no trees are planned for the sidewalk in this section.

2. Cycle tracks and bike lanes
Cycle tracks are proposed between Oxford Street and Museum Street, bike lanes between Museum Street and Park/Scott Streets, cycle tracks between Park/Scott Streets and Washington Street and bike lanes between Washington Street and the Cambridge City line. On the north side of the street, the alignments of the cycle tracks and bike lanes are end-to-end, resulting in a virtually straight path for the full length of
the project.

On the south side of the street the cycle tracks and bike lanes do not quite line up. The transitions between cycle tracks and bike lanes at the intersection of Beacon Street/Museum Street and Park Street/Washington Street are angled to accommodate the needed connections between cycle tracks and bike lanes. These intersections have crosswalks where pedestrians will cross near the bike routes. Since separate traffic signals for bicycles are not included in the project, WalkBoston is concerned that walkers may not be aware that bicycles are approaching at these intersections and need to be especially careful because these diversions might distract the cyclists or the
motorists. We request that special signage and/or pavement markings be provided to alert walkers, bicyclists and drivers of these shifts in alignment and the need to be aware of movements by others.

3. Separation of cycle tracks and sidewalks
In several locations, the proposed cycle tracks are immediately adjacent and at the same grade as the sidewalk. In effect the cycle track will be located on an extension of the sidewalk. A pronounced and clear separation between bicyclists and walkers is needed to deter cyclists from using the sidewalk to bypass slower moving bikes. The
starting and stopping of cycle tracks and bike lanes may be confusing and lead to cyclists using the sidewalks to avoid merging into traffic or worrying about people opening car doors directly in front of them.

Since all 208 of the street trees included this project are to be planted within the width of the sidewalk, we assume that they will help to separate the cycle track from walkers. Other street furniture such as the existing utility and lighting poles, or new benches, trash containers, bollards or signs might also help. The precise location of each element should be carefully considered, as they have the potential to interfere with pedestrian or bicycle movements.

4. Placement of trees
Although the sidewalks are 10 feet wide in nearly all locations along Beacon Street, some of that width – perhaps up to 5 feet – will be lost due to the planting of 208 trees directly in the sidewalk. All of the proposed new trees should be placed in long narrow tree pits (we have seen tree pits that are 2’ wide by 6’-8’ long). More typical 4-foot square tree pits that intrude into the sidewalk should not be used. Irrespective of the shape of the tree pit, tree grates and or special permeable but sturdy filler (similar to that used in some South End locations) should be explored. This is important for the safety of walkers, as is the long-term maintenance of the tree pits so that they do not pose tripping hazards for walkers or for the visually-impaired.

5. Traffic signals at crosswalks and mid-block
New traffic signal equipment and signal timing at the intersections of Beacon Street with Park/Scott and Washington Streets are planned. In addition, two High-Intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) pedestrian signals on mast arms are planned for pedestrian crossings at the Sacramento Street intersection and at the Buckingham/Cooney intersection. The project thus appears to have signals of some sort at intervals of about ¼ mile; however, in the portion of Beacon Street between Sacramento Street and the rail overpass at Somerville Avenue, the intersections with Oxford and Prentiss Streets have no traffic signals. With no signals to slow traffic these mid-block crossings may be difficult for pedestrians. Signage or other warnings may be essential to inform drivers and cyclists of the crosswalks.

6. Crosswalk paving
The proposed use of concrete pavers at crosswalks has been cited by one of our members as a hazard for nearly all walkers, and we agree. For all crosswalks on Beacon Street, the customary white reflective thermoplastic strips should be used. Pavers have low visibility and are uneven, making it harder for wheelchairs, seniors, and people pushing strollers or grocery carts.

7. Pedestrian signal phasing
At existing signal locations the exclusive pedestrian phase will be replaced with concurrent pedestrian phasing. For all new signals, a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) is proposed to allow pedestrians to enter the crosswalk before vehicles approaching the intersection have a green signal indication. It will be important to coordinate the LPI at each signalized intersection with any preferential treatment given to bicycles at the same location, to avoid potential conflicts.

8. Signage
There is a need for sidewalk and cycle track signs that make it clear to walkers, bicyclists and drivers how the cycle tracks function. In particular, since all the street’s users will be unfamiliar with cycle tracks it will be important to let pedestrians know what to expect in bicycle movements adjacent to them. Signs should advise bicycles to stay within the cycle tracks and avoid using the sidewalks. Signs should advise walkers of approaching bicycle traffic,places to wait before crossing the street, and to not walk in the cycle tracks. Specific notice should be given to cyclists and pedestrians of potential conflicts at intersections, where turning bicycles, vehicles and pedestrians present many different movements.

9. Lighting
New street lighting has not been proposed, and cyclists may be ‘invisible’ to walkers and drivers. The City should explore the need for additional lighting, especially at intersections where so many different movements will be taking place. In addition, as part of the introduction of the cycle track, the City should explore the opportunity to market and enforce state laws requiring bicycles to carry white front lights on bicycles visible that are visible from 500 feet. WalkBoston has received comments from a number of our older members that they find it impossible to see bicyclists approaching at night if they do not use head lights, and with the addition of a sidewalk level cycle track they are very nervous about crossing the track at intersections.

10. Driveways
A great number of private driveways will be accommodated with this design, with each rebuilt to cross both sidewalk and bicycle facilities. The north side of the street has 43 driveways and the south side has 30. Most of the driveways are narrow, and will involve drivers who will back out to reach Beacon Street. Drivers backing vehicles into the street may have obstructions that limit abilities to see approaching walkers, runners or cyclists.

11. Speed control
Speeds on local streets that are primarily residential such as Beacon Street should be strictly regulated. The current 30-mph limit should not be raised. It should be made lower with advisory signs if possible. Reminder signs should be posted at intervals along the route to warn drivers not to go faster.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Please feel free to contact us if you should have questions.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Comments on DCR Back Bay Fens Crosswalk Improvements

March 12, 2014

Commissioner Jack Murray
Department of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway Street, Suite 600
Boston, MA 02114

Attn: Office of Public Outreach

Dear Commissioner Murray:

WalkBoston has reviewed the DCR’s Back Bay Fens Crosswalk Improvements presentation and attended the public meeting held earlier this month. We are very pleased that DCR will undertake improvements for pedestrian safety.

We offer several detailed comments on the intersection of the Fenway and Forsyth Way and the Fenway and the Fenway Service Road from Forsyth Way.

Comments on the options proposed for the intersection of the Fenway and Forsyth Way
• At this intersection, a raised crosswalk is by far the most attractive proposed improvement. Raised crosswalks never fail to slow traffic, and can be designed to have modest impacts on street drainage facilities. A raised crosswalk at this location would have the effect of slowing Fenway traffic through both of the Fenway intersections that
are to be improved.
• A clearly marked ‘stop’ line should be installed on the pavement far enough in advance of the crosswalk to allow motorists and pedestrians to see each other and pass safely through the crossing. This is very important to reduce the risk of a car in the right or left lane stopping for a pedestrian and a car in the adjacent lane continuing through the
crosswalk (the so called ‘double threat” situation).
• Warning signs alerting motorists that pedestrians and bicycles will be crossing should be added on either side of the roadway, together with arrows indicating the exact location of the crossings. The warning sign proposed for the median of the Fenway will also advise drivers of the precise location of the pedestrian crossing.
• In addition to the warning signs, we think the proposed pair of Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons attached to the warning signs on each side of the road is appropriate. They are highly visible and not easily ignored. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon is another option to warn drivers of pedestrian street crossings, but, as it would partially bridge the street with several signal heads, it would be intrusive in the green expanses of the Fenway and no more effective than the Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon.
• The new sidewalk that is proposed for the east side of the Fenway is important for pedestrian safety and should be included in all options.
• Tighter corner radii will help to slow turning vehicles as they exits the Fenway onto Forsyth Way. At a minimum, paint or bollards should be used to tighten the curve.

Possible significant change to the intersection of the Fenway and Forsyth Way
The design presented as Alternative 3 attempts to respond to the walking desire lines that exist at this intersection. However, the alignment of the crosswalk passing through the traffic island seems quite complex and unusually situated. We think it would be advisable to have a straighter alignment for this crosswalk, following the route pedestrians really want in heading for the bridge over the Muddy River inside the Fens.

A more far-reaching option for improving the crosswalk design would be to remove the short section of Forsyth Way that connects to the Fenway, and have cars making the Forsyth Way/Fenway connection use the Fenway Service Road. Closing this portion of Forsyth Way
retrieves both the traffic island and the street right-of-way as parkland, and greatly improves potential options for a crosswalk. This new parkland affords additional options to design a connection between the Fenway and the Southwest Corridor Park, as suggested by Professor Peter Furth. The short portion of Forsyth Way between the Fenway and the Fenway Service Road could become one-way away from the Fenway, and could both be narrowed and still include parking on both sides of the street. This modest change in the street system would add parkland, simplify pedestrian and vehicle travel and allow the creation of a safer “T” intersection.

Comments on the options proposed for the intersection of the Fenway and the Fenway Service Road
• For this intersection WalkBoston prefers Alternative 4, which includes two crosswalks on the Fenway. This alternative connects closely with the existing pedestrian paths on both sides of the Fenway and directly fits with observed pedestrian desire lines.
• A raised crosswalk at this location does not appear to be necessary if one is provided at the Forsyth Way intersection with the Fenway (which effectively slows traffic as it approaches the Fenway Service Road intersection).
• The intersection should be treated the same as the Forsyth Way intersection, with a ‘stop’ line to facilitate visibility of pedestrians, signs to warn drivers of the crossings on both sides of the intersection and in the median, and a pair of Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons attached to the warning signs on either side of the road.
• The proposed new sidewalk along the Fenway and the bump-outs for pedestrians at the intersection are welcome and very significant improvements included in the proposal for the intersection.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the design options. Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with any questions and we would be happy to meet with you about our design suggestion.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Project Manager

CC:
Patrice Kish, DCR
Julie Crockford, Emerald Necklace Conservancy
Jessica Mortell, Toole Design

——————————————————————————————————————-
Join our Mailing List to keep up to date on advocacy issues.

Like our work? Support WalkBoston – Donate Now!
Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook

Comments on the Single Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver Line Gateway Proposal – MEPA# 15124

May 9, 2014

Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Rick Bourre’
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

RE: Comments on the Single Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver Line Gateway Proposal – MEPA# 15124

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Single Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver Line Gateway Bus Rapid Transit proposal. The new MBTA service, which will run on a separate right-of-way between Everett Avenue and Eastern Avenue with connections through East Boston, will provide access between Chelsea and South Station and the Seaport District of Boston.

The proposal includes very positive improvements for the City of Chelsea, with significantly improved transit connections to downtown and the airport. Stations are pleasantly and attractively designed, with raised platform floors that align with the floors of the Silver Line Gateway buses, thus providing easily accessible service. Landscaping is to be added along the shared use path and the BRT where feasible, improving the route as a pleasant walking facility. The MBTA has planned for off-bus fare collection to speed the boarding of buses and reduce fare collection procedures on-board each bus.

Overall, the proposal is a very positive addition to the MBTA network of high-capacity services. However, some questions need to be addressed based on our review of the current plan:

1. The discontinuity of the shared use path may affect good pedestrian access to each of the stations. The proposed shared use path parallels the route of the BRT buses between Eastern Avenue up to Broadway. West of Broadway, there are some parallel sidewalks, but the path itself is not continuous. It would be useful for the MBTA and the City to consider longer-range goals for the planned walkway and not preclude future extensions to the walking route. For instance, the walkway might be extended from Arlington Street to Everett Avenue. Such a continuation of the path would provide direct access by foot to the commuter rail station at Everett Avenue. A continuation of the path would also afford some recreational uses of the path by both pedestrians and bicyclists.

2. At the Everett Avenue terminus of the BRT, pedestrian connections are provided to both the BRT terminal station and the new commuter rail station. However, there are presently no nearby crosswalks to help pedestrians cross Everett Avenue near the turnaround loop of the BRT. The proposed narrowing of Everett Avenue at this location would be a good location for a crosswalk. Otherwise, the nearest crosswalks appear at Spruce Street – 400 feet to the south, and Carter Street – 400 feet to the north. These distances are excessive for most pedestrians. An Everett Avenue crosswalk at the entrance to the BRT and commuter rail stations would be appropriate and useful, and should include a pedestrian phase of the proposed traffic signal at this location.

3. A similar crosswalk protected by a proposed signal would be appropriate at the crossing of the rail line and the BRT on Spruce Street. A pedestrian phase should be added to this signal.

4. At the Arlington/6th Street crossing, which is called the Downtown Chelsea station, the proposal calls for narrowing streets and instituting a one-way pattern on two of those streets going away from the rail tracks and the BRT route. The narrower streets will make pedestrian crossings safer. The proposed traffic signal should include a pedestrian phase to assure safe crossings to get to the station.

5. Figure 2.2-13, which details the Arlington/6th Street crossing, shows a concrete sidewalk on the south side of the BRT station platform. Figure 2.2-14 indicates that the sidewalk reaches the Washington Street Station, which is about 150 feet away. Completing this connection would be useful for full pedestrian access through the corridor, and should include wayfinding signs to help pedestrians reach the station.

6. Lighting the way for pedestrians is important. Many riders will be using the BRT service after dark, particularly in the winter. If the walking route is not well lit riders may be discouraged from using the stations because of safety concerns, especially for people traveling alone during the times of day when there may be few other people nearby.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please feel free to contact us with questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

——————————————————————————————————————-
Join our Mailing List to keep up to date on advocacy issues.

Like our work? Support WalkBoston – Donate Now!
Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook

Comments on Tremont Crossing Environmental Notification Form

June 8, 2012

Secretary Ian Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
MEPA Office
Deirdre Buckley MEPA # 4900
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Tremont Crossing Environmental Notification Form

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the ENF for the Tremont Crossing proposal in Roxbury. We are impressed with the potential improvements that this project will be able to bring to the area. The pedestrian aspects of the proposal are likely to play an important role in the way in which this project functions and relates to the surrounding neighborhood and nearby public buildings.

The Tremont Crossing project includes 500,000 square feet of development with small shops and boutiques along Tremont Street, a large retail space set back from Tremont Street, 200,000 square feet of office space, an 11-story apartment building with 240 units, and a new museum for the National Center for Afro-American Artists. The development will also include a large public plaza and a multi-level parking garage with 1,700 spaces.

The site of Tremont Crossing is pivotal, as it forms a link between Madison Park Technical Vocational High School, the John O’Bryant School of Math and Science, Northeastern University, the Boston Police Department main headquarters, and the Southwest Corridor Park. The central focus of neighborhood activity and pedestrian trips is the MBTA Ruggles Station with subway, bus and commuter rail connections through the Southwest Corridor. The development site, physically separated from many of these facilities, directly adjoins Madison Park High School and the John O’Bryant School.

The proposed pedestrian facilities in the development include two wide sidewalks the full length of the site. One sidewalk will be immediately adjacent to the curb along Tremont Street, and the other sidewalk is interior to the site parallel to Tremont Street and separated from it by a very short distance.

The proposed layout at this critical location suggests the following possibilities:

A considerable number of the Madison Park High School and O’Bryant School students will use the sidewalks through the site for daily access to transit at Ruggles Station. Depending on the kinds of retail incorporated into the site, students may also visit the site to shop. The school already has strong business partnerships – clinical rotations and internships with industry partners. This movement of people might be the basis for a connection between the project site and the schools, as the site could benefit from a close relationship with students. The proponent could reflect this movement and take advantage of the pedestrian activity as a basis for a physical realignment of the sidewalks toward the access ways leading to the schools.
It is not clear why two parallel sidewalks are needed to serve the site. The interior sidewalk serves the backs of the retail outlets facing Tremont Street, yet provides the principal point of access to the large retail outlet and to the parking garage. It is unlikely that small retail shops will want to have two entrances – one facing Tremont Street and one facing an interior sidewalk. This may result in an unused edge of the stores – which would be unattractive and possibly create an unsafe interior corridor. We think that this two-sidewalk design is unfortunate and may generate walking patterns that are neither safe nor complementary to the proposed development. Perhaps the two sidewalks could be reduced to one along Tremont Street that serves people more directly including, of course, plazas for sitting and eating along the way, and an entrance to the large retail space that is deeper into the development.
The proposed museum and cultural center is a unique feature of the development. Will it be closely related to the two adjacent schools? Will students from both schools be provided opportunities at the museum and cultural center and should there be special attention to pedestrian access from the schools? How will the Museum be “announced” to visitors who approach on foot?
The major pedestrian crossings of Tremont Street will take place at intersections with Ruggles/Whittier Street, South Drive and Prentiss Street. The major crossing is likely to be at Ruggles/Whittier Street, because of the direct access it provides to the Ruggles MBTA Station. Care should be taken to provide for significant numbers of people wanting to cross Tremont Street at this location. Analysis should be performed to ascertain which crosswalk directions will work best for moving pedestrians safely. Analysis should also be undertaken to determine if a crosswalk is needed at South Drive, in view of the nearby Prentiss Street crossing.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Please feel free to contact us with questions you may have, and we look forward to hearing how our suggestions are incorporated into subsequent revisions to this plan.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director