Tag: signal timing

Support for “Super LPI” in Central Square, Cambridge

Support for “Super LPI” in Central Square, Cambridge

By |

March 26, 2018

To:
Cambridge City Council,
Cambridge City Clerk,
Joe Barr – Director Cambridge Traffic, Parking & Transportation (TPT)

From:
Wendy Landman, Executive Director, WalkBoston

WalkBoston believes that TPT’s suggested change for the Central Square Pedestrian Signals will provide improved pedestrian safety. As described in the March 21 Memorandum from Joseph Barr, the Super LPI will provide an effective way of managing this high volume intersection.

WalkBoston agrees with TPT’s analysis of the situation and with the conclusion that a concurrent signal phasing with a longer LPI is the best overall solution. We concur with the finding that an ALL WALK signal phase would not be appropriate for Central Square and would lead to lower levels of service for pedestrians, and confusion among both pedestrians and drivers.

WalkBoston also appreciates TPT’s plan to review operations after the Super LPI is installed.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this signal revision.
Comments on Suffolk Downs redevelopment (EEA No. 15783)

Comments on Suffolk Downs redevelopment (EEA No. 15783)

By |

January 25, 2018

Mayor Brian Arrigo
ATTN: Robert O’Brien, Director of Economic Development
City of Revere
281 Broadway
Revere, MA 02151

Secretary Matthew Beaton
ATTN: Page Czepiga, MEPA Analyst
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

Director Brian Golden
ATTN: Tim Czerwienski, Project Manager
Boston Planning and Development Agency
One City Hall, Ninth Floor
Boston, MA 02201

RE: WalkBoston comments on Suffolk Downs redevelopment (EEA No. 15783)

Dear Mayor Arrigo, Secretary Beaton and Director Golden:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HYM Investment Group’s proposed redevelopment of the Suffolk Downs site in East Boston and Revere. WalkBoston looks forward to working with the City of Revere, EEA, BPDA, HYM, and other agencies and project stakeholders to help advance the proponent’s stated goal of “creating a vibrant, mixed-use walkable community.”

Leveraging connections between walkability and transit

The proponent’s Expanded Project Notification Form (EPNF) reflects a strong commitment in principle to walkability and multimodal transportation connectivity. The proposed Phase 1 project emphasizes new pedestrian connections at the Suffolk Downs Blue Line station on the MBTA, and the Master Plan project is similarly premised upon pedestrian access to and from the Blue Line at Suffolk Downs and Beachmont Stations. Overall the Suffolk Downs site is wellpositioned for walkable transit-oriented development, which is reflected in HYM’s high anticipated mode shares for walking and transit for the Master Plan project. (The projected mode shares for walking range from 10.9% for office uses to 19.6% for residential uses; the projected mode shares for transit range from 45.4% for residential uses to 54.7% for hotel uses.)

The Phase 1 project has a much lower projected transit mode share of 37.5%, as well as a 44.4% projected mode share for single occupancy vehicles. We are concerned that this will create significant auto dependency from the onset of this project that will affect the future Master Plan development as well. The proponent states that “while there will be emphasis to support a high proportion of alternative trip making by the Phase 1 Project, this more conservative mode share profile has been utilized given the Phase 1 buildings are being analyzed as a standalone project without the benefit of a mixed-use environment.” We urge the proponent to aim for more ambitious transit, walking and biking mode share goals for the Phase 1 development to maximize the site’s potential for transit-oriented development.

The proponent also anticipates over 54,000 new transit trips per weekday, including over 4,000 trips during the morning peak hour and over 5,000 trips during the evening peak hour. This number is very high relative to current Blue Line ridership levels. As part of their transit analysis for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), HYM should detail how they arrived at this number and how Blue Line ridership will change as the Master Plan project is phased in over time. This analysis should be accompanied by the proponent also clarifying their plans to invest in capacity upgrades along the Blue Line as part of a broader package of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies.

Exploring opportunities to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips and parking spaces

While the high projected transit mode share and ridership are positive attributes of this development proposal, the proponent still projects over 33,000 new vehicle trips per weekday, including over 3,000 trips during the morning peak hour and over 3,000 trips during the evening peak hour. This increased vehicular traffic has the potential to significantly affect congestion and pedestrian safety within the project site and along surrounding roadways. Given that vehicular access to the site is limited to just two intersections (Route 1A/Tomasello Way and Winthrop Avenue/Tomasello Way), the proponent should clarify how the project site and surrounding streets will handle this traffic in the DEIR. Significant mitigation measures will be necessary to address 33,000 new vehicles on already congested streets.

While HYM does not specify how many new parking spaces will be needed to accommodate these vehicles, WalkBoston calculates that between 10,800 and 16,200 new spaces will be necessary, depending on the development program and parking ratios used. (The proponent states that the following parking ratio ranges should adequately support the Master Plan project’s parking demand into the future: residential, 0.5 to 1.0 spaces per unit; office, 1.0 spaces per 1,000 SF; lab, 1.0 spaces per 1,000 SF; hotel: 0.5 spaces per room; retail: 0.5 spaces per 1,000 SF). We are encouraged by the relatively low proposed parking ratios for the residential units, as well as HYM’s broader recognition that auto trip rates are likely to decrease over time. The final residential parking ratio should be as close to 0.5 spaces per unit as possible and we look forward to reviewing HYM’s TDM plans as part of the DEIR. Any strategies and mitigation measures proposed must further enhance walkability, bikeability and transit access, while reducing single occupancy vehicle use and the associated need for parking.

Exploring opportunities for bus/shuttle connectivity and related pedestrian access

HYM notes that there are several MBTA bus lines (450, 459 and 119) along Route 1A and Winthrop Avenue within a half-mile walk of the project site, and that “there are opportunities to expand MBTA bus service into the project site and provide for internal site transportation/shuttle to further improve access to public transit” as the Master Plan project is built out. The proponent should further explore and detail these options as part of their TDM plans in the DEIR, as increased utilization of MBTA buses and/or shuttles can reduce single occupancy vehicle use. An analysis of bus/shuttle options should examine the potential for increased service on existing MBTA bus lines and associated changes in ridership, as well as the potential to service the neighborhoods surrounding the project site. The proponent should also clarify their plans for investing in such services, whether through funding the MBTA or their own shuttles.

Ensuring that pedestrians can safely and comfortably walk to and from bus/shuttle stops is critical to ensuring that these services will be utilized. Ideally bus/shuttle stops will be located within a quarter-mile of the project site to maximize their usage. We appreciate HYM’s commitment to improving sidewalks adjacent to the project site to meet ADA standards and to include street trees if feasible, as well as their acknowledgement of the need for mitigation measures and infrastructure improvements at the site’s primary vehicular access points (Route 1A/Tomasello Way and Winthrop Avenue/Tomasello Way). The proponent states that “geometric and traffic signal improvements will be recommended at both of these intersections to optimize traffic operations.”

Improvements at these locations must also address pedestrian safety and traffic calming. HYM plans to widen Tomasello Way and Route 1A as part of the Master Plan improvements, yet there are no crosswalks across Route 1A near the project site and the crosswalk across Tomasello Way at Route 1A is already 140 feet wide with minimal pedestrian refuge. Any signal and roadway upgrades at this location and near other shuttle/bus stops must provide safe pedestrian crossings and well-timed WALK signals that provide countdowns and leading pedestrian intervals. Long crossing distances should be reduced as much as possible using curb extensions, and pedestrian refuges should be created and enhanced to provide protected waiting areas. In extreme circumstances, the proponent might consider working with the MBTA to relocate bus stops to more pedestrian-friendly locations.

Creating a walkable project site that meets Complete Streets standards

In addition to leveraging pedestrian access to and from the Blue Line, the proponent has integrated walkability and pedestrian connectivity into many other aspects of their redevelopment proposal. These include creating a new interior street network on site that meets Boston Transportation Department’s (BTD) Complete Streets guidelines, developing a system of multi-use ADA-compliant paths and trails that connects to adjacent neighborhoods and regional path networks, and activating the public realm with open space amenities and extensive ground-floor retail. Creating streets, sidewalks and paths that accommodate road users of all abilities and travel modes is critical to developing more livable and walkable communities, so WalkBoston is pleased to see a commitment to these issues in the EPNF.

We look forward to seeing more detailed plans for the interior streets, paths, intersections and signals as part of the DEIR. The interior streets should be designed to ensure that vehicles follow a 20 mile per hour speed limit to maximize walking safety as well as walking and transit mode shares. They should also include additional measures for pedestrian safety and traffic calming, including narrow vehicular travel lane widths, frequent and well-marked crosswalks, and well-timed WALK signals that provide countdowns and leading pedestrian intervals. We encourage the proponent to maintain their current plans to not have vehicular access to the project site from Bennington Street or Waldemar Avenue, thus prioritizing multimodal connectivity and reducing the potential for increased local traffic.

Improving pedestrian safety throughout the project study area

The need for traffic mitigation is not limited to the immediate project vicinity and access points. To this end, HYM states that a mitigation program will likely focus on improvements to roadway geometry, traffic signals, and multimodal mobility along the broader Route 1A and Winthrop Avenue corridors, as well as Furlong Drive, the on-site roadway network, and other nearby intersections. The proponent also notes that many of the broader study area intersections are located within Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) clusters and thus are potentially subject to Road Safety Audits (RSAs) per Massachusetts Department of Transportation guidelines. WalkBoston looks forward to reviewing a more detailed discussion of the Master Plan project mitigation phasing and recommendations for the timing of specific roadway improvement projects as part of the DEIR. We are also available to participate in future RSAs as needed. Once again, we encourage utmost consideration for pedestrian safety and traffic calming measures as part of any improvement packages.

Thank you again for considering these issues and feel free to contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc: House Speaker Robert DeLeo
Senate President Harriette Chandler
Senator Joseph Boncore, Transportation Co-Chair
Representative William Strauss, Transportation Co-Chair
Representative Adrian Madaro
Boston City Council President Andrea Campbell
Boston City Councilor Michelle Wu, Transportation Chair
Boston City Councilor Lydia Edwards, District 1
Revere City Council President Jessica Giannino
Revere City Councilor Steven Morabito, Economic Development and Planning Chair
Revere City Councilor Joanne McKenna, Ward 1
Becca Wolfson, Boston Cyclists Union
Stacey Thompson, LivableStreets Alliance
Andre Leroux, Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance
Richard Fries, MassBike Marc Ebuña, TransitMatters
Chris Dempsey, Transportation for Massachusetts

Comments on Beacon Street Redesign

Comments on Beacon Street Redesign

By |

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

Signal Timing Recommendations

Signal Timing Recommendations

By |

5/2017

11 ways to make Boston’s traffic signals work better for people walking

  1. Add concurrent signals at most locations. Concurrent signalization means that people walking receive a WALK signal in the same direction people driving have a green light (i.e., everyone can continue along Mass Ave). This should always be paired with the next item —
  2. Add a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) at signals to give people walking a 5-7 second WALK signal so that they can start into the crosswalk before people driving get a green light. 
  3. Automatic recall of WALK signals should be provided (this means that a WALK signal appears as part of each signal cycle without a push button) at all but rare, mid-block locations. Eliminate all non-functional and irrelevant push buttons. If middle of the night conditions warrant the elimination of WALK signals, change to flashing red signals.
  4. Short signal cycles should be the standard to make walking convenient, reduce delay and encourage compliance by walkers and drivers.
  5. High degree of consistency in signal operations should be used among as many locations as possible so that people walking and driving know what to expect. Perhaps there should be signage noting non-standard timing (e.g. “Wait for All Way Pedestrian Scramble” or “Heavy Turning Volume, Do Not Walk on Don’t WALK”)
  6. Addition of accessible audible signals with activation button should be provided at all signals.
  7. Countdown of full signal should be provided so that pedestrians know how much time remains before opposing traffic will get a green light. Flashing Don’t WALK and then solid Don’t WALK  should be based on appropriate clearance times.
  8. No “leading left” green arrows should be used. This sets up a dangerous situation for people walking who cannot see the leading left and think that crossing is safe, also people driving who turn on a leading left often block the crosswalks for pedestrians. If a protected left turn is required, have it at end of the green.
  9. Set signal phasing with recognition of pedestrian volumes, not just vehicle volumes (e.g. Park/Tremont, Dewey Square, Walk to the Sea). If technically feasible phasing should correspond with time of day and day of week (for example, mid-day Saturday Walk to the Sea, dozens of pedestrians must wait for a very long time while only a small number of vehicles pass by, leading to much crossing against the signal).
  10. Use stop signs to replace traffic signals in areas with light vehicle traffic and short crossing distances (e.g. Milk/Devonshire, Washington/Milk).
  11. After changing the timing for signals, post temporary signage near it: “We recently adjusted the signal timing at this intersection. Did we get it right? Let us know! Use BOS:311”
Comments on the re-design of Melnea Cass Boulevard

Comments on the re-design of Melnea Cass Boulevard

By |

June 8, 2015

Patrick Hoey, Transportation Planner
Boston Transportation Department
Room 721
Boston City Hall
Boston, MA 02201-2021

Dear Mr. Hoey,

WalkBoston is pleased that the Boston Transportation Department (BTD) conducted a public meeting that provided an opportunity for area residents and others to comment on the re-design of Melnea Cass Boulevard (MCB).

WalkBoston is well aware of the tremendous progress that has been made in trying to plan for and design an inviting, practical, pedestrian-friendly Melnea Cass Boulevard that will serve the local community as a city street and neighborhood asset. WalkBoston nevertheless finds that, despite significant improvements, the redesigned boulevard will continue to function primarily as an arterial roadway and not as a community-enhancing street.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) CORRIDOR
The city’s decision to “reserve” a major swath of land along MCB for a possible future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor seems to WalkBoston to be an obstacle to the boulevard’s ability to serve the neighboring community as well as it could.

As we have discussed, buildings sited close to a street will fall within a driver’s line of vision. This perceived narrowing of the street’s width automatically slows speeds and makes it easier, safer and more practical for people to cross the road and better use the corridor. BTD’s current approach of reserving open land for BRT passage means that buildings will not be developed bordering the boulevard, thus seriously compromising its ability to function as a multimodal city street.

Practically speaking, if the “Urban Ring” BRT is ever built, its passage through the high-income areas of the Longwood Medical Area, Museum of Fine Arts, Fenway, Boston University, Back Bay, Charles River and Cambridge will doubtless run through a tunnel. Putting the one-mile Roxbury MCB portion in a tunnel would be a much easier cut-and-cover proposition than the rest of the route. Roxbury deserves this option so that new buildings can be built closer to Melnea Cass and the road will be humane in scale.

If land is not reserved for the BRT the width of the re-designed roadway corridor can be substantially reduced, resulting in the preservation of many trees, especially those on the north side of the roadway. For example, between Shawmut and Washington the roadway is shifted 40-60 feet north to provide a 40-foot wide sidewalk in front of Parcel 9. We assume this excessively wide space is incorporated into the design to preserve the BRT corridor.

However, if this sidewalk’s width were reduced it would not be necessary to remove many mature trees. WalkBoston also notes that the inclusion of parking on several blocks along MCB results in a wider roadway corridor that would provide space for a future BRT. However, the parking also results in the removal of mature trees. Developments along MCB have on-site parking, such as Tropical Foods. Hence WalkBoston questions the need for creating new parking on MCB.

OTHER SUGGESTED ADJUSTMENTS
We support the proposed design elements mentioned in the letter from the Friends of Melnea Cass Boulevard (FMCB) – narrower curb radii (like those currently on MCB), improved signal timing and leading pedestrian indicators, and raised roadway crossings on streets intersecting with MCB. We also support recommendations made by Livable Streets to reduce traffic signal cycles to 80 seconds to encourage walker compliance, and bus stops located within 50 feet of a crosswalk and on the far side of the traffic signal to provide for signal priority. WalkBoston would like to discuss with BTD and its consultants how signal timing will work for pedestrians and how crosswalks might be straightened to shorten crossing distances. At high pedestrian crash locations such as MCB/Washington, perhaps an all-way WALK would be a safer signalization option for walkers, provided wait times were a reasonable length.

WalkBoston suggests wide crosswalk widths of 14-15 feet (such as those in Peabody Square in Dorchester and Huntington Avenue at the YMCA) with generous vehicle stop lines. We would also like BTD to assess whether more space could be found for wider sidewalks, for instance at areas like Tremont to Harrison Avenue and other locations.

Finally, we would like a fuller description of what is planned from Hampden Street to Massachusetts Avenue — trees, sidewalk, bicycle lanes, why parking has been added with the consequent loss of trees.

PRESERVING TREES
The issues of tree plantings and tree removal are of vital concern for pedestrians. Our 2013 summer walk showed how important mature trees are in providing shade and protection from traffic along MCB. WalkBoston hopes the City can find ways to preserve as many trees as possible as described above. Wider, tree-lined sidewalks are more appealing than specially built median strips put in place for trees. In our experience trees and plantings in medians rarely flourish, or even survive, and most importantly, they do not provide shade for walkers.

Currently the plans show two-way bicycle lanes on both sides of MCB. If the lanes were reduced to one lane on each side, the cycle track could be reduced from 10 to 8 feet or less, again, resulting in the preservation of trees. As suggested by other commenters, WalkBoston urges the layout of curving pathways for bicyclists and walkers in order to preserve mature trees.

THE TREMONT/MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
We are uncertain about the redesign of this intersection and the elimination of the slip lane. It seems a desirable change until one considers the effect of two right-turn lanes into MCB plus an additional lane added on the Tremont crossing. Both seem to create difficult conditions for pedestrians. Thus, we request traffic information in order to help us to assess the impacts of this design. (A recent Transportation Research Board publication may provide some helpful information on pedestrian impacts and benefits from slip lanes: A Report on the Development of Guidelines for Applying Right-Turn Slip Lanes – available at: http://www.trb.org/SafetyHumanFactors/Blurbs/172629.aspx)

WalkBoston would like to see these and other adjustments to the current design in order to further improve the pedestrian experience along the redesigned boulevard. We would, of course, be glad to assist in this design effort.

SOME PROCEDURAL REQUESTS
In order to address our detailed questions regarding the MCB design, we request that you schedule a working session with BTD and its consultants. WalkBoston understands that the FMCB have requested or will soon request a similar meeting and we would be happy to have a combined BTD, FMCB and WalkBoston meeting on these areas of concern.

Thank you so much for the City’s detailed and extensive work with WalkBoston and the Roxbury community on this important street. We believe the outcome will be better for everyone.

Sincerely,

Dorothea Hass and Ann Hershfang

cc: Representative Byron Rushing
Representative Gloria Fox
Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz
Austin Blackmon, Environmental Cabinet Chief
Councilor Tito Jackson
Councilor Ayanna Pressley
Councilor Michael Flaherty
Friends of Melnea Cass Boulevard
Livable Streets
Boston Cyclists Union
United Neighbors of Lower Roxbury
Whittier Tenants Task Force
Madison Park Development Corporation