Tag: speed management

Comments on MassDOT Maffa Way + Mystic Ave Bridge Project (File No. 607670)

Comments on MassDOT Maffa Way + Mystic Ave Bridge Project (File No. 607670)

March 22, 2022

Carrie E. Lavallee, P.E.,
Acting Chief Engineer

Suite 6340, 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116

via e-mail to dot.feedback.highway@state.ma.us

Attention: Major Projects, Project File No. 607670

Dear Ms. Lavallee,

I attended the public meeting for the MassDOT Maffa Way / Mystic Ave Bridge Project in Somerville (near Sullivan Square) earlier this month. There were a few questions from the audience and a discussion about vehicle speed which seemed to show a real disconnect between MassDOT’s Safe Speed Management guidance and the way that this project is being designed.

This project is set to be completed in 2027, and will rebuild the bridges / associated roadways. There are a lot of project elements that will help to make the roads and sidewalks safer for biking and walking and improve access to the MBTA station. However, when I brought up the recently released speed guidance that describes target speeds, it was not very well received by the project team. The default speed in both Somerville and Boston is 25mph. This project is using a design speed of 35mph, after doing a speed study and seeing that the 85% speed on the existing roadway was ~32mph. At least three other attendees also commented that the design speed is way too high.

Good points were made that MassDOT should be designing a road for what is needed, and not repeating the design problems that are out there right now which allow people to drive way too fast, especially at off peak times. MassDOT & all MassDOT consultants should be setting the example for the rest of Massachusetts about how projects can incorporate the recently released Safe Speed Management guidance through setting target speeds for a reconstructed roadway rather than relying exclusively on the 85th percentile of the existing road.

Thank you,

Brendan Kearney
Deputy Director, WalkBoston

October Speed Workshop Recap

October Speed Workshop Recap

Earlier this month, we held a 90- minute lunchtime workshop on speed limits and community advocacy around speed mitigation where we discussed the many speeding issues communities across the Commonwealth are facing. This workshop was made possible thanks to funding from the Plymouth Rock Assurance Foundation.

The slides we shared at the beginning of the workshop can be viewed here. Below we’ve summarized the breakout sessions, included links for some of the questions that were posed during the discussion so you can learn more, and added a list of funding sources that places across Massachusetts can use to improve pedestrian safety in their community. 

PROBLEMS: “What speed setting problems are you facing?”

  • Road Jurisdiction: who controls the road? State agencies (MassDOT, MassDCR) set the speed limit on roads they control, which may be at odds with what the community wants. These roads are also not subject to a community’s opt-in to 25mph speed limit. 
  • Discrepancies between design speed and posted speed limit. If when repaving or reconstructing a road the design speed selected is higher than the posted speed limit, it encourages people driving to drive faster. If a speed study is done after paving, even higher speeds may be observed, leading to a higher posted speed limit. 
  • Blanket Speed Limits that don’t match the local context and land use. If there is a blanket 25mph limit but a road is designed for higher speeds, it gives a message to people driving that the speed limit can be ignored. 
  • Only posting speed limit signs for the default 25 mph speed limit at municipal lines can be confusing. A few examples people offered:
    • A person could drive an entire trip within a community and never see a speed limit sign for the default speed, since it is not allowed to be posted anywhere other than at the municipal line.
    • Mixed messaging – there can be a sign w/ a different speed limit almost immediately after the default speed limit sign at the municipal line if that particular road had a speed study for a higher speed limit. 
    • Even when using a speed feedback sign that displays a driver’s speed, we have been told that we can’t post the white/black speed limit sign along with it to show the default speed limit. 
  • The 25 mph opt-in legislation leaves out many rural municipalities since it is meant to include ‘thickly settled areas.’ What can be done for communities that have areas that don’t fit the definition of ‘thickly settled’? 

Interventions and Strategies

  • Speed Feedback signage. Speed feedback signs can cue drivers to slow speeds, and can be periodically moved around to different areas where they may be useful. Complete Streets funding is one method to purchase speed feedback signs.  
  • Utilize speeding ticket revenue for improvements around the immediate area. In Salem, revenue generated from parking tickets issued for infractions that occur in accessible parking spaces is directed towards the disability commission. As with this example, revenue generated from speed ticketing can be used to help fund streetscape improvements that slow speeds and increase safety in the area where the infraction occurred.
  • Piggyback on upcoming investments. When changes and investments are about to be made, seize the opportunity to work with the City, DCR, MassDOT or whichever party has jurisdiction over the road, and ask for additional changes at the project site that advance best practices for traffic calming and can be made concurrently.
  • Use multiple strategies, even if low-cost. Singular built environment changes are seldom as effective as making multiple, complementary streetscape changes that provide drivers with repeated cues to slow down. In-street signage, advanced yield signs, striping, and flex posts and painted curb bump outs are all inexpensive interventions that can be affordably implemented together to slow speeds. See our report on low-cost traffic calming strategies for more. 

Advocacy

Comments on Re-Imagining Massachusetts’ Post-Pandemic Transportation System

Comments on Re-Imagining Massachusetts’ Post-Pandemic Transportation System

Comments to Senate Committee on Re-Imagining Massachusetts Post-Pandemic Resiliency

Dear Senator Hinds and Committee Members:

WalkBoston is Massachusetts’ primary pedestrian advocacy organization, working across the Commonwealth to make it safer and easier for people to walk for all activities of daily living such as access to transit, school and jobs. The COVID-19 pandemic gave stark evidence that walkable neighborhoods and communities are critical to physical and mental health, to reducing isolation and to the resilience of all Massachusetts residents and their neighborhoods.

In light of the pandemic, we have learned that key components of the transportation system to support walking should include:

  • Speed management. We need measures to control, and often reduce, speeds on Commonwealth roadways so that they are safe for all roadway users. During the initial months of the pandemic, there was dangerous speeding on roadways across Massachusetts. MassDOT’s ongoing initiative to create tools and measures to set and manage safe speeds on all MassDOT roadways (other than limited access highways) needs the support and encouragement of the legislature to ensure its success, and then to bring those same measures to municipal roads as well.
  • Safe connections to transit. As we learned during the pandemic, essential workers are more dependent on transit than many others. We need fully accessible transit and bus stops throughout Massachusetts, including safe street crossings and sidewalk connections to adjacent neighborhoods. These are crucial to a transit system that works for everyone.
  • More local funding to repurpose public space. The overwhelmingly popular MassDOT Shared Streets and Spaces program that was introduced in response to the pandemic has demonstrated that municipalities are interested and ready to rethink how they use their streets to enable more and safer outdoor recreation,
    commerce, community activities, and mobility.
  • Chapter 90 and Complete Streets. Chapter 90 funds have been traditionally used to build and maintain municipal roads without requirements that sidewalks and crosswalks be included. We suggest that the Committee review this standard and consider including Complete Streets measures within Chapter 90, similar to those requirements set by the legislature for MassDOT roadways.
  • DCR Parkways. DCR’s recently released (and long delayed) Parkway Master Plan clearly demonstrates that immediate action is needed to vastly improve safety for people bicycling and walking. Parkways are cultural and historic landmarks and should remain fully integrated components of parks and open spaces, used and enjoyed by people for walking, rolling, and riding as originally intended. With a commitment to accelerated improvement in partnership with MassDOT, parkways should remain under DCR’s purview. We urge the legislature to set funding and regulatory standards for DCR as follows:
    • Adopt MassDOT’s Complete Streets guidelines as their default design standard for all parkways;
    • Utilize MassDOT crash portal data to implement quick-build improvements on the most dangerous parkway roads and intersections within the next 12 months;
    • Align its parkway speed limits with local speed limits, especially in municipalities where the default speed has been reduced to 25 miles/hour or less;
    • Provide DCR with the budget needed to complete the recommendations in the DCR Parkway Master Plan;
    • Require DCR to set measurable goals to reduce the number of serious and fatal crashes on DCR roadways and report publicly and annually on progress toward these goals; and
    • Require DCR to add analysis and recommendations for several key parkways currently missing from the plan.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Stacey Beuttell
Executive Director, WalkBoston
405 Waltham Street, Suite 309
Lexington, MA 02421
617-367-9255