Tag: T4MA

Automated enforcement?

Automated enforcement?

By |

Our streets are experiencing a rise of serious injuries
and fatalities. As the Boston Globe recently reported, all
traffic deaths in 2017 are up 46% over the same period
of 2013. This unacceptable trend affects people walking,
biking, and driving. Drivers who are distracted by texting
and apps are a major cause of crashes.

An Act to reduce traffic fatalities (Senate Bill 1905 /
House Bill 2877) is intended to make our roads safer in
the face of troubling trends. Drafted with broad input,
it has 85 cosponsors led by Senator Will Brownsberger
and Representatives Jon Hecht and David Rogers.

Recognizing that cities and towns need tools to enforce
traffic rules, the legislation allows use of automated road
safety cameras to enforce speeding, red-light, and school
bus stop sign violations. While Massachusetts does not
currently enable this, 29 states have some form of camera
enforcement and it is common in other countries.

Research shows automated cameras are effective. In Montgomery County, Maryland, streets with speed
cameras experienced a 39% reduction in fatal and
serious injuries. A University of North Carolina
Highway Research Center study found installation of red-light cameras can
contribute to a slight rise in rear-end crashes, but almost always leads to
significant reductions in typically more severe side-impact crashes. The
National Transportation Safety Board has endorsed automated enforcement
as an effective way to reduce speed and crashes.

With the right regulations, automated enforcement can be a highly effective
safety tool, and one that doesn’t increase traffic stops—a concern by many in a
time of increased racial profiling, and immigration issues. The language In this
bill is designed to ensure the best system of enforcement:


• Location of cameras would be based on safety benefits, not targeting any
population or neighborhood. Cameras would be at high-crash locations
where other interventions such as road redesign are not feasible.

• It would not be a money grab. The best cameras act as deterrents and
not to trick people into fines—few violations are a sign of success. The
bill directs the majority of revenues into road improvements, not general
funds. Cameras would be well-marked. Revenue-sharing with private
camera installation or operating companies would be prohibited, avoiding
inappropriate incentives.

• Photographs would be of rear license plates, no faces or identifying
information, and only if a violation has occurred. Photos would be
permanently deleted after ruling. Fines, assessed to the owner of the
vehicle, would not exceed $50, won’t increase with additional violations,
nor add to insurance points. Law enforcement would need a court-approved
warrant to access photos for purposes beyond traffic enforcement.

• There would be state oversight, an appeals process, and common-sense
emergency exemptions.

Charlie Ticotsky is the policy director of Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA). Sign up for their email list & follow T4MASS on Twitter.
This article was featured in WalkBoston’s October 2017 newsletter.

————————————————————————————————
Join WalkBoston’s Mailing List to keep up to date on advocacy issues.

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

October 2017 Newsletter

October 2017 Newsletter

By | | Comments 0 Comment

Our newsletter is out and hitting mailboxes of supporters! Thank you to all the contributors & volunteer newsletter committee who helped make it happen.

“A note from the Executive Director”
By Wendy Landman/Executive Director, WalkBoston
“Automated Enforcement?”
By Charlie Ticotsky/Policy Director, T4MA
“Town of Lenox on the move”
By Gwen Miller/Land Use Dir. & Town Planner, Lenox
“Rural walking in Massachusetts”
By Stacey Beuttell/Program Director, WalkBoston

Download the October 2017 Newsletter PDF

Automated Enforcement?

Automated Enforcement?

By |

By Charlie Ticotsky/Policy Director, T4MA 

Our streets are experiencing a rise of serious injuries and fatalities. As the Boston Globe recently reported, all traffic deaths in 2017 are up 46% over the same period of 2013. This unacceptable trend affects people walking, biking, and driving. Drivers who are distracted by texting and apps are a major cause of crashes.

An Act to reduce traffic fatalities (Senate Bill 1905 / House Bill 2877) is intended to make our roads safer in the face of troubling trends. Drafted with broad input, it has 85 cosponsors led by Senator Will Brownsberger and Representatives Jon Hecht and David Rogers.

Recognizing that cities and towns need tools to enforce traffic rules, the legislation allows use of automated road safety cameras to enforce speeding, red-light, and school bus stop sign violations. While Massachusetts does not currently enable this, 29 states have some form of camera enforcement and it is common in other countries.

Research shows automated cameras are effective. In Montgomery County, Maryland, streets with speed cameras experienced a 39% reduction in fatal and serious injuries. A University of North Carolina Highway Research Center study found installation of red-light cameras can contribute to a slight rise in rear-end crashes, but almost always leads to significant reductions in typically more severe side-impact crashes. The National Transportation Safety Board has endorsed automated enforcement as an effective way to reduce speed and crashes.

With the right regulations, automated enforcement can be a highly effective safety tool, and one that doesn’t increase traffic stops—a concern by many in a time of increased racial profiling, and immigration issues. The language In this bill is designed to ensure the best system of enforcement:

  • Location of cameras would be based on safety benefits, not targeting any population or neighborhood. Cameras would be at high-crash locations where other interventions such as road redesign are not feasible.
  • It would not be a money grab. The best cameras act as deterrents and not to trick people into fines—few violations are a sign of success. The bill directs the majority of revenues into road improvements, not general funds. Cameras would be well-marked. Revenue-sharing with private camera installation or operating companies would be prohibited, avoiding inappropriate incentives.
  • Photographs would be of rear license plates, no faces or identifying information, and only if a violation has occurred. Photos would be permanently deleted after ruling. Fines, assessed to the owner of the vehicle, would not exceed $50, won’t increase with additional violations, nor add to insurance points. Law enforcement would need a court-approved warrant to access photos for purposes beyond traffic enforcement.
  • There would be state oversight, an appeals process, and common-sense emergency exemptions.

This article was featured in WalkBoston’s October 2017 newsletter.

————————————————————————————————
Join WalkBoston’s Mailing List to keep up to date on advocacy issues.
Like our work? Support WalkBoston – Donate Now!
Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook

Pricier Boston parking meters is a start

Pricier Boston parking meters is a start

By |

AS PUBLISHED IN BOSTINNO ON JAN. 18, 2017 

Brendan Kearney is the Communications Director at WalkBoston and a member of the Boston Vision Zero Task Force. 

The City of Boston recently rolled out a performance parking initiative that includes flexible parking meter pricing in the Seaport and Back Bay. Prices will be lower on streets that consistently have availability, while the meter price will be higher on streets that are often filled. You may be able to park a little farther away to save a few quarters, which frees up a spot closer for someone who needs it – or doesn’t mind paying a little more.

Kudos to Mayor Marty Walsh. The city is on the right track with a pilot project like this one. Boston is home to an innovation economy. We should be pushing for more pilot projects to change how our streets and curbside spaces are allocated.

If modifying the price of parking can help change habits, all the better. People may realize that for many of their daily trips, it is cheaper and more convenient to walk, take the bus/train, or bike, leading to fewer cars on the road and endless searches for a spot curbside. Boston should also follow the lead of surrounding communities like Cambridge ($25), Somerville ($40), Brookline ($25) and Quincy ($20) offering annual residential parking permits to help pay for city services.

The Boston Globe’s Dante Ramos makes the argument that the new meter price isn’t nearly high enough, and it is hard to disagree with his logic: “Before Boston adopted the current rate in 2011, the city had charged curbside parkers $1 an hour for the previous 30 years. By comparison, MBTA subway fares rose from 60 cents in 1982 to $2.25 today. Had meters merely kept up with inflation since 1981, they’d cost $2.66 an hour citywide.”

While cities and towns don’t control the MBTA, the cities and towns do control most of the streets and signals. The City of Everett debuted a bus-only lane in December during the morning rush hour, helping to speed the trips along a busy corridor. A similar pilot on Summer Street in South Boston would be well worth a try. Stacy Thompson at LivableStreets Alliance says “[buses] can be awesome, and they should be fun.” More pilot projects for bus corridor improvements can help with that.

Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) released a report in October titled “Fast Forward” giving a snapshot of transformative changes in transportation and how they could play out in Massachusetts. One key takeaway of the report: “Walking – along with biking and transit use – allows vast numbers people to navigate tight urban spaces without contributing to congestion, supporting the vibrant mix of businesses, amenities and housing that make Massachusetts’ cities special. No innovative mobility solutions work for the urban core, therefore, unless they enable and foster walkability.”

Let’s not be afraid to try out new solutions on our streets, which may just be new to us, of course; many cities around the United States have been trying out pilot projects to improve transportation. The goal shouldn’t be innovation for innovation’s sake, but to find ways to make our cities a better place for more people to work, live, and play – no matter how they are getting around.

This article was featured in WalkBoston’s March 2017 newsletter.
————————————————————————————————
Join WalkBoston’s Mailing List to keep up to date on advocacy issues.
Like our work? Support WalkBoston – Donate Now!
Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook

HANDOUT: Gas Tax Indexing is Necessary for Meeting Mode Shift Goals

HANDOUT: Gas Tax Indexing is Necessary for Meeting Mode Shift Goals

By |

This is an informational handout that was part of the 2014 Bike/Walk Summit presented by MassBike and WalkBoston.

The Issue – The Transportation Finance Bill (H. 3535), passed during the current legislative session, includes a provision for indexing gas tax to inflation – meaning that the gas tax will allow for continued funding of transportation investments by rising incrementally with inflation.

A group called “Tank the Gas Tax” has qualified a question for the November 2014 ballot that would repeal the indexing of gas tax to inflation. The referendum proponents have incorrectly stated that the indexing money goes to the General Fund, rather than for transportation.

Without indexing, we will lose over $1B in the next 10 years.* Construction costs are expected to increase approximately 3% annually over the next several years, and we will be unable to keep up with this growth in costs without indexing. Biking and walking infrastructure is paid for through transportation funding, and without gas tax indexing it will be much more difficult for Massachusetts to reach the goal of tripling the share of trips made by biking, walking, and transit by 2030.

Losing this needed money for transportation means that we won’t have adequate resources to make the critical transportation investments that will grow jobs and the economy. For instance, if the legislature had not acted, Massachusetts could have faced losses of up to 15,000 jobs and as much as $11 billion in increased operating costs due to the deteriorating transportation network.*

The Ask – We need the support of our legislators to make sure that this significant piece of transportation funding does not get rolled back in November.

Ask our legislators to vocally oppose the repeal of gas tax indexing to preserve funding for transportation investments. As active members of the Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) Coalition, MassBike and WalkBoston are asking legislators to join  their constituents and the 23 organizations of T4MA – representing the business sector, public health, and transportation – from across the Commonwealth who are opposed to repeal.

Bottom Line – The repeal of gas tax indexing will jeopardize bike and pedestrian projects across Massachusetts by defunding crucial transportation investments, hurt our economy, continue the cycle of deferred maintenance, reverse the momentum for investing in infrastructure, and doom efforts to reach mode shift goals.

*Source: Transportation for Massachusetts (http://www.t4ma.org/)