Tag: WalkBoston

Support for S.1376 ‘An Act relative to automated enforcement’

Support for S.1376 ‘An Act relative to automated enforcement’

By |

October 22, 2019
Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
Michael O. Moore, Senate Chair
State House, Room 109-B
Boston, MA 02133
Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
Harold P. Naughton, Jr., House Chair
State House, Room 167
Boston, MA 02133

Re: Support for S.1376 ‘An Act relative to automated enforcement’

Dear Chair Moore, Chair Naughton, and members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security:

Thank you for holding a hearing on legislation that promotes road safety in Massachusetts. We are asking you to favorably report out S.1376 An Act relative to automated enforcement. Let’s prevent fatalities, crashes, and injuries on Massachusetts streets.

When employed properly, automated enforcement has been shown to effectively reduce unsafe driving behavior, the number of crashes, and the severity of crash-related injuries. This approach also de-emphasizes officer-initiated traffic stops that can cause concern about racial profiling. Automated enforcement is used in 29 other states.

This bill protects the privacy of drivers and other vehicle occupants, since it requires that only photographs of the rear license plate are recorded. Addressing concerns around equity, it requires cameras be placed in locations with a nexus to safety, has fines limited to $25, and would require a statewide study of any racial and socioeconomic disparities three years after enacted. Cities and towns would only be able to receive revenue that accounts for the costs of the program, and any additional revenue received would go to the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund.

Serious injury and death from traffic crashes continue with troubling frequency on our streets. S.1376 An Act relative to automated enforcement is a comprehensive piece of legislation which aims to create safer streets for all users.

We encourage you to report this legislation out favorably.

Please find the testimony shared this morning at the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security hearing attached (as prepared).

Sincerely,
Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition

Testimony at hearing:

Brendan Kearney, WalkBoston:
Good Morning Chairs and members of the committee. My name is Brendan Kearney, Deputy Director at WalkBoston. Thank you for the opportunity for myself and two of my colleagues from the Vision Zero Coalition to testify in support of Senate Bill 1376, An Act relative to automated enforcement.

The Vision Zero Coalition was formed in fall 2015 to advocate for the implementation of Vision Zero in Boston, and for the reduction of traffic injuries and deaths across Massachusetts. Our coalition includes community-based organizations, nonprofits, businesses, civic groups, and individuals.

Speeding is a huge public safety issue: the Governor’s Highway Safety Association Report “Speeding Away from Zero” released earlier this year shared that 28% of fatal crashes in 2017 in MA were speeding-related. Higher speed, regardless of limit, is a factor in every traffic fatality or serious crash: there is less reaction time for a person driving to brake or avoid a crash, and a fast moving vehicle inflicts higher blunt force trauma on crash victims. Lower speeds have been found to be safer on our roads.

We are thankful that the Municipal Modernization Act of 2016 gave cities and towns the ability to opt-in to lower the prevailing speed limit to 25 miles per hour and create 20 mph safety zones. Similarly, this bill would allow municipalities to opt-in to a safety camera program, within parameters and limits.

Enforcement is one of the tools that we have to reduce traffic speeds on our roadways. Yet, according to EOPSS statistics, motor vehicle citations have declined close to 25% over the past 5 years. Several factors have contributed to this decline – and we think automated enforcement could help address some of these factors.

Traffic enforcement is an important measure for safety — but it must be done equitably. Equitable automated enforcement could allow enforcement within limited budgets and help to remove police bias in traffic stops, if implemented well.

This bill has several measures to design an equitable program. Local municipalities would approve the locations after a public process, with a limit of one fixed camera per 2,500 residents. This bill calls for an annual report to be sent to MassDOT with locations; and after 3 years, requires a statewide study of racial or socioeconomic enforcement disparities from this act. We are happy to engage with committee and stakeholders on any of the language.

Louisa Gag, LivableStreets Alliance:
Good Morning, my name is Louisa Gag and I’m the Public Policy and Operations Manager at LivableStreets Alliance.

The 2018 Massachusetts Strategic Highway Safety Plan recommended automated enforcement legislation be developed to give municipalities “opt in” authority to issue citations through the use of cameras and radar technology.

And there’s a reason for that. It works – some sort of automated enforcement is used in 29 other states and 130 countries. In Maryland, a study showed that the proportion of drivers traveling more than 10 mph above the speed limit declined by about 70% for locations with warning signs and speed camera enforcement. A National Transportation Safety Board review of 28 automated speed enforcement studies found that cameras reduced crashes between 8-49%. And a UNC study found that for red-light cameras, while sometimes there is a slight increase in rear-end crashes, there is almost always a significant reduction in side-impact crashes, which are typically more severe.

One common concern with automated enforcement is privacy. We believe that these concerns are addressed very well in this bill, but we’d be happy to engage with the committee and other stakeholders to improve it even further. Only photographs of the rear license plate are recorded, so that means no faces are photographed. Photos are only captured when a camera-enforceable violation occurs. 48 hours after final disposition of a violation, images are permanently deleted. Any use of a photograph before that would require a court-approved warrant.
Thank you.

Charlie Ticotsky, Transportation for Massachusetts:
Thank you, my name is Charlie Ticotsky and I’m the Policy Director at the Transportation for Massachusetts Coalition.

This bill, which if passed would likely create most thoughtful automated enforcement regulatory structure in the country, clearly presents automated enforcement in the context of safety. It is NOT a money grab for cities and towns. In fact, cities and towns would only be able to receive revenue that accounts for the costs of the program, and any additional revenue would go to the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund. The idea is that drivers would not be tricked into violations–the cameras must be clearly marked and obvious and a public awareness campaign prior to them going live would be required. The bill also allows a grace period where motorists would receive only warnings. This bill sets up a system meant to be a deterrent to dangerous driving, not a revenue scheme.

Fines would be limited to 25 dollars, and would not escalate for multiple offenses. It would not lead to increased insurance points. And while it could put your car registration status in jeopardy after serial nonpayment to force repayment, it cannot lead to license suspensions. The fine is on the car owner because there will be no photos of anything but the license plate. There is a provision for emergencies and other exemptions, and an appeals and hearing process.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, unlike in other jurisdictions, private vendors of these cameras would only be allowed to be paid based on the value of equipment and service provided–not on the number of citations issued or revenue generated–so that there will not be pressure from the private companies to increase the number of citations issued or revenue generated.

Thank you very much.

Comment Letter Re: a car-free option for Memorial Drive Phase III

Comment Letter Re: a car-free option for Memorial Drive Phase III

By |

Commissioner Leo Roy
Department of Conservation and Recreation

May 9, 2019
Dear Commissioner Roy,

As part of the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Memorial Drive Phase III redesign between Eliot Bridge and the B.U. Boat House we ask that you consider a car-free option in the planning process.

As recently highlighted by Governor Baker’s Commission on the Future of Transportation, 40% of Massachusetts’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from transportation infrastructure and vehicles, half of which come from passenger vehicles alone. The pressing need to limit passenger vehicle trips, in concert with the City of Cambridge’s 1992 Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordinance, justify consideration for a car-free Memorial Drive.

This planning process allows the State a unique opportunity to enhance regional park access by connecting adjacent parks (Riverbend Park, John F. Kennedy Memorial Park, Riverside City Park, Riverside Press Park, Magazine Beach, and others) to the Charles River. Creating truly safe and accessible connectivity between walking and biking facilities along the Charles River and adjacent neighborhoods will have lower positive impact then a car- free option. By limiting vehicle infrastructure, the State will be expanding space for new parkland and an expanded tree canopy. Limiting car access to Memorial Drive will align with ongoing climate resiliency initiatives by reducing GHG emissions, increasing green space, but also by establishing space for further flood mitigation, an ongoing issue near Magazine Beach and Micro Center.

This concept of a car-free Memorial Drive is not new, but a logical extension of the existing weekend Riverbend Park Street closures, which demonstrate the desire for this type of expansive riverfront parkland. While recognizing that over 1,000 vehicles use Memorial Drive during peak hours, we believe that ongoing transportation initiatives including the Green Line Extension, the Allston I-90 Multimodal Interchange, West Station, the Grand Junction path and regional rail concepts, and the MBTA’s Better Buses initiative will provide viable alternatives in the long-run, significantly reducing the need for Memorial Drive as a private vehicle throughway.

The existing sub-standard conditions of the Dr. Paul Dudley White Bike Path along Memorial Drive currently have high usership. There are currently over 1,000 daily bike commuters and over 1,000 daily runners and pedestrians. The existing conditions do not provide safe accommodation for existing users, and with future expansion of the regions multi-use paths, including the Watertown-Cambridge Greenway and the Grand Junction Path, this section of paths will see increased daily users. Providing safe and reliable accommodations for sustainable transportation and recreation modes should be the highest priority of the DCR.

There is precedence for a project of this scope, as when a two-mile stretch of a busy highway along the Seine in Paris, France, was permanently closed to cars in 2016, and turned into a bicycle and pedestrian promenade. This type of project could prove to be similarly iconic for the Charles River.

This is a complicated project. We recommend, along with The Charles River Conservancy and Magazine Beach Partners that a task force or advisory group be created to help better inform decisions throughout the process. The groups listed on their letter can help you provide better transparency and inclusiveness in the project. While early in the planning phase it is important to consider this highly impactful, once in a lifetime opportunity to restore Cambridge’s public shoreline. Thank you for your consideration of this unique opportunity to prioritize climate resiliency and public health.

Sincerely,

Tony Lechuga, LivableStreets
David Read, Longwood Area Cyclists
Alex Auriema, Memorial Drive Bicycle Group
Nathanael Fillmore, Cambridge Bicycle Safety
Janie Katz-Christy, Green Streets Initiative
Steven Nutter, Green Cambridge
Becca Wolfson, Boston Cyclists Union
Brendan Kearney, WalkBoston

Re: Comments on H3126/S2069 An Act Relative to Mobile Carry Devices

Re: Comments on H3126/S2069 An Act Relative to Mobile Carry Devices

By |

March 28, 2019

Joint Committee on Transportation
Joseph A. Boncore, Senate Chair
State House, Room 112
Boston, MA 02133

Joint Committee on Transportation
William Straus, House Chair
State House, Room 134
Boston, MA 02133

Re: Comments on H3126/S2069 An Act Relative to Mobile Carry Devices

Dear Chairman Boncore and Chairman Straus,

WalkBoston is Massachusetts’ main pedestrian advocacy organization, working to make walking safer and easier in Massachusetts to encourage better health, a cleaner environment and more vibrant communities. LivableStreets Alliance advocates for innovative and equitable transportation solutions that create safe, affordable and convenient options for everyone in Metro Boston.  We write to provide the Committee with our comments on H3126/S2069, “An act relative to mobile carry devices.”

If we are to continue to build more livable cities and towns across Massachusetts, we must ensure the sidewalks are made for people of all ages and abilities. A 90-lb device that can carry up to 45-lbs of goods traveling at 12.5 miles per hour does not belong on the sidewalk, and instead should be in the street.

At a high level, we are also concerned that these regulations could open the door to the privatization of the public way: our sidewalks. The most sought-after space in our cities is at the curb. Cities on the West Coast continue to grapple with transportation technology issues a few months in advance of us, including the testing of autonomous delivery robots. The latest example we’ve heard from Walk San Francisco includes a proposal from a tech food delivery company to use robots to continuously operate on a sidewalk route to pick up multiple orders from a store and deliver them 2-3 blocks away to a waiting delivery driver in a car.

This legislation leaves many questions:

  • The language “primarily for transporting personal property,” and “primarily designed to remain within 25 ft of personal property owner” both indicate that there would be other uses.
  • “Personal property owner is actively monitoring navigation and operation” seems to indicate that a device could operate autonomously or via remote control as long as it was under the auspices of the owner. There are rigorous testing and reporting requirements for autonomous vehicles to use streets in the city of Boston; autonomous vehicles should not be allowed on sidewalks without similar care and attention.
  • The language “a mobile carrying device has the rights and obligations applicable to a pedestrian” will give more legal protection in a crosswalk to a 90-lb device than to a person using a bike or scooter.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment, and would be happy to work with any proponent to offer feedback.

Thank you,

Brendan Kearney
Communications Director, WalkBoston

Stacy Thompson
Executive Director, LivableStreets Alliance

Re: Comments on H3073/S2049 An Act relative to micro-mobility and motorized scooters

Re: Comments on H3073/S2049 An Act relative to micro-mobility and motorized scooters

By |

March 28, 2019

Joint Committee on Transportation
Joseph A. Boncore, Senate Chair
State House, Room 112
Boston, MA 02133

Joint Committee on Transportation
William Straus, House Chair
State House, Room 134
Boston, MA 02133

Re: Comments on H3073/S2049 An Act relative to micro-mobility and motorized scooters

Dear Chairman Boncore and Chairman Straus,

WalkBoston is Massachusetts’ main pedestrian advocacy organization, working to make walking safer and easier in Massachusetts to encourage better health, a cleaner environment and more vibrant communities. We write to provide the Committee with our comments on H3073/S2049 An Act relative to micro-mobility and motorized scooters.

We understand the need for state legislation to guide the roll out of scooters in Massachusetts and support the efforts of MassDOT, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), and a number of the state’s municipalities to provide a statewide framework for these new mobility devices. We also believe that scooters may positively add to mobility options for Massachusetts’ residents.

  • At the most fundamental level, we believe that in areas of the Commonwealth where there is more than occasional sidewalk use by pedestrians, motorized scooters should be accommodated on-street or in separated bike/scooter lanes where they will not conflict with people who are walking on the sidewalk.
  • As reporting is beginning to emerge from cities where scooters have been operating the number of pedestrian injuries attributed to scooters on sidewalks is significant, with 8% of “scooter” injuries in Los Angeles being pedestrians who were hit by scooters or tripped over scooters on sidewalks.
  • After many years of work to meet the requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) we are only beginning to approach an accessible sidewalk system. WalkBoston is very concerned that allowing the use of scooters on sidewalks will result in scooters blocking sidewalks and curb ramps. We recommend that municipal regulations require scooters to be locked to appropriate bike racks or corrals, as other communities around the country have started to consider.

Our comments are focused on H3073/S2049 because this is a comprehensive bill that has been drawn up with the active participation of the agencies noted above.

  1. We are pleased that the bill limits scooters to a speed of 15 miles per hour, although this will be very fast if it is happening on a sidewalk where pedestrians are walking at 2-3 miles per hour.
  2. We are pleased that the bill requires scooters to have front and rear lights and turn signals.
  3. As currently drafted the act would allow motorized scooters on all shared use paths operated by MassDOT or the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) including such places as the Southwest Corridor, the Esplanade, the Mass Ave and Longfellow Bridge sidewalks, and the Cape Cod Rail Trail. We do not believe that these heavily used paths that double as linear parks with significant numbers of young children, people with disabilities and seniors should be used by motorized scooters unless they are operated at a significantly lower speed (5 mph).

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important piece of transportation safety legislation.

Best regards,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Carol Steinberg
WalkBoston Board Member
Wheelchair user and 9-year member of the MA Architectural Access Board

Comments on Morton Intersection Improvements, Project: 608755

Comments on Morton Intersection Improvements, Project: 608755

By |

Patricia Leavenworth, P.E., Chief Engineer
MassDOT-Highway Division
10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116-3973

Attn: Roadway Project Management – Room 6340

Re: Morton Intersection Improvements Project: 608755

December 21, 2018

Dear Ms. Leavenworth:

We are submitting comments in regards to Intersection Improvements at three intersections along Morton Street after seeing the plans at a public meeting on December 19, 2018.

First, we ask the Department to please extend the 10-day public comment period given that the meeting was held just before the Christmas holiday and it may be hard for residents to get feedback in on time. We are pleased to see MassDOT undertaking this project and look forward to continuing to work with you on implementation of safety improvements to the corridor.

Overall, we feel the project will improve safety for drivers, but will do little to improve the safety or convenience for pedestrians or cyclists. In this area, pedestrian safety needs to be prioritized in the design utilizing Complete Streets guidelines. We also ask that these spot improvements are the beginning and not the end of a process to improve the entire stretch of Morton St and create connections from Mattapan to Franklin Park and walking/biking paths in Jamaica Plain, especially as this stretch is identified in Go Boston 2030 for connecting the Southwest Corridor to the Blue Hills Reservation. In addition, we are advocating for the following adjustments and additions the plans presented on December 19:

  • Increased traffic calming on Morton Street
    The high speeds on Morton Street make the street unsafe for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. We applaud that the design calls for narrower travel lanes but additional measures need to be taken to slow speeds. Possible solutions might be raised intersections, additional STOP signs and/or traffic signals.
  • Create a safe pedestrian crossing between Morton/Blue Hill Ave and Morton/Harvard
    There is no crosswalk in the 1000-foot stretch between Blue Hill Ave and Harvard Street. This is a dense residential neighborhood and the lack of a safe crossing here is a major community concern. The crossing could either be at Courtland/Havelock/Morton or Wellington Hill/Morton depending on the neighborhood’s preference.The lack of a crosswalk contributes to the highway feel of Morton Street and hence the high speeds and extremely high crash clusters over the past four years. Any crosswalk should include a HAWK beacon for improved notice and safety of pedestrians crossing the street.
  • Design a traffic signal system which enables pedestrians to easily and safely cross Blue Hill Ave
    People wishing to cross Blue Hill Ave must now push a button to wait for a WALK signal. Once the intersection is redesigned they will still have to push a button to cross the street. We strongly request traffic signals that “rest in WALK”.
    Push buttons result in very long waits for walkers. Depending upon when a walker pushes the button in the traffic cycle he/she may wait for over two minutes to get a walk signal. Furthermore, pedestrians must be able to cross the six lanes of Blue Hill Ave in one cycle. Neither MassDOT staff nor their consultants could guarantee that walkers would be able to cross in one cycle.
  • The bike boxes at the Blue Hill Ave and Morton St intersection are an important safety measure however the placement of one in the Southeast corner of the intersection could pose a dangerous conflict with right turning cars. We would like to look more closely at the designs to assess this. An additional left-turning bike box is needed at the northeast corner in so that cyclists can safely turn left off of blue Hill onto Morton St towards Jamaica Plain.
  • We support the overwhelming response from residents who advocated to keep the bus stop where it currently is on Blue Hill Ave.
  • We applaud the design’s tightening of curb radii at Blue Hill/Morton and if floating bus stops are in a location supported by community members, we would support them and the addition of bike facilities at the intersection. It appeared that at least some people at the public meeting had never seen or experienced floating bus stops and more education is needed about how they work when proposing them. We understand that parking will not be permitted within 20 feet of the intersections but we also heard that there are many violations of this regulation. We recommend that additional curb extensions, either concrete or flexposts, be added to the design.

Sincerely,
Dorothea Hass, WalkBoston
Eliza Parad, Boston Cyclists Union
Galen Mook, Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition
Tony Lechuga, LivableStreets Alliance