Tag: washington street

What a difference a walk can make!

What a difference a walk can make!

By |

WalkBoston was joined by Interim Boston Transportation Commissioner, Greg Rooney; Chief of Streets Chris Osgood; and BTD Director of Planning Vineet Gupta for a “traffic signals walk” on August 1. The first impacts of the walk are now visible!

The misleading and incorrectly timed traffic signal at the intersection of Milk and Washington Streets has been replaced with a much more appropriate flashing Red Light. This means that all the traffic (of which there is not very much) will stop and yield to the (many) pedestrians crossing the street. We want to thank BTD for this fix, and look forward to many more fixes in the coming months. WalkBoston will continue working to improve traffic signals for pedestrians across the City and beyond.

Comments on West Roxbury Pedestrian Crashes

Comments on West Roxbury Pedestrian Crashes

By |

Councilor Matt O’Malley
Boston City Hall
1 City Hall Plaza
Boston, MA 02108

February 14, 2019

Re: Pedestrian Fatalities in West Roxbury

Dear Councilor O’Malley:

We understand that you’ve taken a leading role responding to the fatal crashes in West Roxbury on 11/7/18 and 2/5/19. WalkBoston is writing to express our support for your effort to address these two pedestrian fatalities. To meaningfully reduce traffic fatalities, we need to address the common denominator: road design. Both occurred on arterial roadways with very limited street crossings.

November 7, 2018 at Washington/Stimson

A pedestrian was struck and killed at this intersection. From the Boston Globe:

Steve Primack has an office on Washington Street near that intersection, but wasn’t there when the man was hit. Primack said lights and other traffic calming measures are needed there. “I’m not really surprised. It’s a very, very dangerous intersection,” he said. “There’s a number of blind spots, and people fly down that road. It’s a shame that somebody had to die. It could have been prevented.”

February 5, 2019 at Centre/Hastings

A pedestrian was struck and killed at this intersection. A parent and child leaving the Lyndon School witnessed this fatality. Parents say they have had many near misses on this stretch of Centre Street such as double threats (a driver in one lane yielding at the crosswalk and waving a person to cross, with drivers in the other lane not slowing down). As with Washington Street, residents have been saying for years that traffic moves too quickly along the roadway and that a road diet is long overdue.

When Centre Street was being redesigned 15 years ago, WalkBoston – with the support of many residents and small business owners – asked the City to design a narrower roadway with one vehicle travel lane in each direction, plus turning lanes where needed. People drive much too fast along this main street of a densely settled residential neighborhood.

When two pedestrian fatalities occurred on Tremont Street in the South End, the Transportation Department quickly installed flex posts and signage, while a planning process is now under design for a road diet. WalkBoston urges the City to take steps now to slow traffic on Washington and Centre Street, and put these arterials on road diets.

In the City Council 20mph hearing on 11/13/18, you suggested a hearing on automated enforcement. Senator Brownsberger has filed a bill this session (SD1461) at the State House. We would be happy to discuss this as another tool for creating safer streets.

Sincerely,

Dorothea Hass, Senior Project Manager
Brendan Kearney, Communications Director

cc: Commissioner Gina Fiandaca, BTD
City Councilor Michelle Wu, Planning Development and Transportation Committee Chair

Comments on PNF 425 Washington Street, Brighton

Comments on PNF 425 Washington Street, Brighton

By |

February 8, 2016

Lance Campbell
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Boston City Hall
1 City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201

Re: Proposal for 425 Washington Street, Brighton (Parsons Crossing)

Dear Mr. Campbell,

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project Notification Form for 425 Washington Street in Brighton. We are commenting because of concern about pedestrian issues associated with this project.

This proposal is generally positive for pedestrians and for the neighborhood. The site is located in the heart of Brighton Center, the center of a walkable community where Washington Street  houses local shops and major establishments and services. The retail area is well-served by public transportation and Washington Street’s bus routes draw pedestrians to access the transit service. The proposal is designed to improve the appearance of the street where significant numbers of walkers will pass daily.

Notwithstanding this transit served and walkable setting, the project is quite auto-centric. In a densely built inner neighborhood that is already beset by too much traffic, the project seems With a high ratio of vehicle parking spaces to housing units (1.7), the project seems to be designed with cars, rather than walking and transit in mind.  The expectation that every housing unit requires at least one or more parking space is one of the continuing issues with rebuilding Boston’s neighborhoods. This should not be a requirement when a project is well served by both transit and walking facilities, where such a requirement may be outmoded. Moreover, it is an expectation that has been challenged successfully elsewhere in the city and should be challenged here as well, since many of Boston’s residents now forgo the decision to have a car and instead rely on public transit or private vehicle transport services such as Uber or carsharing options such as Zipcar.

We are concerned that the city is exploring guidelines that would affect the changing tastes and needs of its newer residents in regard to use of vehicles, requiring fewer parking spaces. The developers of the project should explore less on-site parking and take advantage of the site to attract walkers within this very vibrant commercial area at the heart of the community. The underground parking portion of the project may become unneeded. Brighton has become a highly desirable inner neighborhood for residents including groups that are likely to be less reliant on cars – workers who choose not to own one, older folks moving back into the city for its advantages, and students who want to live along convenient bus routes that can reliably and efficiently take them to one of our many universities. As we are all well aware, individuals who do not own a vehicle are much more reliant on walking, a great convenience for many and one which definitively awards better health to those moving about on foot in the ordinary activities of everyday living.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Beacon Street Multimodal Improvements Comment Letter-Somerville, MA

Beacon Street Multimodal Improvements Comment Letter-Somerville, MA

By |

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 Expanded Environmental Notification Form for the Green Line Extension EOEA # 13886

Comments on Expanded Environmental Notification Form for the Green Line Extension EOEA # 13886

By |

November 23, 2006

Secretary Robert Golledge
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Comments on Expanded Environmental Notification Form for the Green Line Extension in Cambridge, Somerville and Medford.

EOEA # 13886

Dear Mr. Golledge:

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) for the Green Line Extension submitted by the MBTA. We are commenting because of concern about the pedestrian issues associated with this proposal.

If the EENF is to become a single EIR as requested, we would like to see these issues addressed:

1. Philosophy of the project.

  • Pedestrian access to the project should be paramount in planning the new facility. Thisis an unusual project, with virtually no parking envisioned at transit stations. All riders will arrive on foot – directly from their homes, from a kiss and ride drop off spot, from a bicycle parking area or from a bus stop. Thus, pedestrian movements should guide station locations and designs. Sidewalk widths, surfaces, street furniture, signing and street crossings are major concerns. Bus stops and drop off sites must be incorporated into the design to maximize convenient pedestrian access, Bicycle storage racks must be provided at all stations.
  • Consideration should be given to extending the Green Line terminus to Mystic Valley Parkway at the Mystic River at the Medford/Somerville line, as is recommended by the Medford Green Line Neighborhood Alliance, to serve an additional densely populated area and to spur transit-oriented development. This terminus should also be evaluated in terms of potential ridership and ways of integrating it with area bus lines.
  • Potential integration with commuter rail service should be examined as EIR work gets underway. For example, the proposed location of the station near Tufts University may be worthy of consideration for commuter rail service. Since Tufts can be considered a regional destination, a commuter rail station nearby may attract more riders to the MBTA system. The proposed Tufts station is roughly the same distance from downtown Boston as Forest Hills, where a commuter rail station is also immediately adjacent to the Orange Line rapid transit station. No stations are proposed for this geographic quadrant of the region where riders can be exchanged between the Green Line and the commuter rail line except for North Station.

• The proposed Community Path should be integrated with the transit proposal from the beginning. The Somerville community agrees on the need for it. Medford residents and officials should be interviewed for views on extending the path from Lowell Street in Somerville to Route 16 at the Alewife Brook Parkway via the Green Line right of way.

2. Planning for the Community Path.

  • The available railroad right of way has sufficient width to include a path for nearly its fulllength. The path can be constructed at the level of the tracks or up the hillside on an alignment supported by retaining walls. If absolutely necessary, the path could be cantilevered above track level.
  • For safety, the path should be completely grade-separated. All new or rebuilt bridge structures should be wide enough to accommodate the proposed Community Path beneath them. Bridges to be retained should be examined carefully for adaptations that accommodate a right of way for the Community Path. Bridge issues for the pedestrian pathway will be particularly difficult at McGrath Highway and at Washington Street, where grade crossings may be unsafe because of heavy street traffic.
  • Pedestrian access between cross streets and the Community Path should be maximized. All street crossings above the right of way should have ramps between the path and street level.
  • Between Washington Street and Lechmere Station, the Community Path should share the alignment of the Green Line extension. A bridge shared with the Green Line will be the only way for the pathway to cross the Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line.
  • The relocation of Lechmere Station in Cambridge is on schedule for construction prior to the Green Line extension. It is important that the station project be designed and built to permit connections to the Community Path from the relocated station and the North Point walkways.

3. Maximizing access and use

  • Pedestrians will literally be coming to this project from all directions. The project shouldfacilitate access to all cardinal points surrounding each station, and not just north-south over the bridges. Pedestrians and cyclists should be able to arrive at stations directly from the Community Path. Additional right of way crossings may be necessary where existing north-south streets do not suffice.
  • An extension to the Mystic Valley Parkway site offers the possibility of extensive transit- oriented and pedestrian-friendly development around a new station that affects both Somerville and Medford. Transit-oriented development will help grow ridership at this station.
  • In examining the proposed extension to the Mystic Valley Parkway, it is important to look at potential pedestrian connections into the neighborhood north of the river to maximize the transit market for the terminal station. At Route 16, the proposed extension of the Green Line can also connect with the growing network of intercity pathways along the Mystic River and Alewife Brook.
  • As recommended by the Medford Green Line Neighborhood Alliance, a station between College Avenue and Winthrop Street in Medford Hillside may be extremely desirable. It could replace the need for the two closely-spaced stations proposed for College Avenue and Winthrop Street. The densely populated area within a half-mile radius might be

2

better served at this location, and it might be the best location to serve Tufts University

riders. Several bus lines run along Boston Avenue and can readily serve this location.

  • The dangerous pedestrian path from the end of Brookings Street in Medford should bereplaced with a bridge connecting this neighborhood to the proposed new Green Line Station. The bridge will provide good access for this portion of Medford Hillside to the Green Line, as Brookings Street forms the central axis of the residential neighborhood which lies north of the tracks.
  • Somerville High School, directly on the Green Line Extension, will provide many potential users of the Green Line Extension. Great care should be taken to design good connections to the High School, as well as the adjacent City Hall and Main Library.
  • Both Somerville and Medford may want to examine the potential for air rights above the tracks to expand open space in the city or to provide the basis for other needed construction, such as housing.

4. The Union Square Connection

  • To best serve pedestrians, the proposed Union Square station should reach the heart ofactivity in the square. An underground station beneath Webster Avenue at the square should be examined to provide efficient and easy access from the business community and the surrounding residents. All station options should be connected to the square’s pedestrian facilities by convenient pathways or sidewalks.

The Community Path should be extended into Union Square. An opportunity exists to coordinate the path with local development. Somerville is redeveloping the area adjacent to the Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line. The 80-acre Boynton Yards Revitalization Area, planned as a mixed-use area, already includes office buildings constructed as the first step in the renewal process for the area.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EENR. Please feel free to contact us for clarification or additional comments. We would be very pleased to work with the MBTA on this important project.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner