Commonwealth Avenue Improvement Project

[Matthew]

The point is that some 40 or so people are being forced to wait for the convenience of 3 other people. It's a visual expression of the way people in cars are treated as higher class than people not in cars. Nothing more.

When did you become such a car-first extremist yourself? I don't think it's anti-car at all to note that our streets are designed such that people riding in cars are given much higher priority than people not riding in cars. If I recall correctly, the founding principle of our country is that "all people are created equal" not "all people driving cars are created equal and people on foot can just suck it up."

This is ultimately the attitude problem with many drivers. They believe that ANYTHING that criticizes the status quo... ANYTHING at all.. is "anti-car". It's such oversensitivity that reveals a true weakness. When I say that the speed limit should be 25 mph, instead of 30 mph, I'm attacked as "anti-car". Yes, just 5 mph. Apparently, drivers are so insecure that 5 mph makes the difference.

Or in this case, on Comm Ave, I hear occasional complaints from drivers about all those terrible pedestrians trying to cross the street. Apparently, only drivers have the right to make that complaint. If I point out that pedestrians need to cross the street too, and that the signals suck, then I'm "anti-car".

I expect that kind of bullshit from Herald commenters, not from you, datadyne.

 

[ant8904]

He's talking about your tone, Matthew. Not walking between lights. We all did that as BU students. No one is commenting on that. He responding that "visual reminders of how insane... ...privileges speeding traffic above pedestrians." Those word choices implies quite a bit of "intensity".

Edit: I didn't saw the new page or read the last paragraph that closely. My point still stands that it is the word choices and structure in that picture that provide that sense. It also whats make it hard to articulate that sense.

As for the new post, all I can say both to chill before things gets too incense. I'm not sure what to write more at this moment.

 

[BPLange7]

What's the proposal that would improve pedestrian safety then?

 

[datadyne007]

The point is that some 40 or so people are being forced to wait for the convenience of 3 other people. It's a visual expression of the way people in cars are treated as higher class than people not in cars. Nothing more.

This makes no sense. What is the solution then? Crosswalks with signals are used all over the world and have been for decades upon decades. The only way to prevent 40 people walking from being "inconvenienced" by 3 driving a car is to not let them drive their car on Comm. Ave at all. You're essentially making an argument that roads shouldn't exist at all.

When did you become such a car-first extremist yourself? I don't think it's anti-car at all to note that our streets are designed such that people riding in cars are given much higher priority than people not riding in cars. If I recall correctly, the founding principle of our country is that "all people are created equal" not "all people driving cars are created equal and people on foot can just suck it up."

I'm not car-first in the slightest. I've said numerous times on here that I am interested all modes of transport being optimized for efficiency and safety - pedestrian, bike, train, and car. Everything needs to coexist and work together to the best of its ability. The case of Comm. Ave that you are citing to make your case is truly bizarre because as you can see from your photos, Comm. Ave has fantastic large sidewalks, clearly marked gigantic crosswalks, bike lanes, and bike boxes.

I will also say that I personally do not own a car that I drive in the city. I walk and take the T everywhere. My husband is the one who owns the car and drives to work out in the burbs.

This is ultimately the attitude problem with many drivers. They believe that ANYTHING that criticizes the status quo... ANYTHING at all.. is "anti-car". It's such oversensitivity that reveals a true weakness. When I say that the speed limit should be 25 mph, instead of 30 mph, I'm attacked as "anti-car". Yes, just 5 mph. Apparently, drivers are so insecure that 5 mph makes the difference.

When did you say this? Maybe try articulating your point next time first before making bizarre general sweeping statements. I agree with this. Maybe the speed limit should be lowered.

If I point out that pedestrians need to cross the street too, and that the signals suck, then I'm "anti-car".

You are welcomed to make this case (and I support it), but you did not initially.
---

TL;DR - I actually agree with you on all of your points about traffic calming. Just consider how you present them in the future.

 

[cozzyd]

Perhaps the signals could be adjusted so that they're 80% pedestrian, 20% vehicle (or some other ratio) during periods when classes change.

The signal for Mass Ave at MIT can also be similarly problematic (and in fact, they apparently adjusted the timings to favor vehicles more: http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N10/crosswalk.html, but maybe it's been fixed since then)

 

[Shepard]

I agree with Matthew, but I pin the inherent unfairness and difficulty of crossing streets in Boston as coming down to the fact that you can't trust the walk lights the way cars can trust a traffic signal. They'll tell you it's safe to cross for 8 seconds a cycle - and it may not even be safe to cross at that time. Meanwhile, there are likely to be many other parts of the cycle where it is perfectly, absolutely, no-question-about-it safe to cross - and yet you'll see a Don't Walk. (And let's not get started on the subject of push-buttons that do work, don't work, work certain unmarked hours, or work but force you to wait three cycles before they kick in.)

Any tourist, by their second or third day here, has figured this out and stops paying attention. For residents here, the walk lights may as well not exist. We all start taking our chances crossing roads against signals that don't take the pedestrian into account - or we run across in the middle of the block because, once you realize the crosswalks don't matter, what's really the difference?

Program these things for the pedestrians, rationalize them, and make crossing a street on foot as predictable as crossing at a traffic light is for cars.

 

[Kahta]

The point is that some 40 or so people are being forced to wait for the convenience of 3 other people. It's a visual expression of the way people in cars are treated as higher class than people not in cars. Nothing more.

I'm not sure how often you drive through Comm ave in this area, but the more likely scenario is that one person wants to cross, so they push the button, and then 10+ cars stop and have an exceptionally long red light because the walk signals are all timed for 40+ people to cross at once. Meanwhile, bike riders and moped riders just blast on through as usual.

This is ultimately the attitude problem with many drivers. They believe that ANYTHING that criticizes the status quo... ANYTHING at all.. is "anti-car". It's such oversensitivity that reveals a true weakness. When I say that the speed limit should be 25 mph, instead of 30 mph, I'm attacked as "anti-car". Yes, just 5 mph. Apparently, drivers are so insecure that 5 mph makes the difference.

Do you think anyone would follow that speed limit? I'd start following it as soon as bike riders stop weaving through pedestrians on crosswalks, blasting through red lights, driving on sidewalks, or driving the wrong way down one way roads. It's not so much anti-car as it is crazy.

 

[Matthew]

He's talking about your tone, Matthew. Not walking between lights. We all did that as BU students. No one is commenting on that. He responding that "visual reminders of how insane... ...privileges speeding traffic above pedestrians." Those word choices implies quite a bit of "intensity".

It's a short caption to a photo. It's supposed to be snappy. I'm not going to resort to John Kerry-esque statements in a caption.

This makes no sense. What is the solution then? Crosswalks with signals are used all over the world and have been for decades upon decades. The only way to prevent 40 people walking from being "inconvenienced" by 3 driving a car is to not let them drive their car on Comm. Ave at all. You're essentially making an argument that roads shouldn't exist at all.

You are jumping to extremes right here. In reality, it's not a binary choice between "the way BTD programs lights at St Mary Street" and "no cars ever!!11!". Maybe BTD would like us to think so. But even they violate their own rules that they wrote into their BTD Complete Streets Guidelines.

Crosswalks with signals are used all over the world -- absolutely. And in many places where signals are programmed with pedestrian friendliness in time, the average and worst case waiting times are much, much shorter. For example, in San Francisco the worst case waiting time is ~50 seconds, at many intersections.

At St Mary Street, pedestrians get 10 seconds out of 110 seconds during this time of day the photo was taken. Worst case waiting time is 100 seconds. And that only gets you to the middle island where you have to wait to cross, again.

Here's concrete suggestions that BPLange7 might appreciate:

• Shorten the cycle length such that pedestrians get higher % of time and lower worst case times.
• Make it possible to cross the entire street in one phase.
• As cozzyd says, program the between-class period as a special case into the computer controlling the signals. This might be too complex for BTD, alas, but these are the latest modernized signals, so if it's possible anywhere, it's possible here.

Actually, instead of typing more, let me just insert two slides from that SFMTA engineer's presentation:

I'm not car-first in the slightest. I've said numerous times on here that I am interested all modes of transport being optimized for efficiency and safety - pedestrian, bike, train, and car. Everything needs to coexist and work together to the best of its ability. The case of Comm. Ave that you are citing to make your case is truly bizarre because as you can see from your photos, Comm. Ave has fantastic large sidewalks, clearly marked gigantic crosswalks, bike lanes, and bike boxes.

And I'm talking about crossing the street. Actually, those "fantastic large sidewalks" were narrowed as part of the Comm Ave reconstruction -- the city inserted street furniture that you can see (except in front of Marsh Plaza, at least). As a result, even though they are large by Boston standards, the sidewalks are completely overwhelmed during the between-class rush. That was poor planning on the part of BU and the city.

But none of that negates the only-10-out-of-110 seconds problem crossing the street. And by the way, St Mary Street is probably the best intersection of the few that were rebuilt in the last ten years. The others are worse.

When did you say this? Maybe try articulating your point next time first before making bizarre general sweeping statements. I agree with this. Maybe the speed limit should be lowered.

That is another concrete suggestion that the city has already adopted, except only in advisory terms. The city has posted unenforceable "25 mph" speed limit signs on Comm Ave, and they are largely ignored.

Every year, various state reps (including, last year, Marty Walsh) and senators attempt to propose a bill that would modify the 30 mph enforceable statute to 25 mph. And every year, it dies in committee. Why? Because it's perceived as "anti-car" to reduce the speed limit to 25 mph in thickly settled urban areas. Why is it perceived as "anti-car"? Good question...

More concrete suggestions beyond signal timing and speed limit, which are really the primary problems here:

• Minimize crossing distance: The city installed 11' and 14' lanes initially (those were later modified to 11' both), plus the left turn lane and the parking lane (now bus stop lane). None of those lanes should be larger than 10' on a city street.
• The parking lane was converted to bus-only, but it's still a big mess. The street furniture blocks the bus stop, as well, post-key-bus-route improvement project. The whole bus stop situation needs a redo, because sight-lines are terrible right now.
• The bike lanes were a complete afterthought, and it shows. These also need to be redesigned eventually (after phase 2A is done), to interact more safely with buses and crossings.
• The MBTA platforms are too narrow, for some reason BU chose to put in grass and flowers instead of making properly wide platforms.
• Also, BU Central only has a single egress, which is illegal under current law. Not sure how they got away with rebuilding it like that. (Actually, the whole damn station should have been consolidated with BU East, but anyway...)
• No beg buttons -- ever! Ok, St Mary Street buttons appear to do nothing. But the other intersections along here do have buttons that do have effect, and it's terrible. The city should be assuming that there is always a pedestrian waiting to cross the street on Comm Ave -- it's a safe assumption at all times except maybe Monday morning 1 a.m.

So, in summary, there is plenty the city could do to fix the intersection to bring it into line with "normal standards" of intersections shared by motorists and pedestrians in cities around the country and the world. And St Mary Street is hardly the worst, which probably means it will be deferred until after the bigger problem intersections are tackled, FWIW. For example, the whole BU Bridge cluster#%^# that sucks for everyone. Or St Paul Street. There are improvements I'm pushing for that will make life much better for every user of those streets, and yes, that even includes car drivers, believe it or not.

 

[cden4]

I'm not sure how often you drive through Comm ave in this area, but the more likely scenario is that one person wants to cross, so they push the button, and then 10+ cars stop and have an exceptionally long red light because the walk signals are all timed for 40+ people to cross at once. Meanwhile, bike riders and moped riders just blast on through as usual.

I walk through this area a lot and I can assure you that this is not the case. Most of the signals to cross Comm Ave give you about 8 seconds to get to the median. Barely enough time for one person to make it. And then you have to wait another 2+ minutes to get across the other half.

Can you imagine if the reverse were true? How outraged drivers would be? If the signal was only long enough to let one car through, and then made the car stop in the median for 2+ minutes before finishing to cross? That wouldn't last one day before there was a mob of angry drivers knocking on the Mayor's door. But we treat pedestrians like second class citizens all over the city with absurdly short walk signals and very long delays. And people are just told to live with it because there are just too many cars to make them all stop longer for people to cross.

 

[cozzyd]

I'm not sure how often you drive through Comm ave in this area, but the more likely scenario is that one person wants to cross, so they push the button, and then 10+ cars stop and have an exceptionally long red light because the walk signals are all timed for 40+ people to cross at once. Meanwhile, bike riders and moped riders just blast on through as usual.

If that's true, then perhaps this should be an unsignalized crosswalk instead. I would be fine with that (although pedestrians should yield to the green line).

Do you think anyone would follow that speed limit? I'd start following it as soon as bike riders stop weaving through pedestrians on crosswalks, blasting through red lights, driving on sidewalks, or driving the wrong way down one way roads. It's not so much anti-car as it is crazy.

Ah ok, so the only reason you speed is to protest the way people bicycle and walk?

 

[datadyne007]

It's clear the problem here was simply one of messaging and tone, as I completely agree with everything you said once you expanded on it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It's not actually the people in cars inconveniencing pedestrians, it's actually the signals and the City itself. The City has an obligation to its citizens to regulate the signal timing so that pedestrians have the appropriate amount of time to cross. If you had said that at the start, I would have just agreed. I can only comment on the amount of information or support that you give to a claim, which in this case was initially short. I can't read your mind to figure out your comment is actually about the intricacies of signal timing.

 

[George_Apley]

^ I think the point is that people shouldn't have to jaywalk - even if it is socially acceptable - to cross a street in a timely manner.

 

[North Shore]

Time for me to chime in here for the first time.

Let me preface this with the fact that I am a professional transportation engineer. Part of my expertise is programming traffic signals.

Per the MUTCD (specifically Section 4E.06), we program pedestrian walk times based on a pedestrian walking at a pace of 3.5 feet per second, and multiply that based on the length of the pedestrian crossing, from curb/roadway edge/landing island to curb/roadway edge/landing island.

There are cases where this can vary. For instance, walking speed may be decreased in areas where there might be people in wheelchairs or older pedestrians (like in the vicinity of hospitals or senior housing) to 4 ft/s.

For a heavily trafficked area such as Comm. Ave., the minimum walk interval is 7 seconds. The change interval (where you get a flashing hand and/or countdown timer) is calculated so that someone standing at the edge of the crosswalk when the steady walk switches to the flashing hand/countdown timer has sufficient time to safely cross the street. And then we build in a minimum 3 second buffer before the signals for the vehicle travel lanes switch over to green.

Now, obviously, when dealing with potential pedestrian volumes associated with a university campus in a highly urban setting, you have to balance the accommodation of said pedestrians with overall signal cycle lengths. At some point you have to cut off the pedestrian cycle so not as to add to potential delays and lower the level of service (LOS) for the intersection(s) in question.

Which brings us to the City of Boston and the BTD.

You can program traffic controllers all you want in an office and on paper with calculations, but no traffic engineer I know ever "sets it and forgets it". There's always an initial adjustment phase and there should be periodic adjustments made based on actual field conditions. A lot of the signals we do for MassDOT have phone modems connected to the controllers so that they are monitored and/or adjusted remotely. I believe BTD does this as well, but I am unsure if the Comm. Ave. cabinets are so equipped.

As a traffic engineer, I am always trying to strike a balance between vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian accommodation, especially with the state really backing the Complete Streets program now. Yes, many engineers are car-centric in their thinking, but there is a definite, perceptible shift in philosophy going on and even the more ardent holdout will be forced to adapt over time (or they'll be long retired).

 

[Shepard]

Great info. How do you figure in the cycle time of the car phase versus the pedestrian phase? That seems a common gripe here.

 

[Shepard]

Just wanted to bump some of my earlier gripes to your attention also!

I agree with Matthew, but I pin the inherent unfairness and difficulty of crossing streets in Boston as coming down to the fact that you can't trust the walk lights the way cars can trust a traffic signal. They'll tell you it's safe to cross for 8 seconds a cycle - and it may not even be safe to cross at that time. Meanwhile, there are likely to be many other parts of the cycle where it is perfectly, absolutely, no-question-about-it safe to cross - and yet you'll see a Don't Walk. (And let's not get started on the subject of push-buttons that do work, don't work, work certain unmarked hours, or work but force you to wait three cycles before they kick in.)

Any tourist, by their second or third day here, has figured this out and stops paying attention. For residents here, the walk lights may as well not exist. We all start taking our chances crossing roads against signals that don't take the pedestrian into account - or we run across in the middle of the block because, once you realize the crosswalks don't matter, what's really the difference?

Program these things for the pedestrians, rationalize them, and make crossing a street on foot as predictable as crossing at a traffic light is for cars.

 

[North Shore]

Great info. How do you figure in the cycle time of the car phase versus the pedestrian phase? That seems a common gripe here.

The state requires us to use software (Synchro) for which we use collected traffic data (volumes, truck %, timing, etc.) and build-out factors along with intesection geometry to determine cycle lengths. We can tweak these numbers (ie: extending a left turn lane vs. adding an additional turn lane to accommodate queue lengths that might otherwise back up traffic).

Other factors include overlapping pedestrian phases with green phases based on similar direction of movement vs. an exclusive phase to accommodate pedestrians moving in multiple directions (such as a 4-way intersection).

If there is a left turn movement involved, do we have to make it an exclusive movement (you don't want to turn left and have to cross multiple lanes of oncoming traffic)? Is it going to be a lead (before the adjacent thru movements go) or a lag phase (after)?

What I'm saying, in very general terms (as I don't know all of the specifics of the Comm. Ave. corridor), is there are a huge number of factors that go into signal programming. And that's without considering coordinating multiple signals along a corridor so that they work in conjunction with each other to ensure traffic moves along in a particular direction as efficiently as possible at a prescribed speed.

It's a very inexact science. We generate timings via computer analysis and program controllers accordingly. But there is always some sort of adjustment that needs to be made over time.

 

[cden4]

There are cases where this can vary. For instance, walking speed may be decreased in areas where there might be people in wheelchairs or older pedestrians (like in the vicinity of hospitals or senior housing) to 4 ft/s.

Shouldn't this be less than 3.5 ft/s, not greater?

 

[Matthew]

Time for me to chime in here for the first time.

Welcome to the fray.

Let me preface this with the fact that I am a professional transportation engineer. Part of my expertise is programming traffic signals.

Per the MUTCD (specifically Section 4E.06), we program pedestrian walk times based on a pedestrian walking at a pace of 3.5 feet per second, and multiply that based on the length of the pedestrian crossing, from curb/roadway edge/landing island to curb/roadway edge/landing island.

There are cases where this can vary. For instance, walking speed may be decreased in areas where there might be people in wheelchairs or older pedestrians (like in the vicinity of hospitals or senior housing) to 4 ft/s.

I think you meant "to 3 ft/s".

I know for a fact that BTD has used 4 (that's four) ft/s to program walk signal intervals in many intersections. I have also measured a few intersections with worse timing (nearing 5 ft/s). Those intersections require running in order to complete the crossing in the programmed amount of time.

The Boston Complete Streets guidelines requires no more than 3.5 ft/s be used but it has not been widely adopted yet. Most engineers and advocates agree that assumed walking speeds of 3 ft/s (as you say) or even down to 2.8 or 2.5 ft/s are necessary in places where many seniors or young children are expected to be walking.

For a heavily trafficked area such as Comm. Ave., the minimum walk interval is 7 seconds. The change interval (where you get a flashing hand and/or countdown timer) is calculated so that someone standing at the edge of the crosswalk when the steady walk switches to the flashing hand/countdown timer has sufficient time to safely cross the street. And then we build in a minimum 3 second buffer before the signals for the vehicle travel lanes switch over to green.

I have measured/experienced this many times on Comm Ave. The intervals are sufficient to get a pedestrian from the sidewalk to the center median, but not the full way across the street. This is more relevant at intersections such as Silber Way where the signals are staged such that crossing the street requires 2 full waits for a walk signal. It is not physically possible for even a healthy adult to walk the full way across the street (sidewalk to sidewalk) within the allotted time.

Now, obviously, when dealing with potential pedestrian volumes associated with a university campus in a highly urban setting, you have to balance the accommodation of said pedestrians with overall signal cycle lengths. At some point you have to cut off the pedestrian cycle so not as to add to potential delays and lower the level of service (LOS) for the intersection(s) in question.

Well, now we see what's really important to those engineers. They can't claim to be pedestrian-friendly when automobile Level Of Service (with all of its pitfalls) is the iron benchmark that cannot be questioned. We'll get nowhere if that's the attitude. The fact is that at some point, there has to be room for a trade-off.

Which brings us to the City of Boston and the BTD.

You can program traffic controllers all you want in an office and on paper with calculations, but no traffic engineer I know ever "sets it and forgets it". There's always an initial adjustment phase and there should be periodic adjustments made based on actual field conditions. A lot of the signals we do for MassDOT have phone modems connected to the controllers so that they are monitored and/or adjusted remotely. I believe BTD does this as well, but I am unsure if the Comm. Ave. cabinets are so equipped.

The signals in the newer section along Comm Ave are equipped with remote controls (basically: Kenmore to BU Bridge). The remainder require on-site manual adjustment.

As a traffic engineer, I am always trying to strike a balance between vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian accommodation, especially with the state really backing the Complete Streets program now. Yes, many engineers are car-centric in their thinking, but there is a definite, perceptible shift in philosophy going on and even the more ardent holdout will be forced to adapt over time (or they'll be long retired).

Yes, I'm hoping that the shift occurs sooner than later, and we'll start to see more people with your positive attitude towards Complete Streets getting promoted.

 

[North Shore]

Well, now we see what's really important to those engineers. They can't claim to be pedestrian-friendly when automobile Level Of Service (with all of its pitfalls) is the iron benchmark that cannot be questioned. We'll get nowhere if that's the attitude. The fact is that at some point, there has to be room for a trade-off.

As one of "those engineers" that you seemingly have disdain for, we are required, as professionals, to utilize Federal Standards (and their local amendments) along with AASHTO standards to design infrastructure with regard to roadways with pedestrian and/or bicycle accommodation.

I know I'm gonna regret stating this, but it is simply asinine to design improvements for a heavily trafficked corridor such as Comm ave. with pedestrians as the primary influence. For starters, there's no guideline in place to do so.

You have to start with something and frankly, there's systems in place for the use of vehicular data as the primary design for roadways with pedestrian accommodation. No designer in their right mind would ever design with pedestrians as the primary source. There's just simply too many variables involved. What's the limiting factor at play here? Vehicles. They are the most dangerous aspect at play, along with the geometry.

Yes, we use LOS as one means to help us figure out cycle lengths. But pedestrian accommodation will be the same regardless if an intersection is a LOS A or a LOS F. You can't let pedestrians walk into a street and have the light change on them. It just simply doesn't happen. We can change green times for approaches and turn movements, but the ped. phasing is what it is.

 

[davem]

North Shore, welcome. PLEASE stick around even if we debate with you. A lot of us here are either well versed in the critique process, or simply like to argue in general. Your knowledge however will be invaluable, especially as this forum has taken a distinct urban planning turn as of late.

Again, welcome and thanks for the input.