General Infrastructure

JeffDowntown said:
Many of these complex intersections in Boston will only activate the pedestrian cycle after the appropriate button is pushed. Sometimes the buttons are broken (and need to be reported to 311). The City does respond promptly and try to fix /replace them.
Click to expand...

It's idiotic for the City not to have the walk phase on automatic recall at this location. The number of people crossing here at anytime is likely near equal to the number of vehicles traveling through. The City should treat it's people far better.
Eff the beg buttons, fix it proper!
 
That intersection is automatic from 6 am to 8 pm or something like that. After 8 pm, you must press the button to get a walk signal. It's ridiculous.
 
Agreed. Beg buttons have no place in urban areas (with the exception of the occasional lightly used midblock crossings). The expectation should be that there is always someone waiting to cross.
 
The part that makes no sense is why the crossing light isn't always automated to cross Charles Street. Both sides of Charles Street are one way into this intersection, so when the traffic on Charles Street is stopped, pedestrians should always have a crossing signal (no risk of turns, etc.)

There are a number of intersections in Boston like this where you have stopped one-way traffic, and the pedestrian still does not get an automatic walk signal. Just plain stupid.
 
cden4 said:
That intersection is automatic from 6 am to 8 pm or something like that. After 8 pm, you must press the button to get a walk signal. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I was there around noon. I pushed the button. I was trying to get my Hubway bike to the station, and I couldnt get past the crowds, hence why I was there for so long.

Could someone with 311 report it?
 
JeffDowntown said:
The part that makes no sense is why the crossing light isn't always automated to cross Charles Street. Both sides of Charles Street are one way into this intersection, so when the traffic on Charles Street is stopped, pedestrians should always have a crossing signal (no risk of turns, etc.)

There are a number of intersections in Boston like this where you have stopped one-way traffic, and the pedestrian still does not get an automatic walk signal. Just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

+1 It boggles the mind how stupid this is.

And I find myself explaining to tourists in DTX that you have to push the button to get a walk signal. Also stupid.
 
estyle said:
+1 It boggles the mind how stupid this is.

And I find myself explaining to tourists in DTX that you have to push the button to get a walk signal. Also stupid.
Click to expand...

Which is very counter intuitive at this point as pretty much anywhere else the buttons do nothing at all/aren't hooked up to anything anymore.
 
bakgwailo said:
Which is very counter intuitive at this point as pretty much anywhere else the buttons do nothing at all/aren't hooked up to anything anymore.
Click to expand...

It doesnt help that theyre all the old nasty buttons and not the fancy talking kind
 
Schorschico said:
Look at the tram in Zaragoza (Spain). This is exactly how it works inside the historic city center (for aesthetic reasons). I am not sure about reliability but it is absolutely beautiful.

The technology is definitely there.

895724_1.jpg
Click to expand...

Yea I saw these in Spain the tracks were in the concrete so you could walk fine over them and the tracks are barely noticeable when there were no trains. They were pretty frequent and were efficient.
 
^
This concept around seaport---could have worked for the above and underground. Could have been structured in the middle of the roads.
I cannot believe how far behind we continue to be in transit innovation.

Give another tax break to another corporation in the area on prime real estate. Just give the developers the height or massing at this point to make the economics works

City/state should also force the FAA into better radar equipment to help the city of Boston to build higher
 
I mean to be fair the greenline is one of the most extensive light rail systems in the world.
 
So I was looking around for the Electronic Tolling thread (checked within the 128 thread too) because I was curious about something I saw at the I-90 and the 128 interchange. I didn't realize that part of that project was new ramps connecting the two highways. I saw some formed concrete that prompted me to look and sure enough found the rendered site plans in the presentation from January.

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/aet/presentationD6_011817.pdf

Specifically check out pages 16, 25, 32
 
CBCArch61 said:
So I was looking around for the Electronic Tolling thread (checked within the 128 thread too) because I was curious about something I saw at the I-90 and the 128 interchange. I didn't realize that part of that project was new ramps connecting the two highways. I saw some formed concrete that prompted me to look and sure enough found the rendered site plans in the presentation from January.

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/aet/presentationD6_011817.pdf

Specifically check out pages 16, 25, 32
Click to expand...

Yes, the project includes relocating the ramp carrying I-90 WB to Route 128 traffic further away from the 128 SB on-ramp to eliminate the weaving of traffic.
 
One of my biggest pet peeves with pedestrian signals in Boston is when pedestrians don't get a concurrent walk automatically when the light is green for cars. The two should be tied together. When I've asked 311 to have the walk signal come on whenever the green signal comes on, they reply that that street has very little traffic and that (a) triggering the ped signal automatically with the green would force the green to be longer than necessary and that (b) the ped signal should be skipped when there is no traffic. But reality does not match their reasoning. When I observe these intersections, (a) whether the walk signal is triggered or not, the minimum green time is exactly the same, and (b) the green comes up automatically even when there are no cars to trigger it. Why are they feeding me such a load of crap? I honestly don't know if it's incompetence or a complete disregard for pedestrians. It's so infuriating.
 
cden4 said:
One of my biggest pet peeves with pedestrian signals in Boston is when pedestrians don't get a concurrent walk automatically when the light is green for cars. The two should be tied together. When I've asked 311 to have the walk signal come on whenever the green signal comes on, they reply that that street has very little traffic and that (a) triggering the ped signal automatically with the green would force the green to be longer than necessary and that (b) the ped signal should be skipped when there is no traffic. But reality does not match their reasoning. When I observe these intersections, (a) whether the walk signal is triggered or not, the minimum green time is exactly the same, and (b) the green comes up automatically even when there are no cars to trigger it. Why are they feeding me such a load of crap? I honestly don't know if it's incompetence or a complete disregard for pedestrians. It's so infuriating.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a general philosophy at BTD and MassDOT that traffic signals are there for the cars, and pedestrians are a nuisance afterthought. God help us if we try to add bike signals -- they will totally lose their minds.

Our roadways are shared infrastructure, but only if cars get first dibs on everything.
 
Not all of BTD feels this way, unfortunately ultimate decision on signal timings usually lies with those that do.
DOT is coming around, slowly (see Comm Ave).

cden4 said:
I honestly don't know if it's incompetence or a complete disregard for pedestrians. It's so infuriating.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, its AND not 'or'. Vehicle operations is highest on their priority list and when pedestrians are given priority (or at least treated equally) they are incompetent on how to actually accommodate them. A concurrent ped phase on recall? keep dreaming in most locations.
in defense of the 311 response, it is accruate in some intersections. there are locations where the ped phase causes the minor street to get more green time than necessary based on vehicle traffic volume. But so what? Its a city--supposedly a great walking city.
 
The other most frustrating thing is when there is a concurrent walk but then it doesn't last as long as the green that it is concurrent with. So you're left with somewhere between 5 and 30 seconds where it says don't walk but the signal is still green. When I report these to 311, I often get the response that the allocated time is adequate to cross the street. That's not the point! There is NO reason why the walk signal shouldn't be as long as the green. It needlessly inconveniences and confuses pedestrians and basically just communicates "we don't care about you." Which clearly, they don't.
 
Does anyone else face the issue as a cyclist that they cannot trigger the green light at certain intersections? Even worse is when a car pulls up behind, but refuses to get close enough to me to trigger the signal so we can go.
 
dwash59 said:
Does anyone else face the issue as a cyclist that they cannot trigger the green light at certain intersections? Even worse is when a car pulls up behind, but refuses to get close enough to me to trigger the signal so we can go.
Click to expand...

I heard that for a while the City had stopped installing bike detection loops at intersections, but they are doing it again now.

On a related note, I'm sick of being forced to follow "car rules" when the signals do not accommodate bikes. "Adding extra clearance time would make the intersections less efficient; besides the MUTCD says nothing about providing clearance time for bikes". When I come across the BU Bridge I have a green light, but by the time I make it across 4 travel lanes, 2 railroad tracks, and then 4 more travel lanes, the signal can turn yellow then red and the cross traffic can get a green light and hit me. wtf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top