General Infrastructure

[Brattle Loop]

Some 'unrepresent tax payers' are mad cars have to follow the rules here, apparently...

Reddit Post
View attachment 18630

There's no saying for sure, but this rhetoric, grammar, and anti-literally-anything-but-cars-in-Somerville stance seems to closely mirror a lot of what was coming out of the now 2-time losing William Tauro for Mayor Campaign, who's platform included 'taking back the streets' for parking and cars by adding curb cuts and taking away from sidewalks, bus stops (filming a new bus stop under construction claiming no busses run in the area as an 80 bus drives right behind him... didn't even bother with a second take...), and/or bike lanes, because the man living in Tewksbury running a write-in campaign (after claiming fraud and demanding FBI/independent review in a local preliminary election where he received 2,000 votes vs. his 2 opponents both in the 6000's) for Mayor of Sommerville wouldn't visit any business if there wasn't an easy way to get there by car, in his case, his Hummer. (Not to mention his general anti-change-in-Somerville stance despite having an address in Assembly Square to be able to run for Mayor... I digress)

...
Sorry, the last part could have been in the local politics thread. But, watching the traffic patterns, it is very clear the new layout is much much safer for pedestrians, and follows common sense that the flyer seems to indicate we have lost. Car drivers now instinctively stop for people crossing 12-foot lanes, instead of the 20-30+ feet prior, pass the crosswalk when it is clear, and stop/yield before entering the roundabout. And I'm sure whoever put this up really thought about who their advertising this to - the people walking through the roundabout who greatly benefit from the changes, and not the people in their SOV's.

There's really so many different levels of hilarity to this (though the "unrepresent" part really takes the cake for me as encapsulating the ridiculous futility and total divorce from common sense). It says something about car drivers who've been so used to being the only ones whose needs were considered in street design for so long that they complain so hysterically whenever anything is done to make the road environs safer and more useable for anyone not driving a needlessly oversized SOV.

(I'll add one caveat, which is that I hope that the improvements have been done better than when Melrose decided bump-outs and curb extensions were a good idea on streets that were...not exactly known for their width. Not that the occasional poorly-implemented effort ever justifies a response as hysterical as that sign, let alone an entire mayoral campaign...honestly, if something's actually causing problems instead of shouting about how they're "ruining the city", how about some constructive suggestions on fixing things, hmm? Though that lacks the political appeal of an unending grievance...)

 

[Stlin]

(I'll add one caveat, which is that I hope that the improvements have been done better than when Melrose decided bump-outs and curb extensions were a good idea on streets that were...not exactly known for their width. Not that the occasional poorly-implemented effort ever justifies a response as hysterical as that sign, let alone an entire mayoral campaign...honestly, if something's actually causing problems instead of shouting about how they're "ruining the city", how about some constructive suggestions on fixing things, hmm? Though that lacks the political appeal of an unending grievance...)

I will say the absolute forest of flexposts they deployed alongside the painted curb extensions actually do an excellent job of keeping drivers from ignoring them, as previously feared. And as flex posts on paint, they're actually somewhat more forgiving for drivers, especially of the trucks that pass though every so often, for the available width than actual curbs; there's probably a good extra foot of space outside of the travel lane, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[RandomWalk]

I would like to see them come back and build real curbs where they have the painted extensions now. Otherwise, drivers will selectively ignore them.

 

[shmessy]

I fear Billy Tauro's mental illness is costing Somerville and the Commonwealth a ton of money.

Someone needs to tell that Karen to shut up and stop bleeding society with his drama queen act.

Be a "maker" not a "taker", Billy.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Some 'unrepresent tax payers' are mad cars have to follow the rules here, apparently...

Reddit Post
View attachment 18630

I'm surprised they didn't add dedicated bus lanes to their car-centric complaint list. Hopefully we'll keep seeing more and more bus lanes throughout the metro area,

 

[stefal]

I would like to see them come back and build real curbs where they have the painted extensions now. Otherwise, drivers will selectively ignore them.

The flex posts with the painted curbs are working great; cars can't ignore them:

I will say the absolute forest of flexposts they deployed alongside the painted curb extensions actually do an excellent job of keeping drivers from ignoring them, as previously feared. And as flex posts on paint, they're actually somewhat more forgiving for drivers, especially of the trucks that pass though every so often, for the available width than actual curbs; there's probably a good extra foot of space outside of the travel lane, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

The only issue that I see are drivers failing to drive through the entire rotary to make a right turn from Broadway to Warner, and instead take a really sharp right turn or back up and resume the right turn. Though that's not really the fault of the flex posts/paint, and more a lack of signage/painted symbols indicating no right turn allowed. Everything else is being followed pretty well.

That is to say, this was implemented over two months, on one or two select nights per week, if that. Just looking at the rotary in passing and with no internal information, I'm guessing there would be a considerable amount of drainage relocation, and it is likely they wanted the new pattern to be in place prior to College Ave's reconstruction which should be completing soon. I believe Broadway is on deck for reconstruction in the coming years, so perhaps this can get tied into that project? (I'm being hopeful here)

 

[Stlin]

The only issue that I see are drivers failing to drive through the entire rotary to make a right turn from Broadway to Warner, and instead take a really sharp right turn or back up and resume the right turn. Though that's not really the fault of the flex posts/paint, and more a lack of signage/painted symbols indicating no right turn allowed. Everything else is being followed pretty well.

Since I recently moved away from the area I haven't seen this myself in the few times I've been through it, but I believe there was supposed to be signage and markings; same with the right from Broadway to College.

 

[stick n move]

Boston has a stormwater problem. Could blocking Fort Point Channel be part of the solution?

“The Boston Water and Sewer Commission has been studying a proposal to build a floodgate next to the federal courthouse at the mouth of the channel. The gate, when closed, would turn the waterway into a huge manmade bowl that could hold rainwater at high tides and prevent backups that are expected to increasingly flood city streets.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/11...-filling-fort-point-channel-be-part-solution/

 

[393b40]

I think its a dumb idea. Run-off rain water, plus trash == open pit sewer next to downtown.

Rather than having a giant drainage dump in the middle of the city could we deck over it and make it buildable with the underneath being a cistern of sorts?

 

[BeyondRevenue]

Boston has a stormwater problem. Could blocking Fort Point Channel be part of the solution?

“The Boston Water and Sewer Commission has been studying a proposal to build a floodgate next to the federal courthouse at the mouth of the channel. The gate, when closed, would turn the waterway into a huge manmade bowl that could hold rainwater at high tides and prevent backups that are expected to increasingly flood city streets.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/11...-filling-fort-point-channel-be-part-solution/

Not that we're capable -- we need to build a dutch style water wall at the mouth of the harbor. This is a shot glass when we need a swimming pool.

 

[Brattle Loop]

Not that we're capable -- we need to build a dutch style water wall at the mouth of the harbor. This is a shot glass when we need a swimming pool.

Out of curiosity, though, does the fact that we might well need a harbor wall mean that doing this with the channel is inherently a bad idea? I feel like it'd be a lot easier and faster to do this versus the harbor wall, meaning that we could do this soon and benefit from it while we're still going through the inevitably-difficult process of working out the harbor wall project, right?

 

[Charlie_mta]

Out of curiosity, though, does the fact that we might well need a harbor wall mean that doing this with the channel is inherently a bad idea? I feel like it'd be a lot easier and faster to do this versus the harbor wall, meaning that we could do this soon and benefit from it while we're still going through the inevitably-difficult process of working out the harbor wall project, right?

A harbor wall would be 20 years out, whereas a FP Channel wall could be 5 years out.

 

[JumboBuc]

I think its a dumb idea. Run-off rain water, plus trash == open pit sewer next to downtown.

Rather than having a giant drainage dump in the middle of the city could we deck over it and make it buildable with the underneath being a cistern of sorts?

The idea behind the Fort Point Channel seawall is that it would only be closed during significant storm events when tides were high and flooding was expected. 99+% of the time the seawall would be open and water would be naturally flowing in and out.

Building over Fort Point Channel is a total non-starter for a multitude of reasons.

(There's also discussion of this in the Design a Better Fort Point Channel thread over here.)

 

[BeyondRevenue]

A harbor wall would be 20 years out, whereas a FP Channel wall could be 5 years out.

We're not doing either because magic pixies are going to fix global warming, right?
On balance, we're cheap, lazy, delusional or plain just stupid. And we will drown our city in liquid inaction.

 

[Brattle Loop]

We're not doing either because magic pixies are going to fix global warming, right?
On balance, we're cheap, lazy, delusional or plain just stupid. And we will drown our city in liquid inaction.

Wow, uh, I mean, I get the concern, but I don't think this level of sharply cynical vitriol is really needed here.

Also, I'm not entirely certain, but the post you quoted appears to be a response to one of mine in which I was asking about potential project staging, as opposed to opposing either of them.

Most of the last sentence of your post does have disturbingly-common applicability to various levels of government, which is unfortunate, though bitterly complaining about that fact here will not get them to change (imagine what the state transportation network would look like if all it took was aB posters complaints and suggestions to get things done, though).

 

[BeyondRevenue]

Wow, uh, I mean, I get the concern, but I don't think this level of sharply cynical vitriol is really needed here.

Also, I'm not entirely certain, but the post you quoted appears to be a response to one of mine in which I was asking about potential project staging, as opposed to opposing either of them.

Most of the last sentence of your post does have disturbingly-common applicability to various levels of government, which is unfortunate, though bitterly complaining about that fact here will not get them to change (imagine what the state transportation network would look like if all it took was aB posters complaints and suggestions to get things done, though).

My blood sugar must have been low. Still, you gotta like the turn of phrase.
I will still say to all others on the thread that we are being very short sighted and that ought to be called out. I can see us spending a lot of money on a gigantic grease trap that doesn't come close to doing what we need it to do. Seems much cheaper to build hundreds of water catches on low streets allowing water to easily seep into the soil. We need natural rain catch solutions at the street level, and a Robert Moses level solution for the oceans.

 

[millerm277]

My blood sugar must have been low. Still, you gotta like the turn of phrase.
I will still say to all others on the thread that we are being very short sighted and that ought to be called out. I can see us spending a lot of money on a gigantic grease trap that doesn't come close to doing what we need it to do. Seems much cheaper to build hundreds of water catches on low streets allowing water to easily seep into the soil. We need natural rain catch solutions at the street level, and a Robert Moses level solution for the oceans.

Disagree, although I don't get the emphasis on stormwater retention. There is a very simple solution to too much water building up behind the floodgate from runoff/waterway flow down the waterway - big pumps.

Floodgates are not exactly new technology, and Fort Point Channel is one of the single most vulnerable points for flooding large sections of Boston and key infrastructure, both today and in the future.

I view a floodgate at the location as a very useful measure that should already have been done.

 

[BeyondRevenue]

Disagree, although I don't get the emphasis on stormwater retention. There is a very simple solution to too much water building up behind the floodgate from runoff/waterway flow down the waterway - big pumps.

Floodgates are not exactly new technology, and Fort Point Channel is one of the single most vulnerable points for flooding large sections of Boston and key infrastructure, both today and in the future.

I view a floodgate at the location as a very useful measure that should already have been done.

I’d put a list of other changes ahead of this one. Many off this list could be explored, both privately and publicly. Stormwater runoff can be dealt with many other ways. Updating how and where we build is among them. We need to revisit many of our preconceived notions of the built environment. For example, the wants of street parkers are at odds with building sustainable street drainage infrastructure. I would guess building street cisterns for passive irrigation could take a good chunk of the load in a storm, but somebody would lose a parking spot. Will we choose parking and pollution over preservation and purification? I think we all know the answer.

 

[JumboBuc]

Does anybody know how the current configuration around "Parcel 14" is even legal?

There's currently a Blue Bikes location and a MBTA bus shelter (!) on the "Parcel 14" traffic island, but there are no crosswalks or curb cuts in the area. To access either of these stops you need to hop a curb and jaywalk in traffic. And if you're walking through here between the Fenway and the Back Bay and want to continue along the S side of Boylston you have no option but to hop two curbs and jaywalk in traffic across two streets (Cambria and St. Cecilia). (I suppose you could take a longer route to use the further S crosswalk across St. Cecilia, but nobody takes this route and you'd still need to jaywalk across Cambria.)

It's only a matter of time before someone gets hit by a car here. I get that this is all elevated over the Pike and CR, but still, how did the powers that be let this happen? The least they can do is stripe some crosswalks, put up some "yield to pedestrians" signs, and cut some curbs.

 

[millerm277]

Does anybody know how the current configuration around "Parcel 14" is even legal?

There's currently a Blue Bikes location and a MBTA bus shelter (!) on the "Parcel 14" traffic island, but there are no crosswalks or curb cuts in the area. To access either of these stops you need to hop a curb and jaywalk in traffic. And if you're walking through here between the Fenway and the Back Bay and want to continue along the S side of Boylston you have no option but to hop two curbs and jaywalk in traffic across two streets (Cambria and St. Cecilia). (I suppose you could take a longer route to use the further S crosswalk across St. Cecilia, but nobody takes this route and you'd still need to jaywalk across Cambria.)

It's only a matter of time before someone gets hit by a car here. I get that this is all elevated over the Pike and CR, but still, how did the powers that be let this happen? The least they can do is stripe some crosswalks, put up some "yield to pedestrians" signs, and cut some curbs.

Legal (IMO) - It's a crossing without a crosswalk or signal, same as if you were to cross some street in a random town. There is no crosswalk or signal a pedestrian should be using instead, so as far as I understand - they can cross legally, but don't have right of way vs traffic.

While I don't know the history of the bus stop/route, the "island" configuration and pedestrian navigation challenge appears to have been in place since the construction of the Pike/Hynes - it's visible on the 1969 aerials.

Practical:

- Cambria isn't exactly all that high volume and the flow off the Boylston/Mass Ave light has plenty of breaks. And when Cambria actually is busy, it's usually...stopped with a jam all the way out to Dalton.

- There's very little traffic making a left off Boylston to take St Cecelia - doesn't get you anywhere useful but the Hynes loading dock or the parking garage, so St Cecelia is "basically" one way in terms of traffic volume to pay attention to at that crossing.

- While I can't speak to the usage of the Blue Bikes station, the bus stop sees very little ridership - ~20 riders a day and only 4 of those are actually boarding the bus. There's only a shelter there because it's a high-visibility spot that's profitable for the ad company that pays for it.

-------

Is it well-designed? No. Your changes would certainly be an improvement, no argument from me.

But in terms of "accident waiting to happen" - I wouldn't really put this on any list of particularly dangerous intersections in the city. It's nothing like the infamous "island" 64 stop used to be by the Storrow ramps.