General Infrastructure

Delvin4519 said:
New news for streets in Boston:

www.nbcboston.com

More Speed Humps Coming to Boston in Major New Street Safety Initiative

Boston is set to ramp up the number of its streets with speed humps as part of a major new initiative to make the city safer for all, Mayor Michelle Wu announced Monday. Under the Safety Surge program, the city will no longer place speed bumps on streets where residents ask for them. Instead...
www.nbcboston.com www.nbcboston.com
Click to expand...

Just in: Streetsblog has obtained a map of installation of speed humps:

mass.streetsblog.org

Wu Admin Announces 'Safety Surge' of Traffic Calming for Neighborhood Streets - Streetsblog Massachusetts

The city says it aims to install up to 500 new speed humps and redesign at least two dozen intersections every year.
mass.streetsblog.org mass.streetsblog.org

1684859477136.png
 
lainpimicaja said:
Agreed, but one of the things that excites me about this announcement is that speed humps can be scaled up and deployed very quickly, even compared to other quick-build traffic calming interventions. The city's map for where they could do speed humps is extensive, too - would be great to see Boston keep this commitment and roll it out ASAP: https://www.boston.gov/making-neighborhood-streets-safer
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in what speeds are like in the locations where they want to put the humps. If they're in places were people are typically driving under 25 already, they serve as punitive (and virtue-signaling) more than protective. The map here basically just includes every neighborhood street in Boston, including a lot where they probably aren't necessary.
 
Equilibria said:
I'd be interested in what speeds are like in the locations where they want to put the humps. If they're in places were people are typically driving under 25 already, they serve as punitive (and virtue-signaling) more than protective. The map here basically just includes every neighborhood street in Boston, including a lot where they probably aren't necessary.
Click to expand...

Deterring rat running is also desirable as well. Sometimes if the main street is backed up with traffic, a side street could be inviting for thru traffic, so a speed hump might still be useful in that sense.
 
Equilibria said:
I'd be interested in what speeds are like in the locations where they want to put the humps. If they're in places were people are typically driving under 25 already, they serve as punitive (and virtue-signaling) more than protective. The map here basically just includes every neighborhood street in Boston, including a lot where they probably aren't necessary.
Click to expand...
Another important metric, I'd argue more important than typical/average speed, is how speed humps affect the fastest drivers. If the average speed on a street is 20-25mph and the speed limit is 25mph, you could design your speed humps to enforce the speed most people are already travelling. BUT, it will become much more difficult to drive 40+ mph down that street. Which is where a lot of the danger comes in.

Personally I'm quite pleased with this announcement. Successful speed management involves both horizontal and vertical deflection, as well as other cues to drivers that they need to slow down. A few lumps of asphalt aren't going to win any design awards, but they're an effective and meaningful part of the toolkit in keeping vehicle speeds under control. Especially as we enter the EV era where the speeding capabilities of your average car are likely to skyrocket (unless we legislate otherwise).
 
This article might touch on a half dozen threads on here.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/05...tation-face-daily-bottleneck-along-sidewalks/

Downtown sidewalks, which are already too narrow in many places, are getting more crowded. More people are commuting into North Station, and they’re getting bottlenecked on their walk by the closed road and sidewalks around the GC Garage demolition. As a result, people are walking along a dangerous edge of the road and into the (narrow, unprotected) bike lanes. Pedestrians are trying to not get hit by bikes and trucks, while bikers are having to swerve into traffic. And, the specific congested block the article shows runs along what could be another block of the Greenway, which would be a nice way to walk through downtown. But it is instead ramps for the Central Artery.

The general disregard for anyone not in a car is infuriating. But I started swearing out loud at the quote from BTD spokesperson who can assure us that "BTD has no indication that pedestrians are directly impacting vehicular traffic." That is not comforting. If this is the situation, pedestrians should be impacting car traffic. Take a car lane on JFK and give it to bikes and pedestrians temporarily. When the garage demolition is done, make the lane closure permanent.
 
ritchiew said:
This article might touch on a half dozen threads on here.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/05...tation-face-daily-bottleneck-along-sidewalks/

Downtown sidewalks, which are already too narrow in many places, are getting more crowded. More people are commuting into North Station, and they’re getting bottlenecked on their walk by the closed road and sidewalks around the GC Garage demolition. As a result, people are walking along a dangerous edge of the road and into the (narrow, unprotected) bike lanes. Pedestrians are trying to not get hit by bikes and trucks, while bikers are having to swerve into traffic. And, the specific congested block the article shows runs along what could be another block of the Greenway, which would be a nice way to walk through downtown. But it is instead ramps for the Central Artery.

The general disregard for anyone not in a car is infuriating. But I started swearing out loud at the quote from BTD spokesperson who can assure us that "BTD has no indication that pedestrians are directly impacting vehicular traffic." That is not comforting. If this is the situation, pedestrians should be impacting car traffic. Take a car lane on JFK and give it to bikes and pedestrians temporarily. When the garage demolition is done, make the lane closure permanent.
Click to expand...
A lot of the problem is the road engineers default to the AASHTO roadside design guide when setting up temporary traffic control around construction sights, which of course is auto-centric in its setup.
 
As a result, people are walking along a dangerous edge of the road and into the (narrow, unprotected) bike lanes. Pedestrians are trying to not get hit by bikes and trucks, while bikers are having to swerve into traffic.
Click to expand...

This is my daily commute, and it doesn't feel nearly as dire to me as the article makes it sound. It is annoying to have to go around the construction when I could just follow Congress street all the way to my office, but the only people dodging cars are those that insist on crossing mid-block instead of at the crosswalk.
 
Charlie_mta said:
A lot of the problem is the road engineers default to the AASHTO roadside design guide when setting up temporary traffic control around construction sights, which of course is auto-centric in its setup.
Click to expand...

TBH, MassDOT has been much more adamant in their reviews of my projects about ensuring temporary (and sufficient) pedestrian access during construction.
 
I am really excited to see Mayor Wu and the Boston Schools shaking things up a bit and attempting to get the West Roxbury Education Complex back on line. I hate that a unique piece of urban school property is being used as a police facility. I really don’t know whom to believe when it comes to the condition of the complex, but I am skeptical when I read that the police training division moved into the complex within a year of the complex being condemned by the city. As alluded to in some of the comments in Universal Hub, it was easier for the city to close a school and in return get a rent check from the State. I feel if the police end up taking over the complex, it would eventually be turned into a training facility similar to Atlanta’s controversial Cop City because of its remote location.
The plan is to have John O'Bryant School of Mathematics move to a renovated WR Complex and the Madison Park Technical Vocational High School would expand in its current location in Roxbury Crossing/ Nubian Square where the two schools currently share the same building. I’m sure there will be a lot of push back because the former WR Academy / Urban Science Academy program did not perform well at the WR location but the O’Bryant is considered a more tradition high school program than the former Academy. I also appreciate the mentioning of busing co-study to get students back and forth from all parts of the city to the campus. Just this “getting ahead” of one of the major issues of the WR location in conjunction with the announcement gives me faith that this administration is planning all angles to get the plan under way. In addition, the city is announcing that four of Boston’s high schools are getting attention not only in terms of buildings but programs. But getting the WR Campus back really rights a wrong that I feel the last administration let happen because they were into the development frenzy more than dealing with public school issues. Kudos to the current administration to get a forward looking plan together to put faith in Boston public schools.

Univ Hub Wu announcement
Univ Hub City Councilor announcement
wbur story
 
Last edited:
bigeman312 said:
If the replacement accommodates walking and micro-mobility, it would cut two miles off the trip across the Lower Mystic for those outside of cars. That’s huge.
Click to expand...

It could also possibly provide route 111 buses the ability to make stops in Charlestown, which would increase transit service by about 600% or so in the neighborhood near the Navy Yard.
 
bigeman312 said:
If the replacement accommodates walking and micro-mobility, it would cut two miles off the trip across the Lower Mystic for those outside of cars. That’s huge.
Click to expand...
The new bridge absolutely needs to have a separate ped/bike path, a wide one. Also I'm thinking an exclusive busway, strong enough to convert to light rail in the future, for an LRV to Chelsea.
 
Would it be improper to assume that any replacement structure will still be a double deck bridge? Given the approaches are already very hemmed in, I can't see any way to make this a single deck bridge without some severe displacement. There's actually not that many globally, and most are of a similar vintage. A quick review of the Wikipedia list shows there to have only been 2-3 built since 1980, all in China / Hong Kong, with a few more Road/Rail bridges being built there and elsewhere, (the Øresund being the most famous example) but still, it's solidly in the single digits globally.

That said, there appears to be a new double deck highway bridge currently funded and underway in the US even if the type of bridge hasn't been finalized. The new Brent Spence companion bridge in Cincinnati is replacing a bridge that looks an awful lot like the Tobin, and creating what looks like an absolutely horrifying asphalt spaghetti bowl.
 
bigeman312 said:
If the replacement accommodates walking and micro-mobility, it would cut two miles off the trip across the Lower Mystic for those outside of cars. That’s huge.
Click to expand...

Between the Allston Viaduct, the Cape bridges, the Tobin, and other small and large projects, we're poised to spend billions upon billions to shore up the state and support car infrastructure over the next 50-100 years while simultaneously being faced by a more present risk of climate disasters. It's hard to conceptualize a way that changes in the next 2-3 decades, but it still sure is demoralizing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top