New Design Guidelines Planned for Boylston Streetscape

[Downburst]

(I believe this is the appropriate forum; my apologies if this is incorrect and needs to be moved...)

The BRA has put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) to develop streetscape standards on Boylston Street from the Fenway to Arlington.

BRA Article

Boylston St RFP Posted, Will Bring Updated Design Guidelines to Boylston St

Dec 23, 2013

The BRA, in partnership with Boston's Department of Public Works, recently posted an RFP to develop new design guidelines for Boylston Street. The RFP, which has a deadline of January 22, 2014, asks submitting teams to deliver a conceptual design plan for the public sidewalk, sidewalk design standards, and a long-term capital project implementation strategy for the identified area.

Boylston Street is a major commercial spine for Boston and is heavily used by pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, and MBTA buses. The RFP, which extends between Fenway and Arlington Streets, covers a ten-block area which includes the Boston Public Library, historic Copley Square and Trinity Church, Old South Church, Hynes Convention Center, and over 2 million square feet of development. The area also includes the Boston Marathon Finish Line.

The new RFP will build off of a Boylston Street Master Plan which was completed by the City of Boston's Department of Public Works in 1991. The 1991 Plan emphasizes design guidelines and sidewalk materials for the public rights of way along Boylston Street. The scope of the new RFP will revisit the Master Plan and will require respondents to incorporate Boston's new Complete Streets guidelines into the final design. The use of Complete Streets guidelines will ensure that the final design is accessible, functional, aesthetically pleasing, and environmentally sustainable.

The BRA will manage the distribution of the RFP, selection of the consultant team, and host the community process that will inform the final design standards. The work will result in a 25% approved design plan, which will then be handed over to the City of Boston's Department of Public Works for implementation. Construction of the project is anticipated to be completed over a ten year period.

Questions about the RFP can be directed to Jill Ochs Zick, Landscape Architect, at (617) 918-4354.

And the RFP itself:

Description:
The City of Boston through the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) is issuing a Request for Proposals to develop a Streetscape Design and Standards for Boylston Street in the City’s Back Bay neighborhood. The Design and Standards will address the section of Boylston Street from the Fenway to the intersection of Arlington Street addressing the sidewalk areas from the face of the existing curb line to the building faces on both the north and south sides of the street. The scope of work will focus on delivering an approved 25% design plan for the public sidewalk and sidewalk design standards vetted through a community and stakeholder outreach process. The scope also includes recommendations for a long-term, capital project implementation strategy for the identified study area.

 

[Matthew]

What they need to address is the street. 3 travel + 2 parking lanes is excessive, and in the Fenway it's even worse.

Cut it down, make it 2-way the whole way, or if that's really not possible, then calm it.

 

[whighlander]

What they need to address is the street. 3 travel + 2 parking lanes is excessive, and in the Fenway it's even worse.

Cut it down, make it 2-way the whole way, or if that's really not possible, then calm it.

Mathew -- obviously you've never driven on the Boylston when its crowded

 

[davem]

Mathew -- obviously you've never driven on the Boylston when its crowded

I have to agree, even on an average day Boylston has way too much traffic of every mode to cut it down to two lanes. It tends to operate as. Parking Lane|Standing Lane|Travel Lane|Standing Lane|Parking Lane anyway, so traffic moves very slowly. I think the lane width may be excessive however. You could probbaly cut it down to 8'|10'|10'|10'|8' and fit in a cycle track on the inbound side. Other than that, curb bump outs and improved bus stops are about the best you can do.

 

[Ron Newman]

You don't need two standing lanes; replace one of them with a bike lane.

 

[Matthew]

Two things: making the streets 2-way (most of them are wide enough) would eliminate a lot of unnecessary circling, making it possible for vehicles to go directly to their destination, cutting a bunch of miles traveled, not to mention aggravation.

And second, since when is it our duty to force ourselves to try and accommodate as much vehicular traffic as possible? We ought be thinking about how to make the street as nice as possible for human beings.

 

[davem]

I am all for that, and advocate it everywhere its possible. There are many many streets that need a diet, calming, etc. Boylston isn't one of those streets (except the part after Arlington, which is outside the scope of this project). It DOES need a cycle track however, and is perfect for one with few cross streets on the right side. A bike lane would be extremely dangerous with all the parking, pedestrians, and buses. When I bike down it I take the middle or left lane, riding on the right is suicide.

Also, what is confusing about the one ways in the back bay? Beacon=3 lanes out, Marl=2 lanes in, Comm=4 lanes both, Newbury=2 lanes out, Boylston=3 lanes in, and the alphetical cross streets alternate. They are the only streets in the whole city that make sence, why screw with it? There are improvements that can be made for pedestrians and cyclists, but aside from some narrowing screwing with the car lanes is a solution in need of a problem.

Matt, do you drive downtown at all? I ask because while I typically take the T I've been driving down to boylston and arlington a bunch lately because my girlfriend is getting a ton of dental work done. I'm pretty familiar with it now

 

[Matthew]

I don't drive downtown (what for, after all). However, the only reason for "one-way-ification" of streets is to speed up traffic, which shouldn't be a goal. It negatively impacts accessibility (by car) in favor of speed. I just don't see why we should continue that. In general, if there's room for two travel lanes, then they ought to be in opposite directions.

One-way streets are also bad for bus routes. It makes it more difficult for riders to understand the routes, and it reduces effective coverage area. For example, the 9, 39, and 55 buses are all loopy and weird in the Back Bay because of the one-way streets.

P.S. You say Marl=2, but did you notices that there is a block which changes direction?

 

[whighlander]

I don't drive downtown (what for, after all). However, the only reason for "one-way-ification" of streets is to speed up traffic, which shouldn't be a goal. It negatively impacts accessibility (by car) in favor of speed. I just don't see why we should continue that. In general, if there's room for two travel lanes, then they ought to be in opposite directions.

One-way streets are also bad for bus routes. It makes it more difficult for riders to understand the routes, and it reduces effective coverage area. For example, the 9, 39, and 55 buses are all loopy and weird in the Back Bay because of the one-way streets.

P.S. You say Marl=2, but did you notices that there is a block which changes direction?

TRY-IT sometime

Your comments about streets remind me about someone discussing the merits of horse milk and coconut milk when they've only drank cow's milk

Cities function because of a balance between the need to cover relatively long distances in short periods and the desire to put together the basic necessities as close as possible for neighborliness

Sometimes you just have to get from one side of the city to another specific point with a cello or even a string bass -- you need relatively unimpeded and effecient access for cars or trucks

Other times you just want to pick-up some bread wine and cheese on your walk from work to the house -- you want quiet easily crossed streets for the latter

Here's a solution:

the city has some arterial {e.g. Bolyston] with wide sidewalks and wide, several relatively high speed travel lanes and with relatively few signaled intersections [mostly when they cross another arterial]. The timing is set for equal on the two arterials with a generous pedestrian phase. These also are the "home' for most of the not-so-local shops, big office buildings, big hotels, churches, etc. If you want -- Every other one of these that are relatively parallel can be one way in the opposite direction

Most of the rest of the city is predominantly local residential -- local shops, local restaurants situated on a relatively pedestrian friendly quasi-grid of narrower, slower streets -- they are provided with stop signs when they meet the arterials and they can be two way if they are wide enough. [e.g. the cross streets in the Back Bay and Marlborough St.]

In some places there can be intermediate level streets with some signals controlling the local traffic -- particularly the feeds in/out of the local-residential blocks and when they cross the major intersections with arterials [timing preference to the arterials] -- Example Dartmouth St. in the Back Bay

This way if you were driving from say the old Sears Building to South Station -- you could be assured of travel along Boylston in 10 minutes with a maximum of 10 signaled intersections encountered along the way.
I
PS: Before someone comments on the cello -- while I've seen a cello on the Red Line a couple of times [accompanied by a cellist in one case actually playing it ] -- I've yet to see a Harp or a String Bass

 

[davem]

What for: significant other coming out of anestesia after surgery. I barely drive downtown, but if you're seriously telling me she should ride the T after that, then I just don't know what to say.

The Marlborough St reversing direction the last block is a holdover from the good old days, to keep people from jumping off storrow, grabbing a hooker, and getting back on. If I had to guess the residents want it to stay that way to keep it from being an alternate to Boylston, which should change. The point still stands, the one ways in the back bay (and any gridded area) work better as one ways than two ways. People shouldn't double park, and trucks shoudnt use anything but designated loading zones, but they do, and double parking and trucks and the dumbass from texas going 5mph in two lanes are a zillion times easier to get around when there are multiple lanes going in the same direction. As for it encouraging high speed travel, go see how high speed anything moves on boylston or newbury. It doesn't.

 

[Matthew]

By 'what for' I mean, why would I generally want to drive down there? Besides the fact that I don't own a car anymore, it's a pretty easy place to T to.

Random anecdote: I too, get my dental work done in the Copley area. A few years back I bit the bullet and got all my wisdom teeth removed by an oral surgeon down there. I rode the Green Line home, anyway, with my gf, while holding the gauze in place.

Of course I don't hold it against anyone who would prefer to get a ride in a car, but I don't see why that means we have to design Boylston Street as a one-way speedway. It'll be more than accessible -- even more accessible -- as a two-way street.

IMO, I rarely see Boylston so packed that a few yuppies in their BMWs can't get up to racing speed trying to beat the lights. I think it's a little hysterical to suggest that the only thing separating us from "carmageddon" is the multi-lane one-way streets.

I maintain that gridded streets which have been turned into one-way pairs are worse off than if they stayed two-way. Worse off for the locals, anyway. When they did it to Manhattan it really screwed over the bus riders, and the resulting 6-lane avenues are monstrosities that have only begun to be addressed in the last few years. Thankfully, the Back Bay will never be like that. But in general, one-way-ificiation was a fad of the 20th century with the sole purpose of moving cars faster, not improving the local neighborhood, and Boston bought into it big time.

 

[whighlander]

By 'what for' I mean, why would I generally want to drive down there? Besides the fact that I don't own a car anymore, it's a pretty easy place to T to.

Random anecdote: I too, get my dental work done in the Copley area. A few years back I bit the bullet and got all my wisdom teeth removed by an oral surgeon down there. I rode the Green Line home, anyway, with my gf, while holding the gauze in place.

Of course I don't hold it against anyone who would prefer to get a ride in a car, but I don't see why that means we have to design Boylston Street as a one-way speedway. It'll be more than accessible -- even more accessible -- as a two-way street.

IMO, I rarely see Boylston so packed that a few yuppies in their BMWs can't get up to racing speed trying to beat the lights. I think it's a little hysterical to suggest that the only thing separating us from "carmageddon" is the multi-lane one-way streets.

I maintain that gridded streets which have been turned into one-way pairs are worse off than if they stayed two-way. Worse off for the locals, anyway. When they did it to Manhattan it really screwed over the bus riders, and the resulting 6-lane avenues are monstrosities that have only begun to be addressed in the last few years. Thankfully, the Back Bay will never be like that. But in general, one-way-ificiation was a fad of the 20th century with the sole purpose of moving cars faster, not improving the local neighborhood, and Boston bought into it big time.

Mathew -- sorry about your Oral Surgeon -- apparently he thought that you said remove the wisdom not the wisdom teeth -- why do you so rail against the way everything is at present

I suspect that the dirty secret is that all of us on this Forum think that we have the right solution to real of perceived problems -- but just occasionally the old adage "If it ain'f broke it don't need fixin" or perhaps "First do no harm" should apply

Apparently you and a few others on this Forum militantly don't like cars -- Fine -- but for the foreseeable future you represent a small minority of the population

In the mean time every day people drive down a congested Boylston in the vicinity of the Hynes through the BPL and they wish that there were more functional travel lanes rather than the 1.5 snaking through the double parked cars, etc.

Just like the suggestion you or one of the other anti-car cohort proposed to get rid of the Storrow Tunnel and install stop lights. The reality is that Storrow is at a critical level of usage and any small disruption can cause cascading traffic jams for miles

To put things in a more quantitative perspective on each working day more than the population of the City of Boston enters the core region {Boston / Cambridge / part of Newton perhaps a bit of Watertown} as commuters -- the majority of them use a personal vehicle. Others use public vehicles that use the road network.

In addition many thousands of visitors drive into the core for diverse purposes such as having teeth extracted, tracing their ancestry, selling computers, buying stocks, having their business financed, flying, taking the train somewhere remote, getting on a cruise ship, setting-up a booth at a Dental Technology Convention, seeing a sporting event, playing a role on stage, interviewing with a University, moving and setting up a traveling entertainment event, delivering appliances, supplying restaurants with lobsters, etc.

For the city to function and be a desirable place to live, work, do business, recreate, educate, etc. -- it must be able to accommodate the above non-commuters who will be driving or traveling in a vehicle such as a car or truck -- not walking, biking, or skating.

For a simple numerical example -- last year Fantail Hall / Quincy Market had over 18 Million visitors -- translation about 50,000 per day

World's Most-Visited Tourist Attractions {#7}
Prev8 of 52
Faneuil Hall, Boston: most-visited tourist attractions
Philip Scalia / Alamy
No. 7 Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Boston
Annual Visitors: 18,000,000

Dating back to 1742, Faneuil Hall (“the Cradle of Liberty”) once hosted speeches by such greats as Samuel Adams and George Washington. Today, the downtown marketplace has more than 100 specialty shops and eateries and occupies a pedestrian-only, cobblestone area that swarms with tourists and street performers. —Joshua Pramis
-- Source Travel & Leisure

A lot of the Faneuil Hall visitors arrived by plane, a few took the train, some arrived by ship, and a lot of them drove -- very few biked, Segwayed or walked all the way.

Even the ones who arrived in rail, sea or air most likely took a cab or a tourist bus or duck tour.

Consider the tourist who stays at one of the Hotels in the Back Bay and wants to buy something for the family at Faneuril Hall -- if they don't walk across the Public Garden and Common -- most likely they take a cab down Boylston.

 

[Ron Newman]

If Boylston Street were two-way, there would be no double-parking because there would be no room for doing that.

 

[FenwayResident]

I'm all for taking cars off the road if, and only if, there is a viable public transit alternative. As it stands right now, the Green Line simply cannot handle a significant increase in passengers. Not to mention all the development we are already seeing on Boylston street will contribute to the Green Line congestion.

If we started seeing 3-4 car trains on the Green Line as opposed to the 2 car trains we get now, I think we could start reducing lanes along Boylston street.

 

[Padre Mike]

1. Boylston St. sidewalks should be widened to accommodate planters that will enhance the entire street, such as is seen on Michigan Ave. in Chicago. In this case trees would be secondary to planters. More strolling space for pedestrians would be the result as well as beautifying store fronts which could complete as they do in Chicago for annual prizes for beauty. Widening sidewalks by at least 6 feet would naturally reduce lanes somewhat.
2. Keep the street one way. It actually moves along most of the time and makes crossing very easy (only have to look one way, esp. for us jay walkers!).
3. I see no reason for dedicated bike lanes. The proliferation of hub bikes everywhere seem not to be located in places with lanes anyway. Either bike lane the entire city or not. The crazy ones doing deliveries ignore traffic laws anyway.

 

[belmont square]

For a simple numerical example -- last year Fantail Hall / Quincy Market had over 18 Million visitors -- translation about 50,000 per day

That 50k/day number must include everyone who spends time in Faneuil Hall over the course of the day, which would mean a signficant portion of folks are downtown office workers on lunch break or after work drinks. Since the majority of employees in downtown Boston are accessing work via transit, walking or biking (and not by car), I would imagine the same is true of Faneuil Hall (and probably much more so).

And the fact that hotel guests in the Back Bay may choose a 20 minute/$15 cab ride to Faneuil Hall instead of a 20 minute/$2 subway trip isn't necessarily an argument for designing our urban transportation network to accomodate them.

Also, do people living in the narrow alleys of Beacon Hill or the North End ever come out of a procedure where they were under anesthesia, or have their wisdow teeth removed, or transport a cello? If so, how do they negotiate the home end of their trip in a car with limited on street parking, double parking and narrow streets?

 

[617]

If Boylston Street were two-way, there would be no double-parking because there would be no room for doing that.

Just like no one ever doubles parks on Hanover st...

It's fine the way it is, as for biking people can bike up and down comm no reason for them on boylston too.

 

[fatnoah]

Also, do people living in the narrow alleys of Beacon Hill or the North End ever come out of a procedure where they were under anesthesia, or have their wisdow teeth removed, or transport a cello? If so, how do they negotiate the home end of their trip in a car with limited on street parking, double parking and narrow streets?

Walking is how it's done. My wife walked home after delivering our son at MGH, though we did stop for lunch on the way.

Incidentally enough, we live in the Back Bay (Comm & Fairfield vicinity) and she now drives to work in Waltham. The main issues we see are that Boylston gets slow mostly at night when traffic getting to Storrow backs up and overflows onto Boylston.

Double-parked cars are the other traffic culprit. The presence of three lanes encourages the practice since people feel free to stop knowing there's a route around them.

As a pedestrian, my main issue with Boylson St is the lack of consistent sidewalk width. When there is heavy pedestrian traffic, the constant variation in available sidewalk side due to outdoor seating, etc. makes walking difficult.

 

[davem]

2. Keep the street one way. It actually moves along most of the time and makes crossing very easy (only have to look one way, esp. for us jay walkers!).

This is a really great point that I somehow forget. Crossing a one way on foot is a million times safer and easier, particularly at mid block (and iirc its not jay walking if its 200 feet or more from a marked crossing) than a two way.



Whigh, downgrading Storrow, which is primararly induced demand, is not the same thing as discussing removing lanes from a "demand demand" street such as boylston. Its nearly identical to adding lights to the west side highway (which they did when they demolished the elevated expressway) vs removing lanes from 5th ave, which would be insanity.

 

[Matthew]

There are 2 way shopping streets all over the region and the world. Don't act like it's never been done before. 2 way streets are also better for business, in general.

Capacity on the green line is not comparable to a lane of Boylston street. The green line carries far more people.

People are still getting killed by speeding cars in the Back Bay in 2013. I think there's room for improvement.