NYC pedestrianisation

commuter guy

Active Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
859
Reaction score
80
From today's Boston.com:

NYC will close two lanes to cars on Broadway
July 11, 2008

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Friday that a plan to turn two car lanes on Broadway in midtown-Manhattan into a bike lane and a public esplanade will be good for the environment and people's health.

The Broadway plan will "give us a lot more room to walk on the streets and to get people ... out of their cars and walking, which is good for their health and also good for the environment," Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show.

The New York Times reported on Friday that the esplanade, called Broadway Boulevard, will run from 42nd Street eight blocks south to the busy shopping district of Herald Square. It will also have a pedestrian walkway with cafe tables separated from car traffic by planters filled with flowers.

When it opens in mid-August it will change that section of Broadway from a four-lane to a two-lane street.

The project is in line with Mayor Michael Bloomberg's vision of reducing traffic and pollution by encouraging bike riding and other alternatives to cars.

Work on the project has started without a formal announcement.

? Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...l_close_two_lanes_to_cars_on_broadway?mode=PF

NYC seems to be taking a lead on this. Note Ablarc earlier post re: what NYC did with the streets in front of the Apple Store in the Meatpacking District of Manhattan:

http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=54063&postcount=386

Will Boston implement anything of this nature and where would be possible locations? Perhaps areas of Downtown Crossing.
 
It's funny there is all this press now. I just walked up Broadway yesterday to meet a buddy and was suprised how quickly they got this built. It looks really nice but I noticed that most drivers didn't realize what it was and drove over parts that were not meant to be driven over. This will be really nice when it is completed.

Also NYC has been doing this to intersections for the past year and they really do wonders to the public space.
 
What would be a good place to try this in Boston? I'd nominate Mass. Ave. between the river and Boston City Hospital.
 
Too late for dedicated bike lanes, it took over a decade to get the funds for the Mass Ave rebuild starting this year. A redesign would push that back another 10-20 years and continue to leave us with a 1960s monstrosity. I'd rather have new sidewalks, a green median, trees, and non brutalist street lights as to not be an affront to the Victorian character of the street.

There was a proposal to add bike lanes to the center of the avenue by removing the median, but that would create a really wide kill-zone for pedestrians and eliminate half the intended landscaping. In addition to delaying the project 10-20 years.
 
Boylston St in the Back Bay and Stuart/Kneeland St in the Theater District seem like they would benefit the most.
 
The Longfellow bridge and cambridge street (it could have taken the space of the stupid traffic island) or Cross Street/Surface Road/Atlantic Ave along the dig.
 
But wouldn't it be better to reduce this part of Mass. Ave. to two traffic lanes, and dedicate the other two to pedestrians in the manner that this article describes? Then you don't need a median at all.

Chester Park should also be re-created at the same time.
 
Both Cambridge Street and Mass Ave from Boylston to City Hospital carry enough traffic to warrant four lanes. Any time you have four lanes of heavy high speed traffic a planted median is a good idea. Blocks headlights from oncoming traffic at night, gives pedestrians a point of refuge, helps soak up rainwater, reduces CO, reduces the heat island effect, and the plantings (should be raised) curtail jay waking by blocking anything but the crosswalks.

However to appease you hippies that are too cool or slow to walk everywhere:

It wouldn't be too difficult to have slightly narrower medians or traffic lanes to provide central bike lanes with wider curb cuts and crosswalks for turning.

If the existing medians were modified there could be a nifty reserved right of way for bikes. Within a typical landscaped median there's usually just enough space for two bikes to pass. It wouldn't be that much of a challenge to find appropriate plant species, aesthetically pleasing yet functional paving, and planter box types, that allow greenery to coexist without collisions with cyclists.
 
Both Cambridge Street and Mass Ave from Boylston to City Hospital carry enough traffic to warrant four lanes. Any time you have four lanes of heavy high speed traffic a planted median is a good idea. Blocks headlights from oncoming traffic at night, gives pedestrians a point of refuge, helps soak up rainwater, reduces CO, reduces the heat island effect, and the plantings (should be raised) curtail jay waking by blocking anything but the crosswalks.

However to appease you hippies that are too cool or slow to walk everywhere:

It wouldn't be too difficult to have slightly narrower medians or traffic lanes to provide central bike lanes with wider curb cuts and crosswalks for turning.

If the existing medians were modified there could be a nifty reserved right of way for bikes. Within a typical landscaped median there's usually just enough space for two bikes to pass. It wouldn't be that much of a challenge to find appropriate plant species, aesthetically pleasing yet functional paving, and planter box types, that allow greenery to coexist without collisions with cyclists.

I agree with your last comment, but as to the earlier paragraph I'll note that the Cambridge Street median is about 3/4 hardscape, and the little ornamentals that are thoughtlessly scattered in them are not major CO2 machines to begin with-- their effect on the heat island or runoff is approaching nil. Further in my unscientific, empirical studies the islands serve to speed up traffic along there, making it more of a hazard zone for pedestrians, which have their sidewalks placed that much farther apart. I understand the logic behind medians, and this city has a long history of knowing how to locate and size them effectively (Comm Ave, Beacon Street, Memorial Drive, Atlantic Ave) but these here are failures in my opinion.
 
But wouldn't it be better to reduce this part of Mass. Ave. to two traffic lanes, and dedicate the other two to pedestrians in the manner that this article describes? Then you don't need a median at all.

Chester Park should also be re-created at the same time.

Oh great idea, there's not nearly enough traffic on Mass ave. That and just north the hospital the pedestrian traffic is insane.
 
Wouldn't bike lanes make sense only on streets where is a lot of bike traffic?

Mass Ave going from the Charles River to Route 93 doesn't seem to get a lot of bike traffic, and it's not because there aren't any bike lanes.

Mass Ave from the river to Harvard gets traffic, from Boston and from MIT.
 
Chicken meet Egg, Egg meet chicken....

Many people are scared to death to ride bikes in mixed traffic. Bike lanes reduce the fear factor and allow more people to use bikes. Although if you build it, you are right, that people still not might come. Estimating potential bike traffic is really difficult because the demographics of cyclists varies greatly.
 
I'd like to see the city remove a lane of traffic on Tremont St between city hall and the theater district. The additional space should be on the city downtown side not the common. There might even then be room for sidewalk cafes. Look at how Washington St in the south end has stated to change.

Also what is up with all that road space on Boylston St by the public garden. I think the subway use to come up here but it should now be added to the public garden. I also would like to see Boylston St become two ways. It is by the common and it is after the Pru. It would probably be two lanes east and one west. This would make the city much easier to get around reduce traffic in the residential part of the back bay.
 
The median on Boylston by the Public Garden is a closed incline that has been turned into a vent room. You can see down through the grates from the median and in the tunnel the incline is visibly enclosed by cmu with a machine room door facing the emergency LRV pocket track.
 
There was a proposal to add bike lanes to the center of the avenue by removing the median, but that would create a really wide kill-zone for pedestrians and eliminate half the intended landscaping. In addition to delaying the project 10-20 years.

This isn't really accurate about the timeline. A redesign could be done in as little as a year. The current plan has street trees in small pits that may or may not survive. The median will only have low plantings.

In general, on a street like Mass Ave where the right of way is fairly limited, a median is a waste of space in my opinion. Why have space in the middle that no one can use, when you could use that extra space for bike lanes and wider sidewalks? Then, you'd have room for people to walk and bike as well as more space for the trees to thrive.

Just look at the recently reconstructed Mass Ave in Cambridge between Central Square and Mem Drive. There are bike lanes and wide sidewalks. They had the courage to take away a travel lane and/or parking in some places to make it happen, and there is no median. I wish Boston had the courage to do this on their part of Mass Ave.
 
There's less traffic on the stretch of Mass Ave in front of MIT then there is between the Harvard Bridge and City Hospital. Think of all the major streets and highways that feed on and off Mass Ave in that stretch. It would be really difficult to eliminate lanes on an avenue that is already gridlocked even when the traffic lights are in sync. Why no one ever proposed a subway line running Mass Ave's route it beyond me.

However any updates to the signal system, new street lights, trees, even sidewalks, curb cuts, bulb-out corners/parking/traffic calming devices, is an improvement which I can't wait for. And while they're at it I do wish there was some way to create an underpass at Chester Square to restore the park.
 
Traffic "gridlocks" in Central Square, too, as it does in many other places at rush hour. However, the city of Cambridge realized that pedestrians and cyclists are very important, so they made a conscious decision to reduce vehicular capacity. At rush hour, you will almost always have gridlock. If you want to reduce the amount of traffic, you have to make the alternatives very appealing, which is what they have done.
 
I'd rather restore the Chester Square park without building an underpass. Just return it to its previous configuration.
 
Ron, I don't think that is very realistic. I mean, it's a major roadway to the highway.

Regarding the rebuilding of the road, even the neighbors can't decide what's best. The South End News says at a recent public meeting on reconstruction, of the 50 residents who attended, they were "evenly divided" on whether or not to have extra lanes for turns, etc.

Here's an op-end piece appearing in last week's paper:

Divided we fall
by Ken Kruckemeyer
South End News

If city engineers and a select task force of residents get their way, Massachusetts Avenue - which was just repaved a couple of years ago - will be torn up again next spring. After three years of reconstruction, we will end up with a wider street designed to carry more cars at higher speeds, a few cement planters at mid-block and narrower sidewalks paved in brick. The city and the task force say it is "a very good plan - the best we can get."

I am positive that this plan is not the best we can get.

This project should be an opportunity for the South End - the city is ready to rebuild Mass. Ave.: Mayor Thomas Menino, an early signer of the Kyoto Accord, wants to reduce fuel consumption. The city has a new and energetic Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator. Gas prices are up. The traffic counts on Mass. Ave are down. Throughout the US, there is a new focus on quality of life in cities, on reducing the impact of traffic, on walking and cycling for health, on mobility alternatives as we get older, on healthy street trees, on improving public transportation. Cities across the country are putting roads "on diets" and testing new ways to calm traffic. "Complete streets" that satisfy all needs are being built - to the delight of users and neighbors alike.
Yet, here are the details of what we will get on Mass Ave: The street pavement will be widened by two feet. Existing trees will be removed. New sidewalks will be a foot narrower - so narrow we will be forced to walk single file to get past the newly planted trees in narrow pits, if they even survive.

And what about safety? The street is being designed for 35 miles per hour. At crosswalks, the existing medians are to be taken out and replaced by left turn lanes, leaving no place to pause when you cross the street. The outside travel lane will be wider (proven to speed up traffic) and there will not be a separate bike lane. And there is nothing designed to improve bus service and no space for bus shelters.

How could this have happened? The city has been working on this plan since 1993, spurred by the desire to get more cars from the expanding Prudential Center to the Southeast Expressway. The city?s own Streetscape Guidelines for Boston?s Major Roads (1999), the AccessBoston 2010-Boston Bicycle Plan (2001) and Mass. Highway?s Design Guide (2006) all require a design that satisfies the needs of pedestrians, bikes and buses as well as cars. The current project doesn?t embrace any of these new guides, but instead, adheres to outdated guidelines.

Public meetings were held and neighbors listed a broad set of goals. Over the past several years, city engineers selected a task force, primarily from the neighborhood associations, to review the details. Advocacy groups working on similar issues city-wide - the Livable Streets Alliance, WalkBoston, MassBike, and the Institute for Human Centered Design - were not included in the task force. Also left out of the process were many other Mass. Ave residents including people in elderly housing, assisted living, and affordable housing developments.

Why is the makeup of the task force important? Because in diversity, in knowledge and in numbers comes strength. Because when everyone is represented a design will work for everyone. Because a design will benefit from knowledge about what is happening on the other side of town, in other cites across the country and around the world. And it helps to have a lot of support when it comes time to get a project funded.

The task force says that it voiced many of our common goals: reducing the impact of traffic, widening sidewalks, medians at intersections. But they were constantly told by the city that these goals could not be funded - that by raising objections they risked losing the project all together.
South Enders have not always been so ready to accept what the engineers told us was the best we could get. In the 1970s, we scotched the city?s plans for the South End By-Pass and the state?s plans for the Southwest Expressway, and we helped get the money to build the Southwest Corridor with its parks and transit. In the 1980s, we got Tremont Street and Columbus Avenue reconstructed as four-lane and two-lane streets; the city had planned to widen Tremont to six lanes. Narrowing Columbus from four lanes to two was the first time federal highway money was used to reduce travel lanes and widen sidewalks.

These successful projects were the result of inclusive public design processes; yet for Mass. Ave, the city and its select task force overlooked the reality that broader representation would have assured a better solution.

On June 24, at a public meeting open to all residents of the South End, we heard about another plan, a better plan. This plan would eliminate left-turn only lanes in exchange for wider sidewalks and bike lanes. At the meeting, it was neighbors shouting at neighbors, opinion split right down the middle, with half backing the new plan and half opting to stick with the old. Unfortunately, state officials voted that plan down on June 26, putting us on track for 36 months of construction for the old plan.

But at that meeting on June 24, there was a glimmer of hope. A diverse group of people had gathered. The city acknowledged that there were better solutions and that the traffic numbers are down. Task force members said they really did want to reduce traffic and that they would rather have wide sidewalks and medians at the intersections. There was near consensus on the desires. But the city?s threat that the money would disappear and the task force members? desire for planters in mid-block medians, brick sidewalks and "historic" lighting won the day. The remaining half of the attendees was left wondering if a little more time and effort wasn?t necessary. After all, we will have to live with this design for the next 40 years. And there are people at the city and state who want to lead us toward the future rather than tie us to old ideas.

Shouldn?t $12 million and three years of construction result in a project that would be safer and more beautiful and more functional for all?

If we are to live in a healthy and prosperous neighborhood, one that that consumes less fossil fuel, one that is safe for all of our neighbors, then our public streets have a lot of work to do. We need a generous place to walk, to stop for a moment and talk. We need space to roll a shopping cart, to jog without tripping, to bicycle safely. We need healthy trees to provide shade and keep our houses cooler. We need space for bus shelters and frequent, reliable bus service. It will be hard to turn this project around, but if we want these goals to become reality we need to find a new way of coming together, and we need to support progressive leadership that will help us create a Mass. Ave that works for our neighborhood. South End streets are too precious for us to allow them to be overwhelmed by cars.
 
Unfortunately, there's more than meets the eye with the process the city ran regarding the Mass Ave redesign. I think if it were to start over, most of the neighbors would be in agreement with what they want. The problem was they were told things that simply weren't true, and now they're stuck in a bind.
 

Back
Top