One Mystic | 1 Mystic Avenue | Charlestown

Blackbird said:
I don’t think this is true. It encourages road rage, which leads to accidents and unsafe behavior.

Is there data to suggest having more cars on the road leads to fewer crashes/deaths per capita?
Click to expand...
I just heard a report on WBZ News Radio yesterday that traffic accidents and deaths in Massachusetts are way down, and the reporter contributed it to increased congestion and people traveling slower. I'm not sure that's concrete data, but it makes sense to me.
 
Congestion is obviously not going away, and will likely get worse. The solution is not to shut down housing or business development. The solution is more bus lanes, increased bus service, more bike lanes, increased bike sharing services, and more transit lines.
 
Blackbird said:
I don’t think this is true. It encourages road rage, which leads to accidents and unsafe behavior.

Is there data to suggest having more cars on the road leads to fewer crashes/deaths per capita?
Click to expand...

Probably the best recent example is that when traffic congestion and volumes dropped significantly during the early stages of pandemic (lockdowns, WFH, etc.), traffic deaths actually increased because open roads led to more speeding (according to NHTSA). Speed is the primary determinant of fatal crashes, and open roads encourage speeding.


www.vox.com

America’s car crash epidemic

Driving kills as many Americans each year as guns do. Experts say that’s preventable.
www.vox.com www.vox.com

www.reuters.com

U.S. traffic deaths up during pandemic even though mileage down -data

New data shows a sustained increase in U.S. traffic deaths that regulators ascribe to impaired driving, speeding, a failure to wear seats beats and other unsafe behavior since the start of the coronavirus pandemic.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Blackbird said:
To play devil’s advocate, the traffic flow around Sullivan is really, really miserable. I think it could be vastly improved with some common sense re-engineering of the square’s intersections, but I don’t know if that’s being talked about as part of this project.

I know as urbanists, we’d all like to believe that residents of this new tower are only going to take the bus and subway or walk. Realistically, though, given the awful state of the T and the general bleakness of the area, I don’t see that happening.
Click to expand...
Major traffic redesign is a part of the PLAN. It calls for redesign of sullivan square and rutherford, widening of streets, additional bike lanes, double bus routes, and potentially extending the orange line. The nice thing is, the city got a half a billion dollar grant to do this work.
 
Patrick Winn said:
Major traffic redesign is a part of the PLAN. It calls for redesign of sullivan square and rutherford, widening of streets, additional bike lanes, double bus routes, and potentially extending the orange line. The nice thing is, the city got a half a billion dollar grant to do this work.
Click to expand...

Are there any specific plans (recent) you've seen of this? I remember seeing one a few years back, but I'm assuming it's moot with the new PLAN: Charlestown.

PLAN: Charlestown is so vague about design + configurations for Rutherford + Sullivan Sq.
 
LexSEDotVille said:
Are there any specific plans (recent) you've seen of this? I remember seeing one a few years back, but I'm assuming it's moot with the new PLAN: Charlestown.

PLAN: Charlestown is so vague about design + configurations for Rutherford + Sullivan Sq.
Click to expand...
PLAN Charlestown is by the BPDA. They don't design roadways. Sullivan/Rutherford is being designed by MassDOT and BTD. Though I'm sure BPDA has a more up to date idea of what is being designed now than what the public saw in 2021.
But it's an important distinction, it's not the PLAN determining the design, the PLAN is responding to the expected MassDOT design.
Also, they aren't adding capacity (or weren't as of 2021 and I don't expect that would change). Regardless of what a poster here keeps saying. Getting into 'Rifleman' territory with the constant thread derailments...
 
real_EthanHunt said:
PLAN Charlestown is by the BPDA. They don't design roadways. Sullivan/Rutherford is being designed by MassDOT and BTD. Though I'm sure BPDA has a more up to date idea of what is being designed now than what the public saw in 2021.
But it's an important distinction, it's not the PLAN determining the design, the PLAN is responding to the expected MassDOT design.
Also, they aren't adding capacity (or weren't as of 2021 and I don't expect that would change). Regardless of what a poster here keeps saying. Getting into 'Rifleman' territory with the constant thread derailments...
Click to expand...
How are they not adding capacity? They're adding lanes.
 
2 years old but....
Not only not more lanes, but lanes designee to urban standards so a greater reduction in feet than just lanes.

And the reasoning for the updated design that still hasn't been released.
www.boston.gov

Rutherford Avenue Community Process to Continue with New Design

In addition, MassDOT and the MBTA have expressed their intent to incorporate transit priority through Sullivan Square and along Rutherford Avenue with existing and future enhanced bus service. MassDOT and the City are working to update project designs to incorporate bus lanes and stations. The...
www.boston.gov www.boston.gov
 
6 lanes becomes 8 lanes
1696386103531.png
1696386205447.png
 
Nope sorry. That's 8 highway lanes becoming 8 urban lanes. Much more narrow. And the reason the lanes aren't being reduced is because there will be signals at each end for pedestrian crossings. Where as now, it's free flow highway.
And yes I realize that there is a lane closed in the tunnel, but does that help with the width of Rutherford? No. And you also conveniently picked a spot just south enough where the SB lanes (or just north enough that the northbound lanes) reduce from 3 lanes to 2 (again not by narrowing the roadway, just pavement markings). Why don't you measure the width of the roadway pavement against each other, which is the true impact of Rutherford (and the vehicle speeds and lack of crossings), not the the number of lanes.
 
real_EthanHunt said:
And the reasoning for the updated design that still hasn't been released.
Click to expand...

I guess this is what I'm looking for to understand PLAN: Charlestown. Without details I've had a hard time understanding the actual BPDA plan for Sullivan circulation/configuration and if Rutherford will feel any less like a highway.

Overlooking the final road network (even a schematic) strikes me as a pretty big omission for a neighborhood masterplan.
 
Last edited:
LexSEDotVille said:
I guess this is what I'm looking for to understand PLAN: Charlestown. Without details I've had a hard time understanding the actual BPDA plan for Sullivan circulation/configuration and if Rutherford will feel any less like a highway.

Overlooking the final road network (even a schematic) strikes me as a pretty big omission for a neighborhood masterplan.
Click to expand...
They're leaving the Sullivan Sq underpass in, which makes Rutherford Ave look and function like a highway. Also, the underpass squeezes the right-of-way very tight, leaving little room for a bike path.
 
LexSEDotVille said:
I guess this is what I'm looking for to understand PLAN: Charlestown. Without details I've had a hard time understanding the actual BPDA plan for Sullivan circulation/configuration and if Rutherford will feel any less like a highway.
Click to expand...
nitpicking a bit here, but again, its not the BPDA plan for circulation. They work with, but are ultimately given the future design by BTD/MassDOT.
LexSEDotVille said:
Overlooking the final road network (even a schematic) strikes me as a pretty big omission for a neighborhood masterplan.
Click to expand...
they are aware of what the future plans/capacity are at this time even if the public isnt.

Charlie_mta said:
They're leaving the Sullivan Sq underpass in, which makes Rutherford Ave look and function like a highway. Also, the underpass squeezes the right-of-way very tight, leaving little room for a bike path.
Click to expand...
does Huntington Ave and Comm Ave underpasses at Mass Ave feel like a highway? not at all. current tunnels were designed as highway tunnels, the future ones are much shorter. Rutherford Ave will be back to grade before it reaches Hood Park Dr (which is where Tradesman is located).
Even with the obstruction the tunnels cause, its better than the number of surface lanes that would be needed at Sullivan without them. you have to weigh 1 vs the other. will the block between Mishwum and Baldwin be great with the open boat section of the tunnel, not really (but still better than today as it will all be narrower in width). But it makes all of Sullivan Sq better, which is a worthy trade off (especially since thats where the pedestrian crossings will be much more prevalent).
 
Last edited:
real_EthanHunt said:
Nope sorry. That's 8 highway lanes becoming 8 urban lanes. Much more narrow. And the reason the lanes aren't being reduced is because there will be signals at each end for pedestrian crossings. Where as now, it's free flow highway.
And yes I realize that there is a lane closed in the tunnel, but does that help with the width of Rutherford? No. And you also conveniently picked a spot just south enough where the SB lanes (or just north enough that the northbound lanes) reduce from 3 lanes to 2 (again not by narrowing the roadway, just pavement markings). Why don't you measure the width of the roadway pavement against each other, which is the true impact of Rutherford (and the vehicle speeds and lack of crossings), not the the number of lanes.
Click to expand...
So you agree that we're going from 6 to 8 lanes in this region. There is also no indication that there will be any signals anywhere, there is just some paint for crosswalks. Even if there are signals, they will probably be timed for raceway speeds. And if even if they aren't, there's no enforcement for any red light violations anyway, so they can just be ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top