Hey, there! Log in / Register

City could try a little sleight of hand to slow traffic on two Hyde Park streets

A city transportation official told residents of Summer and Austin streets last night he could have a simple fix for the cut-through speeders that have made many of them afraid to park in front of their own houses: Some buckets of white paint.

Bill Conroy, senior transportation planner for BTD, told members of the Grew Park Neighborhood Association he would look at having city workers paint white stripes to mark off the parking lanes on either sides of the relatively wide one-way roads. That would make the roads seem narrower to drivers and narrower roads make drivers "tend to go slower," he said.

Conroy said that one option tried in Jamaica Plain - speed humps or speed tables - probably wouldn't be a solution for the two roads because they are used by the T's 50 bus, and buses and speed impediments are not a good mix. He will also look at getting the two streets radar signs that flash at drivers if they're going too fast.

Conroy acknowledged that fixing Hyde Park's growing traffic congestion, caused in large part by out of towners or out of neighborhooders seeking to avoid the nightmare of Cleary Square, will be much tougher.

Conroy, who grew up in the area, but who now lives in Dorchester's Savin Hill, said he is always amazed at how many cars there are in Hyde Park, which used to be a traffic backwater where only locals went. Out of towners, though, have discovered - sometimes via Waze - they can cut through Hyde Park from Rte. 128 to Brookline and other destinations to the north. And increasingly, that means speeding down side streets that few people had previously ever heard of.

And while Conroy said the lights at Gordon Avenue and River Street are now coordinated with the lights a block away in Cleary Square, residents said the intersection remains a chokepoint, partly because of people making rights on red from Business Street, in front of Junior's, partly because Massholes are Massholes and turn left from the other side of Gordon or just plow straight ahead on River even if they can't get through the intersection and then the light turns red and the whole area becomes gridlocked.

Conroy agreed with a resident that one possible fix would be to bar right turns on red from Business Street onto River.

Child Street residents, meanwhile, complained of large BPS school buses using their narrow street as a bypass around Hyde Park Avenue on their way to the bus yard in Readville. BPD officers said residents should contact BPS - which can order drivers to stick to wider roads, and which can then use GPS to track their compliance.

He added that another fix for the area comes this summer - BTD has scheduled installation of a set of traffic lights at the free for all at Hyde Park and Dana avenues.

Ed. confession: To get to the meeting at District E-18 from Roslindale, I cut down Austin, turned left on Gordon, then left on River and Hyde Park Avenue to avoid the traffic backed up to Austin on West Street from the intersection at Hyde Park Avenue.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 
Ad:

Comments

People driving to Cleary Square taking a right turn onto River Street, then spinning around the square-ish thing, then taking the very quick right on red from Business. So banning the right on red would only work in a universe where either people care about these things or where BPD starts handing out tickets.

And yes, I am a regular Austin driver. I have been using Summer less and less, but I don't want to let slip what I have been doing, with the hope that Waze doesn't figure it out. Hyde Park Ave at Cleary Square is a mess. I was running one morning last week and saw that the inbound traffic on HPA was back to the Renaissance Charter School. That's a big backup.

up
Voting closed 0

There were just so many intersections they talked about, I left some stuff out. Mr. Traffic Guy said they can't just get rid of that little island because there's a memorial on it, but that one idea would be to shut off that little cut-through thing in front of Junior's so that the intersection would be more of a traditional four-way intersection.

Also bruited about: Making West Street heading away from the golf course two lanes - one for right turns onto Hyde Park Avenue, the other for people turning left or heading straight across.

up
Voting closed 0

At least it is on those rare occasions when I need to make that right turn (and yes, I do totally obey the "No Turn of Red" sign, since I am usually taking that intersection on foot crossing West.) But I suppose if they move the center line over a few feet and added a white stripe, it would be more official. It still won't get me to actually drive HPA into the Square.

River Street from Logan to Gordon is a cascade of failure that affects all cross streets. Those are my 2 cents.

up
Voting closed 0

Because right now, yes, it's wide enough to be two lanes, and I've certainly squeezed through on the right to head into Cleary Square (or, OK, I admit it, the Dunkin' Donuts), but it just takes one guy in an SUV (it's always a guy in an SUV) to make it so nobody's getting past him, dagnabbit.

up
Voting closed 0

That is truly the ultimate Masshole move. I saw a guy do that once in Allston (on Western Ave & N. Harvard) and I'll never forget it. Didn't realize it was a regular thing in Hyde Park.

up
Voting closed 0

The do-it-yourself rotary.

Sometimes it's obnoxious. But if it uses excess road/green light capacity, and makes the remaining backup shorter for everyone else, then it helps things overall.

up
Voting closed 0

There are three jughandles (that I know of) where, if you time it right, you can veer to the right, then left, then a right while the straight-ahead light is still red. Note: Obviously, you have to be careful and not do anything truly stupid or reckless.

The easiest is on Providence Highway (you know, Rte. 1) southbound at the West Roxbury/Dedham line. Wide lanes, not even really a 90-degree turn make this one a snap.

A bit trickier is West Roxbury Parkway north at Weld Street - if you time it just right, you can turn right heading toward Weld, then go left, then right back onto the parkway.

The trickiest, if it's even still possible, is Rte. 9 west just past the Chestnut Hill Mall. You have to get to the intersection just as the light is turning yellow or maybe the first instant it goes red (and even then, you might not make it if there's enough traffic trying to go inbound on 9). They've built a whole new mall and put in all those new lights and lanes, and I don't have much reason to head west on 9 anymore, so I don't know if this one's still possible.

up
Voting closed 0

Mr. Conroy has shown the spotlight on the culprit.

In the past, those of us on non-dead end residential streets could find safety on our relative obscureness. It used to be that unless the standard-issue Masshole could use a local Dunkin Donuts on your street as a waypoint, s/he would never travel down it. Waze has ended all of that - city or suburb - it doesn't matter.

Always fun references to Massholery aside, this is a real issue. Every street that is not dead end is now potentially a thoroughfare. While I appreciate the efficiencies of that, I have to say that I do not believe that many of these streets were laid out or constructed with these levels of traffic in mind. This is one of the areas in which I would welcome the introduction of autonomous vehicles that would obey the speed limit. At least until then, I will continue to put out a couple of traffic cones out along the centerline of my suburban street (used by drivers to avoid two traffic lights on the town's main drag) when the neighborhood kids (including my own) are playing.

In case this bothers you, I will put you in touch with my neighbor. He's a nice guy, originally from north Jersey, who had a distinctively more north Jersey (local analogue: Saugus? Medford?) approach to the problem. I dissuaded him from implementing it. For now.

up
Voting closed 0

That people actually use public streets - you should reach out to Waze and let them know about your special little snowflake street that no one but you and your 'Jersey neighbor' can use. I would say have him contact them, too, but I would guess he probably isn't smart enough to even know what Waze is. Hope you doesn't pick a fight with the wrong guy who kicks his ass back to Jersey.

up
Voting closed 0

The problem isn't "use" of public streets. The problem is ABUSE of public streets. As in treating neighborhoods like personal I DON'T GIVE A FUCK speedways, making it unsafe to cross streets, running down children and pets, harassing locals who drive moderately, etc.

When I bike through neighborhoods to avoid major roads I use those streets. When I drive through them, I keep my speed down when I USE them because they aren't built for fast travel. That's because I hate it when people speed through my neighborhood and ABUSE the streets - honk at me for daring to cycle "in their way" at 15mph on quiet residential back streets or when I have to walk in the street due to snow or vehicles or whatever. Oh, BTW ... I actually DO own these roads (private way signs) and they do not.

The problem is also the fact that you can buy a couple of speed bumps at ULINE or similar for a couple hundred dollars. The cities and towns know that people are fed up enough to start doing this if the problem is not addressed.

up
Voting closed 0

Would you too then be upset if a bunch of teenage boys that you didn't 'approve of' rode their bikes down 'your' street? It's a PUBLIC street and it does not belong to you personally or your neighbors. Any and every person has the right to drive, walk, segway, use their wheelchair or ride their bike on a public street, and neither you nor your neighbors have the legal right or moral authority, or whatever, to stop them no matter what their place of residence, gender, age, ethnicity, financial income, height, weight, eye color, occupation, etc.

up
Voting closed 0

My neighborhood is marked PRIVATE WAY.

PRIVATE WAY MEANS PRIVATELY OWNED, BUTTERCUP!

What part of PRIVATE WAY did you miss? PRIVATE WAY means that my neighbors and I DO have the legal authority to restrict the use of our neighborhood streets if we decide to change our covenants with the city. PRIVATE WAY means that we get to do that.

As for "teenage boys riding their bikes", I have my very own PACK of those! Except they are getting older and some are in their 20s and now I can rely on them to fix my furnace or leaky faucet. In any case, they would probably stop in to get a tire patched or a lesson on tightening their head set properly. People know that we are happy to help them become tool users.

up
Voting closed 0

Actually, Private Way does NOT mean you own it and can restrict travel on it. There is often confusion about this. It means you (or a developer) paid for its construction and maintenance, that it is not a municipally owned or maintained road, and that you can set rules for parking. But unless the road itself is on land listed in your deed (or your property is the only property served by it, essentially making it a long driveway), you cannot legally bar someone from traveling on it. You can put signs up, but they are not legally binding.

http://archive.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/10/private_ways_pu...

up
Voting closed 0

I wouldnt imagine that there is a lot of traffic going down a private way? My street is also busy but it sure isnt a private way. Not sure I'm understanding how a street can be a private way.

I totally agree with you on people speeding down the street like complete A-holes though and not giving a fuck. I have yelled slow down at people as they speed down my one way residential street. WTF is everyone's hurry these days?

up
Voting closed 0

Until recently the legal speed limit was 30mph on most streets (unless in a school zone/etc). Do you have any actual empirical evidence collected that people are speeding, or is just your anecdotal feeling of speed and that they were going to fast? Speeders should be dealt with, especially now that speed limits can be lowered. Just want to see the actual study done showing the actual problem instead of what could just be NIMBYs complaining that what used to be a back road now has a few cars going down it every hour.

up
Voting closed 0

30 mph is too fast for the conditions, the "official" speed limit doesn't matter. Even though MA does not have a formal "violation of the basic rule" citation like some states do, they can and will issue you a ticket if you are travelling too fast for the conditions, as evidenced by the roadway configuration.

Ditto if you are running stop signs at speed and being rude to other road users.

Then again, you are probably dim enough to think that 30mph is a good idea and "your god-given right goddamnit!" when it snows, or when the roads are narrowed by construction vehicles, have frequent crosswalks,etc. Not the way it works.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't even know where to begin. Why are you bringing actual moving violations like running a stop sign up? They have nothing to do with going the speed limit. Being "rude" to other drivers - what does that even mean? Seriously? We are talking about the OP who was angry about traffic diverting itself from his suburban Main Street onto his street to dodge two lights - speeding (or other traffic violations) were barely mentioned. Hence calling them out - is it that drivers are being dangerous, or is it that they want their public street to not be used by anyone but them - or else feel the wrath of the 'Jersey neighbor'. Ad hominem attack aside, I campaigned and was for the lowering of the speed limit to 25mph, and IMHO, it should have went to 20 to allow engineers to properly design roads around that speed limit vs the mandatory 30mph limit we had. I also take the T every day, so what do I know.

Speeding and reckless driving is one thing - simply having too much traffic and cars is completely different. Perhaps OP in the suburbs will get angry enough of their previous side street being inundated with cars to actually vote for politicians to fix the problem at its base - more (and better) public transportation. But, its OK, I get it, you just get fired up about things and force aggressive arguments against anyone who might vaguely disagree with you.

up
Voting closed 0

Constantly used as a speedway between Market and Cambridge Streets. And the road is often too narrow with parked cars that you will hear multiple horns honking daily, signaling some close calls with cars. Oh and of course the stop sign at Murdock St. gets ignored frequently and has resulted in several crashes in the past year.

up
Voting closed 0

Do you mean the stop sign on Murdock St? Because Sparhawk has no stop signs at the intersection of Murdock, something that motorists coming down Murdock don't always expect. I've definitely seen some close calls there, though, and I wonder if it might be a good place to put a "cross traffic does not stop" warning, because I don't think a stop sign on Sparhawk would be feasible. It would delay cars trying to get out of the intersection with Cambridge St. Or maybe that's the goal, because it would reduce the usefulness of Sparhawk as a cut-through?

up
Voting closed 0

BGL, since you obviously don't read too good, allow me to quote from the very first sentence of this post:

cut-through speeders

The "special snowflakes" aren't the people who don't want maniacs speeding down their streets. They're the the ones who aren't satisfied with avoiding traffic on main streets but also have to get to their destination as soon as physically possible, even if it endangers others' property or lives.

up
Voting closed 0

How fast are they speeding? Any data on that? Cause up until very recently the legal speed limit was probably 30mph unless it was in a school zone. Did they do a study? Put down the strips to log traffic/speeding over a month? Because without that, one could easily interpret your post as being upset that there is simply more traffic on your street - especially with the cute little bit about your big 'Jersey neighbor' (ooo scary).

up
Voting closed 0

You still don't read too good. I don't live on that street or anywhere near it. But I believe there's a problem if the residents have bothered to get together and approach the city over it.

up
Voting closed 0

Apologies, I thought you were OP - simple mistake. I have lived off of small back streets where each block successfully got the city to install 4 way stops where there was pretty much no traffic and no one was speeding at all - it was mainly NIMBYs who saw an extra car or two per day and they got all flustered. Groups of citizens get together all the time over nothing - especially in Boston where it is almost a pastime for people to try to block any and all develop/change.

I guess you don't really read that, either though. Since I your original quote has nothing to do with what the OP wrote that I was replying to, who barely mentions speed on his suburban road at all, but complains simply that there is too much traffic on it diverting from their main street. Making your current comment make no sense, either, since we aren't taking about the streets or people highlighted in the actual article.

up
Voting closed 0

Are they speeding when they are running stop signs without slowing? Veering around school buses with their lights flashing? Ignoring crosswalks?

Not sure it matters. But these things are a big part of the hazard of cut-through traffic and create unsafe conditions through disrespect of anything but speeding through.

up
Voting closed 0

Again, any actual evidence other than the anecdotes you are pulling our of your... derriere?

up
Voting closed 0

Yep. Plenty. The cop around the corner went out and took video and counted the stop sign infractions.

Any actual evidence that your suppositions and bullshit WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH NOO FAIIIIIRRRR entitlement speed is safe?

Especially since there has been an actual HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT that says that even 25 on local roads is killing people?

READ IT: www.mapc.org/health-impact-assessment-reducing-speeds

up
Voting closed 0

And to answer your question, yes, I have some data, because I asked the police to do some speed enforcement a couple of months ago (which they did, because, well, we have a great police department).

Street is signed for 25mph. Officer told me he did enforcement for about 75 min. 3 warnings for between 35 and 40 and 2 tickets for over 40.

I should also mention that the high school and middle schools are nearby, and because of that, there are lots of kids crossing the street at various times of the day. Those are over and above the many kids living on the street (the street has recently "flipped over" from empty nesters to families with pre-school aged children).

Now, if you have kids, you understand why people might be upset when you can get these kinds of numbers on a single day for 75 min. If you don't have kids, well, check back in if you do someday.

Lastly, I'm no fan of Jersey-ball tactics (which should have been clear from my initial comment), but when your kids are involved, even the most mild-mannered among us can make Tony Soprano look like a nice guy.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

5 cars in 75 minutes speeding enough for the dedicated cop to do something about it doesn't sound like a lot.

up
Voting closed 0

The problem is you have people speeding through neighborhoods at higher speeds and with little concern for the residents in the area. If people followed the speed limit and drove like they care about the people living on the street it wouldn't be a problem.

Streets and intersections are (theoretically) designed for volume and type of traffic expected to use them.

up
Voting closed 0

I used to take Walter Street to get to Centre St/Arboretum, and that's always been a 20mph zone where I've never seen people go anywhere close to that speed - more like 30 or 35.

The city did narrow the lanes recently with white paint - interesting that this appears to be their go-to technique if they are also considering this for Hyde Park.

up
Voting closed 0

It's a good technique. It's cheap and it works.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm intrigued, since I have so far only seen the paint approach "work" in the sense that it makes the appearance of "doing something" without those scary horrifying evile speedbumps that we know do work.

Do you have a source of data for this? FHWA or DOT study? I haven't found any yet, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any intervention evaluation data.

up
Voting closed 3

Now, especially if you're on the side heading towards the parkway, it feels like the lane is too narrow and you're going to crash, if not head on, at least sideways, with somebody coming the other way. I'm not sure that makes the road safer.

up
Voting closed 0

It does though, because if you feel like that, it's going to be reflected in your driving. The number of minor collisions (like the one you describe possibly occurring when two drivers pass one another) may actually increase, but because the speeds are way down, fatalities tend to decrease. It is a relatively well established fact at this point in traffic engineering which Boston (sadly) is only just now starting to make use of. Even better would be to place some objects in every intersection that people would have to drive around, but we're still working on getting the fire department on board with that idea (or getting the city to disregard the fire department's very conservative notions about traffic engineering).

up
Voting closed 0

How many traffic fatalities has Boston had recently on narrow residential streets?

up
Voting closed 2

Conroy said that one option tried in Jamaica Plain - speed humps or speed tables - probably wouldn't be a solution for the two roads because they are used by the T's 50 bus,

Buses have much higher clearance than cars.

Buses generally travel more slowly than cars, unless they're speeding down these narrow side streets.

Don't buses successfully navigate speed tables on Rindge Ave in Cambridge and numerous other streets?

This sounds like BS, but maybe I'm missing something. And please don't tell me that a speed hump or two will slow down the T buses so much that they won't meet their schedules, because then I'll laugh out loud and all my co-workers will look at me funny.

up
Voting closed 0

A car can go much faster over a speed hump than a bus can. Even if a bus takes it really slowly, the passengers will still get knocked around.

up
Voting closed 0

Busses are much heavier and its a lot of wear and tear on their suspension systems, even at low speed. They also have to crawl over them.

up
Voting closed 0

It's a cop out by the city has been for a while to avoid putting in speed bumps or humps. They always say buses, emergency vehicles, and snow plow can't navigate them. Meanwhile buses, emergency vehicles, and snowplows navigate them just fine in Brookline, Cambridge, Needham, etc. Real reason is the city doesn't want to pay to build them and especially to maintain them.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, back when Menino was mayor, the city loathed speed bumps with the blinding fury of 10,000 suns. It's different now - drive around some JP sidestreets in the area roughly around the Brewery.

up
Voting closed 0

Please don't say anything to remind me of The Sentry.

Quite possibly the worst Avenger ever.

up
Voting closed 0

Pretty sure every one of the speed bumps in JP was added (vigilante-style) during the Menino administration.

up
Voting closed 0

Busses don't have seatbelts.

up
Voting closed 0

You're right. This is BS. MBTA buses travel over speed humps and raised crosswalks in many places already. The BTD folks really need to get over to Cambridge and Somerville more often (or at all.) Everything they claim is "not possible" is already being done.

up
Voting closed 0

I have lived in Hyde Park my entire life (well over 60 years) and for the past few years I have been constantly amazed and appalled at the gargantuan effort it takes to navigate these local streets particularly in the Cleary Sq. area and the West St./Hyde Park Ave. area at certain times of the morning and evening. Trying to get from the Smith Field area to Hyde Park Ave. past West St. is, at times, almost impossible. If you're really in the mood for a challenge, try coming out of Child St. at Gordon Ave. while everyone is totally blowing off the stop sign coming out of Enneking Parkway onto Gordon. Aside from the actual enforcement of traffic regulations a bit of common sense and courtesy as well as people putting down their cell phones would go a long way in relieving congestion. The constant blocking of intersections by drivers who can see that there is nowhere to go even if the light is green is enough to send the most chill driver into a fit of road rage. As mentioned the right on red at Business and River needs to go but I have no doubt that any "No turn on red" sign would be completely ignored. Wish I knew a solution for the increased volume but in the meantime we could always try the courtesy/common sense thing.

up
Voting closed 0

File this one under Housing and Transportation woes as well as traffic woes.

It's all part of the same issue, and its only going to get worse unless the state gets smart real quick on regional housing and transportation initiatives.

Boston's going to have 160,000+ new residents by 2030. That's not counting the growth from new businesses moving in, nor the majority of the worker force commuting from outside to support those new residents and buissinesses.

Meanwhile we can't have a day go by without substantial delays on the commuter rail or subway.

up
Voting closed 0

THIS THIS THIS THIS. Improve and expand public transportation!! Barring a massive economic collapse of the GBA, that is the ONLY thing that is going to cut down on this problem! Discouraging people from using sideroads will just displace them onto other sideroads, because they have to get to work and the main roads are at capacity. HELP GET PEOPLE OFF THE ROAD. "Transit" in the southern neighborhoods is a joke.

up
Voting closed 0

Even though I was there as a reporter (since I don't live in that neighborhood, although I'm a five-minute walk from it), I asked about what happens when the parking lot across from Forest Hills goes away (people were talking about the possibility of resident-permit parking, I was wondering if Hyde Park would go for that if 300 commuters suddenly start showing up near the Hyde Park commuter-rail stations). The answer was the city is very concerned about that and is working with BPDA to try to find a place for those people to park (guy mentioned the Arborway yard, but the T's already basically said no to that).

up
Voting closed 0

With all due respect, concerns about losing this parking lot are just not based on reality. There are 15,000 daily boardings at Forest Hills station, so the parking lot represents less than 2 percent of that. This means it's fairly safe to assume that this lot was not coming anywhere close to meeting its potential demand and probably no one other than the very earliest-in-the-morning commuters ever counted on finding a space in there. Meaning to the extent that people were willing to drive to the commuter rail parking lots to park there instead, they were already doing so. My suspicion is that the loss of this lot is going to mean:

1) People walk or take the bus to Forest Hills more
2) They drive to a multitude of different commuter rail stations depending on the availability of parking
3) They drive all the way to downtown

Of course what's lost in this discussion is that every time we replace a parking lot adjacent to a train station with housing, we're creating room for a whole other type of commuter that doesn't get to work by car at all, and those commuters are by far the cheapest to handle (to say nothing of the benefits to the economy and environment), so almost every time it's possible to replace such a parking lot with housing, it makes sense to do so.

up
Voting closed 0

Readville has a lot of excess parking capacity. The T website says it has 68% availability. So anyone who's looking for commuter rail parking could go there.

Of course it's not used more today because it's expensive and the schedule sucks. Both of these are solvable problems.

up
Voting closed 0

During a recent walk around Hyde Park, I couldn't believe several things:

1) How bad the traffic was at Hyde Park Ave and River Street, and how long I had to wait for the all-way walk. These problems are not unrelated. Lose the all-way walk and it will benefit drivers and pedestrians.
2) That the rusty, dilapidated fence between the commuter rail tracks ended short of the north end of the platform. Acelas come through there pretty fast, so it should be a no-brainer to install a fence at least for the length of the station.
3) That there's no traffic light at Milton Street and Hyde Park Ave in Readville. This was fairly terrifying to cross, and there was also a big traffic backup.

Only in Boston would there be a (mostly) residential street called Business Street.

Could traffic also be increasing because the area is growing? I know of several arts organizations that have recently moved to Hyde Park.

There are a whole lot of parkways in the area that were designed to carry through traffic. But the don't connect east to west across the rivers and rail lines, and you have to take local streets through either Cleary Square or Readville.

up
Voting closed 0

And still does at the other end. It's kind of interesting parsing out the history of an area by the street names - like how there's no longer a factory on Factory Street (it got torn down for the senior apartments across from the supermarket).

What I want to know is why Hyde Park only has A and B streets. Were there plans to fill in the rest of the alphabet at some point? And what happened to the first New Way?

up
Voting closed 0

Compounding all of this is something I've never experienced in another neighborhood -- drivers regularly run stop signs and turn right on red without stopping in Hyde Park. At a four way stop when a driver approaches and sees another car stopped at the stop sign, they often just run the intersection. Or on the right turn from Truman Parkway onto Fairmount Ave., pedestrians risk their lives if they walk when they have a walk sign. I'm a regular commuter rail rider who walks home across Truman Pkwy, and cars turning right rarely ever even pause at a red light. I have never seen a traffic cop in Hyde Park or anyone ever receive a ticket for reckless driving in Hyde Park. Why are traffic laws not enforced in this neighborhood?

I've lived in Dorchester, Allston, Back Bay, Brookline, Jamaica Plain, Roslindale -- never experienced anything like this outside of Hyde Park.

up
Voting closed 0

I frequently am crossing in it with my kids and people don't stop or slow down about 1/3 of the time....hard to see people standing at either side of the street so slowing traffic down there would help.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't know anything about traffic in Hyde Park or the vicinity.

But I do read a fair amount of local news. And I almost never see the word Masshole used in local news stories.

This is quality stuff!

up
Voting closed 0

People who want to avoid Hyde Park Ave and/or River Street use Summer Street and Austin Street to shave off time - and travel well over 30mph. Drivers don't realize two separate senior citizen complexes are there.

One of two ideas came to mind. Raised pavement is good, as it does discourage "pedal to the medal" driving. Another would be to put transverse rumble strips - similar to what they use on I-95 heading north in Canton - every 500 feet. The loud, vibrating noise under the chassis would certainly be a great reminder not to fly down either street like Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards.

up
Voting closed 0

Rumble strip noise would be a nightmare for anyone living nearby.

up
Voting closed 0

Out-of-towners causing traffic issues?

Frankly I embrace the back-streets to get where I am going, as a local and lifer here, and that is especially true at peak times.

You should see the route I take just to get to BJ's from Rossie Sq just to avoid the traffic and all of the road construction - most being Verizon tapping into the already existing fiber lines they told people they were getting as a part of a contest. (LIES!!!... ALL LIES I SAY !!! )) LOL.

But even the back roads are getting worse. Try Florence on some afternoons at peak hours. It will be backed up from the Blakemore bridge to Brookdale or even Sycamore at times. I live in that area and that, my friends, is a shock to my system.

Why is this? The newbies and out-of-towners are learning!.

Washington St is so bad they are trying anything, and the Forest Hills area construction is only a part of that.

Oy!

up
Voting closed 0

The following would reduce traffic and speed

1. Make Austin Street abutter only either at all times or during rush hour. There are other streets which are abutter only as well as streets where residents of Hyde Park are not allowed to park (resident parking in some neighborhoods), so this should be provided for Hyde Park residents

2. Put toll on Austin Street exempting Austin st residents or put toll on Gordon Ave near Eneking exempting those who live near (cant put them on Eneking Parkway because its a state road). Out of towners use Boston's roads, police, fire etc but pay no taxes if these roads were toll roads many of the out of towners would likely avoid them.

3. Put a gate at the end of Austin with a gate opener available only to Austin residents or gate at the end of Gordon near Eneking exempting those who live near (cant put them on Eneking Parkway because its a state road). This would result in encouraging the use instead of Washington Street which is zoned commercial rather then having people cut through a residential street

4. Make Myopia Road two way or one way toward Eneking Parkway, most of those cutting through are going to Eneking Parkway, Myopia is closer then Austin to Eneking Pkwy so those going toward EnCurrently eking Parkway would likely turn on Myopia instead. Myopia is also further then Austin from Cleary Sq and Business St so directing traffic onto Myopia would lessen the Cleary Sq and Business St traffic mess. Sure those on Myopia would not like this idea but those on Austin dont like that their street allows outsiders going in that direction either. It is not fair that only one street outside Cleary Square (Austin) goes in that direction as it causes all cars seeking to avoid Cleary Sq onto Austin

5. Make the speed 20 mph, put up signs with the speed limit and enforce it with tickets Currently there are no signs with the speed limit posted.Saying go slow does not work as some consider 50mph slow. If word gets around that the street is a speed trap the speeders will avoid it.

The following will not work
1. Speed bumps, they damage cars, hinder emergency vehicles, hinder busses, and make crossing the street difficult

2. A bus lane this was suggested by an outsider who does not live on Austin St and does not live on Summer St, no one who lives on either of these streets has requested this. Both Austin and Summer are one way one lane streets there is no room for a bus lane, the streets are already too narrow, not to mention excessive cars parked on the street due to the city not enforcing the zoning code.Also the bus only comes once an hour and stops at around 6PM. Bus lanes are for multi lane streets with frequent buses not a residential street of single family homes.

up
Voting closed 2

Of course, the first three are illegal, as Austin Street is a public way. The fourth will just add more traffic to an additional street, thereby only shifting the problem. The fifth has the most merit, except that 25 is the lowest the city can go right now. Speed limit signs would be good, but enforcement concentrated on a single street is laughable.

up
Voting closed 0

The 1st 3 are not illegal. That a street is a public way does not mean it is open to all.

There are numerous streets which are public ways in and around Boston which are abutter only.

There are numerous streets which are public ways which have toll booths (or more recently transponder readers and cameras to read licenses for tolls) including one or more which exempt or reduce the fee for those Bostonians who live near the toll booths, transponder readers etc

There are streets which are public ways which the city of Boston has intentionally configured in such a way for the express purpose of keeping outsiders out.

All of the above have been done in the past, the issue here is how much the subject city employees value residents of the particular street and whether they believe that residents of the street are worthy of high quality of life.

25mph is not the lowest speed the city can go, 25mph will shortly be the speed limit for any Boston city street street in which a speed limit is not posted. The city can have a lower speed limit on a particular street so long as it is clearly posted. They can also have a higher speed limit. There are streets in Boston with a 15mph speed limit

Agree it would be necessary for the police to ticket both the speeders and violators of the no right on red on Business St which is also a good idea.

up
Voting closed 0

Before I eat crow.

And yes, residents of East Boston and Southie get discounts on tunnel tolls, but that is a different kettle of fish. If the government couldn't put tolls up on the highways that actually benefitted from the Big Dig, good luck getting tolls for some side street in Hyde Park.

Yes, there are ways to reconfigure roads to lessen commuter traffic (see Beech Street between Washington Street and the Parkway) but Austin and Summer are cursed by basically being uncut from West to Gordon. I suppose making Austin one way in the direction of West would do something, but I'd bet that the residents wouldn't like the changes.

up
Voting closed 0

Here's one: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4213448,-71.1178355,3a,15y,29.3h,89.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sztkYsQ4iuSPwQErbodznHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

up
Voting closed 2

It's definitely in the oven heating up.

Still, it's not that the area is off limits to non-residents, and I will not that the City of Medford probably defines residents as those who live on those streets and the abutting ones, not every resident of Medford. Also, the area can be accessed via the streets off Winthrop (yes, I worked the angles with google.)

The anon still have to deal with an important non-resident- the MBTA and Boston Public School buses.

up
Voting closed 0

Unless Boston has some different rules/laws, there are many resident only streets in Brookline, Medford, Malden, etc. Completely legal for cities to do this!

Not sure about the gate idea - seems like overkill and might not go over well with the BFD.

Ya need to get out more.

up
Voting closed 2

The city has become overpopulated big time. We need to get cars off the street, it seems to be the only answer. This is the new normal and it seems to have happened quickly.

up
Voting closed 1

Boston only has 3/4 of its peak population.

The problem is the systematic destruction of transit and the corollary addition of privilege and subsidy of cars as a mode of travel.

up
Voting closed 2

but this has become a hot place for people to move for jobs. I've lived here my whole life and most people that I work with are not from boston, but they've come here for a job. They certainly arent moving here for the weather and the real estate prices. Jobs, schools, hospitals...it was bound to happen. People want to live here. The roads and transit systems aren't faring well.

up
Voting closed 0