City councilors said today they will work to craft a proposal that would let Boston drop the speed limit on most roads to 20 m.p.h. - just 15 m.p.h. in school zones.
The measure, which would require action by the state legislature, would overturn the current system, in which the city can only lower the default 30 m.p.h. limit on specific roads after undertaking lengthy, costly traffic studies on the road.
Councilor Frank Baker (Dorchester), who proposed the measure, said 30 m.p.h. is simply too fast on Boston roads with parking and bike lanes on both sides.
Councilors said today they get more calls about speeding drivers on Boston's narrow streets than anything else.
Councilor Josh Zakim (Back Bay, Fenway, Mission Hill, Beacon Hill) noted the recent drag-racing crash on Beacon Street.
Councilor Tim McCarthy supported the measure, even though "part of what hurts the most is it's our neighbors who are speeding."
But he also cited drivers of the MBTA's route-50 buses, who he said speed down Summer and Austin streets "like they're going to the IndyCar."
Councilors noted that similar home-rule requests to the state legislature have failed, but said they hope this one would pass because it is crafted to be just for Boston, not towns where it might not be needed, such as Ludlow, where a key legislator in the transportation area came from.
"If you go 20 m.p.h. anywhere in Ludlow, you probably wouldn't get out of Ludlow for a couple days," McCarthy mused.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
The details?
By Gary C
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 1:29pm
Are they intending to make the default limit 20 within Boston? If so, that's silly. 20 MPH is really slow and people will not obey it. Does anyone really think that if the limit on Beacon St was 20, that drag racers would then go somewhere else?
If the goal is to have the ability to selectively drop the limit to 20 in certain areas, then that makes sense. The city should have the option to do what is necessary.
Unless we are talking about
By Kinopio
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:14pm
Unless we are talking about Storrow Drive then 30MPH is too fast for city streets that are filled with pedestrians, cyclists, etc. Boston drivers flat out suck and obviously can't handle going over a slow crawl. All 5 pedestrians killed in 2016 were struck while crossing in the crosswalk. The odds of a pedestrian surviving a crash at 20MPH are 95%. The odds of them surviving a crash at 30MPH is only 55%. Peoples lives are more important than drivers getting home 2 minutes faster.
So, yes, the speed limit needs to be lowered and the police need to do a much better job of enforcing it. We also need cameras at intersections to catch people who speed through intersections, drive through red lights and kill pedestrians. That would also need state approval, unfortunately.
30 MPH default speed limit has worked in cities
By roadman
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:22pm
for decades. The key to improving safety is ENFORCEMENT of laws for ALL road users, not just car drivers.
20 mph (and 15 mph for school zones) is unenforcable, which is why it won't work.
Also, see DTP's posting about why the City Council shouldn't even be considering a blanket limit, but should leave efforts involving traffic to trained professionals.
Tens of thousands of people
By Steve Brady
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:33pm
Tens of thousands of people are killed by cars in this country every year. So clearly it hasn't worked.
Sorry, what?
By Kaz
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:40pm
Of those "tens of thousands", how many were pedestrians/bicyclists killed by a car traveling between 20-30 mph within a city? How many wouldn't have been killed if the car was traveling at 20 mph instead?
Because that's the relevant statistic/point to be made.
Depending on your data source
By Steve Brady
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:48pm
Depending on your data source, you are seven to nine times more likely to die after behind struck by a car going 30mph than 20mph.
And exactly
By bosguy22
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 3:04pm
How was that data taken? Were there volunteers willing to be hit at 20mph and 30mph? How many?
All of this is meaningless if speed limits aren't enforced.
Yes that is precisely how
By Steve Brady
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 3:03pm
Yes that is precisely how science works.
Great logic
By merlinmurph
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 4:26pm
Using that logic, the speed limit should be 10 mph everywhere. If one life can be saved, it's worth it.
Really?
By Kaz
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 5:39pm
Weren't we still draining the humors in 1980? Weren't brake systems little more than putting your foot through the floorboards?
Here's more modern data which says it's only about a 2x increase in fatality risk...AND it also includes all the possible caveats...like underreporting of all the impacts that happen where nobody gets hurt and so there's no report filed.
that's the way it's always been?
By cat
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 4:00pm
and so we should not change it?
Why should the speed limit on my one way-cars parked on both sides-residential street be the same as The Riverway?
30mph is too fast in most sections of the City. 30 mph on Washington Street? 30mph on Blue Hill Ave? Columbus Ave? Broadway? No. 20mph is more appropriate.
I support this home rule petition fully.
If a residential street justifies a lower speed limit
By roadman
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 5:38pm
than the Riverway, then DO THE BLOODY WORK TO PROVE that. Blanket speed limits are just a BAD idea.
For those of you who disagree, ask yourselves why we have so many Stop signs in place. Answer - Because in 1986, the Legislature took approval of stop sign installations on local roads away from the state highway department, and allowed local communities to install them themselves. The result - gaggles of UNWARRANTED (and therefore UNSAFE) stop signs were installed - what I like to call "the stop sign fairy came to town."
Design and implementation of traffic control should NEVER be left up to politicians for one simple reason - they can't say no to idiotic requests. And this proposal is one of the most IDIOTIC requests I've seen in a long time.
Another great example
By Kaz
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 5:41pm
How MA handled "right on red" by letting towns decide if intersections are "safe enough" to do it. We were the last state forced into implementing right-on-red.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/12/4/right-...
No can do.
By not in the dark
Thu, 03/31/2016 - 12:00am
The City of Boston cannot get the speed limit changed on all the streets in my neighborhood without home rule petition.
We tried. They tried. The City Council is taking steps to protect our neighborhoods.
Two excellent points
By merlinmurph
Thu, 03/31/2016 - 7:42am
Exactly how I feel.
I'm a traffic engineer
By Anin
Thu, 03/31/2016 - 8:21am
The default is 25 In most states. Even in Michigan the speed limits are lower. Speed limits in the past have been set by assuming 80% of people will drive that fast, with zero consideration of other road users. This has been codified into design manuals and law, so there is often little room for us to advocate for slower speeds. This plus an entrenched older generation in this field who haven't yet caught up to international best practices. Additionally, I'm sure they've been working with dr furth and others within the field on this. This didn't come out of nowhere.
Nailed it all around, well
By Rob Not Verified
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:48pm
Nailed it all around, well done.
What speed have the 5 deaths
By RhoninFire
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 3:46pm
What speed have the 5 deaths has been hit so far? If the accidents are occurring at 30 MPH, then lowering it to 20 MPH have some merit despite there also counter arguments. If they getting at a much faster speed, then lowing to 20 MPH just increases the number of drivers in violation while not changing the conditions related to the accidents and its victims.
And..
By bosguy22
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 4:08pm
If people are safer at 20mph...are they even safer at 15mph? 10?
99%
By baepp
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 4:33pm
99% chance of survival when a vehicle is traveling at 20mph is PRETTY GOOD, considering chance of survival is only 50% at 30mph.
http://www.seattle.gov/Images/Departments/beSuperS...
Partly agree
By ElizaLeila
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 4:09pm
I will agree with you on some of your concerns, however I wholeheartedly disagree with you on red light cameras. They are used for money making purposes not for anyone's safety.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131218/0001472...
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/08/red...
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/10/red-li...
Red light cameras are a perfect example
By roadman
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 6:11pm
of putting politics (in this case, revenue generation) over engineering standards and claiming it's in the name of improved safety. In some of the more notable cases (such as Chicago), yellow light times were decreased well below the established minimum standards (it's actually a formula that takes both speed and intersection width at a given location into account, and is not "one size fits all" for every light). The result was an increase in violators, but also an increase in rear end collisions from people suddenly stopping as the light turns yellow ##.
## Despite the common misconception often perpetuated in driver's manuals throughout the country, there is no legal requirement in either the UVC or the MUTCD that requires a driver to stop on a yellow light if they haven't entered an intersection.
Mass. has the LOWEST traffic injury
By anon
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 5:03pm
and fatality rate of all 50 states. Obviously, we don't suck as much as you fantasize with your active imagination. Boston/metro Boston also ranks 6th (ties with Dallas) for worse traffic for major metro areas in the US; top 5 being Chicago and Washington DC (tie), Los Angeles, Houston, S.F.
Doesn't it seem like the
By Mike Anderson
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:33pm
Doesn't it seem like the obvious answer is staring us in the face?
Place cops through high-violation areas and start ticketing the drivers who are speeding & going through red lights!
They think dropping the speed limit to 20mph (for abiding citizens) is the solution to the dragdrivers and MBTA buses who drive "like they're going to the IndyCar?" Seriously?!?
Also, has anyone else thought about what dropping the speed limit by that much will do to traffic downtown--and how long it will take to get around?
So, in summary, because some people speed like crazy & drag race (and should be ticketed/arrested) the new plan is to make everyone NOT speeding drive even slower. Worst. Idea. Ever.
Lowering the speed limit to 20 mph in Boston proper-good idea.
By mplo
Sat, 04/02/2016 - 8:34am
Boston is a densely-populated city to begin with, and there are a lot of pedestrians, bike-riders., etc, to boot. 30 mil is too fast for Boston's streets.
Also, the 15 mph in school zones is good, due to pedestrian crossing, as well.(such as mothers walking young children to and from school, etc.,)
Enforce the current one?
By Speedy
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 1:30pm
Instead of dropping it, why don't they have BPD actually enforce the current speed limit. All I have ever seen is on Comm Ave east bound by the cemetery at BC. I often find people going extremely fast in Boston.
You're correct. If only the
By anon
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 1:55pm
You're correct. If only the councilors could come up with some sort of agency that is responsible for enforcing the traffic laws already on the books!
Don't diminish a great point.
By dMc
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 4:18pm
This city is notorious for its lack of traffic enforcement. I could go down a few beers, get in my car, drive 15mph over the limit, run through a red light, cruise past a stop sign, cut off a bike or two, and I seriously doubt I would get pulled over.
I have witnessed people running red lights in front of cops many times, and they barely bat an eye. The details are the worst.. what's the point of having a cop stand there playing with his cell phone?
The original comment is valid. This city should not waste its time changing laws it hasn't even bothered to enforce!
I got hit by a car in front of a cop
By baepp
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 4:35pm
While crossing the street (on foot) in a crosswalk, with a cop one car back, and one car over. Officer made eye contact with me after the collision and then turned his head away.
You're correct. If only the
By anon
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 1:55pm
You're correct. If only the councilors could come up with some sort of agency that is responsible for enforcing the traffic laws already on the books!
What good will this be
By Boston_res
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 1:40pm
Especially if the laws aren't enforced?
I'd prefer to see raised pavement at crosswalks and busy intersections.
These things are not mutually
By Steve Brady
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:45pm
These things are not mutually exclusive.
Furthermore, if you did add a bunch of engineering to make a street that encouraged people to drive only 20mph, would you want to be forced to leave up the 30mph speed limit sign?
If regulatory (black on white) 30 mph signs
By roadman
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 3:52pm
are already posted, than that means that the necessary engineering studies should have already been done to establish the "reasonable and proper" speed limit for that road as 30 mph. If physical changes to the road justify a lower speed limit, the city or town can seek to have the special speed regulation amended so signs denoting the lower speed limit can be put up.
Note that Massachusetts does not allow the posting of regulatory signs on roads governed by prima-facie (default) speed limits. From MGL Chapter 90, Sections 17 and 18:
The highlighted section of Chapter 90, Section 18, is the requirement that the City of Boston is trying to circumvent with this foolish idea.
Raised Pavement at crosswalks/busy intersections-good idea.
By mplo
Sat, 04/02/2016 - 9:43am
This:
is something I'd like to see more of too, Boston_res. Moreover, already-existing laws must be enforced.
15MPH
By sth
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 1:49pm
is slightly faster than an elite marathon runner's sustained speed, slower than many sprinters and actually difficult to maintain in a vehicle. Just another law to make everyone a criminal; enforcement will depend on your bumper stickers.
What marathoner are you
By anon
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 4:14pm
What marathoner are you talking about? 15mph is a four minute mile.
elite marathoner
By sth
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 6:29pm
elite marathoner
By sth
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 6:32pm
as stated in my diatribe...
also prefaced with slightly faster..
You're welcome.
Interesting, but wrong
By Waquiot
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 9:43pm
Yes, a 4 minute mile has been run, but not 26 in a row by a single person. The pace of the fastest marathon recorded was 4 minutes, 41 seconds, which rounds up to 5 minutes. It works out to 12.8 MPH, which, coming from a guy who can barely make it above 8 MPH, is fast, but not speeding in a school zone fast.
Just saying.
I hate bad logic
By Neighbor4
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 1:53pm
Assuming the Beacon St drag racers were going over 30, then they have nothing to do with this proposal.
I actually agree speed limits should be lower in places. But I strongly disagree with tugging on heartstrings with a bogus inclusion of car racing (presumably the Bently was exceeding the speed limit when it crashed) in the discussion. Zakims a smart guy. He can do better than this.
The drag racers are symbolic
By Kinopio
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:18pm
The drag racers are symbolic of Boston drivers as a whole, who feel they can do whatever they want and put others lives at risk. I was nearly killed just this morning by an SUV who speed through a red light when I had the walk signal. This happens almost every day. It isn't about pulling heart strings, it is about saving innocent peoples lives. Drivers are by far the most dangerous thing in Boston and it is time to hold them accountable for killing people.
And implementing an UNREALISTIC
By roadman
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:21pm
and UNENFORCABLE speed limit will accomplish this how?
Why is a 20mph speed limit
By anon
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:32pm
Why is a 20mph speed limit less enforceable than a 30mph limit? The mechanisms for enforcement are exactly the same (ie, speeding tickets).
Google 85th precentile
By roadman
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 5:48pm
And you might understand why a 20 mph speed limit on a road designed for 30 mph is a BAD idea. Plus, unreasonable regulations are difficult to enforce and uphold in the long term.
Not to mention the cost of the resources involved for the increased enforcement. And don't give me that "but the fines will pay of it" argument - that is skating on the fine line between legitimate safety enforcement and revenue generation.
Problems with speeding on specific streets? Then get drivers to reduce their speed through design and engineering solutions. But "lowering the speed limit will automatically make drivers slow down" is a truly naive approach to the problem, and one that the City Council seems to be following as gospel.
But many are not designed for
By anon
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 8:53pm
But many are not designed for 30 MPH traffic. Once you get off the major streets, maintaining 30 on the majority of side street is dangerous. Cops can't do anything because the universal speed limit. This is a huge problem in the neighborhoods. We talk about it constantly at our civic association meeting.
Why it's less enforceable
By Mark-
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 6:08pm
Because nobody will drive 20. Nobody. The city councilors themselves who support this will not drive 20. You won't. I won't. They can't ticket every car in Boston.
Ever hear of traffic calming?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 8:07pm
A few good speed humps keep people in line - if they like their exhaust system.
But that's not
By ElizaLeila
Thu, 03/31/2016 - 8:33am
what the Councilors are asking for.
How is it unenforceable? Last
By anon
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 5:20pm
How is it unenforceable? Last time I checked we have a police department fully equipped with cars, motorcycles, radar detectors.
Implementing the law AND strictly enforcing it is the way to go.
By mplo
Sat, 04/02/2016 - 10:00am
Moreover, stiffer penalties for violating the law should be implemented, as well.
and....
By Neighbor2
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 4:25pm
I'm sorry you were almost hurt by someone running a light.
But like many others have noted, your close call is mainly related to enforcing existing laws about running red lights. Very little or nothing to do with lowering speed limits to 20.
Drivers are far from most dangerous thing in Boston
By Nope!
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 9:24pm
Among Bostonians (as in the rest of the US) you are, by far, the greatest danger to yourself.
http://www.bphc.org/healthdata/health-of-boston-re...
Congratulations, you're as bad as the people that are convinced they're going to get killed by ISIS tomorrow. You (the commenter, the reader, whatever) are far more likely to die from chronic lifestyle-induced disease.
Can't you just admit that you don't want cars driving fast down the road near pedestrians because it kills the walkable city vibe? I don't like it much either.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Kinopio.
By mplo
Sat, 04/02/2016 - 9:46am
Sorry to hear that you almost got run over by an irresponsible SUV driver who sped through the red light when you had the WALK signal.
The fact that the laws aren't enforced is why so many Boston, and Bay State Drivers, generally, take liberty and license to do whatever they please, and other people be damned.
The Herb Chambers Bentley
By anon
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:39pm
The Herb Chambers Bentley drag racers... what happened to the investigation? Has anyone heard additional details?
It doesn't matter...
By MatthewC
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:03pm
It won't be enforced. The current speed limit isn't, so why would it be enforced if they lowered it? Drivers will still run stop signs and speed down narrow streets like they're on the interstate. And don't you dare call them out on it. It'll earn you a punch in the face and U-hub posters will wonder what you did to deserve it.
Speed bumps!
By MatthewC
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:05pm
I support speed bumps everywhere in the city. It would force drivers to slow down and make the city way safer for pedestrians .
Not good for cyclists though.
By anon
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:39pm
Not good for cyclists though... I can't imagine riding over speed countless bumps on a regular basis.
Perhaps dedicated bike lanes, then?
By MatthewC
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 5:56pm
And I mean bike lanes where vehicles cannot drive/park/idle/etc. in them. I know. I'm dreaming of a utopia. But with all the money this city boasts about, one would think this could be a reality.
Since when?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 8:08pm
I've never had any issue with 20mph speed bumps when on my bike. Most either have space on the sides to get around, cut throughs, or are humps that are very easy to get over - like the ones in Somerville near Tufts.
Are you kidding me?
By ElizaLeila
Thu, 03/31/2016 - 8:35am
The roving hoards of bicycle kids and motorcyclists will turn them all into a BMXer's wet dream. Or at least the beginnings of one.
Wheelie! Catching air! Do it for the kids!
Speed bumps are awful to ride
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 4:31pm
Speed bumps are awful to ride over for cyclists... unless you are slow. Might be good for the 'burbs, but true urban cyclists who actually live in Boston and cycle as primary mode of transportation would never go for it.
As a traffic engineer I'm a
By DTP
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:06pm
As a traffic engineer I'm a bit insulted that the city council thinks they're more qualified than us to determine what is a safe speed on Boston's streets. Which they clearly do, since this proposal is trying to remove the state requirement that the city consult with engineers before lowering the posted limit.
This essentially boils down to a combination of a knee-jerk reaction to the drag racing crash (even though the participants were exceeding the posted limit anyway!), and the fact that now councilors can say to their constituents "see, look, I tried to address your complaint!"
What we as a city SHOULD be doing, however, is redesigning our streets so that the currently posted limits accurately reflect the design speed of the road. If you want people to slow down, the solution isn't to change numbers on a sign. As engineers one of the first things we learn is to use roadway geometry to control traffic, never signs. Signs should always be just a backup. We should be building raised crosswalks, cycle tracks, and curb extensions, and conducting wholescale reevaluations of our streets. Do we currently need this number of lanes that are this wide? Should there be an additional crosswalk here? Should parking be allowed here? Would buses benefit from a dedicated bus lane and signal priority here? Does this street need to be a through street?
And in the interest of full disclosure, I live in the city and do not currently own a car, but do drive regularly.
Exactly this
By Kaz
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:30pm
You can drive 30 mph on most Boston arteries completely safely.
20 mph would only shorten braking distances about 2-3 car lengths. How many problems have happened 4-5 cars away instead of 3 or fewer cars away. In more narrow roadway situations, like through the Financial District or on smaller community roads, I never see people doing 30 mph anyways.
Giving the City Council carte blanche on this would be a stupid idea. These aren't political decisions.
You see a lot less at 30mph
By Steve Brady
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 2:43pm
You see a lot less at 30mph than 20mph, and you do much more harm when you hit something.
A 20-year study of London found a huge drop in road injuries.
Really???
By mplo
Sat, 04/02/2016 - 9:51am
On the contrary, the greater the speed, the more harm you'll do if and when you hit something or somebody. That being said, I stand by my opinion that a 30 m. p. h. speed limit is too fast for such densely-populated areas such as Boston, especially given the number of pedestrians, cyclists, etc., that there are here in this area.
Reading comprehension
By ElizaLeila
Mon, 04/04/2016 - 8:15am
I think you need to re-read what was written.
"You see a lot less at 30 mph than at 20"
and
"you do much more harm when you hit something." (meaning - at 30 than 20)."
You two are on the same side in this argument.
Define "drive safely"
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 8:12pm
Drive safely if there are no crosswalks and people pulling from parking spaces and pedestrians in the area? Sure.
But that isn't what the city looks like. Somebody on FB was complaining about people in the crosswalks on Mass Ave in North Cambridge - he couldn't see them in time. Turns out he considered 40mph to be a "safe speed" because "its a divided highway".
Ugh.
If you can't see people and other vehicles who have the legal right of way in time to react to them, your speed isn't a safe speed. Period. It doesn't matter if you could drive that stretch when completely deserted and not hit a curb. That's not the right definition.
What's wrong with the Boston City Council giving some input on
By mplo
Sat, 04/02/2016 - 9:52am
this matter? I think it's perfectly prudent, on their part.
all good points.
By anon
Wed, 03/30/2016 - 3:27pm
all good points.
The city council is only doing this because the cool kids in NYC lowered the speed limit from 30 to 25 mph. Im surprised it took them this long.
There is actually a lot of data that show that a large percentage of drivers will drive somewhat near the speed limit, but physical geometry is always the better way to go.
It can be as inexpensive as pavement markings with narrower lanes (and then BTD actually maintaining pavement markings).
We just need to get rid of some dinosaurs in BTD/DPW (not to mention the 'no change at any cost' residents of this city) and we could start implementing some of these measures like many other cities have already done.
This discussion has been ongoing for quite some time.
By not in the dark
Thu, 03/31/2016 - 12:07am
The fact that NY is doing it is irrelevent. Many neighborhoods have been asking for changes in speed limits and have been unsuccessful.
Pages
Add comment