Hey, there! Log in / Register

City proposes reducing Centre Street in West Roxbury to three lanes, adding dedicated lanes for bicyclists

Fleetwood exxplains problems at large intersections.

Fleetwood explains problems at large intersections.

Boston transportation officials tonight unwrapped a proposal to make Centre Street safer through a new configuration with a single travel lane for motor vehicles in each direction, a center turn lane and dedicated bicycle lanes.

The new configuration would force drivers to slow down and make the road far safer for pedestrians to cross both by reducing speeding and by eliminating the sort of crash where one motorist stops for a pedestrian, who started to walk only to be mowed down by a car in the other travel lane, officials told a packed and divided auditorium at Holy Name School - where some people applauded the proposal as a way to make Centre Street a true neighborhood street safe for everybody to travel along, while others denounced it as a disaster that would jam intersecting side streets with cut-through traffic and an example of government overreach by officials who still fail to understand why people voted for Donald Trump.

City officials pledged to come up with a plan for making Centre Street safer after the Feb. 5 death of Marilyn Wentworth, killed at the intersection with Hastings Street as she was walking to get a cup of coffee on the other side of Centre, by a motorist who said she was blinded by the sun. Chris Osgood, the city's official chief of streets, said officials will now spend the next several months talking to residents and Centre Street business owners to come up with a final proposal this fall.

Osgood added that the city is working on more immediate projects to make the road safer, including the recent installation of flex posts at Hastings Street and the installation this summer of radar signs that flash drivers with their current speeds. BTD is also planning to tie Centre Street signals - after they're topped with cameras - to the city's central signal management system to allow easier fine tuning of traffic-light sequencing.

Charlotte Fleetwood, head of the city's Vision Zero program, which aims to reduce traffic fatalities, said that traffic studies done after that crash showed that most Centre Street motorists speed - that the average speed towards Holy Name is 30 m.p.h., or 5 m.p.h. above the city speed limit. Adding dedicated bicycle lanes along the curb would make the street safer not just for bicyclists but for pedestrians, by giving them a bit more visibility, she said.

With 16,200 vehicle trips a day, Centre Street fits federal guidelines for a three-lane road, she said.

Fleetwood said that a study by a consultant hired by the city suggested that during rush hour, motorists making the one-mile trip between Spring Street and Holy Name would see the time of their rides increase by no more than two minutes - and that outside of rush hour, they would see no change at all.

Peter Furth, a Northeastern professor who first proposed shrinking the number of lanes on Centre Street two years ago, said that eliminating one lane in each direction would not reduce the typical commute by much because the new configuration would reduce delays now caused by people making left turns or double parking.

Fleetwood said the new configuration would mean the loss of 16 of the 221 present parking spaces along Centre, but said the city would work with the MBTA to see if there were ways to eliminate some bus stops, which would reduce that number. She added part of any program would be better signs directing motorists to the more than 1,000 off-street parking spaces in both public lots and lots maintained by local businesses.

After Osgood and Fleetwood finished their presentation, local residents - and a couple of people from Roslindale and JP - gave their thoughts, almost seeming to alternate between people who demanded the city keep the current four lanes and people who liked the idea of a "road diet."

Among those strongly supporting the city proposal were Al Wentworth, Marilyn Wentworth's husband, and their son, Matt. Both, who at times struggled to speak, said the idea would simply make the road safer for pedestrians. Answering people who said the change would ruin business on Centre Street, Matt Wentworth pointed to the coffee shop his mother was going to. "They lost her business that day; she's not coming back."

Al Wentworth:

Wentworth

The first person at the microphone, though, Marty Keogh, president of the West Roxbury Civic Improvement Association, said that while everybody agrees Centre Street is dangerous, the proposal "is not a good idea."

"I think almost everybody in this room would agree with that," he said. The statement was greeted by a loud chorus yelling "NO!" after which Keogh thanked the veterans in the hall for fighting so that he could have the First Amendment right to speak his piece about how the proposal would only slow traffic throughout the neighborhood.

He was followed by a Mt. Vernon Street resident who said he could not wait for the proposal to be put into action because he and his kids now avoid Centre Street because it's so dangerous.

Some residents seemed particularly incensed by the idea of bike lanes, saying nobody rides bikes on Centre Street.

Frank O'Brien of Mt. Vernon Street questioned why city officials were "kowtowing to special-interest groups" and trying to force bike lanes down the throats of the good citizens of West Roxbury in a plan that just encourages people to run roughshod over side streets. "You still haven't figured out how Donald Trump got elected," he said, just warming up. He proceeded to tie the Centre Street proposal to efforts by the city "to ruin us like Southie" by cramming hundreds of condos into a neighborhood of single- and two-family homes via a zoning board that "hands out variances like candy." He concluded: "We're saying enough is enough. Try it out on some neighborhood that might want it, but leave us alone!"

O'Brien:

O'Brien

Bicyclists in the auditorium responded that the reason so few of them go on Centre is that it's just too dangerous. Several said they or their spouses are avid bicyclists who commute on two wheels as far as the Seaport, but that when it comes to bicycling, they avoid Centre Street like the plague and instead ride up to Roslindale or Jamaica Plain via other roads for the sort of casual shopping and dining they'd much rather do closer to home if only they could get there safely.

Jan Hanaghan, who lives on Hastings Street, and whose husband bicycles to work in the Seaport, said the road is so dangerous she has her son text her when he successfully gets across Centre on the way to pick up something to eat at the Real Deal.

Jacob Robinson, executive director of West Roxbury Main Streets, which works with businesses along the street, acknowledged that some of his members are concerned about such issues as parking and unloading of trucks, but said that other members see the proposal as an opportunity to make Centre a far more welcoming destination for shoppers and diners - drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians all. He said too many people now avoid Centre altogether.

Countering residents who pointed to their children as reasons to support the plan, Brian Kenneally pointed to his two young daughters - both of whom came with him to the meeting - as reasons to oppose it. He said he doesn't want to worry about them outside on his side street because of extra traffic sent down it by motorists trying to avoid Centre Street. He said he walked up Centre Street today and went into 32 stores and that 20 business owners agreed with him the road should stay at four lanes - and that the owners of the other 12 simply weren't there when he went in. He said it was a travesty the city had no plan to keep the four lanes and make them safer. How about repainting crosswalks and putting in more pedestrial signals, he asked.

But other side-street residents said that's already an issue and that they would rather see a safer Centre Street. Some residents, including Al Wentworth, said that one answer would be installation of more four-way stops on the residential streets off Centre.

Colby Wheeler, a Mt. Vernon Street resident who regularly bikes to Cambridge and downtown, but never goes on Centre, said, "I want to ride to Centre Street. It's dangerous. Fix it."

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 
Ad:

Comments

"the new configuration would reduce delays now caused by people making left turns or double parking"

Aggressively boot and tow any vehicle that double parks.

up
Voting closed 45

But, has anyone ever been booted and towed for double parking, even in a passive aggressive manner?

up
Voting closed 14

If we let towing companies, vultures they may be, tow a double parked car whenever they find one, double parking will be over in 48 hours.

Tow truck driver involved street fights might go up a bit though..

up
Voting closed 19

A roadway reconfiguration only after several fatalities. Some strong and vocal opposition, mainly from older residents. Claims of 24/7 gridlock, a bicycle hipster invasion, failed businesses, and a never ending nightmare destroying their peaceful hamlet. They feared Arlington would become the new Allston. The opponents claimed all that was needed was some new road paint and even hired their own biased engineer.

The city produced reams of studies showing this wouldn't be the case, but the opponents trusted their gut over experts.

After years of battles, they completed the road and... Nothing bad happened! Traffic is no worse at all. Much easier to cross the street on foot. No longtime business went under. Instead, some opened sidewalk dining.

Good luck West Roxbury getting past these nuts. The city will be better once the work is completed.

up
Voting closed 132

I like this plan, except for the bike lanes. Making the design more complicated with bike lanes is not a great plan. Otherwise let’s go. It’s been too long already. Also not surprising that so many are against any change.

up
Voting closed 10

Safe Main Street districts with protected bike lanes were the number one requested item in the Go Boston 2030 plan filled out by thousands of Boston residents. There is broad-based support for these and we need a connected network for safe bike-riding across the city. They don’t add much complication to this; they’ll just shift the parking over and create bike lanes along the curb like they have elsewhere in the city.

up
Voting closed 39

Bus lanes for the 35/36/37 would help more people than bike lanes.

up
Voting closed 6

Then do both and take away all the on-street parking. Problem solved.

up
Voting closed 16

How complicated is a line painted on the ground?

up
Voting closed 29

Some of this sounds great, e.g. the left-turn lanes and better timed traffic lights, even the bike lane, although I'm having trouble picturing how that fits.

I wonder how the plan will reduce double-parking. I'm all for reducing double-parking, but I'm picturing people just doing it anyhow, or parking in the bike lines.

Did they say anything about preventing all those large delivery trucks from blocking the right line?

up
Voting closed 19

People are less likely to double park if there is only one lane in their direction, because they block everyone, not just half of everyone.

up
Voting closed 30

Also re: blocking bike lanes, I think the plan is to make the lanes protected - between the curb and the parking, a la parts of Beacon downtown - so they can’t do that. But as someone who also bikes it does suck when cars treat the bike lane as additional parking (or, as they currently do on the stretch of Centre from Holy Name to Weld, as an additional car lane).

up
Voting closed 12

where do you propose the cyclists ride? With car doors, lyft/uber, and traditionally aggressive motorists many cyclists aren't a fan of riding in the lane and motorists seem to prefer it even less.

up
Voting closed 14

As a cyclist, the separated bike lanes in the Seaport has been a big step backwards. Without fail, at almost every intersection someone (mostly delivery and ride share) double parks at the entrance to the lane, blocking cyclists from entering.

Just as often, there's a vehicle parked at the exit of the protected bike lane, which traps the cyclist.

I speak from experience. The protected lanes in the Seaport might be great but if double parked cars prevent riders from using them, what's the point?

I hope the design in West Roxbury overcomes this huge oversight.

up
Voting closed 28

The lanes need to be protected, especially at intersections. But there is also a lot of police and parking enforcement coverage in the seaport. You would think that the ticketing would be aggressive.

up
Voting closed 14

It certainly is disappointing, and my assumption is that whoever has authority to enforce the laws regarding lane use just doesn't have the time or inclination to do so on a frequent and assertive basis. Just looking at Washington Street as it comes down the hill from the Stony Brook shopping center through the square to Forest Hills, there's a bike lane and a morning-only bus lane that are fairly regularly used as a second lane for passing or parking. The intent of these lanes is great, but if there's no enforcement, they become just paint on the road. I mean, I assume it's not like logging a complaint to 311 is going to solve a situation where a few people are parked in the bus lane at 8:15am on a Wednesday.

up
Voting closed 10

Agreed. BPD has no interest in enforcing bike lanes or any other double parking. And BTD meter maids are only allowed to ticket people in parking spots, which actually increases the incentive to block a bike or car lane. Until there is any enforcement, this is all just pretty paint and the protected lanes are even worse because the entire space is wasted if just the entrance or exit is blocked.

up
Voting closed 8

You are right, the lanes in the Seaport are essentially unusable, but protected lanes elsewhere in the city have been pretty successful. I use them on Columbus and Mass Ave. fairly often, and have also enjoyed them on other streets from time to time. I think there are two problems in the Seaport that West Roxbury should be able to avoid. The first is the massive use of Uber/Lyft, the second is the way the lane entrances are designed. There should be no place for a car to park that can block the bike lane without also blocking the cross street. The lanes on Columbus, for example, use flex posts to block such activity. With proper design especially, and with a lot fewer ride share users, protected lanes on Centre St. should work just fine.

up
Voting closed 15

It took awhile for the morons there to understand the signange and paint and clear instructions to NOT park in the new protected bike lane.

And by took awhile, I mean it took awhile to get the flex posts up. Once they were in, I haven't witnessed a single issue with parking in the bike lanes.

Right hooks when it meets Mass Ave are another thing but hey, you can't fix stupid amirite.

up
Voting closed 14

It's not just for policing anymore!

up
Voting closed 6

I could be wrong but my instinct is simply that people won’t double park when there’s not an “extra” lane for it. With only one travel lane each way, you can’t double park without just blocking literally the entire lane (actual double parking, not just dropping someone off). Even us Boston drivers tend not to be THAT selfish. With two lanes, people can mentally justify double parking because people can still get by in the other lane.

up
Voting closed 15

I’ve been surprised people have asked me “what about the double parking?”. Simple, it can’t happen with one lane! You’d immediately have dozens of irate people or “back pressure” as BTD calls it. Today people block one of two lanes and drivers get delayed, change lanes, and move along. More proof than anything we don’t need two lanes.

up
Voting closed 13

I can't find a picture of the actual plan, but I did find Peter Furth's study. His plan puts the bike lane at the curb and the parked cars next to the travel lane. This would be very effective at calming traffic and prevent double parking.

www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Centre-St-W-...

up
Voting closed 17

I understood that they proposed this as now implemented on beacon st Brookline and elsewhere. and sorry it is a step backward. crossing the bike lane then the the traffic is counter productive to pedestrian safety. it complicates crossing the street.

up
Voting closed 7

Beacon St. in Back Bay has protected bike lanes and it is now LESS safe for pedestrians to cross bc the cars afe pushed further into the street thus the line of site for pedestrians to see if cars are approaching / running red lights is negatively impacted.

up
Voting closed 7

Thats a problem with crossing against the walk signal or just straight up reckless driving by the motorist running the red, the bike lanes aren't to blame.

Call the police.

up
Voting closed 23

The parking needs to be pushed back from the corner. That is the real visibility problem.

up
Voting closed 15

Which means more parking removed, which is another lame complaint from motorists/residents that really just don't want the bike lanes to begin with.

This was the same garbage residents of the North End argued about the cycletrack. But they'd lose it if more parking g was removed to easily address that issue so they say screw the whole cycletrack.

These people don't come to the table with honest arguments other than thinly veiled entitlement.

up
Voting closed 8

They said that the plan will be on line soon - I think they said in about a week.

up
Voting closed 6

Marty Kehoe learned quickly that he is in the loud minority that does not want change hearing a bunch of no’s...
Different type of campaign strategy

up
Voting closed 28

Guy thinks he’ll get elected to the City Council on the backs of NIMBYs with an axe to grind. Will be interesting to see if even survives the primary. He’s a multiple-election loser already.

up
Voting closed 18

Change CAN Wait should by this guys new slogan!

up
Voting closed 11

I am now wondering whether he or someone from his campaign typed up that ridiculous ALL CAPS flyer that was circulating before the meeting...

up
Voting closed 7

They said that about forest hills too. Old people suck, and they just want everything to be sucky forever.

Also does someone have to die to get the city to act. Walk hill is pretty dangerous. Come fix our street next!

up
Voting closed 17

It's really not nice of you to categorize all "old people" like that. (How old is old to you anyhow?) I have heard lots of youngsters voicing objections to the new plan for Centre St. and old people (over 30?) in favor of all sorts of changes. Some even voted for Hillary.

up
Voting closed 16

1). Don't assume that all older people are against change. They are not.

2). They all do not all suck.

3). And, if you are lucky, one day you will be old.

up
Voting closed 18

Of course all older people aren't against change, just the majority of them. Of course all older people don't care about global warming, only a majority of them. Old people are selfish because they have more to lose. I'm over 40 and I see this in the polling about people my age also - we're going to be the same as we work to protect the wellbeing and success of our own children to the detriment of future generations. It's a bummer!

up
Voting closed 19

I would say that although not all older people oppose these types of changes, of the people who do most strongly oppose them, most of them are older.

up
Voting closed 8

Hopefully you will have the benefit of being old one day. Not all old people are against change.

up
Voting closed 10

"An example of government overreach by officials who still fail to understand why people voted for Donald Trump."

I couldn't make the mtg but it would have been hard for me not to ask the person/people who said the the above if they were pro-choice. Yes, I know this has nothing to do with the issue at hand but I am sick of people who talk about over-reaching government when in fact they love it...just not when it affects them. This isn't over-reaching - this is a safety issue. Over-reaching would be if the government said "your driveways are now public parking spaces."

What's the saying...you can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig? West Roxbury is still that same old pig from 40 years ago. Head in the sand, get off of my lawn, we don't want your change.

I hope something constructive can come out of this meeting. We all need to understand that compromise has to happen on all sides. Cities are changing, white flight is coming back from the burbs, the younger generations that are staying in the cities don't have or want cars. They want infrastructure. The only way to get lessen the # of cars on the road is to make better and stronger infrastructure choices. Better choices means = more transportation options and that equals less cars on the road.

Pedestrians, bikers, the environment have been the ones inconvenienced by drivers forever, maybe it is time to flip the script?

up
Voting closed 22

Make no mistake. This is not really about traffic on side streets or whatever else opponents claim. This is all about their fear of West Roxbury "becoming" Jamaica Plain or Cambridge i.e. liberal. I was at the meeting sitting next to vocal opponents. They were snearing at the business owner from Jamaica Plain, demanding he sit down. They laughed and yelled "No!" when a West Roxbury resident said that small businesses in Cambridge and Brookline are doing just fine on streets with protected bike lanes. They yelled at the director of WalkBoston to sit down because he said he lived in Watertown when they demanded to know his address. They claimed their countless West Roxbury neighbors who spoke in support of this plan "aren't really from here" or moved here from Cambridge. On and on. I recognized most of these people from countless other neighborhood meetings where they scream about hypothetical yuppies and transients destroying their "town." Mr. O'Brien in particular was over the top to the point of parody, claiming people had no notice of a meeting that was overflowing and blaming Councilor Matt O'Malley for the audacity to try and make a main street in his district safer. Somehow tying in traffic calming to Donald Trump's election is just the icing on the cake for what these people are really all about and indicative of what this actually represents to them.

up
Voting closed 49

I’m in favor of the proposal and hadn’t planned on going up to the mic. But it became clear that certain people were set on the narrative that everyone for the proposal didn’t live here. So I felt it was important to be counted as a resident of over a decade. Seeing that attitude (I knew it existed) was the only negative of the night. I was happy so many WR residents stood up to express support the proposal or just voice safety concerns in general.
It was disappointing to see Marty Keough set a bad tone by attempting to speak for the room. It was unfortunate that after the BTD folks and councilor implored the crowd to please let people speak their mind without interruption he turned that on its head.
I was happy the tone improved out as the night went on and I’m sure people will get together on this and iron it out. Some people aren’t ready to get on board with a road diet but most of them have real concerns about safety and will get engaged in the planning process with BTD. Progress will be made.

up
Voting closed 22

A quick google search shows that Mr Kenneally lives on Halford St., a small road off of Church St, off of the West Rox Parkway. Traffic calming on Centre St. would, at most send cars onto Church St so drivers could get to Weld St, the 'main' alternative between VFW and Centre not onto his street.

Maybe he really believes his daughters will be run down or maybe he's just playing the victim but he certainly doesn't seem very credible. Not sure why a Chestnut Hill real estate agent is agitating against traffic improvements... Given that he's probably lying about traffic impact on his street, I'm going to assume he didn't actually walk down Centre Street at all.

I will give him credit though that he didn't thank our veterans who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan to preserve our right to free speech from.... Al Queda? Christ, these 'for the troops!' guys are so dumb. The troops fight ostensibly for national security, not for our civil rights. The ACLU fights for free speech.

up
Voting closed 47

He doesn't want cars driving on a public street? How cute.

If people don't want too much change on Centre then do to it what they did on Beech...put a stop sign at every intersection. It has helped slow people down considerably.

up
Voting closed 10

traffic studies done after that crash showed that most Centre Street motorists speed - that the average speed towards Holy Name is 30 m.p.h., or 5 m.p.h. above the city speed limit

I think few people believe driving 30 in a 25 is what you'd describe as "speeding". It's driving a little over the limit, yes, but not "speeding" which implies going crazy fast. It's normal driving speed.

up
Voting closed 9

Given that the speed limit is now 25.

In any case, they also found a significant number of people doing more than 36 m.p.h.

up
Voting closed 27

C'mon Adam - There is little to no enforcement of speed in Boston. If you get a ticket - you are having a very unlucky day. That makes the speed limit signs a joke too - they are unenforcable. Even the feedback signs - those signs will not give you a ticket, or take a picture of your plate - they do NOTHING but display your speed versus 25mph. They reduced Summer Street on the bridge along the convention center to 25mph with a feedback sign. Summer Street is a 4 lane road with turn lanes and medians (like Washington St in West Roxbury). When I drive home by that sign and it flashes 30+ on my speed, I laugh - fricking joke. There is nothing in the street design to encourage people to drive that slow. And no one does. It ticks me off how the city has politicized speed limits versus an engineering study or a redesign. Just plop a 25 mph sign on Columbia Road, Mass Ave, Old Colony, Centre Street and problem solved. Yeah right - just makes me ignore all speed limit signs in the city and drive at the speed I feel comfortable at - usually 30ish mph. 25 is ridiculously slow on a wide arterial. I bet no one drives 25 mph on Washington St in Rosi unless traffic is backed up and you would find the 85% speed to be 30 - 32 mph.

Basically they know people speed above the posted limit. By lowering the limit they hope people will speed less than they did, since the police won't do anything. So when it was 30mph - maybe most people drove 32 to 35. Now that it is 25mph, maybe they will only 30mph.

As a traffic engineer - I am always getting blamed for speeding, double parking, etc. I can't design for speeding, or double parking, or red light running. These are enforcement issues that police and parking enforcement need to address and they get off scott free every time.

I have lived in Florida, Atlanta, Seattle, and Cape Cod. All these places have much better traffic enforcement than here. New York City too. Boston is the only place I have lived where you can do whatever you want.

up
Voting closed 11

I can't design for speeding, or double parking, or red light running. These are enforcement issues that police and parking enforcement need to address and they get off scott free every time.

Utterly ridiculous. You can certainly design to cause slower driving speeds, and as a traffic engineer you should know that. For a good example local to Centre St., check out Walter St. between Weld and South. The pinch points created by adding flex post islands have absolutely caused people to drive through their more slowly, in some cases significantly more slowly. Traffic calming works. Go back to school, you missed a class.

up
Voting closed 13

their point.

As a traffic engineer they can't design for the idiot driver who speeds (despite traffic calming efforts installed), or double parks (despite it being illegal), or runs the red lights (because no traffic design will stop an idiot from running a red light).

Traffic engineers cannot stop all idiots. They can only design for the majority and/or include design efforts that have been proven to alter driving habits for all citizens' safety. But there will always be idiot drivers who do stupid things despite said traffic calming efforts.

You, yourself need to go back to school for reading comprehension and deductive reasoning skills.

up
Voting closed 10

"You still haven't figured out how Donald Trump got elected,:

"Sure, I disagree with him on every aspect of his politics and think he has an abhorrent personality and think his policy ideas are doomed to failure, but then someone decided to put a bike lane in on a street near me and for some reason that meant I just had to vote for him!"

up
Voting closed 45

Older white people getting angry because they are being asked* to make any accommodations for anyone else on earth is basically a core tenet of Trumpism.

* not made to do something even, just asked to change something about their life for the greater good.

up
Voting closed 39

Trump got the pathetic number of votes he did because some people are dumb assholes. If you are against road diets that save lives you are also a dumb asshole. You should be booed until you cry because you value speeding through the city more than people's lives.

up
Voting closed 28

And that fact pisses you off more than drivers do.

Okay, nothing pisses you off more than people who use motor vehicles, but it comes close, and the point is that if perhaps certain parts of the country weren't ignored by Trump's opposition, people would be griping about Clinton's handling of Iran and the waves of Central Americans demanding asylum instead of wincing at whatever it is that Trump said or did on a daily basis.

up
Voting closed 17

I'm from Florida originally and there are center turn lanes everywhere. When I watched them add one to Needham St in Newton to ease congestion, I've learned no one knows how to use them. Still see people making left turns from the travel lane, and what's more is people wont pull out to the center lane to get into traffic, preferring to wait until both travel lanes are clear.

up
Voting closed 10

Fantastic plan! Can't wait to see it implemented! Road diets save lives!

up
Voting closed 26

Has anyone ever LOVED going on a diet.

up
Voting closed 12

they want to take four lanes down to three because a woman was killed by someone who was blinded by the sun. I fail to see the correlation. One can still have three lanes and someone still can get hit by someone blinded by the sun.

So, 30 MPH is now considered speeding? Um, no. It is considered "speeding" 'cause the city changed the speed limit to 25mph, which, in itself, has dubious merit.

And it is for drivers to be inconvenienced by an additional 2 minutes in commuting time each day (which BTW adds up to approx. 16 hours per year of additional commute time) on their already lengthy commutes (and don't start about how they all need to hop a bikes)?

And Ms. Fleetwood's proposal to alleviate the loss of parking spaces (hey, why not) is to eliminate bus stops? So, sure, those who walk to the bus stop will just have to wander a bit more. (BTW: Has Ms. Fleetwood ever taken a bus to work as an adult?)

Look, we all want safe streets but I can jump on this band wagon where well being of others will be denigrated.

up
Voting closed 12

Hew and haw all you want about calling it speeding but its illegal to drive over 25 mph in the city of boston and the common terminology in society is to call that speeding.

Look we get it, motorists don't like being inconvenienced. I'd like to think that people dying or getting seriously injured would rank higher than this concern but here you are, carrying water for the poor motorists being denigrated by *checks notes* a single travel being removed.

They want to address wholesale changes to dangerous road conditions because of decades of car-centric transportation infrastructure, stop pretending its about this sole case. Plenty of people in the neighborhood have come to the table with their own personal stories of the dangerous road conditions here.

But no, lets cater to the vocal minority thats opposed to any reasonable to own the libs.

Edit: Some people should hop on bikes if they can. Sorry if this triggers you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

up
Voting closed 23

Love how the exact same people who go on and on about every single transgression by cyclists think it’s perfectly fine for motorists to go over the speed limit. What’s good for the goose...

up
Voting closed 25

"they want to take four lanes down to three because a woman was killed by someone who was blinded by the sun. I fail to see the correlation. One can still have three lanes and someone still can get hit by someone blinded by the sun."

1) That woman was hardly the only pedestrian victim of a automobile travelling too fast on that road over recent years!

2) If the sun is in your eyes, as a driver it is your responsibility to slow down! Your speed need to be slow enough for you to react to people in the road in front of you! "The sun was in my eyes", is not an excuse for running down a fellow human being!

The driver who killed that woman was driving too fast for the road conditions. Two lanes in each direction has been shown to contribute to people driving too fast! You simply refuse to "see the correlation".

up
Voting closed 7

Jesus christ these people are so out of touch, how the hell do you think we got here? From the automobile industry stealing streets away from the public and forcing it down our throats.

Try it out on some neighborhood that might want it, but leave us alone!

These kinds of boomers suck, world handed to them on a silver platter and they pissed it all away while put up literal road-blocks to the generations after them. Sorry, I don't care about the opinions of a generation that won't be around in a few decades to deal with the consequences of such narrow minded, selfish and entitled viewpoints.

up
Voting closed 24

If the city adds a new stoplight, I can see people being upset ("I'll have to wait where I never waited before.") But bike lanes? Do they really even affect drivers? People had a bird when they painted bike lanes on the VFW Parkway, griping and moaning about how dangerous it was. (The lanes used mostly the existing shoulder, and did not make the auto lanes any narrower.) I just don't understand why something that helps someone else, at no cost to you, would be such a point of contention.

up
Voting closed 22

Take the Centre St. example. Right now, I won't bike on it, so that means any trip I make through that corridor is by car. But I bike to plenty of other things a similar distance from my house. If I could safely bike in that part of West Roxbury, my car would no longer be part of the congestion much of the time. People who claim to be worried about traffic should embrace bike infrastructure, whether or not they will directly use it.

up
Voting closed 18

It's also kind of ironic that those who are advocating for keeping the 4 lanes because they're afraid 3 lanes would make driving slower are also the ones saying that the city should put in more traffic signals to solve the pedestrian safety issue. Do they really not realize that putting in a traffic signal introduces a whole lot more delay to drivers than reducing the number of travel lanes?

up
Voting closed 19

The real issues in WR need to be addressed and they apply all over the state - people are poor drivers and are often distracted by holding their phones and not focusing on the road. In addition there is no discipline and people do not stop when people are ready to cross the roads and even keep going when people are walking across the road. And then people jump lights when red. All of this is about discipline and not about cycle lanes which will help to a small extent.ww

up
Voting closed 11

People complaining about the elderly in West Roxbury is pathetic. Would you bitch about your grandfather advocating for trying to safely walk on Centre not in fear of his life? Would have thought cyclists would have been advocates for those who may have physical limitations due to age, injury or birth defect -- instead of allies to us and able-bodies pedeatrians, you're aggressively coming out as haters. Disappointed.

up
Voting closed 3

Those advocating for safer streets are doing so for the greater good, that includes pedestrians of all mobility levels and ages. Those fighting against it are doing so for convenience and parking.

Advocating for bus lanes and bikes lanes and road diets and shorter crosswalk distances etc. is benefit to all. I want a future where my mobility is not limited to a motor vehicle because I know I might not have the mobility I have today when I'm older.

What we won't listen to are the same distractions and baseless talking points that put up barriers to these very measures, generally coming from a specific generation that will be impacted by this very soon. Car-culture has blinded them to the entitlement they are demanding and its part of pattern of the generation that keeps trying to knock the ladder of progress over for the generations behind it.

Also specific to elderly citizens and mobility issues, some of those disabilities are the results of inactive lifestyles earlier in life. Does this address all disabilities? Of course not but it's something that can be preventative and keep mobility options open for more people as they age.

https://twitter.com/malaconotus/status/1139416888323108864?s=19

But go ahead and label us haters because we want to build better, safer roads that favor multiple options of transit while fostering better public health.

up
Voting closed 13