Hey, there! Log in / Register

Traffic control, Boston style

Boynton Street in Jamaica Plain

A roving UHub photographer captures this only-in-Boston scene on Boynton Street, just off South Street in Jamaica Plain.

UPDATE: BTD responds.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Highgate Street in Allston is like this as well - a one-block-long one-way street with a two-way traffic sign at Cambridge Street, because Jack Young Automotive Supply and the tenement apartment block at 1-15 Linden have a large parking lot just off of Highgate and they've somehow wangled permission from the city to ignore the fact that Highgate is one-way. I'm assuming a similar situation on Boynton Street with the parking/loading zone behind the laundromat and mini-mart on South Street.

up
Voting closed 0

is also like this: two-way from Mass. Ave. up to a parking lot entrance behind Porter Exchange (former Sears building), then one-way westbound beyond that.

up
Voting closed 0

At a guess the sign in the forefront has been rotated 180° by some wag. Presumably there is an intersection just before the 2-way traffic sign. Thus drivers coming from the 1-way stretch of road are alerted the left lane is now opposing flow.

Which leads to the question, why are we still posting so many wordy, English-only signs when there are well established universal alternatives?

up
Voting closed 0

MUTCD, NATCO, AASHTO, FRA, DOT, FHA

There is no uniform standard among the uniform standards!

up
Voting closed 0

MUTCD vs BTD. CIty of Boston has always had their own sign standards. While many of BTD's signs resemble MUTCD standard signs in appearance, the majority are smaller than MUTCD minimum sizes.

And the sign pictured is straght out of the late 1960s.

up
Voting closed 0

What, you don't like "Form Single Lane"?

up
Voting closed 0

DRIVE
SLOW
CHILDREN

or

TRUCKS EXCEPTED
(does that mean they're excepted from the rule, or the street?)

up
Voting closed 0

Nope! The sign in the forefront has in fact not been rotated 180 degrees. The picture is taken from South St where Boynton ends. It is 2 way for all of 20 feet to a parking lot to the left (from the angle the picture is taken from). Unfortunately, people turning off of South St onto Boynton (thinking it is a 2-way) don't see the DO NOT ENTER signs just after the 2-way and drive the entire length of the street the wrong way which is quite dangerous now because people are always speeding (45 plus mph) up the street. I am just waiting for a head-on collision in front of my house. The mayor's office was contacted and they "might add markings on the street" to make it clearer...yeah, right!

up
Voting closed 0

I'm pretty sure that the "Two Way Traffic" sign does refer to Boynton Street. The fact that there are a pair of "Do Not Enter" signs posted *beyond* that sign, rather than right at the entrance to Boynton Street from South Street, seems to support that interpretation.

up
Voting closed 0

The Google StreetView, taken in July 2011, shows the Do Not Enter signs right at the corner of South and Boynton. Looks to me like a change was later made to accommodate the parking lot behind the laundromat.

up
Voting closed 0

...a sign which conveys no real instruction, but is interpreted by drivers as "cyclists need to get out of my way", while also discouraging cyclists from taking the amount of road space they need for their own safety, whether it be from the plethora of road surface hazards, a sharp curb/dropoff, etc.

Always enjoy having "SHARE THE ROAD!" screamed out someone's window as they cross over the double-yellow line illegally, forcing oncoming traffic off onto the shoulder, because they couldn't wait 15 seconds for a safe opportunity to pass...and because they think that any cyclist who rides more than 1 foot out from the road is "self-righteous" and "selfish" and "entitled."

up
Voting closed 0

They really need to add a graphic or explanation to 'Share the Road' signs, like the fact that Mass law allows bikes to take the entire lane. There is some sign like that near the Museum of Science I think.

up
Voting closed 0

as a supplemental plate to the 'bicycle graphic' warning sign, and not as a stand alone panel (like I've seen at some locations). It is simply nothing more than a vague "feel good" message.

As for "Bikes May Use Full Lane", that is a federally-sanctioned regulatory sign. Its intended use is for two lane roads with very narrow (or no) shoulders where the roadway is too narrow for cars to pass bikes without encroaching on the opposing lane of traffic.

As the roadway by the MOS is two lanes in each direction, the "Bikes May Use Full Lane" signs are inappropriate, no matter what state law may say.

up
Voting closed 0

Huh? This post isn't about you right now. Inhale, exhale, repeat.

up
Voting closed 0

Mark makes non car posts about cars so why not bikes too?

up
Voting closed 0

This is up there with "Wait for Green Light" and "Do not drive in breakdown lane" (as if the default was to drive in it, rather than to not drive in it unless given explicit permission).

I don't see it on street view, but wasn't there a similar sign at Curtis and Powderhouse in Somerville before they simply turned one of the one-way lanes on Curtis before crossing Powderhouse into a "left only"?

up
Voting closed 0

(more commonly phrased as "Travel Prohibited in Breakdown Lane") actually has a legitimate purpose. Such signs are used just before the start of, and just after the end of, locations where travel is permitted in the breakdown lane during certian hours.

Such signs are also used in advance of exit ramps that routinely back up onto the highway to discourage exiting traffic from using the shoulder as a shortcut.

While such signs are not contained in the current Federal MUTCD, they have been accepted for use by the local FHWA office.

up
Voting closed 0

While I'm a big fan of "Wait for Green Light", and its cousin, "Obey Your Signal Only", my all-time hall-of-fame nominee is the sign that used to be on Bennett Street in front of the Charles Hotel: "Straight on Green Only".

Essentially, the ~10 degree angle as you drive from Bennett street onto Eliot (towards JFK street) was being taken as a license to make a "right on red", and people were ignoring the red light.

up
Voting closed 0

of the DCR at work.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm going to have a real problem if they fix it....

up
Voting closed 0

Both are unnecessary - if drivers actually knew the rules.

Except that MA doesn't even seem to require you to know what a stop sign or yellow light mean to get a license. Parallel park and here's your crackerjack box. JUNIOR OPERATOR QUESTIONS! are the most recent they get!

Heaven forbid you have to answer five questions on the web to renew. Or play a simulator game while you wait for your new mugshot.

up
Voting closed 0

DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION signs piss me off, because it makes people think that you otherwise are free to do so.

up
Voting closed 0

Every other place I've been that has rotaries/roundabouts posts "Yield" signs. I'm not sure what the problem is, especially since not EVERY PERSON IN THE ENTIRE WORLD knows what the rule is the first time they encounter a traffic circle. Our roadways are filled with signs that are "unnecessary" by some people's definition (e.g. "Slow"). Why pick on ones that actually make a potentially dangerous intersection safer?

up
Voting closed 0

for rotaries differed from state to state. While many states, such as Massachusetts, adopeted the now universal rule of "entering traffic must yield", other states - including Connecticut - required the traffic already in the rotary to yield to entering traffic.

That having been said, providing Yield signs at rotaries is a good thing and actually encourages smooth traffic flow. Unlike the practice of providing Yield signs on on-ramps to Interstates where good accelleration lanes exist, which seems to be very prevelant in eastern Massachusetts.

up
Voting closed 0

That was gone in the early 80s, and was never the case in other states ... but damn if an elderly relative didn't cause a wreck and insist it was still true years later!

That doesn't require signs - it requires regular retests so that people know what the rules are. Again, how tough is it to put five questions in when you sign up for a renewal? The latest "confusion" is what those "little dashed lines" mean. In five years, everyone would have to know!

up
Voting closed 0

I find it hard to believe that "three on a single stop" was ever actually the law. Can someone provide an actual citation of this?

up
Voting closed 0

But educated people who can read and take tests will find themselves passing, while the uneducated will find themselves failing.

Do you really think the assholes who drive around here don't know the actual rules of the road? Passing a test means nothing, enforcement and follow through by the RMV or courts is what does the most damage.

Then again, I don't think Boston is more dangerous than any other large city.

up
Voting closed 0

I know too damn well that too many have no fucking clue what the law is.

Because if they did, they wouldn't say the stupid ass things about "cars always have the right of way" or "bikes have to be on the sidewalk". That and other idiot shit.

Then there are the pedestrians, most of them with drivers licenses, who insist up and down that any time they livestock their way into anywhere near a crosswalk they automatically have the right of way, even if they don't have the light.

Equal stupidity and ignorance from the mostly licensed noob cyclists (thank god many of them DO NOT drive!)

I also see absolute stupidity from the seat of my car - idiots honking because I won't enter an intersection unless I can clear. Getting rear ended an then screamed at for stopping for a flashing red, etc. Fools aggressively riding my tail when I'm following the speed limit, and blaring horns when I refuse to idle across a rail road track that I cannot clear. This isn't "ignoring the rules" - this is utter ignorance of some of the most basic safety laws!

People don't know the laws. That's pretty obvious. One look at the useless bullshit my teens brought home on driving explains it all.

I had to take a long, comprehensive test and score 80% or better before I got to take an hour-long, comprehensive driving exam that covered everything from unsigned intersections to merging on and off the freeway.

My husband passed a 10 question, never varying pencil and paper test, did a victory lap around Cohasset common, parallel parked, and got handed his crackerjack box.

The utter lack of accountability for road rules from day one of driver training and licensing to the utter failure of policing is what makes the difference here.

BTW, did you know that if you were to move to Alberta, Canada (or most Canadian provinces) you would have to completely start over? That's because MA is on their shitlist of states that don't require comprehensive knowledge and never retest.

up
Voting closed 0

So don't tell me there aren't as many assholes in other parts of the country or world as there are here.

I was in Long Island last year when an ambulance went down a parkway to some emergency. Cars were fighting to get into the lane behind the ambulance so they could get a free lane. You would never see that here. Never.

And to take the words out of your mouth, if you have stats to back up your claim that drivers are much more dangerous here (except for what you hear on your bike), then show us some data.

up
Voting closed 0

The major difference: many places levy lot more consequences for antisocial behavior with heavy equipment, and prohibit their worst bad actors from driving. Like, extreme insurance costs, jail sentences, license suspensions, and actual enforcement of traffic laws. Did you know that in a couple of EU countries, you are fined a percentage of your income for traffic offenses? We aren't talking 1 or 2 percent, either.

Oh, and seriously? You haven't seen ambulances tailgated in MA? BWHAHAHAH! A girl I was in college with, an MA native, said to me "you know how cars tailgate ambulances to get through traffic"? and I just looked at her like she had three heads - and then I started driving around here and saw it all the time.

The only reason massholes are less deadly is that they can't do anything much very fast. MA has few fatalities, but an awful lot of accidents.

up
Voting closed 0

...seems a little disengenuous, especially when Pete explicity asked for some supporting ref.

MA has few fatalities, but an awful lot of accidents.

Are MA drivers actually more accident-prone than most eleswhere, or are you just venting?

Ftr, my family can tell you that I spend a lot of time ranting about bad drivers, but that rate doesn't seem to decrease when we're elsewhere on the continent (my non-NorthAmerican driving is limited to a handful of weeks in Europe, and while it seems to me that Italians and Londoners are completely f'ing bonkers on the road, that may just be me).

Also, fwiw, I agree that better and more frequent license testing would be a good thing, but seems politically unlikely, as the population that would be most adversely affected is the one which also votes the most (aka seniors).

up
Voting closed 0

Cars were fighting to get into the lane behind the ambulance so they could get a free lane. You would never see that here. Never.

C'mon Pete, pull the other one.

up
Voting closed 0

I've never seen anything like what I saw on Long Island Last summer. Cars were fighting and flying behind the ambulance like you wouldn't believe. Here you might see one or two cars jump behind, but most cars pull to the right and left of the parkway and wait. This parkway had every single car fighting to get back in the lane behind the ambulance.

up
Voting closed 0

That just means there's more assholes on NY roads, hardly a news flash, but that type of assholery is hardly unknown here, just less frequent.

up
Voting closed 0

Ive been in Boston for probably 30+ years observing traffic, and probably a few weeks in New York doing the same. I've never seen that up here in a longer time frame.

up
Voting closed 0

waiting behind some asshole when the light goes green because they're busy texting.

up
Voting closed 0

Pete, I saw EXACTLY that w/ a firetruck about two years ago on Columbus Avenue between St. Cyprians and Tremont Street. I was in a cab that pulled over. Cars peeled out around us to follow the fire truck.

Years ago, a friend who lived in Mission Hill & I watched this happen on Huntington:

A car was tailing a cop, same situation, catching a free lane behind the sirens. The car tailed cop into the Brigham intersection despite a red light. The cop SLAMMED on the brakes, resulting in car rear ending the cop. Cop leaps out & reams driver right there in the street. It was a rare moment when I felt total solidarity with a cop.

So. alas. it happens in Boston. No moral high ground here.

up
Voting closed 0

other states - including Connecticut - required the traffic already in the rotary to yield to entering traffic.

That sounds like a recipe for gridlock, not that that's ever stopped us in Massachusetts, but still. The way rotaries generally work (yield on entering) ensures that the people already in the rotary will be able to exit. For as much as people gripe about rotaries, they're the only traffic configuration I can think of that can handle a high volume interchange without traffic signals or a four-way stop, and they're often much better than the alternative (exhibit A: the intersection of Alewife Brook Parkway/Rt 16 and Rt 2 near the T station).

up
Voting closed 0

The reason that intersection fails so badly was that the exit ramp onto Route 2 west from the Alewife T garage was never built as planned. It would have cut off a corner of southeast Arlington. Arlington, not wanting to ruin the peaceful, pastoral nature of East Arlington, refused to allow its construction, and we ended up with the complete mess we have now.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't see where that ramp could have gone, except through the underpass that now carries the Minuteman bike/ped path from Alewife into Arlington.

up
Voting closed 0

That was long before the Minuteman path was built.

@BikerGeek, considering that the traffic from the parking garage is only a small fraction of the total traffic through that intersection, and it shares a light with the traffic coming from Rt. 16 west onto Rt. 2, I'm not sure how you can assign all the blame for the traffic backups on that one boondoggle.

up
Voting closed 0

They could fit a one-lane ramp next to the path through the underpass.

up
Voting closed 0

Does anyone else see the problem with getting out of the Alewife parking garage? Currently we have the bike path, 2 lanes of exiting vehicles, buses exiting and crossing, and what becomes three lanes of traffic, all converging at a crosswalk with heavy pedestrian traffic. No wonder it can take an hour just to exit the Alewife garage. Why can nothing can be done to fix it? Not even a police officer at the crosswalk to help?

up
Voting closed 0

other states - including Connecticut - required the traffic already in the rotary to yield to entering traffic.

That sounds like a recipe for gridlock . . .

I think it dates back to the idea that the vehicle to the right has the right of way. I know this is the case with French roundabouts - where "priorité à droite" used to be the rule as it is elsewhere - the rule was changed so entering traffic, though it's on the right, has to yield for the sake of traffic flow.

up
Voting closed 0

I could very well be wrong, but it looks like this picture actually shows the end of McBride St (where it "meets" Boynton). To the left, outside the frame of the photo, is the beginning of Boynton street. So the photo is a bit deceptive. Having driven this route hundreds of times, it makes sense when you're there. If you are driving facing the same direction the person shooting the photograph is faced, you'd make a left onto Boynton (having taken care to avoid any oncoming traffic from the one-way McBride), proceed about 50 feet and then bang a sharp right (still on Boynton) and take it out to South.

(I'm not trying to be a buzzkill, I think the shot is cute)

up
Voting closed 0

It is the South St. end of Boynton. This must be pretty new; I lived in in one of the houses in the photo until last summer, and (mercifully) Boynton was one-way all the way to South St. then. Of course, it didn't keep idiots from driving the wrong way down our street, starting at either South St. or Hall St. and whipping around the 90 degree bend by the Orange Line tracks. Indeed, this signage change just seems to be legitimizing the delivery truck practice of backing in to the lot behind Fernandez Spa to make deliveries.

up
Voting closed 0

Doris St at Dorchester Av (the Rite Aid at Savin Hill Av) is similar.

That sign says "TWO WAY TO PARKING LOT" before the DO NOT ENTER and ONE WAY signs.

I'm not sure about the suggestion that some places had default "traffic in rotary must yield". Before my time, I guess, though it certainly is possible. New York City, for example, has a default on one traffic practice that's different from virtually the entire country (only signed at the city limits) - Right Turn On Red is permitted only where specifically signed as permitted.

Really, though, I'd suspect the case with the rotaries was actually signs and signals modifying what had been a rotary.

As to the perpetual debate about Massachusetts being a dangerous place to drive...

I don't know about the current stats, but I can speak to my experience. I've spent half my adult life living, driving, working and driving for work in Massachusetts. I spent the rest of it living in NJ, and working/driving/work-driving in NJ and NY. Of those three places, MA is by far the worst.

Why? NJ and NY may have crowded and beatup roads, and rude/impatient/aggressive drivers. MA has those as well. In NY and NY, however, those drivers are largely conventional. In MA, you get a lot of spontaneous random stuff that has to be seen to believed*; "standard" practices unlike those in other places**; and a good deal of amateur political interference***.

* like one day I had turned into the middle lane of Columbia Rd at Edward Everett Sq - the car a few feet ahead of me on the right decided he needed to turn left in KFC at the same time the car a few feet ahead of me in the left lane decided he needed to turn right for Cottage St (no turn signals for either, naturally - the most bizarre part being the "spider sense" moment I had that prompted me to hit the brakes before they would've crunched me in that impromptu pincher)

** like pulling out of a side street and blocking oncoming traffic until you have an opening for a left turn (practiced here to a degree I have not seen elsewhere); or the bizarre responses of some of the population to the same "yield to pedestrians in crosswalk" law that's on the book in 49 other states (I'd say maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of MA pedestrians think that means they can step out in front of any oncoming traffic and the Mass General Laws will trump the laws of inertia and momentum), while about 1/5 to 1/4 of MA drivers are so twitchy about it they stop (sometimes 75 FT before a crosswalk) if there's a pedestrian on either sidewalk within 25 feet of the crosswalk (not just those crossing or even thinking of crossing - anybody anywhere in sight)

*** like some of the signs and pavement markings that appear or are changed (contrary to standards) in an almost piecemeal fashion.

up
Voting closed 0

like pulling out of a side street and blocking oncoming traffic until you have an opening for a left turn (practiced here to a degree I have not seen elsewhere);

It's the only way to make a left turn during the day at many intersections. I was actually taught this technique in driver's ed.

bout 1/5 to 1/4 of MA drivers are so twitchy about it they stop (sometimes 75 FT before a crosswalk) if there's a pedestrian on either sidewalk within 25 feet of the crosswalk (not just those crossing or even thinking of crossing - anybody anywhere in sight)

How about the drivers who stop for pedestrians when they (the drivers) have a green light, waving the pedestrians into the path of oncoming traffic in the other lanes? Pure Massachusetts, folks.

up
Voting closed 0

I find that most MA drivers will not stop on their own at an unsignaled crosswalk for pedestrians. If you want the cars to stop then you have to be proactive and forceful with body language. Then I find that most MA drivers will stop. Which makes them better than Baltimore drivers, yikes.

I watch this happen every day in my neighborhood. I can see drivers speeding on my local streets, while most pedestrians are too timid or lack confidence to assert their presence in the crosswalk. For example, I'll see pedestrians waiting for 3-4 minutes while cars blow through the crosswalk. There's no question that any one of these cars could have stopped, but they did not because most won't stop for a passive pedestrian.

I am good at judging speeds and momentum so I am fairly confident in my ability to determine whether a car can stop or not. That doesn't mean they will stop, so crossing is a balance between pretending that I'm crazy enough to walk out in front of their car, without actually committing.

I figure the drivers are more likely to stop if they think I don't care. It seems to work. But sometimes an asshole will insist on speeding up or going around me, even though I know they could have stopped.

None of this should be necessary. By law, they should stop if they can. And since I'm only pushing the issue with cars that can stop, it shouldn't require anything further to get them to stop.

I find that street design helps a lot. Other streets with bump outs and narrower lanes tend to encourage drivers to do the right thing more often.

up
Voting closed 0