The Amateur Planner proposes a paved transit way with tracks for not just the B Line but the 57 and BU bus routes.
While we've never done this, other cities have, and it would have a whole host of advantages, including getting buses out of traffic (and bike lanes), stations better able to serve people with disabilities, even some additional parking spaces. Throw in the long-fabled transit priority for traffic signals and you might even see shorter commute times.
It is one of the most heavily-traveled bicycle corridors in the city. Yet we are planning for cars - minority users of the corridor - first, when we should be planning for transit first (by far the largest user of the corridor by the number of passengers carried), then bicyclists and pedestrians. Cars should be an afterthought, put in to the plans after other users have been accommodated, not before.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Pedestrians
By Charlie
Thu, 08/07/2014 - 9:18am
The kicker to letting pedestrians cross in one phase is that in most cases, the parallel green light for the side street where the pedestrians are crossing is actually long enough for pedestrians to get all the way across. It's only the walk signals that are too short. You could easily extend the length of the walk signals without taking any time away from cars.
To your larger point of making pedestrians wait excessively because there are more cars than pedestrians, what would you consider the threshold? Would you give cars as much time as possible and pedestrians that absolute minimum? Because that's what the city's done. It's funny that you make the argument that giving more time to cars is more environmentally friendly. Unfortunately what it's also doing is discouraging people from walking. Since as you say walkers don't pollute, and they take up the least amount of space on our streets, we should be encouraging more people to walk, not fewer, right? But when we make the signals so anti-pedestrian that it makes walking take even longer than it reasonably should, you're actually discouraging people from walking and encouraging them to drive. More cars on the street are going to cause a lot more pollution that the existing cars waiting at a signal for a few more seconds.
It's fine, though, your true colors are showing through. You feel that because more people drive than walk or bike, then drivers should get more space on the road (to the exclusion of bike lanes) and as much signal time as possible (to the detriment of pedestrians). I have to say I disagree with you 100% on that view of our streets. It basically means that LivableStreets will always seem like a radical organization to you, because they want everyone to at least be treated equally.
You walk less because you
By i walk
Thu, 08/07/2014 - 10:12am
You walk less because you think you have to wait to long to cross the street? LAZY. While of course I get impatient waiting to cross at certain intersections, I certainly would never choose to take a cab instead! I walk pretty much everywhere I need to go in Boston and love it. Certain areas suck and if time permits, I choose a route around them. Walking a longer route does not bother me. Such a delicate flower you must be.
Central Square in Cambridge is the worst example of stop and go vehicular traffic due to too many traffic signals and loooong pedestrian cross times. It's so hard to breathe while walking down Mass. Ave. between the river and leading into Harvard Sq. because of the constant stop and go of cars and diesel trucks and buses. Polluted and disgusting.
Green line should wait for pedestrians too?
By Markk02474
Thu, 08/14/2014 - 11:14am
Giving the green to streets crossing Comm Ave. longer green lights so pedestrians can cross in one cycle and/or giving them an exclusive walk period is very detrimental to Green Line service, which is already horrendous. Do you want to discourage public transit use for the convenience of a few pedestrians? Make everybody on packed Green Line trains wait for a few walkers? Its not just private motor vehicle users that would suffer for a few pedestrians, its public transit bus and train users suffering too.
I will chime here as I have a
By RhoninFire
Mon, 08/04/2014 - 4:26pm
I will chime here as I have a feeling will dismiss Markk by his brand name - while I find this point sensible.
In the need of giving up something for make for something else. I would vote to shrink planters and those things first before I consider trading other things. Trade things that adds least first (and I would vote I rather have a narrower block of plants - jaywalking fears can be dealt with in other ways).
We all know how this works out, historically
By tired of this bs
Mon, 08/04/2014 - 9:35am
First you bustitute a rapid transit line, then you cut the buses.
Meanwhile, every civilized city on the planet is putting in MORE RAIL, not buses.
Nice try. Won't get fooled again.
Uhm, okay. No one is
By Ari O
Mon, 08/04/2014 - 7:20pm
Uhm, okay. No one is suggesting cutting buses or transit. Civilized cities around the world are also giving buses exclusive lanes and building transit priority. The B Line ain't going anywhere. It's not 1955.
Please tell this to the Senator from Northampton
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 08/04/2014 - 9:08pm
Mr. "Can't subsidize Boston so where's my $50 million to fix hurricane damage" needs to hear it.
Otherwise, don't kid yourself that it won't happen. It has happened. It will happen again if we don't resist the downgrade.
Pages