Mayor Walsh today announced a set of initiatives to make Boston roads safer and less clogged that include lowering the default citywide speed limit from 25 to 20 m.p.h., dedicated bus lanes on Brighton Avenue in Allston and North Washington Street along the North End, special pickup/drop-off lanes for Uber and Lyft cars - but also rush-hour surcharges for riding in them - and free T passes for all students in grades 7 through 12, regardless of whether they're BPS students.
Boston reduced its speed limit from 30 to 25 m.p.h. in January, 2017, after the governor signed legislation allowing such citywide reductions. Walsh says going down to 20 would make Boston roads even safer - but as before, the proposal, first made by city councilors, would require action by the state legislature and the governor.
Walsh said he hopes to build on the success of a morning dedicated bus/bike lane along Washington Street in Roslindale with a similar one for Brighton Avenue in Allston. He also wants to see a 24/7 dedicated bus lane on North Washington Street between Haymarket and the bridge to Charlestown.
He added he wants to work with residents to improve bus service along Blue Hill Avenue.
The mayor continued that the city this month will block off a section of the curb at Boylston and Kilmarnock streets in the Fenway as a designated pick-up/drop=off zone for Uber and Lyft cars - between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m.
The goal of this pilot is to ease congestion caused by cars double-parking and to increase safety for passengers entering and exiting the vehicles. The City is currently working with ride-sharing companies, and both Uber and Lyft have agreed to support the City's pilot.
The mayor did not say whether Uber and Lyft have agreed to his other proposal for them - to require them to collect a surcharge from riders during rush hours. This measure would require approval of the state legislature and the governor.
This fee would be invested in local roads and transit, including improvements to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. It would also reduce charges for pooled rides and the use of electric vehicles.
Walsh added the city will begin doling out free T passes to all students in grades 7 through 12, regardless of whether they are enrolled in BPS schools. The city currently buys T passes for roughly 20,000 BPS students a year; Walsh's measure would add another 10,000 middle- and high-school students.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
What difference does it make
By BenHav
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 9:32am
What difference does it make if BPD won't enforce it?
A significant difference, actually:
By AdamB
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 7:10pm
The data from the last reduction are here:
https://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/city-dr...
Let me summarize for you. When Boston lowered its speed limit to 25MPH there was a 29.3% reduction in vehicles exceeding 35MPH. And an 8.5% and 2.9% decrease in vehicles exceeding 30 and 25MPH respectively.
The conclusion from the study:
I had this same discussion here a few months ago: https://northendwaterfront.com/2018/11/boston-coun...
[edit: fixed link]
Here's a blog post that
By anon
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 1:57pm
Here's a blog post that rebuts the IIHS article about that data. (The link you provided isn't working.)
https://www.motorists.org/blog/bostons-speed-limit...
Summary: The speed limit reduction made no difference, as speeds overall didn't change. The IIHS cherry-picked certain statistics that made them look good, and ignored the others. And Providence had similar minor changes despite no speed limit change, which can be attributed to random variation.
Yet, I have purused other
By whyaduck
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 2:09pm
studies that basically say that revamping posted speed limits alone, without additional enforcement, educational programs, or other engineering measures, has only a minor effect on driver behavior.
I am not convinced that lowering the speed limit once again is going to have any measurable effect on drivers in the Boston area. I see enough of them going faster than 25mph now on a regular basis.
smh
By Old Groucho
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 9:34am
We need big ideas, not band aids.
Martys really gotta go, we need an actual "thinker" in city hall and not a dimbulb Suffolk sycophant.
The city and state can only afford band-aids
By anon
Fri, 03/15/2019 - 4:47pm
Big Dig Debt in 2019: 21 Billion.
Been saying this for years
By spin_o_rama
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 9:35am
Take out some of the free parking we dole out and set it aside as dedicated dropoffs for taxis/ubers and also for just any old citizen thats currently double parking or blocking fire hydrants or blocking bike lanes or blocking crosswalks. Win win for all and the technology is there to help.
Doesn't just stop there, these spaces can easily have bike corals and serve as required places to drop of any of the bike shares, escooters or cyclists shopping/living in the area.
Its such a reasonable and beneficial idea, so naturally someone will find a reason to hate it.
Enforcement
By BostonDog
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 9:43am
It's a fine idea but if an Uber driver can shrug and park (double park) 10' away in the bike or traffic lane without consequence, they'll just do that. They don't care about rules or other road users, they just want their 5-star review.
Like everything else regarding traffic & transportation in Boston, it's a lack of enforcement which renders even the best ideas moot.
Not enough police to enforcement? Tech is the answer.
By spin_o_rama
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:04am
I believe LEOs on this very forum have said they can't be everywhere. However we can and in many cases have already developed the tech that can be everywhere and deliver consequences. The devices that enable this are literally everywhere, unlike the police.
If drivers don't drop-off or pick-up in municipal designated locations, then it will cost them in their 5-star ratings and/or a fine.
They can't be everywhere, but
By anon
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:23am
They can't be everywhere, but I regularly see them ignore infractions that happen right in front of them while they're casually driving along with the rest of us.
There is no need to be everywhere
By Marco
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:41am
and no need for police involvement either. You want to ease some congestion? I can name half a dozen spots in the city that are a cluster bang simply because of DOUBLE PARKING. Uber and Lyft and well intentioned helper-outers giving someone a ride and just stopping in the middle of a traffic lane.
The most egregious spot is Summer and Atlantic at SOUTH STATION. Just post up a god-damned BTD agent there. Just sit there and write tickets. Collect revenue for the city. Shuttles, buses, cabs, Ubers, regular drivers...ALL DOUBLE PARK there and typically there are a ton of open spots a little further up the street. It bottlenecks traffic and causes backups.
Seriously if any councilors/the mayor are reading this....ONE BTD OFFICER is all you need to devote here to seriously ease rush hour traffic and at the same time collect money for the city.
City point is another area. Just, like, maybe ASK your constituents who live through this shit every day, I bet you can come up with a nice list of 20-30 places where just writing tickets will make a huge impact.
Instead these guys are busy writing tickets for unlettered commercial vehicles parked in commercial spots on back streets in Allston or other such nonsense that is doing nothing to make traffic any worse.
Re-structure the resources you currently have to be more efficient and stop looking for more band-aids!
Also, and I know there isn't an easy solution since you dropped the ball on this way early, but Uber and Lyft need to be severely limited in city limits. NYC is doing this. A congestion charge is not enough, there needs to be hard limits on how many can operate at once in the city and these companies need to write the code into their software or else just be banned (hint: there is no way these companies haven't already seen this coming and gone ahead and written the software programming for it anyways. If not they are incredibly stupid as their business will be screwed with the stroke of a pen, leaving them unprepared). It is the same concept as the medallion system for various cities and how a Brookline Cab cannot pick up passengers in Boston and vice versa, but with less blatant corruption and patronage.
South Station desperately
By anon
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 12:54pm
South Station desperately needs a pickup/dropoff zone. I have no idea how you're supposed to (legally) pick someone up who can't walk a block or two due to mobility issues, since all the adjacent curb space is reserved for other uses.
No need for a fine, the app
By J
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:47am
No need for a fine, the app can be programmed to only allow pickups at certain places. Youve most likely seen it at the airport, where the app asks you to pick a door number.
DC has extended this to popular areas as well. If you are in the wharf district - and area thats 3 blocks by 6 blocks, you can pick from 2 and only 2 pickup points.
it is better for the drivers,
By anon
Fri, 03/08/2019 - 10:20am
it is better for the drivers, too, then they're not crawling down the street looking for somebody standing around staring in their phone, and can eliminate awkward loops around big blocks/one way snarls. I've been in many other cities where uber asked me to go to the corner or some other 2-5 min walk to make the whole thing more efficient and it was fine.
Driving Endgame
By D Berg
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 12:37pm
With more restrictions on driving in Boston,I wonder if the endgame is the end to driving in Boston. Ive lived here for over 50 years and have noticed the major increase of apartment bldgs,or condos everywhere in and around Boston,which presents the question of how are these thousands of new Bostonians going to. fit their cars into an already packed commute?The commute is a free for all now leaving Boston in early afternoon,where blocking intersections is common,right turn only becomes whatever the driver needs,and the ever present smart phone use variable. I think there are some pretty obvious problem areas that could be remedied with police presence like Leverett Circle intersection log jams to mention one. Enforcement is necessary for existing laws before more restrictions are enacted
Don't give 5* review!
By anon
Fri, 03/08/2019 - 1:37pm
When I ride Lyft, I downrate for unsafe/inappropriate pick up or drop off, and I include that text in the rating.
Rideshare
By Jlp
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 12:04pm
Allowing rideshares to just stop anywhere, impede traffic flow and think it's okay just because you put on your hazard lights has got to stop. For one, it makes having bike lanes a joke. I've seen pick-up and drop-off zones in other cities and it definitely helps.
So if you have mobility
By anon
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 9:44am
So if you have mobility problems in the fenway, you have to walk to a pick up zone. Nice idea. Will he let you take a cab to the pickup spot?
From my understanding, the
By Annie
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 9:22pm
From my understanding, the pick-up zones are only for the two blocks on the north side of Boylston. Walking distance is less than a block.
Mass Ave is a wasteland
By MassachusettsAve550
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 9:53am
The Herald (!) had a great story today on the cluster that is Mass Ave during any rush hour. If only BPD would choose to stroll down the street, they'd see (a) multiple delivery trucks blocking bike and entire traffic lanes at 6pm, (b) traffic lights that are so poorly timed (especially near Symphony Hall) that they create high-intensity gridlock and make it far MORE dangerous for pedestrians, not less, because it's so horribly confusing for everyone, and (c) a billion Ubers double-parking in bike lanes all the time. Taken together, these issues make traffic impossible and make it terribly unsafe for bikers and pedestrians alike. It's a simple fix: Time the lights, and put a few officers out there on bikes to issue citations. Even better would be removing those lanes of parking that offer all-day spaces for 20 people at the expense of tens of thousands of bikers, pedestrians, and drivers. Geez, pulling a few dozen parking spots would allow you to have it all! Uber/delivery drop-off spaces, dedicated bike lanes, better traffic signals. If only we'd be willing to tell Starbucks and Dunkin that nope, they can't have people park right out front to grab a coffee..
Let's just cut to the chase
By Stevil
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:11am
And make the speed limit zero.
These politicians are getting out of control - 20 mph speed limits, age 16 for voting, Modern Monetary Theory of just print it and we can spend it, outlaw cow farts - the Republicans are their own version of asinine - but the Democratic Socialists are looking to bring it to a whole new level.
What ever happened to moderates?
Lulz
By Sock_Puppet
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:17am
Somebody move your cheese, grandpa?
[img]https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53ddf6b0e4b...
Here, let's calm you down with some debunking from a Swiss biodynamic farmer.
http://www.swissbiofarmer.com/blog/2017/4/2/the-fl...
Edit
By Stevil
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:51am
/s on the cow farts in case you missed it. But some of these "candidates" and current seat holders are getting out of control - can't think of anything reasonable to propose so they propose crazy crap to get their name out there.
Out of control?
By anon
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 11:56am
So.
Who, may I ask, is supposed to "control" them? Hmmm?
Re:
By boo_urns
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 2:59pm
Everyone missed it because you were creating straw men to attack because you are already in the position to think that all Democrats are crazy and just want to take all of everyone's money. Funny how you pine for moderates when you sow this kind of blind partisanship around in the first place.
Blind partisanship
By Stevil
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 3:06pm
Who are these moderates of which you speak?
On either side?
Especially declared presidential candidates other than Bill Weld who, sadly, has no shot?
I didn't mention any moderates
By boo_urns
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 4:02pm
Re-read what I said. That being said, if you think the current batch of presidential hopefuls is rabidly leftist, you are mistaken.
Nor...
By Stevil
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 5:29pm
...did I mention "Democrats" - I was talking about the Bernie Bro Democratic Socialists - but I am struggling to find traditional Democrats.
And I did mention moderates -so I am also struggling to figure out what your response has to do with my comment.
If you think the current batch of presidential hopefuls are moderate - you are already standing in left field - so it must be a matter of perspective. From their position near the Pesky Pole in right field, My Fox News loving acquaintances think they are "moderates" too and they think I am borderline Communist these days.
A reminder if you haven't seen this - here are my last 5 presidential votes:
Bush
Kerry
McCain
Obama
Johnson
Go figure out my politics from that if you are trying to put me in a right wing pigeonhole.
It was pretty clear to me
By boo_urns
Fri, 03/08/2019 - 9:13am
When you posted that all democrats want to do is take everyone's money in another thread/story. Would you like to walk that statement back in light of sharing your voting history?
My point was that you shared an aggressively partisan opinion and didn't lend yourself any credibility to giving an actual definition to what "moderate" would be the way you had just branded all democrats. And, if folks want to have a discussion on what a moderate is, maybe opinions from people with less hyperbolic views have more value.
Then I'll modify it like Bernie Sanders
By Stevil
Tue, 03/12/2019 - 8:59am
When he was called a socialist - he said he's a Democratic Socialist
so instead of "Democrats" I'll modify it to Democratic Socialists.
Granted - just as there are fewer and fewer true Republicans, there are fewer and fewer Democrats as the all move to be more "progressive" or "socialist" than the next one. And I'll throw the same criticism at the Republicans. Can't think of a more generic term - so I'll just say that Republicans all seem to want to out-Trump each other.
Yawn
By anon
Tue, 03/12/2019 - 9:07am
THE HORRIBLE SOCIALISTS ARE COMING FOR YOUR STUFF!!!!! RUN!!! RUN!!!
Are you joking?
By Stevil
Tue, 03/12/2019 - 3:46pm
Because you obviously haven't been paying attention if you are asking a question like that - granted - if you don't make or have much, yes YAWN!
Who do these politicians
By Kinopio
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 11:22am
Who do these politicians think they are trying to save lives and the only planet we have!!1!
Haven't you heard?
By Scratchie
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 12:43pm
We're all going to move to Mars. Elon Musk said so, and he's all like, wicked smart and shit.
Surcharges are a handout to the wealthy
By anon
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:11am
They take more poor people off the roads, to make the roads more pleasant for rich people, who don't mind the fees.
Surcharges are more likely to
By blues_lead
Sun, 03/10/2019 - 2:42pm
Surcharges are more likely to hit wealthier people, who are 1 more likely to be driving cars, 2 more likely to be commuting to 8-4 and 9-5 jobs, and 3 more likely to work in especially crowded areas like Longwood and the Financial District.
Not amused Mr Mayor
By Bobp
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:16am
Why not drop the speed limit to 5 MPH? It does not matter without enforcement. Centre Street West Roxbury is a hot zone now since an unfortunate pedestrian earlier this year. I dare anyone to say that it is any safer now than it was then with so called increased police presence. BTW, I have seen one BPD vehicle on Centre Street in the last 5 weeks. I am on the street daily. Police presence is a nonexistent and ineffective at best now.
The Uber Lyft problem is the same deal. I have seen them double-parked or in a no stopping zone and watched the BPD vehicle drive right by. The Mayors words ring hollow without action
Design
By Wolfote
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 11:13am
Centre Street is my frame of reference as well and we can’t lower the speed limit or enforce our way out of it. Give the street a safe design and let the cops worry about other things. Tagging a few people a week with tickets won’t change anything. The one in twenty driver that actually drives the speed limit won’t help anymore at 20 than 25. The wide, four -lane roadway puts drivers in a highway mindset. Narrow the road, make a protected bike lane, and get rid of half the traffic lights because we won’t need them anymore.
So what you are saying is
By Kinopio
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 11:26am
So what you are saying is that Boston drivers are so shitty that the laws don't matter because they never follow them? There is definitely some truth there.
Oh good!
By Gary C
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:22am
We all get to pay to replace the brand new ineffective 25 MPH signs with equally useless 20 MPH signs.
"Citation Please"
By cybah
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:26am
Walsh,
I want to see your data that says lowering it will have an effect. Please provide sources.
I'd also like to know if lowering it from 30 to 25 had ANY effect the last time, and if so, is it enough to lower it again?
Not saying we don't have a problem, but once again I feel like its a knee jerk reaction to a far bigger problem. Will this help at all?
You can lower the speed limit to 5mph all you want, but it wont stop people from speeding or killing people. It really takes heavy enforcement to get people to change their habits
Evidence
By NorthEnd3r
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:35am
Last year, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reported that lowering the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph decreased the likelihood of a driver going faster 35 mph by 30% and faster than 30 mph by 8.5%.
Of course just dropping the speed limit won't fix everything (for that we need road design changes and then some), but the data shows that people do indeed drive slower.
These small changes in speed are meaningful, because as ProPublica found, once cars exceed 20mph they rapidly become more deadly in crashes with pedestrians.
IIHS: https://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/city-dr...
ProPublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/unsafe-at-many-...
well done
By berkleealum
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:54am
lol facts and sources
Great Thanks
By cybah
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 11:23am
This is great info. Thank you.
My post wasn't about snark but about making sure we're basing our laws on facts, not knee jerk reactions.
Lowering the speed limit wont stop people.. it really wont. While data suggests it will, I know boston drivers who ignore the speed limit.
Speed kills. We know that.
Well duh
By anon
Fri, 03/08/2019 - 1:40pm
Of course not. It will simply slow them down.
Learn something every day
By anon
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:59am
Your community is not allowed to design streets and intersections to restrict the speed of vehicles if they do not first lower the speed limits to the desired target.
In other words, you can't put in humps and bumps and curb bump outs and time the lights to lower speeds if those design features are intended to slow traffic to below the limits.
This is absolutely not true
By DTP
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 12:26pm
This is absolutely not true at all.
Yet this person keeps posting
By anon
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 12:59pm
Yet this person keeps posting this falsehood every time the topic comes up.
Boston has been installing speed humps for years, long before the speed limit dropped to 25.
Boston installed a handful of
By Annie
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 9:24pm
Boston installed a handful of speed humps in JP in the late 90s/early 00s. No new ones until recently, and the new ones came with new speed limits (20 mph).
this is not right
By locke
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 12:38pm
yeah this is not true at all
Not quite.
By Rob
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 4:40pm
Not quite.
You can't do arbitrary stuff like "let's put a stop sign every 500 feet to slow traffic down". That misuses a right-of-way control for speed control.
I think there's something in MGL about the need for some sort of design basis or calculations shown between road design and speed limit (maybe involving state review?) - unless you get legislative act for "universal" speed limits. I don't remember what exactly, though, so I could be wrong on that.
Is there any evidence that
By ZachAndTired
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:31am
Is there any evidence that dropping the speed limit to 25 had any effect on the rate of crashes or the number of pedestrians and cyclists that were hit by cars? I really don't think dropping the speed limit would have any impact, because people generally drive at a speed that feels comfortable, not necessarily at the speed limit (especially when it's not posted). I'd like to see some data though.
Evidence
By NorthEnd3r
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:36am
Last year, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reported that lowering the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph decreased the likelihood of a driver going faster 35 mph by 30% and faster than 30 mph by 8.5%.
IIHS: https://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/city-dr...
Plan loses credibility with 20 mph "limit"
By O-FISH-L
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:31am
The other proposals might have merit but the entire plan loses credibility with the 20 mph speed limit. Absurd. What's next when this fails, 15 mph? 10 mph? Few, if any officers are going to write a speeding ticket for anything under 40 and case law says their superiors can't order them to. This sounds more like a request or a plea to "please drive 20 mph" since 20 mph won't be anywhere near the actual enforced limit.
Once again I ask, is there any effort to create a citywide BPD traffic squad? Setting up selective enforcement takes some time and strategy, as does writing tickets and running computer checks on those stopped. Invariably, someone will have a suspended license or revoked plate, requiring hours of court paperwork and waiting for a tow. The neighborhood sector cars aren't going to do this as they are busy shagging 911 emergency and service calls. A better plan would be to pick out 25 cops who actually want to write money tickets (so-called "Chapter 90 guys") and have them enforce existing laws. The legislature would do well to stand up to their friends the insurance lobbyists and eliminate the huge surcharges on motorists who receive a money ticket. Cops who don't feel like enriching the seven figure insurance executives will only give warnings.
Fish they have traffic units....
By Pete Nice
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:43am
And one of the strange things I've noticed that in terms of complaints, traffic enforcement is not up there at most community meetings, web complaints, etc. The Uhub comment section seems to have 90%+ of all the traffic complaints I hear.
As you probably know, traffic enforcement breaks down into two sections (numbers vs selective enforcement). Traffic officers are rated on their numbers, not Uhub comments thanking them for enforcing crosswalks on Centre St. in West Roxbury. So your E-5 traffic officer can get 40 citations in 4 hours up at the Centre/Spring light, but only probably 5 or so crosswalk violations at Centre/Hastings.
There are also now two sets of crash recon guys, the traffic division guys and Special Ops had a few who paid their own way to be trained. The traffic guys need to respond to crashes which also takes up time.
Centre street
By Bobp
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 11:18am
they had them out there for a week or so. Now there gone again. they could write multiple tickets at any intersection or light from Spring to manthorne road. They don't. they are there for show for a little while an gone again. I have not seen anyone ticketed for speeding on centre st in forever. . I drive it daily. There is no enforcement or deterrent. BTW the WR facebook pages are a mirror of UHub complaints.
Same thing with Seaport Boulevard
By GoSoxGo
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 11:42am
after a pedestrian was hit two weeks ago at the intersection with Thompson Place/Fan Pier Blvd. (not Sleeper St. as reported).
They sat near the intersection for a few days (one day with emergency lights activated), but then they disappeared again. Meanwhile, the traffic lights at that busy pedestrian intersection remain inactive (installed a few months ago) as access to Thompson Place at Trillium and Shake Shack remains barricaded.
Bobp....
By Pete Nice
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 3:10pm
If you could guess how many moving violations were issued in West Roxbury in Jan, Feb and Mar, what would your guess be.?
i don't know, but not enough
By Bobp
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 3:15pm
numbers are one thing, but tonight when i go down Centre at 5 PM i know i wont see any police same as this morning. Not one, i have been keeping track since the fatal accident .
also if you drive Grove Spring or Washington there are the same issues. WIth a recent fatal on washington. Rush hour no visibility. Not good
fair enough...
By Pete Nice
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 3:17pm
I haven't seen the numbers, but E-5 usually puts up Brookline level numbers in terms of citations across the board.
Sounds like a problem with the cops
By fungwah
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 11:14am
Seems like cops need better education and training on the dangers caused by speeding and reckless driving, and we need to start getting rid of officers who won't write these tickets (changing their contract or the laws if necessary) if they can't be trusted to enforce the laws we hire them to enforce.
A pedestrian is much more
By Kinopio
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 11:28am
A pedestrian is much more likely to survive a crash at 20MPH then at 30MPH. Is it absurd to try to save lives? Is it absurd for cops to do their job and enforce laws? Is it absurd that drivers should follow the laws? Is it absurd to prioritize people over cars?
speed versus pedestrian survival versus reality
By anon
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 5:16pm
Everyone knows that. But it's from a cherry-picked study. And it's not even the factor we should be focusing on. Instead, we should try to prevent the accident in the first place. https://www.motorists.org/blog/bostons-commissione...
Also, we don't have any Boston-specific data, because Boston REFUSES to follow the law and submit crash reports to the state.
A pedstrian is also
By Boston_Bloke
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 8:47pm
more likely to survive if vehicle operators aren't texting and driving.
This issue isn't a petty reduction of the speed limit by 5 MPH.
Enforcing the laws we already have is what will make a difference. Especially regarding distracted driving.
City Council is hosting a
By Annie
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 9:26pm
City Council is hosting a hearing about this on March 12: https://www.boston.gov/public-notices/56286
no shit
By Marco
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:47am
"
The goal of this pilot is to ease congestion caused by cars double-parking and to increase safety for passengers entering and exiting the vehicles. The City is currently working with ride-sharing companies, and both Uber and Lyft have agreed to support the City's pilot."
they support this because you are CREATING CAB STANDS FOR THEM!!!
2018 was projected to have the highest # of pedestrian fatalitie
By anon
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:51am
https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/pedes...
Probably
By Boston_Bloke
Fri, 03/08/2019 - 6:41am
because of increased texting behind the wheel.
It may sound dubious but at
By anon
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 10:56am
It may sound dubious but at least its something. In my town they don't even pay lip service to traffic safety. I feel kind of guilty for being too lazy to look it up but could some body who knows tell us if the city pays full cost for the passes they get or if the T subsidizes it at all ?
Need to reduce amount of traffic too, not just speed
By Whateva
Thu, 03/07/2019 - 11:01am
If the T was actually reliable, we'd have fewer cars which would maybe mean fewer casualties.
It boggles my mind that with the wealth and brainpower in this state, we haven't been able to move the needle on affordable, reliable public transportation. All elected officials should be required to use the T to get around when on official business.
Pages
Add comment