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:

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:

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."
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
You completely misunderstood
By ElizaLeila
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 5:40pm
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.
These Trump explanations are getting even more ridiculous
By fungwah
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 9:35am
"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!"
I mean
By Parkwayne
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 9:41am
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.
Trump got the pathetic number
By Kinopio
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 10:54am
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.
Trump got votes in the right places
By Waquiot
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 2:02pm
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.
The thing is...
By Carlos
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 9:38am
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.
Fantastic plan! Can't wait to
By cden4
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 10:25am
Fantastic plan! Can't wait to see it implemented! Road diets save lives!
Like the plan; hate the name
By Gary C
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 10:55am
Has anyone ever LOVED going on a diet.
Ok, , let me get this straight..
By whyaduck
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 12:54pm
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.
Its illegal to drive over 25 mph
By spin_o_rama
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 1:15pm
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)_/¯
Love how the exact same
By Max Filth
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 1:58pm
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...
a couple of points
By Seamus O
Sun, 06/23/2019 - 11:44am
"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".
"force bike lanes down the throats of the good citizens"
By spin_o_rama
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 1:07pm
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.
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.
Never understood that mindset
By Gary C
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 1:14pm
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.
Bike Lanes Help All Road Users
By henryalan (not ...
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 1:55pm
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.
It's also kind of ironic that
By cden4
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 3:36pm
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?
West Roxbury Cycle Lane
By Peter Walmsley
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 8:17pm
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
People complaining about the
By anon
Fri, 06/21/2019 - 8:37pm
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.
Weird that you make a dishonest point like that
By spin_o_rama
Sun, 06/23/2019 - 2:32pm
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/11394168883...
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.
Pages
Add comment