Councilor wants speed bumps on major Boston roads and a citywide speed limit of just 20 m.p.h.
City Councilor Ed Flynn (South Boston, South End, Chinatown, Downtown) said yesterday the city should expand its side-street speed-hump program to the city's main thoroughfares - and lower the citywide speed limit - to reduce the number of pedestrians sent to the grave by impatient speeders.
Flynn pointed to several pedestrian deaths over the past couple of years, including a young child outside the Children's Museum last year and a pedestrian killed in Andrew Square on Sunday - as proof the city needs to do more to contain its wild-in-the-street motorists.
In calling for a formal hearing on pedestrian safety, he also pointed to L Street in South Boston - and his parents Ray and Kathy:
"My parents tell me almost every day of them walking up to the South Boston public library from their home five or six blocks and when they're in the middle of an intersection walking up L Street, a car would go right by them, just missing two elderly people," he said. "We also see that happening when young families are in the crosswalk, little kids, people are just so impatient that they have to go 30 miles an hour up L Street and take people's lives in jeopardy."
Flynn called for a hearing at which to consider steps that would include reducing the citywide speed limit to 20 m.p.h. from the current 25, expansion of the city's "safety surge" speed-hump program from side streets to main streets and bus lanes and installation of "rapid flash beacon" pedestrian-crossing lights, raised crosswalks and pedestrian islands in the wider roads.
Referring to the four-year-old killed by the driver of a pickup outside the Children's Museum, he said it's good the city put a speed hump on Sleeper Street, but that it should also install them on Congress Street - along with a raised crosswalk right at the museum.
Flynn said he's talked to the Boston Fire Department and that it would have no problems with putting speed bumps or raised crosswalks on major streets - city officials had cited BFD concerns in the past about extending the "safety surge" traffic-calming projects to thoroughfares.
Flynn cautioned he is not calling for "road diets" all across the city, such as the one on Centre Street in West Roxbury, planned to reduce driver speeds and pedestrian menace in part by reducing two travel lanes to one by adding dedicated bike lanes a center turn lane, along with restriped crosswalks and re-timed signals to slow traffic down.
"One size does not fit all" and each road would need its own specific measures, he said.
He added, though, "to be clear for the wiseguys on social media," he actually did once support a "road diet" plan, and in his district, even, on Day Boulevard. He did not specify which wiseguys on social media he was addressing. He and mayoral aide Segun Idowu recently restarted their Twitter war, but the mutual flaming was over the mayor's proposed property-tax changes, not anything to do with road safety.
Watch Flynn request a hearing on the issue:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
Flynn's formal hearing request | 195.28 KB |
Ad:
Comments
Speed cameras now!
The state just allowed them for busses so there's no constitutional limitation.
The signs can say anything. If there isn't some method of automatic enforcement, it's meaningless. Cameras don't solve all problems but they are effective in other cities.
speed bumps
The speed bumps are the automatic enforcement in this plan.
Speed and red light cameras are about money
Not safety.
Yeah, making money off people who speed
Speeding tickets written by cops are also about money.
Exactly
People against cameras are not following the speed limit.
If the city deployed the cameras, they could set limit on revenue that would rebate back on your excise tax.
Studies say you're wrong
https://www.itskrs.its.dot.gov/2021-b01588
Hit’em where it hurts.
Because when drivers hit pedestrians and cyclists, it hurts way more.
OK with me
Call it a "sociopath tax"
Speed cameras will either be
Speed cameras will either be set to ticket people for minor infractions that people rarely get stopped for (even when police have a speed trap going), or you risk only ticketing drivers who are driving recklessly and should be stopped on the spot (and who might be drunk/impaired or guilty of more serious crimes).
me, I'm the problem
South Boston would benefit from dedicated bus lanes and more bus service.
I don't know how he expects to increase safety without restricting parking at intersections and crosswalks.
It is an improvement to at least express concern for pedestrian safety.
I agree, but...
I'm generally in favor of dedicated bus lanes everywhere, but Southie is one of the few neighborhoods that really can't reasonably accommodate new bus lanes.
Broadway is already one lane in each direction. Where are we putting these dedicated bus lanes? We'd have to eliminate literally all parking on Broadway, and while I'm for sure good with eliminating parking in general in favor of bus lanes, in this case I think it would be too extreme.
Broad way is pretty wide.
Broad way is pretty wide. There is plenty of room if it is during rush hour. just remove parking. The small business get screwed over by all the car storage on Broadway. It would be a big improvement.
Dedicated lanes might fit...
Broadway is 52 feet wide, so if you do 10 feet for each bus lane, 8.5 feet for each car lane, and 7.5 feet for each parking lane, it would work. But I agree, that's pretty tight. What would easily work, though, would be single direction, rush hour only lanes like Washington Street in Roslindale has (only 44 feet wide). There would be 8 hours a day when half the parking is taken by a bus lane, 4 hours inbound in the morning, 4 hours outbound in the afternoon. It works well in Rozzie, it could work in Southie, too.
True
Yeah, that's a good point. could for sure do rush hour bus lanes in each direction.
I'm not sure I agree about how well it works in Rozzie (I don't remember ever driving down Washington Street without seeing at least one car parked in the bus lane in violation), but that's an enforcement issue, not an indication that it's a bad idea.
Speed bumps have no business
Speed bumps have no business being on public streets. They distract drivers from things in their peripheral vision, impede snow removal, and can be treacherous for two-wheeled vehicles. Additionally, one shouldn't risk damage to their vehicle while obeying the posted speed.
Flynn's apotheosis
Admittedly I don't pay much attention to Ed Flynn, but this is the best thing I've ever heard him say.
This hearing request was sponsored by a majority of city councilors. Is it now just up to the clerk to schedule it?
Heartbreaking: The Worst
Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point
It's up to ...
Whoever chairs whichever committee the "order" (that's what they call hearing requests) is assigned to. The clerk is then responsible for posting a notice about the hearing date.
Stopped clock is right twice a day
Give him credit, I guess, for getting this one right.
Progress!
It's interesting how Ed Flynn, once he is no longer running for mayor, becomes less car-brained.
To be fair ...
He has been on about this basic issue for years (he helped push for the reduction of the citywide speed limit from 30 m.p.h. to the current 25).
His jab at social-media wiseguys about road diets, though, shows bicycle advocates shouldn't count on him for help getting more bike lanes or improving the safety of the ones we already have.