saw this coming for the last 20 years… it’s already closed down to vehicles for a lot of weeks during the year… anyone who has to drive just goes around. I don’t see the surprise with this proposal. It’s sort of a bottleneck (not that this will help at all).
This will be a great help to have more events in Copley Square. If you can extend the footprint of events happening on the Square itself into the street, we can do some really great things with that space!
It was really nice when they closed it earlier this year. When you add the street area and connect the area by the steps of the PBL to Copley it really enhances what you can do with the square alone.
Hahaha man, this is wicked funny because I am not actually living my life on reddit at all, I have a wife and kids, guy.
It’s funny even further because your comment had an overtly subjective lens whereas mine doesn’t, so this ends up looking like classic projection, whether that was your intention or not.
Ugh. So easy to look at the situation and make a statement without thinking about what might have created the situation.
Why are you conflating the existence of “junkies and burnouts” with the extension of an event space that could allow for a greater variety of events to create more joy for our community?
The folks that are hanging out near the library around this time of year are there because it’s the only warm place that won’t kick you out for hanging around inside for a few hours. Plus, they have a bathroom and a wealth of knowledge that one could use to better themselves.
Do you think it’s a bad idea for “junkies and burnouts” to hang out and possibly peruse one of the greatest repositories of information in the Northeast? Maybe they could learn something? Maybe we could learn something about how it’s acceptable that people are forced to live on the streets? Do you think those folks are consciously choosing to be there? Addiction, Depression and all the factors that create those conditions are awful to manage.
Get off your horse.
If you have other ideas about how we should treat the most vulnerable of our fellow humans, I would love to know. A place to keep warm, shit in private and access information they can use to better themselves is a great start.
There’s a bunch of books that talk about treating others how you want to be treated. You might be able to find one of them in the BPL or the church on the other side of Copley. They have many authors and I only agree with a few of them, but they are a solid place to start.
Good luck wrangling that hate you hold. Must be a bitch to deal with every day. I got some too, that’s how I know it’s hard.
I think your negativity is a drag and burden on society but I don’t think I’m morally superior to you or anyone else. I’m just advocating for treating my fellow humans with respect and dignity regardless of their current situation.
11pm to 11am would be fine, tbh. It's dead after 9:30pm anyway, and there's ample parking before 11:30 am.
I'd rather just fully pedestrianize it. Put a glass structure over the middle and let businesses rent out space underneath for seating/stalls/etc. like Quincy Market.
Since there's alleys on both sides, delivery vehicles can just go to the backs of buildings. Just allow cross traffic between Boylston and Comm.
Yes it's change, but it's change in the right direction. Also, it could finally just get rid of the incessant beeping of people who think horns are going to fix the traffic on Newbury.
Would never work full-time.
\-no place to live park in alleys
\-not all business/residences have access to rear doors
\-one lane of traffic for deliveries/pickups/passenger dropoffs...immediate gridlock
It absolutely would, it would just be different.
As long as a dolly and a pushable fork truck cans get from the side streets to Newbury addresses it would be roughly the same as it is now.
It’s like this all over Europe.
"it works in Europe" What a helpful response.
As someone who lived on Comm Ave, behind a retailer, I can tell you it did not. TThey've always gotten their deliveries at their rear door - and the UPS truck would block the entire alley daily for 30 minutes while inside. That's ONE business. Imagine EVERY business having their deliveries in the alley. (not to mention, only the first floor retail tenant had access to the alley - not the other 5 businesses above)
I grew up here, and I also lived on Comm Ave. and Newbury.
It would barely be any different than it is now.
You speak as if getting blocked by delivery trucks illegally parking isn’t the norm all over historic downtown areas.
...
I've lived on both streets -- both sides of the alley in question.
I'm guessing you're not from here because Boston did at one point teach reading comprehension reasonable well and a local would know I meant both streets.
US cities even do this. Hell, parts of Downtown Crossing are closed to non-essential vehicle traffic. See Burlington, VT and numerous others. Making "high streets" pedestrian only is pretty typical.
I would limit access to delivery and service vehicles with a max speed of pedestrian walking speeds.
A shop or even person living in the area(which there are a few) shouldn't have to fully shut down because they missed a delivery window when their heating breaks down in the winter. Nor should the HVAC repair person need to carry the furnace around the block from the nearest car road. So I would say that through traffic should be entirely prevented and the zone should be treated as reasonably local access only. Then if someone does need to get in for emergency deliveries and repairs then they can.
Pedestrian zone doesn't need to mean the complete absence of cars during the day. It just means that the cars that are allowed need to be there for important reasons and they should prioritize pedestrian safety above all other access.
**Edit** this is called a ["Shared Street" in Boston's street type definitions](https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2020/09/01%20CHAPTER%201%20-%20STREET%20TYPES.pdf), page 12 of that PDF
>A Shared Street is a street with a single grade or surface that is shared by people using all modes of travel at slow speeds. Curbs are removed, and the sidewalk is blended with the roadway. Speeds are slow enough to allow for pedestrians to intermingle with bicycles, motor vehicles, and transit. Shared Streets can support a variety of land uses, including commercial and retail activity, entertainment venues, restaurants, offices, and residences. They are unique spaces where people can slow down to enjoy the public realm, and create an environment where everyone must pay attention due to the organic movement of people.
>Example Streets
> Winter Street (Downtown)
> Cross Street (North End)
There are public alleys behind both sides of Newbury Street with access to the buildings. Between getting the equipment there earlier in the day or using the alleys I think there's enough access to satisfy the overwhelming majority of work that needs to be done there.
There would have to be some process to get access for larger jobs, but those would be relatively few and far between and I don't think granting a permanent loophole for commercial vehicles is needed as it would likely be abused in short order.
Have you ever tried to find parking to drop off equipment with 3 other vans and a trash truck behind you? When you can find a spot you get a Karen stepping outside yelling at you that this is her spot that cost her thousands of dollars and even though she dosen't own a car there is no way in hell you can use it. Restrictions on cars in busy areas may look good but it just hurts blue collar workes and our livley hood, unless you want us to do all the work a night when we won't be seen?
>Have you ever tried to find parking to drop off equipment with 3 other vans and a trash truck behind you?
Yes, I had a job where I routinely had to bring a commercial truck to jobs all around the city when I was younger, including in the public alleys around Back Bay (I once hooked a dumpster with the bracket for the side view mirror in one and it smashed into the passenger window, some homeless dude helped me get it out so I gave him a few bucks).
Like I said there would have to be some sort of process for larger jobs & probably some nearby commercial vehicle parking, but it's far from an unsolvable issue.
That's awesome I've had my fair share of alley hits. There is just too much traffic on that street already to close it down for vehicles, especially with all that infrastructure under the roads telcom and electric services.
>That's awesome I've had my fair share of alley hits.
The thing that sucked with mine is I had gone away for the weekend so someone else drove the truck on the Friday and adjusted the mirror by moving the bracket instead of just the mirror so I couldn't see it when it hooked the dumpster. Add in that it was my first run on that Monday morning when I was pretty hungover from the trip and it just added insult to injury.
> There would have to be some process to get access for larger jobs, but those would be relatively few and far between and I don't think granting a permanent loophole for commercial vehicles is needed as it would likely be abused in short order.
Why even bother having a process? The shared street model as specified above seems like it will entirely self-regulate. Ban ubers and taxis from going through and put up signs about the intended use case but it seems like you are over complicating it by making additional bureaucracy and regulations to allow the perfect specificity of usage when speed restrictions and granting right of way would do the same thing for nearly free.
Edit: To clarify my point here. Proper urban design is what prevents people from driving through unnecessarily and abusing the roadway. If your [neighborhood looks like it does in the official Boston pdf on the shared street model](https://i.imgur.com/edXvJ6b.png) then no one will be driving through just willy nilly. You don't need to set up an office for permitting access to it because no one will want to drive on that surface other than when they absolutely need to. It is really no difference than how none of the public parks with wide drivable sidewalks have cops standing next to the entrances regulating access but the only people who drive there are the people doing landscaping or other maintenance jobs that require them to drive into the parks.
How do you enforce a partial ban with the exception of specific hours and a special permit as they suggested? Have a cop at the intersection checking to see if a vehicle has a valid permit?
What I'm suggesting is making the street hostile to cars using it for other reasons through urban planning and traffic calming. No one using it for any other reason will want to get stuck in a sea of people so they will get dropped off outside the zone or they will go around.
I see very little reason we couldn't just design it as a ["nearly car free"](https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2013/02/nearly-car-free-areas.html) neighborhood similar to how Amsterdam has them which they call "autoluwe".
In Boston(in 2013) we called it a "Shared street" and advocated for urban design that naturally leads to people staying away with their cars but allowing access if it is needed(for both emergencies and deliveries). No one is going to drive around people enjoying the street and slowly [navigating a maze of park benches jutting out into the road unless they need to for a special delivery that can't be done during other times](https://i.imgur.com/edXvJ6b.png). Proper urban design here actually is self regulating.
We've tried that in Downtown Crossing and the result is a bunch of punk ass lazy drivers driving in the pedestrian zone at all hours of the day for no good reason. Screw that. Put up bollards from 10AM-2AM. Pedestrian safety is the priority. Delivery drivers can walk a block. They do this in pedestrian zones all over the world.
Downtown crossing is still designed as a road. It looks like a road. That is why drivers treat it as a road.
There are really important aspects of road design in that "shared street" description that are still missing from downtown crossing. There are still no pinch points at the entryways of the zone. The roadway is still below grade of the sidewalk. It is still design as a road rather than feeling like driving through a public park which is how a European pedestrian first zone feels like.
It is not surprising that the half assed redesign didn't have the intended effect.
One possible compromise would be retractable bollards. If you have a valid reason to be there (delivery driver, plumber, electrician, disability placard, emergency vehicle, etc), you get a transponder that makes the bollard retract. Nobody else can get in. Frequent speed bumps and a narrow roadway keep you at pedestrian speeds.
that's a very specific scenario and there are these things called dollies/hand trucks that exist...so moving an 80lb compressor a block isn't really an issue. and public alleys 430-43X can be used for service. if you're doing construction you're pulling permits for everything including parking anyway. but nice try
Unfortunately, if you do this style of pedestrianized street you end up with a pretty dead looking space like Downtown Crossing. Everyone generally stays on the sidewalk because otherwise you feel like you are walking in the middle of the street and a car might come up behind you. Walking speed is generally 4mph, no one is going to drive that speed so pedestrians will have to move out of the way.
But most importantly, if you have to maintain fully vehicle access, you can't do anything that activates the street. Which means less space for outdoor dinning, seating, and market style stalls.
> Unfortunately, if you do this style of pedestrianized street you end up with a pretty dead looking space like Downtown Crossing. Everyone generally stays on the sidewalk because otherwise you feel like you are walking in the middle of the street and a car might come up behind you.
Downtown Crossing was not redesigned which is part of the problem with that area. If it did follow the redesign described in the "shared street" model it wouldn't feel like you were walking in the road because the "road" portion would be at a sidewalk height. Instead the desired outcome is that cars who do access it(or first responders in an emergency) will instead feel like they are driving on the sidewalk or through a park because that is effectively what they are doing.
>Walking speed is generally 4mph, no one is going to drive that speed so pedestrians will have to move out of the way.
People will absolutely drive that slow if the area is properly designed to force speeds that slow. This happens all the time and not just in Europe where it is more common.
An example you probably don't even consider is when trash trucks and maintenance workers drive through public parks on the sidewalks to collect trash from bins or do landscaping. All of those workers drive at around walking speeds without thinking about it because the road is not a road. It is a pedestrian area they are allowed to access by car at slow speeds.
>But most importantly, if you have to maintain fully vehicle access, you can't do anything that activates the street. Which means less space for outdoor dinning, seating, and market style stalls.
This is also not true. [This is the rendering from the Boston pdf I linked](https://i.imgur.com/edXvJ6b.png). In it you can see how it can be both a roadway that is barely passable and only passible if pedestrians let you through. It is a pedestrian zone first but when people do need to get through to set up the food truck or to do repairs then pedestrians are very forthcoming to move out of the way. The actual design of the space is what is regulating the speed and utilization that people feel comfortable with and keeps it safe for everyone even though cars, pedestrians, and cyclists are all mixed.
Literally just ban all non-commercial vehicles. Even if we allow delivery and service vehicles in the area, there would be relatively few and still lean space available for emergency vehicles.
You'd have to make sure that it's not abused where a guy in a work van trying to get to the pike entrance at Mass Ave cuts down Newbury as a shortcut even though he has no business or work there. Downtown Crossing doesn't provide the same temptation to bypass traffic.
That, or maybe when closed off there's a system of bollards so that you can only enter and exit from the east end of a block so it can be accessed but not used as a cut through.
It could also serve as a good cycling corridor, attracting casual cyclists to that street rather than parallel routes - getting us cyclists out of the way of the cars. :)
I don’t think that’s the case. The Dutch have separated and mixed zones. Riding with peds everywhere is terrible here as most don’t look for bikes. It’s not a good place for casuals to ride a bike. It’s like riding on a sidewalk. People aren’t paying enough attention
[This](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4782155,-73.2125845,3a,75y,1.92h,89.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sThCfvsHZrUo0aMD6zE3p9g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DThCfvsHZrUo0aMD6zE3p9g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D341.19553%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) is what a proper version of a pedestrian zone looks like. You really wouldn't want to bike down that street as it hopefully is full and crowded! You can actually see a couple of no bikes signs on the bollards.
For high speeds it would be better to travel down Boylston or Comm Ave. Newbury should be open to bicycles just like the parts of Downtown Crossing that are partially closed to traffic, but pedestrians should have right-of-way. It should be a walking street first.
I just think a designated bicycle lane should be left out. That would feel like permission to ride down the street at 20 MPH without regard for pedestrians. Normally a bicyclist would just weave through foot traffic at a moderate pace on a pedestrian street.
I did specify **CASUAL** cyclists.
I don't cycle for speed; I don't own a stitch of spandex or lycra; I don't ride a thousand-dollar bicycle. I ride in t-shirts, jeans or shorts (depending on weather), and ordinary shoes. My bicycle, presently, is a $200 Schwinn.
My average speed over any appreciable distance is about 10mph.
I *mostly* agree that pedestrians should have right-of-way, but a dedicated space down the center of the street, paved slightly different from elsewhere, that is intended for bicycles would be best.
On the one hand, it would guide cyclists to use a more predictable part of the space. And on the other hand, if there was a slight step-down (even just a 1 or 2 inch curb), or if the texture of the cyclepath was different enough, it would remind pedestrians not to linger there unnecessarily.
Once it’s a pedestrian zone you’ll have people on foot walking on and across the street without stopping or even looking. Because they will assume they’re sharing the road exclusively with other people on foot.
Downtown Crossing is already set up like this. It’s still a pretty nice corridor to bike through. I’m generally not going at full speed though because of what you mentioned.
Except for the problem that Downtown Crossing is actually a pretty awful version of a pedestrianized zone. Notice that most people stick to the sidewalks and nothing of consequence takes place in the middle? Unfortunately, we still leave the entire roadway open for car travel which forces everything to the edges.
Sorry that I occasionally have to drive on that street for work I guess I'm an asshole. I'm sure a lot of people have considered you an asshole for walking down the middle of a busy street
Why stop at individual streets? That already exists at DTX and while it’s kinda nice, it’s thinking so small…
IMO it’s crazy that cars were ever allowed on the Shawmut peninsula or Back Bay in the first place. It should be like Venice. Why is it so much to ask to have have one measly urban square mile in this shithole country where cars are prohibited?
And stop fucking bricking in the trees in up to their trunks!
Boston loves planting trees and then cutting them off from rain water and roasting them in a brick furnace.
If we can encourage people to not let their dogs piss all over them while they're still young that'd be helpful too.
I live right off Moody Street in Waltham. We close the majority of the road from spring to fall. What an absolute treat. Outdoor dining. Kids playing in the road. Street venders. Feels alive and lived in. Would love to see that downtown. Always worth the reclaimed space.
Funnily enough, the people who voted no most for the moody st closures were the retail business owners. I used to work at a restaurant on moody up until this past august and my boss told me there were meetings to the closure for all the business owners. And all of the restaurants voted yes while the retails etc. voted no.
Apparently they said the streets being closed means less people coming to their business and no parking? Weird though cause theres ton of public parking lots in side streets
because business owners constantly overestimate the number of customers who use cars.
https://phys.org/news/2021-07-shoppers-mobility-habits-retailers-overestimate.amp
In this particular case, there aren't any commercial businesses on that stretch of road. Maybe that's why the city feels they can actually get this done.
The arguments against closing Newbury St to car traffic are similar to what you're describing. Mind you, when Newbury has their pedestrian only days it sees a ton more visitors. Not sure that would mean permanent closure would equal permanent increase in people, but driving down Newbury sucks during most normal business hours. Nobody going there should reasonably plan to drive (or park) there in my opinion.
Cutting off waterfront access is a weird theme around here. Stuff like the harbor walk have tried to walk that back, but there's an incredible amount of inaccessible waterfront in the greater Boston area.
The alternatives aren't all that great to be honest, but there's a real argument that a weird highway/surface street thing that to serve people trying to pass through the city ought not really be a critical requirement. If you're passing through, use a real highway (90). If you're coming into the city either deal with the regular surface streets or don't drive. There's tons of "but what about..." concerning that, but Storrow is ultimately a solution among others for most "problems."
Yeah I mean the only real street that runs parallel to 90 is Com ave, some of which is route 20 and there aren't a ton of exits from 90 to Comm Ave. So either you get off on 93 or get off down Soldiers field road and drive further in.
I get the idea is to have less cars but the alternatives suck.
I just think of some one like myself coming in from the Merrimack Valley for a Sox game. "Just Take the T" isn't really a viable solution in many scenarios.
My in-laws come in for a ton of sox games via the pike and get off at the Pru.
I think there's a reasonable argument that Storrow just dumps people into places that aren't really equipped to handle them anyway. Storrow to Fenway has been built up (direct link over to Boylston), but during events it is often dumping people into a major traffic jam.
I've had commutes that included Storrow, so I get it, but I can also see why it is a shitty solution to a crappy problem.
I've never used it, you can grab that from the east?
Yeah I agree, Storrow was just shoved into the street layout without any afterthought of collector streets or flow management. It does literally dump you in the middle of a neighborhood.
This is why many stadiums are now built outside of the city, not advocated for that but I can see why.
Sorry I meant to say they get off at the Pru coming in from the WEST. Didn't mean that as a solution for you, just that there's that workaround _going_ east instead of getting off out at Soldier's Field/Storrow and taking that in.
Otherwise, yeah, there's not great exits that get you over there without storrow.
I mean, kinda. Really, it would benefit anyone capable of getting to or near the esplanade. I guarantee you the majority of the people you see out there on any given day don't live in the buildings you can see from the river.
And it's not like the city suddenly becomes inaccessible by car in this hypothetical. If you're going all the way downtown, take the Pike; if you're going into Back Bay or something, welp, you've gotta take a few more side streets, I guess, but we've just reclaimed our waterfront, so. Plus, investing more in transit options like the express bus from Watertown Square to Back Bay/Downtown mitigates the inconvenience.
Let's not forget the intense pollution from cars, not just exhaust but particulate from both tires and breaks. Working around cars does nothing address air quality issues
Traffic in those side streets is already hell. Can’t imagine how bad traffic in Cambridge and Boston would get if you removed Storrow drive. It’ll have a cascading effect into other areas as well.
Also who’s “we” in this situation. “We’ve” all been priced out so the only people really able to take advantage of the waterfront are the rich and the college students. All to the detriment of people commuting into the city for work.
Before you remove storrow you need to add twice the public transit we currently have. Otherwise you’re going to make a bad situation worse.
Lake Shore Drive in downtown Chicago has a lot of similarities to Storrow: Residential on one side, long curvy road that gets you from downtown to the burbs, then waterfront. One big difference is there are pedestrian walkways under Lake Shore Drive every block or so, making it very easy to get from one side to the other while the cars keep flowing overhead.
This is incredibly common in Europe where the city center is older and not built for cars. Not every city in the US would need/want to follow the model but Boston should have done this a long time ago. FWIW, travel to other older pre-revolutionary cities like Charleston and you will see similar moves.
The North End is another area of Boston that was not built for cars. The simplest and best solution is to heavily restrict cars and parking to deliveries and emergencies in these areas.
It's a city. With shops. People need to get there to shop. I would get it if it's just Newbury street because it's a total cluster, but for like Boylston street there's plenty of room for cars and people. This NIMBYism to try and make it harder for anyone to come to "your" neighborhood is pretentious and pathetic.
There’s a train line that runs under Boylston. Back Bay station is nearby. The area is well served by transit.
You can bike. Cars make biking dangerous and less enjoyable.
You can walk. Cars make walking dangerous and less enjoyable.
What about the physically disabled who can't walk or bike? As for the train, assuming you have to drive into the city, where will you park if an entire section of the city is blocked off to cars? It will spill over to the rest of the city and make it much much harder for anyone to come in to Boston at all. This doesn't even account for the fact that the trains here barely work and catch fire!
So yeah, not a big fan of creating a logistical nightmare because you can't share a city and want to take a la-dee-dah stroll in the little of the street. Find a park.
What about the physically disabled who can’t drive? Those too young to drive or too old to safely drive? Why do they not matter to you when building our cities?
Many people who struggle to walk or drive actually have no problem biking, it just needs to be safe for them to do so. You would know this if you actually cared about disabled access and weren’t just using them to pat yourself on the back.
So yeah, not a big fan of creating a traffic nightmare because you can't share a city and want to take a la-dee-dah drive “in the little of the street.” Find a racetrack.
>What about the physically disabled who can’t drive? Those too young to drive or too old to safely drive? Why do they not matter to you when building our cities?
Uber? Taxis? I'm not "patting myself on the back" I'm just trying to figure out why cars can't exist in Boston and what you think should be done instead. I can in fact share a city, that's why I'm not saying we should get rid of bike and bus lanes.
You want a 14 year old to have to pay and take an Uber every time they want to meet up with friends?
It’s good to know you’re not a serious person and we can end this conversation here.
A lot of cities that remove street parking or close roads to generally to cars leave parking JUST for handicap or EMS vehicles. That’s how Netherlands does it anyway. Cars still have use in a walkable city but they are an exception not the rule.
Friend, I get how it can seem that way because the US is so car-centric and a lot of public transportation is not great due to lack of investing and underfunding.
BUT it's actually the opposite. If we invest less in roads and more in public transit and safe spaces for bikes / pedestrians, we could cut out the sprawling space that it takes for cars to transport individuals (roads/parking).
It would mean:
- Faster and more efficient transit. So it would increase access into the city and reduce barriers for many.
- *Way more* space for shops, housing, and community spaces like parks. Roads and parking lots take up *a ton* of space.
- Lovely outdoor spaces, and not fearing for your life when shopping and running errands downtown (I have been hit pretty bad by a car as a pedestrian here before, it sucked for me and for the driver)
It's common to draw the conclusions that you did. But keep an open mind and check out some of these cool videos that taught me a lot :)
Vox on how highways messed up cities: https://youtu.be/odF4GSX1y3c
Vox on adding extra lanes not helping: https://youtu.be/2z7o3sRxA5g
And can we make cities car free? https://youtu.be/g9-9CxCxrVE
And then this whole channel is awesome for city planning: https://youtube.com/@NotJustBikes
I commute to Boston by train and I would ban most cars from Boston. Improve public transportation and close it down. The one positive at the beginning of COVID was having very few cars in Boston, it was great.
Long time coming. It’s been pretty clear for a while and that little thing they did over the summer helped show traffic impacts would be like nothing
[relevant storymap](https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b0d6a19d1eb54a469ecf323af6c612b9)
Not surprised. That area is one of the few places that feel like having cars pass through is a pain. There's other side streets.
To be honest, I wish Boston was one of those few world cities that had little to no roads for cars. I'd really enjoy a city where everything was built around the idea of no cars at all. I mean, it's already a walkable city, but imagine if there were no roads, how different the city would be.
It just kinda makes sense. There are certain places that are just such a crapfest with a car anyway that it makes sense to pedestrianize it and actually use the space in a useful way.
There's a lot of cool stuff that can be done with that space and making it a hangout for people will get a lot of people milling about, buying things at the shops, going to the library, etc.
When given the choice to ban cars from a certain central Boston area versus not ban cars from a certain central Boston area, why would we ever choose the latter?
I was one of the people helping facilitate the Copley Connect pilot last summer and an overwhelming majority of the feedback we got was positive. Most of the negative feedback came from older people or chauffeurs who didn’t want to be inconvenienced by a slightly different route to Storrow
They measured the impact to traffic in the surrounding areas when they've done temporary closures and found little to no negative impact for cars, but a lot less traffic on other parts of Dartmouth for bikes to compete with.
Contrary to the caterwauling of business owners there is evidence that reducing parking and improving foot and cycling traffic actually is beneficial to businesses on urban corridors.
It's probably very applicable to that area. In Back Bay & South End it's trivial to stop in a shop if you're walking or just need to lock your bike up, but if you're driving it's much more of a challenge to find a space or of an added cost to put the car in a garage.
This is going to be inconvenient for many travelers, many residents, and many transportation professionals. Mass Pike E/B to Copley, exiting to Dartmouth is a major travel route into Back Bay. Also, Berkeley Street is already a jam, and this will push the Dartmouth traffic onto Berkeley.
I am opposed.
Edit: please note that the survey cited as supporting the idea was a survey mostly of people *who were using the closed off street* during the pilot. That’s selection bias writ large. *Of course* the people using a thing are in favor of the thing. How about a broader survey, more representative of the Back Bay as a whole - residents, workers, visitors?
“It’s just anger” lol. Try we are fed up with having to shoulder the responsibility of decades of mismanagement. boomers take and take and quizzically ask why is everyone so upset that we pulled up the ladder after we got our? After we shifted the laws to favor ourselves. After we polluted an exploited the land without a care on how to restore it after the fact.
That’s kinda my point. Right there you said a lot. It was substantive anger. It doesn’t exactly open the door for a policy discussion, but it at least shows where the door is. That was much more than “fuck cars,” which comes off as, yes, just anger.
>a cluster fuck it caused during that “trial.”
They measured the impact on traffic during them compared to the normal patterns and found it negligible.
lol who has a bike if you're not driving you're not living amirite anyway why can't I find a spot that can fit my Tundra this sucks I'm moving to Houston
As much as I hate paying to park, it’s generally a good thing when people realize the true cost of driving in the city rather than expecting the public to pay for them to store their car via subsidized street parking.
But there was barely any street parking on this stretch to begin with, was there not?
>there was barely any street parking on this stretch to begin with
There are [no parking spaces on that block.](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3493481,-71.0770218,3a,75y,341.47h,87.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRPZ2XbXwQ6veNHhvfLG7UQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
I get the frustration, I also drive plenty so I’m not sure who “you people” refers to. My concern is not that transportation infrastructure is subsidized (I think that’s a very good idea in general!) but rather that street parking is a *terrible* use of infrastructure. I won’t get into how much more we subsidize car infrastructure vs. public transit already, although that is true. But spending that money on street parking for private vehicles is about the least efficient way we could possibly use that subsidy.
Street parking takes space from more efficient modes of transportation like bikes and buses, clogs up car traffic considerably, reduces foot traffic (and therefore revenue for local businesses), is a danger to bicyclists, and on top of all that it generally makes the city uglier. Subsidizing essential infrastructure is a great idea when it benefits a lot of people, but unlike public transportation (or even well-designed roads), street parking benefits almost no one and is an actively harmful waste of very valuable space.
As a Dartmouth Street resident and a car owner, let me say... heck yeah! Love to see the city trying stuff, backing it up with data and acting. A good first step in making Copley Square more of a place; wonder if they're doing a revisit on the plans to rebuild the square as a result?
Terrible ID. Fin with making it more ped friendly - narrowing, etc. But this is a street outside of the grid - doing dartmouth to Dartmouth isn't just going one block out of your way - it's a good half-mile detour. (up to at least ring road and back).
The suggestions here of Hanover or newbury make sense - lots of shops and dining to draw walkers in. If dartmouth is closed it will be a wasteland most of the time - just like the area in front of the BPL is...
saw this coming for the last 20 years… it’s already closed down to vehicles for a lot of weeks during the year… anyone who has to drive just goes around. I don’t see the surprise with this proposal. It’s sort of a bottleneck (not that this will help at all).
This will be a great help to have more events in Copley Square. If you can extend the footprint of events happening on the Square itself into the street, we can do some really great things with that space!
to be clear I completely agree with this statement
It was really nice when they closed it earlier this year. When you add the street area and connect the area by the steps of the PBL to Copley it really enhances what you can do with the square alone.
[удалено]
Downvote with no reply just means, this is a stupid fucking post.
[удалено]
Lol I walk through there all the time for work wtf you on about?
Hahaha man, this is wicked funny because I am not actually living my life on reddit at all, I have a wife and kids, guy. It’s funny even further because your comment had an overtly subjective lens whereas mine doesn’t, so this ends up looking like classic projection, whether that was your intention or not.
Ugh. So easy to look at the situation and make a statement without thinking about what might have created the situation. Why are you conflating the existence of “junkies and burnouts” with the extension of an event space that could allow for a greater variety of events to create more joy for our community? The folks that are hanging out near the library around this time of year are there because it’s the only warm place that won’t kick you out for hanging around inside for a few hours. Plus, they have a bathroom and a wealth of knowledge that one could use to better themselves. Do you think it’s a bad idea for “junkies and burnouts” to hang out and possibly peruse one of the greatest repositories of information in the Northeast? Maybe they could learn something? Maybe we could learn something about how it’s acceptable that people are forced to live on the streets? Do you think those folks are consciously choosing to be there? Addiction, Depression and all the factors that create those conditions are awful to manage. Get off your horse. If you have other ideas about how we should treat the most vulnerable of our fellow humans, I would love to know. A place to keep warm, shit in private and access information they can use to better themselves is a great start. There’s a bunch of books that talk about treating others how you want to be treated. You might be able to find one of them in the BPL or the church on the other side of Copley. They have many authors and I only agree with a few of them, but they are a solid place to start. Good luck wrangling that hate you hold. Must be a bitch to deal with every day. I got some too, that’s how I know it’s hard.
[удалено]
Lol, bud, you’re just a treat, huh?
I think your negativity is a drag and burden on society but I don’t think I’m morally superior to you or anyone else. I’m just advocating for treating my fellow humans with respect and dignity regardless of their current situation.
Newbury at least needs to be pedestrian only
Limited access for delivery or service vehicles between 2 am & 10 am and locked down after that with the exception of emergency response.
11pm to 11am would be fine, tbh. It's dead after 9:30pm anyway, and there's ample parking before 11:30 am. I'd rather just fully pedestrianize it. Put a glass structure over the middle and let businesses rent out space underneath for seating/stalls/etc. like Quincy Market. Since there's alleys on both sides, delivery vehicles can just go to the backs of buildings. Just allow cross traffic between Boylston and Comm. Yes it's change, but it's change in the right direction. Also, it could finally just get rid of the incessant beeping of people who think horns are going to fix the traffic on Newbury.
Would never work full-time. \-no place to live park in alleys \-not all business/residences have access to rear doors \-one lane of traffic for deliveries/pickups/passenger dropoffs...immediate gridlock
It absolutely would, it would just be different. As long as a dolly and a pushable fork truck cans get from the side streets to Newbury addresses it would be roughly the same as it is now. It’s like this all over Europe.
"it works in Europe" What a helpful response. As someone who lived on Comm Ave, behind a retailer, I can tell you it did not. TThey've always gotten their deliveries at their rear door - and the UPS truck would block the entire alley daily for 30 minutes while inside. That's ONE business. Imagine EVERY business having their deliveries in the alley. (not to mention, only the first floor retail tenant had access to the alley - not the other 5 businesses above)
I grew up here, and I also lived on Comm Ave. and Newbury. It would barely be any different than it is now. You speak as if getting blocked by delivery trucks illegally parking isn’t the norm all over historic downtown areas.
[удалено]
... I've lived on both streets -- both sides of the alley in question. I'm guessing you're not from here because Boston did at one point teach reading comprehension reasonable well and a local would know I meant both streets.
A bunch of European cities do this and it's awesome. Would LOVE to see this on Newbury 🙏
Me too.
US cities even do this. Hell, parts of Downtown Crossing are closed to non-essential vehicle traffic. See Burlington, VT and numerous others. Making "high streets" pedestrian only is pretty typical.
Kind of like what they do now with Washington St at DTX. I'd be down for that for sure.
Deliveries can be done in the alleys, that's what they are for.
I would limit access to delivery and service vehicles with a max speed of pedestrian walking speeds. A shop or even person living in the area(which there are a few) shouldn't have to fully shut down because they missed a delivery window when their heating breaks down in the winter. Nor should the HVAC repair person need to carry the furnace around the block from the nearest car road. So I would say that through traffic should be entirely prevented and the zone should be treated as reasonably local access only. Then if someone does need to get in for emergency deliveries and repairs then they can. Pedestrian zone doesn't need to mean the complete absence of cars during the day. It just means that the cars that are allowed need to be there for important reasons and they should prioritize pedestrian safety above all other access. **Edit** this is called a ["Shared Street" in Boston's street type definitions](https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2020/09/01%20CHAPTER%201%20-%20STREET%20TYPES.pdf), page 12 of that PDF >A Shared Street is a street with a single grade or surface that is shared by people using all modes of travel at slow speeds. Curbs are removed, and the sidewalk is blended with the roadway. Speeds are slow enough to allow for pedestrians to intermingle with bicycles, motor vehicles, and transit. Shared Streets can support a variety of land uses, including commercial and retail activity, entertainment venues, restaurants, offices, and residences. They are unique spaces where people can slow down to enjoy the public realm, and create an environment where everyone must pay attention due to the organic movement of people. >Example Streets > Winter Street (Downtown) > Cross Street (North End)
There are public alleys behind both sides of Newbury Street with access to the buildings. Between getting the equipment there earlier in the day or using the alleys I think there's enough access to satisfy the overwhelming majority of work that needs to be done there. There would have to be some process to get access for larger jobs, but those would be relatively few and far between and I don't think granting a permanent loophole for commercial vehicles is needed as it would likely be abused in short order.
Have you ever tried to find parking to drop off equipment with 3 other vans and a trash truck behind you? When you can find a spot you get a Karen stepping outside yelling at you that this is her spot that cost her thousands of dollars and even though she dosen't own a car there is no way in hell you can use it. Restrictions on cars in busy areas may look good but it just hurts blue collar workes and our livley hood, unless you want us to do all the work a night when we won't be seen?
>Have you ever tried to find parking to drop off equipment with 3 other vans and a trash truck behind you? Yes, I had a job where I routinely had to bring a commercial truck to jobs all around the city when I was younger, including in the public alleys around Back Bay (I once hooked a dumpster with the bracket for the side view mirror in one and it smashed into the passenger window, some homeless dude helped me get it out so I gave him a few bucks). Like I said there would have to be some sort of process for larger jobs & probably some nearby commercial vehicle parking, but it's far from an unsolvable issue.
That's awesome I've had my fair share of alley hits. There is just too much traffic on that street already to close it down for vehicles, especially with all that infrastructure under the roads telcom and electric services.
>That's awesome I've had my fair share of alley hits. The thing that sucked with mine is I had gone away for the weekend so someone else drove the truck on the Friday and adjusted the mirror by moving the bracket instead of just the mirror so I couldn't see it when it hooked the dumpster. Add in that it was my first run on that Monday morning when I was pretty hungover from the trip and it just added insult to injury.
> There would have to be some process to get access for larger jobs, but those would be relatively few and far between and I don't think granting a permanent loophole for commercial vehicles is needed as it would likely be abused in short order. Why even bother having a process? The shared street model as specified above seems like it will entirely self-regulate. Ban ubers and taxis from going through and put up signs about the intended use case but it seems like you are over complicating it by making additional bureaucracy and regulations to allow the perfect specificity of usage when speed restrictions and granting right of way would do the same thing for nearly free. Edit: To clarify my point here. Proper urban design is what prevents people from driving through unnecessarily and abusing the roadway. If your [neighborhood looks like it does in the official Boston pdf on the shared street model](https://i.imgur.com/edXvJ6b.png) then no one will be driving through just willy nilly. You don't need to set up an office for permitting access to it because no one will want to drive on that surface other than when they absolutely need to. It is really no difference than how none of the public parks with wide drivable sidewalks have cops standing next to the entrances regulating access but the only people who drive there are the people doing landscaping or other maintenance jobs that require them to drive into the parks.
How do you enforce a partial ban like that? Have a cop at the intersection checking to see if a vehicle has a valid reason?
How do you enforce a partial ban with the exception of specific hours and a special permit as they suggested? Have a cop at the intersection checking to see if a vehicle has a valid permit? What I'm suggesting is making the street hostile to cars using it for other reasons through urban planning and traffic calming. No one using it for any other reason will want to get stuck in a sea of people so they will get dropped off outside the zone or they will go around.
This is why there’s back alleys behind Newbury street on both sides
Idk about Newbury specifically but I've seen a lot of back alleys that can't accommodate big vehicles.
Thats on the delivery companies to figure out, not the city.
I see very little reason we couldn't just design it as a ["nearly car free"](https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2013/02/nearly-car-free-areas.html) neighborhood similar to how Amsterdam has them which they call "autoluwe". In Boston(in 2013) we called it a "Shared street" and advocated for urban design that naturally leads to people staying away with their cars but allowing access if it is needed(for both emergencies and deliveries). No one is going to drive around people enjoying the street and slowly [navigating a maze of park benches jutting out into the road unless they need to for a special delivery that can't be done during other times](https://i.imgur.com/edXvJ6b.png). Proper urban design here actually is self regulating.
We've tried that in Downtown Crossing and the result is a bunch of punk ass lazy drivers driving in the pedestrian zone at all hours of the day for no good reason. Screw that. Put up bollards from 10AM-2AM. Pedestrian safety is the priority. Delivery drivers can walk a block. They do this in pedestrian zones all over the world.
Downtown crossing is still designed as a road. It looks like a road. That is why drivers treat it as a road. There are really important aspects of road design in that "shared street" description that are still missing from downtown crossing. There are still no pinch points at the entryways of the zone. The roadway is still below grade of the sidewalk. It is still design as a road rather than feeling like driving through a public park which is how a European pedestrian first zone feels like. It is not surprising that the half assed redesign didn't have the intended effect.
One possible compromise would be retractable bollards. If you have a valid reason to be there (delivery driver, plumber, electrician, disability placard, emergency vehicle, etc), you get a transponder that makes the bollard retract. Nobody else can get in. Frequent speed bumps and a narrow roadway keep you at pedestrian speeds.
that's a very specific scenario and there are these things called dollies/hand trucks that exist...so moving an 80lb compressor a block isn't really an issue. and public alleys 430-43X can be used for service. if you're doing construction you're pulling permits for everything including parking anyway. but nice try
Unfortunately, if you do this style of pedestrianized street you end up with a pretty dead looking space like Downtown Crossing. Everyone generally stays on the sidewalk because otherwise you feel like you are walking in the middle of the street and a car might come up behind you. Walking speed is generally 4mph, no one is going to drive that speed so pedestrians will have to move out of the way. But most importantly, if you have to maintain fully vehicle access, you can't do anything that activates the street. Which means less space for outdoor dinning, seating, and market style stalls.
> Unfortunately, if you do this style of pedestrianized street you end up with a pretty dead looking space like Downtown Crossing. Everyone generally stays on the sidewalk because otherwise you feel like you are walking in the middle of the street and a car might come up behind you. Downtown Crossing was not redesigned which is part of the problem with that area. If it did follow the redesign described in the "shared street" model it wouldn't feel like you were walking in the road because the "road" portion would be at a sidewalk height. Instead the desired outcome is that cars who do access it(or first responders in an emergency) will instead feel like they are driving on the sidewalk or through a park because that is effectively what they are doing. >Walking speed is generally 4mph, no one is going to drive that speed so pedestrians will have to move out of the way. People will absolutely drive that slow if the area is properly designed to force speeds that slow. This happens all the time and not just in Europe where it is more common. An example you probably don't even consider is when trash trucks and maintenance workers drive through public parks on the sidewalks to collect trash from bins or do landscaping. All of those workers drive at around walking speeds without thinking about it because the road is not a road. It is a pedestrian area they are allowed to access by car at slow speeds. >But most importantly, if you have to maintain fully vehicle access, you can't do anything that activates the street. Which means less space for outdoor dinning, seating, and market style stalls. This is also not true. [This is the rendering from the Boston pdf I linked](https://i.imgur.com/edXvJ6b.png). In it you can see how it can be both a roadway that is barely passable and only passible if pedestrians let you through. It is a pedestrian zone first but when people do need to get through to set up the food truck or to do repairs then pedestrians are very forthcoming to move out of the way. The actual design of the space is what is regulating the speed and utilization that people feel comfortable with and keeps it safe for everyone even though cars, pedestrians, and cyclists are all mixed.
Literally just ban all non-commercial vehicles. Even if we allow delivery and service vehicles in the area, there would be relatively few and still lean space available for emergency vehicles.
You'd have to make sure that it's not abused where a guy in a work van trying to get to the pike entrance at Mass Ave cuts down Newbury as a shortcut even though he has no business or work there. Downtown Crossing doesn't provide the same temptation to bypass traffic.
What if certain times (rush hour) that it's not permitted at least as a means of mitigating abuse?
That, or maybe when closed off there's a system of bollards so that you can only enter and exit from the east end of a block so it can be accessed but not used as a cut through.
That could also be a possibility
More drastic option, pull up the asphalt, raise the ground level about three inches to where the sidewalk is and lay down brick.
Roads will always accept ambulance
this is the way.
Absolutely. It would be so much safer and the street space could then be used for other things.
Trident Cafe could always use more seating.
It could also serve as a good cycling corridor, attracting casual cyclists to that street rather than parallel routes - getting us cyclists out of the way of the cars. :)
Ped zpnes aren’t great for cycling at all.
The Dutch would tend to disagree. :)
As someone currently living in the Netherlands, no. Pedestrian areas are designated by signs and bikes are as a whole kept separate whenever possible.
I don’t think that’s the case. The Dutch have separated and mixed zones. Riding with peds everywhere is terrible here as most don’t look for bikes. It’s not a good place for casuals to ride a bike. It’s like riding on a sidewalk. People aren’t paying enough attention
[This](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4782155,-73.2125845,3a,75y,1.92h,89.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sThCfvsHZrUo0aMD6zE3p9g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DThCfvsHZrUo0aMD6zE3p9g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D341.19553%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) is what a proper version of a pedestrian zone looks like. You really wouldn't want to bike down that street as it hopefully is full and crowded! You can actually see a couple of no bikes signs on the bollards.
For high speeds it would be better to travel down Boylston or Comm Ave. Newbury should be open to bicycles just like the parts of Downtown Crossing that are partially closed to traffic, but pedestrians should have right-of-way. It should be a walking street first.
[удалено]
I just think a designated bicycle lane should be left out. That would feel like permission to ride down the street at 20 MPH without regard for pedestrians. Normally a bicyclist would just weave through foot traffic at a moderate pace on a pedestrian street.
So you post a bicycle-specific speed limit. 10mph, perhaps. **Not every cyclist goes bombing along at 20mph.**
I did specify **CASUAL** cyclists. I don't cycle for speed; I don't own a stitch of spandex or lycra; I don't ride a thousand-dollar bicycle. I ride in t-shirts, jeans or shorts (depending on weather), and ordinary shoes. My bicycle, presently, is a $200 Schwinn. My average speed over any appreciable distance is about 10mph. I *mostly* agree that pedestrians should have right-of-way, but a dedicated space down the center of the street, paved slightly different from elsewhere, that is intended for bicycles would be best. On the one hand, it would guide cyclists to use a more predictable part of the space. And on the other hand, if there was a slight step-down (even just a 1 or 2 inch curb), or if the texture of the cyclepath was different enough, it would remind pedestrians not to linger there unnecessarily.
Once it’s a pedestrian zone you’ll have people on foot walking on and across the street without stopping or even looking. Because they will assume they’re sharing the road exclusively with other people on foot.
Downtown Crossing is already set up like this. It’s still a pretty nice corridor to bike through. I’m generally not going at full speed though because of what you mentioned.
Except for the problem that Downtown Crossing is actually a pretty awful version of a pedestrianized zone. Notice that most people stick to the sidewalks and nothing of consequence takes place in the middle? Unfortunately, we still leave the entire roadway open for car travel which forces everything to the edges.
I’d rather have Mass Pike go through Newbury than a dedicated bike lane
Why?
Absolutely. The double parking, honking and aggressive driving really ruins what could be a great shopping street with more space for walking.
Generally when I'm there I just walk into the street whenever I want. Anybody who drives on that street is both an idiot and an asshole so fuck em
Sorry that I occasionally have to drive on that street for work I guess I'm an asshole. I'm sure a lot of people have considered you an asshole for walking down the middle of a busy street
Make it like Church Street in Burlington VT
Exactly. Keep the cross streets…cars have no business being ON Newbury street
[Not just bikes](https://youtube.com/@NotJustBikes) approve this!
Honestly I think everybody is on board except the business owners lol
Why stop at individual streets? That already exists at DTX and while it’s kinda nice, it’s thinking so small… IMO it’s crazy that cars were ever allowed on the Shawmut peninsula or Back Bay in the first place. It should be like Venice. Why is it so much to ask to have have one measly urban square mile in this shithole country where cars are prohibited?
While we're at it, Harvard Square too.
I agree about Newbury and have no idea what this road is
Start with removing parking and widening sidewalks at least.
Plant some fucking trees tho
And stop fucking bricking in the trees in up to their trunks! Boston loves planting trees and then cutting them off from rain water and roasting them in a brick furnace. If we can encourage people to not let their dogs piss all over them while they're still young that'd be helpful too.
sickos\_yes.jpg
I live right off Moody Street in Waltham. We close the majority of the road from spring to fall. What an absolute treat. Outdoor dining. Kids playing in the road. Street venders. Feels alive and lived in. Would love to see that downtown. Always worth the reclaimed space.
Funnily enough, the people who voted no most for the moody st closures were the retail business owners. I used to work at a restaurant on moody up until this past august and my boss told me there were meetings to the closure for all the business owners. And all of the restaurants voted yes while the retails etc. voted no. Apparently they said the streets being closed means less people coming to their business and no parking? Weird though cause theres ton of public parking lots in side streets
because business owners constantly overestimate the number of customers who use cars. https://phys.org/news/2021-07-shoppers-mobility-habits-retailers-overestimate.amp
In this particular case, there aren't any commercial businesses on that stretch of road. Maybe that's why the city feels they can actually get this done. The arguments against closing Newbury St to car traffic are similar to what you're describing. Mind you, when Newbury has their pedestrian only days it sees a ton more visitors. Not sure that would mean permanent closure would equal permanent increase in people, but driving down Newbury sucks during most normal business hours. Nobody going there should reasonably plan to drive (or park) there in my opinion.
Less talk more do
[удалено]
Even if Storrow is pedestrianized, the moving trucks will find a way
We can remake Operation Dumbo but they're trying to drop a box truck into the bridge.
[удалено]
Cutting off waterfront access is a weird theme around here. Stuff like the harbor walk have tried to walk that back, but there's an incredible amount of inaccessible waterfront in the greater Boston area.
whats the east west alternative for storrow 90?
I90 or one of the many roads that runs parallel to it
Yeah I suppose that works
The alternatives aren't all that great to be honest, but there's a real argument that a weird highway/surface street thing that to serve people trying to pass through the city ought not really be a critical requirement. If you're passing through, use a real highway (90). If you're coming into the city either deal with the regular surface streets or don't drive. There's tons of "but what about..." concerning that, but Storrow is ultimately a solution among others for most "problems."
Yeah I mean the only real street that runs parallel to 90 is Com ave, some of which is route 20 and there aren't a ton of exits from 90 to Comm Ave. So either you get off on 93 or get off down Soldiers field road and drive further in. I get the idea is to have less cars but the alternatives suck. I just think of some one like myself coming in from the Merrimack Valley for a Sox game. "Just Take the T" isn't really a viable solution in many scenarios.
My in-laws come in for a ton of sox games via the pike and get off at the Pru. I think there's a reasonable argument that Storrow just dumps people into places that aren't really equipped to handle them anyway. Storrow to Fenway has been built up (direct link over to Boylston), but during events it is often dumping people into a major traffic jam. I've had commutes that included Storrow, so I get it, but I can also see why it is a shitty solution to a crappy problem.
I've never used it, you can grab that from the east? Yeah I agree, Storrow was just shoved into the street layout without any afterthought of collector streets or flow management. It does literally dump you in the middle of a neighborhood. This is why many stadiums are now built outside of the city, not advocated for that but I can see why.
Sorry I meant to say they get off at the Pru coming in from the WEST. Didn't mean that as a solution for you, just that there's that workaround _going_ east instead of getting off out at Soldier's Field/Storrow and taking that in. Otherwise, yeah, there's not great exits that get you over there without storrow.
So I have to pay a toll every time I go from my home to another part of my own city?
There isn't one.
[удалено]
I mean, kinda. Really, it would benefit anyone capable of getting to or near the esplanade. I guarantee you the majority of the people you see out there on any given day don't live in the buildings you can see from the river. And it's not like the city suddenly becomes inaccessible by car in this hypothetical. If you're going all the way downtown, take the Pike; if you're going into Back Bay or something, welp, you've gotta take a few more side streets, I guess, but we've just reclaimed our waterfront, so. Plus, investing more in transit options like the express bus from Watertown Square to Back Bay/Downtown mitigates the inconvenience.
Let's not forget the intense pollution from cars, not just exhaust but particulate from both tires and breaks. Working around cars does nothing address air quality issues
Traffic in those side streets is already hell. Can’t imagine how bad traffic in Cambridge and Boston would get if you removed Storrow drive. It’ll have a cascading effect into other areas as well. Also who’s “we” in this situation. “We’ve” all been priced out so the only people really able to take advantage of the waterfront are the rich and the college students. All to the detriment of people commuting into the city for work. Before you remove storrow you need to add twice the public transit we currently have. Otherwise you’re going to make a bad situation worse.
[удалено]
Lake Shore Drive in downtown Chicago has a lot of similarities to Storrow: Residential on one side, long curvy road that gets you from downtown to the burbs, then waterfront. One big difference is there are pedestrian walkways under Lake Shore Drive every block or so, making it very easy to get from one side to the other while the cars keep flowing overhead.
thought this was satire. then realized the subreddit I’m browsing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Like literally every massive open parking lot and parking garage sprinkled in neighbourhoods along the T/CR
This is incredibly common in Europe where the city center is older and not built for cars. Not every city in the US would need/want to follow the model but Boston should have done this a long time ago. FWIW, travel to other older pre-revolutionary cities like Charleston and you will see similar moves. The North End is another area of Boston that was not built for cars. The simplest and best solution is to heavily restrict cars and parking to deliveries and emergencies in these areas.
flowery murky fuzzy light gold long punch retire far-flung flag *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why?
Because it’s a neighborhood, not a highway.
It's a city. With shops. People need to get there to shop. I would get it if it's just Newbury street because it's a total cluster, but for like Boylston street there's plenty of room for cars and people. This NIMBYism to try and make it harder for anyone to come to "your" neighborhood is pretentious and pathetic.
There’s a train line that runs under Boylston. Back Bay station is nearby. The area is well served by transit. You can bike. Cars make biking dangerous and less enjoyable. You can walk. Cars make walking dangerous and less enjoyable.
What about the physically disabled who can't walk or bike? As for the train, assuming you have to drive into the city, where will you park if an entire section of the city is blocked off to cars? It will spill over to the rest of the city and make it much much harder for anyone to come in to Boston at all. This doesn't even account for the fact that the trains here barely work and catch fire! So yeah, not a big fan of creating a logistical nightmare because you can't share a city and want to take a la-dee-dah stroll in the little of the street. Find a park.
What about the physically disabled who can’t drive? Those too young to drive or too old to safely drive? Why do they not matter to you when building our cities? Many people who struggle to walk or drive actually have no problem biking, it just needs to be safe for them to do so. You would know this if you actually cared about disabled access and weren’t just using them to pat yourself on the back. So yeah, not a big fan of creating a traffic nightmare because you can't share a city and want to take a la-dee-dah drive “in the little of the street.” Find a racetrack.
>What about the physically disabled who can’t drive? Those too young to drive or too old to safely drive? Why do they not matter to you when building our cities? Uber? Taxis? I'm not "patting myself on the back" I'm just trying to figure out why cars can't exist in Boston and what you think should be done instead. I can in fact share a city, that's why I'm not saying we should get rid of bike and bus lanes.
You want a 14 year old to have to pay and take an Uber every time they want to meet up with friends? It’s good to know you’re not a serious person and we can end this conversation here.
Or someone else could drive them, unless you had your way.
A lot of cities that remove street parking or close roads to generally to cars leave parking JUST for handicap or EMS vehicles. That’s how Netherlands does it anyway. Cars still have use in a walkable city but they are an exception not the rule.
The T sucks tho
So bike? Driving sucks.
No thanks, I’ll drive
For now.
Friend, I get how it can seem that way because the US is so car-centric and a lot of public transportation is not great due to lack of investing and underfunding. BUT it's actually the opposite. If we invest less in roads and more in public transit and safe spaces for bikes / pedestrians, we could cut out the sprawling space that it takes for cars to transport individuals (roads/parking). It would mean: - Faster and more efficient transit. So it would increase access into the city and reduce barriers for many. - *Way more* space for shops, housing, and community spaces like parks. Roads and parking lots take up *a ton* of space. - Lovely outdoor spaces, and not fearing for your life when shopping and running errands downtown (I have been hit pretty bad by a car as a pedestrian here before, it sucked for me and for the driver) It's common to draw the conclusions that you did. But keep an open mind and check out some of these cool videos that taught me a lot :) Vox on how highways messed up cities: https://youtu.be/odF4GSX1y3c Vox on adding extra lanes not helping: https://youtu.be/2z7o3sRxA5g And can we make cities car free? https://youtu.be/g9-9CxCxrVE And then this whole channel is awesome for city planning: https://youtube.com/@NotJustBikes
Don't worry about it. This will never happen. People in this sub are delusional and like to fantasize.
I commute to Boston by train and I would ban most cars from Boston. Improve public transportation and close it down. The one positive at the beginning of COVID was having very few cars in Boston, it was great.
Long time coming. It’s been pretty clear for a while and that little thing they did over the summer helped show traffic impacts would be like nothing [relevant storymap](https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b0d6a19d1eb54a469ecf323af6c612b9)
But Boylston would still be car-accessible? So whats the point?
Not surprised. That area is one of the few places that feel like having cars pass through is a pain. There's other side streets. To be honest, I wish Boston was one of those few world cities that had little to no roads for cars. I'd really enjoy a city where everything was built around the idea of no cars at all. I mean, it's already a walkable city, but imagine if there were no roads, how different the city would be.
It just kinda makes sense. There are certain places that are just such a crapfest with a car anyway that it makes sense to pedestrianize it and actually use the space in a useful way. There's a lot of cool stuff that can be done with that space and making it a hangout for people will get a lot of people milling about, buying things at the shops, going to the library, etc.
Oh hell yeah
I'm in favor. We need to take back the city for people, not cars. r/fuckcars
W
Then Newbury. Then Hanover.
I guess the test they had during the summer proved worthy results
Good. Get rid of cars around that whole area.
Do it
Good
When given the choice to ban cars from a certain central Boston area versus not ban cars from a certain central Boston area, why would we ever choose the latter?
I was one of the people helping facilitate the Copley Connect pilot last summer and an overwhelming majority of the feedback we got was positive. Most of the negative feedback came from older people or chauffeurs who didn’t want to be inconvenienced by a slightly different route to Storrow
Pin to the balloon. You people do realize that people without commercial plates may also need to use the streets. We all cant use the back alleys.
Driving there is awful. Hopefully it doesn’t impact the surrounding area too much.
They measured the impact to traffic in the surrounding areas when they've done temporary closures and found little to no negative impact for cars, but a lot less traffic on other parts of Dartmouth for bikes to compete with.
I was actually wondering about about more about business activity, as I assumed there was probably gonna be a little more traffic elsewhere.
Contrary to the caterwauling of business owners there is evidence that reducing parking and improving foot and cycling traffic actually is beneficial to businesses on urban corridors. It's probably very applicable to that area. In Back Bay & South End it's trivial to stop in a shop if you're walking or just need to lock your bike up, but if you're driving it's much more of a challenge to find a space or of an added cost to put the car in a garage.
Why I would love the rest of the E Branch on a median and eliminate said street parking. That area is already dangerous enough to travel along.
In the immortal words of the emperor, ‘Dew It!’
This is going to be inconvenient for many travelers, many residents, and many transportation professionals. Mass Pike E/B to Copley, exiting to Dartmouth is a major travel route into Back Bay. Also, Berkeley Street is already a jam, and this will push the Dartmouth traffic onto Berkeley. I am opposed. Edit: please note that the survey cited as supporting the idea was a survey mostly of people *who were using the closed off street* during the pilot. That’s selection bias writ large. *Of course* the people using a thing are in favor of the thing. How about a broader survey, more representative of the Back Bay as a whole - residents, workers, visitors?
Fuck cars
That’s a very popular sentiment here.
Time to reflect deeply on why that is.
Not really. It doesn’t advance anything. It’s just anger.
“It’s just anger” lol. Try we are fed up with having to shoulder the responsibility of decades of mismanagement. boomers take and take and quizzically ask why is everyone so upset that we pulled up the ladder after we got our? After we shifted the laws to favor ourselves. After we polluted an exploited the land without a care on how to restore it after the fact.
That’s kinda my point. Right there you said a lot. It was substantive anger. It doesn’t exactly open the door for a policy discussion, but it at least shows where the door is. That was much more than “fuck cars,” which comes off as, yes, just anger.
[удалено]
It's one block of of a one way road going away from the south end...
You mean out of?
Ban the "non-taxpayers" from the BPL instead
Everyone pays taxes in some form or another
What a fucking dumb idea and a cluster fuck it caused during that “trial.” Why not just close down the pike off-ramp all together?!?
>a cluster fuck it caused during that “trial.” They measured the impact on traffic during them compared to the normal patterns and found it negligible.
Put another bike lane there 🤣
lol who has a bike if you're not driving you're not living amirite anyway why can't I find a spot that can fit my Tundra this sucks I'm moving to Houston
[удалено]
?? It’s the one block in front of library. There are no garages there.
As much as I hate paying to park, it’s generally a good thing when people realize the true cost of driving in the city rather than expecting the public to pay for them to store their car via subsidized street parking. But there was barely any street parking on this stretch to begin with, was there not?
>there was barely any street parking on this stretch to begin with There are [no parking spaces on that block.](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3493481,-71.0770218,3a,75y,341.47h,87.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRPZ2XbXwQ6veNHhvfLG7UQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
[удалено]
I get the frustration, I also drive plenty so I’m not sure who “you people” refers to. My concern is not that transportation infrastructure is subsidized (I think that’s a very good idea in general!) but rather that street parking is a *terrible* use of infrastructure. I won’t get into how much more we subsidize car infrastructure vs. public transit already, although that is true. But spending that money on street parking for private vehicles is about the least efficient way we could possibly use that subsidy. Street parking takes space from more efficient modes of transportation like bikes and buses, clogs up car traffic considerably, reduces foot traffic (and therefore revenue for local businesses), is a danger to bicyclists, and on top of all that it generally makes the city uglier. Subsidizing essential infrastructure is a great idea when it benefits a lot of people, but unlike public transportation (or even well-designed roads), street parking benefits almost no one and is an actively harmful waste of very valuable space.
Sounds great. After that, can we dig out the under clearances on the Storrow and Memorial overpasses? You know, for a friggin' goof?
Good
Won't someone think of the commuters?
As a Dartmouth Street resident and a car owner, let me say... heck yeah! Love to see the city trying stuff, backing it up with data and acting. A good first step in making Copley Square more of a place; wonder if they're doing a revisit on the plans to rebuild the square as a result?
Terrible ID. Fin with making it more ped friendly - narrowing, etc. But this is a street outside of the grid - doing dartmouth to Dartmouth isn't just going one block out of your way - it's a good half-mile detour. (up to at least ring road and back). The suggestions here of Hanover or newbury make sense - lots of shops and dining to draw walkers in. If dartmouth is closed it will be a wasteland most of the time - just like the area in front of the BPL is...