In case any of you want to go...
Also, attached is a survey about the work they did on Upland Rd., for those
of you who have not had a chance to see or complete it.
Just remember that what could have happened, and in fact was scheduled, was
a simple re-pavement, and re-setting of the curbs which were too high/low.
Instead, because of all of our efforts, they repaved the road, tried to
curve the street and switch parking to prevent the racetrack effect, and
re-did the sidewalks and extended/planted tree wells.
I personally, wish they c/would have done more, but they had to work around
a couple of handicap spaces (so could not change the parking side at that
site), and could not lose parking spaces. They would not give us a raised
pavement, citing the fact that the fire department would not allow it, etc.
etc.. In short, we got the best outcome we could.
I still think we have too many cars, trucks (I have even seen 18 wheelers),
using Upland as a cutoff. And I think many of them go too fast. I have
borrowed a speed gun, if someone wants to help me unofficially (it is really
meant for timing baseball pitches) record speeds, time of day, type of
vehicle.. It would be useful perhaps to cite the statistics.
Ruth
From: Craig Kelley [mailto:craig@craigkelley.org]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 4:44 PM
To: Craig Kelley
Subject: Linnaean Street Roadway Work Meeting Wednesday, 30 Septemer
6:30-8:30 PM at Graham & Parks School
Folks:
Linnaean Street between Raymond and Mass Ave is slated for roadway work next
summer. The City has heard from some folks about the desire for traffic
calming and would like to have a meeting to discuss what changes could be
made to the road along those lines. This meeting will be this coming
Wednesday, 30 October at the Graham & Parks school on Linnaean street from
6:30-8:30 PM.
City staff will listen to neighbors during this meeting, then having a
second meeting, in October, to present relevant traffic calming options.
If you have questions or can't make the meeting and want to share your
thoughts with the City, you can call Juan Avendano at 617-349-4655 or email
him at JAvendano(a)Cambridgema.gov.
If you want a quick primer on traffic calming, I've pasted the minutes from
a meeting on the subject below.
Take care.
Craig
Committee Report #1
TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC AND PARKING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
In City Council June 18, 2007
Councillor Craig A Kelley, Chair
Councillor Henrietta Davis
Vice Mayor Timonthy J Toomey
The Transportation, Traffic and Parking. Committee held a public meeting on
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at five o'clock and thirty minutes p. m. in the
Sullivan Chamber.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the issues including speed bumps,
raised intersections and other devices intended to slow traffic speeds, the
limits of employing these devices and the criteria for selection of the
placement of these devices.
Present at the meeting were Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Committee,
Councillor Henrietta Davis, Sue Clippinger, Director, Traffic, Parking and
Transportation, Owen O'Riordan, City Engineer, Katherine Watkins, Senior
Engineer, Public Works Department, Juan P. Avendano, Traffic Calming Project
Manager, Community Development Department (CDD), Cara Seiderman,
Transportation Planner, Environmental and Transportation Division, CDD and
Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk.
Councillor Kelley opened the meeting and stated the purpose. He stated that
he gets asked about raised devices all the time and would like to have this
report contain all the pertinent information about speed bumps and raised
devices that could be provided to a resident when there is a question about
these devices.
At five o'clock and thirty-two minutes p. m. Councillor Kelley opened the
meeting to public comment.
Kathy Podgers, 148 Pearl Street, stated that she is a trained compliance
person who started Citizens for Feasible Compliance and that she is
concerned about pedestrian safety issues as well as cyclist safety. She
said that the zigzag traffic pattern on an Area IV street causes
consternation, especially at night with headlights. She said that speed
bumps are effective in parking lots but cause accidents when placed
elsewhere. She does not want city streets used as major thoroughfares.
Traffic lights and flashing yellow light work better thought lights might
bother residents by going on and off all the time, though we all have to
sacrifice something. Raised crossing are good at locations such as schools
or senior housing developments. She suggested that signs be installed
before raised crossings as a notice to motorists so they do not hit them too
fast. A raised device at Erie and Brookline Streets is needed to enable
people to catch the 47 bus. Erie and Pearl Streets should also have a
raised device. She spoke about solving multiple issues at the same time and
getting good value for the money spent on the solution in that one raised
intersection could handle the need for up to 8 curb cuts on the sidewalks.
She concluded that the solution should fit the situation.
Dennis Wolkoff, 20 Lowell Street, supported the city's effort to enforce
traffic calming. It is an important topic and he and his neighbors like the
idea of traffic calming. He suggested people see the movie "Contested
Streets" about how traffic calming has worked in other places. Lots of
streets in Cambridge should only be used by people who belong there.
At five o'clock and forty-five minutes p. m. Councillor Kelley closed public
comment.
Councillor Davis asked for an explanation of raised devices.
Juan P. Avendano, Traffic Calming Project Manager, explained the main reason
for raised devices is to reduce speed, to make the crossings safe for
pedestrians and to make the pedestrians more visible. Raised devises are
located in areas where there are a large number of pedestrians crossing the
street. He distributed a map that outlined the locations of traffic calming
projects completed and planned including raised crosswalks or intersections.
Councillor Davis asked what is the difference between a raised device and a
speed bump. Mr. Avendano responded that a speed bump is used to reduce
speed and is a bump in the roadway. Raised devices improve pedestrian
safety, make pedestrians more visible and reduce the speed of cars. They are
located at a crosswalk or an intersection.
Sue Clippinger stated that there are two kinds of raised devices. They are
raised crosswalks, which is just a raised crossway across the street and
raised intersections, where the entire intersection is raised. The design
of raised intersections is dependent on the slope of the sidewalk. The
guideline used is a seven percent (7%) slope for all raised devices.
Councillor Davis asked if they are made of the same material. Mr. Avendano
stated that slopes used as ramps are bituminous. White triangles are used
as warnings for raised devices on the slopes. Pavers are used on the top,
flat portion of the raised crosswalk or intersection. Granite curbs are
used around raised devices. The sidewalk edge of a raised device is marked
so that vision-impaired people will know that the sidewalk has ended and the
street, albeit in a raised fashion, has begun. Signage posts the
appropriate speed for the raised devices and is located 100-150 feet before
raised devices. If an automobile is damaged because of a raised device the
first question asked is what was the speed traveled.
Councillor Davis asked what determined the width of the device. The width
used is the crosswalk width which is ten feet wide; width of a raised
intersection is based on the width of the street. Are snow plows and fire
equipment accommodated by raised devices asked Councillor Davis? Mr.
Avendano responded in the affirmative. Ms. Watkins informed the committee
that the snow manual is given to drivers who do the snow routes. The snow
manual contains the locations of the raised devices. The Fire Department
reviews the raised devices to ensure that the device does not impede the
fire apparatus. The department also identifies locations that may be
problematic for the placement of raised devices based on response routes and
times.
Sue Clippinger stated that other communities do not always receive the high
level of cooperation that Cambridge receives for their traffic calming
program from the Public Works, Fire and Traffic, Parking and Transportation
Departments.
Councillor Kelley asked how locations are chosen for raised devices. The
Putnam School parents would like a raised device installed, he said. Ms.
Watkins informed the committee that the fire department had an issue with
the installation of a raised device on Putnam Avenue. Mr. O'Riordan added
that traffic calming is not generally considered unless there is
construction project proposed on a given street or in a particular area of
the city, thus maximizing the cost benefit associated with these projects.
Mr. Kelley noted that there are many raised devices by the King Open School,
though none are on busy Cambridge Street. The King Open School (the
Harrington School at the time) area was the first major traffic calming
project in Cambridge, stated Ms. Seiderman. The program has since evolved.
The initial focus for traffic calming is on construction schedules, not
necessarily on where a school is located, although school locations
generally get highest priority when there is nearby construction happening.
Many raised devices have been put in by non-City entities as part of
mitigation for a large project requiring a special permit. Harvard
University did mitigation for Oxford Street and paid for the raised devices
on Oxford Street, stated Ms. Clippinger. MIT construction on Vassar Street
will create one raised intersection on Vassar Street. Novartis paid for the
raised intersection on Sidney Street at Putnam. There is no raised device
for the ongoing project on Mt. Auburn Street, stated Councillor Davis. Ms.
Clippinger stated that the Holmes Trust did the Green Street device through
mitigation. The raised device at Cedar Street and Dudley Street in North
Cambridge was unique in not being connected to anything else. All the other
non-mitigation raised devices were part of City-funded road work.
Ms. Clippinger stated that the City does not do speed bumps because they'd
rather kill two birds with one stone by enhancing pedestrian access and
crossings as well as reducing speeds.
Councillor Davis stated that she has received e-mails from residents on
Middlesex Street regarding traffic calming. She submitted the e-mail for
the report (ATTACHMENTS 1-11). This street is on the chapter 90 list and
the city process will start next month, stated Mr. Avendano.
Councillor Kelley asked why there are no speed bumps on Middlesex Street.
Mr. Avendano urged caution about installation of speed bumps. Speed bump
noise is annoying. Other issues with speed bumps are drainage and city
environment. Speed bumps cost money. Equity is also an issue; all street
users are considered. Raised devices are the most aggressive treatments and
have the strongest impact and are installed where most critical such is in
high pedestrian traffic areas, stated Ms. Seiderman, who also stated that
everything is in the context of street work. Other communities have run
into problems with willy-nilly putting in speed humps. There are equity
issues and noise impacts, but also impacts for various street users because
if a raised device is highly used by pedestrians, people understand why it
is there and are aware of it. But if the raised device is just placed on
the street with no obvious reason, a lot of people in and around the area
will have trouble understanding its location and will not like it. Plus,
the Fire Department does not want a lot of speed bumps just anywhere.
Councillor Kelley raised another concern about raised devices - that of
reducing parking spaces. Ms. Clippinger stated that it is illegal to park
within twenty feet of the corner. High parking demand streets have cars
parked at the corner but the fact that cars park there does not make the
spaces legal, so oftentimes a raised device is actually only impacting these
illegal, though used, parking spaces. These devices become enforcement
devices for eliminating illegal parking. Sometimes, though, a raised device
can remove legal parking spaces, when it is placed at a mid-block location.
There is no parking on raised devices stated Mr. Avendano.
Councillor Kelley asked why there are no raised crosswalks on major streets.
Ms. Clippinger responded that raised crosswalks are not installed on major
streets because of the nature and volume of traffic on these streets. Ms.
Seiderman added that there are no cities she is aware of that permit raised
devices on major streets.
Councillor Kelley asked how different is it to cut the curb for an
accessibility ramp. Ms. Clippinger stated that raised devices are not
disability ramps. Councillor Kelley asked how difficult is it to install a
raised device. Mr. Avendano stated that the roadway needed to be in perfect
condition and that building a raised device is more complex than it seems.
Catch basin and drainage are issues that are reviewed. Mr. O'Riordan stated
that raised devices can have a major impact on drainage that they can act as
dams from the perspective of impeding surface flow, which is sometime
integral and critical to storm water management on city streets. Devices
must be built to the same elevation as the adjacent sidewalk and the
sidewalk itself may need to be reconstructed so as to provide adequate
elevation and sidewalk access adjacent to the raised device. At least six
inches of reveal, curb showing above the street, is needed to provide an
approach ramp with the correct road slope as one drives onto the device.
Conditions to ensure that the pavers will not settle must be reviewed.
Interlocking pavers are used and must sustain significant vertical and
lateral stresses associated with vehicular loads and turning movements and
they are also boxed in with substantial granite curbing on all four sides to
prevent shifting or movement.
A discussion ensued about marking raised devices. Ms. Seiderman stated that
there are different ways to mark crosswalks. Cambridge uses zebra markings.
Crosswalks are designated by white lines. Yield to Pedestrian signs are
being considered. Ms. Clippinger stated that an analysis of habits at
crosswalks is being conducted. The Traffic, Parking and Transportation
Department are trying to determine whether there is insufficient yielding
being done by motorists. A Yielding Study would be done for the Oxford
Street raised devices. She stated that markings will be done in July with
the start of the new fiscal year, as the Department has spent all of its
money for this year.
Mr. O'Riordan stated that there are no problems with snow plowing as the
operators are familiar with their routes and the snow manual. The predicted
location of raised devices makes it easier for drivers to adjust plows.
Speed bumps would be more difficult for plow drivers to accommodate, and a
plow can do a lot of damage to a raised device if the operator does not
adjust the plow beforehand.
Councillor Kelley asked the cost of raised devices. Mr. Avendano responded
$75,000 - $120,000 on top of street work, to include catch basins and
drainage issues. The cost of raised devices mostly comes out of the City's
traffic calming budget. Mr. O'Riordan commented that traffic calming is
considered for every street reconstruction project, but it is not always
appropriate. Reconstruction is typically at least a grind and overlay
project before traffic calming is considered. The traffic calming process
takes 6-9 months to resolve. The street reconstruction projects and traffic
calming requests are reviewed and the needs are matched, stated Ms.
Seiderman. She added that resources are used where there is a critical
need. A public process may not be as involved if street reconstruction
suddenly happens and the 6-9 month process cannot be met. Mr. Avendano
stated that he keeps track of where people have asked for traffic calming to
match against upcoming work. If no one has asked for traffic calming and
certain things do not make sense, there may not be a traffic calming
discussion, but the City may still do basic pedestrian things like put in
curb cuts or try to set up sight lines that make sense.
City staff than summarized other aspects of traffic calming as being
crossing islands, chicanes, visual narrowing through striping and curb
extensions, most of which happen only with street reconstruction.
Councillor Kelley asked the cost for a bump out. Mr. O'Riordan gave the
following information:
$6,000 - $10,000 for drainage
$5,000 - $10,000 for curb work
$20,000 - $35,000 estimated average total cost.
This cost is paid by the Public Works and Community Development Departments.
Mr. O'Riordan stated that the city's five year plan will outline where
street and sidewalk work will be proposed, but noted that the five year plan
was subject to significant change as circumstances dictate so no one should
expect the City to follow it absolutely. Some of the issues that need to be
borne in mind when considering a 5 year street and sidewalk reconstruction
plan are the unpredictability of state funds, utility repair and replacement
work, development in the city, increased truck activity, variable asphalt
and concrete costs and some unpredictability associated with street
condition reduction rates.
Councillor Kelley thanked all attendees.
The meeting adjourned at six o'clock and fifty-five minutes p. m.
For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair
Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee
