Read the Globe’s John Hillard’s report here and share your views before the Newton City Council votes on Tuesday to lower the default speed limit from 30 to 25 miles per hour.
Do you support the 25 MPH default speed limit in Newton?
by Greg Reibman | Jan 14, 2017 | Newton | 17 comments
I support the 25mph default speed limit. I think the limit should be 20mph on all side streets. But as others have pointed out on an earlier thread, roadway design is really the key factor in getting traffic to slow down.
Councilor Ciccone’s comment “I think it will be a positive thing — it will slow the vehicles down” sounds magical, especially where he also points out that widespread enforcement is not realistic. (On other threads, it’s clear both city staff and electeds understand that much more will be involved) I’m disappointed that Hillard did not take the opportunity to study in more detail effective measures taken to reduce speed. He hints at the West Newton project, but doesn’t point out what might be obvious — roadway modifications are going to be necessary to bring about changes in behavior, even where they’ve been unpopular in the past. So often, citizens have rallied against road diets and curb extensions as “dangerous.” Hopefully this measure, in conjunction with neighboring cities, will lead to a better understanding of what’s necessary to make our roads safe.
Adam, when I spoke to John Hilliard, I made a point of noting that compliance with lower speed limits will depend in large part on roadway designs that compel drivers to reduce their speed. And I pointed to the West Newton Square Enhancements project as an example of a design that reduces the number of lanes for motor vehicles, makes crosswalks safer, provides protected bike lanes, and upgrades signalization in order to maximize safety for all travel modes, including motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. Neither President Lennon, Councilor Ciccone or myself are so naive to think that reducing the speed limit alone will make the roads safer–the roads themselves have to be safer. I am encouraged by the fact that West Newton Square residents and businesses were so receptive and supportive of the proposed roadway improvements (even if some of my colleagues on the City Council don’t get it–yet).
Press misses the point. Sad!
Even if this isn’t the most pressing issue in the country right now, we need reporting that probes a bit deeper. Keep trying!
In what sense are the supposed safety benefits substantiated? How many injuries, how much money is expected to be saved annually as a result of these changes? What percentage saving is this? What are the anticipated “costs” of this change? How much longer will driving from point A to point B take? What are the impacts on traffic? How are these numbers determined? What are the error bars?
If the Council is going to burden drivers with lower speed limits, then they owe it to the public to detail in as precise a manner as possible what the impacts good and bad are going to be. Otherwise, all we have is more do-it-cause-it-feels-good policy so typical of how Newton seems to operate.
@Adam. I learn something new every day. This is the first time I’ve seen the term “road diets” although I’ve read a number of articles that refer in practice to what it is. I can see three or four local streets and intersections where something like that might be useful. Not to seem too parochial, and it’s just a hunch, but I’ll bet that a clear majority (perhaps an overwhelming majority) of drivers that cruise way over the speed limit on Newton’s main thoroughfares are drive through motorists from other municipalities and are simply passing through here on their way to some other city or town. We are having problems with a lot of motorists who drive recklessly down Dickerman Road to Route 9 to avoid the traffic lights at Woodward and Route 9. Again, just a hunch, but I’ll bet most of them aren’t from Newton.
Bob – I wish I could agree with your hunch, but I see too much bad behavior on a regular basis to think it could be solely due to outsiders. Just look at the number of people who do u-turns in the middle of Lincoln St. in Newton Highlands to get in and out of parking spots (and adding that “No U-Turns” sign was a joke.) Wish we could have a raised median down the main block of Lincoln with breaks for places where left turns are needed to get into driveways – I think that’s the only thing that would stop the dangerous behavior.
I really wish it were feasible to have more traffic enforcement. Fear of tickets is the only thing that will help when there isn’t a usable roadway design change.
All of the studies show that the chances that a pedestrian will die when struck by a motor vehicle is much higher for every 5-10 mph increase in speed. The mortality rate drops by about half when maximum speeds are reduced from about 30 mph to 25 mph. Respectfully, you cannot put a price on that. As far as the burden imposed, a 5 mph reduction in speed adds less than half a minute to travel times per mile.
@THM – What about ban on cell phones while driving. Arguably, cell phone distractions is responsible for higher accident rates across the country.
Brookline has one instituted for last 16 years, and no one seems to complain too much. http://village14.com/2017/01/14/do-you-support-the-25-mph-default-speed-limit-in-newton/#comment-74041
@Bob-
Sadly, many of these heavy footed drivers ARE from Newton; Parents bringing their kids to the elementary and high schools, high school kids from South(and probably North) speeding near the school and on surrounding streets, Its a pipe dream, and something only bureaucrats would think could work, but a lower speed limit is worth a try. “Road diets”??!!”, Could we please add that to the list of obnoxious terms. No Soup for whomever thought that one up.
@mgwa- agreed. I think you are right on the money. Someone will get killed or badly hurt crossing near the post office on Lincoln St. before too long.
Elmo said it well. What exactly are the benefits? How many people die on Newton roads each year and how many lives will be saved based on this move? How many injuries?
Folks love to do stuff to make themselves feel better. We need some hard facts and figures to justify this. They may exist.
And a reduction of probability from 0.004 to .0036 is an absolute change of .0004 … if we went on relative changes why stop at 25, why not 20? Where do we draw the line?
I don’t see an issue with the current limit. I’m open to being taught.
Paul, could you please elaborate? Do you have an issue with the term or the concept? Are you advocating for a change in regulation only? How would that be more effective than the Highlands no U-turn sign?
Bob, I used to think traffic problems on my street were exclusively out-of-town cut through traffic. Who could be so inconsiderate to drive aggressively in their own neighborhood? Anecdotal evidence suggests it’s both types, and not just school-bound traffic for locals, though that’s certainly a large part of it. They never should have paved Dickerman. Too late to turn it back to a private way?
I think a bigger problem than speed is people running stop signs and red lights (especially violating the no turn on red law). I’m amazed how much this occurs around school zones.
@Adam-
I don’t have a problem with the concept only the term: “Road Diets”? What kind of diets are ‘Road Diets”? Atkins? Paleo? Jenny Craig? High-Tar lo-fat? I have lived in Nonantum, and Newton Center, and now Newton Highlands. I have observed residents speeding all over the city.
Sure, there are plenty of out of towers speeding through our neighborhoods also.
I agree with Neil P, i was almost hit by a Newton school teacher who was reading her phone
while trying to cross over Winchester St from Rachel Rd to Goddard St, so phones are an issue. No one is going to want to hear this, but of course i will say it; there needs to be more frequent testing of senior drivers. Frankly, there are some that have no business being behind
the wheel. I was almost hit crossing Nahanton St to Winchester St while running, and the senior behind the wheel didn’t even know where she was or what she was doing. Dangerous.
@Bob-
I love that Dickerman St cut-through. Its one of my favorites, and i would recommend it to anyone trying to avoid the long lines of traffic on Woodward St trying to get to route 9.
There are great neighborhood cut throughs all over the city, and i don’t feel guilty using any of them nor should anyone else. when you have to get somewhere, you gotta get there.
Cambridge has cameras right along side many of their traffic lights so if you blow a light, you are going to get a ticket. A photo of the car and its plate time stamped is mailed to lucky recipients with a nice revenue raising ticket. No fuss. No muss. Newton was settled as part of Cambridge, which has the Sanctuary city designation that our councilors are seeking for Newton, so maybe we should continue to follow its lead in this situation.
Umm, no, pretty certain tickets cannot be issued based on cameras in Mass. (Though Newton Police are on record wishing that they could) Just because there are cameras does not mean the police are issuing tickets with them. Most of Newton’s new signals have cameras, also. They are used to control the phases of the signal. But facts are so 2016.
Massachusetts does not have a state law permitting red light or speed cameras and I am not aware that Cambridge or any other community is using them. As Adam says, these are for traffic and the images are not used for enforcement. In addition, Massachusetts does not permit the use of images or data from the gantries on the Massachusetts Turnpike, bridges and tunnels for any purpose other than toll collection.
Over the weekend, I spoke very briefly with Debra Daigle from WGBH 89.7FM and made the same point about the importance of road design to reduce speeds and maximize safety. Interestingly, she told me that Boston city officials had told her the same thing when she interviewed them about adopting the new state law to reduce speed limits and create safety zones. I am not sure whether and when the story will be aired, but the Newton City Council vote is tonight.
The City Council voted tonight to postpone this debate and vote until its next meeting.