The Needham Times reports that MassDOT is considering revisions to the Needham Street reconstruction plans, based on comments received last fall. After the public 75% design plan presentation, Complete Streets advocates from Newton, in conjunction with local and regional organizations, reiterated their concern that the roadway design did not meet modern standards for Complete Streets and made one last plea for a safer and more comfortable environment for all modes of transit in the corridor. Similar feedback had been submitted at every public hearing since the start of the public process several years ago, with limited success. Contrary to reporting, it’s not just about bicycle lanes, but a Complete Streets approach. Suggestions ranged from shortening pedestrian crossing distances, providing continuous bicycle facilities, and improving bike/ped connections at each end of Newton’s portion of the corridor, without which there would be little chance for modal shift. Protected bicycle facilities were among a list of recommendations, along with others requiring simple changes to roadway markings, lane width, turn radii and curbs to support a lower design speed, with particular concern over the unwelcoming section of Winchester Street connecting the N2 Corridor to Newton Highlands and the area’s only major public transit stop one half mile away. These types modifications should not have significant impact to cost or schedule. This time, MassDOT responded positively to the feedback.
Even with the $14M in proposed improvements, Needham Street faces a future of snarled traffic, according to MassDOT’s estimates. Complete Streets could provide options to reduce vehicle trips resulting in a street more consistent with Newton’s village-like vision and newly adopted transportation plan as well as MassDOT’s own policies.
In the Needham Times report, Needham elected officials sent a message of panic about the possibility of millions of dollars in increased costs and unknown project delays. The piece was short on details, but read more like rumor than news. We’re going to be stuck with these roadway improvements for a long time. It’s important to be transparent about fixing the design, rather than just engaging in fearmongering. Are there more substantial changes being proposed might cause significant risk or delays? Is there a political play to obstruct the project?
Newton should stand firm in its commitment to Complete Streets. All parties, including businesses, the Chamber, residents, MassDOT, and the municipalities, must work together to ensure this project is started on time with the necessary changes to make Needham Street safe and welcoming.
A day late and a dollar short.
There was an opportunity to deal with this mess about 15 years ago when
Stop and Shop was denied the opportunity to build in lieu of Avalon
Bay. The argument? Stop and Shop would create too much traffic.
How has that worked out? Stop and Shop was going to pay to widen Needham St to 4 lanes, and would throw in $500,000 for other improvements to Needham St. You can thank local
NVA head John Koots and his then neighborhood activist group CORD for opposing the Stop and Shop. A special shout out to interim mayor Tom Concannon and eventual mayor David “$219 million dollar Newton North” Cohen for their efforts, or lack thereof.
“Complete streets”? Sound’s like more
gobbledegook from the same people
who brought us “smart growth”.
Highly educated and credentialed people making very stupid decisions.
Paul Green, a four lane highway for Needham St would have been exactly the traffic mal-improvement that is being remedied today across the country everywhere. That much extra capacity would have overwhelmed the connecting road networks including the Highlands and Route 9. Countless Newton residents outside of the corridor would have been affected by the traffic backups.
Let’s focus on two overarching improvements that were mostly neglected in the business-backed plan. First, employees in the corridor should be able to go to lunch or shop at nearby businesses without getting into their cars. Second, employees, residents, and visitors should be able to walk safely from the Highlands and the T to the corridor businesses.
Do these two things, and everybody wins. Build a plan that skimps on these elements, and everyone loses until we eventually spend more money to do it right someday.
@Mike
So in other words, we can be thankful
that traffic flow is steady with no backups on Needham St now. Right?
The connecting road networks are already overwhelmed with the current capacity, but you already know that because you have surely witnessed it.
@Paul, exactly right. Surrounding roads at capacity, traffic jams with the current number of cars trying to get there. What would four lanes along N2 have done, other than make things worse?
Do you disagree about the usefulness of walkability between businesses and to the T?
“Have no fear of perfection – you’ll never reach it.”
How long has Needham Street been a disaster? I know the last time I went down there was about a decade ago, and I’m constantly in the area. It is simply not worth visiting given it’s current condition. This project has been around for close to a decade. Now we should delay it in order to “try” and take more land for bike lanes? What’s to say that in a few years when the takings and redesign is complete, that we’re not faced with a new need? Autonomous vehicle lane? All jokes aside, this project needs to get done, and get done asap! The walk-ability features are very easy tweaks to the design.
Paul Green has an excellent memory, and I completely agree that a supermarket would have been far preferable to Avalon in that location. It’s ancient history now, but nonetheless important to remember the mistakes of the past. I do agree with Mike, that 4 lanes on Needham Street would solve nothing, and likely make the traffic situation worse. Traffic and pedestrian issues aside though, it is absolutely idiotic to “fix” Needham Street without burying those hideous utilities. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and Newton’s elected officials are blowing it. I understand the work is a state project, but this is OUR city and local officials should have found a way to underground those damn utilities.
Making Newton more welcoming and safer for cyclists and pedestrians is vital to our economic future.
But let’s be totally clear about what’s happening here:
Last July, after decades of false starts and after considerable lobbying from the two municipalities, the business community, our state house delegation and others, the Metropolitan Planning Council finally committed $14 million to this project and a 2018 start date. As I understand it, this is as locked in as highway funding gets. And for a project that then-State Rep. David Cohen ran on when he first campaigned for mayor, this was a long, long, time coming.
With the money in hand, MassDOT began the process of completing the design. But then recently (the Needham Times article suggests it was the letter Adam is referring to) MassDOT informed the two stunned municipalities that the $14 million project would need to be delayed by one more year so the project could be redesigned (again) to accommodate raised, protected bike lanes, and other accommodations and that the price would increase by an added $9 million.
There’s two problems here:
1. We’ve already waited way too long to fix Needham Street/Highland Ave. Delaying it impacts the economic growth of this corridor and also jeopardizes work that was supposed to be done this summer to re-align the dangerous intersection of Oak and Christina Streets.
2. There’s no guarantee that we will get the extra $9 million and we could ALSO lose the approved $14 million to a project in another municipality that’s ready to go.
I agree that the proposed redesign of Needham Street/Highland Ave. could be better, most notably along Winchester Street and under Route 9.
But improving this critical corridor will bring new businesses, housing and tax revenue to our communities. We cannot afford to delay these desperately needed improvements and can’t risk the chance that we might lose this entire project.
What is the capacity of the roadway if it is mostly vehicle traffic versus a healthy mix of cars, people walking and people on bikes? We only need to look to communities across the country that have implemented COMPLETE STREETS to see that commitment to these forward-thinking policies reduce congestion (roadways can move more people in the same amount of time if we have more people on bikes and walking). These policies are also good for business (increased sales), good for the environment (better air quality and less noise pollution), good for everyone’s health (less stressed, more active), and good for city coffers (increased sales tax, property value and lower road maintenance costs). All of this good with relatively little capital cost, especially when thinking about all the good that can be achieved.
Are the changes going to increase capacity or just look prettier? And will Oak & Christina be realigned completely or just modified a bit? And at what cost? Last time through this intersection it seemed like the city had implemented a change I had been a fan of for a long time giving Oak and Christina each their own phase. This way there is no conflict and allows not only the left turning traffic to move forward easily but also the less popular straight through traffic. Best thing, it was free.
I assume businesses want more people to be able to get to work and to shop? If so they should be supporting increasing capacity which will only really be done through mode shift.
@Alicia: Of course businesses recognize that increased capacity comes through mode shift! Businesses are not your enemy in this fight. And please do not spin this as a philosophical fight over bikers vs. drivers. It’s not. This is a fight about losing funding to do anything on this street which will benefit no one (except perhaps some other distant municipality that would love to get its hands on that $14 million.)
As for Oak & Christina, that work is part of a separate $3.3 million MassWorks grant and involves a realignment, land taking, crosswalks, etc. It is intended to make that intersection significantly safer for all modes of travelers (a goal we all share). But the redesign work for the full Needham Street/Highland Ave needs to match the design at that intersection.
That’s why this summer’s work could also be delayed and/or jeopardized.
I drive up and down Needham Street every day, and I think that the traffic problems have driven everyone away. Maybe everyone is so afraid that it’s a big mess, they aren’t using it. It never takes me longer than 10 minutes in rush hour, and never takes me longer than 5 minutes in off rush hour to get from end to end. We should continue to seek improvements, and use any money awarded before we are in danger of losing it, but really folks, it’s not the standstill crawling “can’t move an inch” situation that many describe. The “dangerous” misalignment of Oak and Christina Streets has seen a HUGE improvement. The lights are now set to take turns. Everyone behaves nicely. If you are at Oak and Needham Street, the light turns green, and you get a number of cars through. Then it’s yellow and red, and the cars on Christina and Needham Street have their turn. It is no longer a game of everyone goes on green at the same time, and it’s every man/woman for themselves, and cars cutting other cars off. In my opinion, the biggest traffic problem currently is the bottleneck from National Lumber into Winchester Street into Centre Street. We had some serious traffic backups while the Central Ave bridge was closed last July to December, but the bridge has reopened and mitigated those backups on Oak Street. We also have a lovely pedestrian, bicycle, stroller, rollerskating, dog walking avenue with the Upper Falls Greenway.
@Greg: where did this $9 million figure come from? I’ve seen the proposal, and the changes don’t seem anywhere near that extensive. Is there a line item breakdown of that cost?
There is a cautionary tale here. Long-running planning processes have to stay up to date and receptive to ongoing comment. Times and best practices change. Momentum is an understandable but poor reason for an outdated design. These issues have been raised for years, but recently they have been come widely accepted as best practice.
@Mike: Welcome to Village 14. Glad to have you. Two things:
1. $9 million project increase came to me from officials at both municipalities. I’m not sure what you “saw.” Perhaps you could be more specific about your source. I’d be delighted to be wrong.
2. There is no “business backed plan.” As I’ve said here and other times, there are aspect of this design that could be improved and I hope they will. But losing this project is a real risk. That’s a worry we should all share.
The ped and bike issues were raised by people at every stage of the way. And certainly at one public meeting 2 years ago which I believe was the 25% meeting all but one person begged to make the street more walkable, including people who lived there and the design came back with few improvements to walking and not in accordance with already stated Massdot goals of creating safer streets for walking and biking.
Alicia: Again, I share your concerns and vision.
But it’s disingenuous for you to imply that the project, as presently designed, does not add substantive improvements for all modes of traffic, including marked bike lanes, sidewalks, safer places to cross, fewer curb cuts, a wider bridge over the river,etc.
Yes, it could be better. But, yes, the present redesign is also much better than what we have now and have been trying to get for decades.
As the old saying goes, perfect is the enemy of good.
Let’s work together on saving this project and starting the work now.
As far as Oak and Christina, of course the design for the full length of Needham Street and Highland impact this design. Raised bike lanes, for example, require different drainage designs than marked lanes. Our tax dollars shouldn’t be spent to pay to one thing, only to rip the street up again in two years for something else (and the state shouldn’t allow it.) The contracts for that program have been awarded, a delay puts that project at risk.
I might be missing the flow, so someone explain to me the need for raised bike paths alongside the roadway when there is a dedicated bike path and pedestrian walkway on top of the old rail bed that runs from Rt 9 to the Charles river. Put in some crosswalks and get this built.
@greg I don’t think I am the one who is pitting bikes vs. cars. I think the Needham Times and the subsequent NNCC memo did this first. The intersection and Oak and Christina should be able to blend with whatever treatment is determined best for the rest of Needham St. As for whatever is the final design of O and C, I can’t speak to it, but safety never seemed to be the driving factor in the early rendition. Vehicle throughput always seemed to be the major factor, especially when a right turn lane was added to Christina.
@jack I suspect bikes on Needham St go that way for the same reason the cars do, it is the straight path to where they are going. Cars moving through the area could choose Winchester but they don’t.
@greg the research is clear. If we want true mode shift cars to bikes, the bike lanes need to be protected. With protection you can expect huge changes. Protected bike lanes also make pedestrians feel safer (because they are).
While some are busy pointing fingers at the complete street advocates for continuing to push for better infrastructure as the reason for this potential delay, it feels more like it is political in nature.
@Jack, off road bike/ped facilities get people, well, off road. That doesn’t get them to businesses, and doesn’t get them out of their cars. Different value proposition.
@Greg: I think there is a need for transparency and good will for everyone working on improving the corridor to know what the situation really is now. I understand and share your concern about losing the money and changing the design in ways that impacts already poured concrete. I appreciate you stating the importance of bike and ped improvements for now and the future.
An open discussion of the options at hand and improvements that are possible would allow us to do the best we can. I only know what I have heard about the process, but clearly MassDOT, hardly a free-spirited flighty progressive organization, sees merit beyond the current plan.
How can we capture that value at this point? Surely this could have been straightened out at an earlier time, but here we are and good people should be able to do something productive. Discussing this $9 million estimate openly would be a start.
@Randy who said anything about taking land for bike lanes? Yes, that would cause significant risk and delay, but I’ve never heard that discussed. Do you have a source? There’s a lot of rumors flying at this point, let’s not add to them.
@Greg, the Oak and Christina design was clearly focused on improving service for vehicles, not all modes of transportation. It started out by widening crossings and corners, adding “storage” and turn lanes. I think things have improved somewhat based on feedback from early designs.
I agree, the $9M figure seems suspicious, as does the process. It’s worrisome that nobody seems to know exactly what’s going on here. Why isn’t this process completely transparent such that not only the municipalities, but you and I could easily get up-to-date status on what’s being proposed? Let’s start by demanding answers to all of these these questions.
Raised bike lanes do not necessarily have to be raised through the entire corridor — and likely would not be. There are a number of ways of providing protected bicycling facilities. It’s unfortunate that this discussion didn’t start much earlier in the public process, but let’s find out what’s being proposed, then try to find a pragmatic and timely solution.
@Adam,
It’s an educated guess. They had to take land to widen the street before, correct? I would assume that they didn’t take extra land, just in case. Therefore one could surmise that additional land would be needed. I would be very surprised if they were to narrow the driving lanes to accommodate a bike lane, as that would create one of the problems they’re trying to correct.
@Randy, bike lanes are already part of the plan for Needham Street. There’s more room there than you’d think. Narrowing travel lanes doesn’t create congestion. The same cars fit, they just can’t travel at highway speeds, and we don’t want them to anyway.
Needham did some extensive land-taking on Highland Ave to create a 4-lane highway. Newton ended up doing some takings at Oak and Christina to straighten out the intersection, and that has apparently been responsible for delays. I agree, additional land takings at this point would be a non-starter, but I don’t think that’s on the table.
As a point of comparison, in November 2015 MassDOT stated that they were ready to get going on plans to renovate Commonwealth Ave by BU from Packards Corner to the BU Bridge. The plans they were using were nearly 10 years old and had zero bike lane protection and pedestrian crossings were not much better than what is there now and most notably no change for the most dangerous intersection of Comm Ave and Brighton Ave. BU asked advocates to not push for changes, otherwise the state might back off. I went to the public meeting where residents and BU students gave very compelling testimony on why the changes were needed and the Boston DPW said no changes were likely because there just wasn’t time to start the process over. Advocates persisted and 3 months later, a much better plan emerged with fully protected bike lanes and pedestrian crossings. This project is 0.7 miles long, the same length as Needham St from National Lumber to Oak/Christina. The planned cost is $20 million and is more complicated with the B line, more intersections, lights and lengthy construction timeline due to busy location. This project is now underway. http://www.bu.edu/today/2016/commonwealth-avenue-improvement-project/
The Comm Ave project makes me question the need for the big delay and the much bigger price tag.
@Mike-
Yes I do believe in walkability between
businesses and the T, but that is not the problem here. It’s cars. Yes people walk and other hardier souls are brave
enough to ride their bicycles on the
lousy patch work roads we have(Charlie Shapiro – try driving Mildred, Truman, Stoney Brae – those roads aren’t “fine”. I’ve seen better roads and paving in third world countries.), but worrying about walking on a street that is, has and will always be car-centric is putting the cart before the horse. Let’s solve the big problems first.
@Paul your statement “Worry about walking on a street that is, has and will always be car-centric” is so limiting and not in keeping with the city and world’s need to transform. We need to make these changes for the environment, for the health of our citizens, for economic vitality, for the people who want options to get out of their cars.
@Paul, congestion often lives in the 10 or 20%’s of a problem. If, say, business employees can’t walk to lunch (or do other errands at local businesses during the day) from their workplace, they will drive.
If they need to drive during the day, they won’t take a corporate shuttle or the T to get to work.
If they don’t have bike facilities that are comfortable for ordinary people, not just “brave souls”, then they won’t use bike share like TripAdvisor wants.
Without those alternatives, those extra cars push traffic from manageable to gridlocked, which hurts everyone.
The goal isn’t to force everyone to make a cold turkey change to walking or biking year round. The goal is to make it easy to people to choose alternatives that bit by bit get car trips off the road.
Those are the kinds of places that companies choose for their locations over outdated alternatives.
The 75% design makes things better, but lacks best practices that have been shown to get people out of cars and improve safety of pedestrians and people riding bikes.
Jo Louise
Allen and Jack Leader are right. There is ample capacity for additional bicycle riders on the Upper Falls Greenway that run parallel to Needham Street from Easy Street to Oak Street. Access to Needham Street from the Greenway is available at several points already. The Newton Nexxus is going to provide improved access along the section of South Meadowbrook at the edge of their property. On the other side of Needham Street, the remains of the extension of the rail line that became the Greenway can be easily adapted to provide further bike access without delaying the improvements to Needham Street. There’s even a bridge into Needham where it hooks up with a pathway maintained by the Department of Conservation and Recreation that hooks up with Highland Avenue on the other side of the river from Needham Street.
MBTA bus route 59 runs one third of its services down Needham Street between Newton Highlands and Pettee Square in Upper Falls (the intersection of Chestnut and Oak Street near the former railroad depot turned coffee shop.) Needham Street and Highland Avenue workers can eat at the pizza shop, Biltmore Café as well as the depot coffee shop. There’s sandwich shop at the top of the hill on Elliot Street near the intersection with Oak Street.
Square. If you can’t find something to eat in Upper Falls, you must not be very hungry.
City Coouncilor Brian Yates
My conclusion is that Mass. DOT’s highway division must not know about the services of its sister agency the MBTA or the Mass. Department of Conservation and Recreation and the work of the city and the Upper Falls neighborhood to create the Upper Falls Greenway. Maybe they need to post some more signs. It shouldn’t take a year’s delay in the road improvements.
City Councilor Brian Yates
Councilor Yates writes
This is fiction. We had that chance. Needham vehemently opposed and continues to oppose turning that eyesore into a rail trail. Selectmen even opposed Newton turning its portion into a rail trail because they selfishly wanted (and still dream of) a bus line running over it to serve ~90 passengers a day going to Needham businesses . Since then, Needham let the bridge over 128 come down without a replacement and refuses to complete even the half deck to complete the trail to Wexford Street. The suggestion that completing this alternative route to Needham is easy or will happen any time soon is fantasy. We may have lost that chance for a generation or more.
Still, a bike bypass is no substitute for a better Needham Street. Mike’s response above is worth repeating:
If we don’t make that last bit comfortable for all users, the benefit is lost. We don’t treat motor vehicles that way. If we want people to use bikes or walk, we need to do it right.
FYI, here’s a link to the document showing (in red) the added one year delay to this long-delayed project and added cost. My bad, I said yesterday this increase was $9 million. It’s actually almost $9.6 million.
Once again, making Needham Street welcoming and safer for cyclists and pedestrians is vital to our economic future. But a delay and the possible loss of all the funds for this project is not acceptable.
Ok, next question: $9.6M increase for what, exactly?
Wow. Greg, take a look at this document, dated March 24
A $2.8M increase still seems like an awful lot (depending on what they’re proposing) but it’s not $9.6M either. You think we should all get the facts before insisting that any particular design be pushed through come hell or high water?
Wow right back at you Adam. As I said earlier here, “I’d be delighted to be wrong.” This document suggests I might be. I hope so.
And, please note, I’ve never been pushing for a “particular design” (in fact I favor changes). I’d love to see this street built to its full potential but I am “pushing” for no further delays.
My No 1. concern is about losing this project overall. I’m guessing that’s yours too. I believe we are on the same side here.
You’re not wrong, Greg. Both documents came from the MPO. I don’t know if it’s a lack of communication or that more time is still needed to sort things out. Hopefully Thursday’s MPO meeting will shed some light on all this. I hope that once everyone thinks this through, we’ll see some reasonable improvements that do not push back the overall schedule.
Nobody wants to lose the project, and thus far there seems to be no reasonable reason to kill it. I just wish we had these discussions at the 25% phase and not 100%.
Just to be clear, we were having “these” discussions back at the 25% . They were just IGNORED. I still point the the much more complicated project on Comm Ave by BU that was redesigned enough to move forward less than 3 months after a meeting where residents were told there was no way to change the plan.
Question to hard-core cyclists:
The Greenway is indeed a parallel route alongside Needham Street, with several access points. I use it all the time, but my bike is a hybrid, with relatively thick tires. Wondering if the more commonly used “racing” bikes with thin tires would have problems riding on top of the tiny stones used to pave the Greenway.
@Andy, contrary to what the bike industry would like you to believe, “racing” or skinny tired bike can ride most anywhere any time, though the ride might not be as comfortable. Well maintained cinder dust is fine. Ruts and rain make things less pleasant and messier.
However, that doesn’t make the Greenway a 24 hour all weather facility, which makes it complementary to streetscape bike facilities.
Thanks @Mike. Agreed, bike lanes are desperately needed on Needham Street (and in several other areas of the city). The Greenway is enjoyable, but complimentary. Hopefully we have bike lanes in place in a few years.
As one who rides a “skinny tire” bike (I hesitate to call myself “hard-core” and I definitely don’t race), I avoid non-paved surfaces if at all possible.
That said, when I’m in that area I go down the far less-congested and bike-friendly (for that reason only) Winchester Street- a common route for those of us out for longer rides to get out of Newton.
So, yes, I agree that a bike lane on Needham/Highland is preferable.
If the Needham Street corridor is to reach its full commercial potential, it must have alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles as the mode by which folks get there and get around once there. We’ve pretty much reached the limit of motor vehicle capacity.
More residents on and near Needham Street help. Transit helps, better bus service and the radically modest and potentially transformative Green Line extension. Better sidewalks and more pedestrian-friendly land use help. And, robust bike accommodations help, the more separated from traffic and connected to the streetscape the better.
We’re at a moment where a nearly shovel-ready plan exists with adequate, though imperfect bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. Let’s get her done.
Adam. Thanks for this post. I’ve been impressed with the comments and exchanges here and passionate back and forth among a large assortment of people with differing views and perspectives. I learned a lot which is generally the way I judge whether a discussion is productive or just an air blowing contest.
My bib regret to date was the State’s decision to remove the abandoned rail bridge over 128 that connected Upper Falls and Needham. Could never understand why Needham was so opposed to a bike path from Pettee Square to Needham Junction.
Bob Burke is correct in his description of the former bridge at the Charles River end of the Upper Falls Greenway.
Adam misunderstood my reference to another bridge that could provide bike access over the Charles River without slowing down the Needham Street work. I meant the bridge to the south of the Needham Street/Highland Avenue bridge (the former bridge at the end of the Greenway is about the same distance to the north.) I am by no means a daredevil and I have walked across this bridge. On the Needham side, it provides access to path for bikers and walkers to Highland Avenue. On the Newton side, it is next to land owned by Northland who propose a bike/walker path back to Needham Street.
No delay to the Needham Street work would be necessary for any use of this path.
Brian – sorry, my mistake. That bridge (and the prime riverfront property on the Newton side that’s presently a parking lot) would be wonderful additions for recreational use, but absolutely no substitute for a direct route to Needham Street businesses, for the same reasons already noted (circuitous route, lack of direct access). And if you’re coming from anywhere from the northeast, like the Highlands or Newton Centre, good luck getting to the Greenway!
To Alicia’s point, imagine if you told all motorists to drive down Winchester Street to Goddard and Christina to get to Marshall’s… and then park across the street?