Video can be found here: https://vimeo.com/454461969
Jeff Speck recently presented his vision for the Washington Street corridor to the Newton-Needham Chamber, building upon the recent plan for West Newton Square, extending through Newtonville towards Newton Corner. The main theme is a road diet. By eliminating underutilized roadway, Newton could create a far more attractive streetscape, open up new opportunities for recreation, transportation safety improvements, public transit, and yes, development.
A road diet might even improve traffic conditions, channelling traffic and eliminating conflicts that come with vehicles changing lanes. A two-way cycle track along the pike could provide top-notch bicycle facilities The idea of a road diet and cycle track along the pike is not new; it has been the subject of previous studies and TAG has been pitching it for several years now. With changes coming to Newtonville and West Newton Square, it seems like a great time to come up with a more comprehensive plan for the whole corridor.
I thought this was great. The idea for a park between west newton and Newtonville is terrific. I’d also love a commuter rail station next to Walnut street, but that seems unlikely.
That said, I’m all for the road diet.
While the concept here is nice, it is not practical to a New England suburb.
The cities mentioned in the “diet” are cities that do not suffer from a typical New England Winter. Look at the list of the cities, most do not have the same amount of snowfall we get in New England. I urge people to think critically of this application. With the way snow is plowed in the city, and our past winters, the snow pile up on “diet” roadway would be outrageous. First, a sanding and plowing of a divided Washington street would be a logistical nightmare, requiring more specialized equipment if not additional manpower to carve up a “Washington Square”. This would pass on additional costs to the citizens. Don’t be bamboozled by a developer or an engineer, who doesn’t live in the city, selling us these idea!
Bike commuting is dangerous. Whoever said Washington street was great for bicycles should have their head examined. Bicycle paths completely off the road are the only solution, but is there a demand here? Consider the climate, where bicycle riding enjoyable maybe 5 months out of the year. I’d questioned the amount of Newton residents who bicycle commute to work. Public transportation infrastructure should have priority over bicycles.
That third turning lane looks familiar to Needham street. Needham street is a traffic nightmare. The 3 lane system does not work!
This video also showed many of our older tax payer businesses. For example; The West Newton Cinema block, does not have fire sprinklers. I would be extremely hesitant to reduce fire department and police access to such a block. All it takes in some of these older business is one fire, and with the limited access you will see the same results of the fires in Alston and Brighton! Whole blocks lost!
One accident, one fire, one ems calls and the fire engine or ambulance would essentially shut down the roadway; due to the limits of lanes with this “diet”.
I am all for making Washington street more beautiful, and I enjoy the way Newton is growing. But please think critically. Commonwealth ave, is large but thanks to the Carriage lane it is a wonderfully beautiful street. The smaller size street doesn’t makes things safer.
Please think critically. This video builds up Newton, then creates a problem of the wide Washington street. The solution, it then presents to this problem is questionable.
Wider streets don’t create unsafe streets. The correlation does not equal causation.
David, welcome and thanks for your comments. In the future, please use a verifiable e-mail address, per site rules.
A “diet” roadway is simply a normal 2-lane roadway like all the others we have in Newton. Somehow we manage fine with them, fire response and all. It’s really the 4-lane roadway that’s out of place around here. We don’t have many of them in the city. If you’re looking for a successful road diet, look only a mile or so east to Nonantum Road by the Charles river. A recent redesign by the City of Newton and DCR took that road from 4 lanes down to 2 with some turn lanes and the world did not end.
I find your comments about bicycling to be completely unsubstantiated, but you’re entitled to your opinion. Sorry you feel that way.
I’m all in for this vision for Washington Street as I am for walkability. The protected bike lanes will definitely increase biking.
As a person who spends much of his time on Newton roadways biking, I would have to say that overall, biking is not dangerous. But yes, it can be safer and more comfortable for a greater population, and that’s what protected bike lanes provide.
As for snow clearing, I keep hearing that argument. Many cities around the world seem to do fine with snow clearing and bike lanes (Montreal comes to mind, as do cities in northern Europe), but asking to design an entire city because of snow clearing issues seems short-sited. Despite all the talk and preparation around snow, we have about 22 days of measurable snowfall, and not all of those are huge amounts (https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Massachusetts/Places/boston-snowfall-totals-snow-accumulation-averages.php). But let’s give it 30 days of inconvenience, since it takes a few days to really move snow around (complicated by people who don’t shovel sidewalks in front of their own home).
Even if you want to consider snowfall to be a huge, insurmountable issue, shouldn’t we focus instead on helping people move around during the other 335 days a year?
David – Could you please support your statement that narrower lanes are more dangerous?
Very nice video. The God-awful Washington Street is in desperate need of redesign. As Adam said, Nonantum Road is a great proof of concept. It now has a fantastic biking/ walking section and traffic has not become worse, quite the opposite. I strongly disagree with David Janosky’s assertion regarding the demand for biking in Newton. Demand is huge and many people I know commute by bike during the cold months as well.
And a question: Are there any plans for Washington Street from West Newton south to Newton-Wellesley hospital? It’s the same ugly 4-lane design. Wellesley has some decent bike lanes on Rte 16, so this would provide nice continuity.
Thanks for posting this, Adam. Jeff Speck’s point, and one that studies in other cities confirm (including some with snow!) is that road diets actually INCREASE road capacity for the motoring public–counterintuitive as that may seem. Remember, that left, “passing” lane is often obstructed by left-turning vehicles, and the lane change to the moving, right, lane slows down & often causes crashes.
I agree with Dave that transit should also be a part of the street design. Newton doesn’t control the MBTA, but we can help move buses more efficiently by moving bus stops to the far side of signals and building bus islands, rather than having buses pull in and out of traffic.
The MBTA is looking to upgrade the three Newton commuter rail stations. TAG advocates for T-level service on the line, rather than just the commuter-rail’s irregular service. We would welcome support from Newton residents in the form of letters to the MBTA!
Finally, transportation should focus on moving people and goods, not vehicles per se. So by adding better, safer, more welcoming walking and biking space, the road on a “diet” actually serves to move more people than the four-lane road.
My reaction to this video is: Yes please! ASAP!
Also, that flyover from 1:11 to 2:25, where the only traffic is a few cars and trucks on the Pike plus a passing commuter rail train, blew my mind! How’d they do that? The software they used for this is incredible.
Andrea do you know anything recent on the commuter rail stations?
@fig. Just that Secretary Pollack asked that a two-platform, no-switch solution for all 3 stations studied. Kay Khan got funding for Auburndale, but you may know that story already.
The state has put on hold any further MBTA developments in Newton. Costs for a safe platform with ADA accessibility are prohibitive. The commuter rail is a 2 track system and an additional 3rd track for rail switching purposes is not possible.
As of today, there are no plans to improve the commuter rail line.
I watched the video and can not agree that the plan is a sound one.
With so much population growth planned for Newton traffic will increase. Let’s design the corridor for everyone. Walkers, bikers and autos need access to the area, no one group should have priority.
I’m confused Colleen. You say you don’t like this but then endorse the exact same vision that this proposal is designed to achieve.
Colleen,
Cars would have 3 lanes, one in the middle for turning and two travel lanes. Plenty of accommodation for cars. Now the left lane going each way is often blocked with cars turning left so now those cars will be in the middle lane.
Bikes would have one, two way protected lane, making everyone safer. Bikers and pedestrians would be made safer by parallel parking and wider sidewalks and trees would make Washington Street look great.
Seems like a win-win to me.
Colleen says:
Can you cite your source?
What/where is the need for a third track and why is it not possible? There actually is an unused stub near Riverside that could be useful for short runs.
Orly? @Steph_Pollack suggested otherwise, and reports are that funding is still in place.
1:56
“Moderate density buildings would be appreciated…to provide a buffer for speed and noise…how convenient…”
Did I hear that right? Is it a well-done subtle throw-in promoting density development in a video purporting to be about walking and biking, disregarding the fact that new density brings its own set of problems?
Look, I stand to be educated. In a previous thread, Chuck Tanowitz raised a point I hadn’t considered even though it seems so simple! More people walking and biking means more room for me driving. Great! Even though I don’t see many bikers in my neck of woods and don’t believe the “if you build it, they will bike” philosophy…bring it on. Truly.
But let’s avoid hidden agendas. If this video is to ultimately promote higher density, please say so. Sleight-of-hand outside of card tricks is boring.
(Again, if heard incorrectly, I look forward to clarification).
Mark, again, it’s not a new idea, but of course the proponent of this latest presentation is a developer. Making the street more attractive and functional will clearly increase property values and you know what that means. Conversely, I’d hope anti-density sentiment should not be a motivation for keeping one of Newton’s main streets dysfunctional and dangerous.
@Mark, watching the other videos by Jeff Speck is important in understanding the role of density in creating a walkable environment. You can’t just put a sidewalk on a 4-lane road and call it walkable. The walk itself needs to have human scale as well as give people a place to go. It’s why people walk through certain areas and not others.
A lot of what people seem to want in Newton (increased retail, better restaurants, more transit, commercial development, etc.) are things that come with increased density. In today’s world, those are hand-in-hand.
Adam, there is funding in place to do future studies of the commuter rail. Also, when the Pike was built no land was set aside for the rail system to be widened. Three tracks are needed to allow trains to go in and out of Boston simultaneously throughout the day. The commuter rail will never be a high speed transit corridor. Land would be needed, the entire system would need to be redesigned. My information source is the June NAC meeting where someone reported on the latest MBTA updates.
Mark, while reasonable people can differ on desirable levels of density (heck, unreasonable people can too!), I can’t imagine very many people believing the density and state of the commercial properties along Washington St, and the infrastructure that (fails to) support them, is anyone’s idea of optimal.
While there are fine establishments between the West Newton overpass and Newton Corner, with the exception of the village centers you’ve got a wasteland where even the thriving business and gems are compromised. Whole Foods is a traffic nightmare, Cabots’ patrons dart for their lives across a busy street, and essentially no businesses are close or connected enough that you can avoid driving between one and another if you arrive by car. There’s no “by chance” foot traffic at any establishment.
Just look at the density of automotive services along the route. From the service station right in Rockport’s front door and next to another service station, to windshield replacement to multiple car dealerships, many of these businesses are very low density uses that provide little day-to-day benefit to the adjacent neighborhoods. Instead, they are driving destinations, sidewalk obstacles, and last place finishers in the Newton curb appeal contest. I wish their owners well, so well they can sell their properties for less auto-centric uses and retire handsomely.
Washington St. has plenty of capacity for more and more varied development provided that development is actually planned and managed.
How much development is desirable is a political question.
Colleen, what you say contradicts much of what has been reported lately. Unfortunately, the NAC meeting minutes did not seem to get posted and the information sounds like hearsay. The Deputy Director of Planning told me on Saturday that the funding is still in place to make the ADA station improvements, not just conduct a study, and the transit matters plan is being seriously considered. If I’m not mistaken, there were four tracks before the turnpike was built. I’m sure three would be better for throughput, but so would two tracks with double platforms. Given the importance of this issue, some real data would be nice to support your assertions. If the NAC has it, why not make it part of the public record?
Adam, the NAC minutes are posted. Sorry you have had trouble finding them. Yes, much study has been done regarding the commuter rail system. One big problem is the cost and design of a switching mechanism between the 3 Newton stations which are too closely located to each other. The time required for the trains to switch tracks is the main problem as the distance between each station poses a significant delay. Yes, the MBTA is trying to find solutions but the costs are prohibitive and the rail system does not carry enough passengers to justify the cost expenditures.
I’m looking here
As for switches, it turns out none of that is necessary. It’s unfortunate that nobody mentioned this at the NAC.
Thanks Adam but switching is necessary. I can send you the minutes for the NAC. Where do I send them?
I strongly hope ADA rehabs are still on the table.
At some point, the cost for making platforms ADA accessible is irrelevant. Accessibility is a human right, defined by law, being denied by the MBTA to mobility impaired users and granted to those that can climb bare metal stairs. It is fundamentally unfair.
Yes it is hard. Yes it costs money. Yes it takes a reasonable amount of time. But throwing up hands and turning out pockets is no excuse. Every day of delay is a day taken away from scores of people who can’t get to work, pick up their kids, or shop for themselves with the same convenience that the rest of the public is afforded.
Colleen, none of the 2017 minutes are posted. It would be great if you or another NNAC member could post them – it is required by law. I live in Newtonville and I would like to read about what is transpiring at the meetings.
We’re straying off topic, but if I receive any minutes that show that the Newtonville Area Council knows something that MassDOT and transportation advocacy groups do not about regional rail, I’ll be sure to share it as a follow-up comment on this thread.
How does Mr. Speck’s plan mesh with the apparent need for more space in the Washington Street corridor for an additional track for two way rail traffic?
I still don’t understand where this nonsense about needing 3 tracks is coming from. According to Other Random People on the Internet (c.f. railroad.net, archboston.org) 2 tracks is more than sufficient given a modern signaling system. Which the Worcester line most assuredly does not have. But it would be a whole lot cheaper to string new fiber optic line than to carve out space for another railroad track.
Really, if the rapid transit MBTA lines can make do with 2 tracks, why is there any question that the Worcester line could not?
Its not about the number of tracks, it’s about the platform boarding from one vs both sides, that determines whether switching is needed and whether both tracks are accessible.