Central MA Transportation

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Sound Off is soooo lame

This weeks Sound off question on the Twin City blog is
Do you support the state’s land-taking along Route 12?

How lame can you get asking this question after MassHwy has completed the takings?

Legitimate Sound off questions over the course of this project might have been...

  1. Will the Rt 12 project reduce traffic congestion?
    OR

  2. Will adding traffic lights at Benson and Water or at Water, Nichols, North Main and Battles reduce collisions on Rt 12?
    OR

  3. Were mayors Mazzarella and Mylott action to bypass the city councils and beg MassHwy to do the land taking for the Rt 12 project justifiable?


#1. Not likely.
The reconstruction of the Water, Bemis and Wanoosnoc intersection is likely to reduced delays at that intersection as a result of reallignment of Bemis and Wanoosnoc, reduction in grade on Bemis and additional dedicated turning lanes on Bemis and Water Streets. There is also the potential for reduced delays at North Main and Erdman Way due to additional lanes. However, The project adds two new traffic signals and the signals at State Street and North Main which already create delays are not significantly changed. Bear in mind that signals don't reduce delays, they create them.

#2 No way.
It's a common but incorrect assumption that signals make intersections safer. Studies show that the collision index, (potential collisions vs. actual collisions) at intersections are statistically indistinguishable regardless what type of controls, none, two way stop, all way stops, yield or signals, are used at intersections.
Much of the Rt 12 design involves raising sidewalks and creating curb cuts, which is expected to make the roadway safer. Again, that's not likely. The raised sidewalks and curb cuts will reduce the number of locations where conflicts are likely to occur but not the number of conflicts. The curb cuts will also increase delay times as drivers are force to use a single entry/exit from businesses along the road.
The new 4 lane design actually increases the number of driver conflicts because
  • drivers will need to merge where there are lane drops
  • drivers will have to make more lane changes to
    • be in the correct lane when making turns
    • go around drivers waiting to cross two lanes of traffic and access businesses through the curb cuts

#3 You judge.
MassHwy clearly stated that the cities of Leominster and Fitchburg were responsible for the taking of land for the project. Leominster councilors voted 6 to 3 against taking land for the project. Fitchburg councilors never even voted on it because they knew they didn't have the 8 votes for a 2/3 majority needed to approve the takings.

Have doubts about my comments on #1 and #2? Read the articles at the next two links. See how safer roads with less traffic delay are being built in other countries. See what we should have been insisting on instead of the antiquated and ineffective design we wound up with for Rt 12.
In Europe, minimalism has the right of way in road signs
Can 'naked roads' kill speed?
Wouldn't work here? Think again. Make sure to read to the end of the article
No road signs? Europe has surely gone mad

Monday, November 13, 2006

North and Pearl

On Monday 11/13 I went to the MassHwy 25% design hearing for Phase III of the North Street / Pearl Street Project. I attended primarily to object to the plan to install a 4 way stop at this intersection. I asked a few question regarding the decision for a 4 way before the meeting.

The warrants for a 4 way can be met based on traffic counts, or collision history or combinations of the two. The number of traffic collisions in the most recent year for which data is available was three, two shy of the minimum for a 4 way stop. The most recent traffic counts I could find on MassHwys website were too old to be useful. The counts on North Street were too low for a 4 way and there were no counts for Pearl St. The engineers may have been able to meet the warrant using a combination of traffic counts including bicycle and pedestrian counts and other conditions. Unfortunately I won't have time to verify that before the 10 day comment period expires. In any case I strongly believe a roundabout would be a safer approach for this intersection and I suspect that the designers agree.

During the meeting I pointed out that 4 ways have negative affects including:
  • higher approach and exit speeds
  • promote rolling stops
  • increased wear and tear on vehicles
  • higher levels of air and noise polution
I also asked if the land required for a roundabout would be available. The land is there, no buildings on it, however the land is owned by FSC. Rather than stall the project while trying to get the land the recommendation is to install a 4 way stop.
If a roundabout is the best solution wouldn't you expect FSC to be on board with giving up the land? Wouldn't you expect the legislature to be quick in passing any special legislation required if FCS, MassHwy and Fitchburg proposed this together?

There were three public official at the hearing. Mylott, Boisvert and Conry all had something to say regarding the project. Mylott's comments merely indicated that the engineers had done the best they could with a difficult intersection. One of the councilors was to agree that drivers are likely to roll through the stop signs. I doubt they've made the connection that the reason drivers tend to roll through stops signs is that vast majority of stop signs approved by cities and towns are not needed, drivers have adapted to this. The problem is that it is difficult for drivers to tell which stop signs are legit and which are bogus.

Not surprisingly both councilors wanted signals at this intersection. Never mind that there is ample evidence that signals do not make intersections safer.

Update on 6/3/2007
Reply to Anonymous.

You're correct your are behind on this - you need to come up to speed on roundabouts before offering your opinion.

People don't know how to use a rotary - try using the one in Cleghorn. I used to have to use this rotary twice a day - the majority of the time, NO ONE yields to rotary traffic. I think this would cause many more accidents and would make it much more difficult for students and employees to cross the street.

The rotary in Cleghorn was most likely built in the 50s or earlier, before the rotary law was changed. Believe it or not the rotary law used to be that traffic entering a rotary had right of way.

For a roundabout to work well:
  • each approach should have clear view of the rotary and other approaches.
  • it should be well marked so that drivers have a clear understanding of where they want to exit before entering the roundabout
  • there should be free access to the rotary.
  • additional non-roadway entries near or at the rotary should be limited>
The rotary in Cleghorn is lacking on all four counts:
  1. The view of the rotary and other approaches is blocked by a large brick building and by a railroad bridge.
  2. markings are confusing. For example the approach from west Fitchburg is Rt 12 South, Rt 31 North and Rt2A East. The signs for each are separate and it is not clear where each will exit the rotary as drivers approach. The other approaches provide even less information.
  3. The entrances/exits for the rotary are obstructed by stop signs and signals.
  4. There are multiple extra entrances and exits at or near the rotary. IIRC at total of 4 businesses have entrance/exits at or near the rotary, Cumberland Farms, McDonalds, a gas station and an package (liquour) store.
As to driver behavior, roadway users (including pedestrians) adapt to the situation. Build a well design rotary at North and Pearl and both drivers and pedestrians will learn to negotiate it.

Attempting to compare this monstrosity with a modern well designed roundabout is ludicrous.

Monday, November 06, 2006

The other white meat.


Front page S&E headlines on Saturday read "Report doubts impact of rail money".

This article nailed it. Proponents of commuter rail love to point to passenger rail in Europe as an example we should follow. However, this isn't Europe, our communities are not laid out the way cities and villages in Europe are. The article correctly identifies this when it states "...efforts to increase density, reduce sprawl, and promote transit should start with local land use policies and then link those policies with transportation plans", plan properly first and rail will begin to make sense. Sadly, people like Matt Straight, and public officials like Mayor Dan H. Mylott, U.S. Rep. John Olver, and at-large City Councilor Stephen DiNatale, that reject the finding of the study don't get it.

This is our tax money gentlemen, and the "Harvard University study" doesn't need to prove that they're right. No gentlemen, if want to spend our money it's you that needs to prove the benefit of spending tax dollars on this pork barrel project. Front page S&E headlines on Saturday read "Report doubts impact of rail money".

posted by noway at 7:55 PM on Nov 06 2006

On 11/11/2006

Thomas Shawn said...

They may have to spend the $300M on the rail because the chances of making route 2 a real highway through Concord and Lincoln are approximately 0%.


Thomas, your assessment of the resistance of Concord and Lincoln to significant redesign of Rt 2 in their communities is spot on.

Here's some additional information on the issue of commuter rail and the commute on Rt 2.

On Wednesday 11/15, I attended the Montachusett Joing Transportation Committee meeting. Mohammed Kahn made the presentation regarding public transportation.

It was noted that there will be a fare increase on the MART buses. An adult fare will go from 75 cents to $1, and fares for seniors will go from 35 cents to 50 cents. Ridership is expected to drop by 5% and then to gradually rise to current levels.

It was also noted that Commuter Rail fares are currently at $6 per trip but are expected to rise to between $7.50 and $8.00. No corresponding drop in ridership is expected because the trip to Boston on Rt 2 is so bad.

So, if the trip on Rt 2 is so bad that a substantial rate hike isn't likely to divert riders back onto the highway why divert precious transportation funds from road and bridge repairs for commuter rail?

Any "improvements" to the commuter rail line should be funded by additional rate increases. Let those that stand to benefit pick up the tab.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Traffic Cameras

On the first of the month the T&G ran this article about the city of Worcester's plan to monitor intersections with cameras.

“It has been shown that having cameras at intersections dramatically improves the level of public safety,” Mr. O’Brien said in an interview after the council meeting. “Once people know that cameras are there, they are less likely to run a red light or fail to stop for a stop sign. The cameras can be a true deterrent to breaking the law.”

Really, who besides Mr. O'Brien and of course the manufacturers of the cameras says that traffic cameras are beneficial. There are plenty of opposing opinions on this including this one from Patrick Bedard at Car and Driver.

Furthermore, red light cameras are illegal in Massachusetts as stated on this page from the Massachusetts chapter of the National Motorist Association.


“This isn’t about generating new revenues because they would decline after a while,” Mr. O’Brien said. “This is all about public safety, which is paramount.”

Not about the money? Yeah right.