traffic issues

[jh78.livejournal.com]

My wife and I live on Cedar Street and we are becoming increasingly disturbed by the speed that cars pass through this corridor between Broadway and the bike path.  If you have ever been down Cedar, you will notice that the center yellow line has been painted over, thus giving evidence that the street was not engineered for the two way traffic PLUS parking that exists today.  We have emailed the police department to see if we could get increased patrols in the area for speeding, but we only got one of those signs that tells you how fast you are going.  Yes, we know that we live on a busy street and should deal with it, but the minute someone gets injured crossing the street it will be too late. We are interested to see if anyone has suggestions on how we can get the city to add traffic calming measures here and elsewhere in the city.  Cambridge does it (especially around school zones), but Somerville seems to be lacking in this area.  Any thoughts?

Comments

[heliograph.livejournal.com]

The parking actually helps slow down the traffic. If you've got cars parked on both sides it can be difficult to also have two cars pass each other without pulling over.

This isn't just a Cedar problem. Many Somerville streets aren't wide enough for parking on both sides and two-way traffic. Porter Street is an excellent example. Because Porter has a steep hill, you have the additional fun of skateboarders rolling down it.

I think installing Cambridge-style solutions (I'm assuming you're talking about those big speed bumps and the weavy streets and reduced parking) would actually cause MORE accidents on Cedar. If you look at how Cambridge installs those things, they don't install them on steep grades like Cedar has.

I haven't looked at the accident reports in a few years, but that stretch of Cedar wasn't a big accident area back in the 20th century. You get a lot more accidents in Davis Square. And if you want to see a tragic accident waiting to happen, take a look at the front of the Healy school. There's a giant, steep grade/tobbagin slide street right towards where the kids let out, and the only installed bollards after that old guy ran over those kids in front of another MA school.

But to answer your actual question...

[heliograph.livejournal.com]

Step One: Complain to your Alderman. You're probably in Ward Five, so that's Sean O'Donovan:

http://www.somervillema.gov/Section.cfm?org=aldermen&page=77

If that doesn't, go to

Step Two: Attend Board meetings

In addition to understanding how Somerville government works, you can put in new agenda items, like "Do something about Cedar Street! Think of the children!"

Step Three: Form a litigious citizens' group. I recommend using the name "Cedar Street Task Force." Using "Task Force" in the name tells folks you're serious about lawsuits. Then you sue them to make them do what you want.

I'm not a traffic engineer, but I don't know what they could do on that kind of grade that would slow down traffic without creating problems. You don't want to look for solutions that have been used on flat streets (like the Cambridge schools solutions you mention): you're looking for solutions that work on steep hills.

Removing parking or making it one way would actually increase car speeds.

[treacle-well.livejournal.com]

This is not to say that speeding isn't a problem on that part of Cedar Street, or that it's not dangerous to cross some parts of the street there, but I can say that in my (years of) experience cars do, much more often than not, stop for pedestrians crossing at the end of the bike path. There are places where it always feels wisest not to cross because of the hills blocking one's view of oncoming traffic, but I've been lucky enough to not have to do much of that.

[ron_newman]

I believe one of the traffic mitigation measures that the MaxPak developer is required to provide is a speed table where the Community Path crosses Cedar Street. For a nearby example of a speed table, walk over to the corner of Rindge Avenue and Haskell Street in North Cambridge, next to the Peabody School and O'Neill Branch Library.

[gildersleeve.livejournal.com]

In the old days there were three major things that slowed traffic down on Cedar St. One was the old Cedar Street Bridge - very bumpy and old. Two was the old railroad tracks where the bike path is - those looooong freight trains would back the whole street up, though mostly in off-hours. Three was something that slowed down all of Somerville's streets - kids playing! Seriously, you couldn't drive a block without stopping for kids playing in and around all the major streets. While this seems like it would be more dangerous, it actually made people much more aware of their speed and surroundings. Now, not nearly as many kids out there, fewer of them that play outside - nevermind in the streets, and so many people who drive through Somerville are commuting THROUGH the city to avoid traffic rather than living in it and knowing all the neighbors (and having them know your car - so you would never speed on a street where people might shame you for it!)

I think if they expand the bikepath as proposed, they should make an elevated crosswalk there. As for the traffic nearer B'way - that new bridge is a big problem. Seems to me a police officer stationed on Franey Rd. with a radar gun a few times a week would send a decent message - but only in the short term.

Definitely call your alderman, though, that is what they are there for.

[grapefruiteater.livejournal.com]

I take Cedar every day, and if anything, I go slower on that street, especially the section between Broadway and Highland. You may be perceiving traffic going by at a high speed because the street is so narrow, but I don't think it's really any faster than on any other Somerville street.

I'm not fond of Cedar, though, and I agree that it's a dangerous place for pedestrians and drivers alike. Limiting parking to one side of the street or eliminating it altogether would be a good first step towards making it safer. I hate, hate, hate speed bumps of any kind and don't think they'd work particularly well on Cedar because of the hills.

[ron_newman]

Without the parallel parking, people would drive faster. Removing it would be a mistake.

[fanw.livejournal.com]

I feel like there must be a better solution to speed issues than making a road too small for cars to pass each other. People turning from Highland onto Cedar routinely sit directly on the yellow line to avoid hitting parked cars. It's dangerous for the cars going the opposite direction and for bicyclists trying to get through.

Reducing the width of a road results in
(a) slowing the speed of careful drivers, or
(b) increasing the number of accidents among reckless drivers.

There must be a better solution.

[grapefruiteater.livejournal.com]

I think that's what I was getting at. The main reason I think Cedar is dangerous is the width of the road, particularly in that section up by Broadway. I find myself driving much closer to the curb on the passenger side than I am comfortable with, and I still have to swerve or even stop so that oncoming cars can pass me. If the city didn't let people park on the blocks between Broadway and Highland, it would be easier for the road to handle two-way traffic. It seems like we're dealing with many factors contributing to a dangerous street, and it's hard to isolate any of them under the current circumstances.

I agree with the other poster who mentioned the lack of two-way streets and cross streets in that area as a major contributing problem. I don't know how that can be fixed, but it does make it difficult to drive through the Porter Square/Spring Hill/Ball Square/Powderhouse Square area.

[heliograph.livejournal.com]

"it would be easier for the road to handle two-way traffic"

And the result would be that people could speed down that street at 40 or 50 mph.

[grapefruiteater.livejournal.com]

Like I said, that's a separate problem, and anyone trying to "fix" Cedar Street needs to isolate the factors contributing to it being dangerous. I think the width of Cedar Street is a bigger problem than speeding. If it's going to remain a two-way street (and let's face it, we can't make that decision here), it's probably safer to ban parking on the blocks closest to Broadway. If the city is entertaining the idea of turning it into a one-way street, that's a different story.

[heliograph.livejournal.com]

It doesn't have any stoplights, stop signs, or curvy bits, and it has two steep hills on either side of it. That's why people drive fast on it, and that's what makes it dangerous. The width doesn't make it dangerous, if anything it makes it safer: if drivers feel like they have to go slow and pay attention while driving down it, they're less likely to have an accident.

[cos]

Cambridge has a department of traffic calming, with staff and a budget to research specific streets and intersections and figure out what measures would work best there.

Sometimes what they find isn't what you (or they) would at first expect - for example, at one intersection they found that removing a stop light actually made things safer, because they were able to add a raised device a block away that slowed all traffic through that intersection. When it had a stop light, because traffic was so infrequent there, pedestrians usually crossed regardless of the state of the light, which meant when cars were coming through during a green light they were going faster and pedestrians were at greater risk.

[reverend-jim.livejournal.com]

The cops can and will do heavy enforcement on Cedar St. I remember from my cab driving days ('03'-'06) that Cedar was *by far* the residential street most likely to have a speed trap. (Well, Powder House Blvd. was actually the worst, but that was just one asshole with a hard-on for college kids.) Your observations aren't wrong, cars really do haul ass down Cedar between Broad & Highland. Not that they don't speed on other streets, but I think Cedar is slightly worse than average.

Anyway, given how often I saw cops working that street, I'd strongly advise you to advocate for traffic calming devices over increased enforcement. Giving out more tickets obviously hasn't worked - you're going to have to get something that physically stops cars from screaming down that street.

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

I think there's a systemic problem in that the entire area is very hard to navigate -- there are very few two-way streets and (because of the bike path) very few through streets. It's even worse if getting through Porter Square is part of your agenda, since there are few entrance and exit points and even fewer places to cross Mass Ave -- you have to pick your trajectory very carefully or you can't get where you're going. Basically the options, or lack thereof, force people to pick convoluted routes, so they already feel like they're going well out of their way, so they're going to feel rushed.

I don't actually have a solution to this. I mean, I *wish* Willow were two-way all the way from Ball to Porter as it would make my commute infinitely easier, and maybe that would siphon traffic from Cedar onto Willow (of course, everyone who lives on Willow would hate it, but is it too much to ask for the widest street in the area to actually function as a corridor?). But mostly, I think the area sucks for driving in an unfixable way (which is actually totally great, except when I'm driving ;).

(Oh, in case anyone feels like jumping down my throat over the fact that I drive from Ball to Porter: I don't. I drive from Ball Square to Newton. Porter's just in the way.)

[boblothrope.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Cedar is the only southbound street in that part of town. If that short piece of Hancock weren't one way northbound, some of Cedar's traffic could use Willow south to Highland, and then Hancock south to Elm.

Or if the main Davis traffic light wasn't such a hideous mess during rush hour (and then some -- I couldn't believe how huge a backup there is on Holland and College at 7:30 pm), fewer people would divert onto smaller streets like Cedar.

[twe.livejournal.com]

I really wish it was easier to get across town too.

[nomacmac.livejournal.com]

I think the city does have some things in the works. I remember they did a big traffic study about a year ago. Of course, change takes time. I would contact your alderman and ask what's going on. Also, the Traffic & Parking dept has monthly meetings that you can attend and get on the agenda.

As far as the yellow line goes, I live on Kidder and I think the yellow line makes cars drive faster. It seems to be some visual cue that it's a raceway.

I remember hearing about someone in another town that wrapped a hairdryer in duct tape, and stood on the street pointing it at speeding cars. Everyone slowed down because they thought it was a speed trap. Not a long term solution, but it could be fun.

speed limit sign?

[jspazzer.livejournal.com]

One thing that may help coming from Broadway is if they put up an actual speed limit sign. Without a speed limit sign, the speed limit defaults to 40, or 30 in densely populated areas. That first stretch is not dense, so one could argue that the speed limit is 40. One would probably be wrong, but there are a lot of shallow thinkers out there.

Re: speed limit sign?

[heliograph.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure everything in Somerville that isn't a highway counts as densely populated.

Re: speed limit sign?

[heliograph.livejournal.com]

From http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/ma.html

MGL 90-1 defines: "Thickly settled or business district", the territory contiguous to any way which is built up with structures devoted to business, or the territory contiguous to any way where the dwelling houses are situated at such distances as will average less than two hundred feet between them for a distance of a quarter of a mile or over.

Re: speed limit sign?

[twe.livejournal.com]

I think there *is* one coming from Broadway, and it's 20 mph.

[ron_newman]

I believe every street in Somerville except for I-93 and McGrath/Fellsway has a 30-mph speed limit.

[frederic.livejournal.com]

We had similar complaints here on Medford St. They added a few of those yellow crosswalk signs in the middle of the road which seem to slow people down since they need to avoid the sign and the parked cars. It seems to have helped somewhat.

Have you ever hit one of those things?

[(Anonymous)]

Has anyone actually considered the impact of the "traffic calming" devices installed somerville style (oxford street would be a great example). I don't speed down oxford. Never have. Honestly, you *can't*, the pavement is too lousy anyway...

Returned (by car) from a week out of town in which the bumps had been installed at oxford. Was driving below 25mph.

Total parts on vehicle replaced or damaged:

Front air dam (significant spidering/cracking)
Front splash guard (completely shredded, total replacement needed)
COMPLETE EXHAUST SYSTEM (it was noisy and leaking before the first time I hit one of those, it was a LOT worse after).

I now come to a complete stop and cross these things in first gear.

While police speed traps are expensive, and a little annoying, they tend not to cause physical property damage.

Re: Have you ever hit one of those things?

[(Anonymous)]

What's worse than vehicle damage is what speed bumps (or humps, or tables, or whatever the buzzword term is) do to people with neck and back problems. I've heard of people who have to avoid them entirely, which is really difficult when they're near where you need to go.

The increased noise from cars slowing down, buzzing across decorative pavers, and speeding up again can't be fun for the neighbors.

Re: Have you ever hit one of those things?

[heliograph.livejournal.com]

"I now come to a complete stop and cross these things in first gear."

Actually, that's what they're designed to make you do. Unless you have a SUV with decent ground clearance, you really shouldn't take those at anything over 10MPH.

Re: Have you ever hit one of those things?

[ron_newman]

I don't know about Oxford Street, but the speed tables on Rindge Avenue in Cambridge make it much safer for a pedestrian to cross the street to the Peabody School and the O'Neill Branch Library.

[heliograph.livejournal.com]

I spoke with someone who does this kind of work, and she pointed me to this website:

http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcdevices.htm

It lists the various traffic calming features you can include and what their impact might be.

[jh78.livejournal.com]

Thank you all for your suggestions and comments. I do plan on speaking with our Alderman to see what he has to say.

I really don't think traffic calming tables is the way to go on Cedar, and removing the parking will NEVER happen. I think it really depends on the police to patrol the area to let people know they are around. Also depends on the morons who think its a good idea to go 40 in a residential neighborhood.

I did check and there is a speed limit sign before the bridge for 25 MPH.

[tt02144.livejournal.com]

I live off Cedar, and don't feel that the traffic is unusually fast-moving. I agree with the other above, that eliminating parking would actually create more of a speed-way atmosphere. Also, it would create a nightmare for tenants along the street who would have no parking alternatives! I find the bigger problem to be the increased amount of traffic on Cedar. Betwee cut-throughs, and just the increase of residential units, traffic has become a nightmare, and I do not look forward to the huge development at Max Pak. The more serious issue, I think, is from Cedar to Elm, where in the mornings, people seem to have decided that it is a two-lane road! People are actually driving the length of the street in two separate lanes! I am also vehemently against 'traffic calming'. I think it only makes a bad situation worse. And I would NOT want to be in an ambulance, or waiting for a police car, which was trying to maneuver speed bumps and the zig-zag pattern of some streets in Cambridge. Just my two cents.....