What Is Going On With The Road Quality In The Boston Area? (employment, tax)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

The MA legislature just recently passed a $200m Chapter 90 funding bill within the last few months. That combined with all the money from the Fed Infrastructure bill should mean road projects should be underway soon. Seems like they did a lot of the recent Boston bike lanes during the cold weather months leading me to believe they had some federal money they needed to use before they lost it.

$200m for all local roads statewide, is peanuts. The vast majority of road miles in the state, are non numbered local roads controlled by the cities and towns. Calling that "life support", would even be a stretch. Even for one single city (let's just say Worcester), that wouldn't even be enough to bring all of its roads to acceptable condition.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by masssachoicetts

That makes no sense. ?

Bike lanes. Bike paths. Sound barriers along the highways. Those silly little signs everywhere that flash your current speed as you are driving along. Speed bumps (or "humps") in the yuppie towns. Just some examples. Most of them are relatively small money, but nevertheless taking away asphalt that is more badly needed. There should be a moratorium on all these new "nice things" until we start actually taking proper care of the assets already in existence. Maybe that would get the pols moving.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by massnative71

$200m for all local roads statewide, is peanuts. The vast majority of road miles in the state, are non numbered local roads controlled by the cities and towns. Calling that "life support", would even be a stretch. Even for one single city (let's just say Worcester), that wouldn't even be enough to bring all of its roads to acceptable condition.

But the state is also receiving upwards of 10 BILLION from the feds for state roads. And some cities and towns are also eligible for grants. The 200 mil is a portion of the gas tax. Does the municipality have any responsibility to fund anything? Let them override 2 1/2 if they can't be prudent with their money.

[missionhill]

...Which is, for an urban state, fewer pedestrian fatalities. In California-- nice smooth roads, lots of them, plenty wide--972 pedestrians were killed by cars and other motor vehicles in 2019, for a rate of 2.46 deaths per 100,000 residents. In South Carolina (warm climate, conservative leadership) 160 pedestrians died by cars in 2019, or 3.11 deaths per 100,000 people. In New Jersey, land of the jug handle left and full-service gas stations, 175 died, 1.97 deaths per 100,000 residents. In Massachusetts, 77 deaths / 1.12 per 100,000. Rhode Island even lower-- 8 deaths, 0.76 per 100,000. I guess their roads are worse than ours.

Potholes, bumpy pavements and narrow roads slow cars down. Benign neglect is not the best way to make the urban environment safe for people on foot but if it slows drivers down then there's some good in it. Slowing drivers down has a similar effect on reducing driver & passenger fatalities in car crashes.

2019 ranking of state pedestrian fatality rates

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

But the state is also receiving upwards of 10 BILLION from the feds for state roads. And some cities and towns are also eligible for grants. The 200 mil is a portion of the gas tax. Does the municipality have any responsibility to fund anything? Let them override 2 1/2 if they can't be prudent with their money.

But most of that 10 billion is going to (like you said) STATE roads. Again, most of the roads in the state are locally maintained. There is a huge imbalance there. Some municipalities are able to put a little of their own money towards road maintenance. Many are not. Most are maxed out by meeting state/federal education mandates and on health care costs, problems imposed on them from above but not properly compensated for. Overriding Prop 2 1/2 is a huge undertaking, and tough to get people on board with (understandably). It's very undesirable and generally used as a "last resort". I do agree that many cities and towns could do better with what they have as well as in assessing their priorities, but you have to be honest that they typically aren't dealt a fair hand nor given the proper tools to carry their burdens.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by missionhill

...Which is, for an urban state, fewer pedestrian fatalities. In California-- nice smooth roads, lots of them, plenty wide--972 pedestrians were killed by cars and other motor vehicles in 2019, for a rate of 2.46 deaths per 100,000 residents. In South Carolina (warm climate, conservative leadership) 160 pedestrians died by cars in 2019, or 3.11 deaths per 100,000 people. In New Jersey, land of the jug handle left and full-service gas stations, 175 died, 1.97 deaths per 100,000 residents. In Massachusetts, 77 deaths / 1.12 per 100,000. Rhode Island even lower-- 8 deaths, 0.76 per 100,000. I guess their roads are worse than ours.

Potholes, bumpy pavements and narrow roads slow cars down. Benign neglect is not the best way to make the urban environment safe for people on foot but if it slows drivers down then there's some good in it. Slowing drivers down has a similar effect on reducing driver & passenger fatalities in car crashes.

2019 ranking of state pedestrian fatality rates

How slow do cars need to be moving for fatalities to be completely removed from the realm of possibility ... 2mph, 5mph, 10mph, 15mph?

Of the 10 states with the lowest pedestrian fatality rates, only one can be considered urban and that is Rhode Island. I think pedestrian awareness is far more important that road design or road condition when considering pedestrian safety. There is no upside to neglected infrstructure whatsoever.

Minnesota
Alaska
South Dakota
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
Idaho
Iowa
North Dakota
Kansas
Vermont

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by missionhill

...Which is, for an urban state, fewer pedestrian fatalities. In California-- nice smooth roads, lots of them, plenty wide--972 pedestrians were killed by cars and other motor vehicles in 2019, for a rate of 2.46 deaths per 100,000 residents. In South Carolina (warm climate, conservative leadership) 160 pedestrians died by cars in 2019, or 3.11 deaths per 100,000 people. In New Jersey, land of the jug handle left and full-service gas stations, 175 died, 1.97 deaths per 100,000 residents. In Massachusetts, 77 deaths / 1.12 per 100,000. Rhode Island even lower-- 8 deaths, 0.76 per 100,000. I guess their roads are worse than ours.

Potholes, bumpy pavements and narrow roads slow cars down. Benign neglect is not the best way to make the urban environment safe for people on foot but if it slows drivers down then there's some good in it. Slowing drivers down has a similar effect on reducing driver & passenger fatalities in car crashes.

2019 ranking of state pedestrian fatality rates

I think that's more to do with congestion vs. the poor pavement condition. Also, local drivers are more acquainted with pedestrians than in other states.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by missionhill

Potholes, bumpy pavements and narrow roads slow cars down. Benign neglect is not the best way to make the urban environment safe for people on foot but if it slows drivers down then there's some good in it. Slowing drivers down has a similar effect on reducing driver & passenger fatalities in car crashes.

When I lived in Somerville, the neglected were openly discussed as a "traffic calming" measure at some of the community meetings I went to. I'm all for traffic calming measures like curb bump outs (forcing cars to slow down to take a turn), speed bumps/tables in in pedestrian heavy areas, converting one way side streets to two way, etc. But you're right, neglect is not a great approach.

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

How slow do cars need to be moving for fatalities to be completely removed from the realm of possibility ... 2mph, 5mph, 10mph, 15mph?

Of the 10 states with the lowest pedestrian fatality rates, only one can be considered urban and that is Rhode Island. I think pedestrian awareness is far more important that road design or road condition when considering pedestrian safety. There is no upside to neglected infrstructure whatsoever.

No pun intended, but this is a two way street. Of course pedestrian awareness is important. I'm certain there are plenty of pedestrian accidents that involved pedestrians not paying attention or doing something dumb (I've had to dodge jaywalkers or people crossing while I have the green light many times before).

But saying "pedestrian awareness is far more important" takes a lot of the burden off of drivers who certainly deserve a lot of the blame. People often drive as fast as a road will allow them. Most city streets are posted at 25mph, and almost any driver is going to be going a good deal faster than that unless there is something preventing them from doing so. It's the reason people will drive 90 on an uncrowded highway that's posted at 65, and it's the reason someone will drive 45 on a quiet, open city street that's posted at 25. You can't design a road capable of allowing a car to drive 45 and then expect people to keep it at 25. It just doesn't happen. And even the most aware pedestrian following the rules by a crosswalk is no match for an SUV plowing over them at 45. There's nothing wrong with designing a road to ensure that cars don't exceed the posted speed limit and there's certainly a benefit to pedestrian safety when we do design roads that way. But no, leaving roads a crumbling mess is not the right way to do it.

[WestieWhitie]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Bike lanes. Bike paths. Sound barriers along the highways. Those silly little signs everywhere that flash your current speed as you are driving along. Speed bumps (or "humps") in the yuppie towns. Just some examples. Most of them are relatively small money, but nevertheless taking away asphalt that is more badly needed. There should be a moratorium on all these new "nice things" until we start actually taking proper care of the assets already in existence. Maybe that would get the pols moving.

But that’s the funny thing, once you let all the grifters and union thugs dip their greasy hands into taxpayer pockets it’s no longer small money.

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

I think pedestrian awareness is far more important that road design or road condition when considering pedestrian safety. There is no upside to neglected infrstructure whatsoever.

Pedestrian awareness? Rubbish! Driver awareness — also rubbish, for that matter. Road design and urban design overall including balance of transportation is the kernel and the whole. When it comes to moving through space people are strictly behavioral: no one is thinking about their walk or their drive; they’re thinking of whatever is on their mind. The street space has to be designed with the assumption that neither drivers nor pedestrians are going to be preoccupied with how safely they’re moving through the space. in Mass, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and the upper NE states too most streets and roads are adapted to the needs of the automobile rather than designed for it wholesale as they are in so much of the US. The scale of many streets and roads survives from the time before cars, which makes them much more negotiable on foot. There’s a basic human right to the street space, or should be. Some roads are limited to motor vehicles— pedestrians, bicycles, horses prohibited, as the signs say. But most are public ways and people have a right to use and be in them without risk of death. Which is why motorists are required to stop for pedestrians crossing. The automobile is convenient and fun but also dangerous and destructive. Towns and cities shouldn’t be organized so that everyone has to drive everywhere; it’s a mistake decades in the making. Traffic calming is one of the more tepid ways of making streets safer for everyone, even better would be plentiful and convenient public transport and not building stuff with only car access in mind. The economic success in recent decades of cities like Boston and surroundings that are relatively walkable and where car dependence is somewhat less than the prevailing total domination in the US is not a coincidence; people want to live in places that are alive with other people not only cars. Bumpy pavements and potholes aren’t the state of the art in traffic calming but they do slow the drivers down which saves lives.