DTX Pedestrian Web Improvements

[BostonUrbEx]

Blue lines are ped only (with exceptions made for local delivery, possibly limited buses, and bikes) and are listed on the side in order of how I see their priority.

Green lines are just wider sidewalks (Tremont, east side; Franklin, both sides)

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=...f8ab0d65&msa=0


Wasn't Bromfield supposed to be slated for ped-only?

[vanshnookenraggen]

I don't see why a lot of those side streets should be pedestrian only. Ped Zones only work when people WANT to be there. You turn Times Sq into a pedestrian zone and of course there are more people. You take a dark side street and stop traffic then it will have the reverse effect. People want to be where people are so mixing traffic is actually better for most streets.

I'd argue that we need to open Washington St back up to car traffic in some fashion, maybe make it a slow zone.

[BostonUrbEx]

Originally Posted by vanshnookenraggen

I don't see why a lot of those side streets should be pedestrian only. Ped Zones only work when people WANT to be there. You turn Times Sq into a pedestrian zone and of course there are more people. You take a dark side street and stop traffic then it will have the reverse effect. People want to be where people are so mixing traffic is actually better for most streets.

I'd argue that we need to open Washington St back up to car traffic in some fashion, maybe make it a slow zone.

Part of the goal is to also to have more retail. I think West Street could be improved, as could Hawley (especially if One Franklin moves on up). This is sort of how I think the BRA should set a "master plan" for pedestrian only. I don't really see how opening up Washington benefits anyone but some drivers who are getting by just fine.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Originally Posted by BostonUrbEx

Part of the goal is to also to have more retail. I think West Street could be improved, as could Hawley (especially if One Franklin moves on up). This is sort of how I think the BRA should set a "master plan" for pedestrian only. I don't really see how opening up Washington benefits anyone but some drivers who are getting by just fine.

But retail only thrives where there is traffic. Pedestrian only zones need to be placed surgically. Expanding them where there is no demand won't make more of a demand but rather will have the opposite effect and deaden the area more. This has been the downfall of so many pedestrian zones throughout the country that are now adding cars back. Cars, when controlled, are actually beneficial.

[Ron Newman]

There's no car traffic on North Market or South Market street. Retail there seems to be doing just fine.

[whighlander]

Van, Ron -- retail can thrive as long as there are pedestrians who:
a) walk a "long way" from public transit, place of employment, a remote garage, a place of residence or some other attractant -- ie Patriot Place and Gillette Stadium
b) walk a "short way" from a car parked at the curb
c) live above (or even below) and travel vertically
d) drive up and conceivably drive by / through (with RF point of sale of something deliverable electronically) much like continuous open road tolling -- they can of course potentially ride on or in a vehicle

What is needed is the appropriate density for the particular retail and the appropriate retail for the place, etc.

Thus what might be appropriate for one City with unbelievable density such as Delhi or Tokyo doesn't work in someplace of far lower density such as Amsterdam or London

Similarly the arrangement for Faneuil Hall / Quincy Market with its 18 Million visitors might not work for the Back Bay, DTX or North Station

DTX has seemed to be successful at various times over the past century both with and without vehicular traffic on Washington Street

As they say -- "Build it and they will come" -- you just need to figure what "It" is

[vanshnookenraggen]

/\ Bingo /\

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by vanshnookenraggen

Cars, when controlled, are actually beneficial.

All that is needed is a sufficiently textured road surface which serves to slow down automotive traffic, while providing sufficient auditory warning to pedestrians that a vehicle is present, and sturdy bollards closely placed along the sidewalks, to prevent vehicles from straying into large crowds. I've said it before, but DTX, Newbury, and Hanover Streets, would benefit from such treatment. The city's unwillingness to use bollards for sidewalk protection or different paving materials, thanks to the fecklessness of local utilities, does a great disservice to what could be model urban environments.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Originally Posted by Lurker

DTX, Newbury, and Hanover Streets, would benefit from such treatment.

I would be very interested in seeing that. I'm sure the businesses along Newbury and Hanover would need some serious convincing, tho.

[whighlander]

Originally Posted by Lurker

All that is needed is a sufficiently textured road surface which serves to slow down automotive traffic, while providing sufficient auditory warning to pedestrians that a vehicle is present, and sturdy bollards closely placed along the sidewalks, to prevent vehicles from straying into large crowds. I've said it before, but DTX, Newbury, and Hanover Streets, would benefit from such treatment. The city's unwillingness to use bollards for sidewalk protection or different paving materials, thanks to the fecklessness of local utilities, does a great disservice to what could be model urban environments.

Lurk, Van -- that's a quite common scene in Urban India except for:

1) There may or may not be sidewalks
2) There will not be bollards -- but there might be poles, pillars or a small change in elevation or something else between much of the flow in the street and the area near to the buildings where there might be a sidewalk or there might not be one
3) The streets themselves often contain a distribution of:
a) "rapidly" moving vehicles typically near to the center -- could be traveling with or counter to the "flow" :
[1] powered by people -- e.g. bikes or carts and wagons
[2] powered by animals -- e.g. ox, camel, elephant, etc.
[3] powered by motors -- e.g. motor scooters, cycles, 3 wheelers, buses, trucks, tractors, construction vehicles
b) less rapidly moving vehicles more commonly closer to the buildings -- all flavors as above and often moving counter to the flow [....]
c) non moving vehicles -- most commonly near to the buildings -- all flavors as above [....] -- though occasionally suddenly moving perpendicular to the "flow'
d) people and animals moving or standing around and in both cases eating and or performing other bodily functions in place
4) -- other stuff including "stores', carts selling stuff (including while moving), pikes of {????]
5) ?????

I have lots [perhaps 100s of pictures of the above in urbanities from the few thousands to the 10's of millions of people -- I will post a few

This works for India {there are literally millions of accidents but due to small relative velocities most seem to be relatively non-lethal -- but I sill would not want Indiia in Boston

A much tamer flavor of the above -- minus most of the animal and counter flow stuff exists in some cities in Europe including the UK, France, Poland even Germany -- that might, might be a model for some places in Boston
[

[Roxxma]

Originally Posted by vanshnookenraggen

But retail only thrives where there is traffic.

I walk through DTX daily. I can attest that there's plenty of traffic on Washington St and its surrounding area to support retail. Opening more retail will add more traffic. Adding cars to this existing high traffic area will just drive people on foot away and dampen it.