Waltham Councilor Wants Traffic Plan
Waltham City Councilor Thomas Stanley believes the city needs to have a more coordinated approach in dealing with traffic.
Photos
Waltham City Councilor Thomas Stanley is pushing for the city to create a master traffic plan that would help ease the traffic situation in Waltham.
The plan, if approved, would appropriate $700,000 over three years, to review and update the city’s master traffic plan, according to the Traffic Commission’s Dec. 19 minutes. The plan would use an additional $300,000 the city has from a previously unfinished development, Stanley told Waltham Patch.
"What I would like to see is for the city to set aside some money annually," Stanley said.
If approved, a consultant would be hired to determine what improvements can be done to improve the traffic situation in Waltham, Stanley told Waltham Patch. Stanley said the issue is important especially since “the ball was dropped” when the traffic engineer position lost its funding for more than a year. The city has since hired J. Michael Garvin as its Traffic Engineer.
Garvin is gathering information and details to report back to Stanley, according to the Traffic Commission’s Jan. 17 minutes.
Karen Walz
9:55 am on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Why is there an apostrophe in "needs"? Why are people placing apostrophes in inappopriate places, such as plurals? Is our educational system failing, or are people just not learning?
Frosty the Snowman
4:01 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
"inappropriate"
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. - John 8:7
Karen Walz
1:06 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Oops - yes, I typed too fast and was guilty of a typo myself. How inappropriate of me (LOL)! But I take issue with professional publications that undergo proofing and editing, not people who post responses to articles (no matter how fast they type!).
Noto Traffic
10:49 am on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Didn't we have a traffic guy awhile ago - he was an Asian guy - I think. He was supposed to do this type of "figuring out the traffic issues". Did he do it? What happened to him? I remember reading about him in the paper MORE than a year ago - before "when the funding was lost"? Why?
Local Boy
11:18 am on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I'll do it for only $350,000.
Is it hard or something...?
CP
12:07 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I have lived here for 35 years and see no need for this expenditure. We waste money on these "so-called" consultants.
BW
3:04 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Rotary around Waltham Common may help traffic flow if done correctly.
I do agree that if the people in the jobs (traffic) can't figure out simple or even moderate scale improvements, we shouldn't have these positions and obtain a firm on retainer to study traffic each year.
Minuteman59
6:35 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
The traffic between Route 60 (Ellison Park) and the split at Rt. 20 and Rt. 117 is pretty bad in the AM and PM rush hours. A simple thing like having traffic signals in sync. during the entire 1.3 miles would keep things moving much faster. Just an opinion from a non-Traffic Engineer.
CP
6:53 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Minuteman69 You should be getting a piece of Mr. Garvins salary. Wouldn't you think he could come up with this simple solution. As for the common rotary, what a nightmare that would cause during the many months or years of contruction.
Nick Low
7:27 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Density is good as a fabric for a walkable urban environment, which I believe Waltham has more than any other Boston suburb. Density causes traffic and we should learn to live with some of it. Waltham is also tough being a river town as there are a lot of natural bottlenecks at the bridges that can't be avoided, plus railroad crossings as well. One small suggestion - people unfamiliar with the roads never know where they are going because all of the turn lane markings are on the pavement where they are useless during traffic since cars are parked on them. How about some overhead lane usage signs like most cities (outside this area, anyway) have?
CP
8:51 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Another useful idea that doesn't cost $700,000 in consultant fees which always are more than stated. I hope Jeannette is reading this blog.
Karen Walz
1:06 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
I've thought for a long time that overhead lane signs are the most sensible way to go. Is there a resistance to this? We really do need clear signage in this city--nay, in the entire Commonwealth! It never ceases to amaze me how inadequate and poor the traffic signage is throughout the state. It's a wonder there aren't more accidents than we already have. It's not just a "traffic" issue, it's a public safety issue.