The questions Boston keeps asking.

We are a resident-led coalition working to make public support for safer streets impossible for City Hall to ignore. We track the City against its own promises, document what is—or is not—happening on the ground, and mobilize people when visible public support can move a project forward.

BBSC is an emerging volunteer organization, not a large nonprofit. We have a small steering committee and are building an advisory board and a broader citywide membership.

The latest killing on Tremont Street brought renewed attention to a crisis residents have been warning about for years. No one should die, be injured, or feel under imminent threat simply while moving through a neighborhood street.

Boston does not lack plans or expertise. It lacks implementation. Residents need a way to turn private frustration into unmistakable, organized public demand.

Anyone who lives, works, studies, or regularly travels in Boston and wants safer, lower-stress streets is welcome. You do not need transportation expertise, and you do not need to use every mode of travel. Your lived experience of Boston's streets matters.

Boston already has excellent organizations with deep expertise in walking, cycling, transit, disability access, and Vision Zero. BBSC does not replace them. We organize residents across transportation modes and neighborhoods into a broad political constituency for implementation.

It means children can get to school, disabled people can move independently, older adults can cross comfortably, buses are not trapped in traffic, people can bike without extreme stress, and drivers face fewer dangerous and unpredictable conflicts. Emergency access, deliveries, and local businesses must work, too.

Boston's transportation professionals should be free to use the full evidence-based toolkit—protected bike lanes, bus lanes, daylighting, raised crossings, speed humps, safer signal timing, lower speeds, road diets, automated enforcement, and other proven designs—in whatever configuration experts determine is appropriate.

No. Everyone in Boston deserves safer streets whether they walk, use a wheelchair or mobility device, take the bus or train, bike, drive, or travel in several of those ways. We can share the same goals even when we do not share every mode: no preventable deaths or injuries, safe trips to school and work, and ordinary travel without constant fear.

Because the City has already studied many dangerous corridors, asked residents what they need, developed designs, and in some cases secured funding. When those projects quietly stop, another study or announcement is not progress. Construction is progress.

BBSC began with the long fight for Hyde Park Avenue. We are now building a citywide accountability map that compares official plans and promises with the conditions residents see today.

The public record shows a political slowdown, not merely the normal pace of engineering. Mayor Wu ordered a 30-day review as street projects became an election issue in 2025. The Globe later reported that she required personal approval for nearly all projects involving design changes, bringing most of them to a near standstill.

Our conclusion is that a small, unrepresentative group of business interests and opponents—including voices from outside Boston—received extraordinary access and helped shape the retreat. The chronology matters: review, private access, rollbacks, centralized approval, then continued delay even after a landslide reelection.

In early 2025, Mayor Wu ordered a review of recent street changes. Its recommendations favored “consensus over speed,” additional planning, and reconsideration of projects already built or underway. The review followed intense lobbying from the Back Bay Association and included feedback from the Longwood Collective.

Listening is part of good government. The problem is allowing a narrow set of well-connected interests to outweigh safety evidence, years of prior public process, and the much larger population that benefits from a project.

Yes. Internal City polling of roughly 1,600 residents found more support than opposition for separated bike lanes even when driving or parking space would be removed. It found 60 percent support for the Blue Hill Avenue project citywide, compared with 15 percent opposition; near the corridor, supporters still outnumbered opponents.

Four thousand people also signed the separate Enough Is Enough open letter in one week. Neither a crowded meeting nor a handful of angry emails is a representative poll. Reporters and officials should take care not to manufacture a false public divide by repeatedly amplifying the same small opposition network.

A responsible design accounts for traffic, deliveries, disability access, emergency response, and local businesses. But preserving every existing parking space cannot take priority over preventing deaths and injuries, and maximum vehicle speed is not the City's only obligation.

Some car trips may become slower. They can also become safer and more predictable. Federal guidance finds that well-chosen road diets reduce speed differences and “accordion-style” stop-and-go traffic, creating more consistent flow; they are also associated with substantial crash reductions. The answer is careful, project-specific analysis—not refusing to change a dangerous street.

Public participation matters, but unanimity is not a workable safety standard. The City should listen, explain its decisions, measure results, and adjust designs. A small number of opponents should not have veto power over projects that protect the public.

“The community is divided” can become a self-fulfilling media frame: a few recurring opponents are quoted until their presence is mistaken for representative opinion. Reporters should describe who was heard, what evidence exists, and whether opposition reflects the broader public—not merely repeat the loudest testimony.

Boston has a strong-mayor form of government. The City Council can pass laws, approve the budget, hold hearings, and expose delays, but it does not run the Streets Cabinet or build projects. The mayor appoints the administration and sets its priorities.

In this case, the connection is especially direct: current and former staff told the Globe that Mayor Wu required her personal approval for nearly every street project involving design changes. BBSC is independent of any party or candidate. We will support or oppose leaders based on what they do—and hold authority accountable wherever it sits.

We track promised projects and publish the evidence; organize safety walks and community gatherings; mobilize residents to write, attend, and testify; and provide rapid response when a project or policy needs visible public support.

Our members began by organizing around Hyde Park Avenue. Together we have mobilized messages and testimony, participated in hearings and safety walks, and helped return stalled projects to the public agenda. We are still building the citywide organization needed to turn that attention into implementation.

Join the coalition. Tell us how you move around Boston and how you are willing to help. We will send occasional updates, urgent action alerts, and invitations to events—especially when your voice or presence can make a difference.