Gateway to Davis Square

[turil.livejournal.com]

In the somewhat recently released city report called "Safe-START - Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Priority Locations, Assessment & Recommendations" there was at least one recommendation that I thought was really interesting and potentially wonderful:

4. Summary of Recommendations for Long-term Improvements
...
D. Develop “Gateways” to key nodes around the City
including Davis Square, Union Square and Tufts
that will highlight that motorists are entering high
pedestrian traffic areas;

And by "Gateways" they mean visual clues that indicate a special area, like the pretty gate that they have in Chinatown in Boston. It can be done with permanant architechtural structures, or with more easily changable banners, bollards, artwork, signs, and flags. It's a very useful way to work with people's subconscious minds so that they instinctively know that they have to pay more attention, and to slow down so that they can more effectively react to unexpected activity in the streets when passing through districts that are busy with commerce and other "destination" activities. The only problem with an idea like this is that once people leave these destination areas, there is an opposite psychological trigger to pay less attention and speed up. So maybe it's safer to go with a less abrupt "gate" message, or have several gates and/or use smaller, but still obvious visual clues to be aware of local activity in other areas of the city. I'm particularly thinking of playground and school areas, where things like kid's artwork, flags, decorated traffic signals, and multicolored crosswalks might be useful.

Anyway, I thought this idea was a wonderful starting point for really bringing in some creative problem solving (and artistry) to making Somerville's places safer and healthier.


* The report is available here as a PDF download. It's intened as a rough draft, I believe, for public comments. Though the public comment period seems to be over, unfortunately. But it's intersting to look at nonetheless. The general recommendations are pretty tame, and probably won't do a heck of a lot of good, but you never know.

Comments

It's called rule of law

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

Because, all other considerations aside, a collision with a moving car can kill people. A pedestrian running into another pedestrian, there's much less chance of injury.

I mean seriously, just because there are egregious violators of traffic laws, whether pedestrian, driver or cyclist, that's no reason for anyone not to follow the traffic laws.

"but officer, that guy wasn't obeying the law, why should I?" is not going to fly, anywhere.

Re: It's called rule of law

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

My point is that some pedestrians, by ignoring the law, put themselves in more danger; when a vehicular operator does it they are dirtbags who should be punished; when a pedestrian does it, and gets clipped, it's darwin in action.

Re: It's called rule of law

[hahathor.livejournal.com]

Well, following the letter of the law, crossing at a zebra crossing, and getting hit by a car really kind of sucks. I mean, yeah, I can have the satisfaction of saying "I was right," and if the driver stops, and has insurance, I might even get my medical bills covered. But all things considered, I'd rather not get hit.

FWIW, when I'm driving or biking, I stop at zebra crossing when I see ped in them or approaching them, and I'd say about half the time I get honked at for stopping. I've also had drivers swear at me for crossing on a zebra crossing. That doesn't make it right to jaywalk, but honestly, I find that it's safer to dart across an unmarked crossing when there's a break in the traffic flow than to use a crosswalk and expect the drivers to stop for me. I realize that many drivers do follow the law, but it only takes one car to hit me.

Re: It's called rule of law

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

But all things considered, I'd rather not get hit.

Of course! Nobody wants to get hit. Which is why I'd like to see pedestrians not dart out between cars. I didn't think that would be particularly controversial.

The question of whether marked crosswalks are effective is an interesting one - from a brief foray on the web, results seem to be mixed (http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/Traffic/XWalk.asp#four).

Here are some recommendations by the FHWA. (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/interbriefing/03ped.htm) ()