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

More info...

[turil.livejournal.com]

If you want to go a bit further down the rabbit hole of creative solutions to making healthy, thriving urban districts, check out Mental Speed Bumps (http://www.mentalspeedbumps.com/)...

[an-art-worker.livejournal.com]

rumble strips.... that are tuned to say "slow"

[cook-ting.livejournal.com]

I'd think the "Entering Business District" signs, density of shopping, heavy traffic and pedestrians jumping out into the street at random intervals would be enough to let people know they're in Davis. Adding additional signage or abstract "gateways" would mean more clutter. Perhaps that money could go to improving the highland stretch of the Square to lure more shoppers and giving incentives to local business with the aim of filling the vacant spaces like the perpetual halloween store. That would increase foot traffic significantly, which would make drivers nervous about traveling at speed, which would reduce overall pedestrian risk and provide drivers with an additional incentive to avoid driving through Davis on the way to their destinations.

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

Maybe something that would zap pedestrians who blithely ignored the crosswalks just twenty feet away in favor of darting out in front of traffic?

I walk in Davis all the time, and yet when my wife and I drive through, particularly at night, we're always amazed at people who don't even look before they dart out between parked cars.

[hahathor.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure zapping pedestrians would be illegal, though perhaps better enforcement of existing traffic laws would be helpful. I have found that drivers often fail to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks that do not have stop signs or lights, especially at night. Thus pedestrians are often as safe (or safer) crossing in mid-street as they are crossing at the zebra stripes.

[znhoward.livejournal.com]

I wonder how well enforcement would increase awareness. It might work for those that get pulled over and given the $100 fine for not yielding to peds in a crosswalk, but to other motorists, a cruiser pulling over a vehicle creates a bottleneck (I'm picturing Elm Street in front of Starbucks), which makes a good enough reason just to avoid the square altogether in the future.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

would be nice to see enforcement of traffic laws on pedestrians ...
I'm sorry, why should pedestrians expect vehicular traffic to obey signage, lights and laws when pedestrians don't?

[turil.livejournal.com]

Yeah, clearly vehicle operators don't want to hit pedestrians, and I'm sure we all do our best to stay safe, but there are so many mixed signals about who has the right of way. Some places have found that taking out authoritarian traffic signs and markings (like crosswalks and "Ped Crossing" signs) have resulted in people learning to be more responsible for their own safety.

Also there needs to be clarity about who really does have the right of way. Some folks believe that pedestrians have the right of way everywhere (as it states in many of the written traffic laws) while others believe that through traffic has the right of way (as many cops and public education campaigns suggest). So it's no wonder people get confused about how to safely use the streets! So it would really be useful to come up with one basic rule about right of way, and promote that one rule to everyone in all messages that come out of the governement.

MGL

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Chapter 89: Section 11. Marked crosswalks; yielding right of way to pedestrians; penalty

Section 11. When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be so to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk marked in accordance with standards established by the department of highways if the pedestrian is on that half of the traveled part of the way on which the vehicle is traveling or if the pedestrian approaches from the opposite half of the traveled part of the way to within 10 feet of that half of the traveled part of the way on which said vehicle is traveling.

If it's a crosswalk with a don't walk sign, and the sign is lit up saying don't walk, traffic has the right of way, and a pedestrian crossing against the light has the liability.

[turil.livejournal.com]

In my experience, I've found that its easier to work with people's subconscious minds to encourage and inspire them to do the right thing, than to put them into stress mode, where they become aggressive and unpredicatble. In other words, if you want pedestrians to give you more warning that they are going to be entering the street, you have to make it easy for them to do so. Maybe that means getting rid of the parked cars, which block your view and channel pedestrians into those spaces between them. Or maybe it means relocating crosswalks to the areas where people are more likely to use them, rather than where the traffic planners happen to put them. Or just removing the arbitrary crosswalks altogether, and reminding through traffic to expect pedestrains using the streets while also reminding pedestrians to make it clear when they are about to enter the street.

Re: MGL

[turil.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's just one of the many conflicting and confusing messages that the government offers! It sort of implies that pedestrians don't have the right of way if there isn't a crosswalk, but that's not the case, according to other traffic laws in the MGL. So you can see why some general right of way law would be really good to create :-)

[turil.livejournal.com]

For one thing, I follow the laws as much as possible, no matter how I'm travelling, simply because I know that at least if I do get hit, or hit someone, I've got the law on my side. Though laws don't always mean much in the courts, as I've discovered... But I figure it's better to behave reasonably than unreasonably, if I want to others to behave reasonably, since I really can't expect others to do something if I'm not willing to do it myself.

You know, that whole "Be the change you want to see" thing...

[hahathor.livejournal.com]

To clarify, "better enforcement of existing traffic laws would be helpful" refers to all laws. Currently both pedestrians and motorists are all pretty lax in this area (as are bicyclists, roller bladers, etc). It's a self-reinforcing cycle: pedestrians want to avoid being hit by cars that refuse to stop at cross-walks, so they find other places to cross; cars see peds crossing between cross-walks, and so speed through the zebra crossings regardless of the presence of people in them. I don't know that administering shocks to pedestrians would solve the problem. In fact, given that zapping people tends to lower their awareness of anything other than the shock they've just received, it seems likely that this would lead to more injuries and fatalities rather than fewer.

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

Heh. The zapping was mostly in jest.

However, I really question that pedestrians are "as safe or safer" crossing in mid-street as at the crosswalks. I don't dispute that drivers sometimes fail to yield (being mainly a pedestrian myself) - but given that crossing the street outside of the crosswalk adds the nasty element of surprise... that's not making things safer for anyone.

Re: MGL

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

It sort of implies that pedestrians don't have the right of way if there isn't a crosswalk, but that's not the case, according to other traffic laws in the MGL.

I'd love to know where that is . . .

Re: MGL

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

What traffic law do you believe contradicts it or makes it more confusing?

the sarcasm blinker is broken

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

I don't know that administering shocks to pedestrians would solve the problem. In fact, given that zapping people tends to lower their awareness of anything other than the shock they've just received, it seems likely that this would lead to more injuries and fatalities rather than fewer.

Um, this is the part where I point out that I was joking.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I stop at uncontrolled crosswalks, and drive through controlled ones when I have the green light ... except when one dozen students at Huntington and opera place (Northeastern) decide they want to cross RIGHT NOW, even though I have a green arrow (and can't make a right on red there); I also stop and yield when I have a green light, am making a right turn, and the peds have a WALK signal (although that light (huntington & forsythe) needs better timing, seeing as how it ALSO no right on red).

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.

[hahathor.livejournal.com]

There's a couple of cases where crossing between crosswalks is safer:

• On Mass Ave between Alewife & Rindge it is extremely uncommon for drivers to slow or stop at crosswalks. If I get to Mass Ave and see no cars coming in either direction, it is safer for me to cross at that point than to walk to a crosswalk and find that the traffic lights have changed and there are dozen cars barreling toward me, none of whom appear to have any intention of stopping.
• On Buena Vista there is a crosswalk (along the bike path) that comes right after a nearly blind curve. It's not unusual for visitors to the Square to come out of the parking lot, and head down that street, not knowing there's a crosswalk and nearly hit someone. Crossing at a different point (even though there's no crosswalk) gives drivers a better chance to see that there's a person in the street.

I'm not arguing that it's generally better to cross in between. But there are circumstances in which the common sense of the pedestrian is greater than the common sense of the street planners, or in which the pedestrian's desire not to be hit is greater than the driver's desire to slow down or stop.

Re: the sarcasm blinker is broken

[hahathor.livejournal.com]

Um, I got that. I just decided to carry on your joke by acting as though you were serious.

Re: the sarcasm blinker is broken

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

Why?

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree that sometimes there are perfectly good reasons to cross when you can - but I think there's a big difference between crossing the very wide Mass Ave (where there's a lot more visibility both directions) than almost any of the streets in the Square, where visibility is poor, and often obstructed by cars.

That second example does drive home the point that sometimes the town puts crosswalks in stupid places - putting them around a blind curve is definitely bad for everybody all around.

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: the sarcasm blinker is broken

[hahathor.livejournal.com]

Why did you suggest zapping pedestrians? Presumably you thought it was funny. I thought it was even funnier to act as though you were serious.

People's sense of humor varies.

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) ()

signals and crosswalks

[matthew miller (from livejournal.com)]

One of the problems in Davis Square is the timing of the walk signals for the lights right in the square. "Walk" comes around so infrequently it's a joke -- no one (except perhaps perplexed Germanic tourists) is going to wait five minutes while the whole thing cycles around. The "push to walk" buttons are a joke. If instead they were made meaningful, perhaps people would pay attention and use them.

Once, my wife and I were all the way by J.P. Licks when she realized she'd left her purse at Diesel. She ran back and crossed the street when it was clear; meanwhile, I went and pressed the button and waited. She was able to go all the way to Diesel, ask the staff if they'd seen her purse, collect it, and get all the way back to me before the light came around for me to cross legally. That's just silly.


On the other side of things, I really find that drivers are pretty good about stopping for pedestrians at the crosswalks -- except for at the intersection on Highland by Brooks. Cars just cruise right through there like, well, like they have right-of-way. That'd be a good place for more clear markings, especially with the playground right there.

Ooh, and also except for the other day when I was crossing to the T on Holland at the crosswalk there, and a guy in a pickup almost ran me over and then shouted back at me "The light's green, asshole!", apparently referring to the light way up ahead at the next intersection. I don't think this last story has any general point, except, sheesh, what an idiot. And I guess "remember to look out for idiots".

Re: signals and crosswalks

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree - light timing is awful.

Motorists have to yeild to pedestrians in the roadway...

[turil.livejournal.com]

Having had to do a lot of this sort of research for a previous job, I discovered how absolutely insane the laws are, and completely contradictory. Some indicate that pedestrians don't have the right of way anywhere except in crosswalks, while others say that motorists don't have the right of way when a pedestrian is in the road. Just a sampling of the legal silliness that we're subjected to:

Somerville Traffic Regulations
Section 12-5 Crossing at Non-Signalized Locations
Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway. At a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overpass has been provided pedestrians shall cross the roadway only by the proper use of the tunnel or overpass.

and then just a bit below that:

Somerville Traffic Regulations
Section 12-6 Operators to exercise due care
...Furthermore, notwithstanding the provisions of these regulations every operator of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian upon the roadway... and shall exercise proper precautions which may become necessary for safe operation.

And in the state laws:

MGL
Chapter 90: Section 14. Precautions for safety of other travelers
...Upon approaching a pedestrian who is upon the traveled part of any way and not upon a sidewalk, every person operating a motor vehicle shall slow down.

MGL
Chapter 90: Section 14A. Protection of blind pedestrians crossing or attempting to cross ways
Section 14A. Whenever a totally or partially blind pedestrian, guided by a guide dog or carrying in a raised or extended position a cane or walking stick which is white in color or white tipped with red, crosses or attempts to cross a way, the driver of every vehicle approaching the place where such pedestrian is crossing or attempting to cross shall bring his vehicle to a full stop, and before proceeding shall take such precautions as may be necessary to avoid injuring such pedestrian.
(i.e. a driver may not know that the individual has limited vision, but is required to stop nonetheless.)

And finally the Massachusetts Driver's Manual states (page 94):

Remember, the law says that you must slow down and stop if necessary if a person is walking in the street you are traveling on.

So clearly, there is a lot of confusion.

Ultimately, it seems clear to me that pedestrians have the least amount of clearly defined rights of all road users, which is pretty crappy when you think about it, since everyone can be a pedestrian, but only some folks can be motorists, bicyclists, and so on. So effectively, current traffic laws discriminate against the majority of road users, while protecting the most dangerous road users (vehicle operators).

Re: MGL

[turil.livejournal.com]

See above...

Re: Motorists have to yeild to pedestrians in the roadway...

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Exercise due care is not the same as yield right of way.
Neither is "shall slow down".

Additionally, tons of state laws are outdated, useless, and not based on current situations, especially regarding traffic.

Some states still have laws requiring someone to walk in front of a motor vehicle with a bell.

[turil.livejournal.com]

The idea of adding "clutter" is to give the signal that "the way is not clear" so that they instinctrively slow down. More pedestrians are also good ways of giving this signal, as you suggest, and that would be great too!