However, you’re being told that a walk time at an intersection can’t be long enough for you to cross safely (5 seconds is certainly an unreasonable walk signal) because “it interferes with traffic patterns?”

So… that answer is telling. Since signal timing often requires trade-offs between various users at an intersection (like motorists versus
pedestrians and bicycles), it sounds like the choice made here is to tradeoff safe pedestrian crossing times versus maximizing automobile capacity. It’s not like it’s an immutable law- it’s a human-designed system!

If it’s also true that folks are ignoring traffic laws here with impunity largely because neither Somerville nor Charlestown wants to own this location’s traffic enforcement issues, how does it follow that those who are ignoring the laws are mostly out-of-towners?

I’m not dissing the judgement of the Traffic Engineer here, either; she or he may well be a skilled practitioner. To be fair, Somerville joins the nation in receiving low marks with regards to its signal timing policies and procedures. Here’s a complicated issue that would involve our regional and local elected officials working together with the community, to ensure that there’s an integrated pedestrian signal timing plan in place- one that can safeguard multimodal use of our roadways.

Merely ticketing those that break the law sidesteps the need to understand the issues and develop a comprehensive plan. It may seem to be a cheaper or swifter solution, but it dumbs us all down.

Your responses speak to each other. I have been told that the reason the walk time cannot be longer at this intersection is because it would interfere with traffic patterns. Somerville HAS a traffic engineer and the lights along Washington Street are coordinated from the Boston line to McGrath Highway.

I have spoken with Alderman Roche about this issue a couple of times – he was able to get the walk light extended for the crosswalk at Mrtle Street (opposite Cobble Hill apartments). I was told the because there are two separate traffic signals that need to be accommodated (at Inner Belt Road), the walk signal can’t be extended without interfering with traffic patterns.

I was among a group of East Somerville Neighbors for Change (ESNC) that met on 2 separate occasions with representatives of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) to get them to extend the walk signals at several intersections on McGrath Highway (don’t ask why DCR is charged with this – it has to do with the old MDC and the vagaries of Massachusetts’ bureaucracies). I brought up the Washington Street situation at least once at an ESNC meeting, but was not able to implement any action (this was a while ago, and I could have admittedly pressed the issue further – things came up in my life and I haven’t been back in a while). Llike East Somerville Main Streets, ESNCtends to be a Broadway-centric group (that’s not a dig on them, just a reflection on where the members tend to live). I once went to an East Somerville Main Streets meeting that featured a team building/communication exercise that asked us to tag “pedestrian hazards” on a large map of East Somerville. Most of Washington Street was entirely off of the map.

In my opinion, the problem is rampant disregard for traffic rules (in this case a red light) that has a simple solution: enforcement.

The city would serve its customers well by proactively modernizing its traffic signal equipment, and, at the same time updating its signal timing plans citywide. The upgraded equipment would improve the staff’s efficiency in managing the system.

The benefits of area-wide signal timing certainly outweigh the costs- studies show that such (proactive, intelligent) planning leads to shorter commute times, improved air quality, reduced accidents, and reduced driver frustration by 40:1! (from: Retting, R.A.; Chapline, J.F.; and Williams, A.F., “Changes In Crash Risk Following Re-Timing Of
Traffic Signal Change Intervals”. Accident Analysis and Prevention 34:215-20, 2002. ALSO SEE: 2007 National Traffic Signal Report Card Technical Report, National Transportation Operations
Coalition).

This is a community safety and access issue and would certainly benefit over 70% of the residents living in East Somerville. Since the city has extra Recovery Act CDBG funding, this project would be an excellent way to spend some of those funds. And East Somerville is one of the communities that is especially targeted for use of CDBG funding, since it is one of the two most low-income areas of the city (the other currently being Union Square).

Acronymically speaking: CDBG = Community Development Block Grant funds. These funds are used for 3 localized purposes: provide a decent living environment, increase equitable affordable housing opportunities, and expand economic opportunities. 70% of the CDBG funding must be used to improve these conditions for low income residents. (That is aggregated over a 3 year period.)

The City of Somerville is an Entitlement Community and has received the promise of an extra $772,033 in CDBG-R ( “R” stands for Recovery”) funding over and separate from its 2009-2010 estimated $4,936,281 in new funding and program income. It will roll out its plans for the use of those funds on April 14.

I don’t know if I misread your comment, but I certainly WANT the city to use cameras to write traffic tickets. From my house in East Somerville, I can’t cross Washington Street during rush hour without taking my life in my hands. There are so many people who run the red light at Inner Belt Road and Washington Street that the 5 second walk sign usually says “don’t walk” again by the time the cars have stopped coming through. Because this is right near the Charlestown line, the chances of the PD committing a full time cruiser to this intersection are slim. I have seen them there before (usually following a complaint to Alderman Roche), but they gradually drift away to other locations (probably by necessity).

I WANT a traffic camera! I WANT these out-of-town through travellers to get tickets! It doesn’t need to be a secret – actually in this case it’s better if people know it’s there.

However, I am specifically concerned about who has the power to decide how to access the latent targeting capabilities of this powerful surveillance technology.

Harry, how are you so sure that the city is not using the cameras for writing traffic tickets? The city’s interest in just such a ticketing system is apparent from the aforementioned articles in the SJ.

DHS money started the program, but the city will bear the on-going costs.

Re-read my section above “Ineffectiveness towards Solving or Preventing Crime” as to why these cameras are not likely to solve or deter the types of crime you mentioned.

The difference between private cameras and those used by the police is that private cameras operated by private residents are not used to look out for criminal activity with the possibility of arrests resulting from the observations.

But, I agree with Harry that it makes no sense for the authorities to wrap this program in such secrecy. Indeed, what is so top secret here?

The creepiness factor, as eila mentions, turns people off to this program and erodes public trust in the police, and that makes our city less safe.

Now… if the city were to stick a camera inside your house – that would be different, but they’re not doing that. They just threw a handful (7?) of cameras up (that were bought using a federal grant) at some key intersections. If it helps solve some cases of robbery, hit & runs, vandalism, etc… then I’m all for it.

What stops someone from city under one of the cameras now and running a camcorder? What’s the difference? What is so top secret? That line of argument made no sense.