by Lorie Reilly in Bicycles, Traffic & Parking, Transportation, Union Square
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Last Modified on October 14, 2010 at 4:48 pm
loading…
Last week I was riding through Union Square with my daughter on the back of our tandem bicycle. As I pulled up to stop at the red light, a woman rolled down the window on her mini-van/SUV and screamed at us: “Do NOT ride on this road with that kid!” Her tone and facial expression overflowed with anger and hostility as she whipped around the corner staring daggers.
Was she genuinely concerned for our safety? Or venting spleen after a hard day’s work? Was she warning us away from her own driving habits? Or had she experienced the tragic death of a child on a bike? I did not notice if she had children in the back of her vehicle, but given that the leading cause of death for people aged 6-27 is car crashes, it’s amazing to me that she can assume her transportation choices bear any less risk.
Two days later, I attended an event at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Cambridge, MA which shed some light on this incident. The talk was given by an architect, Ben Hamilton-Baillie, and was entitled: Shared Space: Reconciling People, Places, and Traffic.
Hamilton-Baillie presented research to support several interesting points:
- If we feel safe in our cars and in our driving contexts, we are actually a greater hazard to ourselves and to others.
- When the perception of risk increases, we will modify our behavior to be more cautious, thereby decreasing the actual risk.
- When urban intersections are re-designed to convey equality between cyclists, pedestrians, and autos — including the removal of regulatory apparatus such as stop-lights and striping — traffic mishaps and congestion actually decrease.
When we over-regulate our roads, we remove the engagement of the driver’s intelligence, and this renders the roads more hazardous. When we design the roads in a manner that requires drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists to work together in order to negotiate limited space, we actually create safer and more civil public spaces while decreasing traffic congestion. Too good to be true?
There are a number of examples of this revolutionary traffic de-engineering in Europe, and the lessons being learned are counter-intuitive and startling. In every instance, Hamilton-Baillie reported that the flow of traffic was improved and the rate of accidents was reduced.
Hamilton-Baillie discussed a salient example in the Netherlands involving a school playground next to a busy road. In order to increase the safety of the children, they actually designed the playground so that it bumped out into the margins of the road. The increased proximity of the children to the road motivated drivers to maneuver more cautiously around the play area and taught the children to behave more responsibly near traffic. Their closeness to each other provided a mutual education regarding what was at stake, and the children’s safety increased as a result.
The numerous examples provided by Hamilton-Baillie in his presentation supported his claims that integrating the various modes of transport in an urban environment rather than adhering to strict regulation and mode segregation improves everyone’s behavior, travel experience, and safety. In our efforts to eliminate all risk from the road through over-engineering, we have increased the disparity between the actual risk and the perceived risk. Being coddled by the tightly regulated infrastructure has dulled our senses and inured us to the real risks of speeding around in an upholstered metal contraption. It’s this disparity between the actual risk and our perceived risk that is making our daily travels more dangerous. If you didn’t feel so safe and comfortable, would you really try to look down and type on a tiny keyboard while driving?
Removing the regulation does a number of important things. It increases our sense of personal responsibility, it aligns our behavior with the true risk, and it changes the nature of our relationships with each other and with our government. Traffic lights increase friction and resentment between parties impatiently awaiting their turn while the absence of lights increases collaboration and cooperation. Think of navigating through a crowded grocery store with your cart. There’s a fruitful tension between the competing needs of the many cart-pushers and the imperative to cooperate and behave well in such close quarters.
Over-regulated roads put the government in the role of evil enforcer rather than the beneficent facilitator of our mutual interdependence. People who navigate through a space in which no party is given priority and in which all must work together to achieve their goals experience a shift in the way they perceive their government and their fellow citizens. One might even go so far as to say that over-engineered traffic infrastructures foster a sense of passive and disengaged entitlement. Remove the controls and you might see the development of a new civic maturity! (Contrary to the sounds of this, I am not a Libertarian or a Republican….)
So, the next time you see me riding on a tandem bicycle through Union Square with my daughter, I’m hoping you’ll put your energy into driving safely around us rather than yelling at us.
Note: Martin Cassini, an advocate for traffic system reform in the UK, has created several instructive videos in support of traffic light removal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcz-Y8lqOg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU&feature=related
[poll id="5"]
loading…
I went to Ben Hamilton Baillie’s talk too. It would be an interesting experiment to turn the traffic lights off in Davis Square and compare traffic flow before and after.
If I see you and your daughter on your bike, I’ll be sure to wave and smile!
loading...
I’d like the city to try this experiment for one month in Davis Square, one month in Union Square, and one month in Magoun Square.
Powderhouse Circle is a good example of an intersection that works well for everyone with only minimal traffic controls.
loading...
Precisely! As a cyclist, I feel safer going through a “four way stop” intersection than many with signals. When that light turns green it is like everyone has to race to get through it and those bicycles are just in the way.
One of my favorite comebacks for a woman who yelled out of her car, “It would be safer for you if you rode on the sidewalk,” was “It would be safer for me if you DROVE on the sidewalk.”
loading...
It seems to me that on many state-sponsored road reconstruction projects, the Traffic engineer over-designs with too many traffic signals because the Federal government pays for 80 – 90% of the cost of the project…so, why not?
Traffic signals in urban settings have little to do with a safe, multi-modal environment, bacause, as stated above, they do not encourage the various modes to relate or interact with each other….and, thus, create their own safe travel environment.
Beware of the “traffic-industrial complex!”
loading...
@Ron: How’s Powderhouse Circle for pedestrians?
loading...
Powderhouse sucks for pedestrians, but it does work well for vehicles IMO. The key for pedestrians is that the basic road design must be *pedestrian-friendly* before taking away the traffic signals.
In other words, the crossing distances can’t be too wide (less than 15 feet ideally) or clearly marked as a shared space- colored/ textured pavements for lots of cues for cars to go slowly. Powderhouse Circle fails these tests.
Davis would work well for an experiment. The pedestrian amenities are closest to what you need for there to be a balance between the modes. There’s generally enough pedestrian flows to keep vehicle speeds down– not to mention the good-chaos created by all the streets entering the square.
loading...
I’ve never had any trouble walking through Powderhouse.
loading...
@mark: thanks for excellent info- and “good-chaos” intro!
loading...
I avoid unregulated intersections like the plague. Especially rotaries. I’d much prefer a 10 minute ride with frequent stops at stop lights than a 5 minute ride with frequent rotaries. I try to balance my route selection between least time and least stress. There are too many people who do NOT drive more cautiously at unregulated intersections… resulting in me slamming on my brakes, honking my horn, and giving the finger at unregulated intersections. I will never be persuaded to believe that confusion and chaos is better than clarity of right of way when it comes to transportation. The only thing that will happen is that the aggressive will bully (or crash) their way through at the expense of the cautious. As it is now, bullies are deterred by the fact that if they cause a crash, it is clearly their fault and they will be punished as such. At unregulated roads, the right of way becomes less clear, and that deterrent is removed. I don’t want my commute to increase my chances of a heart attack or arriving at work in a rage, nor increase the chances of a road rage incident.
loading...
@AAA– I hate rotaries too… but I think you’d have more road rage if they had lights at them as it would take you longer to get through. In the video, one ladies trip went from 20 minutes to 5 minutes when they eliminated the lights.
I think a temporary experiment would answer a lot of questions. If it doesn’t work, go back to the old way of doing things.
loading...
I agree that Davis Square would be a great place to try covering up the traffic signals. What you’ll notice now is that pedestrians tend to ignore them for the most part because they are timed so unfairly (you have to wait up to 3 minutes to cross in any direction). Motorists expect pedestrians and so do yield to them for the most part. It even seems very inefficient for cars currently since there are many times when College Ave has a very long green but there are no cars waiting in that direction.
loading...
I remember Davis Square in the 70′s, before the traffic lights, and before Elm and Highland were one-way. It was pretty scary the first time you saw it! There weren’t even lane markings, and with no island, it opened into a huge expanse that everyone navigated as best they could, if slowly and unpredictably.
I drove or biked through it to work every weekday and quickly realized that it actually worked very well! I never saw an accident and very rarely saw it backed up–the latter always when then was a traffic cop. I was never sure whether the cop was cause or effect.
You might think that Davis Square backs up now because it’s become so popular, and there might be some truth to that. But I was there the day they turned on the new traffic lights, and cars backed up to Powderhouse Square. I thought they’d realize the lights were a mistake, or at least re-time them so they caused less inconvenience; but no, Davis Square became a traffic headache the day they turned on the new traffic lights, and it’s been one ever since.
loading...
And about the tacit understanding between cars and pedestrians in Davis Square…
The light across Elm from the island does not routinely change, and the walk-on-demand buttons are usually broken. (But why would we even try? We’ve all been conditioned to assume they’re broken.) Anyone who routinely walks there knows this, routinely jaywalks, and stops for pedestrians when driving, even if the pedestrians are waiting for their turn, because we know it will never come and we feel their pain.
Anarchy gets a bad rap, but sometimes it works–more often than that light, I think.
loading...
And one more thing…
I actually agree with AAA about preferring clear rules that don’t tend to reward the reckless and inconsiderate–most of the time. But Davis Square unregulated transcended that; it was really too chaotic to invite aggression, and didn’t seem to. Of course, we do have a different population now…
It intrigues me how certain intersections within a few miles of each other display such disparate driver behavior. Now I often drive through Harvard Square on my commute, and people who surely drive that route as often as I do always seem to be in the wrong lane until they cut me off.
There’s another intersection between Tufts and Medford Square with a four-way stop sign. Everyone stops, and people politely take turns. It’s not stressful; I’ll get my turn. I remarked on this to a passenger from Virginia, and she said, “Yes, this is what we do in the South. We call it alternate merge.”
I dunno.
loading...
Belmont Center and Switzerland show us that no lights are much safer!
loading...
I’m trying to wrap my brain around this. Let’s go to the experiment for a moment.
If we shut down the vehicular traffic signals, do we also shut down the pedestrian signals attached to those devices?
loading...
That’s correct, Joe, the pedestrian signals would be covered up as well. Pedestrians would have the right of way at all times, though, just like at unsignalized intersections currently. I suppose one could put “state law yield to pedestrians” signs at the crosswalks when the lights were turned off/covered up.
loading...
Thanks Charlie. Mmmm……let me keep thinking about this for awhile.
loading...
An important issue for me is that bicyclists
also obey the traffic laws. I have seen bicyclists riding wrong way on one way streets, blowing through red lights and stop signs, riding the wrong way around rotaries, and riding against traffic on a dark street in dark clothing. By my observation, only a minority of Somerville bicyclists actually obey the traffic laws.
That said, I’d be interested in an experiment using, for instance, blinking yellow lights. I don’t mind riding my bicycle around rotaries and I don’t mind riding through Davis Square. Usually both are pretty crowded, and no one expects to zip through. The main thing is to use hand signals, claim your space, and above all BE PREDICTABLE.
loading...
Bicycling against traffic on small residential one-way streets should be explicitly legalized, as it is in much of Germany and the Netherlands. As long as the contra-flow bicyclist stays to the right, and uses a headlight at night, this causes no problems for any other road user.
Similarly, it makes sense to adopt a law such as Idaho’s which allows bicyclists to proceed through a red light after stopping and yielding to all conflicting traffic.
loading...
-Ron – The laws you cite are interesting and worth considering. But until we pass them, bicyclists need to obey the traffic laws we have in place. This is consistent with the idea of turning off the traffic lights; if there are no external controls, everyone needs to pay attention and observe what is actually going on around them in order to maintain a safe environment. But if there are traffic lights, you’d be crazy to just ignore them and blow through the red whenever you felt like it. This is what (some) bicyclists do now, and it is extremely dangerous.
I love the idea of experimenting with this traffic “control” model, by the way; first read about it a couple of years ago and have been intrigued ever since.
loading...
First of all, I’d like to respond to a few comments:
Powderhouse – I often drive through Powderhouse Circle and every summer find myself crossing as a pedestrian as well. It works best when people don’t use the pedestrian lights as long as you’re able to move quickly. I can very easily see the necessity of the lights when you’re dealing with slower pedestrians (age, mobility, or just slow walkers).
Magoun Sq as potential experiment – This is a problematic idea to me because you have traffic coming from not 4 but 5 different locations. Coming out of the CVS parking lot, I am always very thankful for the light because otherwise I would probably never get out unless I drove aggressively (and recklessly). Complicating the 5 in-road issue is the fact that 2 of those in-roads (both being Broadway) are 2-3 lanes.
Davis Sq. – In contrast to Magoun Sq., Davis Sq’s cross walks are much more pedestrian friendly. All the streets are narrower for one thing. The problem, though, is the bus stop. Busses do need the traffic light (or some other controlling factor) to allow for safe passage from the side of the T stop on College Ave into traffic. I agree that many of the other traffic lights around Davis could be turned off and we could potentially experiment with a blinking red/yellow light in the center of the square so long as it could be turned red to allow for the bus.
Cyclists behaving badly – This is one issue I’ve been annoyed at for quite some time. I constantly see bicyclists riding unsafely through intersections, not wearing helmets, and just generally showing a disregard for their own safety. I’m not trying to say that car drivers are always the best at sharing the road, just that there’s plenty of blame to go around.
One thing I’d like to point out is that while a study on how people react when the lights are taken away for 1 month may be interesting, how people drive long-term is a different matter. Perhaps a better test would be to review how people used to act on Somerville Ave and how they act once the traffic lights have been in place for a year and people have had a chance to get used to things.
Another thing to note is that many of these controlled intersections are probably as a result of residents’ requests. I know that Magoun Sq. is going to have a couple more controlled intersections because of requests to alleviate people backing up onto streets like Lowell St by having some way for those streets to empty out onto the main streets without waiting for the endless traffic from those main streets. I also know that some streets are not getting their own control systems because the city feels it’s just too much (like Hinkley and Broadway).
One question I have though is whether there is any indication whether on-demand lights work as well as no-lights? What I mean is situations like at Dane St. where I believe the light is solidly green unless there is a request by pedestrian (walk-light button) or car/bicyclist (approaching the intersection and going onto a pressure senser).
loading...
One problem with on-demand lights is that motorists get used to having the green and don’t notice when the light is red. This is an issue crossing College at the West Branch Library. The light is very responsive, but many cars sail through the red.
loading...
The problem there (and at other ped-activated crosswalks) is not that the light is “always” green, but that the default is flashing yellow.
This makes it extremely hard to discern when the light changes from flashing yellow to solid yellow (then to red). As a driver, I need to watch the road, not constantly watch the light to determine if it’s solid or flashing. As a pedestrian, I wait for the light to change and count to three before I step out.
Any possibility green could be the default? I’ll guarantee you fewer people would run the light.
loading...
Green is the default at Somerville Ave. and Dane St. I agree with your rule of thumb about being a pedestrian but I think we can always watch what cars are doing… if they’re not stopping, don’t step out onto the road, if they are slowing down, maybe begin to cross but watch to make sure they actually stop.
loading...
I’ve noticed that when there are “standard” red/yellow/green signals solely for a pedestrian crossing, particularly those that require a pedestrian to push a button, many pedestrians don’t actually push the button. I assume they do so because they feel bad about stopping all traffic for more than the time than it will take for them to cross.
What I’ve been seeing more commonly at mid-block crossings are pedestrian crossing signs with flashing LED beacons on them, activated by a pedestrian pushing a button. This acts just like any other (unsignalized) mid-block crossing, where motorists must yield to pedestrians who are crossing, but with the added bonus of flashing lights to let motorists know when a pedestrian is crossing.
Here is an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrYjlD14qIU
loading...
Tricky’s point about the flashing yellow vs green makes sense.
It’s satisfying that the College Ave. light at the library is so responsive, but a pedestrian still has to cross each lane with extreme caution. Counting to three doesn’t touch it.
loading...
Ah Peter, so glad someone else has been paying attention to the vehicular and pedestrian safety issues in Magoun rather than when the trees get planted.
I’m not convinced that Magoun is a good candidate for this experiment, but I’m listening to and reading the comments.
There’s room for more information about this stuff, but your point about the 5 way intersection is valid and also concerns me.
BTW, the state transportation and public safety ratings for the Magoun Square intersection have consistently been rated at the bottom of the safety rating system.
When this neighborhood first approached the Kelly-Gay administration in 1999(God has it really been that long?)of utmost importance was the safety issues associated with this intersection.
Hopefully, with the changes the Curtatone administration made to the original plans, and the infusion of $2.3m in stimulus money(thank you Barack)we’ll see if the ratings can be significantly improved.
Of course, no amount of money can prevent a drunk Magoun Square bar patron from getting hit (or hitting someone else)after a night of slamming down two too many.
loading...
I agree with the overall sentiment that I’m gathering from the post and comments which is placing more responsibility on drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, rather than having them rely on lights, signs and painted lines. An abundance of traffic devices takes the thought out of navigating and has really left us spoiled in a sense.
Over the summer months, power outages (thanks, NSTAR) caused the lights in Magoun Square to blink yellow, leaving everyone to rely on their own common sense. Not wanting to miss anything, I watched how drivers approached the intersection, surveyed what was happening and proceeded using caution. In the time that I watched, no one got into an accident and motorists were, for the most part, calm and collected. Now, I’m not promoting Magoun Square as test area for the above mentioned idea, however, it showed that some drivers can make decisions using fundamental skills when put into that situation. With a good location and proper planning, I think this would be an interesting experiment to see if we can place more responsibility on the people, rather than the traffic apparatus.
As far as the light at Lowell Street is concerned, I am curious to see if this improves traffic flow. I have always been able to transition from Lowell to Medford with no issue, but then again I am accustomed to driving in that area. I can see how it would be bothersome due to the proximity of that light to the ones on Broadway and then at Central Street. Once that light is activated, we will see if cars obeye the new crosswalks and not inhibit pedestrians getting their coffee or appreciating the newly planted trees.
loading...
Over-regulation is a big problem around here – just look at all the extra unnecessary stuff on Somerville Ave. It takes twice as long to get from Porter Square to Union as it used to. There’s too many lights, they’re not synched up, and there’s “no turn on red” signs even where there’s no oncoming traffic and a clear view of any potential hazards. Pedestrian signals that tie up traffic go off when there are no pedestrians, only to fail when pedestrians come along and press the button.
The same thing is happening on Mass Ave in Cambridge between the river and Central Sq, and on Beacon Street in Brookline, where it now takes twice as long to get from Audobon to Coolidge as it used to.
When main roads become congested, bus service suffers, taxi fares increase, there are more cars on the road, and more drivers take to side roads that aren’t designed for heavy use. Main roads like Somerville Ave simply MUST be the easiest, fastest, most convenient way from A to B.
As for the bike – I might agree with the SUV driver, though maybe not with their method of protest. Urban cycling is extremely dangerous and that’s why I choose not to do it, even though most of my peers do. Major urban roads are no place for a kid on a bike. All the bike lanes in the world aren’t going to make it safe, either, because there will always be some driver who doesn’t look or doesn’t see you.
loading...
I’m delighted to see this conversation taking place (even if it is just among the members of the choir!).
I’d submit that, in fact, we already HAVE some examples of “uncontrolled” (or, more precisely, “unsignalized”) intersections in the Union Square area.
Have you ever been on Warren St? Columbus Ave between Prospect Hill Parkway and Walnut Street? Prospect Hill Parkway? These narrow, residential streets all allow two-way traffic with parking on one or both sides. The result is that the travel lane is NOT wide enough for 2 cars (one going in each direction) to pass one another! Yet, these are VERY busy streets!
What happens? People slow down, they hesitate, they pull aside into a driveway, they wave one another through.
In other words: absent adequate facilities and explicit control, drivers pay attention and use their judgment and cooperate.
The best part is the built-in “punishment” — if two opposing parties want to pass, and neither is willing to cooperate, then both parties will sit in the road honking at one another until somebody decides to be helpful instead of selfish.
I lived on Columbus Ave at Warren for four years, and for the last year and a half have lived on Prospect Hill Ave between Munroe and Boston (a road that’s similarly too narrow for two cars to pass). In the more than five years I’ve been living in the neighborhood, I have yet to see or hear a car accident. (I’ve requested Crash Data from the Commonwealth but don’t have it yet, so I can’t confirm my anecdotal observations…)
Now, this is not to say that I haven’t seen people speeding or driving recklessly; nor that I haven’t seen some scraped door panels and broken side-mirrors; just that it seems that the experience of driving on these uncontrolled, challenging streets demonstrates the validity of a lot of what’s being discussed here!
loading...
The operative word, I think, is “kid”. Not all “kids” are under 21. Bicycling on urban streets is hazardous for anyone, but particularly so when the bicyclist treats the laws of the road as applying to everyone but them. If we want to be respected as adults, we should behave as adults.
loading...
I can hear Kat Powers applauding you now David. I remember clearly her missives and rants in the Somerville Journal about sidewalk cyclists in the business districts. And they were not all “kids”. I used to love to see the pictures she put in the paper of 30 somethings, helmut on, lights flashing, pant legs rolled up, laptop strapped to the back on their way to work in Cambridge.
Riding full tilt on the sidewalks of Davis Square!
loading...
Of course we all notice the traffic problems in our own areas. One area I find particularly troublesome is Powderhouse Circle. By 3 o’clock in the afternoon there is a backup of cars coming down Broadway towards the rotary. It seems to me this is caused by the fact that pedestrians cross there without pushing the walk light. At least in Davis Square where there is lots of pedestrian traffic, most people do wait for a red or pedestrian light to cross.
Davis Square – oh such a joy to drive through. And I do that at least twice a day. Between the double-parked delivery trucks, those pedestrians who cross in the middle of traffic and the bicyclists, the place is an obstacle course.
In Davis Square, I have always thought that if the traffic pattern could be changed so that motorists driving down Day Street could pass through directly to College Avenue, or if someone coming down Holland Street could take a left turn onto College Avenue, there would be fewer traffic backups on Highland Avenue and Holland Street. Think of how many gallons of gas could be saved if we didn’t have to go down Elm Street and then make the turn into Highland to get to College Avenue.
loading...
Helen,
I already posted this, but I lived within a few blocks of Davis Square before the lights, before the one-way streets, and before the traffic island. It was terrifying when you first experienced it, opening up into an enormous paved area without lane markings. Everyone proceeded as best they could, almost always slowly and cautiously.
It took some getting used to, but IT WORKED!
I came through Davis Square the day they turned on the new lights, on foot I think. It was backed up like I’d never seen it before. It’s been backed up much of the time ever since.
loading...
I wonder if there are any statistics on accidents before and after the lights were put up on Davis.
Regarding Powderhouse, I find that traffic gets more backed up due to the pedestrian lights than anything else. When I drive through, whether it be between 6-8am or 4-7pm, I find that pedestrians crossing without the signal can make it because drivers are kind enough to stop for them and that the signal causes half the rotary to stop and backup. Helen, are you talking about a backup on Broadway on the western side of the rotary? If so, my observations would suggest that it is caused by the traffic pattern of cars, not pedestrians. Cars coming from Warner St tend to come pretty regularly and are headed for College Ave, when a break in that traffic comes, cars coming east on Powder House Blvd take the opportunity to go and they are going to College Ave, Broadway East, or Warner St.
loading...
I used to avoid using the pedestrian lights at Powderhouse for the reasons Peter J. mentions. Then one day I was riding my bike to Medford Square, a cautious biker in her 50′s, wearing a helmet. Cars stopped for me and I was proceeding around the rotary, when a car roared across from the opposite side and would have hit me if I hadn’t swerved so tightly as to lose my balance. I escaped with cuts and bruises and some ruined clothing, but since then I’ve used the lights.
loading...
Hi Kathy, I wasn’t trying to say people shouldn’t use the pedestrian signals, just that if they were set up differently so that you didn’t shut down half the rotary and instead only the streets pedestrians are crossing at, it might make for better flow.
loading...
I’m mostly a pedestrian, although I own a car. I moved to Somerville a couple of months ago and have been very annoyed at how long it takes to get a walk sign at the corner of Beacon and Washington. And then the walk sign doesn’t last long enough to get to the other side. All this encourages jaywalking. I’ve been mumbling to myself about how the lights are all in favor of the driver and don’t pay any attention to pedestrians.
Then today I drove to work because of the rain. It’s impossible to turn right on a green. I had to sit through three red lights. So if the traffic lights aren’t in favor of the driver or the pedestrian and certainly not cyclists (the latter from observation only), are they just an obstacle to make people annoyed and irritated?
loading...