"Walk/Don't Walk" Signals in Cambridge, Brookline, Boston
Philip Busch
-Just wait at intersection until the next cycle...and cross without
fear (or pressing any buttons).
In Brookline:
-Just press button ONCE and cross when automated voice tells you its
safe.
In Boston (gulp):
-Press...and press...and press...and press button and when next cycle
arrives, it is "50/50" at best at some intersections that a "walk"
signal will appear. In other words, notify next of kin on your cell
before crossing. ;-)
Seriously though, at many intersections in Boston, its like trying to
cross the Mass. Pike or Route 128. You can press the button until the
cows come home, but no "walk" signal. WHY is Boston so far behind the
times with regard to traffic lights (among other transit issues)?
In Kenmore Square, while crossing Brookline Ave. traffic still flows
legally on green from Beacon St. turning right onto Brookline Ave.
while "walk" signal is on. Its a wonder no one has ever been hit
(myself included).
Did cows during Colonial times really shape Boston's street patterns
of today or is this just another "urban myth"?
-Phil B.
Robert Coe
wrote:
: Did cows during Colonial times really shape Boston's street patterns
: of today or is this just another "urban myth"?
It's a myth. The true culprits were the humans leading the cows.
Bob
Helen Rose
> In Cambridge:
> -Just wait at intersection until the next cycle...and cross without
> fear (or pressing any buttons).
More details: if there is a button, press it. Otherwise, you don't need
to do anything but wait.
For the most part, buttons only exist at unusually-configured
intersections that demand an exclusive phase (e.g. T-shaped
intersections, intersections with relatively little auto traffic from
one direction or another, e.g. Hancock & Mass Ave).
Charlie Denison
Boston has been following Cambridge's and others' lead making crossing
signals concurrent, hence while the crossing of Brookline Ave is Walk
while Beacon St has a green. Otherwise, pedestrians would have to
wait an entire light cycle to get a rather short walk signal, and it
would have to stop traffic in all directions. Perhaps there just
needs to be a Yield to Pedestrians sign to let motorists know that
pedestrians will be legally crossing there.
Charlie
Philip Busch
While ideally I would much prefer a "walk" sign with no traffic flow
whatsoever, I have no problem with a green light at the same time as
"walk" as long as I can be seen by cars in advance that are making a
turn onto the street I am crossing. HOWEVER, at the intersection I
spoke of (Beacon St.-Brookline Ave.) the right turn at Beacon onto
Brookline is such that pedestrians are not seen until the last second
which can be problematic especially with the many "lead foot" Boston
drivers once a green light shines. Too much momentum (relatively
speaking) can be gained before this crosswalk. This is why I am
somewhat surprised that there hasn't been at least a few close callls
over the years.
As for a "Yield to Pedestrians" sign, which would be obeyed by most
drivers in places like Cambridge and Brookline, would be greatly
ignored in Boston. Most Boston drivers have very little respect if any
for crosswalks.
-Phil B.
Jass
1) Timing.
a) Boston uses timing in which 3-2-1-0, the 1 indicates the last
second that an old lady with a cane can begin crossing. Cars will get
green after 5-10 seconds.
b) Other cities use timing in which 3-2-1-0- (-1) (-2) where there is
a small 1-2 second pause between the timer ending and the cars getting
green.
2) Don't walk being the lead. In many intersections in Boston, don't
walk will always be displayed, until a button is pushed.
Kenmore square was given as an example, and it shows how different the
signals can be.
On the eastern side, crossing Beacon north, the walk appears
automatically, but ends soon, and there is a large (7-10 second) pause
before the cars get green. I time my crosses on commonwealth having a
green.
Crossing commonwealth outbound has no signal (or if it does, its
useless)
Crossing commonwealth inbound has a signal with button. It bring
exclusive pedestrian crossing, which allows for diagonal crossing.
Charlie Denison
and as I would expect, similar to how it's used in Cambridge.
However, as you say, in some places 1 is actually the last second at
which you can step off the curb, which basically defeats the purpose
of the countdown. I wonder if they are actually configured
incorrectly. It may be worth reporting those to the city, because the
majority in my experience act as I would expect.
Charlie
Hugo S. Cunningham
<cden...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
>Boston has been following Cambridge's and others' lead making crossing
>signals concurrent, hence while the crossing of Brookline Ave is Walk
>while Beacon St has a green. Otherwise, pedestrians would have to
>wait an entire light cycle to get a rather short walk signal, and it
>would have to stop traffic in all directions. Perhaps there just
>needs to be a Yield to Pedestrians sign to let motorists know that
>pedestrians will be legally crossing there.
Would it be possible to make a blinking yellow right-turn arrow when
pedestrians going straight have right-of-way?
Admittedly, it is confusing for Massachusetts to have its own
distinctive traffic-light usage (eg pedestrian crossing on
red-and-yellow), but perhaps this idea could be sold to other States
as well.
Motorists of my generation instinctively associate green with
right-of-way. It is *not* intuitively obvious that pedestians who
block a green right-turn arrow are in a different (morally superior)
category from pedestrians who block a green straight arrow.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Charlie Denison
wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:02:20 -0800 (PST), Charlie Denison
>
What about if they simply eliminated the right turn green arrow
altogether in cases where pedestrians have a concurrent walk signal?
I've also found the right turn green arrows misleading as a driver,
for the same reason that you state. Simply have a green ball with
right turns allowed implicitly, as with any other intersection.
Charlie
John F. Carr
Charlie Denison <cden...@comcast.net> wrote:
>What about if they simply eliminated the right turn green arrow
>altogether in cases where pedestrians have a concurrent walk signal?
That is what should be done. It is illegal for a green right arrow
to direct turning traffic into conflict with pedestrians who have a
walk signal. That rule has been in effect since 1971, if not longer.
Newton recently fixed one such signal (Washington Street and Elm
Street). In the absence of a pedestrian signal, pedestrians may
cross in conflict with a green right arrow only if there is also a
different green signal.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
John F. Carr
Jass <jam...@zdcommunity.com> wrote:
>More problematic than the button pushing, I think, are:
>
>1) Timing.
>a) Boston uses timing in which 3-2-1-0, the 1 indicates the last
>second that an old lady with a cane can begin crossing. Cars will get
>green after 5-10 seconds.
>b) Other cities use timing in which 3-2-1-0- (-1) (-2) where there is
>a small 1-2 second pause between the timer ending and the cars getting
>green.
Neither (a) nor (b) is the preferred mode of operation. The countdown
should reach zero when the light turns yellow for parallel traffic.
That leaves approximately four seconds between the solid don't walk
indication and the release of cross traffic -- three seconds of yellow
and one second of all red, for example.
>2) Don't walk being the lead. In many intersections in Boston, don't
>walk will always be displayed, until a button is pushed.
There are situations where this is the right mode of operation.
It is wrong for busy intersections with a long minimum green
interval or a nearly pretimed cycle.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Hugo S. Cunningham
<cden...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Jan 26, 12:15 pm, Hugo S. Cunningham <checkwebs...@cyberussr.com>
>wrote:
[...]
>> Would it be possible to make a blinking yellow right-turn arrow when
>> pedestrians going straight have right-of-way?
[...]
>What about if they simply eliminated the right turn green arrow
>altogether in cases where pedestrians have a concurrent walk signal?
>I've also found the right turn green arrows misleading as a driver,
>for the same reason that you state. Simply have a green ball with
>right turns allowed implicitly, as with any other intersection.
The green arrows usually show up when there is a *red* ball to stop
movement in a certain direction, eg
(1) arrows ahead and to the right, but left turn must stop, or
(2) arrow to left, but straight and right turn must stop.
I don't see how you could substitute a green ball for these purposes.
On a slight change of subject:
I gather motorists making left turns are also supposed to yield to
pedestrians, but it goes more against human nature than yielding on
right turns. Their opportunity to complete the crossing is
short-lived.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Charlie Denison
> (1) arrows ahead and to the right, but left turn must stop, or
Red left turn arrow, green ball
> (2) arrow to left, but straight and right turn must stop.
Green left turn arrow, red ball, "no turn on red" sign
Charlie
On Jan 26, 6:42 pm, Hugo S. Cunningham <checkwebs...@cyberussr.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:58:39 -0800 (PST), Charlie Denison
>
Hugo S. Cunningham
<cden...@comcast.net> wrote:
>How about this?
>
>> (1) arrows ahead and to the right, but left turn must stop:
>Red left turn arrow, green ball
>> (2) arrow to left, but straight and right turn must stop:
>Green left turn arrow, red ball, "no turn on red" sign
OK, I see what you mean.
Unless your change #1 was imposed nationwide, however, I see dangerous
misunderstandings from out-of-state drivers, still taught that a green
ball means go in any (legal) direction.
Perhaps one should ban the display of either color ball (red or green)
in conjunction with arrows. But the superior long-distance
visibility of the ball has its advantages.
On your # 2, I object to a "No turn on red" sign. Why shouldn't
drivers turn on red (after legal stop) in mild traffic? (Apart from
that, your #2 is the same as current practice.)
A "right turn yield" ("to pedestrians" in smaller type) sign would be
more direct. For those who tend to miss "yield" signs (particularly
ones including smaller type), I still think my flashing yellow
right-turn arrow would underline the point in a non-confusing way.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
>
>Charlie
>
>On Jan 26, 6:42 pm, Hugo S. Cunningham <checkwebs...@cyberussr.com>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:58:39 -0800 (PST), Charlie Denison
>>
>> <cdeni...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On Jan 26, 12:15 pm, Hugo S. Cunningham <checkwebs...@cyberussr.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> Would it be possible to make a blinking yellow right-turn arrow when
>> >> pedestrians going straight have right-of-way?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >What about if they simply eliminated the right turn green arrow
>> >altogether in cases where pedestrians have a concurrent walk signal?
>> >I've also found the right turn green arrows misleading as a driver,
>> >for the same reason that you state. Simply have a green ball with
>> >right turns allowed implicitly, as with any other intersection.
>>
>> The green arrows usually show up when there is a *red* ball to stop
>> movement in a certain direction, eg
>> (1) arrows ahead and to the right, but left turn must stop, or
>> (2) arrow to left, but straight and right turn must stop.
>>
>> I don't see how you could substitute a green ball for these purposes.
[...]
Charlie Denison
In #2, the No Turn on Red sign could be optional. I suggested it in
this case to give the pedestrians the benefit of the situation, since
in your example the crosswalk was not very visible until after the
traffic turned. I agree, a Yield to Pedestrians sign would also be
effective, as would a flashing yellow right turn arrow.
Charlie
On Jan 27, 12:26 pm, Hugo S. Cunningham <checkwebs...@cyberussr.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:42:03 -0800 (PST), Charlie Denison
>
Philip Busch
> In #2, the No Turn on Red sign could be optional. I suggested it in
> this case to give the pedestrians the benefit of the situation, since
> in your example the crosswalk was not very visible until after the
> traffic turned. I agree, a Yield to Pedestrians sign would also be
> effective, as would a flashing yellow right turn arrow.
For Boston drivers at least, it will take a massive ad/re-educational/
ticketing campaign with regard to "Yielding to Pedestrians". Well-
marked crosswalks and signs mean absolutely NOTHING to them.
In Boston, one would never know that there is an actual STATE LAW for
drivers when pedestrians are in crosswalks. My gut feeling is that it
is rarely, if ever enforced here.
-Phil B.
Charlie Denison
There definitely needs to be a culture change, although I would also
say that some reengineering would help as well. Even though Boston is
laid out well for walking, many of the roads still encourage motorists
to drive too fast for an urban environment. Boston could certainly
learn a few lessons from Cambridge in terms of making streets safer
for pedestrians. Motorists are pretty good with yielding to
pedestrians in unsignalized crosswalks there.
Charlie
Hugo S. Cunningham
With *un*signalized crosswalks, it is a simple problem of enforcement.
Co-located signals and crosswalks have become a more complex problem.
Motorists have been taught for decades that functioning green traffic
lights give right-of-way over crosswalks. The idea that crosswalks
have right-of-way over green right-turn arrows is a novelty which may
have found its way into the current RMV driver's manual and exam, but
was not taught earlier. And pedestrians who blithely step out in
front of *straight* green arrows do not add to mutual understanding
and respect.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
andrew m. boardman
>In Boston, one would never know that there is an actual STATE LAW for
>drivers when pedestrians are in crosswalks.
I think it's 50/50 between drivers who just have no clue and drivers who
think that any pedestrian in any crosswalk anywhere must be yielded to.
The pedestrians, for their part, seem about the same.
It's easy to forget the law when it's almost never enforced.
David Chesler
direction of travel?" What means "You may go this way, but there are
conflicting streams of traffic or pedestrians who have a superior
right?" What means "Sometimes you may go this way, but this is not
one of those times?" What means "Sometimes you may go this way, and
this _is_ one of those times, but there are conflicting streams of
traffic or pedestrians who have a superior right"?
A car leaving a driveway must yield before entering traffic. How
small must a street be for that to apply, rather than "the car on the
right, except in a rotary, has the right of way" or "the car that
arrived at the intersection earlier has the right of way", and which
is it on an unsignalized intersection of two equal-sized streets?
I'm pretty sure at a 4-way stop sign it's the car that got there
earlier, which assures a more-or-less alternating flow when there are
cars queued on both streets.
When is a U-turn permitted/prohibited by default? What about the
right-on-red-followed-by-U-turn?
When can you pass in a no-passing zone? (For instance parked cars,
bicyclists, earth movers, ridiculously slow trucks.)
What does it mean to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk? What if he
is standing at the curb edge? (He could be waiting for a bus.) What
if he couldn't reach the car unless he started sprinting?
Short of not hitting them, what is a motorist obliged to do when there
is a pedestrian in a crosswalk who had a don't-walk signal? What
about a pedestrian where there is not crosswalk? Where there is a
nearby crosswalk?
I read ne.t, I aced a series of CDL written exams in this century, and
I don't know most of these. It's not surprising that average driver
and average pedestrian are as clueless as suggested in this thread.
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Free Cory Maye
Charlie Denison
> Free Cory Maye
There are definitely a lot of ambiguities. It's impossible to know
the right answer to every situation. I think overall, using public
streets can be summed up as follows:
1. Follow the rules to the best of your abilities
2. Be courteous and respectful
If you're a motorist, watch for pedestrians and bicyclists, be
patient, and don't drive aggressively.
If you're a bicyclist, obey the rules of the road, watch for
pedestrians, and be predictable.
If you're a pedestrian, be predictable, use crosswalks when they are
available, and don't dart out in front of traffic.
Charlie
AllstonPar...@hotmail.com
> Boston's funny. In some places the countdown is used as you describe,
> and as I would expect, similar to how it's used in Cambridge.
> However, as you say, in some places 1 is actually the last second at
> which you can step off the curb, which basically defeats the purpose
> of the countdown. I wonder if they are actually configured
> incorrectly. It may be worth reporting those to the city, because the
> majority in my experience act as I would expect.
Some signals in Boston actually still show the 1 when the conflicting
street already has a green! In other words, it's the pedestrian
equivalent of one street getting a green while the other street is
still yellow.
I reported this to the mayor's 24 hour response line, and of course
got no response.
-Apr
Jass
I was just about to post about this. Yesterday, while walking on
Boylston, I started to cross a small street as the countdown was at 3.
However, at 2 (right when I was crossing), the cars got green.