There is no money in the city to think about things like this.
Instead, drivers around here should start planning their travels more efficiently, rather than blaming pedestrians on their inability to get somewhere on time. Either that, or learn the importance living a slower, more relaxed lifestyle. A better "fix" would be to begin cracking down on the extreme number of tailgaters and aggressive drivers in this city.

Narrow State Street? It's congested as it is, not to mention when that monstracity of a building opens up on Chapel and State what a nightmare for pedestrians and drivers it will become!

....and Drew, I agree with you, this is not even CLOSE to being an issue, we have bigger fish to fry in New Haven.
People blowing through red lights and stop signs, speeding on Church, Chapel, State, Elm.
How many near misses have their been at the intersection at Chruch and Chapel and NOTHING has been done. What about the poor woman who was killed at the corner at Elm and State last year..the pedestrian is defintely on the New Haven's endangered speicies list!

To Juli's defense I think she was making a case for more efficient peed light timing to ease driver ped angst.

Seems reasonable. This intersection is already a little hairy with construction. Maybe it will be better once the building opens. Gadfly, I also have to say that the building is really growing on me.

i am the first to admit we have "bigger fish to fry".

by no means did i suggest that those signs in appleton should be included in this years precarious budget. i just think it is silly not to think of the future. those intersections helped pedestrians be more mindful of how and when they were entering into the roadway. how is that a bad thing?

and, it is easy to just think of the cars as the problem. i wanted to open this issue to bring attention to how careless pedestrians can actually hurt our traffic-calming efforts overall.

This is definitely an issue.

This intersection sees a ton of foot traffic early in the day, and right around when people get out of work (the State Street train station is used by more people than I had thought). A lot of these folks don't wait for the walk signal (which is not bad in and of itself).

Also, people coming into downtown from Wooster Square use the Court St. bridge frequently, and some of them use the signal/some don't.

Changing the timing of the light cycle might help, but I'm not really sure what a long-term solution to this would be.

Furthermore, I think that Juli chose this intersection as an example, but was referring to the city as a whole. If you're just going to cross without waiting, why push the button in the first place?

I don't think this would be an issue if drivers EXPECTED to slow down driving through the city. The problem is they don't expect to slow down. They get off the highway or pull out of their parking space, and speed through the city, ignoring pedestrian rights with impunity. The lack of traffic enforcement is reinforcing aggressive behavior amongst drivers. Isn't that the real issue here?

If drivers stopped at every intersection to yield to pedestrians (as is the law), this wouldn't be an issue.

Talk about shifting the blame!

Shifting the blame? Why can't we all use these streets safely?

Cars should be allowed to go when the light is green, and not have pedestrians jump out in front of them.

It's a simple system.

anon,
drivers are most certainly not required to stop at "every intersection" to yield to pedestrians; you are warping the law to suit your cause.

when four lanes of traffic have a green light, and one lane of traffic slams on their brakes to allow a pedestrian to cross, the adjacent lanes will not see the person crossing. if you drive like this, stopping for every person you see near a roadway regardless of who has the right of way, you are a terrifying example of what not to do, and make pedestrians more vulnerable to the other road-users with the legal right of way who don't see them.

you will surely retort with an argument that if drivers traveled slowly enough, every pedestrian could lackadaisically wander into any roadway with lollipops and rays of golden sunshine lighting their path, or some otherwise amsterdamian wonderland. in the meantime, complete streets legislation needs to be done in stages, where people can feel safe walking, biking, and also drive a car using existing infrastructure however flawed, without such naive idealism making people less safe.

I just don't think this would be an issue if speed limits and pedestrian right of ways were actually recognized. A pedestrian right of way is any space in between street corners whether it is marked or not. Motorvehicles MUST yield to pedestrians in the right of way.

It truly is a simple system. It just needs to be acknowledged and, if not, then it needs to be enforced by an officer of the law.

This is from the DMV:

"Pedestrians
Drivers must recognize the special safety needs of pedestrians. Drivers should be especially alert for children, the elderly, and disabled pedestrians. They are the most frequent victims in auto pedestrian collisions. Elderly and disabled pedestrians may have poor vision and hearing and may move slowly.

Generally, pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks. There is a crosswalk at every intersection, even if it is not marked by painted lines. To determine where an unmarked crosswalk is, imagine that the sidewalk or shoulder at the corner extends across the road and meets the sidewalk or shoulder on the other side. Drivers must slow or stop your vehicle and grant the right-of- way for a pedestrian crossing at a crosswalk (marked or unmarked) when the pedestrian:

• Steps to the curb at the entrance to the crosswalk
• Is within any portion of the crosswalk."

anon,
that is precisely the wonderland i knew you would concoct.

the pedestrian does NOT have the right of way when there is a BRIGHT RED HAND telling them to STOP and wait to cross.

this issue was opened to help the system work for everyone. but, keep on wandering into roadways with that piece of paper in your hand from the DMV and show it to drivers with a green light. good luck with that.

Keep on being dismissive, immature and dishonest. Good luck with that.

The pedestrian light @ Whitney and Humphrey actually works for pedestrians: you press the button and you get a walk signal. The pedestrian signals at all of the other intersections I use on a regular basis favor cars. You push the button, the traffic signal cycles twice, to allow cars to proceed, then after you've waited around wondering why, when you push the button, you don't get a walk signal, the pedestrian signal comes on. Most people are going to do the apparently logical thing: push the button, see that there is no response, then take their chance crossing. Why should cars be privileged above pedestrians? In addition, I push all of the walk signals that I pass - just to slow down traffic, especially on the street that I live on. I figure that if traffic routinely moves slowly on my street, that the people who use it as a cut through, will find an alternate route. Really, between the air and noise pollution, loud car stereos and modified exhausts car drivers are the most uncivil people in the city. I drive maybe once every two weeks, so I don't really care if someone in a car, particularly a suburban car commuter, has to wait a few seconds extra to get where they are going; screw them. How's that oil spill working out for you?

oh, i see, nameless commenter.

uselessly pushing walk signals will stop oil spills.

got it.

Let's try to maintain civility on this discussion board, please.

Two issues with the example sign in your original post. The sign is English only - maybe that works in Madison? Also, I don't see any bike lane painted on the street; I don't even see any people on the street. Again, why the preferences for cars over people? As a pedestrian, I don't care if a car driver is inconvenienced. So pedestrians not mindlessly following ill planned pedestrian infrastructure (which they are never consulted about), e.g. ill timed crossing lights, causes speeding and running of red lights?

I think I'm getting it now. Poorly designed street design doesn't work for car drivers, bicyclists, skateboarders, pedestrians or anyone.

I think changing drivers' expectations on State would solve the issue at hand here, which is that drivers are expecting to be able to travel at 40 miles per hour through our downtown.

Some simple traffic calming measures, such as those used widely in other cities, would change these expectations and thereby increase the civility and comfort of all road users.

Pedestrians are generally happy to yield if they feel that they are being treated in an equitable manner.

In addition to the Economic Development Department's long term, grand plans for State Street, would the city's transportation office be willing to look into some simple plans for traffic calming, e.g., a raised intersection, zig zag lines or narrower lanes?

this is not about preferences for cars over people. in is one potential piece of a larger part of traffic calming.

it is funny how on this site, you are judged by the snapshot of your issue rather than the content of your character. i have never owned a car. i bike or walk to work. i use a zipcar for errands with large things i can't carry on my own back. i too am working towards more liveable and calmer streets in my own city, and elsewhere.

my very specific issue (that mark is using to raise his seventeen bullet points that he cuts and pastes on anything even remotely traffic related on this site or the Independent et.al.) is one slight action that seems to me like a childish and futile way to lash out at drivers in general. a few people above admit to using the buttons as a traffic calming measure to slow traffic down momentarilly. i am saying that that actually makes me feel less safe in this city.

do you think that those drivers who see walk buttons unneccessarilly pushed are going to sit there for the minutes it takes saying to themselves, 'hey, i should walk or bike to work.'?
i think the opposite happens. they grumble at the steering wheel, rev their engine and gun it when they can. and they speed past me as i am riding my bike and cut me off to get on the highway to make up for lost time. and, maybe they potentially become conditioned to running red lights just so that they don't have to sit through as many?!

if you think that it is helping reduce dependency on driving, i think that is laughably naive. and you can argue the point further: why keep traffic idling on all sides for no reason emitting exhaust for those extra minutes in a city already plagued with poor air quality?

"do you think that those drivers who see walk buttons unneccessarilly pushed are going to sit there for the minutes it takes saying to themselves, 'hey, i should walk or bike to work.'? " I'm not a mind reader - and neither are you. Who knows what they're thinking about. Maybe they're upset because they have no [sex] life? you never meet anyone driving around in your car. You can't use Grindr, when you're behind the wheel.

I don't think getting rid of a walk signal, just having it on one side, or encouraging pedestrians not to use them is realistic when it comes to wide and uncomfortable streets like these. Also, making the walk signal "more specific" is not applicable here because we're really talking about pedestrians' ability to cross the entirety of State Street, not Court (which has very little traffic) or just half of State (which would require waiting in the median, not fun).

Given the less-than-optimal situation here, there are reasons why measures like raised intersections, slower speeds and pedestrian medians are worth exploring. Cutting down on vehicle idling is definitely one aspect that can be addressed through measures like these, but more importantly, the issue of pedestrian comfort in general. Having so many red lights on State Street doesn't make sense and you could probably remove a number of them altogether if you had an appropriately designed street.

When folks feel comfortable walking in their neighborhood, and rules are not just clear and easy to understand but also appropriate to road users of all ages and abilities, the level of civility increases.

Let's fix the issue of poor traffic flow here but be open minded about different ways to do it. Reducing signal crossing options on busy highways is not one of the proven ways to increase pedestrian comfort.

It would be great if someone could post a few drawings or photographs, like they have done on other SeeClickFix issues, showing what these things could look like.

Forward progress!

Particularly given the low traffic volumes on Court Street, I see no reason why the pedestrian signal heads shouldn't display “walk” at the same time that Court St drivers see green. This is known as concurrent signal timing and is used in virtually every city in the country. New Haven is extremely unique in having an exclusive pedestrian phase. In my entire life, I have only been to one other city with any exclusive phase pedestrian signals (Venice Beach, CA).

Here is an article about the costs and drawbacks of concurrent vs. exclusive pedestrian phases, and why an LPI may be the best approach.

http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/pedsafe_curb1.cfm?CM_NUM=39

Pedestrians do NOT automatically have the right of way when there is a crosswalk with a light at it. When the crosswalk light is red and the traffic light is green, vehicles have the right of way and pedestrians must wait. Vice versa when the crosswalk light is green and traffic light is red.

Maybe instead of trying uselessly to calm traffic (this is a city after all, people have stuff to do and places to be) maybe we should separate vehicular and pedestrian traffic with a foot bridge or something over State to the train station.

N, can you point to any other American cities that actively use foot bridges on streets like State? There are none because it doesn't work. Cities do not want to have the character of an interstate highway.

On the other hand, virtually every major city has adopted a traffic calming ordinance and is pushing to make neighborhoods more attractive places to live and work, by balancing the needs of all road users. Moderating the speed and character of traffic is a key consideration in creating attractive, walkable neighborhoods, which is why this is written into zoning codes everywhere from Buffalo to San Francisco.

I'm not sure what comment you're referring to regarding right of way, but if a pedestrian (or a vehicle) is in your lane of travel, you are required to yield to it. This is another good reason why road users' needs should be balanced.

Drivers must learn to share the road with pedestrians and cyclists. This poster's attitude is one of selfishness and impatience. I often press the button and begin to walk anyway if the roadway is clear, in order to help other walkers who are behind me get to tehir destination faster, even if it slows down a driver or two. Geez.

S, the initial post here is about sharing the road, not using it selfishly. By pushing the button for the walk signal and then not waiting for it, you are the one being selfish and impatient.

Why do pedestrians push the button and then cross anyway? Because they can find themselves waiting around for up to four minutes (no, really) for that pedestrian walk sign to change. After a while they give up.

The same holds for State and Chapel. For such heavily-engineered intersections, this seems strange. Might someone from the City comment?

Drivers who feel frustrated about this might note that the system is already weighted in their favor from the start. Imagine the alternative: the pedestrian lights stay green until a car drives up to the intersection; the driver has to lean out, press a button, and then wait for four minutes for the light to change in his or her favor . . . . Yes, it would take a long time to drive through town, just as it currently takes a long time to walk through town safely.

This light in particular takes a long time to switch to the pedestrian crossing. If it actually worked on demand this wouldn't be an issue. This needs to be fixed.

I cross at this intersection every day and have given up on pushing the button. I just cross against the light.

Also, the beeping noise is exactly opposite of every other system I've seen. This beeps constantly, apparently to warn you to NOT cross, and then tells you to "wait" after you press the button, then chants "walk sign is on". It's really weird, and seems unsafe for people who actually rely on the sound to tell them when to cross for there not to be consistency across all town light crossings.

If I were the OP, I'd move to Appleton, WI.

S: Juli doesn't own a car. I sincerely doubt her report is based on not being willing to wait for the light to turn green.

Quail has the right of it, in my estimation--as a pedestrian, I TRY to do the right thing by pushing the signal, but I often end up standing on the curb waiting, waiting, waiting--the cars all pass--and there I am, waiting and waiting, and waiting, with no cars oncoming. If I don't push the button, I don't know that it will eventually change.

If I do push the button, I feel like an idiot, standing on the side of the road for 4 minutes with no cars coming waiting to cross.

The pedestrian signals have to be fixed and placed at similar priority as the car signals, or no one will use them properly.

I think Juli's post brings this issue to attention & I hope to see more work done by TT&P to further equalize the level of service for pedestrians and cars.

This issue was recategorized from Uncategorized to Traffic Signal / Pedestrian Signal.

.