Both Temple & Grove are one way streets, as a result - this does not warrent a new install of ped signalization at this particular intersection.

Although both are one-way streets, there is a constant stream of TURNING traffic both from Temple to Grove and from Grove to Temple, making it very difficult - and dangerous - for the many pedestrians who cross here. One only needs to stand at this intersection for two minutes to experience this.

I like the bump outs idea. Possibly paving it differently so that it there is an in-street crossing would be good. We should make it very clear that this is a pedestrian right-of-way.

I think more traffic signals is the last thing we need downtown- they only aggravate everyone and cause more problems.

i agree with DP that there is a constant stream of turning traffic to dart out of the way of. and i think melissa is also right that i don't think a pedestrian signal is the right solution, because often people press them, then an opening in traffic happens, and they just walk. i think then the drivers sitting there for a 'wasted' signal get aggravated and refuse to yield to pedestrians elsewhere, regardless of whether or not they have the right of way...

i am beginning to become so incredibly frustrated with the lack of cohesive measures that our city is taking to protect pedestrians.

seeclickfix is great to bring attention to issues, but it sometimes fails to move an entire issue forward, just pigeonholes our view on one intersection or another.

the entire environment needs to change. people's safety should come before the volume or speed at which drivers can travel through our neighborhoods. period. always. end of story.

Juili,

You raise an important point but also understand where we are now as opposed to where we were in terms of communication between the public and the city. Up until SCF was introduced, it was much more difficult for citizens to point out individual issues easily so in that regard, we have come a long way. There are also opportunities within SCF to organize people to work toward a common goal, create watch areas, connect and share ideas. This all contributes toward/facilitates better cooperation on all sides. Do I think that improvements can be made? Most certainly but the question is, are improvements being made? Definitely. It's a step by step process where one improvement leads to another down the line.

Ethan

How about just temporarily adding a "turning vehicles yield to peds" sign next to the "left land must turn left" sign already mounted on top of the jersey barriers? It's only needed for Grove St traffic since the construction blocks the other problematic crosswalk.

In the long run, I would be curious to hear whether it would be possible to install a flashing red turn arrow that would light up on green indicating that turning vehicles must stop before turning. Given the normal volume of pedestrian traffic, turning vehicles technically must wait for a gap in the pedestrian traffic and therefore need to stop anyway. Granted, the ideal thing would be a flashing yellow arrow, indicating that turning traffic must stop, but only if there is a pedestrian using the crosswalk; however, I'm not sure if anyone would understand its meaning.

I'm with you all the way, Juli! Thanks, Ethan, also for sharing your side of things. It is frustrating that change is so slow, but also fulfilling to know that you're with us on this.

I sometimes wish we had the type of pedestrian crossings they have in the UK. There the crossings where pedestrians have right of way have big flashing lights next to the "zebra" stripes. Otherwise cars always have the right of way, so it's very clear who has to stop for whom. Here it's sort of the opposite and not always clear.

Yes, Melissa, I agree. I think that we are working toward improving upon the overall safety of people walking, biking and taking public transit in the city but when compared to locations that have been doing this for decades, we certainly have a ways to go. I also appreciate this site as it affords us the ability for intelligent conversation, which is very important if we are going to continue to move forward.

Brian,

I tend to agree with the signalized arrow. I think its meaning would be lost. I will follow up with the dept. on the temporary sign idea however and report back next week.

Thanks,

Ethan

I agree with Melissa and Juli that the entire framework of thinking needs to change. As detailed below, this intersection is perfect evidence of that.

"A city can be friendly to people or it can be friendly to cars, but it can’t be both."

- Former Bogotá (Colombia) Mayor Enrique Peñalosa.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article766908.ece

Mark,

It's important to note that an entire framework cannot change in a day or a year but it can change through a process of steps over time. This needs to be recognized by the very people, you included, who are advocating and effecting change and continue to do so. It's easy to get frustrated over the short term while losing sight of the postive actions that have already taken place and are leading toward a more universal change in the long term.

Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements in a city are one of many components that can have a resounding affect on the quality of life for residents. One of many.

Ethan

A request has been created to determine if a 'yield to peds' sign should be installed at this intersection.

Ethan:

Actually I think evidence is strong that the design framework can change, in a very short period of time, if leaders are willing to shift their frame of reference. Look at the examples of Bogota, Colombia, Curitiba, Brazil, or many of the cities in Europe.

It appears that neither the recently redone streets in our city, nor the long-term plans for places like Route 34, currently reflect any significant changes in thinking. I know that this can change if it is made a higher priority.

TT&P, i appreciate that you are looking into a yield sign, but i think it will be a waste of metal. i see them disregarded every single day, and i am not exaggerating.

as a small step towards a solution, why doesn't the city use more pedestrian walk signals like the one on trumbull and grove?
i think that when it is flashing, cars turning are way more likely to yield to the pedestrian than not.

why can't every intersection dense with pedestrians crossing have a phase at the beginning of the cycle where it allows for people to walk concurrently? when the light stops flashing walk then the cars can turn.

i meant whitney, obviously. sorry! trumbull and whitney!

This issue is being closed. Please refer to this post: http://seeclickfix.com/issues/515390 which has the most updated information regarding this intersection. Thank you.