Tag Archives: intersections

Pedestrian Priority

Posted on by
2

City planners should always make an effort to make the pedestrian human feel safer no matter the neighborhood or circumstance, but unfortunately, relics from the auto-dominated, urban renewal era still exist. I would argue that many public projects still permeate the dominance of the automobile; even as (some) city politicians proclaim their love of bicycles and people-oriented neighborhoods, it still seems they don’t wish to sacrifice auto dominance.

One of the most obvious shortcomings here is how pedestrians are treated in cities, especially the most dense, most walked neighborhoods. One of the best examples I can think of is right outside Union Station in Chicago.

Union Station at Adams and Riverside Plaza, Chicago. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.

Union Station at Adams and Riverside Plaza, Chicago. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.

The photo of the scene above was taken around noon on a weekday. In the morning and the evening, it is much more crowded. Adams is a one-way westbound street with 3 lanes of traffic; there is no north-south street at this intersection, but there is a light for pedestrians to cross north or south on Riverside Plaza. I noticed that people seemed to wait a long time to cross here, so I timed it. Automobile traffic has 55 seconds of a green/yellow cycle, while pedestrians get only 25 seconds to cross*. What’s worse is that the high amount of inept taxi drivers and articulated buses means that the crosswalk is often blocked completely, giving pedestrians even less time to cross.

Just south of this intersection is another just like it, at Jackson and Riverside Plaza. There is noticeably less foot traffic here (likely because Riverside Plaza does not continue south), but the timing is even worse: pedestrians again have 25 seconds, but automobile traffic has 2 minutes and 20 seconds of green*.

I haven’t timed other intersections downtown, but most are pretty fair with their timing because there is pedestrian and auto traffic that has to cross 4 ways. But at intersections that are installed just for pedestrian crossings, there is clearly not enough priority given to pedestrians. You don’t need to do a scientific count to know that there are more pedestrians moving outside Union Station than auto traffic, and pedestrians should be given more time to cross.

Another instance of pedestrians not being given equal footing (ha) is with “push-to-walk” intersections, which I’ve already written about. Here’s an example at Ashland Blvd:

Crossing Leland Ave at Ashland Blvd in Chicago. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.

Crossing Leland Ave at Ashland Blvd in Chicago. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.

Unless a pedestrian presses the button before the light changes, the “Walk” signal will not display even when the light is green for cars, and you can either take your chances and hope the light doesn’t change mid-crossing, or just wait at least two minutes for another light. Leland is also an eastbound one-way street, so you can’t even see the light if you’re walking west. The bottom line is that pedestrians should never, ever, under any circumstance, have to “ask” to cross the street.

This sort of design also hurts people riding bikes, as they have to ride up onto the sidewalk to press the button, or wait for the signal to change on its own.

What’s your gripe with your status as a pedestrian? Do you have any intersections that are worse than the ones I posted above? Leave your responses in the comments.

*Timings done at 5 PM on a Wednesday workday in April.

What’s really the issue with bike share?

Posted on by
2

Chicago recently announced that it will be the next major American city this year (after New York) to receive a bike-sharing system, which I’ve posted about before (more coverage also over at Streetsblog). Stations for Citi Bike in New York have already been popping up in Brooklyn.

However, as is usually the case with anything involving bikes, there is the loud NIMBY minority, with disdain coming from both residents of “historic” neighborhoods (something Streetsblog NYC has been good at discussing), as well as street food vendors in Manhattan (as if there aren’t enough streets in Manhattan). There’s a New York Times piece about it.

So many have already elegantly debunked the illogic about taking some parking space for bike share, but it is worth pointing out that most people on residential streets do not pay for parking (or pay a small sum for the privilege of “permit parking”, a sum which does not even begin to cover the cost of the valuable space). But this is not even worth explaining to a driver who likes their free parking, because, taxes.

Hubway bike share in Boston on Boyslon St. That’s 17 public bikes in the space of about 4 cars. Credit: Cityphile.

We will hear more of the same thing in Chicago when Divvy stations start appearing. Some have already complained about the price. Yes, $22 million is a chunk of money to spend on some bikes. Or is it? We’re already spending $420 million on a downtown freeway interchange that will benefit only those who use it, or billions on a new freeway out in the suburbs. For some perspective, the cost of those two projects could fund Divvy for over 125 years.

In New York, there is opposition to having a bank’s name plastered all over the bikes and stations. This is something I can’t argue with; I do not like corporate sponsorship on “public” property. Citi is paying for the system, but there is opposition to the corporate branding. Capital Bikeshare in Washington, D.C. does not have corporate sponsorship plastered all over the bikes. Neither does Vélib’ in Paris; however, French advertiser JCDecaux has rights to some billboards in Paris in exchange for paying for the system. That’s a little sweeter of a deal – with tens of thousands of bikes and tons of users, there is no advertising on any of the bikes or stations, but it’s still privately funded.

While Divvy doesn’t have any corporate sponsorship now, Mayor Emanuel has said he hopes to in the future. I hope not. I personally would not like to ride around on a “BMO Harris Bike” or similar.

Finally, the typical “cyclists don’t follow rules” complaint comes up. A video like this or a 15-minute walk in most urban neighborhoods reveals that many drivers don’t either:

Most drivers “stop” at stop signs at the same speed as people on bikes do.

All petty disagreements aside, what I feel is the biggest issue with bike share is how safe riders will feel when using it. I consider myself a “confident” rider in that I’m not afraid to ride around on streets in the city, but I still get shaken up when riding to work in the morning and home at night. Just this Friday I was honked at by taxis and drivers, and witnessed several drivers yelling out their windows at other people riding their bikes downtown. One woman told a pair of cyclists riding side-by-side (on a 3-lane, one-way street) to “move over!” repeatedly while honking her horn.

This isn't enough room for drivers? Clark near Illinois. Credit: Google.

This isn’t enough room for drivers? Clark near Illinois. Credit: Google.

This kind of verbal and physical harassment (it’s “physical” when a driver uses their multi-ton car to threaten you) is not something that will make riders feel safer.

We need to seriously ramp up our bike lane construction. The only protected bike lanes in Chicago that will be near the Divvy stations this summer are going to be around downtown, and the only protected bike facilities aren’t much to call home about. More are scheduled to come downtown, but we don’t have a lot of options elsewhere. With the Participatory Budgeting process almost done in my ward, fellow Community Representatives in our streets & cycling group quickly found that the City and State makes it very difficult to put safe bike facilities on most streets. Where they can be put, they’re fragmented. For example, a new protected bike lane on Broadway from Leland to Montrose will be built in the coming months. This is only a distance of about 3 blocks! Many residents expressed interest in cycle facilities that would extend south on Broadway into Lakeview, but the street south of Montrose is too narrow (roughly 36′). This is too narrow for even sharrows. CDOT said it would be possible to build better bike facilities if parking were removed.

Yeah, right.

Broadway near Belle Plaine Ave is "too narrow" for sharrows, even though every street should technically have sharrows. Credit: Google.

Broadway near Belle Plaine Ave is “too narrow” for sharrows, even though every street should technically have sharrows. Credit: Google.

It’s too bad to see that so many people want better bike facilities, but our fragmented, shortsighted government won’t build them in a meaningful way. The same city that wants to  increase it’s number of cyclists is powerless to change the driving school curriculum or test, how hard it is to obtain a license, or to meaningfully change the behavior of drivers.

Safety for people on bikes comes in numbers. Hopefully, Divvy and other bike-share systems will get more people interested in riding a bike for practical urban transportation, and this will lead to a change in how we prioritize roadway funding and space allocation. Time will tell, and it’s usually kind: When’s the last time you heard someone complain about the Dearborn protected bike lane?

Why Do Buses Keep Bunching?

Posted on by
3

It’s exasperating and anyone who even occasionally rides the bus knows the feeling. You’ve been waiting for the bus for at least ten minutes even though Google Maps told you it was supposed to come five minutes ago. In the distance, you finally see the twinkling lights that look like the bus. The bus pulls up to the stop, and right behind it is another bus, on the same route, going to the same destination. A third bus might even race up behind these two. The buses are bunched.

Surely, if the buses were running at the proper headway, you’d have been on one a few minutes before, and two or more buses going to the same place wouldn’t be leapfrogging each other. If you’re lucky, bunching is just a rare occurrence that comes with the low price of using public transportation. When its more than just an occurrence, it becomes a problem that can undermine a bus route.

Screen showing bus times for the northbound 49 bus at 6, 6, 6, and 7 minutes.

Sometimes, Buster (an app for CTA bus and train arrival times) shows the same bus time twice. But not here. 4 buses are approaching, all at the same time.

I’ve written before about my frustrations with the #22 Clark bus in Chicago. Quick background: The #22 bus constantly bunches and is one of the most-boarded bus routes in Chicago. It’s an unreliable route (I’ve waited as long as 40 minutes–during the day–for a #22 bus). I obtained bunching data from the CTA and have uploaded it to Google. Feel free to play with the data yourself. Here’s what I found: Continue reading →

How Push-to-Walk reduces the quality of walkable neighborhoods

Posted on by
3

The downtown of my hometown could be classified as “walkable,” if only for a few blocks. This is one of Lake Geneva, WI’s main qualities and one of the reasons many tourists from the Chicago metro region and its environs go there for a visit. Downtown has small-town charm and history dating back to the US railroad era. I wrote about my last visit, and some information on the former train running to Lake Geneva (the old right-of-way is now a multi-use recreational trail).

The principal road, Main Street, is also State Route 50, meaning it is under WisDOT jurisdiction. This is generally not a good thing, since the state-level DOT never seems to really grasp the notion of anything except traffic movement. Luckily, nothing else can really be done to make traffic move faster through Lake Geneva’s downtown except remove angle parking on both sides, which would single-handedly destroy downtown business. There are two traffic signals within downtown, one at Main and Center, and one at Main and Broad (one block from each other). Formerly, they were not coordinated and operated on a timer. I had the timing down to a science when I was in high school and worked downtown. In the summer tourist season, traffic was awful: it could take as long as 20 minutes just to move along a 5-block stretch. The signals weren’t timed for traffic movement.


Main St and Broad, Lake Geneva, WI. View Larger Map

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but the City Council thought so. Just recently, new “high-tech” signals were introduced. I don’t see them as an upgrade for two reasons:

  1. There are new “push to cross” buttons at all crosswalks.”
  2. They are synchronized for maximum traffic flow.
    Continue reading →

Slowing Drivers Down at Urban Stop Signs

Posted on by
Reply

On most secondary streets in Chicago, like Wilson Avenue in my neighborhood, there are stop signs every few blocks. You won’t find as many stop signs on major arterial streets, like Montrose (to the south) or Lawrence (to the north). I don’t like walking down these major streets at all when I know I need to cross – they’re dangerous, with fast moving cars (and cemeteries on one side of the street, lowering the perceived height of the surroundings and making drivers feel like they can go faster):

Lawrence-Fullerton

Lawrence Ave. (left) and Fullerton Pkwy. (right). Credit: Google Maps.

Lawrence Ave. feels wider and causes drivers to drive faster. Don’t think it’s true? Try driving 30 MPH on a rural road, then drive 30 mph in downtown Chicago, and tell me which one feels slower.

On a side note, what is up with Fullerton Parkway, directly adjacent to DePaul University, having such narrow sidewalks? They hardly look wider than the bike lanes.

The low perceived height of surroundings is bad enough, but the lack of any stop signs or traffic lights along these stretches of arterial roads means danger for pedestrians and those on bikes due to faster driving. The posted speed limit in Chicago is 30 MPH. This is rarely observed, and Americans know that 30 MPH means 35 MPH. I found two conflicting reports – this one in FastCoExist says that pedestrians people have a 20% chance of dying (80% chance of surviving) a crash with a vehicle going 30 MPH, but the Chicago Pedestrian Plan, page 48 says there is a 40% chance of dying (60% chance of surviving) at 30 MPH. At 40 MPH, the Pedestrian Plan says there is a 80% chance of death.

Any death is a failure of the built environment. At 20 MPH, the chance of death is only 5% – a significant improvement. Why aren’t we requiring drivers to slow down? There is no reason for a driver to be going so fast on an urban street with pedestrians and people riding bikes. Yet I continue to witness drivers speeding down arterial, secondary, even residential streets in Chicago.

Something I brought up at the Participatory Budgeting meeting in my ward a few weeks ago was how drivers speed down residential streets like my own. There are 4-way stop signs at every intersection on a residential street in my neighborhood, yet drivers speed down these streets to the next stop sign. There are no speed bumps or any sort of traffic-calming measures on my street, and a quick glance around shows there aren’t many on other streets as well. When they do exist, speed bumps are placed at the middle of the block. Where it probably matters more, I argue, is nearer to the intersection.

Because these are residential streets, there are rarely impediments to fast driving. Low traffic and parked cars mean drivers can speed to the next stop sign, and they do. Even when there are speed bumps, there is enough time to reach a high speed from the speed bump to the next intersection. Parking which runs to the intersection reduces the angle at which drivers can see, hiding pedestrians and making the intersection almost invisible. How many times have you been trying to cross a street, only to take a second thought about crossing because a driver has sped up to the stop sign? How many times has a driver stopped in the middle of your crosswalk to look farther into the intersecting streets for clearance? This isn’t safe in our neighborhoods.

Traffic calming designs like curb bump-outs have been tried but haven’t reached widespread implementation:

Curb bump-out on a complete street. Rendering of Milwaukee. Credit: J-Lab.

The not-so-high resolution image above is a rendering of a concept for a complete street in Milwaukee. Notice the curb bump-outs, which reduce the width of the crosswalk and help drivers notice pedestrians trying to cross. I think the idea is good in practice, and it might work, but probably not enough on quieter, residential streets. What would probably work better in slowing drivers down is chicanes. There are no good images of chicanes on the internet, so I will include an image from the Chicago Pedestrian Plan’s diagram of the Albany Ave. Home Zone:

Albany Ave. Home Zone

Albany Avenue Home Zone. Credit: Chicago Pedestrian Plan.

The green bump-outs force drivers to meander through the street, making it harder to reach a high speed. Safer for bicyclists in one way as well, since they do not have to go over speed bumps.

The one downside to the “home zone” and chicanes is that they generally come with angle parking instead of parallel parking. While you can argue that angle parking reduces the possibility of being doored, it probably increases your chances of being run over by a vehicle backing out of a spot. There are three alternatives:

1. The city should fit as many spaces as they can with a parallel parking design. The parking spaces on residential streets are free of charge (except those with permit requirements, but permits are inexpensive anyways), so there’s no incentive for the local government to have so many.
2. Angle parking with a bike lane installed between the sidewalk area and the angle parking. This gives bicyclists a buffer from drivers.
3. Parallel parking with a bike lane installed between the sidewalk area and the parked cars.

I think option 3 is the best option. Option 2 is a good compromise if opposition to free parking removal occurs (and it will), but cars might pull in too far and obstruct the bike lane unless a physical barrier is installed.

Dover St Traffic Calming

Traffic calming on Dover St. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.

Above is a quick image I made of Dover St. in my neighborhood. It is currently a one-way street with free parking on both sides. A traffic calming measure like alternative 3 above would have parallel parking (yellow stripes), green space (dark green), and a bike lane (light green). Parallel parking, green space, or a concrete barrier protect bicyclists from automobile traffic until the intersection (at the intersection, poles would protect the bike lane and prevent automobiles from using the lane as a turn lane or standing zone). Dover St. is a southbound one-way, so in this diagram, the street ends only one lane in width, dramatically reducing the length of the intersection. A speed bump placed just before the intersection or a raised crosswalk would slow drivers down at the intersection.

This would be an expensive transformation, but aren’t residents worthy of neighborhoods that are safe to walk in? At the very least, we should install speed bumps at intersections to slow drivers down where pedestrians are crossing.

Take this 4-way stop at Wilson and Magnolia:

Wilson at Magnolia, before

Wilson at Magnolia. Credit: Google Maps.

Why not take Wilson, a secondary street, and Magnolia, a residential street, and turn them into something more like this:

Wilson at Magnolia, after

Wilson at Magnolia, after. Credit: Shaun Jacobsen.

The intersection is tighter, the crosswalks are narrower and raised (acting both as an speed bump and to elevate the pedestrians), there are bike lanes, not sharrows, and they are protected by parking. The driving lanes are narrowed and closer to the width of the other street uses, like biking and walking. This intersection is close to so much public transportation, businesses, and residences – there’s no reason the street should feel like an arterial street.

In what is a bike rider’s dream come true, the intersection is also a 4-way stop for vehicles, but a yield intersection for cyclists. Bikes would still slow down, and stop when the intersection is congested. This would legalize what is already common bicycle behavior.

One thing is missing from my design, which is bus stops along Wilson. Buses could still pull aside into the bike lane to pick up passengers because the frequency of buses along Wilson is low enough that it would not be a regular impediment.

Many secondary streets in Chicago don’t do much to actually stop drivers at stop signs – and many drivers see “slow down,” not “STOP”. Pedestrians trying to cross often come very close to drivers who think they have enough time to clear the intersection. These intersections aren’t really doing much as it is to make a more human-scale neighborhood.

Coupled with residential complete streets or other traffic calming measures like chicanes, the streets in our densest neighborhoods could become even more walkable and slow down fast drivers. Slowing down drivers means fewer pedestrian deaths, a greater incentive to ride a bike, and more livable space that isn’t dedicated to subsidized parking for the few that drive cars. We should be changing the urban landscape to include safer ways of getting around, not maintaining the same infrastructure while these neighborhoods become more desirable places to live, work, and visit.