Tag: signal phasing

August 2023 Network Meeting – “All Things Pedestrian & Traffic Signals” Recording

August 2023 Network Meeting – “All Things Pedestrian & Traffic Signals” Recording

Peter G. Furth, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University,  joined us for this month’s WalkMassachusetts Network discussion. Peter shared about accommodating slower peds, ped recall, protection from concurrent conflicting turns, and more, including Boston’s new traffic signal policy which has enormous improvements for pedestrians.

The session was recorded, and you can view the presentation below. You can also view the presentation slides.

Links shared during the discussion

  • NCHRP Report 969: Traffic Signal Control Strategies for Pedestrians and Bicyclists (2022). Download site.
  • City of Boston, Traffic Signal Operations Design Policy (2023). Download link.

The WalkMassachusetts Network typically meets every third Wednesday of each month at 1 pm. Register for upcoming Zoom calls at this link.

Anyone can listen in and participate in monthly calls!  Join the Google Group to get a reminder about these Zoom calls.

Do you have a topic that should be discussed at a future meeting? Suggestions welcome!

Watertown Square: Impacts of Charles River Road Realignment Concepts on Pedestrians

Watertown Square: Impacts of Charles River Road Realignment Concepts on Pedestrians

The Town of Watertown, working with VHB, is testing different concepts regarding Charles River Road with the goals of improving overall traffic safety and wayfinding, and of enhancing the pedestrian experience in Watertown Square. WalkBoston, funded through the EOPSS Pedestrian Safety Initiative, was asked to provide the Town with additional information on the effects of VHB’s realignment concepts on people walking through the Square.

The Charles River Road options consider the implications of realigning Charles River Road to meet up with Riverside Road, and test different vehicular direction options on pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic flows and safety. Options 1-4 realign Charles River Road with Riverside Road, and Options 5 and 6 maintain the existing alignment with minor adjustments to travel lanes and curb lines, and add multi-modal facilities.

WalkBoston-WatertownSquareOptions

Comments on July 2018 Signal Policy

Comments on July 2018 Signal Policy

August 21, 2018

Chris Osgood, Chief of Streets
Gina Fiandaca, Commissioner of Transportation
Boston City Hall
Boston, MA 02201

Dear Chief Osgood and Commissioner Fiandaca:

WalkBoston is writing with extensive comments on the City’s July 2018 Traffic Signal Operations Design Guidelines. We are glad that this document is getting updated, and especially appreciate the requirement that new traffic signal equipment allow for maximum flexibility for signal phasing.

However, we are concerned that there was no comment and review process for the Guidelines, something that we discussed with BTD staff a number of times over the last several years.

Of even greater concern is the content of the Guidelines – they do not reflect the City’s own Complete Streets Guidelines, its Vision Zero efforts, or the policies and practices set forth in the GoBoston 2030 Action Plan. We also note that there is nothing in the Guidelines about bike signals.

We urge BTD to modify the new Guidelines to reflect the City’s established commitment to walking by making LPIs, No Turn on Red, and automatic WALK the default policy and therefore prioritizing walking in Boston.

As stated in the GoBoston 2030 Action Plan (page 140), the City will take the following approach:

  • “Pedestrian-First traffic signals – make walk-signals intuitive and give people walking a head start.”
  • “Traffic-signals will…shorten wait times at crossings and make signals adapt in real time to pedestrian behavior and flows”
  • “Automatic pedestrian phases – not requiring people to push a button – will be standard”
  • “Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) will allow people to start crossing the street and be seen before cars are permitted to move or turn with a green light”

Our comments below are organized as follows (sorted by section and page of the Guidelines):

  1. Areas where we believe that the Guidelines do not set forth best practices and policies and which we urge the City to review and possibly revise;
  2. Questions that we have about how the Guidelines will function. In some instances, we have specific recommendations for changes, and in others we look to you for possible solutions.

SECTION: “1. Objective

  1. Page 1: Add an objective to provide consistency among Boston’s signals to the greatest extent feasible. The existing significant inconsistency among intersections causes confusion, reduces compliance by all users, and contributes to unsafe conditions at intersections.
  2. Page 1: Add an objective to provide automatic pedestrian WALK recall at all signalized locations, and to eliminate the need for pedestrian recall push buttons from all signals UNLESS they are providing service at very low use intersections or at mid-block crossings that are only activated by a recall button. During the transition period while more intersections are being set to automatic recall, signage/stickers should be provided indicating to pedestrians the hours when the buttons are operable and the hours when automatic recall is operating.
  3. Page 1: Add an objective on “Smart Signals.” There is nothing on this topic in these guidelines even though the Boston Planning and Development Agency passed a Smart Utilities Policy in June 2018 that included a section on Adaptive Signal Technology. We suggest adding: “Smart Signals” will not be deployed in the City of Boston unless they can ‘see’ and serve the needs of people walking and biking as well as people in vehicles.

QUESTIONS IN THIS SECTION:
Page 1: The Guidelines state that they will be applied to traffic signals that are “owned and operated” by the City. Will the Guidelines also cover traffic signals owned by others (MassDOT and DCR), but are operated by the City?

SECTION: “3. Traffic Operations Analysis

QUESTIONS IN THIS SECTION:
Page 2: Traffic Operations Analysis “BTD approved methodology” is referenced. Can you provide a copy of this methodology to WalkBoston, and provide a link in the Guidelines?

Page 2: Are the stated Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) the correct ones? How were they chosen? Including “95% Vehicles Queues” does not seem like the appropriate metric for multimodal operations as it gives too much priority to vehicle movement. Should the requirement be to look at a multimodal level of service? How will BTD ensure that the needs of pedestrians are always included in the analysis?

SECTION: “4. Operational Considerations

Overall, LPI+Concurrent WALK should be the default signal guidance. Many of our comments throughout this section propose to flip the stated considerations and default to LPI+Concurrent WALK. FHWA has identified LPIs as proven countermeasures for reducing crashes and improving pedestrian safety.

  1. Page 2: (a) & (b) – Operational Considerations should be guided by ensuring pedestrian safety, which can require shorter signal cycle lengths. This may conflict with the stated goal of “maintaining adequate (vehicle) LOS.” We are concerned that striving for a V/C ratio of 0.85 (“D”) during peak hours may have an adverse impact on pedestrians in busy locations both during peak hours and throughout the rest of the day and night.
  2. Page 3: (f)Concurrent WALK should be considered where any of the …” should be replaced with: “Concurrent WALK will be used where any of the …”
  3. Page 3: (f)Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) should be considered where any of the following criteria are met” should be replaced with: “Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) will be used wherever there are concurrent signals to increase pedestrian safety and provide consistency for all users.”
  4. Page 3: LPI+Concurrent WALK should be the default. Bulleted criteria should be edited as shown below:
    • LPI+Concurrent WALK phasing will improve operations (i.e. reduce delays to both vehicles and pedestrians) – Should be replaced with: LPI+Concurrent WALK phasing will improve pedestrian safety; it is an FHWA proven safety countermeasure for reducing crashes.
    • Delete: Conflicting turning vehicle volumes (the sum of left and/or right) are greater than 150. LPI will add safety no matter what the turning volumes are and should not ONLY be used at high volume intersections; consideration should be given to also adding a protected, lagging left or lagging right turn if needed for pedestrian safety.
    • Delete: Pedestrian volumes are high (more than 250 pedestrians crossing per hour in at least one crosswalk). Delete in its entirety, LPI should not ONLY be used at high volume crosswalks. Other cities routinely include LPI at all signalized intersections.
    • Delete: At intersections within”safety zones”… Delete in its entirety, LPI will add safety no matter what the surrounding land uses are and should not ONLY be used at specified intersections.
  5. Page 4: Exclusive WALK Guidance – “No Turn on Red restrictions should be considered”– Should be replaced with: “No Turn on Red restrictions must be in place.” If there are exclusive WALK signals pedestrians assume that they are safe to walk and do not need to watch out for turning vehicles. That is the whole idea behind exclusive signal operations.
  6. Page 4: (g) Protected or Protected + Permissive left-turn – See question below about lagging lefts. We are not sure how this would affect this guidance, but flag this as needing review.
  7. Page 4: (i) No Turn on Red restrictions should be replaced to reflect best practices. As noted in GoBoston 2030, “Since 2010, Washington DC has installed over 160 LPIs at intersections. Anecdotally, DDOT found that these were more effective when used in concert with No Turn on Red restrictions for vehicles.”
  8. Page 4: (j) “analyze intersections where APS should be installed.” Should be replaced with: Every intersection that requires signals should have Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) added when it is being rebuilt for accessibility. APS push buttons should not be conflated or confused with push buttons for recall for a WALK signal.
  9. Page 4: (k) “Pedestrian Recall should be considered…” Should be replaced with: “Pedestrian recall will be the default for all intersections except those with very low pedestrian use.” As noted above, an objective of the signal policy should be to provide automatic pedestrian WALK recall at all signalized locations and to eliminate a requirement for pedestrian push buttons from all signals UNLESS they are providing service at very low use intersections or at mid-block crossings that are only activated by a recall button.

QUESTIONS IN THIS SECTION:
Page 3 (f): It is unclear why “YELLOW TRAP” is listed in the section on LPI+Concurrent WALK phasing. If there is concern about drivers unable to turn left due to large number of pedestrians in crosswalks – a protected, lagging left turn for people driving should be considered. These issues should be given an explanation on Page 4, section (g). We were under the presumption that the City was shifting to lagging left turn arrows to reduce risks for pedestrians and allow additional LPI+concurrent WALK signals, based on the implementation of these measures on Mass Ave throughout the Back Bay. LPI Guidance – revise regarding leading lefts. (See comment directly above). If by “where its operation would have a detrimental effect on other modes of transportation,” the real objective is to allow vehicles to turn, consider having the left turn be a lagging left in order to allow for both movements.

Page 4: (j) the “City’s Accessible Pedestrian Signal Policy” is referenced. Can you provide a copy of this Policy to WalkBoston, and provide a link in the Guidelines?

Page 4: (h) “If a multi-phase pedestrian WALK is the most feasible alternative” is very vague and confusing; what does this refer to? If a multi-phase crossing is thought to be needed due to transit priority, safety for pedestrians, or moving more vehicles through the intersection those tradeoffs and considerations should be indicated.

Page 5: (m) Overnight Flashing Mode Policy – Several serious and fatal crashes (including on Commonwealth Ave in the Back Bay, April 2017, and on Columbus Ave, 2018) – occurred where flashing mode was considered a factor. There was discussion at the Vision Zero Task Force that the City was considering a move away from use of this mode. How were the hours of 3AM to 6AM chosen for this policy?

We look forward to hearing from you soon and working toward revisions that will guide the City toward safer streets.

Best regards,

Wendy Landman, Executive Director
Dorothea Hass, Director of Special Projects
Brendan Kearney, Communications Director

cc
City Council President Andrea Campbell
City Council Planning, Development and Transportation Chair Michelle Wu
City Council Planning, Development and Transportation Vice Chair Frank Baker
Commissioner Emily Shea
Commissioner Kristin McCosh
BTD Director of Engineering John DeBenedictis
BTD Director of Planning Vineet Gupta
Becca Wolfson, Peter Furth, Boston Cyclists Union
Stacy Thompson, Charlie Denison, LivableStreets Alliance
Galen Mook, MassBike

Yarmouth Route 28 Walk Audit

Yarmouth Route 28 Walk Audit

On Thursday, June 28, 2018, WalkBoston conducted a walk audit along Route 28 as part of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security’s (EOPSS) Pedestrian Safety Planning Initiative for High-Fatality Communities. The EOPSS Pedestrian Safety Planning Initiative builds municipal staff understanding and awareness of the components of a safe walking environment. WalkBoston is working in partnership with EOPSS to address walking safety concerns in Massachusetts communities with high pedestrian crash rates, with the goal of reducing pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries in the Commonwealth.1 In Yarmouth, WalkBoston met with representatives from the Department of Public Works, Community Development, and the Police Department prior to the walk audit to identify an area in need of pedestrian infrastructure improvements.

Read the full report here:

WalkBoston-WalkAudit-Route28-Yarmouth

 

Comments on Improvements to the Walter St and Bussey St Intersection

Comments on Improvements to the Walter St and Bussey St Intersection

November 13, 2015

Chris Osgood, Chief of Streets
Boston City Hall
Boston, MA 02201

Re: Improvements to the Walter Street and Bussey Street Intersection

Dear Mr. Osgood,

We have just been made aware of plan by the Boston Public Works Department for improvements to the intersection of Walter and Bussey Streets in Roslindale. We have been told that the plans appear to be finalized and ready for bidding.

The intersection has a high crash rate and its improvement is a high priority for many residents of Roslindale and West Roxbury who drive, walk, or bike to the Arnold Arboretum and other local institutions. Neighboring residents have a deep knowledge of problems with the intersection and want to have a design that reflects neighborhood concerns. An open and public process for designing the intersection is essential.

The design shows that turning radii will be altered to help calm turning traffic. However, through traffic and the high speeds of vehicles on Walter Street remains a potential hazard for people on foot. Traffic signals may be needed immediately for adequate protection for pedestrians. For the intersection, concurrent walk signal phasing and leading pedestrian intervals would improve safety for people crossing the street. This signal may also encourage walking to the Arnold Arboretum from residences on this side of the green areas.

Sidewalks should be added on the west side of Walter Street within the project limits. A second crosswalk south of Bussey would improve convenience and safety for people on foot and would increase the visibility of the intersection for people in cars.

Signs that mandate “yield to pedestrians on turns” should be installed at all crosswalks. Right turns on red should be prohibited for further safety for pedestrians.

Thank your for your consideration of these factors that would protect pedestrians at this intersection. We look forward to your reaction to community input and to the preparation of alternative designs.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc Stefanie Seskin, Active Transportation Director