Newton is refusing to address obvious opportunities to make our streets safer for pedestrians. I discussed this in the context of Adams St. in Nonantum (here, here, and here). A soon-to-be missed opportunity is the upcoming repaving of Chestnut St. from Collins Rd. to Elliot St. Nearly every intersection with a side street should be narrowed to reduce the speed of cars and trucks turning onto the side streets and to reduce the time pedestrians spend in the street, vulnerable to cars. The curb cuts should be re-oriented to direct pedestrians across side streets and not into Chestnut St. There is no indication that either step is being even considered.
Backing up, given the variety of street widths and corner designs, there is no standard intersection in Newton. It is possible, though, to propose a model intersection of a main street and a side street. Until someone identifies a better reference, I propose Parker St. and Daniel St. (Yes, that’s right up the street from my house. If you’re in the neighborhood to check it out, do drop by and say hello.)
Daniel St. is 24′ wide for most of its length. The pedestrian crossing is 34′ (measured at the center of the curb cuts). The distance between the points at which the corners start is 60′. This last measurement give an indication of how tight or gentle the corner is. The tighter the corner, the more vehicles have to slow.
Note: Parker St./Daniel St. is not the ideal intersection. It’s just the best example of a representative intersection that I’ve measured. It could be made a little tighter. Daniel St. is a worthy reference, though, because, as a feeder to Bowen School, it’s as busy as any side street and regularly handles bus, fire truck, garbage truck, moving truck, and any other form of big apparatus. It is completely functional. If you’ve got a better reference, please drop a note in the comments and I’ll go measure.
None of the side-street intersections on the section of Chestnut to be repaved are as tight as the Parker St./Daniel St. They could easily be made as tight in the course of the repaving effort. But, they are not. Once again, the city is failing on its promise to make the city safer for pedestrians.
There are three basic use cases among the Chestnut St. side streets:
- 24′-wide streets that need tuning
- 34′-wide streets that need major tuning
- Outliers
I suspect that the first two use cases are the predominant use cases across the city. We should have a standard design for both.
There are seven 24′-wide streets that intersect with the section of Chestnut St. to be repaved. Four of them have crossings between 36″ and 41′ 6″. One is 34′ 6″. All five of these could be easily tightened to a Daniel St.-like 34 (or maybe even 30′ or 32′) simply by tightening the corners. In practical terms, it means replacing the five or six pieces of granite per corner that define the shape of the corner and rebuilding the sidewalk. There would be no difference where the corners begin and end and the Chestnut Street and side street curbs begins.
Kodaya St. is the 34′ 6″-wide street. It has a 46′ crossing. The distance between curve start is 91′. Its corner radii — a measure of how tight the corner is (smaller is better) — appear to be about the same as its 24′-wide neighbors. Which means the only reason that the intersection is wider — 35% wider than Daniel St./Parker St. — is that it’s a wider side street.
There is a growing recognition that wider streets lead to higher speeds. Higher speeds are more dangerous for a variety of reasons. Walking along streets with higher speeds is less pleasant, so higher speeds discourage pedestrian activity. But, the width of Kodaya is not a problem that can be cured in the course of the Chestnut St. repaving.
What can be cured in the course of the Chestnut St. repaving is the excessively long pedestrian crossing at Kodaya. Wider streets mean wider travel lanes. At the intersection, wider travel lanes mean, in addition to a longer crossing, that cars have more room to turn, which leads to higher cornering speeds.
The way to address the problem at Kodaya (and similarly wide streets across Newton) is to extend the curbs to create a Daniel St.-like 34′ or less crossing. The treatment would be similar to the curb extensions on Centre St. in Newton Centre. There is simply no reason why similar side streets off the same main street should have wildly different pedestrian crossings, even (or especially!) if the street width is different. Look at how much narrower the crossing at Amherst St. is compared to Kodaya. Look at how much street space is below the car in the Kodaya St. intersection in the picture.
While there is only one 30’+ side street between Collins and Elliot, there are plenty of examples around Newton. The city should have a standard treatment for these during repaving projects. It should reflect that, as proven on Daniel St., that vehicular traffic doesn’t need more than a 34′ opening to get onto and off of a major street like Parker St.
There are three significant outlier intersections on this stretch of Chestnut St.: Collins Rd., Tamworth Rd., and Summer St. Collins Rd. is a unique case. It’s 24′ wide and winds down a steep hill as it approaches Chestnut St. It feels like the intersection — 44′, 30% wider than our reference 34′ — is overly wide, but it’s a more complex case than your humble scribe feels comfortable evaluating.
Tamworth Rd. and Summer St., on the other hand, are clear and obvious disasters. If the city is not fixing intersections like these, it just isn’t serious about pedestrian safety.
Summer St. is 25′ 6″ wide. The crossing is 59′ 9″. Tamworth Rd. is 24′ wide. The crossing is 53′ wide. I’ll do the math for you: the pedestrian crossing at Summer St. is 134% wider than the road width once the corner straightens. For Tamworth Rd., it’s 121%. There is simply no justification for crossings that wide. They are unsafe. They leave pedestrians in the road for too long. And they encourage hide speeds through the intersection — where pedestrians are supposed to cross — and on the side roads.
Both Summer St. and Tamworth St. should and could be tightened … significantly.
Almost all of the corners in the stretch of Chestnut to be repaved have diagonal curb cuts — curb cuts that are at 45° angles to the pedestrian crossings, either across the side street or across Chestnut St. These diagonal curb cuts are cheaper, you only need one per corner, even where there is a crossing across both streets. But, they are not as safe or as nice for pedestrians. They need to be aligned with the direction people are walking.
The city sold the override, in part, on the promise that money would be spent making roads safer. So far, not seeing it. Potholed roads are not really unsafe. Potholes bend rims, break suspensions, and ruin tires. But, I’m not aware of any safety issues that bad pavement creates on mostly urban roads. Safety improvements will follow design changes, and the city road improvement program is not making design changes. Wide intersections and misaligned curb cuts are a pure expression of people in cars as the priority over people on foot. That the fix is both obvious and ignored illustrates that the city’s priorities haven’t changed.
There are currently stop signs, with warning signs that one direction does not stop at the intersections of Chestnut Street and the Rt. 9 eastbound ramp, and Chestnut Street at the Rt. 9 westbound ramp, which I would prefer to be full traffic lights.
Thank you very much,
Slow news day Sean?
@Sean,
One other very simple solution to improving pedestrian safety is to use an “all red” at intersections so that pedestrians can cross without being placed into conflict with cars. As one specific example, heading east on Beacon St. at the intersection of Beacon and Centre Streets the light turns green for motorists. At the same instant, pedestrians waiting to cross at Centre Street get a walk light. That puts the pedestrians and vehicles turning right from Beacon onto Centre in direct conflict because both the vehicle (with the green light) and the pedestrian (with the walk light) are told they have the right of way.
Of course, the pedestrians in that situation have the right of way, and yes — prudent motorists should be looking out for them even when they have a green light. But, sadly, there are many drivers who are impatient and imprudent and think that green means “go now”, red means “stop if you can” and yellow means “go very fast”.
@Lisap, at Beacon and Centre, pedestrians get the walk sign several seconds before motorists get the green, by design, so they can get a head start and be visible to motorists. Turning vehicles do not have the right of way. What happens in practice is another matter. Also, to Sean’s point, the way the intersection is designed, including the turn radii dimensions, can make a difference in how quickly cars can make turns and how likely drivers are to yield to pedestrians.
Concurrent pedestrian phases like Beacon and Centre work best when there is a high pedestrian volume. Push buttons aren’t necessary (and weren’t in the original design) Because pedestrians can cross concurrently with traffic, they don’t have to wait as long, and are less likely to jaywalk. Exclusive (all-red) phases make the pedestrians wait longer and give traffic less time to move, creating more congestion.
@Jesse Corey – My wife’s car was totaled at that very intersection last week. Thanks to the airbags she wasn’t.
I agree that those matched pairs of three way stop intersections on either side of the Chestnut St Rt9 underpass are a menace. I drive through those intersections every morning and about once every two weeks somebody nearly hits me. I think just adding the 4th stop sign at each intersection would be a big help since 20% of the drivers already assume that there is one there. I’m not sure traffic lights would be the best idea, especially since you’d need two pairs of traffic lights only 30 or 40 feet apart. Although maybe you could treat both sides of Rt 9 as one big intersection. That’s a pretty pricey solution. In the meantime, a couple more Stop signs would be a big help.
@Sean Roche – Summer St? Now you’re in my neck of the woods. You’re right that Summer St is a way wide intersection. I’m a regular pedestrian at that intersection. Crossing that wide intersection in Summer St is further than it should be but far, far easier then crossing Chestnut St at that intersection to get to Echo Bridge. A pedestrian crossing there might be a good idea since there’s a fair amount of foot traffic there to get to the bridge and the park.
@Adam – Thanks for the info regarding the design, but I will say that my travels have me at that intersection regularly at 6-6:30 p.m. weekdays. In my experience pedestrians are IN the cross-walk when cars have the green light. That places pedestrians in direct conflict with cars. I can understand how an all red may increase congestion at certain times. On the other hand, if cars with a green light are stopped waiting for pedestrians to cross, how is that not contributing to congestion since those cars aren’t moving during the timed period to move cars through the intersection?
And yes, as I said in my comment above, pedestrians do have the right of way in that situation. But pedestrians do not fare well against cars when they collide.
Exactly. Peds are supposed to be in the crosswalk when cars get the green. Turning cars wait, but not for that long. That causes some queuing, but the majority of the cars are going straight, so it moves a lot more traffic than if all lights were red.
This type of signalization is relatively new to MA and very new to Newton; most drivers and pedestrians aren’t aware of the conflicts. Intersections with this type of concurrent crossing should have “vehicles yield for pedestrians in crosswalk” and “pedestrians watch for turning vehicles on walk signal” signs.
The newness of the crosswalk signal timing is why it is so important that the width of the crosswalks is narrowed to naturally slow cars before they turn.
The shorter the time people and cars are in a shared space (ie crosswalks) and the slower a car is at a turn, the safer it is for everyone.
Hi Tricia, you are right, concurrent pedestrian signals are less common around here, although they are the most common type of pedestrian phasing in the US. On the other hand, Cambridge has been essentially all concurrent signals for more than 10 years, with great success.
Boston uses those “yield to pedestrians on turns” signs, and they are OK, but there is already a big white hand for pedestrians that the drivers should be able to see that should tell everyone that the pedestrian has the right of way.
Mike – drivers who are not familiar with concurrent crossing see green light and assume no pedestrians; likewise pedestrians see white hand and assume no cars. They aren’t looking to see what signal the other has – both assume “my turn to go.” Signs aren’t perfect, but at least they’re a possible heads-up to drivers and pedestrians who arent familiar with this type of signal yet.
Sean. Thank you for posting this necessarily detailed analysis of hazards at intersections along Chestnut Street from Collins Road to Elliott Street. I’m particularly pleased that the intersection of Chestnut and Summer Street has been featured in some of the response. It is potentially a fatal blind spot for both pedestrians and vehicles coming on Chestnut from Elliott Street to Summer because a steep hill on Chestnut blinds motorists to pedestrians until they are literally right on top of them. I try to be careful, but never feel comfortable crossing there.
Tricia, I do get what you’re saying and respect your desire to find a solution. I would make the case, though, that the problem is more fundamental. Drivers need to be looking for pedestrians in crosswalks, and for those waiting to cross. Period. That is basic driver’s ed.
Those pedestrians could be crossing at a concurrent signal. They could be crossing at an unsignalized crossing. They could be crossing at an exclusive red light (all stop) and the vehicle has a right on red. They could be jay-walking, possibly because they didn’t press the ped button and the light didn’t change, or because they are clueless.
Whatever the case, whoever is acting legally or illegally, at a crosswalk drivers should look for and yield to pedestrians. Morally and practically, if not legally. A driver may be frustrated, a driver may honk (for warning, or course), a driver may have to brake. But if there is an unprotected life in front of your vehicle, the right thing to do should be obvious. That’s especially true if the pedestrian is acting legally, like crossing at a concurrent light.
Furthermore, drivers should approach turns carefully, slow down, and look at an intersection or before executing the turn. Basic driver’s ed. Yes sometimes there are obstructions. Or bad roads. Bad behavior of others on the road. Distractions in the car. But this is pretty fundamental.
I agree with you that in reality, this doesn’t happen far more often than we would like it. And there are no angels: we all do it, sometime, somewhere, some circumstance. But to me there’s no indication that a driver who has lost track of these fundamental responsibilities of driving will be put on the straight and narrow by some relatively inconspicuous signage.
If we did do signage, perhaps rather than Boston’s “yield to pedestrians on turns” signs, which sound like a fairly timid request, we should have more educational “pedestrians have right of way on walk signal” signs above the walk signal. But my engineer brain says, “we should do what works”, and find out what that is.
Hey Sean, thanks for raising this issue (again, but in another neighborhood, which really helps people put things into the context of their own experience). I agree with your overall point and want to focus on detail I also commented on last time.
One of the most applicable rules of roadway design is that every intersection gets better (safer, more convenient, more efficient) by “tightening it up”: squaring off the intersection, bringing stop lines in as close as possible while accommodating crosswalks, etc.
Why?
* A smaller area where conflict can happen
* Easier for everyone to see everything happening
* Smaller clearance interval (time between red one way and green the other)
* Shorter crosswalks
* Less wiggle room for bad behavior
* Tightest curb radii throughout the entire intersection
* Easier to place signals and other traffic equipment
* Strange-angle intersections require some drivers to turn their heads more than 90 degrees, which is a challenge for older drivers.
Which brings me to Chestnut and Summer, which don’t meet at a right angle and has plenty of width. Sean’s example bumps out both sides. The trick is to bump one side out more and get the end of Summer square with Chestnut.
A agree with Sean that every paving opportunity should be a time to look at these issues, and that we are losing opportunities that could improve people’s lives, and we’ll have to wait decades to make it right.
But there are many intersections that aren’t up for repaving. We shouldn’t wait. Wide and non-square intersections are all over Newton. And the fire department may well raise concerns about narrowing any one of them.
My first step to solving this problem? Take 20 horrible intersections every year and figure out their optimal curb layout. Then paint them. Put fog lines down at the intersection. Paint won’t stop a fire truck, so no problem there. Paint does provide a guide, though. It makes things more orderly. And the planning without a paving deadline gets us out of the “not yet, oops, too late” cycle.
And then, when we do pave the street, we have both plans and experience to build on.
Mike,
Great idea. Love it. First, let’s identify the widest intersections. Measure them. Rank them. Union & Langley, Clark & Centre, Parker & Marcellus, Parker & Wheeler are some nominees near me.
Union & Langley is particularly egregious because it’s in a village centre and one-way.
As support for your approach, there is not particularly aggressive striping on Clark & Centre that appears to have some impact.
Mike,
You wrote: “Which brings me to Chestnut and Summer, which don’t meet at a right angle and has plenty of width. Sean’s example bumps out both sides. The trick is to bump one side out more and get the end of Summer square with Chestnut.”
If you look carefully at my highly technical and precise rendering, you’ll see that the bulk of the bumping out is on the south side. The bump out on the north side is just to make a right angle.
In any case, that was the intent. 😉
I think a lot of specific cases cited here are correct. I do want to point out that “traffic calming” measures such as narrower intersections, choke points and tighter turning angles all look great, but these best practices are not always best in practice. Case in point, a hot spot in Newton Centre car-pedestrian incidents is the Centre Street Pelham Street intersection — Pelham is a _very_ narrow one-way street that’s set at a right angle to traffic, so on paper it should be very safe. It is not. We all want pedestrian and cyclist safety. I am a little leery because the transportation department has successes but also had major misfires.
Sean, thanks for bringing our attention to these intersections. I like just about every idea presented in the comments as well. I hope the traffic department listens.
Dulles, fair to be wary. The city’s current approach, getting a nationally-renowned firm to develop the Newton “complete streets guide” to give us standards to aim for, is really the right approach. What the City needs most is good implementations of good plans from good consultants based on good standards. When you don’t have that (looking at you Auburndale Square), you get a lost opportunity. And for the people who use it, worse. Once the plan exists, though, Newton has to act on it for it, and do it well, to matter.
On Pelham, I wasn’t here when the last work was done. But I can only guess how bad it was before. As far as the job went, it’s actually not bad. But that intersection isn’t what anyone should call “traffic calmed” because of the width of Centre St. and how the road feels. I would also guess that doing anything more was politically impossible at the time. Maybe even now.
At any rate, I don’t think there’s anyone currently on city staff that had anything to do with Pelham/Centre. Or even Auburndale Square.
Dulles,
Are you suggesting that Pelham is worse than it was previously? Or, just not good enough, yet? And, if so, what specific problem do you think remains?
For my money, Pelham/Centre/Langley is much, much better than it used to be. All the crossings are significantly narrower. And, the site lines of and for pedestrians are better.
What definitely continues to be a problem is the many movements caused by having two lanes on Centre St. southbound up until Pelham with the left (eastern) lane operating as part left-turn lane to Langley. The left lane should be left-turn only until Langley. But, that’s the stuff of a much longer post.
Sean, I’m surprised you did not consider that potholes can be safety issues for bicycles.
Speaking of “Complete Streets” , I distinctly recall a glowing description of how Adams was going to look at the Sons of Italy hearing. It’s now a thruway.
@Pat Irwin, are you referring to the absence of the traffic-calming effect of mature trees that make streets feel narrower?
https://twitter.com/JuliaMalakie/status/961759854774882304
@ Julia: yes, plus the other promises conspicuously missing 🙁
I cross Centre a couple times a day at either Pelham or Pleasant. The biggest issue is that with the two southbound lanes on Centre, a vehicle can stop in one lane, but vehicles in the other lane doesn’t have line of sight that a pedestrian is crossing. One who hope that driver would figure out that the car in the adjacent lane has stopped for a reason, but that assumes more awareness than is usually exhibited