Yes, it would be more fair to write about all the many, many traffic signs in Newton that are easy to understand. More fair, but less fun. So instead, here are three sets of signs that are somewhat baffling.
First up, the “Do Not Enter” signs on the entrance to Beethoven Ave. by Zervas School. They are in effect for only 3 hours on each school day…which all together is only about 1/16th of the year…but they shout out all the time, modified by some fine print on most (but not all) of them to describe their actual hours. It would be clearer and easier to understand if we had signs that lit up only when they are in effect and remained dark for the other 94% of the time.
A while ago, while driving on Center Street through Newton Centre, I had time to catch only these two panels of a three-panel electronic sign: “Unless Otherwise Posted”…”Please Drive Safely.” It was only later, on another trip, that I happened to see the *first* panel in the sequence: “Citywide Speed Limit 25MPH.”
And most recently, we have what looks like a red light with a green light on Washington Street at Walnut. Does the word “Red” in the sign refer to the main traffic light or to the illuminated red circle below it?
The new sign at Walnut and Washington has successfully confused every driver I’ve seen roll up to the intersection. I’m assuming that it’s only in operation at certain times of the day or is linked to the signal for pedestrians to cross, which is why it’s illuminated rather than a standard sign. But as such, the decision to mimic the variant of this sign that includes the red circle wasn’t well thought out.
Our thoughts exactly about the Washington and Walnut Street red light/green light post. And I got stopped by a cop for the first time in more than 40 years a few weeks back when I exited Newtonville Avenue, passed the new concrete island, and tried to turn left onto Walnut Street. I admitted to the officer that I did indeed see the do not enter sign but only when I was making the turn onto Walnut. I told him my brain didn’t register that they were really serious about it. It just didn’t make sense. They can’t be serious. They are going to make me go all the way down to the lights at the intersection of Walnut and Washington, take a left on Washington, another left onto Austin Street and then another right back onto Walnut Street, all the while trying to maneuver the total confusion around the new Austin Street high rise and the entrance to the Star Market parking lot.
This is great, Bruce. I bet there are lots of examples, once we all start looking. The idea of “visual pollution,” an overabundance of commercial signs that cause confusion, has been around for some time. But it’s been my experience that this can also occur with regard to municipal signage. It’s easy for signs or signals to go up (in response to a complaint or a perceived safety issue), but less easy to recognize when their message needs to be refined or when they should come down.
I am in constant contact with the City’s Traffic Engineers. The No Turn on Red signs at Walnut and Washington are turned on at all times, and will never again be dark, in order to prevent cars from turning right, crossing the bicycle box, while the light is red. The bicycle boxes were painted to allow bikes to stop for the red light in front of motor vehicles. All motor vehicles must stop for the red light behind the first line painted across the lanes, which is where the bike box begins. The bike box ends at the second painted line across the lanes, before the crosswalk.
Jesse, that kind of defeats the purpose of the illuminated signs. Shouldn’t they just remove the fancy signs then, and replace them with a piece of metal?
Illuminated signs (as well as timed regulations like Zervas) are a bad idea. Otherwise, to Paul’s point, it sends a message that those signs are more important than the regular ones… pay attention to this one, but not the others? Where does it end? (Thinking of Needham’s flashing stop signs)
My favorite example of complaint-based “mixed signals” is Beacon and Center, where a slip lane was designed to be unsignalized. Now, a driver faces a red signal and a Yield sign at the same time. That’s not compliant with the regs.
I noticed the “no turn on red” at Walnut and Washington. It didn’t occur to me that it would be confusion, but I guess the visual red dot might give pause.
Overall, I welcome the traffic calming measures to that busy foot-traffic area. Makes sense.
That said, I’m with Bob on the no left from Newtonville Ave. I encountered that the other day, but needed to get to Austin St. I guess I’ll take another approach in the future, but that’s an odd one.
As for the “Do Not Enter” on Beethoven sign with the fine print, there’s a similar but less confusing limited no turn on red at Winchester to Nahantan (at the farm). That makes sense, but I guess the only downside is that some people who could legally turn right on red won’t. That’s hardly catastrophic though.
My understanding is that the no-left from Newtonville Ave is in response to an elevated number of vehicle-pedestrian collisions or near-misses at and near that intersection. The alternatives discussed, as I recall, were a traffic light that would be too close to the one at Washington St., or closing off that end of Newtonville Ave entirely.
What I have been doing to navigate the no left turn off Newtonville is turn left on Harvard and the the next right up to Walnut..when. I remember. I’m sure those residents on those streets don’t appreciate the extra traffic
I think that the No Left from Newtonville Avenue onto Walnut is a safety enhancement. Remember the awkwardness that was there for years — with vehicles trying to go through on Walnut competing with vehicles trying to turn left from Newtonville and from Austin Street, and with everybody trying to look for pedestrians at the same time? I thinks that this is a clear improvement for pedestrians, and will probably reduce the number of crashes. Drivers who feel inconvenienced could just find another route. Yes, this means some additional traffic for abutting streets, but I think that whatever traffic that gets shifted away from narrow, busy Newtonville Avenue is a good thing.
Al, I’d like to see the accident data that supports that theory
@Claire, Improved safety at that intersection was called out from the very beginning presentations of the Walnut St. improvement project, now moved here: https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/village-enhancements/walnut-street-enhancements . “Public Meeting #1” presentation says “Walnut Street ranks as one of
the 5% worst crash hotspots within the Boston metro area” and provides some data and discussion. The link to the state’s crash data seems to have gone stale, but the replacement seems to be here: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/top-crash-locations-and-maps
Adam, the electronic “No Turn On Red” signs, as well as all changes which occurred at Washington & Walnut were approved through the special permit which allowed the building construction to happen at this intersection. Since the contract was created for the change in signal, paving, and markings, the bike box was not originally included, and was implemented into the plan at a later date, before the project was completed. It was felt like that bicycle safety should be made as safe as possible. It was then too late to change the plan for electronic signs to metal signs.