Walking

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Traffic signals give priority to motor vehicles over pedestrians. This inequality undermines many of the stated goals of transport, health and environment policy.
State and city governments say they want to encourage walking and biking for many reasons:
- it is space efficient - it has less environmental impact - it is healthier - it is safer for other travellers - it reduces the numbers of cars on the road, so even motorists should be in favour of other people walking.
To help achieve these goals, road management agencies should reprioritise traffic signals to redistribute delays at intersections from pedestrians to cars.
Planners tend to focus on the long-term decisions, like infrastructure and land development. However, it is the shortest of short-term decisions, how many seconds of green light each movement gets at an intersection, that shapes perception of the feasibility of walking or driving to a destination at a given time. This influences the choice of route, destination and mode of travel.
Traffic signal timing involves maths, so has been historically delegated to engineers. But it also involves values and priorities, and so is the proper subject of public policy.
Since the early 20th-century dawn of what Peter Norton calls “Motordom, street space has steadily been regulated and enclosed. This has limited the rights and privileges of pedestrians while promoting those of drivers, in the name of safety and efficiency. But safety and efficiency for whom?
Pedestrians once crossed the street whenever and wherever they wanted. The introduction of signals prioritised the movement of motor vehicles at the expense of pedestrians, which slowed effective walking speed through the city. Pedestrians now spend roughly 20% of their time waiting at intersections. The consequences of making it easier to drive and harder to walk are consistent with the rise of vehicle-dominated cities.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZORzsubQA_M?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
How Barcelona is taking city streets back from cars.
How the phases of traffic signals work
Pedestrians take longer to cross streets than cars because they are slower. As a result, the "don’t walk” signal flashes before the light turns red.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221495/original/file-20180604-177095-712qfo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
 CC BY-ND
But at many intersections it is worse than that. Traffic signals are set to give less green time to pedestrians on a phase (from the time the light turns green to when it turns red, or from “walk” to “don’t walk”) than to motor vehicles, to give vehicles a protected left turn without having to yield pedestrians. Adaptive signal control also extends the green light for cars when these are detected, but not for pedestrians, who aren’t.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221486/original/file-20180604-177111-oqxh1v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
CC BY-SA
The average pedestrian arriving randomly at the intersection waits longer than a car. Several factors guarantee this.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219524/original/file-20180518-26258-7p3zmj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
 Phases of traffic signals typically mean pedestrians wait longer than cars. Author provided
1. Cycle length
The cycle length (time from the start of the green light to the start of the next green) tends to be longer at busier intersections and busier times of day. A longer cycle length reduces the number of phases per hour, and thus reduces the lost time associated with each phase, when the intersection is not being effectively used by any approach. Lost time can never be reclaimed, so one understands why engineers might want longer cycle lengths if their main objective is to move cars.
However, long cycle lengths disadvantage pedestrians, who stand out in the open exposed to the elements and the exhaust emissions of cars, motorcycles, trucks and buses. Even more significantly, people consistently misperceive travel delay, so the wait feels even longer than it actually is.
2. Actuation/‘beg buttons’
While some signals are “fixed time”, modern signals are “actuated”. This means they respond to the presence of vehicles by adjusting the phasing and perhaps the cycle time.
Either a camera detects approaching vehicles or, more commonly, a sensor in the road, often a magnetic loop. This automatically allows the signal to stay green longer if it detects a vehicle approaching, or turn red sooner when there are no vehicles.
In contrast, for pedestrians, they must push a button to get a walk signal. If they arrive a second too late, they have to wait the entire cycle to get a walk signal. If there are many pedestrians, they don’t get a longer walk signal.
Pushing the “beg button” (so called as the pedestrian must request the signal) twice does not make it come faster or stay green longer. Ten, or a hundred, pedestrians do not make the “walk” light come faster either. The beg button is often positioned out of the way, requiring the pedestrian to walk further than would otherwise be required. A few seconds here, a few seconds there, add up.
There is a reason that traffic engineers don’t allocate automatic pedestrian phases. Suppose the car only warrants a six-second phase but a pedestrian requires 18 seconds to cross the street at a walking speed of 1 metre per second. Giving an automatic pedestrian phase even if there are no pedestrians will delay cars. And there is no sin worse than delaying a car.
3. Co-ordination
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219525/original/file-20180518-26277-1pxne8m.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
A 1929 traffic engineer’s signal schedule and traffic flow diagram across Market Street, San Francisco (click to enlarge). Green wave set to 10.5mph (about 17km/h). City of San Francisco
First introduced in 1922 in New York City, traffic signal coordination aims to ensure vehicles arrive at the traffic signal when it is green, so they don’t have to stop. By correctly timing signals in sequence, platoons of vehicles move together through a “green wave”.
Let’s say the wave is set for a speed of 40km/h. As long as a car accelerates from the first signal to 40km/h and maintains that, it should hit the following lights on their green phase.
This is relatively easy to maintain on a single road, but is more difficult on a network, especially a complex, asymmetric network. It also works against the idea of actuation, as interruptions to the pattern (extending or contracting phases) change the window in which cars can hit a green light at a given speed.
Of course, just because cars can make a green wave at a speed of 40km/h doesn’t mean pedestrians will make a green wave unless they travel at exactly a divisor of 40km/h (e.g. exactly 5km/h) between intersections. This means that pedestrians will more likely wait at red lights at intersections timed for cars.
Policies to improve the life of pedestrians
One of the world’s most widely deployed traffic signal control systems, the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS), was developed in Australia. Just as Australia led the way in traffic control to move cars more smoothly, it should lead in pedestrian-oriented traffic control. Those concerned about pedestrians should insist on a number of steps:
<ul>
<li>pedestrians, like vehicles, should be counted automatically at controlled intersections</li>
<li>there should be a pedestrian phase for every movement</li>
<li>traffic signal algorithms must give equal or greater weight to pedestrian time than to vehicle time</li>
<li>pedestrians should get the maximum feasible green time on a phase, rather than the minimum, so pedestrians arriving when the light is green can take advantage of it, and slower pedestrians are not intimidated by cars</li>
<li>pedestrians should get a “leading interval” so they can step into the street on a “walk” signal before cars start to move on a green light, increasing their visibility to drivers</li>
<li>pedestrian phases should be automatic, even if no actuator is pushed – the actuator should make the pedestrian phase come sooner and last longer</li>
<li>many more intersections should have an all-pedestrian phase (known as a “Barnes Dance”) so pedestrians can cross intersections diagonally without having to wait twice.</li>
</ul>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i0TFGXnZzFs?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
Pedestrians cross diagonally at some the world’s busiest intersections, including Oxford Circus in the heart of London since 2009.
Numerous other steps could be taken to improve the life of the pedestrian and thus increase their number. Certainly, we can demand more patience from drivers as well.
The advent of autonomous vehicles over the next few decades is unlikely, by itself, to eliminate the need for traffic control. But autonomous vehicles should help increase throughput at intersections, losing less time than human drivers, and leading to cars behaving far more safely.
David Levinson, Professor of Transport, University of Sydney
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-traffic-signals-favour-cars-and-discourage-walking-92675" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

How traffic signals favour cars and discourage walking

<html><body>
Just over a week ago the City of Melbourne released the first two discussion papers as part of its <a href="https://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/transportstrategy">Transport Strategy Refresh</a>. These focused on the themes of 'Walking' and 'City Space' with Urban.com.au providing commentary via <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/city-of-melbournes-transport-strategy-refresh-should-it-not-apply-to-other-municipalities">this article</a> and during <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/guides/weekly-podcast-episode-10-rowville-light-rail-and-melbourne-airport-rail-link">Episode 10 of the Weekly podcast. </a>

The ambitious plan will look to examples from abroad such as Barcelona's proposed "superblock" strategy which creates a series of small neighbourhoods around which traffic will circulate around the perimeter, and in which road space within the interior will be re-purposed into shared public spaces.

The Superblock strategy will commence with the famous gridded neighbourhood of Eixample where a superblock will comprise nine existing blocks of the grid, in a 3 x 3 formation. Vehicular traffic will then be restricted to just the roads bounding the superblock, and they will only be allowed in the streets in between if they are residents or providing local businesses, and at a greatly reduced speed of 10km/h.

The NYC Department of Transport's (DOT) “Green Light for Midtown” pilot project in 2009 paved the way (pun intended) for the Times Square Reconstruction project, enabling temporary paving and street furniture to close Broadway to vehicular traffic between 42nd and 47th Streets.

This initiative originally intended to improve safety and alleviate traffic conditions but the pilot project's success led to NYC DOT permanently reconsidering the function and layout of Times Square via a three-pronged approach that would upgrade critical utility infrastructure, provide event infrastructure for new and expanded public events, and permanently adopt the temporary improvements that were piloted in 2009. 

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/times-square-before-and-after-dec-2016-1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Before and After December 2016. Image: NYC DOT"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="359" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/times-square-before-and-after-dec-2016-1.jpg?itok=zy-UdQHZ" title="Before and After December 2016. Image: NYC DOT" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>New York's Times Square before and after December 2016. Image: NYC DOT</figcaption></figure>London too is getting in on the action with plans to pedestrianise large parts of Oxford Street announced last November, with a target date of the end of this year. The plan aims to improve air quality and congestion in the city and is the first of three phases which will transform Oxford Street, to be followed by the stretch between Oxford Circus and Tottenham Court Road and then between Marble Arch and Orchard Street.

All east-west traffic will be stopped but some north-south routes will be maintained, according to the plans. More than four million people visit Oxford Street each week.

In Melbourne, the largest barrier is changing people's attitudes and reliance on travelling into the city via private vehicle. Part of addressing this lies in providing an efficient and reliable public transport system which offers an alternative to the car. Likewise providing safe and walkable city streets which encourage people to walk short distances and dedicated bicycle lanes for cyclists is critical to ensuring a quality public realm.

Melbourne Metro will go some way to addressing some of the issues, however significant bottlenecks exist for pedestrians in and around Southern Cross Station and Flinders Street Station, in morning and evening peak, which is exacerbated when events are on at Etihad Stadium or within Fed Square. 

The recently announced redevelopment of <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/etihad-stadiums-redevelopment-to-improve-links-to-cbd-and-victoria-harbour">Etihad Stadium</a> and the delivery of the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/federal-government-wants-to-tip-5-billion-into-a-melbourne-airport-rail-link">Melbourne Airport Rail Link (MARL)</a> in the next 5-10 years and potential for Metro 2.0 to converge at Southern Cross Station will further reinforce its role as a key interchange node and so providing a safe environment surrounding the station is critical.

Notionally applying Barcelona's "Superblock" approach results in something which looks like this:

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/melbourne_cbd_plan.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Notionally applying Barcelona's &quot;Superblock&quot; strategy to Melbourne's CBD"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="313" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/melbourne_cbd_plan.jpg?itok=uQd0oLM5" title="Notionally applying Barcelona's &quot;Superblock&quot; strategy to Melbourne's CBD" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Notionally applying Barcelona's "Superblock" strategy to Melbourne's CBD</figcaption></figure>However this doesn't necessarily alleviate the problems described above relating to pedestrian congestion at Flinders Street and Southern Cross Stations and conflict between pedestrians and cars. 

Fundamental to this is understanding and defining the roles and hierarchies of the streets - what is their purpose and how best to manage access and movement for delivery, emergency services, taxis and people with impaired mobility?

Limiting north-south vehicular movement as much as possible allows for improved and safer interchange between heavy and light rail at the city's stations and more pedestrian-focused streets adjacent to the stations.

Additionally, this would create more pedestrian streets with good solar access during the middle of the day. With the CBD short on open space and site acquisition to provide open space costly, the street network offers a potential solution.

One possible outcome might be something like this:

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/melbourne_cbd_plan2.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title='A variation of the "Superblock" with pedestrian zones adjacent to stations.'><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="313" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/melbourne_cbd_plan2.jpg?itok=5t7vNSnd" title='A variation of the "Superblock" with pedestrian zones adjacent to stations.' width="580"></a>

<figcaption>A variation of the "Superblock" with pedestrian zones adjacent to stations.</figcaption></figure>This would include the pedestrianisation of key streets such as:

<ul>
<li>Spencer Street between Lonsdale and Collins Streets</li>
	<li>Bourke Street between Spencer and Spring Streets</li>
	<li>Flinders Street between Swanston and Queen Streets</li>
	<li>LaTrobe Street between Queen and Russell Streets</li>
</ul>
The 'little' streets would serve the purpose of providing servicing and resident vehicle access, with movements primarily occurring in the east-west direction. 

Lead Image: David Lock and Associates
</body></html>

Walking

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Walking

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News