Column: Why Did the Turkey Cross the Road?

Happy Thanksgiving you guys! Love the graphs and maps. What’s the r-squared for the trend lines in Chart 10?

I don’t understand why this is so complicated. The Crosswalk Ordinance is a (fatally) failed experiment. Every 7-year-old understands “Stop on the red. Go on the green. Don’t get caught by Mr. In Between.” The best way to protect pedestrians is an unambiguous red-yellow-green traffic light. Ticket drivers who don’t stop and pedestrians who cross in the middle of the block.

How many pedestrians have to die before we stop compromising? There is no room for compromise in a collision between a pedestrian and a 2,000 pound car. Another 3,200 word scholarly article complete with charts and graphs and statistics will not save one pedestrian’s life.

Several distinctions that i haven’t seen/heard addressed in this community discussion:

- the ease (i.e., length of wait) of crossing streets by pedestrians vs. the safety level of crossing the street.

- the ease of crossing relative to past years. I think Dave’s graphs addressed that relative to safety. Are there more pedestrians than in the past and therefore more of them that are waiting? Is there more vehicle traffic than in the past and so longer waits to cross by the average pedestrian? Or both?

- the difference in ease and safety of crossing for two-lane streets vs. three-or-more-lane streets, and whether there are more or fewer of the latter now than in the past, and how that relates to the questions above.

And with regard to clarification of the current ordinance:

- Where/when are drivers supposed to stop? At the crosswalk or some distance before that? As soon as they see the pedestrian or not until they get to the crosswalk? What if the pedestrian has crossed by the time they get there? Do they still need to stop?

Re: #3

Drivers should stop cars at the stop bar – a thick painted line some feet before the crosswalk. These stop bars are in place at all 4-way stops, all signalled intersections, and many marked crosswalks. They are certainly present at all of the crosswalks with RRFBs (rectangular rapid flashing beacons) and the HAWK light. Stop bars should be placed to provide visual clearance for the crosswalk – so drivers behind can see the crosswalk and know a pedestrian has entered it. That’s what the books say.

If the RRFDs are blinking, but no pedestrian is in the crosswalk, cars may proceed through. If the HAWK is red or blinking red, cars should stop.

I think measuring ‘ease’ may be more subjective than objective. Each crosswalk would have to be evaluated on some scale – and there are thousands of crosswalks at uncontrolled (no signal, no stop sign) intersections.

The number of pedestrians (where?) might be equally hard to measure. Some places, such as near campus, clearly indicate many pedestrians. Other areas (such as Plymouth Road) show an increase, perhaps due to an increase in off-campus housing in that area. Others (such as Washtenaw) also show an increase, perhaps because the shared path on both sides creates an opportunity to safely walk. And shopping on both sides of Washtenaw creates an rationale for crossing the street.

Re: #2
The solution you seem to want is a change in engineering/infrastructure – put stop lights at all mid-block crosswalks and at all intersections around town. Is that the idea?

@ #4.

I would prefer my city council reps. display an understanding of the fundalmentals of an issue rather than going round and round in a mire of detail. A major downside of this is that others, including the public, get caught up in the whirlwind, resulting in a ball of confusion.

A little knowledge is dangerous. Rather than touting newly learned transportation “expertise,” why not
serve as an elected official by directing a process where professional staff do the analysis and recommend solutions for council to deliberate?

What happened to standard operating procedure?

There are interesting articles relevant to this discussion in the new weekly paper, The Independent. One place I’ve seen it for sale is Book Bound, a new local bookstore off Plymouth Rd., near Cardamom restaurant.

@#2.

Excellent comment. Thanks.

Over the last few years Ann Arbor readers have had the opportunity to read thousands of words about crosswalk ordinances and laws. However, we have not heard a single statement from a Professional Engineer (P.E.) with traffic engineering expertise. Why?

The city of Ann Arbor employs Professional Engineers, as do most cities, counties, states, countries and transportation agencies. In Michigan, Professional Engineers are licensed after earning an engineering degree, working for 4-years and passing a rigorous series of exams, as outlined here. [link] Given these requirements, why do so many individuals in Ann Arbor believe they are qualified “to practice” as a Professional Engineer? Do they believe they are equally qualified to practice medicine, or give advice as a certified social worker or CPA?

Dave writes, “So I think it would be useful to move ahead with judiciously placed flashing beacons at additional locations in Ann Arbor.” Dave, I again recommend that you defer to the experts. Multi-modal transportation design is extremely complex and not always intuitive. Bolder and Chicago officials have reported an increase in crashes in some locations following the installation of flashing lights. One example is described in an NBC Chicago article: [link]

“In Chicago, some intersections are being adorned with sophisticated electronic devices. At others, simple crosswalk-specific stop signs are displayed.
The city’s new transportation director, Gabe Klein, has observed motorists at one such intersection near his downtown office. He said he’s been surprised by the results.
‘The people that come through here every day, they just know to stop. And that’s how you make cultural change,’ he said.
But those same signs seem to be having the opposite effect along busy Ogden Avenue in Western Springs, where officials have noted an increase in vehicle crashes where a new flashing light and sign system is being tested.
‘[It's] not what we expected,’ said Western Springs Deputy Chief Brian Budds. ‘Motorists are confused by what to do.’ “

Dave also states, “And I think that the current words on the page – which extend the right-of-way to pedestrians at the curb – more nearly reflect the kind of community to which we should aspire.” Realizing a goal usually requires years of hard work and a major investment, not a God-like proclamation like the local crosswalk ordinance. If we aspire to be a more pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian-safe community, let’s consult with the experts (P.E.’s) and develop a strategy for achieving our goal.

Issues that are never addressed when discussing this ordinance are 1) Bicyclists, and 2) pedestrians being expected to take some responsibility for their own safety. The ordinance itself places responsibility of Crosswalk safety strictly on motorists. My biggest objection regarding the ordinance lies with that point. How do we educate the Pedestrians and Bicyclists about the responsibility that they share when we enact such an ordinance? People ramble on about enforcement, or the lack of; apparently not understanding that this type of ordinance is quite unique. In particular is the fact that many of the pedestrians themselves violate the ordinance out right.

Bicyclists do not appear to follow any laws, they weave dangerously in and out of marked traffic lanes, and plow through the crosswalks running stop signs and red lights. On more than one occasion I have witnessed collisions between a bicyclist and pedestrians. I have especially around U-M’s Central Campus watched as pedestrians just wander into the street in front of moving traffic without warning causing collisions and near misses alike.

Several years ago the AAPD started to ticket bicyclists for not obeying traffic laws, this lasted about 24 hours and then ceased because the bicyclists started to complain about being ticketed.

With all of my grumbling, I feel that until we can gather an understanding among motorists, pedestrians and the bicyclists that it would be safer to just rely on the UTC for the crosswalk regulations.

Kathy,

After calling on us to listen only to the experts, I think you could have reasonably been expected to include the very next sentence in the article after the section you quoted: “Experts say it’s not the laws that need help. It’s simply public awareness along with more and better signs.” [In the context of that article "the laws" refers to laws requiring motorists to stop for, not just yield to pedestrians.]

Inclusion of that next sentence would have followed the example set by Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) during deliberations on Nov. 18, when he was quoting from the Federal Highway Administration guide on developing a pedestrian safety plan – and he observed that it would be remiss of him not to include the next sentence after the passage he was quoting, which indicated that legislative efforts should begin on the state level (a point that tended to work against the point Warpehoski was making).

Also I don’t agree with your implication that expressing support for the installation of additional “judiciously placed” flashing beacons shows a lack of deference to experts. Indeed, I quite consciously chose to insert a phrase (“judiciously placed”) that I thought would efficiently convey that the location of the devices should be informed by the usual city process of review by city staff, consulting all the relevant documents including the city’s non-motorized plan, which identifies general locations where additional such signals could be installed.

Your position appears to rest on a claim that none of the city staff involved in those types of decisions have sufficient professional qualifications and certifications to venture an opinion on these matters, let alone anyone else in the community. I respectfully disagree on both counts.

I also don’t think that calling local ordinances (of any kind) “God-like proclamations” helps the conversation along in a positive direction.

I’ll wrap up by returning to the main point of this column: I’m more interested in the work that we as a community might do together to improve the way motorists and non-motorists interact out there in the real world than I am in trying to win an argument about which words should be on the page.

“If we aspire to be a more pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian-safe community, let’s consult with the experts (P.E.’s) and develop a strategy for achieving our goal.”

It’s not as if PEs have been absent from the discussion. They were in the middle of creating the unsafe, dysfunctional road network that exists today. What evidence do we have for the idea that they are going to make matters better?

As a recent transplant to San Francisco from Ann Arbor, I am still busy, as a driver, remembering to constantly check for pedestrians at intersections, which do not have traffic lights. I appreciate all the drivers who stop for me when I cross at these intersections. This seems to be part of California culture so it probably is behavior that can be learned even in Ann Arbor. The pedestrian habit of wondering across the streets anywhere just doesn’t exist. I did it once, bad AA habit persisting, and was roundly chewed out my fellow citizens. Thoroughly shamed, I learned my lesson.

@#9

One point which may be relevant to your comment is that most fields of study are always evolving; engineering is no different.

Experts? Never trust the “experts” to make important decisions. Our culture is littered with failed enterprises based on expertise. Nuclear power is one example. Remember how the “experts” kept telling us it was safe?

Also, with regard to the crosswalks, the data show no correlation with anything. Ergo, there is not much for an “expert” to latch onto.

@#9 P.E.’s were not involved in the discussion and did not issue a report on any version of the local crosswalk ordinance. Dave Askins has provided an excellent chronology, including the relevant statements at the last Council meeting.

Please keep in mind that Steve Powers was hired in late 2011 and Eli Cooper was the staff spokesperson when council revised the ordinance shortly after Powers’ arrival.

Complicating the issue is that the state UTC, not the local ordinance, applies on the UM campus and the AAPS follow the AAA school safety patrol program guidelines. P.E.’s were involved in the UTC and the AAA guidelines, but not the local ordinance.

Regarding evidence for improvement in the future, Council adopted the Complete Streets law and can ensure that the city staff, including the P.E.’s, work within this framework. In addition, many more pedestrian advocates are now involved in the process.

@#13 Would you fly on a plane or cross a bridge designed and built by citizen advocates rather than engineers? Citizen advocates, such as those to serve on the Pedestrian Safety Task Force, may play a valuable role if they collaborate with others, including P.E.’s.

When crash statistics are limited or inconclusive, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends evaluating crash sites against best practices – signage, lighting, sight-distance, and law enforcement.

One example applicable to the downtown crosswalks is the state law prohibiting parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk. Michigan Vehicle Code 257, Sec. 674. (1) A vehicle shall not be parked, except if necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the law or the directions of a police officer or traffic-control device, in any of the following places:

(a) On a sidewalk.
(b) In front of a public or private driveway.
(c) Within an intersection.
(d) Within 15 feet of a fire hydrant.
(e) On a crosswalk.
(f) Within 20 feet of a crosswalk, or if there is not a crosswalk, then within 15 feet of the intersection of …

[link to .pdf]

Ann Arbor does not consistently enforce this law and has placed parking spots within 20 feet of a crosswalk on one-way streets. There is much for the “experts” to do — if empowered by our city leaders.

Let’s agree on a process for improving pedestrian safety that is inclusive, based on best practices and adequately funded.

Glad you mentioned bridges, Kathy! Remember “Galloping Gertie,” the bridge that collapsed in a high wind? Or other bridges that were supposedly earthquake-proof but have departed this life, taking other lives with them?

I wonder if there would have been greater acceptance of this ordinance if it had come out of the community, after discussion, rather than appearing as a Diktat from a pretty limited segment of the community (i.e., The Council Party). Top-down, social-engineering ideas tend to create much resistance on the ground. Who knows? Had this idea come from an impulse to self-government, it might not have aroused the ire of so many people.

As a pedestrian, a cyclist, a driver, and a parent, I share the above observation that non-motorists (particularly those under 25), seem surprisingly (unwisely?) willing to put their lives in the hands of strangers. At one level, this trust in Humanity is touching; at another, it seems to me not to be in the spirit of sharing the road, which suggests (again, at least to me) some sense of mutual obligations on the part of road-shareres.

It is a small irony that the part of town where pedestrians & drivers seem to have the most conflict is exactly the part of town that was laid out when walking was how most people got around town. Whatever one thinks of traffic engineers, they didn’t lay out “The Charm Zone”.

Regarding the difference between the requirement to stop and yield, many communities are moving to a “stop and stay stopped” requirement. This brochure from New Jersey explains the implications well: [Ed. note: The publishing software does not seem to like the square brackets in the link. The URL is ucnj.org/traffic/pdf_files/Stop_for_Pedestrians_Law_Fact_Sheet[1].pdf for those willing to copy-paste. In the meantime, I’m looking for a work-around. My apologies. Okay, here’s a link that works.]

RE: 14, the Federal Highway Administration also suggests the use of citizen pedestrian safety committees in cooperation with expert feedback. To include one does not preclude the other.

RE: #7, Ken writes, “The ordinance itself places responsibility of Crosswalk safety strictly on motorists.” This is demonstrably false. The local ordinance specifically requires that

(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

re: #16, also downtown is where we have the highest numbers of pedestrians, so I’m not surprised that it is also where there are the most pedestrian crashes. It would be interesting to slice the data by injury rate. I would imagine that the lower average speed of downtown traffic also means a lower rate of injury per crash.

Re: #4

>>The solution you seem to want is a change in engineering/infrastructure – put stop lights at all mid-block crosswalks and at all intersections around town. Is that the idea?

Yes. The current approach is confusing to drivers and, therefore, dangerous for pedestrians. If our objective is to maximize pedestrian safety, then use a clear and unambiguous signal that drivers must stop. Of course, that will slow traffic, but that’s what we are doing now.

@4: I was referring to non-signaled, mid-block crosswalks, not those at intersections (which vehicle stoppage isn’t triggered by pedestrians but rather signage or signals) or the signaled ones. Those crossings don’t have the stop bars.

re: #18, most of the places we have other treatmens such as the HAWK signals or RRFBs are not eligible for red/yellow/green traffic lights. There might be some that are, but my memory is that at the last meeting Craig Hupy said that most of the ones are not.

The folks on 7th Street have found out about these regulations the hard way in their efforts to get a stop sign or stop light at 7th and Madison. City staff have explained that traffic patterns there do not fit the standard for an all-way stop sign or traffic light, and if the city were to install one that does not meet the standards, the taffic engineers could be held _personally_ liable.

Chuck, if you slice the data by injury severity and speed limit, you get the expected result that higher speeds are more likely to have more severe injuries than lower speeds. That holds both for Ann Arbor crashes as well as for a broader look at data statewide. It was less of an effect than I expected, and incapacitating injuries still happen at 25 mph speeds.

There might be really simple things that could be done with timing of stoplights to give pedestrians more of a free flow of passage downtown. I know that the Main/William intersection has a delayed green that gives people a few extra free seconds to cross the street before the light turns. Setting up something similar on State between William and Huron could possibly be helpful to pedestrians.

Hey! Jim Rees wrote about the problems of too-short pedestrian signals for the Chronicle in 2008: [link]

My opinion is that a crosswalk at 7th and Jefferson would make more sense. Even a flashing signal (RRFB) could be effective. The problem is that 7th and Madison has a major left turn lane and lots of traffic goes through there. Pedestrians could cross at 7th and Jefferson without too many more steps (if they were coming from Madison) and it would be much less interference with what drivers are thinking about.

There’s a chance to offer that input directly to staff at a public meeting on 7th St. on December 11: [link]

Re: r-squared for trend lines in Chart 10

Ped Crashes at Intersections has r-squared of 0.35
Ped Crashes at other locations has r-squared of 0.15

With a range of 0-1, and r-squared a measure of how much of the variance in the data is explained with the line, I think I’ll stick the position expressed in the column: Based on those reports, I don’t think it’s possible to draw conclusions about any impact the current ordinance might have had on safety – good, bad or indifferent.

Dave, I think you can draw a much stronger conclusion than that, based solely on the maps that you’ve presented. Year after year, there is a density of car-pedestrian crashes downtown and near campus. Any solution to the safety problem that ignores downtown is going to have a hard time making a dent in the total problem. (Not to minimize real issues on some streets in the neighborhoods, but someone better stand up for downtown and campus issues.)

Ed @ #27

Please see my comment #15. I have been “standing up” for the downtown and campus area by way of advocating for best practices. A few years ago I was labeled a “safety nut” just for asking Ann Arbor City Council and Roger Fraser to follow best practices. Our P.E.’s know what best practices are and can evaluate which improvements would have the greatest impact on pedestrian safety. However, the P.E.’s have been silenced. Why?

Ask about funding for transportation planning (trains, connector, etc,) and the answer will be a list of funding options. Ask about funding for pedestrian safety infrastructure and the immediate answer is we do not have the money.

Downtown parking revenue takes priority over abiding by the state law that prohibits parking within 20 ft of a crosswalk. I recommend a P.E. sign off on every transportation-related project, right down to parking space placement.

Kathy Griswold, I appreciate your efforts to improve safety. But I wonder: have the PEs (professional engineers) really been silenced? In comment #20, Chuck W explicitly points out that they have said Madison & 7th can’t have a signal because it doesn’t meet standards. I’m confused by various statements (from different sources) I’ve encountered over the years that decisions are made willy-nilly without input from “professional engineers”. From what I’ve read, safety engineers determined the placement of the HAWK on Huron and the flashing beacons on Plymouth. What decisions are being made without their input? Or is it that I don’t know the terminology – maybe it’s not PEs making those decisions, but some other kind of experts?

I wonder if the trade-off for increased on-street parking spaces is revenue or DDA/merchants who say “our customers need more parking!” – which, when you dig down into it, usually means (a) on-street, (b) in front of their store, and (c) [if you polled the drivers/parkers] preferably free.

re #23 – crosswalk at Jefferson & 7th would definitely help those heading north from Madison. A crosswalk at Princeton & 7th would help those heading south (towards Pioneer). Princeton is more central between Liberty & Pauline (the existing signalized + crosswalked intersections), but adding both seems better that choosing. After all, there is a crosswalk at Snyder & 7th and that is in the much shorter segment from Pauline to Stadium.

Re 29: There has been talk of traffic calming on 7th. Two constructed crosswalks with pedestrian refuge islands would definitely have that effect (I like the Princeton idea).

I dislike the idea of bumpouts along 7th, partly because these don’t work as advertised (HATE the one at Pearl and Brooks) and partly because it would interfere with the bike lane. But a couple of central pedestrian islands might have a similar effect.

As an aside, the emphasis in this discussion on “PE’s” seems like a bit of a red herring. As far as I know, some of the city’s engineering staff are PE’s and some aren’t, but I’m sure they’re all competent. “PE” in engineering is not like “MD” in medicine; it’s an impressive credential, but you can be a perfectly competent professional engineer without being a Professional Engineer, and in fact in many areas of engineering it’s not an especially important thing. It’s true that PE status is important in civil engineering, and many traffic engineers are PE’s, but what’s important here is the fact that they’re traffic experts, not PE’s. Transportation planners also have expertise here, and most of them aren’t engineers at all.

By the way… Kathy in #27: “I recommend a P.E. sign off on every transportation-related project, right down to parking space placement.”

Is that not already the case?

@30: Not all possible bump-outs interfere with the bike lane. Look for images of bike chicanes, as found here: [link]

I confess that I don’t see anything in your illustration to alter my point. One picture appears to leave a little lane for bicycles, at the cost of forcing traffic to stop in each direction before weaving around the obstacles. I don’t see how we can in good conscience suggest that a major connector roadway should have obstacles that actually stop the flow of traffic to this extent. I’d rather see more signalized cross-walks and consistent traffic enforcement.

One effect of the traffic calming on Brooks (according to some of the neighborhood emails) has been increased anger and impatience on the part of drivers, so that they speed in between bumps, etc. I really hate that bump-out because it requires me to guess whether oncoming traffic will make way or not (it requires northbound traffic to veer into the parking lane to make it work as a 2-lane road). Often I have to stop and just wait (you should watch the buses try to maneuver around it).

We should not turn traffic regulation into a war between modes of travel or between neighborhoods and those who must pass through. Reasonable accommodation to all should be the goal.

An additional success note: I’ve been pleased to see how the reconstructed Miller has added a sidewalk along one side and also several pedestrian refuge islands. I assume that road stripes and signage will make these into full-bore pedestrian crossings.

@34: I’ve seen them elsewhere as well and they work fine for drivers and bikes.. This blog post has better pictures.

[link]

[link]

“P.E.’s were not involved in the discussion and did not issue a report on any version of the local crosswalk ordinance. Dave Askins has provided an excellent chronology, including the relevant statements at the last Council meeting.”

I guess you missed the point Kathy which is that the current messed up transportation system that neglected pedestrian and biker safety in favor of allowing cars to go wherever possible as quickly as possible was a product of the “expertise” of P.E.s. Having learned the hard way, the “non-experts” aren’t willing to cede the decision-making to the “experts”.

As a bicyclist, pedestrian and driver, I appreciate anything that slows the traffic down here. I have lost track of the number of times I’ve nearly been nailed as a pedestrian at marked intersections by drivers too anxious to make their “right turn on red” to wait for me to cross. As a cyclist even when I place myself directly behind the car to make my right turn (as I would as a driver on a non-bike lane road), cars pull ahead of me in the turn and cut me off. Perhaps there should be a total “No Right on Red” law in A2 too – seems that the drivers’ need to make that right turn at all costs is another big part of the problem.