Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian C Pedestrian C C Crossing - PDF document

Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian C Pedestrian C C Crossing confusion rossing confusion rossing confusion rossing confusion Bevan Woodward Transport Planner What’s happening overseas in countries with far better road safer and higher active transport mode share? Why is so hard to get pedestrian crossings installed in NZ? What can we do in NZ to improve the situation? 1

Liberal application of Ped X’ings in Sweden 2

Liberal application of Ped X’ings in France 3

Liberal application of Ped X’ings in French towns 4

Liberal application of Ped X’ings in Denmark 5

Liberal application of Ped X’ings in Netherlands (which we seems to regard as a big no no in NZ!) 6

But in NZ residents have to fight the traffic engineers to get Ped Crossings 7

Typical official response 1) There are too few pedestrians crossing the road to justify a facility 2) There are too many pedestrians, providing a crossing facility will significantly delay traffic 3) Zebra crossings are not safe and we don’t have the budget for signalised crossings 4) The evaluation guidelines don’t support it, eg: • Benefit-Cost ratio • Safety concerns not justified - lack of crash history Traffic Engineers (TE) will say there is either not enough or too many pedestrians for a crossing, ie it’s not warranted by ped numbers or it will cause traffic congestion - whichever one suits the situation to enable them to say “no”. Pedestrian amenity that competes with traffic flow must be resisted. 8

Reading between the lines… 1) Community concerns about safety are unjustified (no one has died yet) 2) Walking is not a particularly valued mode of transport (the people inside cars are more important than those outside of cars) 3) It’s OK to trade off the safety of a relatively small group of vulnerable road users against minor inconvenience to a larger group of motorists 4) People travelling through get priority of those living in the place 5) Doing nothing is the safe/easiest option for the traffic engineer. I’ve often wondered why Traffic engineers and Road Safety managers in NZ are so reluctant to put in pedestrian crossings. I also think it comes down: 1) to a fear of who will get the blame if things go wrong. If there is no pedestrian crossing then if a pedestrian gets run over then we can clearly blame the pedestrian. However, if there is a pedestrian crossing provided and a pedestrian gets hit then questions might be asked of the road engineer as to why it happened – is there a fault with the crossing design or location? 2) the risk of public criticism that a pedestrian crossing was implemented but nobody uses it. 3) Ped crossings are seen as “nice to have”, they’re not real transport infrastructure. TE’s have bigger fish to fry. https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2017/02/08/bring-on-the-pedestrian-crossing/ 9

The result… Typically it takes a death or two before Traffic Engineers in NZ will begrudgingly support a pedestrian crossing. Is this not professional malpractice? 10

#1: Engineers mustn’t lead the design process. "If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places." Fred Kent, from the Project for Public Spaces Urban designers need to step up and lead the design process, they are typically good at ensuring all users’ needs are met and are more willing to prioritise walking & cycling to help create more liveable communities. They understand human scale and can balance ‘place’ and ‘movement’ functions. Traffic Engineers love to engineer… TE’s are rules & numbers orientated. Speed is good. Wide lane are good, clears zones are good, long sight lines are good… Engineeers are not designers. They don’t design our house, our parks, our public buildings. They are typically not comfortable dealing with public debate nor pushing ahead with projects that involve backlash. They have a valuable input but not as lead designers. Placemaking champion, Fred Kent, from the Project for Public Spaces, says: "If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places." "It is not true that more traffic and road capacity are the inevitable results of growth. They are in fact the products of very deliberate choices that have been made to shape our communities to accommodate the private automobile. We have the ability to make different choices — starting with the decision to design our streets as comfortable and safe places — for people on foot, not people in cars." 11

#2: Replace the Benefit-Cost Ratio approach… Business BCR is based on: Transport BCR is based on: All Selective real $ effects real & abstract $ effects of a project for of a project for a single business entity multiple unrelated entities NZTA’s BCR: perceived/abstract $ eg: value of life? (crash savings). Value of motorists time (more time to sleep in, watch TV, etc.) Excludes environmental & social effects NZTA’s BCR is GIGO (Garbage In = Garbage out) 12

Here’s how NZTA’s guide trades off safety of pedestrians (eg: children being able to walk/scooter/cycle to school) against the inconvenience of potentially delaying motorists by 2 to 3 seconds each. Average estimated wait time of 3 seconds for every motorist over 40 years = $539,000 in vehicle delay cost… BCR = -5.8! Therefore TE recommends to Councillors “Sorry this ped X’ing doesn’t stack up according to the Austroads guide provided by NZTA” The Traffic Engineer’s professional society has a Code of Ethical Conduct that requires: “You must, in the course of your engineering activities, take reasonable steps to safeguard the health and safety of people.” Are our Traffic Engineer’s adhering to their Code of Ethical Conduct when they deny safety for pedestrians over potential delays for motorists? 13

Replacing the BCR approach A recent Institute of Transport Economics reports says travel time delays are... “… no disadvantage when the objective is to promote environmentally friendly urban transport ”. Prioritise those pedestrian crossing projects that meet relevant GPS strategic objectives using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, eg: • deliver the greatest reductions in DSI’s • best support modal shift to active transport • value for money Then the focus comes onto the size of available budget (not warped BCR’s) 14

#3 Adopt international best practice • Adopt a “Safety-first” approach per Vision Zero. In particular… embrace safer speed environments with liberal application of pedestrian crossings • Improve the signage for crossings • Raised table zebra crossings (Wombat crossings) are safe and low cost 15

best practice from Netherlands… traffic calming + pedestrian crossing 16

best practice from Denmark… traffic calming + pedestrian crossing 17

best practice from Denmark… traffic calming + pedestrian crossing 18

best practice from Denmark… low cost simple traffic calming. The haven’t even bothered to remove the painted centre lines! 19

best practice from Denmark… low cost traffic calming 20

Yet we can do this in NZ per this example from Ponsonby, an early suburb of Auckland. This traffic calming beautifies the street, creates a more walkable, cyclable and livable environment and enhances property values – how do we put that into NZTA’s BCR calculation? 21

Improving the signage for crossings This is a screen shot of a Google search for “Pedestrian Crossing signs” images. Guess which one is used in NZ? Yes, it’s the middle right-most – the only sign that says “Empty Pedestrian Crossing” ahead! 22

Replace… With… or Hopefully this is a no brainer?... 23

Improving NZ’s road markings for Replace the NZ diamond with the British zig zags to dramatically improve driver awareness around ped X’ings 24

Examples of raised crossings from USA 25

Raised crossing in Brisbane. Australians call them “Wombat” crossings, the research shows that safety for pedestrians is improved by 80% 26

Summary: • #1 Engineers mustn’t lead the design process • #2: Replace Benefit-Cost Ratio thinking • #3 Adopt international best practice - “Safety first!” Thank you!.. Thank you!.. Thank you!.. bevan@movement.org.nz Thank you!.. bevan@movement.org.nz bevan@movement.org.nz bevan@movement.org.nz 021 122 6040 021 122 6040 021 122 6040 021 122 6040 27