A New Vision Zero for St. Paul: Part 3 – Engineering

Part two of “A New Vision Zero for St. Paul” was about the first of the “Five E’s”: Evaluation, which very quickly led to rudimentary Engineering solutions simply to gather data and attain target goals for a transportation plan. Engineering is the second of the “Five E’s”, and often the most contentious, as it often controls what people can and cannot do within a transit system. The topic alone is broad enough to fill more than the volumes it already inhabits, and with that in mind this post will only touch on a few modest suggestions for St. Paul to aid in attaining the goals of Vision Zero.

Engineering:

Vision Zero operates under the assumption that humans are not naturally, evolutionarily, equipped to safely operate motor vehicles in the manner and at the speeds that our infrastructure has been built to encourage, which is why 30,000 people die on American roads every year. No enemy force has been that successful at killing people since the great wars of the mid-twentieth century. It is equivalent to a large passenger jet falling out of the sky almost every other day, a state of affairs that we would never tolerate. The system itself must be re-engineered to scale appropriately for human limitations and capabilities.

  • 25 mph.

Courtesy of guide.saferoutesinfo.org (Safe Routes to School)

Any street in which pedestrians are exposed to vehicular traffic in order to cross a street…i.e. without a protected bridge or other isolated crossing, the speed limit should be capped at 25 mph. This change could also make Saint Paul’s policy of treating every corner as a crosswalk an actual reality, instead of the fantasy it currently is. Recently, Saint Paul made an effort to change the speed limit on Cleveland Ave to 25 mph, but the effort was thwarted by the county.

Courtesy of nyc.gov.

At speeds of 25 mph and under, stopping distance improves by 23% over 30 mph and fatalities are substantially reduced. Furthermore, the speed is low enough that drivers have the opportunity to see – and stop for – pedestrians. The excuse “I didn’t see them”, which is often invoked for failure to stop, is actually, technically true. At speeds faster than 25 mph, human beings are not capable of ensuring that their vehicles – their lethal weapons – are being employed safely and responsibly. In other words, traveling faster than 25 mph in a pedestrian-permissive environment is, by definition, traveling too fast for conditions. The next driver to hit a pedestrian might cynically argue in court that the infrastructure and laws were built in such a way to compel him/her to exceed his/her capabilities.

USAF installations have adopted 25 mph, (and 15 mph in most residential areas), because the data is overwhelming regarding pedestrian survivability, and because Wing Commanders are tasked with safeguarding their Airmen, civilians, and families. Whether drivers are irritated about slowing down never enters the calculus, because of the overriding concern for life. Cities are supposedly tasked with the same, and yet care too much about the convenience of drivers.

Images courtesy of NACTO

 

Saint Paul should join New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., London, Berlin, and Tokyo in implementing this Vision Zero policy goal. Even cities in, of all places, TEXAS, are considering 25 mph limits.

When I first moved here, there were a lot, but a lengthy ride around Saint Paul revealed that they are all gone. An entirely disappointing Star Tribune poll indicates that 83% Minnesotans oppose 25 mph speed limits. So we apparently prefer speed over life, and also favor distracted driving.The “debates” on social media regarding the latter were depressing in the depths of ignorance they attained.) If policymakers and the public are unaware of the incontrovertible human factors research and survivability data, it represents a staggering gap in Education. But if they are aware, and simply choose to ignore it, keeping speeds high or neglecting to build pedestrian protections is a grotesque ethical failure. Amorality is the state of not possessing a working knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, while Immorality is knowing, and deliberately choosing wrong.

This sign is great, but it isn’t in Saint Paul.

This sign isn’t in Saint Paul. It’s courtesy of the Saint Anthony District Council.

This isn’t in Saint Paul either.

The USAF: home of the need…the need, for speed! But you have to drive 25, except in residential areas, where the limit is 15, because the USAF is a data-driven organization, and the Wing Commander doesn’t care how fast you want to drive.

  • Reduce – or eliminate – signals and signs.

The purpose of most electronic traffic controls, and many signs, is to facilitate the (relatively) rapid and smooth flow of motor vehicles. Pedestrian and cyclist safety is a tertiary concern. In October 2015, the Yorkshire town of Beverly, England, suffered a failure of 42 electronic traffic signals…and found that traffic suddenly flowed more smoothly. Cities in England are now experimenting with removing lines from streets, finding that it induces uncertainty and reduces speeds by 13%. In fact, electronic traffic signals are where nearly half of the crashes in a city occur, because all eyes involved are on the signal, rather than on the other vehicles, or the cyclists and pedestrians who share the roads.

This idea, the concept of “shared spaces” or “naked streets”, is almost a form of anti-engineering; a kind of de-marking developed by the late Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman. His approach is more psychological than anything else, predicated on the notion that lines and signs provide a false sense of security, and even encourage drivers to only partially attend to their environment, since the signs are telling them what to do. Light turns green? Go. Sign says 45 mph? Drive 45 mph. Monderman’s idea was that if the directives and the false safety were to be removed, drivers would slow to the point where they are capable of looking out for their safety, and the safety of others. In other words, self-preservation will induce drivers to operate at speeds appropriate for conditions. To Monderman, most signs are not only dangerous, but an admission of failure on the part of the road designers.

The painted double-circle in Poynton’s de-signed monster intersection. Photo courtesy of The Guardian.

The removal of signs and directive lines has achieved remarkable things in some places, such as Poynton, England, where a monstrous five-way intersection was painted in an interesting double-traffic circle pattern, and all signage was removed. Following the change, average speeds dropped below the target of 20 mph, and there have been no fatalities. Multiple cities in Europe are now experimenting with the complete removal of traffic signage, and the results have been positive, and stunning. As the saying goes at some of the planning conferences: “Unsafe is safe”, a statement which highlights the counter-intuitive notion that signing, and particularly signaling, exists to allow people to operate motor vehicles beyond their actual capabilities. Eliminating signage has been demonstrated multiple times to actually make things safer, to the extent that municipalities in England are even considering removing white dividing lines on the road, having found that in many cases it causes speeds to drop by 13%. I hesitate to bring up bike lanes, since Saint Paul would likely seize an opportunity to eliminate them while ignoring the associated body of theory regarding signs, but cameras in Lancashire, England, have found that cars pass cyclists 7 inches close, and faster, when there is a bike lane than when there isn’t. The firm paintbrush of guidance gives people false confidence in their capabilities.

In Saint Paul, the best traffic planning is often accidental. Recently the electronic signal at Randolph and Cretin was out, temporarily replaced by a four-way stop. The result? Drivers no longer “right filtered” past cars attempting left turns on green, a common Saint Paul behavior which converts two-lane intersections into a four-lane road, crowding cyclists and pedestrians while making the left turn exceptionally dangerous. Furthermore, no drivers were racing to beat a yellow light.

This was amazing. First this silver SUV goes. The black one across the intersection is waiting…AND THE CAR BEHIND ISN’T RIGHT-FILTERING AROUND!

Now, black SUV goes. Car behind waiting like one does at a four-way stop. Silver car on the right was at the stop first, after the previous turning vehicle.

Silver car previously on right is passing out left side of frame. Now it’s the turn for the car on the far side. Notice that the Jeep behind isn’t right filtering.

Just incredible. Everyone taking their turn, all because an electronic signal was knocked out, and a temporary four way stop put in place.

A diagram of typical traffic flow at an electronically controlled Saint Paul intersection. While cars queue to turn left at the green light, other cars impatiently step on the gas and right filter, making the situation impossible for everyone.

For the brief duration of the unplanned four-way-stop, it was the safest I had ever felt crossing that street on foot, or by bike, and the safest I ever felt making a left turn off Cretin in my vehicle. Saint Paul might consider the revolutionary approach of reducing (or eliminating) reliance on electronic signaling. Drivers will slow naturally, knowing that they will have to suddenly rely on their own limited faculties. Additionally, defunct programs like “Paint the Pavement” should be revived and re-invigorated.

  • Adopt NACTO guidelines.

If Saint Paul does not want to make the bold step towards unsigned spaces, a firm commitment to the adoption of the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ guidelines are another start. St. Paul should utilize the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide and the Urban Bikeway Design Guide as foundational documents for street planning. Additionally, “road diets” and “pop up” cycletracks should be the rule, not the exception, and are low-cost, high-impact ways to nudge existing design towards NACTO guidelines.

Conclusion:

For decades, traffic engineers have treated vehicular traffic in the same manner as plumbing: Build it bigger, wider, faster, and engineer the intersections to maximize flow throughput. The result has been the dividing of neighborhoods and communities, isolating people/pedestrians on “safe” islands that have been severed from human scaled connections by lethal and wide roads.

Recently, even West Palm Beach in Florida – a stroad-dominated and nearly unwalkable town – realized the folly of of this approach, and started reconfiguring high-speed/high-volume roads. The result was a drop in speed that made pedestrians suddenly feel safe walking about, and a near doubling of property values. Ian Lockwood, the former transportation manager of West Palm Beach, said of the changes: “What we really need is a complete paradigm shift in traffic engineering and city planning to break away from the conventional ideas that have got us in this mess. There’s still this notion that we should build big roads everywhere because the car represents personal freedom. Well, that’s bullshit. The truth is that most people are prisoners of their cars.” This in FLORIDA, of all places. Florida. Let that sink in for a moment, Saint Paul.

This section on the Engineering aspect of Vision Zero has been lengthy, and that’s because so much Education background needs to be discussed behind the counter-intuitive (or counter-plumbing) Engineering proposals. If one wants to make the optimistic assumption that the current engineering practices and concepts in St. Paul and Minnesota are not immoral, then the present state of amorality might simply be the result of a gap in Education, which will be the subject of Part 4.

Streets.mn is a non-profit and is volunteer run. We rely on your support to keep the servers running. If you value what you read, please consider becoming a member.

, , , , , ,

17 Responses to A New Vision Zero for St. Paul: Part 3 – Engineering

  1. Rich August 31, 2017 at 10:28 am #

    And 25 MPH really means 30 MPH because there is rarely enforcement of speed limits and even more rarely for anything less than 5 MPH over the posted limit.

    • Nathaniel M Hood
      Nate Hood August 31, 2017 at 1:17 pm #

      TBH I’d be happy if people only drove 30 MPH :\

      • Rosa September 1, 2017 at 3:31 pm #

        yes! If we actually want people to drive 30, we need to set the speed limit at 20 or 25.

        Or, you know, enforce the law on drivers. But we know that wont happen.

  2. Bill Lindeke
    Bill Lindeke August 31, 2017 at 10:41 am #

    “In Saint Paul, the best traffic planning is often accidental.”

    This is sort of funny, and you’re very on-point with this piece! I am optimistic about the Maryland Avenue road diet and it’s ability to set a precedent in Saint Paul for traffic calming. Speeding on Maryland, formerly one of the most dangerous streets in the city, is way down as a result of the change.

  3. Paul Nelson August 31, 2017 at 1:04 pm #

    Very much spot on to many of the issues related to this topic. However a recent conversation and my followup research is that a state law for a 30 mph speed limit is preventing Saint Paul and other cities form considering implementing a lower speed system. In other words the maximum lowest speed limit allowed is 30 for most streets and 25 is allowed for streets with bike lanes. Is this the main impediment to change at this time? I do not know all of the details.

    • Pat Thompson August 31, 2017 at 1:21 pm #

      Definitely one of the impediments. In theory, if you have a “complete street” as on Cleveland, you can have a 25 mph limit, but the county blocked it.

  4. Pat Thompson August 31, 2017 at 1:20 pm #

    Hey, those I Drive 25 signs are definitely in St. Paul! St. Anthony Park is a St. Paul neighborhood. (They’re not in St. Anthony Village.)

  5. Kristina August 31, 2017 at 2:58 pm #

    Well written. I wonder if contacting MAJ (Minnesota Association for Justice, it’s comprised of mainly personal injury trial attorneys who, surprising to most, actually want to make the roads safer.) would be a prudent step to assist in advocacy regarding the legislative changes needed? In an aside, would love to put a “I drive 25 ” bumper sticker on my car in addition to a sign. I live across the street from a school. (Expo) and people drive 40-45 down our street regularly, during school drop times. Thanks!

    • Pat Thompson August 31, 2017 at 3:25 pm #

      I believe we have some I Drive 25 magnets left at the St. Anthony Park Community Council (District 12) … office is at the corner of Raymond and University, two stories up from Workhorse Coffee Bar. You could email sarah@sapcc.org to see if there’s a good time stop by, or there may be some other way to get one into your hands.

  6. Monte Castleman
    Monte Castleman August 31, 2017 at 7:39 pm #

    I’ve heard people here say we should have a traffic light at ever intersection. I’ve heard people say we should get rid of them all. My opinion is we shouldn’t discard 60 years of experience by people with actual engineering degrees and trust them as to when and where to put traffic signals. (My audit did find way too many in Minneapolis, but getting rid of unwarranted signals is usually a political issue, not an engineering). If there’s a problem with illegal passing on the right at a warranted signal, rather than impose the cost of congestion on people in cars by removing it let’s go with the standard engineering fixes- widen the road to three lanes, narrow it to two real lanes instead of two-almost four with bumpouts or bicycle lanes, restrict left hand turns, etc.

    As for Poynton, I did some Googling and not everyone thinks it’s the utopia that it’s often lauded at. You might not care that it doesn’t do much or anything to solve the congestion problem for people in cars, but that volume of traffic makes it unpleasant for all but the “strong and fearless” types of people on bicycles.

    The St Anthony Park signs- I don’t know if that’s the intent, but they sure look like speed limit signs, and might come close or cross the line into being illegal. “MINNESOTA STATUTES 169.07 UNAUTHORIZED SIGN, SIGNAL, OR MARKING. (a) No person shall place, maintain, or display upon or in view of any highway any unauthorized sign, signal, marking, or device which purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles an official traffic-control device or railroad sign or signal, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic. If that was not the intent why not make them look so much like a real sign? You could have the same text on a pink sign with a different font.

    • Walker Angell
      Walker Angell September 1, 2017 at 7:53 am #

      “My opinion is we shouldn’t discard 60 years of experience by people with actual engineering degrees and trust them as to when and where to put traffic signals.”

      All of those people with actual engineering degrees and 60 years of experience have given us the most dangerous road system of all developed (OECD) countries. We have the highest rate of fatalities and injuries, by a significant factor, whether measured per capita or per mile travelled. These deaths and injuries are caused by bad engineering. Why should we trust them? US traffic engineering should absolutely be discarded.

      Otherwise, agree.

  7. Walker Angell
    Walker Angell September 1, 2017 at 7:46 am #

    Great post Michael.

    One nit. The Netherlands have removed all of Monderman’s shared spaces. While they worked fantastic at first, over time people driving cars slowly took over and all but one became unsafe and uncomfortable for people walking or riding bicycles. They have been rebuilt to current CROW standards with protected bikeways.

    Exhibition Rd in London has likewise proven a bit of a failure. I’ve walked along it quite often and it followed a similar path to the Dutch versions—great at first but over time drivers took over. I personally think it is still better than it was before but falls far short of what protected bikeways and walkways provide. Poynton is similarly much improved over what it was prior. OTOH, no parent would let their child ride a bicycle through it nor would most parents themselves. It works great for a very few, not so well for the other 98% of the population.

    The shared space concept only seems to work on Fietstraats where cars are limited in number (and less than the number of bicycles), are not allowed to pass bicycle riders, and are treated as guests only.

  8. Walker Angell
    Walker Angell September 1, 2017 at 9:22 am #

    That’s interesting about the bases. I assume drivers are much more obedient (of speed limits and such) on base than average drivers otherwise?

    • Katie D. September 2, 2017 at 12:13 am #

      Walter- military bases are federal property and traffic offences are taken more seriously. It’s a privilege to drive on a military instillation and that privilege is easily revoked. Drivers are much more careful when a speeding ticket (less than 5 over, even) can land you in your commanders office as well as possibly being barred from driving on base.

      I learned to drive on army bases. Knowning my dad could get in trouble if I wasn’t careful was more real than, “I might have to pay a fine.”

  9. Michael Daigh September 2, 2017 at 11:23 am #

    I’m not entirely sold on the complete elimination of signs, a la Monderman. I am, in many cases, convinced that down-signing, if you will, has promise; such as substituting a 4 way stop for an electronic signal at many intersections.

    Elimination of paint and signs would be directly contrary to NACTO guidelines, which I also propose and heartily endorse. The internal contradiction in this piece is entirely because I’m just running through a variety of engineering ideas that might tilt the city in the direction of Vision Zero, ideas that amount to more than doing nothing. Additionally, part of the intent was to highlight the false assumptions that many cities have planned around.

    Insofar as military bases are concerned, drivers may be more obedient, but that’s not the point. I should have pointed out that the limits used to be 30, and sometimes 35, but when research revealed the tremendous survivability of pedestrians by a simple reduction to 25, most USAF installations dropped to 25. Given the Wing Commander’s mission and responsibility to safeguard the lives of people on the base, no other decision was logical in the face of overwhelming data. A data-driven organization that doesn’t care how loudly anyone complains about having to slow down makes one decision. In other places, people willfully ignore the data because they want to drive faster. It’s a different set of ethical priorities.

    • Michael Daigh September 2, 2017 at 11:58 am #

      That is to say, I endorse NACTO guidelines. Not endorsing wholesale acting contrary to them.

  10. Michael Daigh September 2, 2017 at 11:26 am #

    I’m also aware of state laws that stop the city from reducing speed limits. However, I linked to the refusal of Ramsey County engineers to drop the speed on Cleveland to 25mph, despite the city’s willingness to do so, when state law actually provides for a 25mph limit in the presence of the bike lane.

Note on Comments

streets.mn welcomes opinions from many perspectives. Please refrain from attacking or disparaging others in your comments. streets.mn sees debate as a learning opportunity. Please share your perspective in a respectful manner. View our full comment policy to learn more.

Thanks for commenting on streets.mn!