Ways of thinking collide when confronting traffic tensions
Long-standing traffic issues sparked testy exchanges Monday between city councillors on one side and the city manager and director of the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department on the other, raising two larger issues:
First, the conundrum of relying on traffic data gathered by police when the presence of police inhibits bad driving; second, that, in the words of city councillor Marjorie Decker, “You have city councillors who don’t trust that your traffic department is paying the kind of attention it needs to … You have city council that for many years have felt like the traffic department is the most unresponsive department we have. That’s just fact. The majority of the council feels that way.”
Councillor Marjorie Decker was concerned most about Richdale Street and Walden Avenue, the spot where a bridge ends and neighbors cross to get to Henry’s, a small grocery store, although the speed of cars traveling much of Walden worried her as well; Craig Kelley was focused on Garfield Street and Massachusetts Avenue, another problematic crossing.
In addition to hearing from constituents about traffic fears at the intersections — in Decker’s case, going back almost four years — each had firsthand knowledge of the intersections; Decker lives at Richdale and Walden, while Kelley has children attending a school near Garfield Street.
“Time flies,” Decker said. “I would actually like to get some timeframes for when these will be implemented … what we have seen with certain recommendations the council has adopted and the traffic department has committed to, things can happen two years, three years down the line, and I would actually like to get some accountability.”
It became clear the councillors and city officials would not come to a quick agreement. When City Manager Robert W. Healy brought out Susan E. Clippinger, the department’s director, she told Decker the intersection was “operating quite well right now,” an assessment Decker rejected with simmering exasperation.
She asked about installing permanent barrel-like structures at the bridge to force drivers to slow, which was greeted blankly by Healy and Clippinger despite Decker’s insistence they’d discussed it before. And she reminded them of how hard she had to work to bring in a stop sign now endorsed by the traffic department.
Clippinger acknowledged Tuesday the intersection had long been a “concern.” But records showed two accidents last year, after the street reopened to through traffic after two years of bridge construction, and one accident each year back to 2006. (Decker said she had “witnessed several accidents” from her window and had begun agitating for a stop sign after a accident three years ago sent a woman — fortunately walking that day without her baby — to the hospital with severe injuries.)
There may be close calls as cars zip through, but “close calls are hard to track, because they’re not recorded,” Clippinger said. Short of painting “stop” on the asphalt, which will be done when weather improves, the department has reached the end of the traffic calming measures that can be taken there, Clippinger said. Raising a section of asphalt has been vetoed by the Fire Department, which uses Walden to get quickly to emergency calls throughout the city. A traffic light, although recommended by a civic engineer consulted by Decker, has been rejected because it would back traffic up all the way to Massachusetts Avenue. Rumble strips were rejected because the noise would disturb residents.
The remaining option from Clippinger’s perspective is to have police do periodic enforcement in the intersection.
But Kelley considered police enforcement of questionable value at Garfield and Massachusetts Avenue, where Clippinger confirmed “cars don’t do a very good job braking.” When Healy argued that police saw good compliance with traffic laws there, Kelley noted that people drive differently when they know police are watching. At Garfield and Massachusetts Avenue, police have done shifts in the middle of the intersection.
“You want it done undercover? I don’t know what you’re suggesting. A full-time officer at the intersection?” Healy asked Monday.
“The point behind traffic enforcement is to make people think, ‘Gee, maybe there’s an officer somewhere I can’t see, because he’s not standing in the middle of the intersection,’” Kelley said. “Then maybe they’ll pay more attention to people who just want to cross the intersection safely, and I don’t think that’s too much to ask.”
“Where would you suggest the officer be?” Healey asked.
“I would be delighted to join you out there and we can talk about it,” Kelley said.
No meeting had been scheduled by Tuesday, but Clippinger said her department would continue to look at both intersections.
“We certainly would like to think we’re not as unresponsive as she’s indicated,” Clippinger said of Decker.
A simple review of government traffic calming studies will show there ARE effective means of slowing traffic that do not require constant police patrol or speedbumps that impede emergency vehicles. For instance, radar speedcheck signs – those speed displays that show passing drivers their actual speed – are proven to have an immediate and long term impact on slowing cars. There’s a comprehesive collection of links to government studies at http://www.informationdisplay.com. Also, there’s a nice review of various traffic calming options at http://www.stopspeeders.org. The research has been done. Let’s make some smart choices.
Great write-up Marc. I actually watched this play out live on CCTV and it was definitely heated. Part of me sides with Healey and Clippinger in that they’re going by what they know and standard protocol, which is to send police to get data, look at traffic incident logs, and then determine risk and urgency based on that data. Also to do what’s recommended in the book “The Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices,” which they kept citing.
But then when Decker passionately describes how dangerous an intersection it is and pleads for something “innovative,” I kept wishing that Healey and Clippinger would snap out of their defensive, bureaucratic postures and say:
“You know what, if this is as bad as you say it is and if the neighbors are worked up like you say they are, then let’s try and really think of something new and different or reach out to people that might be able to and make something happen. This is Cambridge, we’re smart, and we like coming up with good solutions to tough problems.”
But unfortunately, that didn’t happen.
Sue Clippinger has no business being in that job. If you’ve ever dealt with her, you know how frustrating it is because she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. She does not meet the requirements of state law for her job because she is not a traffic engineer. You can read the law for yourself by looking at Appendix A to the city’s traffic regulations (http://tinyurl.com/meetww, then go to page 40). The people who run this city don’t think the rules apply to them.