Draft Resolution
WHEREAS, Pedestrian signals are often timed around average walking speeds, which can leave older adults feeling rushed or stranded in the road.
WHEREAS, pedestrian infrastructure should accommodate residents with different walking speeds;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city should review signal timing at intersections within a defined radius of senior housing, clinics, and community centers.
Implementation Clauses
- Measure actual crossing time for slower pedestrians at priority intersections.
- Extend walk phases where evidence shows current timing is insufficient.
- Add visible countdown signals where they are missing.
FURTHER RESOLVED that changes should be based on measured pedestrian conditions rather than applied identically at every intersection.
Small timing changes can improve safety without requiring major reconstruction.
Longer pedestrian phases can affect vehicle flow, so changes should be intersection-specific rather than automatic.
Reporting requirement: Measure crossing completion, pedestrian delay, traffic effects, and resident reports before and after adjustment.
Priority should go to intersections with documented senior pedestrian traffic rather than simply those closest to a facility on a map.
For this proposal, the most useful first-year question is whether the intended users actually experience the policy as easier, safer, or more accessible than the current system. Expansion should follow evidence rather than publicity.
Priority should go to intersections with documented senior pedestrian traffic rather than simply those closest to a facility on a map.
For this proposal, the most useful first-year question is whether the intended users actually experience the policy as easier, safer, or more accessible than the current system. Expansion should follow evidence rather than publicity.
Priority should go to intersections with documented senior pedestrian traffic rather than simply those closest to a facility on a map.
For this proposal, the most useful first-year question is whether the intended users actually experience the policy as easier, safer, or more accessible than the current system. Expansion should follow evidence rather than publicity.
Priority should go to intersections with documented senior pedestrian traffic rather than simply those closest to a facility on a map.
For this proposal, the most useful first-year question is whether the intended users actually experience the policy as easier, safer, or more accessible than the current system. Expansion should follow evidence rather than publicity.
J. Kim
Leave a Reply