Пешеходы в туристическом районе рискуют жизнью из-за опасной работы светофора

As a recreational runner, I frequently have to cross the Stroffolino Bridge to get over to Veterans’ Park, with its 1-mile perimeter perfectly convenient for running well-measured laps. The signal at Washington & Water Street has never been particularly helpful in this endeavor, but recent months the programming appears to have changed for the worse. The cycle used to be roughly like this: The east-west segment starts with westbound left-turn and through traffic getting an extended green. The westbound left turn then goes to a yield, allowing eastbound left-turn and through traffic to get a green. The cycle then switches to the north-south segment, which is a mutual green with left turns on yield. This cycles back and forth on repeat unless interrupted by a pedestrian “beg button,” at which point the cycle pauses for an “all walk” after completing the next north-south or east-west segment beyond the current one. So, if you walk up and press the button just as the light’s turning, you have to wait practically two full segments, but if you were a few seconds earlier, you only have to wait a little over one. Predictable, if crappy for pedestrians, especially someone trying to maintain a consistent running pace. What’s changed is that the beg buttons can now trigger a mid-segment walk signal. It seems like the north-south mid-segment walk signals either aren’t enabled or don’t work too well, but the east-west ones are highly responsive. You can even get a walk signal during the eastbound signal’s full left! Presumably, this would be a godsend to those of us trying to cross without waiting a full segment or two. Or a deathtrap. If you didn’t catch it already, the problem is that eastbound drivers making that full left from the Stroffolino Bridge onto Southbound Water Street have for years become habituated to being fully entitled to make that left turn unencumbered by pesky pedestrians. Even though they should look, they simply aren’t looking out for that walk signal, because ingrained habits eat signage for breakfast. Add in the variability factor—that the walk signal doesn’t trigger on every cycle—and it’s going to take quite a while for drivers to adjust to this new pattern, if they ever do. Which means that pedestrians like yours truly can have the pleasure of nearly being murd—ahem, apologies, “manslaughtered”—by an inattentive driver just this past week. As a good citizen, I of course availed myself of some universal sign language to inform the driver of a black late-model full-size Jeep SUV of the gravity of her near-error. Moreover, while we’re talking about habits, it’s one thing for an experienced runner such as yours truly to learn these cycles and habits over time. It’s risky, and annoying, but over time the risk lessens. But we’re literally talking about a main entrance to our tourism and entertainment district. By definition, this is the one area of town where we should be building and programming our infrastructure on the assumption that pedestrians are not visiting with enough frequency to build up the sort of experience that would protect yours truly from an untimely death. It’s telling that not much further down the road, the Grit Ninja gym has been in business for several years with children crossing Water Street during peak speeder hours on Saturday mornings with miraculously zero tragic fatalities despite not having the dedicated crossing signal that they deserve. It’s telling that our fair city’s entire political and activist establishment focuses on the Wall Street corridor and produces multimillion-dollar redesign plans for it, and meanwhile neglects the pedestrian district with the greatest risk for tragedy. At this point, I don’t expect much to change. The political machine is too strong. But wouldn’t it be nice if we focused on the right problems for once? Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t create deathtraps for our citizens? Editor’s note: This piece is an opinion article. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the perspectives of the publication or its staff.