Comments on: Wiki Wednesday: Daylighting, AKA the Pedestrian Peek-A-Boo http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:34:00 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Clarence Eckerson Jr. http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61716 Clarence Eckerson Jr. Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:36:45 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61716 Susan, That's why we make the videos. Everyone should use them as much as possible!! Spread the word! Thank you. Susan,

That's why we make the videos. Everyone should use them as much as possible!! Spread the word! Thank you.

]]> By: Susan Donovan http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61714 Susan Donovan Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:38:11 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61714 I used this video to help explain why we need wonky people working in transportation planning: http://community.livejournal.com/politicsforum/2016616.html I used this video to help explain why we need wonky people working in transportation planning:

http://community.livejournal.com/politicsforum/2016616.html

]]> By: Mike Lydon http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61709 Mike Lydon Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:34:25 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61709 Indeed, cheers for your good work and the dialogue Clarence. I find your point about the bicycle facility intensification very interesting. This is what we call the 'succesional city.' That is, as use and intensity grows it is replaced with something better. On the larger scale, and historically, cities always grew that way...until we froze many of them in time with bad suburban codes ad infinitum. Regardless, the incremental thought process is a good one, and at the micro-scale--bicycle lanes and ped-improvement--its makes great sense. This is especially true when doing "experimental" things like Gansevoort Plaza. In the successional city, Gansevoort will one day be a much more permanent public realm amenity. Indeed, cheers for your good work and the dialogue Clarence. I find your point about the bicycle facility intensification very interesting. This is what we call the 'succesional city.' That is, as use and intensity grows it is replaced with something better. On the larger scale, and historically, cities always grew that way...until we froze many of them in time with bad suburban codes ad infinitum. Regardless, the incremental thought process is a good one, and at the micro-scale--bicycle lanes and ped-improvement--its makes great sense. This is especially true when doing "experimental" things like Gansevoort Plaza. In the successional city, Gansevoort will one day be a much more permanent public realm amenity.

]]> By: Clarence Eckerson Jr. http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61706 Clarence Eckerson Jr. Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:44:17 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61706 I'll add a few comments here: first, I have been directly emailed a few ideas, one of which was "open curbs" which I will leave to debate on here. As to whether or not removing the park increases turning speeds, I have no studies to cite, but will say that in most places daylighting would be used would be streets that have Stop signs. Yes, what you would do is first remove the parking, then in the future when funds and community consensus are available then you fill in with bulb outs, plants, benches, bike parking, etc.... remember some the biggest successes are incremental stages - if ye all recall - on some streets we first had bike lanes, then buffered bike lanes, and now some places are getting physically separated lanes... It takes time, I wish it didn't, but to win people over increments are sometimes the best way to go. TIM: As to my suggestion of "Pedestrian Peek-A-Boo" - I'll admit it is a stretch and a little silly, but the idea of Streetfilms is also to entertain while educating and enlightening and that is what we do better than anyone else in the Transportation Universe. I know of at least five websites where our Daylighting video is up and running there are over 50+ comments, most with suggestions for a term to use. The dialogue is up and running and to me that is a big success. I'll add a few comments here: first, I have been directly emailed a few ideas, one of which was "open curbs" which I will leave to debate on here.

As to whether or not removing the park increases turning speeds, I have no studies to cite, but will say that in most places daylighting would be used would be streets that have Stop signs. Yes, what you would do is first remove the parking, then in the future when funds and community consensus are available then you fill in with bulb outs, plants, benches, bike parking, etc.... remember some the biggest successes are incremental stages - if ye all recall - on some streets we first had bike lanes, then buffered bike lanes, and now some places are getting physically separated lanes... It takes time, I wish it didn't, but to win people over increments are sometimes the best way to go.

TIM: As to my suggestion of "Pedestrian Peek-A-Boo" - I'll admit it is a stretch and a little silly, but the idea of Streetfilms is also to entertain while educating and enlightening and that is what we do better than anyone else in the Transportation Universe. I know of at least five websites where our Daylighting video is up and running there are over 50+ comments, most with suggestions for a term to use. The dialogue is up and running and to me that is a big success.

]]> By: Mike Lydon http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61703 Mike Lydon Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:22:23 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61703 The planning and design lexicon often associates daylighting with creeks and streams, as in bringing those small bodies of water back to the surface, typically out of pipes. I don't have a great alternative at this point, but I agree that an alternate term is needed. Also to the point about motorist speed, its hard to say if removing the parking space without the simultaneously adding the bulb-out is net benefit. Indeed, it effectively increases the turn radius for automobiles. If the space is to be removed, a cheap interim solution may be to add anchored hard plastic bollards so that the site line remains, but the motorists also behave. The planning and design lexicon often associates daylighting with creeks and streams, as in bringing those small bodies of water back to the surface, typically out of pipes. I don't have a great alternative at this point, but I agree that an alternate term is needed. Also to the point about motorist speed, its hard to say if removing the parking space without the simultaneously adding the bulb-out is net benefit. Indeed, it effectively increases the turn radius for automobiles. If the space is to be removed, a cheap interim solution may be to add anchored hard plastic bollards so that the site line remains, but the motorists also behave.

]]> By: David_K http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61701 David_K Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:22:11 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61701 How about "Liveable Crosswalks"? How about "Liveable Crosswalks"?

]]> By: Larry Littlefield http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61698 Larry Littlefield Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:41:25 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61698 "A bulb-out would be better than daylightling IMHO." Better still would be using the last space for bicycle parking on a bulb out. Bicycles are lower than motor vehicles, and opaque, and so would not obstruct the view of motor vehicles to the same extent. The last space on 10th Avenue at Windsor Place was made no parking after a series of motor vehicle crashes for that reason. That is over and above the benefit of having pedestrians more visible with less distance to cross. Perhaps one space could be removed rather than two. "A bulb-out would be better than daylightling IMHO."

Better still would be using the last space for bicycle parking on a bulb out.

Bicycles are lower than motor vehicles, and opaque, and so would not obstruct the view of motor vehicles to the same extent. The last space on 10th Avenue at Windsor Place was made no parking after a series of motor vehicle crashes for that reason. That is over and above the benefit of having pedestrians more visible with less distance to cross.

Perhaps one space could be removed rather than two.

]]> By: Tim Gustafson http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61697 Tim Gustafson Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:38:10 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61697 I applaud the way this video helped communicate the benefits of this treatment. But "pedestrian peek-a-boo"? I really don't think we should be providing any fodder for teasing to skeptics. I'm still working at trying to get engineers in the midwest to stop calling them "parking pregnancies"... I applaud the way this video helped communicate the benefits of this treatment. But "pedestrian peek-a-boo"? I really don't think we should be providing any fodder for teasing to skeptics. I'm still working at trying to get engineers in the midwest to stop calling them "parking pregnancies"...

]]> By: Ben Fried http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61688 Ben Fried Thu, 15 Jan 2009 03:17:58 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61688 Just a brief point of information: I clipped Robin's original graphic, which includes a third frame depicting bulb-outs and amenities, in order to economize vertical space. Just a brief point of information: I clipped Robin's original graphic, which includes a third frame depicting bulb-outs and amenities, in order to economize vertical space.

]]> By: gary fisher http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61686 gary fisher Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:00:28 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61686 Glenn Taking away the parking spot on the corner with signage is an intermediate step before a bulb out can be constructed or approved. I think it overall makes a slight net improvement and is very cheap to apply to any intersection. I defiantly agree that it could increase turning speeds by increasing the turning area. If the idea is to first take away the parking and then add the bulb out that seems optimal. Glenn

Taking away the parking spot on the corner with signage is an intermediate step before a bulb out can be constructed or approved. I think it overall makes a slight net improvement and is very cheap to apply to any intersection. I defiantly agree that it could increase turning speeds by increasing the turning area. If the idea is to first take away the parking and then add the bulb out that seems optimal.

]]> By: gary fisher http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61684 gary fisher Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:49:17 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61684 Yeah the reduced crossing distance isn't shown in the graphic there but in the video the same graphic "grew" a bulb out in place of the parking space after the car faded away. And then they showed either bicycle parking or greenery in that space. That is what the quote is referring to. Yeah the reduced crossing distance isn't shown in the graphic there but in the video the same graphic "grew" a bulb out in place of the parking space after the car faded away. And then they showed either bicycle parking or greenery in that space. That is what the quote is referring to.

]]> By: Glenn McAnanama http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61683 Glenn McAnanama Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:35:41 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61683 One of the problems of taking away the car at the corner is that cars often will take the corner more smoothly - like a highway off ramp. The more smooth the turn, the less need to slow down. I see this all the time...cars will occupy and utilize all the space alloted to them. If you deny it from parking, people will turn it into a speedway or a way to get around other cars in their way. The ideal is to make a car either stop or take a turn at a near 90 degree angle forcing them to slow down to 5-10 mph. A bulb-out would be better than daylightling IMHO. One of the problems of taking away the car at the corner is that cars often will take the corner more smoothly - like a highway off ramp. The more smooth the turn, the less need to slow down. I see this all the time...cars will occupy and utilize all the space alloted to them. If you deny it from parking, people will turn it into a speedway or a way to get around other cars in their way. The ideal is to make a car either stop or take a turn at a near 90 degree angle forcing them to slow down to 5-10 mph. A bulb-out would be better than daylightling IMHO.

]]> By: Angus Grieve-Smith http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61680 Angus Grieve-Smith Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:52:10 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61680 Okay, as <a href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/12/streetfilms-introducing-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/#comment-61559" rel="nofollow">I wrote</a> on Monday, we were thinking about removing cars from around the corner. Would everyone consider that to be "daylighting" as well? I don't think it counts as "pedestrian peekaboo," because that parking isn't hiding the pedestrians. Either way, I think it should be clarified. Does anyone know who invented the concept and when? Okay, as I wrote on Monday, we were thinking about removing cars from around the corner. Would everyone consider that to be "daylighting" as well? I don't think it counts as "pedestrian peekaboo," because that parking isn't hiding the pedestrians. Either way, I think it should be clarified.

Does anyone know who invented the concept and when?

]]> By: Steve Davis http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61677 Steve Davis Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:30:08 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61677 Ah, I see after watching the vid. Gotta have a bulb-out or something similar to actually reduce the crossing distance at all. I feel smarter now. :) Ah, I see after watching the vid. Gotta have a bulb-out or something similar to actually reduce the crossing distance at all. I feel smarter now. :)

]]> By: Steve Davis http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/wiki-wednesday-daylighting-aka-the-pedestrian-peek-a-boo/comment-page-1/#comment-61676 Steve Davis Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:24:15 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5269#comment-61676 Now, I obviously love this concept but have one question: How does daylighting reduce the crossing distance at intersections? It would seem that if a ped is partially shielded by a parked car, they can be in the street and crosswalk before they are in the danger area. The parked car actually makes the crossing shorter. Admittedly, I'm only looking at the above picture and haven't watched the vid yet, so I may be missing a detail. Shorter crossing distances by removing cars? Not without a bulb-out, right? Now, I obviously love this concept but have one question: How does daylighting reduce the crossing distance at intersections? It would seem that if a ped is partially shielded by a parked car, they can be in the street and crosswalk before they are in the danger area. The parked car actually makes the crossing shorter. Admittedly, I'm only looking at the above picture and haven't watched the vid yet, so I may be missing a detail. Shorter crossing distances by removing cars? Not without a bulb-out, right?

]]>