Pedestrian crossing isn’t an exceptional case for which we should make the minimum allowance. Pedestrians are just as deserving as drivers (if not more!) of sometimes getting to go through on a green they didn’t explicitly wait for or request.
OK, does that mean we should shut down the entire intersection for 30 seconds after a 1 percentile pedestrian would be done crossing?
Should we do that for every single cycle, even when no pedestrians are present?
Many cities in this area do exactly that. I once had a 35 minute "normal route" commute that only took 15 minutes once I figured out how to do it in a third more distance, but by only making right turns at traffic lights.
> OK, does that mean we should shut down the entire intersection for 30 seconds after a 1 percentile pedestrian would be done crossing?
The problem with treating pedestrians as "1 percentile" means that you'll never increase pedestrian modeshare. Design an infrastructure for 1 percentile pedestrian usage, then the moment someone who absolutely doesn't have to walk (read: anyone who isn't homeless/poor/otherwise optionless) goes there, they'll be dissuaded. The Netherlands solves this with automatic priority signals where pedestrians and cyclists (each have their own dedicated ROW btw) get priority if they're there, but cars get automatic green lights if there aren't pedestrians or cyclists. This requires a lot more money than most US cities can afford because US cities are so auto oriented that per capita they have much more traffic infrastructure than the Netherlands.
> Many cities in this area do exactly that. I once had a 35 minute "normal route" commute that only took 15 minutes once I figured out how to do it in a third more distance, but by only making right turns at traffic lights.
Think about how a pedestrian feels. The extra light cycle times save lives and make walking a more attractive option. How many times have you been talking with a friend or partner in the car? If a pedestrian light cycle is efficiency focused, pedestrians can't have that experience when crossing (even though drivers definitely can.) What happens if you're walking your kid or your dog, and they decide to bolt the other way? The pedestrian experience should be a lot more than a bare minimum timed interval and a painted strip. In many European and Asian countries, pedestrians have dedicated signaling and priority.
Instead of constantly seeing this as a battle between your time and the pedestrian, think of other factors. Every pedestrian crossing the intersection is a person not driving, not creating congestion in the auto system, not putting wear and tear on the street you're driving on (so lower paving-oriented taxes), not emitting greenhouse gases if they're not driving electric, not releasing brake dust in the air. The built infrastructure is a balance of many goals. You are but one of many users and your time is not the highest priority since you aren't the only one paying for the infrastructure.
I think they mean that you can't design crossings for the slowest 1% of pedestrians, rather than pedestrians being 1% of road users (obviously they're a lot more than that)
The light should not be designed to be open for exactly one pedestrian crossing (of any percentile), any more than it should be designed to be open for one car crossing.
> I once had a 35 minute "normal route" commute that only took 15 minutes once I figured out how to do it in a third more distance, but by only making right turns at traffic lights.
So then there's actually no problem? It seems like it's the best of both worlds: pedestrians have extreme ease at crossings, and drivers -- with a little route planning -- can still get places quickly.
The current crossing times affect significantly more that 1% of pedestrians. I don't know what the optimal times would be for each intersection, but expecting pedestrians to sprint across so the cars can move a bit faster isn't reasonable.
