They removed the crosswalks because they were converting the intersection to a roundabout. You can see in the third photo that there's a circle painted in the middle of the intersection. This had apparently been planned long before the crosswalk was added.

Roundabouts generally make streets safer for pedestrians as they slow the flow of traffic. However, when you add a roundabout, you need to displace the crosswalks a few feet away from the intersection because otherwise the crosswalk leads pedestrians directly into the path of traffic.

Here is what the intersection looks like now:

https://twitter.com/RyFons/status/1527776660187119616/photo/...

It would be nice if Step 1 of the how-to guide was to check with the city to see what it's plans are first. But I guess that wouldn't be as cool.

> Roundabouts generally make streets safer for pedestrians as they slow the flow of traffic

They may be safer and reduce top speed when traffic is low but otherwise improve flow so that pedestrians have less opportunity to cross.

It's normal to have pedestrian crossings at our plentiful roundabouts in the UK. If they are particularly busy or multi-lane, they will also have traffic lights to stop traffic just for the pedestrian's benefit.

Are they going to add any crosswalks back?

Where else would it go based on where the curb cuts are?

The logical thing in this case seems to be to make the crosswalks an X pattern: have them go right through the roundabout.

Could probably add a mid-block crosswalk for crossing to the other side. I doubt that’s what will be done, but it seems like that could work.

>Roundabouts generally make streets safer for pedestrians as they slow the flow of traffic.

I wonder--if it's a busy roundabout. There's a lot going on and drivers are looking at traffic in the roundabout and in the upcoming entrance to the roundabout and mentally calculating if it's safe to merge in. At one particularly busy pair of local roundabouts (aka "the twin doughnuts of death") there's actually been a pedestrian/cyclist stop light installed because otherwise you'd be taking your life in your hands to get across the road.

Can you really call it a roundabout if they left the stop signs?

Some bureaucrat probably decided that too large a proportion of people wouldn't understand that you're supposed to yield to the traffic in the roundabout (and that a yield sign would somehow be insufficient) hence the creation of a "dual purpose roundabout and fishing stop pretext/revenue generator".

Nope. That would be a traffic circle.

> Roundabouts generally make streets safer for pedestrians as they slow the flow of traffic

This is rubbish. Roundabouts are a lot harder to cross, and more unsafe.

Remember that in California there is always a nominal crosswalk at EVERY uncontrolled intersection, whether it's painted in or not, they're really just drawing attention to an existing crosswalk, not creating a new one

Yeah as a pedestrian I wouldn't risk it. The rules are only useful if everyone follows them. Being right is not worth it.

Risk what? Walking?

> The rules are only useful if everyone follows them.

Then no rule would ever be useful because no man-made rule is ever followed by everyone.

> Being right is not worth it.

It what? Crossing the road?

In case you're being serious, it's not worth the risk of being hit. it doesn't matter who had right of way in a car - pedestrian collision, the car always wins.

I am serious, thank you for asking.

But what is “it” which is not worth the risk of being hit? It sounds like you are advocating agains the general concept of crossing roads?

Onviously people shouldn’t throw themselves in front of speeding cars. Nobody in the tread or elsewhere is advocating for that. You should check that the incomming traffic can see you and has enough time and space to stop and then you should cross in a manner which makes it easy to predict what are you doing.

> You should check that the incomming traffic can see you and has enough time and space to stop and then you should cross in a manner which makes it easy to predict what are you doing.

You don't know if oncoming traffic sees you, so unless you see them actively stopping, is is not safe to step out in front of them (you still have to watche like a hawk), even if they have enough room to stop. This "asserting your right of way" is the it to which the commentor is presumably referring.

The vast majority of days drivers are not looking and/or do not care and will not yield. I've been yelled at by drovers for crossing with the pedestrian light, I've had an entire light's worth of cars make a right turn at speed through a pedestrian lights and had to act like I was going to jump in front of them to get one to slam on their brakes.

"Right of way" for pedestrians won't mean anything until people start getting tickets regularly for violating it. Asserting right of way is dangerous and you are better off assuming cars never see you and will not stop.

> But what is “it” which is not worth the risk of being hit?

Crossing the road when a car is close. Even if they could see you and you have the right of the way, you never know whether they abide the rules and are paying attention. It's much safer to wait until it's free enough that you are out of the way when the next car arrives.

Yes! I am energized by this as a pedestrian advocate. Love the initiative. I live in one of the most pedestrian-friendly cities in the country (Boston) and still have issues in my very walkable neighborhood getting across one of its busiest streets. Thankfully the city is actually taking steps to address [1] but if they weren’t I would grab my paint roller and follow this guide.

[1] https://www.boston.gov/departments/transportation/tremont-st...

As I noted below (likely going to be voted down for being uncool even if accurate), just painting crosswalks may significantly increase pedestrian risk by attracting crossings to dangerous intersections. So don't get too energized.

Most real efforts here include OTHER steps to calm traffic, and then a painted cross-walk is added to attract pedestrians to that area. I hope Boston is doing more than just slapping crosswalks down with paint on high speed multi-lane roads - because people will be killed. Reducing lanes of traffic where peds cross, slowing traffic (stop signs, lights, speed limits with enforcement) all are much better starting point.

Sample size of 1 here, but the existence of a crosswalk definitely makes me slow down and pay more attention, because I generally assume if an intersection doesn't have a crosswalk then there's probably not any pedestrians crossing.

This is especially true when turning right at a yield sign, e.g. https://drivinginstructorblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06...

Right, and one piece is normally to reinforce that feeling by selecting crossings that actually DO get pedestrian traffic (normally 20 / hour for any one hour or at least 60 over some combination of 4 potentially non consecutive hours).

What happens when you splatter crosswalk everywhere is they lose some of their subconscious meaning because you de-link them from actual pedestrian use potentially.

I think that's fair, especially if there are some other indicators in addition to just the paint.

In Cambridge MA there are some otherwise uncontrolled crosswalks across Mass Ave and, as a driver, I'm definitely a bit more prepared for there to be a pedestrian at that location compared to darting across a random stretch of busy road (though that happens too all the time and I keep my eyes out). That said, as a pedestrian, I don't really trust a driver to see me especially in lower visibility so I generally won't cross at those locations unless I have plenty of opening.