Jonathan Glick and his son live in the Central District and often walk across 23rd Avenue. The street is a major thoroughfare and recently has been rebuilt. One wet evening, they went out to pick up dinner and walked along Union Street on the way back home. But, with dinner in one hand, and his toddler’s hand in the other, Jonathan couldn’t activate the pedestrian signal at 23rd Avenue in time. The awkward reach for the button with a heavy bag of burritos caused the two to miss their chance–leaving them standing in a winter storm until the next light cycle.

Over the course of the past year, Seattle has chipped away at dangers to pedestrian safety and obstacles to comfort. The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) adopted a Director’s Rule for Pedestrian Mobility In and Around Work Zones, requiring safe access for pedestrians around construction sites and allowing fewer sidewalk closures. And the city council voted to lower default speed limits around the city to a safer 25 miles per hour on arterials and 20 in residential areas.

But there’s still another clear opportunity to enhance safety further and substantially improve comfort for people walking: do something about those “push to cross” buttons, better known as “beg buttons”, all over the city.

Push button to beg
Begging to cross

Whether you don’t hit the beg button in time or don’t even notice it, you have two options for what to do when you miss your chance for the walk signal like the Glicks did:

  1. If you want to be an obedient Seattleite, push the button and wait your turn. This means you get to see all those cars go in the same direction that you want to with their green light, while you’re stuck standing there and staring at that red hand. Then, you wait for everyone else to go in all other directions, before finally, minutes later, you get your chance to cross. In Jonathan’s case, he stood with his son getting colder and wetter, realizing that the city hadn’t thought enough about pedestrians. For those recent transplants who aren’t familiar with waiting for the signal, here’s an example of what it’s like to wait it out:

    Feeling frustrated, you might choose another approach…
  2. Eschewing Seattle tradition and risking life and limb, you decide to live boldly and scamper across the street. You then notice those turning drivers that aren’t expecting anyone to be crossing and who suddenly notice you too, in time to avoid making you a hood ornament. Breathless and invigorated, you feel like you’ve avoided the worst until you see that police officer waiting for you on the opposite curb…

Frankly, both options are unacceptable: nobody wants to wait when they “should” have the right-of-way, but crossing against the signal exacerbates conflict between people driving and walking and is dangerous for everyone. In short, having to push a button to cross makes you inconvenienced at best and vulnerable at worst. And, pedestrians are already the most vulnerable roadway users; people walking who are hit by a car are more likely to die in a collision than bicyclists or drivers.

In a New York Times editorial, Tom Vanderbilt, the author of Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) says, “Pedestrians, who lack airbags and side-impact crash protection, are largely rational creatures.” He argues against beg buttons, saying, “When you actually give people a signal, more will cross with it. As the field of behavioral economics has been discovering, rather than penalizing people for opting out of the system, a more effective approach is to make it easier to opt in.”

“Push-buttons almost always mean that the automobile dominates,” says city planner Jeff Speck in his book Walkable City. He continues, “Far from empowering walkers, the push button turns them into second-class citizens; pedestrians should never have to ask for a light.”

What if intersection crossings were designed for peds? (shows driver pushing button to cross)
Comic by Dhiru Thadani

In fairness, Seattle doesn’t have beg buttons everywhere, and SDOT has criteria that determine where push buttons don’t belong. According to SDOT city traffic engineer Dongho Chang, “This is determined by using counting equipment in the signal cabinet to record pedestrian crossing activation. High pedestrian use is currently defined as when crossing is activated 50% of the cycle for 12 hours. We will be evaluating updates to the guideline.”

And evaluate they should. First, SDOT undercounts the number of people who want to cross by only tracking when the button is pushed and not considering the people who don’t notice the button and the people who defy the button by jaywalking. Second, SDOT undermines Seattle’s Vision Zero plan for zero traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030 as the stated goal of transportation policy by designing an experience that creates conflicts between drivers and walkers. Besides, these buttons are often unnecessary because in many cases the traffic light is green for plenty long enough to let pedestrians cross if the walk signal were activated, without any changes to signal timing.

To put this solution in perspective, there are some problems with our transportation network that will take millions of dollars to fix, or even billions, such as filling in the missing sidewalks across the city. But no change to our transportation network would be as cost effective at transforming the experience for people walking as removing beg buttons. A change in policy and signal programming would revolutionize what it means to be a pedestrian in Seattle.

People in other cities from Victoria to Venice and from Santa Monica to Sudbury, have made similar arguments against beg buttons, however, no city has changed their engineering approach to improve intersections for everyone.

In a world where Seattle’s political climate is more divergent than ever with national politics, now’s the time to take control of what we can control: our city.

Seattle can do this, and here’s how: ban beg buttons in all urban villages and urban centers and lower SDOT’s engineering threshold to have the beg button be eliminated for the entire day for any crosswalk signal that is activated 25% of the time for any 6-hour period during the day.

Transform the transportation network by positioning Seattle as a leader in safer streets and active transportation. Don’t discriminate against people walking–let all people cross the street at the same time whether walking, driving, or biking.

Give pedestrians the green.

So, how can you help make this happen?:

  1. Sign this petition to SDOT Director Scott Kubly asking for change.
  2. Tell everyone why the beg button should be banned under the hashtag #GivePedsTheGreen.
  3. Push the button. Always. As long as the push button is still used as a measurement of pedestrian activity, be sure to push it to make sure that SDOT counts people on foot when programming traffic signals.
Give Pedestrians the Green
#GivePEDStheGreen

11 COMMENTS

  1. Thanks very much for writing this, Troy. I think the situation is worse than you’re making out, in a couple of ways:

    1. SDOT is installing pushbuttons all over the place. I asked Dongho Chang a couple of years ago at a Pedestrian Advisor Board meeting why this was happening, and he said it was an accessibility initiative for the blind, and that the MUTCD didn’t allow audible signals without pushbuttons. SPAB was skeptical.

    2. Having a sufficiently high pedestrian count just means SDOT might put the signal on “open loop,” where you don’t have to push the button to get a WALK signal. This is better than having to push the button, I guess, but it confuses pedestrians.

    3. Many of the new buttons are going up mounted on poles directly in the middle of the sidewalk.

    Apparently it’s not just Seattle: https://ggwash.org/view/41271/you-dont-have-to-push-this-button-to-cross-the-street

    Petition signed!

  2. Yes yes yes!!! Crossing Madison at Boylston is infuriating if you forget to press, or miss it by a few seconds. I absolutely understand needing a button at sensor based lights to let the light know that someone wants to cross when there is no car, but anytime the light cycles for a car, it should always assume that there are pedestrians.

  3. Yes, thank you! I’ve also strongly urged SDOT to remove buttons from the urban centers and urban villages, which is exactly we’re encouraging people to walk!

  4. Thanks for writing this.

    A button push should immediately trigger a yellow-red sequence in whatever direction with a green (unless the same direction as the button was pushed). I say that as a frequent driver – I’m in a comfortable seat, protected from the rain and wind, listening to a radio with a heater and a cup of coffee, yet you give me priority over a family standing in the rain? Unacceptable.

  5. #4 When you DO get the walk signal, push both beg buttons before crossing to run up the count. And when you finish crossing, push both buttons, again to run up the count.

  6. Thanks for posting! This has been a pet peeve of mine for some time. Next up? Right turn on red!

  7. A couple of questions. First, are all intersections programmed to give you a light at the next opportunity, after you push the button? Particular example: at 8th NW, push the button to cross Leary Way, after “walk” goes red crossing 8th. Next opportunity in the cycle would be right away, as that crossing happens when the light at Leary goes red, but instead you will wait through a complete cycle for the next time the light at Leary goes red.

    Second, does timing depend on the button? Supposing that it takes a “design pedestrian” a certain amount of time to cross a given intersection, and that phase of the cycle wouldn’t otherwise have to be that long (sometimes they’re very brief!)

    • Generally lights seem to change to “walk” at the next opportunity. At many intersections, you can push the button right before the light changes and it will change to “walk”, but some others need to be pushed further in advance. It sounds like the one at 8th & Leary doesn’t change right away and is a good example of how beg buttons punish pedestrians.

      Pedestrian signals should be programmed to allow a person to walk across at a at 3.5 feet per second, at a minimum. Usually the “don’t walk” signal starts flashing with just enough time for someone to cross at that speed before the light turns green for cross traffic.

      • Sure thing, a pedestrian walk should allow a long enough interval for people to cross. What I was thinking though, is that the when the button was NOT pushed, in some cases the cycle is shorter because that interval is longer than needed for just auto traffic. Either because auto queues are short, or more efficient when there’s no pedestrian traffic (heavy right turn traffic.) So while it’s fun to make a class struggle out of it, there also could be a throughput cost to making that signal phase run the whole pedestrian length every cycle.

        For me, the question is whether the cycle at 8th & Leary is an example of something that could easily be fixed without any kind of policy fuss. We report lights that are mis-programmed like that, they it on the list, someone re-programs it in fairly short order. Or maybe it isn’t just a program setup error, some intersection controllers are inherently incapable of deciding to run the pedestrian phase at just any convenient point (after Don’t Walk in this case), in which case is it worth an upgrade … etc.

        • Yeah, in some cases the light cycle is shorter than what it would take for pedestrians to cross, but in the urban villages where I’m suggesting the signals change, that’s often not the case. Standard practices have aimed to maximize vehicle throughput and it’s time for a change to make our dense urban areas more walk-friendly, even if that change is slightly less efficient for automobiles.

          The 8th and Leary intersection is probably worth reporting to SDOT (try the Find It-Fix It app). The problem today is that as a matter of practice SDOT only changes signals by request. It’s time to make wholesale changes to how SDOT treats pedestrians.

          • Pedestrian overlay zones might be a better geographic criterion for a ban. Really, though, any use of maps for decisions like this – traffic engineering, whatever – should be a last resort if there is no better way, and in this case the use of count data is a fairly elegant better way.

Comments are closed.