A July 19 story in the Ithaca Journal communicated that “Ithaca police are looking out for pedestrian violations this weekend” and that off-light crossing is “really a hazard for motorists, bicyclists[.]” This is counterproductive and problematic on several levels. Here, I present three legally-oriented arguments and two geographical-theoretical arguments about why this kind of enforcement is inappropriate for a downtown and city as a whole trying to become a pedestrian-friendly environment.
“Pedestrian crossings.A. Traffic control signals.No pedestrian shall cross between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation except in a crosswalk.B. Business districts. No pedestrian shall cross a street or roadway except in a crosswalk in the central business district or in any other business district.” (Ithaca City Code)
“The [Downtown/Urban Core] area will be a transportation hub that is served by multiple transit routes and that provides ample pedestrian and bicycle facilities.” (Comprehensive plan, pg. 40).
If people’s mobile habits are providing evidence that the existing infrastructure is insufficiently “ample” (thus encouraging “marginal” behaviors like non-crosswalk-crossing), then the behavior should not be punished since it is a response inadequate infrastructure downtown.
Also from the Comprehensive Plan, page 85:
“Investment in infrastructure will be prioritized based on existing condition and level of use as well as impacts on commercial activity and quality of life.”
It is conceivable that following every crosswalk would make it unnecessarily burdensome to reach a commercial destination. Downtown business thrive on foot traffic, and to make walking a stressful game of governmentality (i.e., self-regulating behavior) is counterproductive.
One more quote from the Comprehensive Plan, on page 97:
“To reduce auto dependency, transportation modes shall be prioritized in the following order: pedestrian, bicycle, transit, private cars, and goods movement.”
Enforcing an outdated system of signals (which was inherited from auto-centric mid-twentieth-century planning practices) in order to reduce motorist stress does not prioritize pedestrian mobility, and thus contradicts the Comprehensive Plan.
Thirdly, the Board of Public Works a few weeks ago, off the record and prior to a meeting starting, were making comments and remarks about people complaining about the paint disappearing from crosswalks and bicycle lanes because of both snow and because the roadway design did not prevent cars from rolling over and erasing the paint. Their internal retort was along the lines of having limited staff, time, and equipment to keep infrastructure. Enforcing particular prescriptions of infrastructure use when officials approach depreciation dismissively makes the situation more problematic. Neglect of infrastructural improvement may also be a causal factor for “driver” and “cyclist” behavior, such as badly timed traffic signals which make the illusion that downtown traffic is heavier than it really is, or the absence of bicycle lanes forcing people to cycle behind bottlenecked cars when their small size makes it so they could bypass vehicular traffic efficiently and quickly. That the City cannot keep all infrastructure fully maintained and does invest enough into making people’s experiences in the system suggests that enforcement of “jaywalking” plays off the system’s inadequacies, which is not a strong reason for enforcing outdated regulations.
More broadly, a few theoretical arguments are available too.
How does this enforcement articulate systems of power through regulating habits of motion? What kind of biases does this kind of enforcement adopt uncritically? Enforcing crossing signals in a system designed around motor-based mobility delegitimizes non-motorized habits of movement. People develop so-called “jaywalking” habits in response to frustrations when the existing system fails to meet their needs (especially in terms of time spent traveling). However, more dangerous “jaydriving” habits, such as speeding, inappropriate yielding, or incomplete stops (which should be enforced more universally for motor vehicles than pedal-powered ones, which face unique contexts in hilly Ithaca).
Reading the existing built infrastructure, one can discern that the designers took no consideration of movements such as mid-block crossings, which can be safer than at-corner crossings because of fewer potential collision points. Yes, crossing on a red hand can be perfectly safe if it is evident to the person crossing that there are no cars within dangerous distance.
Second, what does this kind of enforcement say about how people and their behaviors are categorized? To blanket the context as targeting “pedestrian” safety completely misses the mountains of recent research into mobilities studies, which tries to unpack the label “pedestrian” and highlight that people of different demographic backgrounds (age, physical ability, familiarity with the city, etc.) occupy their surroundings on foot according to different habits.
Likewise, to say that “drivers” and “cyclists” are complaining is extraordinarily problematic. Which “cyclists” are frustrated? Retired individuals riding slowly to the Farmers’ Market from their house in Southside or the Ithaca College student cycling downhill to get to a summer internship on time? Which “drivers” are frustrated? The business person commuting in from Trumansburg in their own car or someone who’s carsharing and driving more slowly to Wegmans in an unfamiliar vehicle? These people’s readings of the built environment and its inhabitants will differ tremendously. Not to mention that cycling is an “allo-mobile” rather than an “auto-mobile” form of motion; given the current built infrastructure favoring automobility, observers can and should expect behaviors that blur the lines between what’s expected for someone on foot or operating a car.
The Ackademie 