S2419 would amend Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 85 to change how pedestrian clearance times are determined at signalized crosswalks. It directs the Massachusetts Department of Transportation to update its manual so that, where crosswalks are routinely used by pedestrians who walk more slowly than 3.5 feet per second or by wheelchair users, a slower walking speed should be used when calculating pedestrian clearance intervals.
The bill also requires the department to promulgate regulations directing municipalities to identify locations within their boundaries that are heavily used by pedestrians likely to have slower walking speeds, including people with mobility impairments and people assisting or transporting another person through a crosswalk. For those listed locations with signalized crosswalks in regular use, municipalities would have to adjust walk and clearance times to a reasonable degree so pedestrians can safely complete crossings.
Impact
The bill would affect state transportation guidance and local traffic-signal timing practices by requiring the Department of Transportation to revise its manual and issue regulations to municipalities. In practice, it would likely lead to longer pedestrian crossing intervals at selected signalized intersections and could require cities and towns to review, document, and update signal timing at locations with higher use by slower-moving pedestrians, including wheelchair users and others with mobility limitations.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge sentiment. Based on the bill text, the measure appears safety-oriented and accessibility-focused, with an emphasis on protecting pedestrians who need more time to cross safely.
Contention
The main policy issue is the operational and administrative burden on municipalities and transportation officials versus the safety benefits for pedestrians. Potential points of contention include how to define and identify the locations that must be listed, what constitutes a “reasonable degree” of adjustment to signal timing, and whether slower clearance times could affect vehicle traffic flow or intersection efficiency. Support would likely come from pedestrian safety and disability-access advocates, while concerns may come from local governments and traffic engineers responsible for implementation.