Has the flashing yellow left turn signal made it to your state?

[tradephoric]

Really?  Your entire argument that pushbuttons aren't needed is based on the one moment in time a Streetview camera passes by? 

Here's the aerial view.  Where's all the pedestrians?  https://goo.gl/maps/CKMAJUQHXwt

Here's the view on 4th Street.  I can count 6 pedestrians total. https://goo.gl/maps/8qK3Ko7BRK52

Here's the same exact view you presented...one year earlier: https://goo.gl/maps/PDGBAcpjzjT2

Another view, from 2008: https://goo.gl/maps/6W2UUDHC7Lv

Every link you posted has at least 4 pedestrians in the immediate vicinity of the intersection.  The streetview image I originally posted does have a lot of pedestrians in the crosswalk (perhaps more than normal).  But your additional links strengthens my point that this is a high pedestrian area.  If you look at the streetview image I posted you can make out a half dozen 20+ story buildings.  There's a good chance there's going to be a lot of pedestrians roaming around with that much density.  Jeffandnicole, I'm not trying to trick you with common sense.  No it's not downtown NYC but Bellevue has enough foot traffic where you don't need pushbuttons at all 4 corners of the intersection.   

^If you disagree with everything I just said here at least consider this...

Let's assume an intersection only gets 2 pedestrians a day.  Even that intersection doesn't need pushbuttons at all 4 corners of the intersection.  Oftentimes main-street pedestrian crossings run shorter than the time needed for main-street vehicular traffic.  If the pedestrians fit in the required vehicle times then you don't need to run pushbuttons on main-street.  Traffic engineers will give you reasons why pushbuttons are a good idea even for main-street pedestrian crossings.  The problem is any safety benefits they are trying to achieve aren't realized because the pedestrian compliance rate of intersections with pushbuttons is abysmal (ie. the Florida study where the non-compliance rate was 91%).  The point is you don't need pushbuttons at all 4 corners of most intersection (even suburban intersections that gets nearly zero pedestrian traffic).   

[jakeroot]

Still though, this whole pushbutton fiasco could be avoided if we just got over the fear of possible faults.

The best adaptive signals in the world need active (read: immediate) input for all modes of transport. The only efficient way to sense pedestrians is to have them press a button. You can have a minimum green time, and display a walk sign during those, but even that's an unnecessary handicap -- just use pushbuttons, and you can get 3-second greens!

Alternatively, use a camera to watch the ADA ramps, and activate the crosswalk when pedestrians arrive. That might get over the pushbutton fault-fear.

London, one of the busiest cities in the world, uses pushbuttons at all of their junctions (note the yellow boxes):

[jeffandnicole]

Really?  Your entire argument that pushbuttons aren't needed is based on the one moment in time a Streetview camera passes by? 

Here's the aerial view.  Where's all the pedestrians?  https://goo.gl/maps/CKMAJUQHXwt

Here's the view on 4th Street.  I can count 6 pedestrians total. https://goo.gl/maps/8qK3Ko7BRK52

Here's the same exact view you presented...one year earlier: https://goo.gl/maps/PDGBAcpjzjT2

Another view, from 2008: https://goo.gl/maps/6W2UUDHC7Lv

Every link you posted has at least 4 pedestrians in the immediate vicinity of the intersection.  The streetview image I originally posted does have a lot of pedestrians in the crosswalk (perhaps more than normal).  But your additional links strengthens my point that this is a high pedestrian area.  If you look at the streetview image I posted you can make out a half dozen 20+ story buildings.  There’s a good chance there’s going to be a lot of pedestrians roaming around with that much density.  Jeffandnicole, I’m not trying to trick you with common sense.  No it’s not downtown NYC but Bellevue has enough foot traffic where you don’t need pushbuttons at all 4 corners of the intersection.   

^If you disagree with everything I just said here at least consider this…

Let’s assume an intersection only gets 2 pedestrians a day.  Even that intersection doesn’t need pushbuttons at all 4 corners of the intersection.  Oftentimes main-street pedestrian crossings run shorter than the time needed for main-street vehicular traffic.  If the pedestrians fit in the required vehicle times then you don’t need to run pushbuttons on main-street.  Traffic engineers will give you reasons why pushbuttons are a good idea even for main-street pedestrian crossings.  The problem is any safety benefits they are trying to achieve aren’t realized because the pedestrian compliance rate of intersections with pushbuttons is abysmal (ie. the Florida study where the non-compliance rate was 91%).  The point is you don’t need pushbuttons at all 4 corners of most intersection (even suburban intersections that gets nearly zero pedestrian traffic).   

And then, you wind up with signals that cycle every minute, 24/7, for absolutely no reason.

There's a reason why engineers install ped push buttons.

[tradephoric]

And then, you wind up with signals that cycle every minute, 24/7, for absolutely no reason.

There's a reason why engineers install ped push buttons.

No.  I'm proposing that you get rid of the pushbuttons along the main-street but keep the pushbuttons along the side-street.  With this setup you can rest in green along the main-street if no vehicles or pedestrians are detected along the side-street.  Here's a streetview image along Santa Monica Boulavard of what I'm describing:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0907344,-118.3463743,3a,75y,102.1h,73.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFubt3AN0l-Ub45PudRDFUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DFubt3AN0l-Ub45PudRDFUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D148.58577%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

If you notice there are no pushbuttons for pedestrians walking down Santa Monica Boulevard.  The WALK will come up automatically.  There are, however, pushbuttons for pedestrians crossing Santa Monica Boulevard (side-street peds).  With this setup Santa Monica Boulevard could rest in green and WALK all day long if nobody is detected along the side-street.  There is nothing wrong with not having pushbuttons along the main-street. 

[tradephoric]

London, one of the busiest cities in the world, uses pushbuttons at all of their junctions (note the yellow boxes):

I understand the use of pushbuttons for side-street pedestrians but why have them along main-street (especially at extremely short crossings)?  Here's an example of an intersection near downtown London.  Are the pushbuttons circled in red really necessary?  I don't see how it would negatively affect operations of the intersection if these pushbuttons were removed:


https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5103339,-0.1384742,3a,60y,68.63h,78.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svaYiWTDS9AWfUz0OqecssQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[paulthemapguy]

Really?  Your entire argument that pushbuttons aren't needed is based on the one moment in time a Streetview camera passes by? 

Here's the aerial view.  Where's all the pedestrians?  https://goo.gl/maps/CKMAJUQHXwt

Here's the view on 4th Street.  I can count 6 pedestrians total. https://goo.gl/maps/8qK3Ko7BRK52

Here's the same exact view you presented...one year earlier: https://goo.gl/maps/PDGBAcpjzjT2

Another view, from 2008: https://goo.gl/maps/6W2UUDHC7Lv

What a fricken joke.  This more than anything shows and proves you cherrypick data and information to present information in a misleading manner.   Yes, pushbuttons are perfectly fine, because obviously the intersection isn't always going to have dozens of people, and probably for a good portion of the night and weekends, none at all.

Yeah.  That guy is confirmation bias incarnate.  He obsesses about one argument, his own, and instead of working to choose the best argument about a situation, he defends his one single original position to the death.  This leads to cherrypicking obscure data and statistics even when there's overwhelming obvious evidence pointing to a different solution.  Call this post a circumstantial ad hominem, sure.  But I'm just saying I've tangled with this guy before and it was the exact same thing I dealt with.

[tradephoric]

^I make simple points.  You don't need main-street pushbuttons for a signal to rest in green on the main-street.  But you have jeffandnicole coming back saying "you wind up with signals that cycle every minute, 24/7, for absolutely no reason."  They simply don't understand the difference between main-street and side-street pushbuttons.  But by all means paulthemapguy, keep defending someone who is wrong.  I'm sure that will help them sort things out. 

[vdeane]

If you don't have push buttons on the main street, you need a resting walk phase.  Thus, before the side street gets the green you're going to have to go through the flashing don't walk and whatnot.  That will significantly delay the response to traffic on the side street.  In addition, it further encourages pedestrians to ignore push buttons.

In the era of facial recognition, it should be possible to do photo don't walk enforcement just like we do for red light cameras.  Funny how many bike/ped advocates LOVE the cameras for motorists (also speed cameras) but never suggest them for pedestrians.

[jeffandnicole]

Yeah.  That guy is confirmation bias incarnate.  He obsesses about one argument, his own, and instead of working to choose the best argument about a situation, he defends his one single original position to the death.  This leads to cherrypicking obscure data and statistics even when there's overwhelming obvious evidence pointing to a different solution.  Call this post a circumstantial ad hominem, sure.  But I'm just saying I've tangled with this guy before and it was the exact same thing I dealt with.

Not the first time here either.  He just did a clumsy job of looking for a ped-busy intersection to try to justify his remarks, failing to think that numerous other photos of the same intersection would heavily contradict how busy it always is.  And now he's trying to say that push buttons aren't needed for the main street direction, which is a reduction of his previously stated "push buttons aren't needed at all" remarks.

In the era of facial recognition, it should be possible to do photo don't walk enforcement just like we do for red light cameras.  Funny how many bike/ped advocates LOVE the cameras for motorists (also speed cameras) but never suggest them for pedestrians.

And you would think they would be advocating for cameras, as it will detect all sorts of pedestrians in the vicinity of the cross-walk, including those that have handicaps making pushing a button more difficult.  I wouldn't say facial recognition cameras are needed...just the same time cameras used for vehicles that detect *something* in its line-of-sight.

[cl94]

Yeah.  That guy is confirmation bias incarnate.  He obsesses about one argument, his own, and instead of working to choose the best argument about a situation, he defends his one single original position to the death.  This leads to cherrypicking obscure data and statistics even when there's overwhelming obvious evidence pointing to a different solution.  Call this post a circumstantial ad hominem, sure.  But I'm just saying I've tangled with this guy before and it was the exact same thing I dealt with.

Not the first time here either.  He just did a clumsy job of looking for a ped-busy intersection to try to justify his remarks, failing to think that numerous other photos of the same intersection would heavily contradict how busy it always is.  And now he's trying to say that push buttons aren't needed for the main street direction, which is a reduction of his previously stated "push buttons aren't needed at all" remarks.

I've learned to ignore him. I got sick of engaging after the Parclo B4 nonsense, where he did the same thing to try and prove that every other interchange type is inferior. The argument keeps changing as well. I'm convinced he's a politician or lawyer for his day job.

[tradephoric]

And now he's trying to say that push buttons aren't needed for the main street direction, which is a reduction of his previously stated "push buttons aren't needed at all" remarks.

Originally Jake had asked if pushbuttons are needed for adaptive operation.  I indicated a signal doesn't have to have pushbuttons for it to run adaptively.  That's the context of the "push buttons aren't needed at all"  although I can't find where I actually said that exact phrase (but I've learned that facts aren't important to jeffandnicole).  I had also said this:

A signal that constantly cycles can still run adaptively.  Adaptive operation simply adjusts the signal splits based on the traffic volumes present on a cycle-by-cycle basis.  Yes, it's sometimes nice to have side-street pushbuttons so a signal can rest in main-street green, but it's not a prerequisite for adaptive operation.

Obviously side-street pushbuttons make sense sometimes (it allows the signal to rest in main-street green... which can be a very good thing).  Jeffandnicole, the fact that you don't understand the difference between side-street and main-street peds is not my problem.   It's not a reduction of my previous statement it's a reflection of your ignorance.

[tradephoric]

If you don't have push buttons on the main street, you need a resting walk phase.  Thus, before the side street gets the green you're going to have to go through the flashing don't walk and whatnot.  That will significantly delay the response to traffic on the side street.  In addition, it further encourages pedestrians to ignore push buttons.

This is a very valid point and I'm glad you brought it up.  But there is a counter point that should be considered.  Many agencies refuse to bring up a WALK in the middle of a green phase.  So if a pedestrian is walking down main-street and approaches a solid don't walk, if they press the pushbutton a WALK won't come up.  Instead, the signal will have to cycle to the side-street so it can get back to the start of main-street green (at which point the Walk will come up for the pedestrian).  Under this scenario, a signal that could have rested in green on main-street would have to cycle to the side-street every time a main-street pushbutton is pressed.  It's inefficient to cycle to the side-street when nobody is actually waiting on the side-street. 

[tradephoric]

I've learned to ignore him. I got sick of engaging after the Parclo B4 nonsense, where he did the same thing to try and prove that every other interchange type is inferior. The argument keeps changing as well. I'm convinced he's a politician or lawyer for his day job.

CL94, you replied to a post I made just a few days ago, calling me out by name.  Not only that, you suggested what I was talking about was a "great idea"  (your words, not mine).  So which is it?  Today you ignore me and tomorrow you will want to talk?  You have some wild swings in temperament.

I think Trade is referring to phasing that eliminates the FY when the ped phase is active. If a person pushes the button, the FY phase could be disabled to increase pedestrian safety. I think this is a great idea and it goes along with how some places, notably some locations in NYSDOT Region 1, have blackout NTOR signs that are only lit when a ped phase at a conflicting crosswalk is active to protect pedestrians from idiots turning on red.

[cl94]

I've learned to ignore him. I got sick of engaging after the Parclo B4 nonsense, where he did the same thing to try and prove that every other interchange type is inferior. The argument keeps changing as well. I'm convinced he's a politician or lawyer for his day job.

CL94, you replied to a post I made just a few days ago, calling me out by name.  Not only that, you suggested what I was talking about was a "great idea"  (your words, not mine).  So which is it?  Today you ignore me and tomorrow you will want to talk?  You have some wild swings in temperament.

I think Trade is referring to phasing that eliminates the FY when the ped phase is active. If a person pushes the button, the FY phase could be disabled to increase pedestrian safety. I think this is a great idea and it goes along with how some places, notably some locations in NYSDOT Region 1, have blackout NTOR signs that are only lit when a ped phase at a conflicting crosswalk is active to protect pedestrians from idiots turning on red.

Evidently, I thought you were talking about something else.

[tradephoric]

CL94, you are making it a habit responding to my posts.  I liked it better when you ignored me.  At least then I didn't have to read your mindless drivel you pass off as a rational thought.  See, we can all make personal attacks, but they become boring.  And don't pretend like you haven't been attacking me by suggesting I'm a lawyer or politician in my day job.

[lordsutch]

My understanding is that push buttons are legally required by the design standards at any signalized pedestrian crossing in the UK. Furthermore I believe the controllers are normally programmed such that pedestrian signals don't turn green during a normal signal phase if they aren't activated by a button. So whether or not they are pointless is redundant, at least in the British context. They also typically have a tactile device that helps blind people tell if the signal is green.

Even in the US we might want to require manual activation at all pedestrian signals for accessibility purposes (audio prompting for the blind and/or a similar tactile system).

Anyway I return you to your argument.

[roadfro]

If you don't have push buttons on the main street, you need a resting walk phase.  Thus, before the side street gets the green you're going to have to go through the flashing don't walk and whatnot.  That will significantly delay the response to traffic on the side street.  In addition, it further encourages pedestrians to ignore push buttons.

This is a very valid point and I'm glad you brought it up.  But there is a counter point that should be considered.  Many agencies refuse to bring up a WALK in the middle of a green phase.  So if a pedestrian is walking down main-street and approaches a solid don't walk, if they press the pushbutton a WALK won't come up.  Instead, the signal will have to cycle to the side-street so it can get back to the start of main-street green (at which point the Walk will come up for the pedestrian).  Under this scenario, a signal that could have rested in green on main-street would have to cycle to the side-street every time a main-street pushbutton is pressed.  It's inefficient to cycle to the side-street when nobody is actually waiting on the side-street.

Another point to consider is whether you would want to operate the signal differently at different times. For example, if it would make more sense at some point to have the signal run in free (demand) mode, you have to have pedestrian push buttons to accommodate that.

I think it is better to install buttons to allow flexibility to run the signal in different operation modes, than to leave buttons off completely.

[tradephoric]

Even in the US we might want to require manual activation at all pedestrian signals for accessibility purposes (audio prompting for the blind and/or a similar tactile system).

In theory that sounds great.  But as previously said...

...traffic engineers will give you reasons why pushbuttons are a good idea even for main-street pedestrian crossings.  The problem is any safety benefits they are trying to achieve aren't realized because the pedestrian compliance rate of intersections with pushbuttons is abysmal (ie. the Florida study where the non-compliance rate was 91%).

Protecting blind pedestrians at all pedestrian crossings is a noble goal but wouldn't it be wise to get a handle on the high non-compliance rate of pedestrians at pushbutton intersections?  Based on the Florida study pedestrians have no respect for the Solid Don't Walk.

[tradephoric]

Another point to consider is whether you would want to operate the signal differently at different times. For example, if it would make more sense at some point to have the signal run in free (demand) mode, you have to have pedestrian push buttons to accommodate that.

I think it is better to install buttons to allow flexibility to run the signal in different operation modes, than to leave buttons off completely.

Depending on the intersection I agree with you.  At a rural isolated intersection, it would make sense to have pushbuttons at all pedestrian crossings so it can run snappy in the middle of the night.   But installing pushbuttons at all 4 corners of Santa Monica Boulevard?  I don't see the benefit.  When would you ever want to run that signal free?  Obviously pushbuttons give the greatest flexibility for traffic engineers but from my experience that flexibility is rarely used. 

By the way, would Reno ever bring up a WALK in the middle of a green phase when somebody presses the pushbutton or is that unheard of?

[roadfro]

By the way, would Reno ever bring up a WALK in the middle of a green phase when somebody presses the pushbutton or is that unheard of?

Reno has many signals that don't rest in walk or otherwise automatically bring up the WALK signal concurrent with the adjacent through green phase on the major street. I can think a few that will bring up the WALK in the middle of the adjacent green phase immediately upon pressing the pushbutton...provided there is enough time to run the full WALK+FDW cycle within the remaining green time.

I can also think of another signal near where I used to live in NW Reno. In later night hours, the E/W road rested in green and the associated pedestrian phases would simultaneously activate the WALK & FDW cycle. If the countdown got to 0 and there were no vehicle/ped calls on the north or south legs, the E/W green remained green and a fresh WALK cycle would come up.

[tradephoric]

My understanding is that push buttons are legally required by the design standards at any signalized pedestrian crossing in the UK. Furthermore I believe the controllers are normally programmed such that pedestrian signals don't turn green during a normal signal phase if they aren't activated by a button. So whether or not they are pointless is redundant, at least in the British context. They also typically have a tactile device that helps blind people tell if the signal is green.

I linked a BBC article that discusses how pushbuttons operate in the UK.  It definitely appears pushbuttons are commonplace in the UK with many of them turning on automatically during busy pedestrian times.  But in the article even the Head of Traffic Infrastructure at TfL admits to not knowing how many pushbuttons run automated and how many operate by pressing the button.

Transport for London denies it is misleading people. There are 4,650 pedestrian crossings in London of which about 2,500 are at junctions. At the majority of these junctions the button controls the green man, says Iain Blackmore, Head of Traffic Infrastructure at TfL. It is difficult to say how many are completely automated and how many operated by the button without someone analysing each junction, he says.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23869955

While London is installs pushbuttons at every pedestrian crossing, NYC is actively ripping them out.  Most of the pushbuttons in NYC have been inoperable for the past 20-30 years (when in the 80's many of the semi-actuated traffic signals were converted to fixed-time due to the increase in traffic volumes).  Since fixed-time requires the signal to cycle 24/7, there's really no need to have the pushbuttons.  Now does the traffic flow in NYC suffer by having fix-timed signals?   If you get a chance watch the youtube video of a cabby driving down 1st Avenue for 125 blocks without hitting a red light.  You could never do something like that in London.

I'll take an efficient network of fixed-time signals (NYC) over an inefficient network of adaptive signals (London).  A great example of an efficient road network is downtown Portland, Oregon (you won't see many pushbuttons there either).  The point is, the efficiency of a road network may effect how a city views pushbutton use.  Some cities with horribly laid out road networks might want to install pushbuttons at every intersection to squeeze out every last second of green time at a poorly placed traffic signal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jGWdCknurM

[jeffandnicole]

Wow.  Look at all those cars in Portland that never turn, drive a single car length behind each other, everyone moves at the exact same speed of 12.5 mph, and have such confidence in the traffic signals that they never have to slow down.  Oh, yeah, not a single pedestrian or bicyclist to be seen either.

[tradephoric]

^Your average Joe (IE. YOU) wouldn't be able to visualize what a "perfect grid" would look like without simplifying the traffic model.  Obviously this is meant to be theoretical and anybody with a pea-sized brain would realize this.   How big is your brain Jeffandnicole?

If i said the sun rises in the east you would argue that it rises in the west.. just to be D*#$. 

[jeffandnicole]

^Your average Joe (IE.  YOU) wouldn't be able to visualize what a "perfect grid" would look like without simplifying the traffic model.  Obviously this is meant to be a theoretical and anybody with a pea-sized brain would realize this.   How big is your brain Jeffandnicole?

If i said the sun rises in the east you would argue that it rises in the west.. just to be D*#$. 

No...I'm referring to simulated crap that you spend all day search for on the web, vs. real life conditions that would never approach such perfection.

I can go on to say no one ever pulls into a parking garage.  No one ever parallel parks.  No buses dropping off and picking up.  Heck, no pedestrians or bicyclists (no wonder why push buttons aren't needed).  Basically, the video you posted could be done on any grid system anywhere, because the video showed absolutely no variable towards real scenarios.  Some drivers will stop and go when they're not supposed to.  Drivers will break down.  Drivers will turn from wrong lanes.  People will jaywalk.  Cars will stop to give panhandlers money.  Cops and firetrucks will come whizzing thru.  If any one of the above occurred, it would destroy Portland's "great example of an efficient road network".

[tradephoric]

^Obviously the perfect progression seen in the model is going to be reduced to something less than perfect progression in the real world.  That is common sense.  But for some of the scenarios you describe there are simple solutions to maintain progression (ie. change lanes to get around slowdowns). 

Would you not try to provide good progression just because there are scenarios in the real world that would ruin progression?  That would be like a doctor not operating on a patient because they know that their patient will eventually die (in 50 years).  Sure, sometimes progression will be lost just like sometimes people die.  And the sun will still rise in the east.