"Revolutionary" new pedestrian signal being tested

[PurdueBill]

I hate the wigwag phase.  We already had a signal indication for "stop, then proceed if clear" called flashing red.  Flashing DON'T WALK also already had a meaning--finish crossing if safe to do so; do not expect traffic PERPENDICULAR to your path to be allowed to cross your path (traffic starting parallel and turning could possibly cross your path, but never before traffic starting 90 degrees from the crosswalk in question).  We had an interpretation of all-dark traffic signals: treat as all-way stop because signals would never be dark if functioning properly.  Wigwag flashing red at a railroad crossing or atop a school bus has always meant DO NOT MOVE until the lights go out completely.

HAWK violates expectations and redefines existing signal interpretations. 

[mrsman]

At mid-block signalized crosswalks, Los Angeles has a signal that operates with green-yellow-flashing red sequence.  Flashing red during the entire pedestrian phase (WALK and FLASHING DON'T WALK).  THey exist primarily in Downtown LA and on select retail corridors like Fairfax Ave.  People seem to understand that you need to stop for any pedestrian, but once you are clear of pedestrians, you can make a quick stop and then continue (i.e. no need to wait for green).

I believe that HAWK signals were meant to address ped crossing at full intersections (peds and auto traffic on the side street) without inducing more traffic on the side streets.  I know from experience that where two parallel side streets meet a major street, the side street that meets the major at a signal will have more traffic then the street with the stop sign, because most drivers know that it would be easier to make a left or go through with a signal.  (A very clear example of this in LA is Orlando Ave providing traffic signals at 3rd, Beverly, and Melrose, but the streets at either side Croft and Kings have much less traffic.  Orlando Ave has become a de facto La Cienega bypass while Croft and Kings are largely quiet residential streets by LA standards -even thoguh all streets are the same width.)  The HAWK signals that I have seen do not provide a traffic signal for auto traffic on the side street, even though they provide a traffic signal for pedestrians.

Now, IMO, this does not justify the addition of a new confusing traffic signal.  I prefer a standard RYG signal in such a circumstance.  To allay concerns over side street traffic, I would force right turns at the main street (so that left turns and through traffic is not induced).  I am not aware of any installed in the City of LA, but there are plenty that I see in the DC area.

[roadfro]

I believe that HAWK signals were meant to address ped crossing at full intersections (peds and auto traffic on the side street) without inducing more traffic on the side streets.  <...>  The HAWK signals that I have seen do not provide a traffic signal for auto traffic on the side street, even though they provide a traffic signal for pedestrians.

According to the MUTCD, a HAWK signal is just used at unsignalized marked crosswalks. However, guidance in Section 4F.02 indicates that they are not supposed to be used at unsignalized intersections:

Guidance:
04 When an engineering study finds that installation of a pedestrian hybrid beacon is justified, then:

A. The pedestrian hybrid beacon should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs,

A HAWK couldn't really provide a vehicle indication to a side street anyway (at least nine that would make sense). If that were needed, a full signal would be a better idea.


EDIT: Fix formatting.