Traffic signal

[interstatefan990]

Solid red to flashing red is a function of regular red-yellow-green 3-orb traffic signals as well.

Is there a yellow interval between flashing red and solid red if/when this is used?

[hotdogPi]

If you're stopped and looking out of the corner of your eye for a color change (maybe you're looking at the crosswalk to see if there's a second person coming), you won't see it change if it turns from solid red to flashing red. That said, I would still prefer it over a HAWK.

[jakeroot]

Solid red to flashing red is a function of regular red-yellow-green 3-orb traffic signals as well.

Is there a yellow interval between flashing red and solid red if/when this is used?

It would sit in green. Then go solid yellow, solid red. After some period of time (8 to 14 seconds), it would flash red before returning to green.

If you're stopped and looking out of the corner of your eye for a color change (maybe you're looking at the crosswalk to see if there's a second person coming), you won't see it change if it turns from solid red to flashing red. That said, I would still prefer it over a HAWK.

The problem is flashing to solid (like at an FYA signal), not solid to flashing. There's really no safety issues if drivers don't immediately notice a solid to flashing change. But besides that, I think most drivers would notice the change rather quickly (within a couple seconds).

If visibility is an issue, put the signals at eye level where you would normally look for pedestrians.

[mrsman]

Solid red to flashing red is a function of regular red-yellow-green 3-orb traffic signals as well.

Is there a yellow interval between flashing red and solid red if/when this is used?

It would sit in green. Then go solid yellow, solid red. After some period of time (8 to 14 seconds), it would flash red before returning to green.

Something like this would be the ideal pedestrian mid-block crossing.  The city of Los Angeles uses something similar in Downtown and other areas with heavy pedestrian presence (like Fairfax Ave).  The one difference is that the solid red is very brief.  For safety, I recommend that the solid red be put in place for at least the walk period and the flashing red during the pedestrian's FDW phase.  The idea is that you'd come to a complete stop if a ped pushes the button, and you'd have time to assess the situation.  When the flashing red begins, you may proceed (after coming to a brief stop).  This allows you to proceed if you are dealing with a faster pedestrian who may no longer be in the roadway and to remain stopped if you are dealing with a slower pedestrian.

The HAWKs seem to still cause too much confusion in some areas. 

[PurdueBill]

I am not sure that a HAWK at an intersection is really legit.  Does turning traffic off the side street have to try to watch the HAWK on the main road to see when they are not allowed to turn out?  Or are they allowed to turn out?  Pedestrians would have the idea that their crossing is totally protected but there may be turning traffic that sees the main road is stopped so now is the chance to turn out.  Just seems like asking for trouble.  I was pretty sure that FHWA wanted HAWK signals at midblock type crossings only, not at intersections.

[corco]

I am not sure that a HAWK at an intersection is really legit.  Does turning traffic off the side street have to try to watch the HAWK on the main road to see when they are not allowed to turn out?  Or are they allowed to turn out?  Pedestrians would have the idea that their crossing is totally protected but there may be turning traffic that sees the main road is stopped so now is the chance to turn out.  Just seems like asking for trouble.  I was pretty sure that FHWA wanted HAWK signals at midblock type crossings only, not at intersections.

I used to live where I lived off a side street where I had to approach a HAWK at an intersection - https://goo.gl/maps/ws6BNJBfjQv7w6rx9

It was pretty confusing if you rolled up when it was activated. Most cars would roll through and not yield to me - but occasionally some car would try to wave me out. I'd wave them on because I didn't trust the other cars to also do so. But I always thought it was a bad design and not very clear who had the right of way in that situation.

[jakeroot]

There is also a HAWK at this intersection in Spokane, WA (the best signalized HAWK I've personally seen, for the record -- too many lack left-side repeaters). I don't think it's too unusual.

I would guess that "HAWK at intersection" is a distant cousin of the half-signal.

So far as I know: it's permitted.

[Big John]

I would guess that "HAWK at intersection" is a distant cousin of the half-signal.

So far as I know: it's permitted.

Like Vancouver's but without the flashing green

[SkyPesos]

I am not sure that a HAWK at an intersection is really legit.  Does turning traffic off the side street have to try to watch the HAWK on the main road to see when they are not allowed to turn out?  Or are they allowed to turn out?  Pedestrians would have the idea that their crossing is totally protected but there may be turning traffic that sees the main road is stopped so now is the chance to turn out.  Just seems like asking for trouble.  I was pretty sure that FHWA wanted HAWK signals at midblock type crossings only, not at intersections.

For a three way intersection with pedestrian crossings on all three sides, it seems like a missed opportunity to me to just signalize all three ways either with HAWKs or even standard traffic signals. It looks like they're constructing new campus housing at that area, so the crosswalks may get used much more often once it gets finished.

There may be something about that area I'm missing about though. Only started to get myself familiar with the Purdue campus.

[fwydriver405]

I am not sure that a HAWK at an intersection is really legit.  Does turning traffic off the side street have to try to watch the HAWK on the main road to see when they are not allowed to turn out?  Or are they allowed to turn out?  Pedestrians would have the idea that their crossing is totally protected but there may be turning traffic that sees the main road is stopped so now is the chance to turn out.  Just seems like asking for trouble.  I was pretty sure that FHWA wanted HAWK signals at midblock type crossings only, not at intersections.

I used to live where I lived off a side street where I had to approach a HAWK at an intersection - https://goo.gl/maps/ws6BNJBfjQv7w6rx9

It was pretty confusing if you rolled up when it was activated. Most cars would roll through and not yield to me - but occasionally some car would try to wave me out. I'd wave them on because I didn't trust the other cars to also do so. But I always thought it was a bad design and not very clear who had the right of way in that situation.

If a PHB/HAWK is pointed at the side street with the STOP sign, does that mean when it's active, the PHB/HAWK temporarily overrides the STOP sign during the steady and flashing red phase? Is right on red technically still permitted under this setup?

Two NH examples where I've seen this: Londonderry, Epping.

[fwydriver405]

I would guess that "HAWK at intersection" is a distant cousin of the half-signal.

So far as I know: it's permitted.

I remember seeing a video about a bike and ped HAWK in Portland OR and at first, it confused me how this all worked with so many conflicts... was wondering why a normal traffic signal wouldn't work here.

[Big John]

I am not sure that a HAWK at an intersection is really legit.  Does turning traffic off the side street have to try to watch the HAWK on the main road to see when they are not allowed to turn out?  Or are they allowed to turn out?  Pedestrians would have the idea that their crossing is totally protected but there may be turning traffic that sees the main road is stopped so now is the chance to turn out.  Just seems like asking for trouble.  I was pretty sure that FHWA wanted HAWK signals at midblock type crossings only, not at intersections.

I used to live where I lived off a side street where I had to approach a HAWK at an intersection - https://goo.gl/maps/ws6BNJBfjQv7w6rx9

It was pretty confusing if you rolled up when it was activated. Most cars would roll through and not yield to me - but occasionally some car would try to wave me out. I'd wave them on because I didn't trust the other cars to also do so. But I always thought it was a bad design and not very clear who had the right of way in that situation.

If a PHB/HAWK is pointed at the side street with the STOP sign, does that mean when it's active, the PHB/HAWK temporarily overrides the STOP sign during the steady and flashing red phase? Is right on red technically still permitted under this setup?

Two NH examples where I've seen this: Londonderry, Epping.

The Epping one has no marked crossing.  Is that allowed with a HAWK?

[fwydriver405]

I am not sure that a HAWK at an intersection is really legit.  Does turning traffic off the side street have to try to watch the HAWK on the main road to see when they are not allowed to turn out?  Or are they allowed to turn out?  Pedestrians would have the idea that their crossing is totally protected but there may be turning traffic that sees the main road is stopped so now is the chance to turn out.  Just seems like asking for trouble.  I was pretty sure that FHWA wanted HAWK signals at midblock type crossings only, not at intersections.

I used to live where I lived off a side street where I had to approach a HAWK at an intersection - https://goo.gl/maps/ws6BNJBfjQv7w6rx9

It was pretty confusing if you rolled up when it was activated. Most cars would roll through and not yield to me - but occasionally some car would try to wave me out. I'd wave them on because I didn't trust the other cars to also do so. But I always thought it was a bad design and not very clear who had the right of way in that situation.

If a PHB/HAWK is pointed at the side street with the STOP sign, does that mean when it's active, the PHB/HAWK temporarily overrides the STOP sign during the steady and flashing red phase? Is right on red technically still permitted under this setup?

Two NH examples where I've seen this: Londonderry, Epping.

The Epping one has no marked crossing.  Is that allowed with a HAWK?

I think the marked crosswalk is simply just faded... I am expected to pass thru there tomorrow morning so I'll see if NHDOT actually repainted the marked crosswalk.

[mrsman]

I am not sure that a HAWK at an intersection is really legit.  Does turning traffic off the side street have to try to watch the HAWK on the main road to see when they are not allowed to turn out?  Or are they allowed to turn out?  Pedestrians would have the idea that their crossing is totally protected but there may be turning traffic that sees the main road is stopped so now is the chance to turn out.  Just seems like asking for trouble.  I was pretty sure that FHWA wanted HAWK signals at midblock type crossings only, not at intersections.

I used to live where I lived off a side street where I had to approach a HAWK at an intersection - https://goo.gl/maps/ws6BNJBfjQv7w6rx9

It was pretty confusing if you rolled up when it was activated. Most cars would roll through and not yield to me - but occasionally some car would try to wave me out. I'd wave them on because I didn't trust the other cars to also do so. But I always thought it was a bad design and not very clear who had the right of way in that situation.

Agree completely.  It seems to me the whole point of the HAWK is to allow for a signalized ped crossing that is cheaper than a full signal (or to put in places where the signal warrants aren't met).  If that is the case, then you can move the crossing a half-block over to reduce the confusion.

Of course, there are likely to be more people wanting to cross at an intersection than at mid-block.  THe folks who are wanting to simply get from one side of the big street to the other may be ambivalent as to where they cross, they'll walk to the nearest safe crossing.  If regular signals are three blocks apart, a mid-block signal 1.5 blocks from both signals will halve the distance that one needs to walk to cross.  But for those who are walking down the side street, they would prefer NOT to detour to the mid-block crossing and would prefer if the signal were on their street.

For the most part, though, it seems that it is main street activities that bring in enough folks who are crossing the street to merit the HAWKs.  Here is a HAWK at 11th and Florida, NE in Washington DC.  Florida is a street with a lot of safety issues and DDOT is working on a lot of things to make it safer, (like bike lanes and a fix at the nearby large intersections with NY Ave and the "starburst" where it meets H st).  Yet, I bet, its not 11th st pedestrians per se that brought in the HAWK, but rather the presence of the church.  Perhaps it would be safer if the crossing were moved half a block further up the street and the crosswalk led right to the church's door mid-block, so as not to confuse 11th st drivers.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9033244,-76.9914847,3a,75y,313.21h,90.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_CCayQ4Hmd8xSGnpIFHaMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://wtop.com/dc/2019/08/after-fatal-crashes-interim-florida-avenue-ne-bike-safety-improvements-in-place/

There is also a HAWK at this intersection in Spokane, WA (the best signalized HAWK I've personally seen, for the record -- too many lack left-side repeaters). I don't think it's too unusual.

I would guess that "HAWK at intersection" is a distant cousin of the half-signal.

So far as I know: it's permitted.

Found this at https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Q: Why does Section 4F.02 say that Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons should not be installed at or within 100 feet of side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs? Sometimes the only reasonable place to install a hybrid pedestrian beacon is at the intersection.
A: The FHWA has been discouraging "half signals" for several decades because of the issues such designs cause when the interruption of the major-street traffic flow by a pedestrian actuation is used by side-street drivers as their opportunity to turn onto the major street, in conflict with the crossing pedestrians. Hybrid beacons placed at or adjacent to an intersection with a STOP or YIELD sign controlled side street is a half signal with the same operational and safety issues. The provision in Section 4F.02 is also consistent with the half-signal prohibitions that were adopted in Sections 4C.05 and 4C.06. Please note that these provisions in 4C.05, 4C.06, and 4F.02 are Guidance, not Standards. Thus, based on an engineering study or engineering judgment, a jurisdiction can decide to install the device at such an intersection if it determines that is the best location for it, considering all pertinent factors, and/or there are mitigating measures, such as blank-out No Right Turn/No Left Turn signs for the side street or making the side street one-way away from the intersection. The decisions should be documented in the jurisdictions' files as basis for deviating from a Guidance statement in the MUTCD. It should also be noted that the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) has recommended to the FHWA that the Section 4F.02 guidance against installing pedestrian hybrid beacons within 100 feet of an intersection should be removed from the MUTCD, because a study of hybrid beacons at intersections in Tucson, Arizona, did not find significant operational or safety issues. The FHWA will give consideration to proposing the removal of the 100 feet guidance for the next edition of the MUTCD.

So while there are issues in allowing this as the opportunity for side street traffic, it probably aren't huge issues in any measured way.  In my view, only full signals should be allowed at intersections so that side street cars also have right of way.

[mrsman]

I would guess that "HAWK at intersection" is a distant cousin of the half-signal.

So far as I know: it's permitted.

I remember seeing a video about a bike and ped HAWK in Portland OR and at first, it confused me how this all worked with so many conflicts... was wondering why a normal traffic signal wouldn't work here.

In the busiest cities, if a minor street has a signal at the intersection with a major street, it will induce traffic onto the minor street, because now the new signal has made it easier to cross (or turn left at) the major street. 

The short answer to your question is that a normal traffic signal will work well here, too well.  A regular traffic signal would encourage cut through auto traffic to use 41st Ave.  They don't want to encourage cut-through traffic, only provide a brief stop of Burnside in order to allow peds and bikes to cross.  Legally, for vehicles to cross, they would need a longer red on Burnside.

[Obviously, a vehicle will take advantage of the stopped condition, and that is the problem we are discussing.]

A better answer would force drivers to make rights at Burnside, to avoid cut-through traffic.

[hotdogPi]

What's the best way to have a pedestrian-only signal across the main road at an intersection? HAWKs are confusing, especially at intersections. Flashing yellow means the cross street has flashing red; while this will usually be the case if the intersection itself isn't signalized, there might be some vehicle uncontrolled intersections with a pedestrian crossing. Solid green means the cross street has solid red, which it doesn't. Flashing green is only used in eastern Massachusetts (being phased out) and parts of Canada, and the ones in Massachusetts at an intersection have flashing red on the cross street.

[jeffandnicole]

What's the best way to have a pedestrian-only signal across the main road at an intersection? HAWKs are confusing, especially at intersections. Flashing yellow means the cross street has flashing red; while this will usually be the case if the intersection itself isn't signalized, there might be some vehicle uncontrolled intersections with a pedestrian crossing. Solid green means the cross street has solid red, which it doesn't. Flashing green is only used in eastern Massachusetts (being phased out) and parts of Canada, and the ones in Massachusetts at an intersection have flashing red on the cross street.

I don't think there's a single best solution.  HAWKS work well when there's no issue with traffic light timing, as once the button is pressed, usually the HAWK activates right away.  Otherwise, a traffic light would probably be the best solution where a pedestrian crossing could/should be timed in conjunction with other traffic lights.

The biggest issue is human nature:  Once someone presses the button, they believe that light should turn for them immediately.  It doesn't matter if that light had just turned green for thru traffic from a previous pedestrian crossing; hitting that button 1 second later, in a pedestrian's mind, means that the traffic should get a red light again right away.  Pedestrians don't want to wait, and will have a tendency to try to walk against the Don't Walk signal if they need to wait more than several seconds.

[hotdogPi]

The biggest issue is human nature:  Once someone presses the button, they believe that light should turn for them immediately.  It doesn't matter if that light had just turned green for thru traffic from a previous pedestrian crossing; hitting that button 1 second later, in a pedestrian's mind, means that the traffic should get a red light again right away.  Pedestrians don't want to wait, and will have a tendency to try to walk against the Don't Walk signal if they need to wait more than several seconds.

Part of the problem is that if I'm waiting for a long time, I often think it doesn't work, often compounded by a few of them that actually are broken and don't recognize it being pressed from a specific direction. A few of them have an indicator that shows that it's been pressed, which helps.

For roads with one lane in each direction, or any width with a median, I typically don't press the button, because I don't want to delay the cars.

[jeffandnicole]

The biggest issue is human nature:  Once someone presses the button, they believe that light should turn for them immediately.  It doesn't matter if that light had just turned green for thru traffic from a previous pedestrian crossing; hitting that button 1 second later, in a pedestrian's mind, means that the traffic should get a red light again right away.  Pedestrians don't want to wait, and will have a tendency to try to walk against the Don't Walk signal if they need to wait more than several seconds.

Part of the problem is that if I'm waiting for a long time, I often think it doesn't work, often compounded by a few of them that actually are broken and don't recognize it being pressed from a specific direction. A few of them have an indicator that shows that it's been pressed, which helps.

For roads with one lane in each direction, or any width with a median, I typically don't press the button, because I don't want to delay the cars.

A long time for a pedestrian is usually a different time for drivers.  If you waited more than a half-minute as a pedestrian, that probably seems like a long time.  Yet, if you were a driver, you wouldn't think twice about a red light for a half-minute.  For a road with a green light, if it was the main road, especially one with traffic, a 30 second green would be quite short.  For a pedestrian, they're wondering if they'll ever make it across.

The cross-traffic pedestrian signal helps a lot with this, as a pedestrian waiting can look to see the cross traffic's Don't Walk signal flashing (If they actually look at it).  At least that also helps to know the button is probably working.

[PurdueBill]

I am not sure that a HAWK at an intersection is really legit.  Does turning traffic off the side street have to try to watch the HAWK on the main road to see when they are not allowed to turn out?  Or are they allowed to turn out?  Pedestrians would have the idea that their crossing is totally protected but there may be turning traffic that sees the main road is stopped so now is the chance to turn out.  Just seems like asking for trouble.  I was pretty sure that FHWA wanted HAWK signals at midblock type crossings only, not at intersections.

I used to live where I lived off a side street where I had to approach a HAWK at an intersection - https://goo.gl/maps/ws6BNJBfjQv7w6rx9

It was pretty confusing if you rolled up when it was activated. Most cars would roll through and not yield to me - but occasionally some car would try to wave me out. I'd wave them on because I didn't trust the other cars to also do so. But I always thought it was a bad design and not very clear who had the right of way in that situation.

Agree completely.  It seems to me the whole point of the HAWK is to allow for a signalized ped crossing that is cheaper than a full signal (or to put in places where the signal warrants aren't met).  If that is the case, then you can move the crossing a half-block over to reduce the confusion.

Of course, there are likely to be more people wanting to cross at an intersection than at mid-block.  THe folks who are wanting to simply get from one side of the big street to the other may be ambivalent as to where they cross, they'll walk to the nearest safe crossing.  If regular signals are three blocks apart, a mid-block signal 1.5 blocks from both signals will halve the distance that one needs to walk to cross.  But for those who are walking down the side street, they would prefer NOT to detour to the mid-block crossing and would prefer if the signal were on their street.

For the most part, though, it seems that it is main street activities that bring in enough folks who are crossing the street to merit the HAWKs.  Here is a HAWK at 11th and Florida, NE in Washington DC.  Florida is a street with a lot of safety issues and DDOT is working on a lot of things to make it safer, (like bike lanes and a fix at the nearby large intersections with NY Ave and the "starburst" where it meets H st).  Yet, I bet, its not 11th st pedestrians per se that brought in the HAWK, but rather the presence of the church.  Perhaps it would be safer if the crossing were moved half a block further up the street and the crosswalk led right to the church's door mid-block, so as not to confuse 11th st drivers.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9033244,-76.9914847,3a,75y,313.21h,90.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_CCayQ4Hmd8xSGnpIFHaMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://wtop.com/dc/2019/08/after-fatal-crashes-interim-florida-avenue-ne-bike-safety-improvements-in-place/

There is also a HAWK at this intersection in Spokane, WA (the best signalized HAWK I've personally seen, for the record -- too many lack left-side repeaters). I don't think it's too unusual.

I would guess that "HAWK at intersection" is a distant cousin of the half-signal.

So far as I know: it's permitted.

Found this at https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Q: Why does Section 4F.02 say that Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons should not be installed at or within 100 feet of side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs? Sometimes the only reasonable place to install a hybrid pedestrian beacon is at the intersection.
A: The FHWA has been discouraging "half signals" for several decades because of the issues such designs cause when the interruption of the major-street traffic flow by a pedestrian actuation is used by side-street drivers as their opportunity to turn onto the major street, in conflict with the crossing pedestrians. Hybrid beacons placed at or adjacent to an intersection with a STOP or YIELD sign controlled side street is a half signal with the same operational and safety issues. The provision in Section 4F.02 is also consistent with the half-signal prohibitions that were adopted in Sections 4C.05 and 4C.06. Please note that these provisions in 4C.05, 4C.06, and 4F.02 are Guidance, not Standards. Thus, based on an engineering study or engineering judgment, a jurisdiction can decide to install the device at such an intersection if it determines that is the best location for it, considering all pertinent factors, and/or there are mitigating measures, such as blank-out No Right Turn/No Left Turn signs for the side street or making the side street one-way away from the intersection. The decisions should be documented in the jurisdictions' files as basis for deviating from a Guidance statement in the MUTCD. It should also be noted that the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) has recommended to the FHWA that the Section 4F.02 guidance against installing pedestrian hybrid beacons within 100 feet of an intersection should be removed from the MUTCD, because a study of hybrid beacons at intersections in Tucson, Arizona, did not find significant operational or safety issues. The FHWA will give consideration to proposing the removal of the 100 feet guidance for the next edition of the MUTCD.

So while there are issues in allowing this as the opportunity for side street traffic, it probably aren't huge issues in any measured way.  In my view, only full signals should be allowed at intersections so that side street cars also have right of way.

The problem I see with HAWKs at intersections is that the driver on the side street may not really know when the drivers on the main road will go, especially with the flashing red aspect, which is even worse than a half-signal, which at least stays red and keeps people stopped.  Like half-signals, HAWKs at intersections seem like something that should be rare and on the way out, not encouraged to appear more and more, because they are confusing.  (I'd say the same thing for HAWKs in general actually.  Use midblock pedestrian signals Los Angeles style that flash red after the solid red during the WALK signal and rest on green, which make sense.)

[mrsman]

^^^^^

Yes.  Agreed.  Use only full signals at regular intersections.

If full signals aren't desired because warrants aren't met and/or DOT does not want to induce side street traffic, then the crossing should move half a block over to become mid-block.

And with the specific example on Florida Ave in DC that I cited earlier, move it away from 11th so that the new mid-block crosswalk goes right to the church's front door.  It is far safer for the peds (fewer conflicts) and it also removes an inducement for 11th st traffic to make use of the stopped traffic to make a left onto Florida.

The L.A. style is really the best, since stopping is not a surprise, since its RYG.  But, the R flashes, so if a ped is fast and makes it across, you can continue to drive once the crossing is clear (and not wait around just for the light to change when there is nobody).

[RobbieL2415]

^^^^^

Yes.  Agreed.  Use only full signals at regular intersections.

If full signals aren't desired because warrants aren't met and/or DOT does not want to induce side street traffic, then the crossing should move half a block over to become mid-block.

And with the specific example on Florida Ave in DC that I cited earlier, move it away from 11th so that the new mid-block crosswalk goes right to the church's front door.  It is far safer for the peds (fewer conflicts) and it also removes an inducement for 11th st traffic to make use of the stopped traffic to make a left onto Florida.

The L.A. style is really the best, since stopping is not a surprise, since its RYG.  But, the R flashes, so if a ped is fast and makes it across, you can continue to drive once the crossing is clear (and not wait around just for the light to change when there is nobody).

CT and MA love doing this for some reason.

There was a crosswalk with a full signal in Hartford that only went red once in a blue moon. Then there's another in Chatham out on the Cape that I've never seen activated.

[jay8g]

Found this at https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Q: Why does Section 4F.02 say that Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons should not be installed at or within 100 feet of side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs? Sometimes the only reasonable place to install a hybrid pedestrian beacon is at the intersection.
A: The FHWA has been discouraging "half signals" for several decades because of the issues such designs cause when the interruption of the major-street traffic flow by a pedestrian actuation is used by side-street drivers as their opportunity to turn onto the major street, in conflict with the crossing pedestrians.

I kind of get what they're saying here, but how is this any different from a normal full signal? Unless there are protected turns (which there probably wouldn't be at an intersection with a minor street where the signal is being installed primarily for pedestrians), turns on the side-street green would still conflict with crossing pedestrians.

Regardless, I still think the best option is to have a full signal with diverters to make the side street RIRO. That removes the confusion from HAWK signals (and, to a lesser extent, half-signals) while removing the cut-through traffic problem, and I can't imagine the cost is that much more than a half-signal or HAWK signal (which should cost about the same as each other). For lower-volume major streets, an RRFB is certainly better from a cost perspective (and I always prefer them when walking or biking, as I don't have to wait for the signal to slowly cycle around to let me cross... at least in Seattle, it's all too common for half-signals to take a few minutes to change even if there are no cars around).

[jakeroot]

One approach for crosswalks at minor intersections might be to use FYA signals facing the respective crossing from the side-street. So when the crossing is activated, the arrows flash yellow. Otherwise they are solid green.

Federal Way, WA uses this at many of their T-intersections.

Personally, having experienced half-signals all over the place (Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver), they really aren't problematic. Yeah, you have people who make very half-assed stops when the crossing is on, but there seems to be little safety issue apart from drivers sneaking in right as the main road goes green. And even then, it's mostly just a symphony of horns from the arterial road traffic, not a crash .

[Dirt Roads]

Found this at https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Q: Why does Section 4F.02 say that Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons should not be installed at or within 100 feet of side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs? Sometimes the only reasonable place to install a hybrid pedestrian beacon is at the intersection.
A: The FHWA has been discouraging "half signals" for several decades because of the issues such designs cause when the interruption of the major-street traffic flow by a pedestrian actuation is used by side-street drivers as their opportunity to turn onto the major street, in conflict with the crossing pedestrians.

I kind of get what they're saying here, but how is this any different from a normal full signal? Unless there are protected turns (which there probably wouldn't be at an intersection with a minor street where the signal is being installed primarily for pedestrians), turns on the side-street green would still conflict with crossing pedestrians.

Most places I've been, the densely travelled arterials have time-coordinated intersections paced at a certain speed in areas where traffic would normally get jammed up.  Some are big enough to have full-blown traffic control systems.  HAWK signals disrupt this flow of traffic.  But so do railroad crossings.  I worked on a rail project within the Port of Long Beach just before the Alameda Corridor started construction and was amazed that the traffic control system was able to track the train movements via the signal preempt inputs.  Unfortunately, that feature would make HAWK signals unbelievably expensive.