News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

HAWK Thread

Started by MCRoads, December 11, 2017, 10:17:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

What cycle do you like?

original HAWK
modified HAWK
what is a HAWK signal?
I like RYG ped signals.

kalvado

Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2023, 08:02:38 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 04:32:01 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.

I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.

Exactly, and it's why (IMO) it's an idiotic recommendation. Very few pedestrians are likely to detour mid-block towards a HAWK unless they ultimately have to go that way.

I would much rather the HAWK design were modified to be placed more effectively at intersections rather than attempting to prohibit it altogether. And/or the MUTCD being less mental about half-signals.
I would consider hawk as a niche solution for midblock. There are long blocks, plazas - possibly with associated bus stop, etc.
Intersections have too much going on


SignBridge

I will guess that the reason FHWA discourages HAWK's at intersections is because the existence of that signal plus a stop sign coming out of the cross street might be potentially confusing to drivers who are used to intersections being controlled by signs OR signals, but usually not both.   

PurdueBill

Quote from: SignBridge on March 18, 2023, 07:57:55 PM
I will guess that the reason FHWA discourages HAWK's at intersections is because the existence of that signal plus a stop sign coming out of the cross street might be potentially confusing to drivers who are used to intersections being controlled by signs OR signals, but usually not both.   

I wonder on the Kansas example of an intersection HAWK when the blank-out No Right Turn sign turns off.  One would assume it's on during the steady red light, but does it turn off during the flashing red?  If not, that's a lot of sitting to wait.  (One would think it must only light during the steady red, but the cynic in me thinks it may do otherwise.)

US 89

Quote from: SignBridge on March 18, 2023, 07:57:55 PM
I will guess that the reason FHWA discourages HAWK's at intersections is because the existence of that signal plus a stop sign coming out of the cross street might be potentially confusing to drivers who are used to intersections being controlled by signs OR signals, but usually not both.

Exactly my thought. The real issue is you don’t want to create an intersection where some approaches are signalized and others are not. If I’m turning at a stop sign where cross traffic has the right of way but is stopped by a HAWK…can I go if it’s clear of peds? Or worse, what if I see cross traffic at a stop, I assume they’re being held by a double red, but it’s actually a flashing red and they proceed onwards into me? Seems like a great way to get a lot of near misses and low speed collisions.

Troubleshooter

#329
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2023, 08:02:38 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 04:32:01 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.

I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.

Exactly, and it's why (IMO) it's an idiotic recommendation. Very few pedestrians are likely to detour mid-block towards a HAWK unless they ultimately have to go that way.

I would much rather the HAWK design were modified to be placed more effectively at intersections rather than attempting to prohibit it altogether. And/or the MUTCD being less mental about half-signals.

If there is an intersection, a regular traffic signal is supposed to be used instead of a HAWK.

Half signals are just plain wrong. They confuse side road drivers.

Hobart

Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 19, 2023, 09:15:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2023, 08:02:38 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 04:32:01 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.

I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.

Exactly, and it's why (IMO) it's an idiotic recommendation. Very few pedestrians are likely to detour mid-block towards a HAWK unless they ultimately have to go that way.

I would much rather the HAWK design were modified to be placed more effectively at intersections rather than attempting to prohibit it altogether. And/or the MUTCD being less mental about half-signals.

If there is an intersection, a regular traffic signal is supposed to be used instead of a HAWK.

Half signals are just plain wrong. They confuse side road drivers.

I feel like half signals can be executed well if the thru direction is shown flashing yellow by default, which changes to red, then flashing red, if a pedestrian activates the crosswalk. You'd need a couple "stop here on flashing red" signs on either side of the half-signaled intersection.

If you're worried about the cross street, additional heads can be installed to stop cross-street traffic as you see fit.

Half signals get a bad rap, not because they're a bad idea, but because they're executed wrong.

I also think the HAWK is redundant; just use a standard RYG signal, where red turns to flashing red before turning green (or flashing yellow at half-signaled intersections). It held up fire station entrances for years, what's the issue with using it for crosswalks?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

kphoger

Quote from: US 89 on March 19, 2023, 01:54:26 AM
If I'm turning at a stop sign where cross traffic has the right of way but is stopped by a HAWK...can I go if it's clear of peds?

Yes.  You're not facing the signal beacon, therefore it does not apply to you.  Yield to pedestrians, proceed to turn.

Quote from: US 89 on March 19, 2023, 01:54:26 AM
Or worse, what if I see cross traffic at a stop, I assume they're being held by a double red, but it's actually a flashing red and they proceed onwards into me? Seems like a great way to get a lot of near misses and low speed collisions.

Just like any four-way stop.  The other person might start going at the same time as you.  This happens all the time.  No big deal.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

kalvado

Quote from: kphoger on March 20, 2023, 10:57:04 AM
Quote from: US 89 on March 19, 2023, 01:54:26 AM
If I'm turning at a stop sign where cross traffic has the right of way but is stopped by a HAWK...can I go if it's clear of peds?

Yes.  You're not facing the signal beacon, therefore it does not apply to you.  Yield to pedestrians, proceed to turn.

Quote from: US 89 on March 19, 2023, 01:54:26 AM
Or worse, what if I see cross traffic at a stop, I assume they're being held by a double red, but it's actually a flashing red and they proceed onwards into me? Seems like a great way to get a lot of near misses and low speed collisions.

Just like any four-way stop.  The other person might start going at the same time as you.  This happens all the time.  No big deal.
One reason STOP and YIELD signs have distinct shapes is to let drivers on other legs of intersection know what to expect. Again, beacon breaks that logic

jakeroot

Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 19, 2023, 09:15:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2023, 08:02:38 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 04:32:01 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.

I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.

Exactly, and it's why (IMO) it's an idiotic recommendation. Very few pedestrians are likely to detour mid-block towards a HAWK unless they ultimately have to go that way.

I would much rather the HAWK design were modified to be placed more effectively at intersections rather than attempting to prohibit it altogether. And/or the MUTCD being less mental about half-signals.

If there is an intersection, a regular traffic signal is supposed to be used instead of a HAWK.

Half signals are just plain wrong. They confuse side road drivers.

To my knowledge, the HAWK was created specifically to be a beacon, and the warrants for beacons are much easier to meet, compared to full traffic signals.

Half signals are unique; don't mistake that for confusing. Drivers who do not drive in areas where they are common (such as Seattle) may find them unusual, but I shall imagine almost all drivers are able to work out what is happening within a few moments, and can successfully maneuver through them. The point, though, is to improve pedestrian safety, and I think half signals in this way have actually proven to be very successful in reducing pedestrian crashes. Don't look at them as being tools for helping drivers, but tools for helping pedestrians. They may be an oddity for drivers, but they are mostly to aid pedestrians.

mrsman

Quote from: jakeroot on March 25, 2023, 11:52:05 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 19, 2023, 09:15:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2023, 08:02:38 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 04:32:01 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.

I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.

Exactly, and it's why (IMO) it's an idiotic recommendation. Very few pedestrians are likely to detour mid-block towards a HAWK unless they ultimately have to go that way.

I would much rather the HAWK design were modified to be placed more effectively at intersections rather than attempting to prohibit it altogether. And/or the MUTCD being less mental about half-signals.

If there is an intersection, a regular traffic signal is supposed to be used instead of a HAWK.

Half signals are just plain wrong. They confuse side road drivers.

To my knowledge, the HAWK was created specifically to be a beacon, and the warrants for beacons are much easier to meet, compared to full traffic signals.

Half signals are unique; don't mistake that for confusing. Drivers who do not drive in areas where they are common (such as Seattle) may find them unusual, but I shall imagine almost all drivers are able to work out what is happening within a few moments, and can successfully maneuver through them. The point, though, is to improve pedestrian safety, and I think half signals in this way have actually proven to be very successful in reducing pedestrian crashes. Don't look at them as being tools for helping drivers, but tools for helping pedestrians. They may be an oddity for drivers, but they are mostly to aid pedestrians.

For the most part, a HAWK or even a half-signal is significantly cheaper to install and operate than a full signal.  For starters, you don't need to have any signal faces for the side street direction. You also don't need to have any detectors (inductance loops or optical) for side street traffic.  The only input to change the operation of the signal from its normal state (favoring main street traffic) is the pedestrian push button that activates the cycle change.

That being said, there are definitely some issues that I see with operating them at an intersection rather than midblock.  Side street traffic can take advantage of the stopping of main street traffic to make going straight or going left easier, but they shouldn't rely on that because the signal will only change in the presence of pedestrians.  Also, that pedestrian signal walk is not the equivalent of side street green, because pedestrians crossing parallel to the main street continue to have right of way and main street traffic may be allowed to proceed with the flashing red during the FDW phase (and in some iterations even during the walk phase).  It is also true that the side street traffic does not have a direct view of the signal face of the main street, so they may have no knowledge of the upcoming change from solid red to flashing red to no signal.  This doesn't seem safe.

When an intersection is signalized (or beaconized, I guess when talking of HAWKs) we are used to the following iterations where one street has right of way over the other:

[Generic cases, not specialized cases like signals with arrows or split-phasing]

Green orb / red orb.  One direction may go straight, or turn left (yielding to oncoming traffic and parallel pedestrians), or turn right (yielding to parallel pedestrians).  The other direction may not proceed or turn left, but may turn right on red (after full stop yielding to one direction of cross-traffic and perpendicular pedestrains).

Flashing yellow / flashing red.  The signalized equivalent to the no stop / stop sign.  One direction may go straight, or turn left (yielding to oncoming traffic and parallel pedestrians), or turn right (yielding to parallel pedestrians).  In all cases, this traffic must also yield to perpendicular pedestrians - who may be unlikely to cross if this street is busy and they view the crossing as dangerous, but nontheless perfectfully legal sor such pedestrians to cross.  The other direction may go straight (after full stop and yielding to two directions of cross-traffic and perpendicular pedestrians), turn left (after full stop and yielding to two directions of cross-traffic, perpendicular pedestrians, parallel pedestrians, and oncoming traffic), and turn right (after full stop yielding to one directions of cross-traffic, perpendicular pedestrians, and parallel pedestrians).

But hybrid combinations of the above do not seem especially safe or desirable.  If one sees a green orb, does one expect cross traffic to potentially proceed straight across the intersection as can happen at a half-signal?  If one experiences the different phases of a HAWK signal, designed to release traffic after a fast pedestian has crossed, but still requiring a full stop at the flashing red phase to account for a possible slow/late pedestrian, does one scan the side street for cars before proceeding, or would they proceed simply upon seeing no pedestrians crossing?

By design, the HAWK was meant to address a mid-block crossing.  It does a decent job of this (although there are some even better iteraions like the Los Angeles style mid-blog RYG with flashing red phase). 

The HAWK was not meant to address an intersection crossing, because it does not have a signal face for the side street. 

Could a HAWK-like signal be designed for the potential of an intersection crossing? Yes.  Imagine the following signal sequence:

MAIN / SIDE

Flashing Yellow / Flashing Red - DONT WALK [Rest]
Solid Yellow     / Flashing Red  - DONT WALK
Solid Red        /  Green           -  WALK
Solid Red       /   Yellow           -  WALK
Flashing Red  /    Flashing Yellow - FDW
Flashing Red /     Yellow              - DONT WALK
Flashing Yellow / Flashing Red - DONT WALK [Rest]

Yet despite this possibility, a full regular signal would seem to be far more intuitive and simpler for most drivers.  If we want sides street drivers to cross when the pedestrians do, just give them a green light as opposed to having them guess what the indication of the main street signal is based on the pedestrian signal.  The worst conflict point for both a HAWK and a half signal is what happens when main street signal is allowed to be released on the basis that most pedestrains are clear of the intersection.  The main street drivers are only scanning for pedestrians before proceeding - it is harder for them to look out for side street cross-traffic.

GaryV


Rothman

Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Ugh.  Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

NoGoodNamesAvailable

Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Ugh.  Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
I.e. every single HAWK installation  :banghead:

SignBridge

Almost overkill in that installation. Three heads for each approach instead of just the required two. Very California like except for no backplates.

mrsman

Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Ugh.  Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.

There seems to be a lot of issues here.  The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal.  So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians.  Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done?  And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?

IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.

Rothman

Quote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Ugh.  Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.

There seems to be a lot of issues here.  The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal.  So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians.  Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done?  And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?

IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
I'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.

Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts.  Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kalvado

Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Ugh.  Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.

There seems to be a lot of issues here.  The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal.  So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians.  Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done?  And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?

IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
I'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.

Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts.  Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
That's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostly

jakeroot

Michigan has quite a few HAWKs like this, if I recall correctly.

It's odd to me that each individual crossing has its own activation. Surely they must activate simultaneous with one another...

As a side-note, the signal placement is great. I always thought HAWKs should have the same placement as RRFBs: either side of the road and a supplemental signal overhead.

JoePCool14

Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5

This definitely should just be a signalized intersection. assuming pedestrian volumes justify all this. You have both roundabout and signal present without reaping the benefits of either. Stupid.

:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

wanderer2575

Quote from: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Ugh.  Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.

There seems to be a lot of issues here.  The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal.  So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians.  Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done?  And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?

IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
I'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.

Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts.  Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
That's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostly

I don't think it's that simple.  Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation.  There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township.  (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit

Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5

This definitely should just be a signalized intersection. assuming pedestrian volumes justify all this. You have both roundabout and signal present without reaping the benefits of either. Stupid.

That's a huge assumption.  If a study determines there is little to no pedestrian volume, you construct the roundabout and then also include the HAWKs to keep the legal beagles happy.

kalvado

Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 01:17:04 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Ugh.  Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.

There seems to be a lot of issues here.  The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal.  So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians.  Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done?  And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?

IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
I'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.

Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts.  Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
That's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostly

I don't think it's that simple.  Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation.  There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township.  (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit

The root cause, certainly, is unqualified use of roundabouts. Piling up another messy design element on top of that... Well, lets look on a bright side - maybe this would bring some realizations about good and bad  design approaches.

Rothman



Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 01:17:04 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Ugh.  Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.

There seems to be a lot of issues here.  The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal.  So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians.  Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done?  And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?

IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
I'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.

Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts.  Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
That's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostly

I don't think it's that simple.  Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation.  There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township.  (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit

HAWKs weren't dictated by the Court in that case, but rather the suggested remedy by the Road Commission. 
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

wanderer2575

Quote from: Rothman on May 15, 2023, 01:47:35 PM


Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 01:17:04 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Ugh.  Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.

There seems to be a lot of issues here.  The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal.  So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians.  Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done?  And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?

IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
I'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.

Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts.  Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
That's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostly

I don't think it's that simple.  Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation.  There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township.  (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit

HAWKs weren't dictated by the Court in that case, but rather the suggested remedy by the Road Commission.

I know that.  My second point, which kalvado and you seem to have missed, is that if the study determines there will be little to no pedestrian volume then don't take pedestrians into consideration.  RCOC determined that roundabouts were the best traffic solution at these intersections.  So instead of returning the intersections to traditional signals, RCOC opted to keep the roundabouts and install (unused) HAWKs to keep the lawyers at bay.

kalvado

Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 02:08:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 15, 2023, 01:47:35 PM


Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 01:17:04 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Ugh.  Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.

There seems to be a lot of issues here.  The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal.  So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians.  Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done?  And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?

IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
I'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.

Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts.  Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
That's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostly

I don't think it's that simple.  Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation.  There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township.  (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit

HAWKs weren't dictated by the Court in that case, but rather the suggested remedy by the Road Commission.

I know that.  My second point, which kalvado and you seem to have missed, is that if the study determines there will be little to no pedestrian volume then don't take pedestrians into consideration.  RCOC determined that roundabouts were the best traffic solution at these intersections.  So instead of returning the intersections to traditional signals, RCOC opted to keep the roundabouts and install (unused) HAWKs to keep the lawyers at bay.
At the very least, these (even unused) lights may slow down the traffic flow as they will be an extra point of attention. May not be a problem if AADT is low enough, <10k or so.
And again - may not be the case since area seem to build up as a low pedestrian type of neighborhood, but future-proofing may be the consideration


Rothman



Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 02:08:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 15, 2023, 01:47:35 PM


Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 01:17:04 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Ugh.  Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.

There seems to be a lot of issues here.  The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal.  So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians.  Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done?  And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?

IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
I'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.

Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts.  Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
That's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostly

I don't think it's that simple.  Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation.  There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township.  (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit

HAWKs weren't dictated by the Court in that case, but rather the suggested remedy by the Road Commission.

I know that.  My second point, which kalvado and you seem to have missed, is that if the study determines there will be little to no pedestrian volume then don't take pedestrians into consideration. 

You said that point was irrelevant.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.