Why not have more than one button, so that pedestrians can pick the amount of time that best suits them?
Case and point: A large number of pedstrians around here are joggers, and they cross in about 4 seconds. This results in a lot of wasted time and driver aggravation.
To me, having two buttons would be a good idea. One "normal time" button, and a "Handicapped" button that gives extra time.
The current system of the excessively long times for all pedestrians just plain sucks. Only a very small portion of them actually need more than 35% of the time allotted.
A few intersections tell you to push twice for a longer crossing time.
I believe the MUTCD allows an option for using 4 ft/s to calculate the pedestrian clearance (FDW) time instead of the new 3.5 ft/s requirement, but only if there is a feature that allows for extended crossing time by pressing the push button for an extended period (2-3 seconds).
No idea how much agencies actually use this feature though... Nevada seems to be moving away from the old-style buttons and going to an optical button that doesn't allow for extended presses.
Is there an actual legal requirement that agencies use 3.5 ft/sec when calculating the pedestrian clearance time? From my understanding, the word "should" has no legal meaning.
Quote
Guidance:
07 Except as provided in Paragraph 8, the pedestrian clearance time should be sufficient to allow a pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk who left the curb or shoulder at the end of the WALKING PERSON (symbolizing WALK) signal indication to travel at a walking speed of 3.5 feet per second to at least the far side of the traveled way or to a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait.
It might have been worded this way to protect agencies from ambulance chasing lawyers. Whatever the case, what's stopping an agency from deciding that a 4.0 ft/sec walking speed is more appropriate and disregard the guidance given in Paragraph 07?
Quote from: tradephoric on December 29, 2013, 08:58:20 AM
Is there an actual legal requirement that agencies use 3.5 ft/sec when calculating the pedestrian clearance time? From my understanding, the word "should" has no legal meaning.
Quote
Guidance:
07 Except as provided in Paragraph 8, the pedestrian clearance time should be sufficient to allow a pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk who left the curb or shoulder at the end of the WALKING PERSON (symbolizing WALK) signal indication to travel at a walking speed of 3.5 feet per second to at least the far side of the traveled way or to a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait.
It might have been worded this way to protect agencies from ambulance chasing lawyers. Whatever the case, what's stopping an agency from deciding that a 4.0 ft/sec walking speed is more appropriate and disregard the guidance given in Paragraph 07?
An agency can choose to do something other than a "should" statement as long as they have exercised engineering judgment. In other words, they at least have to document that they are knowingly deviating from the MUTCD.
I've never encountered a signal timed adequately for either handicapped or the elderly.
:hmmm: