AARoads Forum

Colorado Springs, Colorado just fired up a new type of pedestrian signal I haven't seen before:


Quoted from the springsgov.com website:

QuoteHybrid beacons are dark when not in use, allowing vehicle traffic to progress and saving energy costs. When a pedestrian activates the signal, the overhead configuration of three lights flashes yellow to warn drivers of a waiting pedestrian. The beacon turns solid red to stop traffic as the pedestrian crosses the street. Finally, the beacon flashes red, indicating that drivers can proceed after stopping and ensuring the crosswalk is clear.

http://www.springsgov.com/News.aspx?NewsID=766 (http://www.springsgov.com/News.aspx?NewsID=766)

The springsgov site says these signals are used in 20 states, but I haven't heard of anything like this. Any other sightings out there?

QuoteHybrid beacons are dark when not in use

I strenuously disapprove of this.  Signals that are unilluminated mean "power failure - all-way stop".  Except sometimes they mean "signal not in use - don't even slow down".  Really, it's all in the eye of the beholder, and leads to massive confusion.  I despise unlit signals with every fiber of my being.

These are all over the place in Tucson and dear god I hate them. I had to look up in the driver's manual to figure out what to do with them and other drivers seem to have no idea either.

The bottom bulb flashes yellow, then it goes solid yellow, then the two top lights go to solid red, then flashing red. The kicker is that the flashing red isn't a normal flash- the bulbs alternate like a railroad, and alternating back and forth reds at a railroad definitely do not mean "Go if clear."

The other issue is confusion over who the light applies to. If there's a car in the intersection for the side street, they should have some right of way when those lights are on, but they don't and you'll get smooshed if you try to go. The light only applies to the crosswalk, even though it covers a whole intersection, which is really confusing.

I don't know why they don't just install a conventional traffic signal with a flashing red mode that is activated by a pedestrian button- that would be a lot more intuitive.

Haven't seen any of these types of signals in California but I agree with Agentsteel and Corco's comments, especially the "flashing red" stage.  In all other cases, flashing red lights mean to treat the intersection like a stop sign, not go-when-clear. 

Where I live, cities have installed flashing yellow lights at certain un-signalized intersections or mid-block crosswalks.  The lights are typically installed above a yellow pedestrian crossing sign and are blacked-out until someone pushes the button on the sidewalk to active the flashing light.  The lights flash for a predetermined time to warn drivers that a pedestrian is in the crosswalk before switching off.

Looks like a confusing overengineered solution for the problem that drivers don't yield to crossing pedestrians. The cops should go out one day and start writing tickets when people don't yield, and the problem will go away soon.

That signal in the picture looks like an emergency signal I've seen at a fire station right behind Magic Kingdom on Disney property here in Florida. Every other emergency signal I've seen out and about has had a flashing yellow light at the bottom. However, I think the 2009 MUTCD has a signal with the same configuration as the one in the picture, but I think it's restricted to only emergency vehicles or at fire stations, and disallowed for other uses (like aiding peds in a crosswalk).

Well, there are normal ped signals that stay green until someone pushes the button... but that doesn't apply here since this is not a crosswalk in the middle of the block, it's an odd case where there is a desire to control the crosswalk by signal but not the intersection itself (I presume the side street otherwise has a stop sign?).

Seems to me like the best way to handle this would be the way signals for fire houses or ambulance stations are often handled: flashing yellow normally, turns yellow than red when called for. Except in this case the side street would have a flashing red normally instead of yellow.


There are only two reasons I can possibly imagine why this convoluted setup would be used:
1) it uses less electricity by being dark 99% of the time
2) it's "fancy" and is thus appealing to local politicians

Here's (http://dot.ci.tucson.az.us/traffic3/tspedestrian.php) a city of Tucson explanation. PELICAN works great, and TOUCAN isn't bad. But HAWK (the signals shown here) are downright confusing.

QuoteWell, there are normal ped signals that stay green until someone pushes the button... but that doesn't apply here since this is not a crosswalk in the middle of the block, it's an odd case where there is a desire to control the crosswalk by signal but not the intersection itself (I presume the side street otherwise has a stop sign?).

And that's super annoying. I ride my bike down Blacklidge across Campbell (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=blacklidge+st+and+campbell+st+tucson+az&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.768112,86.572266&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=N+Campbell+Ave+%26+E+Blacklidge+Dr,+Tucson,+Pima,+Arizona+85719&z=16) every day, and if somebody pushes the pedestrian button there is no chance you'll get across Blacklidge, since cars block the intersection and prevent crossing Blacklidge. Campbell is already a busy road, so it's damn near impossible to head straight across it. Most hours of the day when I pull up when somebody has activated HAWK, I demount before the intersection, walk to the crosswalk, activate the HAWK, cross the street, and get back on my bike. I hate when cyclists do that, but it becomes the only possible way to get across the intersection when the HAWK is in use. HAWK just backs up cars to no end and gives no deference to vehicles in the intersection. If it did that, the signal may actually be useful. Especially since Blacklidge is a designated bike route.

Nevermind, found the signal under page 511 of the 2009 MUTCD. It looks like they use the same exact signal for emergency vehicles, but with a different flash pattern (there's no solid red like there is in the pedestrian hybrid beacon for when the pedestrian starts crossing).

As for having the signal be dark, I guess since the signal looks distinct from other signals, drivers could easily identify these as pedestrian signals and know not to stop when it's dark. That, or use a "Stop on flashing red" sign which I've seen at the same fire station I mentioned in my post above. That way drivers won't stop for a dark signal. (Edit: which the picture at the top of the thread shows anyway, no nevermind again!)

Quote from: Duke87 on February 17, 2011, 07:28:06 PM
Seems to me like the best way to handle this would be the way signals for fire houses or ambulance stations are often handled: flashing yellow normally, turns yellow than red when called for. Except in this case the side street would have a flashing red normally instead of yellow.

I'd prefer this over the hideous pedestrian signals shown in the original post. At least, it's a more concise setup, and it could be done this way: flashing yellow until the pedestrian pushes the button to cross; steady yellow, then red; and finally flashing yellow once again. That would be a far better concept, because drivers would know when to expect a pedestrian to cross the street.

Quote from: corco on February 17, 2011, 04:21:40 PM

I don't know why they don't just install a conventional traffic signal with a flashing red mode that is activated by a pedestrian button- that would be a lot more intuitive.

Probably so drivers wouldn't get annoyed at having to stop at an intersection that doesn't have enough traffic on the side street to justify a light when there's no pedestrian there.

As one leaves Chicago's O'Hare Int'l. Airport from the main terminals (1,2,3), there is a signal over the roadway that 95 % of the time is a flashing yellow.  The other 5 % of the time is when an emergency vehicle is leaving from the fire station, just to the right, to go down to the terminals.  The top 2 signals are treated as a regular stop light.  There are also red bubble lights that flash for the red light.
However at Midway, there is no such signals.

Delaware added one of these in Newark (that I have not seen yet in person).

New crosswalk aimed at keeping Ag students safe (http://www.udreview.com/news/new-crosswalk-aimed-at-keeping-ag-students-safe-1.1555487)

QuoteFor more than a year, the Delaware Department of Transportation and the university have collaborated on the installation of a safer crosswalk for students of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the intersection of Route 72 and Farm/Webb Lane. On Aug. 6, the new crosswalk, the High-intensity Activated crossWalK, or HAWK, was made fully operational.

The HAWK differs from typical traffic signals in both appearance as well as functionality, Mark Luszcz, assistant chief traffic engineer of DelDot, stated in an e-mail message.

"The signal heads are in a triangular shape–two on top, one centered below," he said.  "The different configuration helps indicate to the motorist that this type of signal operates differently than a typical traffic signal."

When no pedestrians are present at the crosswalk, the heads remain dark, Luszcz said, but light up when a pedestrian pushes a designated button on the crosswalk.

"The vehicular signal heads will first flash yellow to indicate to the motorist that the HAWK is waking up," he said. "This is followed by a solid yellow phase–just like a typical signal–and then a solid red phase–just like a typical signal, except the red indication in the signal head are duplicated, side by side."

A few seconds after vehicles get the solid red indication, the pedestrian WALK interval turns on.  At the end of the pedestrian WALK interval, a flashing hand symbol and countdown timer appear.  During this time, the vehicular signal head flashes red for oncoming traffic, said Luszcz.

"This is another unique aspect of the HAWK - during this phase, vehicles still must stop, but then may proceed if there is not a pedestrian in their way," he said.  "In other words, this phase of the HAWK is like a stop sign for motorist."

The cost of installing the HAWK was approximately $75,000. The university bore approximately two-thirds of the total cost, while the remaining third was paid for by DelDOT, Luszcz said.

"We were not willing to simply install a crosswalk, as national research has indicated that uncontrolled crossing of high speed, high volume roadways can actually be less safe than doing nothing at all," Luszcz said. "So our first step was to make some signing modifications along Route 72, but university staff and students were not satisfied with this upgrade alone."

In order to justify the construction of a new traffic signal, there are both national and state requirements that must be met regarding vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and crash history.  These standards must be met in order to ensure the necessity of the traffic signal and to avoid the degradation of roadway efficiency and safety, Luszcz said.

"This location was not close to meeting any of those criteria," he said. "However, because the HAWK delays vehicular traffic less than a typical traffic signal, the criteria which needs to be met to justify it are significantly less, and are in fact met for this location."

Daniel Lantz, a 2009 university graduate, served as vice president of the Agriculture College Council during his senior year. During one of the meetings, a fellow student, Adam Yoskowitz, proposed that the council attempt to improve safety conditions at the intersection between the school's two farm locations, Lantz said.

"We all agreed that was an excellent idea, and so I decided to spearhead the project," Lantz said. "I drafted up a petition and we collected over 1,000 signatures."

The petition caught the attention of DelDOT, and a traffic engineer was sent to the university to discuss what should be done. Ideas were exchanged and more meetings followed later that year, Lantz said.

The HAWK has been fully operational for approximately one month. Since its installation in early August, Luszcz said he has received mixed reviews from the public.

"We've been congratulated by many for using a new, innovative device for enhanced pedestrian safety," he said. "Weve also been criticized for implementing something that is unusual, and drivers don't know what to do." 

Lantz said he has not yet seen the HAWK since the completion of its installation. However, he said he is pleased with the result of his efforts. 

"The initial meetings with DelDOT made it seem as though we would not be able to get much more than a few extra signs," he said. "A traffic light was my ultimate goal, and I am so happy that it has become a reality."

Junior Caitlin Gormley said she attended laboratory rotations at Webb Farm for the Introduction to Animal Science course her freshman year.

"I have noticed the new signal at the intersection," Gormley said. "It seems easy to use, and because the light actually turns red for oncoming traffic, the cars do stop, rather than run through a yellow light."

She said the system seems easy for both pedestrians and drivers to utilize. There are a number of "New Signal Ahead" signs and the signal itself is clear and easy to read. 

"I feel that the signal has definitely improved the safety of the students who walk to cross over to Webb farm," Gormley said. "Before the signal, no cars could stop for you, and it was like playing human Frogger trying to cross that street."

Tom Sims, associate dean for academic programs and research of CANR, stated in an e-mail message that it is difficult to gauge the effectiveness of the system because students have only just begun to return to campus. However, students do seem excited to see a solution in place.

"We are working with UD Public Safety, the City of Newark Police Department and DelDOT to do everything that we can to improve the safety for our students who use our outdoor teaching facilities," Sims said. "We have been monitoring the area and will continue to do so throughout the fall, and use every opportunity that we can to make our students and drivers aware of the new signal."

Quote from: deanej on February 18, 2011, 09:32:50 AM

Probably so drivers wouldn't get annoyed at having to stop at an intersection that doesn't have enough traffic on the side street to justify a light when there's no pedestrian there.

then don't ever turn the light red except when the pedestrian calls for it.

That looks similar to the new crosswalk installed in Newark, NY; however, instead of the two red/one yellow setup, it's just two yellow lights on top of the pole with the sign on it.  I've never actually seen them used, though...and I wonder how many people would actually pay attention to them if they would be...

That signal in my original post was a replacement of a fully signalized intersection. And yes, I do believe that this was a politician's (or, better yet, a manager of the traffic department's) pet project. I haven't had the chance to see it in action, but I'm betting it creates more confusion than it's worth. The traffic counts in this area are very low, so the original signal wasn't really necessary. However the street the pict is taken on is known for its heavy-footed drivers. I think a police presence would be a better solution to this.

Knowing Colorado Springs, it'll stay in place until someone can't figure it out blows through the crosswalk and takes out a child. It'll then be replaced with the conventional signal.

And, I agree with some of the above posts. Having a blinking yellow ball that turns yellow then red when the crosswalk is activated would have been a lot better of a way to go.

Quote from: Alex on February 18, 2011, 10:30:57 AM
Delaware added one of these in Newark (that I have not seen yet in person).

D'oh! If I had known about this earlier, I would have gone down to photograph it as I was right in that area today :banghead:

Quote from: r-dub on February 18, 2011, 04:53:28 PM
Knowing Colorado Springs, it'll stay in place until someone can't figure it out blows through the crosswalk and takes out a child. It'll then be replaced with the conventional signal.

that'll never happen.  that town knows how to focus on the family.

Quotethat'll never happen.  that town knows how to focus on the family.

In the land of the MFFY? Heh. The only family they know how to focus on is their own.
And their money. Can't pay a dime in taxes, you know!

Quote from: myosh_tino on February 17, 2011, 07:01:38 PM
Where I live, cities have installed flashing yellow lights at certain un-signalized intersections or mid-block crosswalks.  The lights are typically installed above a yellow pedestrian crossing sign and are blacked-out until someone pushes the button on the sidewalk to active the flashing light.  The lights flash for a predetermined time to warn drivers that a pedestrian is in the crosswalk before switching off.

Same here. Street view here (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=lakeway+dr+%26+nevada+st&aq=&sll=48.74487,-122.458677&sspn=0.011489,0.038581&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lakeway+Dr+%26+Nevada+St,+Bellingham,+Whatcom,+Washington+98229&ll=48.74487,-122.458849&spn=0.011376,0.038581&z=15&layer=c&cbll=48.744906,-122.458635&panoid=Iu-jDnGSMVATzXaCKzeQEg&cbp=12,90.84,,0,6.9)

Seems to me that this is all that should be necessary.  Bright yellow flashing lights alert drivers to the presence of a pedestrian, car stops, pedestrians cross, car goes.  No confusing newfangled signal, no "okay, now the red is flashing, what do I do now?"  Just good old fashioned common sense.

So the MUTCD guidance on the HAWK signals is that these can be used at crosswalks where the crossing would otherwise not meet the warrants for a full traffic signal. Further guidance indicates that the HAWK signals should be located at least 100 feet from any driveways or side streets that are controlled by stop or yield signs.

QuoteFurther guidance indicates that the HAWK signals should be located at least 100 feet from any driveways or side streets that are controlled by stop or yield signs.

That's definitely not the case in Tucson (where HAWK was invented)- which leads to massive confusion between cars in the side street and cars approaching the HAWK light. It seems like the cars at the side street parallel to the crosswalk should have some right of way when HAWK is red, but they certainly do not in practice, which backs up traffic on the side street.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 18, 2011, 10:32:53 AM

Quote from: deanej on February 18, 2011, 09:32:50 AM

Probably so drivers wouldn't get annoyed at having to stop at an intersection that doesn't have enough traffic on the side street to justify a light when there's no pedestrian there.

then don't ever turn the light red except when the pedestrian calls for it.

Well, if the light was for the whole intersection (not just the crosswalk), you would need something so that drivers in the side street can get out, particularly for making left turns.

Quote from: deanej on February 19, 2011, 12:17:44 PM

Well, if the light was for the whole intersection (not just the crosswalk), you would need something so that drivers in the side street can get out, particularly for making left turns.

if there's not enough traffic, then they can make the left just as if there were no light there.  flashing yellow/flashing red that changes to all-way red for the pedestrian cycle would make sense.  (the driver wanting to make a left turn from the minor street, while possibly not on a path to interfere with the pedestrian, can wait a few seconds)

the point I'm trying to make is that coming up with an entirely new set of light sequences, including "two-headed flashing red" will leave me wondering "just what the fuck do I do here??" and possibly "is the invisible train coming down the invisible tracks?".

I've seen these not quite a bit, but I have seen them: there's some on U.S. 23/S.R. 13 in Suwanee and Buford Highway in Chamblee and Doraville. As well as in Washington, D.C.


Be well,

Bryant

Am I the only one snerking at the convoluted method used to force "High-intensity activated crosswalk" into HAWK? Generally when forming acronyms, one doesn't disregard the first letter of two words in favor of taking the middle and final letters of the last word. Obviously some Congressional person was trying to come up with a "cool" acronym to provoke support...

That's what they do.

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 20, 2011, 12:20:56 AM
Am I the only one snerking at the convoluted method used to force "High-intensity activated crosswalk" into HAWK? Generally when forming acronyms, one doesn't disregard the first letter of two words in favor of taking the middle and final letters of the last word. Obviously some Congressional person was trying to come up with a "cool" acronym to provoke support...

I think the folks in Arizona were trying to fit it to the winged-animal naming theme that existed with other types of pedestrian crossings (terms primarily used in the UK).

PELICON: PEdestrian LIght CONtrolled - A typical signalized crossing.
TOUCAN: A signalized combination pedestrian & bicycle crossing where "two can" cross, as in two types of traffic.
PEGASUS: A signalized combination pedestrian & equestrian crossing, with push buttons also mounted high so horse riders can reach.
PUFFIN: Pedestrian User-Friendly INtelligent crossing - A pelicon crossing with ped signal mounted on near side and active pedestrian detection.

Quote from: roadfro on February 20, 2011, 05:41:06 PMI think the folks in Arizona were trying to fit it to the winged-animal naming theme that existed with other types of pedestrian crossings (terms primarily used in the UK).

Although we do have other animals than birds/mythical winged horses as names for pedestrian crossings - Zebra have been all over the British road network for decades (so-called due to the strips); the predessor to the Pelican (like PUFIN, the acronym was tweaked to make a word) was the Panda (well, there's X-ways in-between) and we trialled a Tiger crossing (zebra crossing allowing cyclists to use it as well) - so called as the strips are yellow, not white.

Saw one for the first time on Georgia Avenue NW in Washington, just before crossing into Silver Spring, MD. Don't know how long it has been up, Google maps shows them installed, but covered. Seemed that people were familiar on how to proceed through it when it activated. I would have too thanks to this topic, but it activated the moment I drove past the crosswalk.

^^

Yeah, that's the one that I was referencing on U.S. 29, coming into the District from Silver Spring.



Video with the HAWK light in it.


Be well,

Bryant

They have a couple of these up now in Fort Wayne, IN.
http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/local/HAWK-signal-covington-road (http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/local/HAWK-signal-covington-road)

Ann Arbor has the first H.A.W.K signal in Michigan http://www.annarbor.com/news/downtown-ann-arbors-new-pedestrian-hawk-signal-operational/
It is equipped with Michigan Specs M DOT video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7x_4Wu8EnQ

It looked like the signal in the video didn't operate as prescribed in the Manual. In final flashing mode the signals in each head are supposed to alternate, like a RR crossing signal. These flashed together. Brand new concept in traffic signals, and they couldn't get it right?

I agree that these HAWK signals are a bad idea, that will cause confusion. Unlighted signals are potentially dangerous.  We already have a  standardized nationwide traffic signal set-up that everybody knows. We should stick with that. The only rationale I can see for HAWK signals is to save money on initial installation costs and power consumption. A big selling point with municipal agencies nowadays for sure.

Anyone know how much it costs to operate a typical LED signal head? How much cost savings are we talking here? What does the pricing look like on the HAWK system versus a typical stoplight-controlled pedestrian crossing?

Quote from: US12 on February 27, 2011, 05:38:42 PM
Ann Arbor has the first H.A.W.K signal in Michigan

Not quite, as Oakland County had some of theirs installed earlier.

Quote from: rawmustard on March 01, 2011, 12:42:59 PM


Not quite, as Oakland County had some of theirs installed earlier.

Sorry meant to put first on a state trunkline

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 01, 2011, 11:42:11 AM
Anyone know how much it costs to operate a typical LED signal head? How much cost savings are we talking here? What does the pricing look like on the HAWK system versus a typical stoplight-controlled pedestrian crossing?

With the energy output of the LEDs being far less than their incandescent bulb predecessors, I can't imagine that the electric costs to run a HAWK  signal would be significantly greater than a traditional signal... Can't speak for sure though.

In 2009 a HAWK signal was installed at the Maple & Drake roundabout in Michigan.  The law offices of Sam Bernstein filed a lawsuit against the Road Commission for Oakland County claiming the roundabout didn't comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and prevented disabled pedestrians from being able to move freely throughout the area.  The HAWK signal is currently being studied by a number of Universities to determine the potential safety benefits to pedestrians at Roundabouts and is operational to this day.

Richard Bernstein (who himself is blind) also spoke out against a major roundabout project being planned in Green Bay...

(from wiki)
"Attorney Richard Bernstein spoke at the Council's February 16, 2009 meeting in opposition of the roundabout installations.[22] In an interview with Green Bay television station WBAY-TV, Richard Bernstein stated that if the roundabouts are approved as-is on Military Avenue, he is prepared to explore taking the issue to federal court.[28] In March 2009, due to public outcry and the proposed law suit, the Council cancelled installation of the six proposed roundabouts, instead opting for installation of traffic signals.[29]"

There's been a HAWK signal on Van Dorn Street in Alexandria, Virginia, for several years. It's there specifically to serve a bus stop located across Van Dorn from a residential area. I've never actually seen anyone activate the signal, although it looks like someone was either about to use it, or else had recently used it, when the Google Street View car came through:

http://maps.google.com/?ll=38.826444,-77.11926&spn=0.001594,0.004128&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.826381,-77.119392&panoid=CI_V0ycZMEC2_MIBztP1RA&cbp=12,266.99,,0,1.4


(The cars seen in the Street View image would face an identical signal that can be seen if you pan the image around.)

I brought up the idea of a HAWK for an upcoming project that will be studying what to do at a potential mid-block crossing location somewhere in Camden County, NJ. I intend to pursue the idea as far as they'll let me :D

^ Well, a pedestrian hybrid beacon (formal name) would be a good candidate for mid-block locations, if it's determined that a signal would be needed based on vehicle and pedestrian volumes.

Otherwise, a cheaper solution might be to use either overhead beacons or the rectangular rapid flashing beacon (still an experimental device through MUTCD), with either of those options activating by pedestrian pushbutton.