Refer to (7/98) of http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf)
I'm looking for other opinions here, but my main issue is this warrant being used to install traffic signals where there is only one, maybe two periods a day that may be as brief as 15 minutes, but the installed signal remains in normal operation for 24/7/365 when for most hours of the day a one-way stop would probably suffice. Removal of this warrant would curtail the installation of these nuisance signals.
Or, as a compromise, the traffic lights could function as a signal in those hours, then do a flashing yellow/red the rest of the time.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 08, 2012, 11:19:49 PM
Refer to (7/98) of http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf)
I'm looking for other opinions here, but my main issue is this warrant being used to install traffic signals where there is only one, maybe two periods a day that may be as brief as 15 minutes, but the installed signal remains in normal operation for 24/7/365 when for most hours of the day a one-way stop would probably suffice. Removal of this warrant would curtail the installation of these nuisance signals.
I don't deal with planning for (or installation of) traffic signals, but if there's a big peak in traffic twice a day (say, when an employer lets out or at shift changes if it's more than a 9-5 operation), shouldn't that
sometimes justify a "nuisance" signal?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 11:04:40 PM
I don't deal with planning for (or installation of) traffic signals, but if there's a big peak in traffic twice a day (say, when an employer lets out or at shift changes if it's more than a 9-5 operation), shouldn't that sometimes justify a "nuisance" signal?
Part-time signals aren't used as often as they should be, in my opinion, but I think that situation such as you described would be best handled by a traffic control officer directing traffic at the intersection during peak times.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 10, 2012, 10:20:06 AM
Part-time signals aren't used as often as they should be, in my opinion, but I think that situation such as you described would be best handled by a traffic control officer directing traffic at the intersection during peak times.
I know of an intersection down here that actually could use one. it is a T junction, and the short leg is an industrial park exit used by large trucks, so the four-way stop allows them the time and space to merge.
however, the trucks tend to use the junction in the morning to leave the industrial park, while the evening commute uses the mainline along the top of the T. (due to various quirks of geography, there isn't much of a morning commute slog along the T.)
if this were replaced by a signal, it could be given two very discrete phases of operation: in the morning, the park exit is given long stretches of green for trucks to turn left, and in the evening the mainline is set to near-continuous operation with a slow-reaction detecting loop to allow the occasional truck to leave the park.
A question: are there any statistics that give the percentage of signals which are justified solely on the basis of the peak hour warrant (i.e., do not meet any of the other signal warrants)?
Quote from: hbelkins on August 10, 2012, 10:20:06 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 11:04:40 PM
I don't deal with planning for (or installation of) traffic signals, but if there's a big peak in traffic twice a day (say, when an employer lets out or at shift changes if it's more than a 9-5 operation), shouldn't that sometimes justify a "nuisance" signal?
Part-time signals aren't used as often as they should be, in my opinion, but I think that situation such as you described would be best handled by a traffic control officer directing traffic at the intersection during peak times.
I've seen that done (and as recently as a few months ago, in Arlington County, Virginia). It took two police officers to direct traffic (motorized and pedestrian) at this location.
It took at least three police officers to direct traffic at the Chick-fil-A here last Wednesday.
ducks for cover...
Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2012, 05:26:41 PM
It took at least three police officers to direct traffic at the Chick-fil-A here last Wednesday.
ducks for cover...
I got stuck in a traffic jam on Glenstone in Springfield MO that day. I wonder if it was any different in the more bluish states/areas that CFA operates in.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 10, 2012, 06:53:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2012, 05:26:41 PM
It took at least three police officers to direct traffic at the Chick-fil-A here last Wednesday.
ducks for cover...
I got stuck in a traffic jam on Glenstone in Springfield MO that day. I wonder if it was any different in the more bluish states/areas that CFA operates in.
Maryland is (these days) solidly blue when it comes to presidential elections. In spite of that, Chick-fil-A is increasingly common.
Waffle House can also be found in some counties, though not near the Capital Beltway, nor the Baltimore Beltway.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 10, 2012, 06:53:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2012, 05:26:41 PM
It took at least three police officers to direct traffic at the Chick-fil-A here last Wednesday.
ducks for cover...
I got stuck in a traffic jam on Glenstone in Springfield MO that day. I wonder if it was any different in the more bluish states/areas that CFA operates in.
Then again, does there really have to be something special going on to cause a traffic jam on Glenstone? :-P
Quote from: kphoger on August 11, 2012, 02:06:26 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 10, 2012, 06:53:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2012, 05:26:41 PM
It took at least three police officers to direct traffic at the Chick-fil-A here last Wednesday.
ducks for cover...
I got stuck in a traffic jam on Glenstone in Springfield MO that day. I wonder if it was any different in the more bluish states/areas that CFA operates in.
Then again, does there really have to be something special going on to cause a traffic jam on Glenstone? :-P
That is what I originally attributed it to. "Wow, I remember Glenstone being a pain in the ass, but never quite this bad!"
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 08, 2012, 11:19:49 PM
Refer to (7/98) of http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf)
I'm looking for other opinions here, but my main issue is this warrant being used to install traffic signals where there is only one, maybe two periods a day that may be as brief as 15 minutes, but the installed signal remains in normal operation for 24/7/365 when for most hours of the day a one-way stop would probably suffice. Removal of this warrant would curtail the installation of these nuisance signals.
First of all, many governments won't use that warrant. Second, the MUTCD specifically notes it's for conditions with specialized peaking. I would support adding Guidance that signals should be maintained either with side street actuation or off-peak flashing mode if this warrant is used, and to avoid using fixed timing.
Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2012, 05:26:41 PM
It took at least three police officers to direct traffic at the Chick-fil-A here last Wednesday.
ducks for cover...
:-D
I tend to be a bit skeptical about peak only traffic signals, because many people expect a signal to be functioning during daylight hours. I recall reading that Windsor, CA doesn't even turn off the signals at night because accidents increased by about 300% or so.
Chick Fil A: At the one here most people parked their cars and waited in line, alleviating the traffic concern. I recall that when I reached the front of the line a police officer came in and spoke to the manager about making sure that traffic didn't back up onto College (map here (http://goo.gl/maps/4dcfQ)). I counted about 50 cars, some who "cheated" by entering from the west by the shoe store and staying on the north side of the parking area, but the main line started in front of the grocery store on the south facing east and went that way.
Quote from: Zmapper link=topic=7438.msg168303#msg168303
Chick Fil A: At the one here most people parked their cars and waited in line, alleviating the traffic concern. I recall that when I reached the front of the line a police officer came in and spoke to the manager about making sure that traffic didn't back up onto College (map here (http://goo.gl/maps/4dcfQ)). I counted about 50 cars, some who "cheated" by entering from the west by the shoe store and staying on the north side of the parking area, but the main line started in front of the grocery store on the south facing east and went that way.
Parking at the one near my house is not ample as it is. And the bank next door has a security guard whose full-time job now seems to be telling Chick-fil-A customers not to park in the bank parking spots. Most of us who parked and stood in line actually parked across the street in the much larger shared lot by the grocery store.
I'm not exactly sure how a restaurant manager is supposed to keep cars from stopping on a thoroughfare. I mean, what did they think he was supposed to do? Doesn't that seem more like the job of a police officer than a restaurant manager?
Quote from: Zmapper on August 15, 2012, 12:08:53 AM
I tend to be a bit skeptical about peak only traffic signals, because many people expect a signal to be functioning during daylight hours. I recall reading that Windsor, CA doesn't even turn off the signals at night because accidents increased by about 300% or so.
Interesting. I guess it makes sense that accidents would rise, but 300% sounds way too high.
Quote from: Steve on August 13, 2012, 10:56:40 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 08, 2012, 11:19:49 PM
Refer to (7/98) of http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf)
I'm looking for other opinions here, but my main issue is this warrant being used to install traffic signals where there is only one, maybe two periods a day that may be as brief as 15 minutes, but the installed signal remains in normal operation for 24/7/365 when for most hours of the day a one-way stop would probably suffice. Removal of this warrant would curtail the installation of these nuisance signals.
First of all, many governments won't use that warrant. Second, the MUTCD specifically notes it's for conditions with specialized peaking. I would support adding Guidance that signals should be maintained either with side street actuation or off-peak flashing mode if this warrant is used, and to avoid using fixed timing.
Side street actuation (presumably with a button for bike riders and pedestrians to use) is good, and I wish it was MUCH more common in urban areas.
Off-peak flashing is also O.K., though it may lead to some drivers expecting that it will always be on flash. So for that reason, actuation on the non-mainline is (IMO) better.
Quote from: kphoger on August 15, 2012, 10:21:46 AM
Interesting. I guess it makes sense that accidents would rise, but 300% sounds way too high.
that gives off a small-sample-size vibe. four accidents in a month, as opposed to one?