Pedestrian signals that aren't actually protected crossings

[kphoger]

Street view:  http://goo.gl/maps/4UgZ3
Aerial view:  http://goo.gl/maps/CDYUp

This has been bothering me for a while now.  The location is Wichita (KS), on Central Avenue, just under the Canal Route (I-135).  The hike/bike path has a button-actuated pedestrian signal which triggers the lights on Central to turn red.  This works great for crossing the eastbound lanes, but there's a bit of a problem with crossing the westbound lanes.  The ped signal is located several yards in advance of the stoplight.

What this means is that, when the ped signal goes to WALK, there is quite often still traffic coming down Central.  Pan to the right on street view, and you can barely even see the traffic light upstream; cars have already passed that point by the time the ped signal goes to WALK, and they face no red light until after the crosswalk.  This is misleading to pedestrians and cylcists.  The WALK signal gives the indication that their crossing the street is stoplight-protected, but that is false information.

Are there other locations like this?  Is this even permissible design?  Does the little "Stop here on red" sign (in the shadow of the overpass, of the kind that most drivers ignore) really cut it?  Should there be an actual stoplight at the crosswalk instead?

[realjd]

Are you sure that signal isn't tied to the light just east of the overpass? If that upstream light is red, there's no other movements that would feed traffic to the pedestrian crossing.

[kphoger]

Well, yes, they appear to be tied.  But the ped signal changes within seconds of pushing the button; traffic that has already passed through the light to the east is still coming when the ped signal goes to WALK.  I'm also not sure if both the westbound approach and the northbound offramp simultaneously get a long red light or not.

[realjd]

Well, yes, they appear to be tied.  But the ped signal changes within seconds of pushing the button; traffic that has already passed through the light to the east is still coming when the ped signal goes to WALK.  I'm also not sure if both the westbound approach and the northbound offramp simultaneously get a long red light or not.

I don't see a northbound offramp which is what made me think the pedestrian signal changed the light to the east.

[kphoger]

Crap, I was conflating two interchanges:  I was thinking of the northbound offramp at 9th Street.



But the point remains:  there's still traffic coming when the ped signal goes to WALK.  Is "Stop here on red" good enough, or should there be an actual red light at the crosswalk?

[jeffandnicole]

There's not even a stop line or crosswalk lines to indicate there's a crosswalk there.  And without those indications, the 'Stop Here On Red' (where a car's bumper would be right up against the crosswalk area) is kinda confusing and meaningless.

I agree - the design doesn't make sense, and seems quite dangerous.

[Ned Weasel]

There's not even a stop line or crosswalk lines to indicate there's a crosswalk there.  And without those indications, the 'Stop Here On Red' (where a car's bumper would be right up against the crosswalk area) is kinda confusing and meaningless.

I agree - the design doesn't make sense, and seems quite dangerous.

Actually, the Street View shows crosswalk lines and a stop line, but they're very faded.

To me, it looks as if the signalized crosswalk is simply part of the signalized intersection, but with an abnormally wide gap between the crosswalk and the parallel roadway.  I think the whole intersection would be more efficient, easier to understand, and probably safer if the crosswalk were moved closer to the parallel roadway.  I think it would only be a slight inconvenience to bicyclists and pedestrians using the walk/bike trail.

[roadman65]

What is most interesting is that in Downtown Elizabeth, NJ (the true business Downtown that is as Downtown in Elizabeth is an area east of I-95 that is not a business district) at Broad Street and Jersey Street a NO TURN prohibition is in place to allow pedestrians freedom to cross the street in all directions, yet the City of Elizabeth allows buses to be exempt from the ordinance and cross paths with the pedestrians at times.  So here you have one more than a pedestrian crossing with no protection as you have also a city ruling to protect that also is not actually protected.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Elizabeth,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.665201,-74.214774&spn=0.002929,0.005284&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=eliza&t=h&hnear=Elizabeth,+Union,+New+Jersey&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.665201,-74.214774&panoid=3i_lk56A0nSZlywwV9hwtQ&cbp=12,21.56,,0,0

[NYhwyfan]

Why not just force pedestrians to cross at the signal? Makes more sense to me.

[TEG24601]

I think it would help greatly if there was simply a zebra or continental crossing there, so drivers actually knew there was a crosswalk there.