The Infamous Push Button

[deathtopumpkins]

For the record, I've never once seen a pedestrian button with a sign that actually spells out which street the button is for; the only signs I've seen have said simply "Push button to cross street" (gee, thanks, no crap).

I'm with you on that first point - I can't recall ever having seen one that specifies a street name.

The chirping 1995hoo mentioned though is fairly common, though it seems to be less common the farther you get from a city center. In downtown Boston at busy intersections I have found one or two that actually talk "Wait... Wait... Wait... Wait... Cross... Wait... Wait... Wait... and so on", and the majority of them chirp when the walk signal is active, though some of the busiest crossings I know of (Huntington Ave near the Prudential, Northeastern University, Symphony Hall, and the Museum of Fine Arts) have neither form of audible signal, which makes me think this idea is pointless - if you're blind, and are supposed to cross only when you hear the chirping, how are you to know whether a particular intersection chirps or not?

[NE2]

Example push to cross x sign: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.465446,-81.384257&spn=0.00864,0.016512&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.465446,-81.384257&panoid=1qpmQXUIJu40UQK39bAZIg&cbp=12,55.79,,2,16.48

[citrus]

Pet peeve: when I want to cross both streets at a 4-way intersection, I don't care which street I get to cross first, and the individual buttons are 15 feet (or more!) apart.

[theline]

And, of course, the more you push it, the faster the light will change. 

Also, it doesn't count if someone else pressed it. (Ever notice how with an elevator the button can be lit up but the next guy will press it four or five times anyway?)

Ah, yes!

Elacceleration: The mistaken belief that the more times one presses an elevator call button, the faster the elevator will arrive.

More "Sniglets": words that aren't really words, but should be, by Rich Hall

[empirestate]

Let me tell you a little more about the one intersection I have in mind, because its pedestrian signaling is quite weird indeed. (I'll use EB, WB etc. to describe the crosswalks according to the direction of traffic they're adjacent and parallel to, even though of course you can cross in either direction.)

It's a typical 4-leg intersection, more or less, with the following signal cycles:

1) EB traffic gets a green ball and green left arrow; all other traffic gets a red. The WB crosswalk gets a Don't Walk, because of the conflict with left-turning traffic. But for no reason other than to match that, the EB crosswalk also gets a Don't Walk, despite no conflicting traffic movements at all (even EB right turns have a channelized lane of their own, which is already behind the pedestrian at this point). This is when I choose to cross EB, because there is no possible traffic conflict.

2) EB and WB traffic get a green ball, and EB and WB crosswalks get a Walk sign. This is fine crossing WB, but EB you now have the added conflict of oncoming left turns, which you didn't have a moment earlier when facing a Don't Walk signal.

3) NB traffic gets a green ball, but SB traffic still has red, so there are really (unannounced) protected turns as well as thru movements for all NB traffic–there are no arrows on the NB or SB traffic signals. The SB crosswalk has a Walk signal, bringing it into conflict with oncoming left turns, while the NB crosswalk has a Don't Walk for some reason.

4) The opposite of cycle 3, now SB traffic gets a green ball, but with unspoken protected turns as well. The NB crosswalk likewise gets a Walk, with conflicting left turns, while the SB crosswalk has a Don't Walk.

Now, if I'm crossing in the WB crosswalk, I'll usually go at the end of cycle 4 once SB traffic has cleared, but before cycle 1 begins to allow left turns across my path. Otherwise I'd have to wait for cycle 2, when not only oncoming right turns, but left turns behind me, will get in my way. Since traffic at this particular intersection regularly fails to yield even to opposing vehicular traffic making turns, I have only limited faith that it will yield to me, a lowly pedestrian.

This is why, in certain cases, I often find it safer and more logical to cross against the light, because doing so actually brings me into less conflict with turning vehicles. This is in an outer borough of NYC where I live, mind you; when in Manhattan I routinely follow the prescribed pedestrian indications, since they make logical sense as to when I'm best to cross.

[M3019C LPS20]

Let me tell you a little more about the one intersection I have in mind, because its pedestrian signaling is quite weird indeed. (I'll use EB, WB etc. to describe the crosswalks according to the direction of traffic they're adjacent and parallel to, even though of course you can cross in either direction.)

It's a typical 4-leg intersection, more or less, with the following signal cycles:

1) EB traffic gets a green ball and green left arrow; all other traffic gets a red. The WB crosswalk gets a Don't Walk, because of the conflict with left-turning traffic. But for no reason other than to match that, the EB crosswalk also gets a Don't Walk, despite no conflicting traffic movements at all (even EB right turns have a channelized lane of their own, which is already behind the pedestrian at this point). This is when I choose to cross EB, because there is no possible traffic conflict.

2) EB and WB traffic get a green ball, and EB and WB crosswalks get a Walk sign. This is fine crossing WB, but EB you now have the added conflict of oncoming left turns, which you didn't have a moment earlier when facing a Don't Walk signal.

3) NB traffic gets a green ball, but SB traffic still has red, so there are really (unannounced) protected turns as well as thru movements for all NB traffic–there are no arrows on the NB or SB traffic signals. The SB crosswalk has a Walk signal, bringing it into conflict with oncoming left turns, while the NB crosswalk has a Don't Walk for some reason.

4) The opposite of cycle 3, now SB traffic gets a green ball, but with unspoken protected turns as well. The NB crosswalk likewise gets a Walk, with conflicting left turns, while the SB crosswalk has a Don't Walk.

Now, if I'm crossing in the WB crosswalk, I'll usually go at the end of cycle 4 once SB traffic has cleared, but before cycle 1 begins to allow left turns across my path. Otherwise I'd have to wait for cycle 2, when not only oncoming right turns, but left turns behind me, will get in my way. Since traffic at this particular intersection regularly fails to yield even to opposing vehicular traffic making turns, I have only limited faith that it will yield to me, a lowly pedestrian.

This is why, in certain cases, I often find it safer and more logical to cross against the light, because doing so actually brings me into less conflict with turning vehicles. This is in an outer borough of NYC where I live, mind you; when in Manhattan I routinely follow the prescribed pedestrian indications, since they make logical sense as to when I'm best to cross.

What's the intersection?

[Alps]

I'm late to the discussion, but I've read well the 2010 ADA accessibility guidelines, PROWAG (2005 draft and 2011 proposal), and MUTCD regarding accessible pushbuttons. There should be much less variation under ADA, because it requires (!) that all pushbuttons are accessible, something that currently is not the case. PROWAG also requires that the features described in the MUTCD as "typical" (Support statements only) are provided for all accessible signals, so once that's adopted, we really should be moving in the direction of uniformity, with vibrotactile arrows, speech and clicking cues, locator tones, etc.

[empirestate]

What's the intersection?

http://goo.gl/maps/rdxPE

[realjd]

I'm late to the discussion, but I've read well the 2010 ADA accessibility guidelines, PROWAG (2005 draft and 2011 proposal), and MUTCD regarding accessible pushbuttons. There should be much less variation under ADA, because it requires (!) that all pushbuttons are accessible, something that currently is not the case. PROWAG also requires that the features described in the MUTCD as "typical" (Support statements only) are provided for all accessible signals, so once that's adopted, we really should be moving in the direction of uniformity, with vibrotactile arrows, speech and clicking cues, locator tones, etc.

Vibrotactile? As in they vibrate when pushed or something?

One thing I do like about most American crosswalks is the countdown timer. I see them occasionally in the UK and Canada but didn't see any in Australia.

[M3019C LPS20]

What's the intersection?

http://goo.gl/maps/rdxPE

The intersection has quite a handful of vehicular movements (or phases). From what you have mentioned in your previous comment, there are total of four that are in use.

I see that the signal controller is a Peek A.S.T.C. 12. An appropriate kind to use, since it has 12 load switches for necessary signal phases. More than enough for this intersection.

With regards to what you mentioned in numbers 3 and 4, that kind of sequence is typically known as "split-phasing." It is, of course, commonly used at four-way intersections, and, for the most part, the cross street is generally split into two individual phases for vehicular traffic. This usually provides ease for motorists on both sides. Each side has the opportunity either to drive straight or turn left without conflictions. This kind of sequence is fairly common in various locations of the city, and most traffic signals that are associated with this sequence are typically ordinary red/amber/green traffic signals. In some cases, though, some are equipped with 12" protected left turn arrows (generally used to prevent conflictions with pedestrians). Here in New Jersey, "split-phasing" is common typically at major intersections, and they use both kinds of traffic signal configurations as well.

How the pedestrian signals operate on the cross street here does not really sound odd to me. Although I cannot provide an exact reason as to how they operate the way they do, I would guess that whoever designed the intersection wanted both sets associated with both phases of the cross street. In other words, one set for each phase. Makes sense (at least to me). Sometimes, from what I have noticed, some intersections that use "split-phasing" usually have one direction for a pedestrian movement, while the opposing side lacks one. I would say that is somewhat common in New Jersey. Fairly common in New York City as well.

There's one intersection in particular that once used a rather odd (in my opinion) sequence for a pedestrian movement. From Staten Island, New York. I'll explain the sequence in steps.

1st direction of cross street...Green/"WALK"

                                          Green/Flashing "DONT WALK"

                                          Amber/Flashing "DONT WALK"

                                          Red Clearance/Flashing "DONT WALK

2nd direction of cross street....

                                         Green/Flashing "DONT WALK"

                                         Green/Steady "DONT WALK"

                                         Amber/"DONT WALK"

                                         Red Clearance/"DONT WALK"

[kphoger]

It might make sense to you from a stoplight guru/expert/deity's viewpoint (which status of yours on here nobody can deny), but it is totally idiotic from a pedestrian's standpoint.  A ped signal that shows DON'T WALK when there are no conflicting traffic movements (1b, 3b, and 4b) deserves to be ignored, especially when doing so keeps you, the pedestrian, from making traffic queue up in the opposing left-turn lane (2b, 3a, and 4a).

And split phasing without left-turn arrows for the protected turns–common as it may be in New Jersey–is a dumb idea as well, as has already been discussed in another thread.

[empirestate]

How the pedestrian signals operate on the cross street here does not really sound odd to me. Although I cannot provide an exact reason as to how they operate the way they do, I would guess that whoever designed the intersection wanted both sets associated with both phases of the cross street. In other words, one set for each phase. Makes sense (at least to me). Sometimes, from what I have noticed, some intersections that use "split-phasing" usually have one direction for a pedestrian movement, while the opposing side lacks one. I would say that is somewhat common in New Jersey. Fairly common in New York City as well.

What might be the reason for wanting only one ped signal for each half of the split phase (cycles 3 and 4), rather than both? And, having decided on just the one, is there a reason to choose the one that conflicts with left-turning traffic rather than right-turning? Finally, why can the ped signals be separated for cycles 3 and 4, but for cycles 1 and 2 they only seem to be operable as a pair, either both on or both off?

It might make sense to you from a stoplight guru/expert/deity's viewpoint (which status of yours on here nobody can deny), but it is totally idiotic from a pedestrian's standpoint.  A ped signal that shows DON'T WALK when there are no conflicting traffic movements (1b, 3b, and 4b) deserves to be ignored, especially when doing so keeps you, the pedestrian, from making traffic queue up in the opposing left-turn lane (2b, 3a, and 4a).

All I can assume is that it might make sense how they're programmed from an electro-mechanical standpoint, but that there's no good reason why they should be programmed that way. Keep in mind that with right turn on red prohibited citywide, the EB pedestrian in cycle 1 has no possible traffic conflicts whatsoever: EB right turns have already diverged behind the pedestrian, EB straight and thru traffic don't conflict, NB right on red is prohibited, and all other traffic faces red as well. The Don't Walk in this phase protects the pedestrian from absolutely nothing.

The Walk phases in all four cycles, on the other hand, protect pedestrians from all except left-turning traffic. That makes some sense I suppose, as left-turning vehicles are more accustomed to having to yield to cross traffic and so are more likely to be stopped, but in practice of course, most motorists are anxious to complete a left turn as soon as there's a gap in vehicular traffic, and if there's none of that to begin with, they tend to be barreling pretty well along. That's particularly true at this intersection, where the widths and angles result in some very wide, sweeping left turns being made at fairly high speeds.

Quite frankly, for that reason primarily, not only do I decline to wait for the Walk signal in cycle 2, I purposely plan my path so as to cross in the EB crosswalk during its Don't Walk phase in cycle 1, as it's the safest chance I feel I can have!

(Incidentally, the next eastward intersection has the same cycles 1 and 2 as this one, followed by a single third cycle for the cross street. The only difference is that during cycle 1, there is a slight conflict with EB right turns, since they're not channelized. But that's a lightly traveled movement, as are WB left turns, so I usually cross here in the same way as the first intersection.)

[jeffandnicole]

...A ped signal that shows DON'T WALK when there are no conflicting traffic movements (1b, 3b, and 4b) deserves to be ignored...

We could say that for probably the majority of traffic controls out there - speed limits that are too low, stop signs where yield signs would suffice, protected left turns where lead permissive would do, etc.  Do they all deserved to be ignored as well?

[NE2]

...A ped signal that shows DON'T WALK when there are no conflicting traffic movements (1b, 3b, and 4b) deserves to be ignored...

We could say that for probably the majority of traffic controls out there - speed limits that are too low, stop signs where yield signs would suffice, protected left turns where lead permissive would do, etc.  Do they all deserved to be ignored as well?

Yes, if the one doing the ignoring can be sure that there are no unexpected conflicts. Being in a car makes this hard, given the limited field of vision at any moment.

[jeffandnicole]

At many protected left turns, we can often look straight ahead and see if cars are coming at us.  Whereas a pedestrian ignoring a 'don't walk' signal may not know who has the actual right of way because they can't see the signal, or can't see the vehicle due to an obstruction.  The pedestrian has to look left, right, across, back, up and over, and still may not know. So they walk anyway. And then they get pissed off at the motorist that nearly hits him/her.

[NE2]

OK, let's see if I've got this right.
Car turns on red left arrow. Hits a sidewalk cyclist crossing on walk due to watching the roadway for approaching traffic rather than the sidewalk. Nothing to see here, folks.
Pedestrian crosses on don't walk. Light changes and motorist doesn't look before going and hits pedestrian. Pedestrian's a bad boy.

[tradephoric]

My biggest concern with the operation being described by empirestate is unrelated to pedestrians.  The "˜unannounced' protected left turns (IE no left turn green arrows for the NB/SB directions) gives no indication to left-turning vehicles that the opposing thru still has a red indication, leading to a "˜Mexican standoff'.  All they need to do is install a couple 4th level left-turn green arrows tied down to the thru phase green.  Possibly, the left turn movements are so light that they didn't want to waist the money on a couple of fourth level arrows...

As far as the pedestrian operation, the reasoning eludes me as to why the SB ped would come up with the NB vehicle movement (or vice versa, the NB ped coming up with the SB vehicle movement).  In fact, if the 4th level left turn arrows were installed (announcing the protected left turn and eliminating the Mexican standoff) the pedestrian operation would violate the MUTCD and would look similar to this (green arrow on with the ped):

Now in regards to the EB/WB ped operation...
Since all the vehicle phases are split phasing, every vehicle movement needs to be tied down to its own load switch.  There would be a total of 5 vehicle load switches (EB left turn, EB thru, WB thru, NB thru, SB thru).  The problem now is if an 8-load switch pole mount cabinet is running the intersection, you only have 3 load switches left over for 4 pedestrian movements.  Since they split up the NB/SB pedestrians (and if the left-turn arrows were installed to unmask the protected lefts it would be required to split up these peds) the only option is to tie the EB/WB peds together.

The assumption of course is that an 8-load switch cabinet is running the intersection, and i believe M3019C LPS20 has a lot of experience with the cabinets running in the New York boroughs and mentioned that a 12-load switch cabinet is running this intersection, which should be more than capable of splitting up the EB/WB peds.  In that case, the only thing i can come up with is they wanted to be absolutely sure the pedestrian wouldn't conflict with the EB left turn arrow just in case the pedestrians were wired incorrectly out in the field... i know, it's a stretch!  I will note that even 12-load switch cabinets are becoming problematic with the installation of the new FYA's since each FYA movement requires 2-load switches to run (one load switch for the green arrow and one load switch for the flashing yellow arrow, yellow arrow, and red arrow).  If New York decided to install FYA's along all 4 approaches to this intersection, then suddenly a 16-load switch cabinet would be required to run all the necessary movements with a base mounted cabinets as opposed to the pole mount.

Hope this explanation at least hits on some of the issues involved.

[empirestate]

At many protected left turns, we can often look straight ahead and see if cars are coming at us.  Whereas a pedestrian ignoring a 'don't walk' signal may not know who has the actual right of way because they can't see the signal, or can't see the vehicle due to an obstruction.  The pedestrian has to look left, right, across, back, up and over, and still may not know. So they walk anyway. And then they get pissed off at the motorist that nearly hits him/her.

Quite agree, although that's rather a different situation than this. At an unfamiliar intersection, when I can't figure who has the right of way, I don't start crossing until I've figured it out, and usually this means just waiting until the Walk cycle comes around on its own. In my example, however, I know which traffic movements have the green at any time, and it so happens that the cycle that's safest for me to cross is one that shows a Don't Walk signal. Of course, there's still a chance somebody may cross my path, but they'd have to be running a red light to do so.

My biggest concern with the operation being described by empirestate is unrelated to pedestrians.  The "˜unannounced' protected left turns (IE no left turn green arrows for the NB/SB directions) gives no indication to left-turning vehicles that the opposing thru still has a red indication, leading to a "˜Mexican standoff'.  All they need to do is install a couple 4th level left-turn green arrows tied down to the thru phase green.  Possibly, the left turn movements are so light that they didn't want to waist the money on a couple of fourth level arrows...

In this case, actually, left turn movements are quite predominant, especially on the SB roadway which is an Interstate off-ramp. On the NB roadway, I expect right turns are the most frequent. I also imagine the reason there aren't green arrows is that they would conflict with the Walk indication, as you point out below, but you're also right about the standoff problem. Fortunately, few non-locals seem to drive through the area, so I seldom if ever actually see anybody waiting for oncoming traffic (save myself, the first time I drove through it).

I need to admit at this time, having just this minute walked through the same intersection, that I've misremembered how the NB/SB pedestrian signals run. They actually do both show Walk in both cycle 3 and cycle 4. So that might explain things a bit: if the ped signals can in fact operate only in pairs, not independently, that might explain why the EB and WB cycles aren't split, and I'd assume there are computerized systems in use elsewhere that would easily allow this flexibility. However, it's been pointed out that even with electro-mechanical equipment, there still should be ample slots to control them separately, even if it were an 8-load system instead of the 12 it's reported to be.

As far as the pedestrian operation, the reasoning eludes me as to why the SB ped would come up with the NB vehicle movement (or vice versa, the NB ped coming up with the SB vehicle movement).  In fact, if the 4th level left turn arrows were installed (announcing the protected left turn and eliminating the Mexican standoff) the pedestrian operation would violate the MUTCD and would look similar to this (green arrow on with the ped):

Well I've solved the elusive reasoning since the situation arising from it turns out not to be the case after all. :-)

[M3019C LPS20]

What might be the reason for wanting only one ped signal for each half of the split phase (cycles 3 and 4), rather than both? And, having decided on just the one, is there a reason to choose the one that conflicts with left-turning traffic rather than right-turning? Finally, why can the ped signals be separated for cycles 3 and 4, but for cycles 1 and 2 they only seem to be operable as a pair, either both on or both off?

I am still unclear of how these pedestrian signals on the cross street actually function. I would probably either need to view a video of them in operation or see them in person to see how they function on the cross street.

With regards to your last question, that sequence is kind of odd. In that situation, one set on phase 1 would show a "WALK" indication, while there would be a delay across the street, due to the protected left turn movement phase. From what I have seen on Google Map, the kind of A.S.T.C. cabinet that is in use supports 12 load switches for signal indications, in which I have already mentioned. There are more than enough present that could be used for this sequence. An A.S.T.C. cabinet with 6 load switches would actually show what you described, since there would not be enough load switches to split the pedestrian signals on phase one. Interestingly enough, this kind of sequence is in use at ordinary three-phase (third phase represents a protected left turn movement) signalized intersections in various locations of the city. As to why that sequence is in use is I suppose a mystery to me. Perhaps the city didn't want to waste money on the larger cabinet for such a simple set-up, since there would have been quite a handful of unused slots for load switches, of course.

I need to admit at this time, having just this minute walked through the same intersection, that I've misremembered how the NB/SB pedestrian signals run. They actually do both show Walk in both cycle 3 and cycle 4. So that might explain things a bit: if the ped signals can in fact operate only in pairs, not independently, that might explain why the EB and WB cycles aren't split, and I'd assume there are computerized systems in use elsewhere that would easily allow this flexibility. However, it's been pointed out that even with electro-mechanical equipment, there still should be ample slots to control them separately, even if it were an 8-load system instead of the 12 it's reported to be.

Realize that many of New York City's electro-mechanical signal controllers were composed of only 19 signal circuits, and they were ideal for most, if not all, of the signalized intersections throughout the five boroughs, since many are ordinary and simple two-phase signalized intersections. It would be impossible for such a signal controller to control a complex signalized intersection, such as the one you mentioned in the Bronx. Although Marbelite and General Traffic Equipment did manufacture another electro-mechanical signal controller with additional signal circuits for complex signalized intersections, and there are some that are (or were) in use in the city.

With regards to the modern signal controllers that are in use, New York City only uses the A.S.T.C. 6 and A.S.T.C. 12 signal controllers from Peek, since they meet New York City specifications and could control ordinary and complex signalized intersections that are throughout the boroughs.

[Mdcastle]

What are the guidelines where there's no button to push, or are intersections where the walk comes on automatically not going to be allowed.

[empirestate]

I need to admit at this time, having just this minute walked through the same intersection, that I've misremembered how the NB/SB pedestrian signals run. They actually do both show Walk in both cycle 3 and cycle 4.

I now need to further admit that I am totally confused. :-)

On latest observation, it turns out that in cycle 3, I was correct the first time: NB traffic has green, with an unannounced protected left turn, and ONLY the SB crosswalk gets a Walk signal; all others have Don't Walk. Finally, in cycle 4, SB traffic gets the green and the unannounced protected left turn, but both the NB and SB crosswalks get Walk indications.

What gives?

[M3019C LPS20]

I need to admit at this time, having just this minute walked through the same intersection, that I've misremembered how the NB/SB pedestrian signals run. They actually do both show Walk in both cycle 3 and cycle 4.

I now need to further admit that I am totally confused. :-)

On latest observation, it turns out that in cycle 3, I was correct the first time: NB traffic has green, with an unannounced protected left turn, and ONLY the SB crosswalk gets a Walk signal; all others have Don't Walk. Finally, in cycle 4, SB traffic gets the green and the unannounced protected left turn, but both the NB and SB crosswalks get Walk indications.

What gives?

Here's my unprofessional opinion on the sequence at the intersection. This sounds logical to me, but it may not sound logical from a pedestrian's perspective. In any case, it may be the intention for the set-up.

So, with the information that you provided, traffic on Bailey Avenue has the right-of-way first. With that said, if you were, as a motorist, on Bailey Avenue, the crosswalk to your left would have both pedestrian signals that face it show "WALK," while the crosswalk to your right would have the other pair show "DONT WALK." If I am correct on this, then I'll continue. A possible reason to take into consideration for this is that, with regards to the mini ramp (if that is what you want to call it) that connects Bailey Avenue to Van Cortlandt Park W., the crosswalk to the right would perhaps cause temporary congestion if both pedestrian signals showed a "WALK" indication, since it seems to me that many motorists use that mini ramp on practically a daily basis. Additionally, from a considerable distance on Bailey Avenue, the crosswalk on the right might perhaps prove to be a blind spot for motorists (perhaps instead of the other crosswalk), so, if that is the case, then I suppose it is rather safe to have that pair of pedestrian signals show "DONT WALK." With regards to other crosswalk, how often do motorists on Bailey Avenue make a left turn? Since the Major Deegan Expwy. is just right around the corner, I would presume that most motorists just drive straight. If some were to make a left turn, then I suppose that pedestrians on that side would create little or no congestion. That is only my guess.


With regards to the next phase (the ramp that connects to the Major Deegan Expwy.), both pairs of pedestrians on both crosswalks now show "WALK." The extension on one of the first crosswalks from the previous phase is perhaps necessary, since I would guess that pedestrians cross on that one in particular frequently, so they need ample time. The other crosswalk is perhaps adequate, since I wouldn't consider it as a blind spot (in my view) for motorists, since it seems visible from a certain distance.

[empirestate]

So, with the information that you provided, traffic on Bailey Avenue has the right-of-way first. With that said, if you were, as a motorist, on Bailey Avenue, the crosswalk to your left would have both pedestrian signals that face it show "WALK," while the crosswalk to your right would have the other pair show "DONT WALK." If I am correct on this, then I'll continue.

Good so far! That's assuming I am actually correct, of course...

A possible reason to take into consideration for this is that, with regards to the mini ramp (if that is what you want to call it) that connects Bailey Avenue to Van Cortlandt Park W....

"Avenue", actually, not "Park", but don't feel bad. Due to a Navteq error, everyone from the pizza guy to the New York Times thinks it's Park, even though "Van Cortlandt Park West", if it existed, would run where Broadway in fact does. I've reported the error to Navteq, and the issue is reported closed. The apparent result is that Navteq both has and has not updated its data. Yeah, I'm confused too.

...the crosswalk to the right would perhaps cause temporary congestion if both pedestrian signals showed a "WALK" indication, since it seems to me that many motorists use that mini ramp on practically a daily basis. Additionally, from a considerable distance on Bailey Avenue, the crosswalk on the right might perhaps prove to be a blind spot for motorists (perhaps instead of the other crosswalk), so, if that is the case, then I suppose it is rather safe to have that pair of pedestrian signals show "DONT WALK."

The south-to-east movement, and its reverse, are indeed predominant, so I could indeed see that as a rationale. Another factor may be the bus stop on the SE corner: a bus at the stop could create the blind spot you mention, and a bus pulling away from the stop on green might want to have priority since it tends to have gotten stuck there for a couple of light cycles.

With regards to other crosswalk, how often do motorists on Bailey Avenue make a left turn? Since the Major Deegan Expwy. is just right around the corner, I would presume that most motorists just drive straight. If some were to make a left turn, then I suppose that pedestrians on that side would create little or no congestion. That is only my guess.

It's definitely among the lesser-used movements, but not altogether rare.

With regards to the next phase (the ramp that connects to the Major Deegan Expwy.), both pairs of pedestrians on both crosswalks now show "WALK." The extension on one of the first crosswalks from the previous phase is perhaps necessary, since I would guess that pedestrians cross on that one in particular frequently, so they need ample time. The other crosswalk is perhaps adequate, since I wouldn't consider it as a blind spot (in my view) for motorists, since it seems visible from a certain distance.

The north leg of the intersection, in addition to the Major Deegan ramps, also serves as a vehicular and pedestrian entrance to Van Cortlandt Park, which may have something to do with the signal timing, although in that case I'd expect the NB crosswalk to be favored, as the SB one leads to the interior of the ramp area...but then again, if you're walking into the park, you still have to dodge traffic zooming up the ramp to the NB Deegan.

(By the way, the parking lot at this entrance is a great place to get free, unlimited parking in the neighborhood...if by "parking" you mean "opportunity to have your car stolen.")

[SidS1045]

I can't recall ever having seen one that specifies a street name.

In Massachusetts it's not necessary, because by law, when the WALK lights are lit, all traffic at that intersection must stop and no turns-on-red may be made.

[deathtopumpkins]

I can't recall ever having seen one that specifies a street name.

In Massachusetts it's not necessary, because by law, when the WALK lights are lit, all traffic at that intersection must stop and no turns-on-red may be made.

Well that's never true in practice.  Sure, plenty of unnecessary RTOR prohibitions exist, but I'd even say that the majority of signals with pedestrian crossings have a walk signal concurrent with a parallel greeb. Very few outside of, say, downtown Boston actually have an all-pedestrian phase.