« MoCo's Met Branch Trail Could Get Funding in Next Year's Budget | Main | WABA receives Transportation Enhancement Funding »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

There is no logic to refusing to install a red light that is controlled by a pedestrian call button by saying there isn't enough pedestrian traffic. If there is little pedestrian traffic, then the light is seldom used and does not significantly disrupt the normal motor vehicle traffic. If there is heavy pedestrian traffic, then clearly the light is needed.

Make it a stimulus project.

How about prosecuting motorists that injure peds/cyclists who are crossing legally?

check out this post on rethink college park:

The engineer should be following guidelines set forth in the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). These are guidelines for acceptable practices, and are not to be considered absolutes. The engineer may deviate from them if circumstances dictate. Read for yourself what warrants are typically used to justify installation of a traffic control device:

Note: #7 Crash Experience

Let's see, the road was entrenched beneath the rail line just to the east to make it safer. Why can't this be done here? Approach it that way and a red light becomes the cheap fix.

BTW--Do they have the same issues over at Queens Chapel Rd and the NE Branch tail? Seems like when I had used that stretch the motorist would almost go out of their way to stop for the peds and cyclists once the lights went up.

Short of grade separation, I still think the Hawk signal is the best bet here...

Froggie -- why a Hawk over a plain pedestrian-operated red light? I don't get the rush to introduce a new type of traffic signal when existing ones would work perfectly well. But I'd like to hear the arguments.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the signal at Queens Chapel is different - there are yellow lights in the road bed that are triggered automatically when a trail user reaches the intersection. The lights seem to get drivers' attention more effectively than a standard flashing yellow light.

...which is the same principle behind the HAWK signal.

Contrarian: first off, if signal warrants aren't met (and short of the idea to extend Rhode Island Ave through the soundwall to meet Paint Branch Pkwy, they won't), Federal funds can't be used. Now if the county or College Park want to pay for the cost of a signal themselves, they can do that, as I mentioned in another thread. But I have a hunch they don't want to shoulder the cost.

Second, given state law regarding pedestrians, a HAWK signal would be the perfect fit.

Third, experience in Tucson, AZ (which has 60-some HAWK signals) has shown that they do improve safety for pedestrians and cost less than a full traffic signal.

Lastly, take a look
at this.

Having been to Tucson I can report that the HAWK signals work really well. Traffic definitely stops when the red lights are activated.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/stpetersburgrpt/excutivesummary.htm Here's a link to a study of a system that was tested in St Petersburg, Florida. From what I am hearing it will be in the next edition of the MUTCD. In St Pete yield to pedestrian compliance went from 1.5% to 85%.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader