While a protected pedestrian movement may seem like a simple solution it is inefficient and would create wait time problems for motorists. The intersection is also controlled by a 2 Phase cabinet and cannot accommodate the added exclusive pedestrian movement. A new cabinet would be needed at the cost of about $10,000. I will forward this request to our Transportation people for their review. If they have a reason this intersection warrants your request, we will make necessary changes.

Tim Funderburk assigned this issue to Michael Frederick, Mgr Transportation

how much is a child's life worth? Many children use this to go to school, go to the rec center that is there and the library. Surely the city can come up with 10k to save a childs life, it will cost much more than that if something happens and it comes up that the city knew it was an issue.

Gin you beat me to it.. I was going to state the same thing.. I know many traffic controllers can handle protected PEDs even if they need to change out the controller they could get one on Ebay for less then $100 but cities don't look for the best way to do anything at the lowest cost. they want to replace the whole controller box along with the load bay and MMU for thousands then to just reprogram them.. Any Econolite ASC controller has had Protected PED built into them for years. Since the late 80's

As far as timing I've timed the light from the time I move my vehicle onto the Loop detector to the time I see the PEDs start to count down is well over a minute and a half. they could shorten up the time from detection to the point where the PEDs start counting and not effect the traffic timing. This light has been poorly timed for years and years.. most people just go down the service road and avoid the signal all together because of the long wait. creating a protected PED isn't going to add all that much if the signal timing was corrected properly. this is only 4 signals and 4 PEDs with loop and PED detection.

jrocco have you called the Mayor action line? Election time lots of things get done.

Ive reported stuff before to the mayor without any results.. And that is the support the mayor will get from me come election time.. none..

Tim Funderburk or Michael Frederick if you tell me what traffic controller is in the box I can send you the instructions to enable a protected PED.

jrocco, we know how to enable an exclucsive ped movement. As I explained to Gin, the need for an exclusive ped needs to be warranted. I have asked Mike to see if there is a history to this intersection that would warrant an exclusive ped movement.

This intersection has been reviewed for pedestrian safety with the following findings:

Pedestrian signals and crosswalks are already installed, are operational, and have adequate crossing time. The pedestrian movements operate concurrent with their associated vehicle movements with no conflicts to safely move pedestrians across any leg of the intersection.

Field of view is good in all directions with no obstructions.

Street lighting is adequate with two street lights on the north side of the intersection.

There is a school crossing at the intersection, but a crossing guard is assigned to assist children crossing.

There is no history that indicates this is an abnormally dangerous intersection for pedestrians. Please see Mike’s comment below.

Based on these findings this intersection does not warrant an exclusive pedestrian movement.

Tim Funderburk

Tim,

8 crashes in 3-years including 1 – ped, daylight, ped at fault. See below.

Based on this data there is no severe or recurring issues presented that would require any additional countermeasures or an exclusive pedestrian phase.

Should there be a more specific concern arise other than the current comments of “safety” we could review again for considerations.

Thanks - Mike

Location: 70th Avenue North Intersecting Route: Dr. MLK Street North
Study Period: 09/14/15 to 09/14/18 Technician: Ritter

NO. DATE TIME TYPE FATAL INJURY PROP. DAMAGE DAY/ NIGHT WET/ DRY CAUSE
1 02/20/16 9:02 PM Rear End 0 0 1,000 N D Careless Driving
2 07/16/17 10:53 PM Rear End 0 0 5,000 N D Careless Driving
3 07/17/17 8:49 AM Hit Tree 0 1 10,000 D D Reckless Driving
4 07/23/17 2:01 PM Pedestrian 0 0 0 D D Ped- Fail to obey signal
5 01/07/18 1:13 PM Rear End 0 0 100 D D Careless Driving
6 04/27/18 11:50 AM Rear End 0 1 15,000 D D Careless Driving
7 07/23/18 5:45 PM Angle 0 0 14,000 D D RLR
8 08/12/18 3:21 AM Hit Tree 0 0 9,400 D D Careless Driving

Tim, thank you for investigating this and your prompt reply. I understand the history does not warrant any changes but better lighting is needed. I have driven by there as well and while there is lighting it is not adequate to see pedestrians waiting to cross in the dark. Perhaps something like this http://www.siliconconstellations.com/lumistar?gclid=CjwKCAjw54fdBRBbEiwAW28S9u8z9jxISc8MxRMA2g81h1KMGnRilUrQBs9pWdpAbUnRl6vg0OXIHxoClC0QAvD_BwE could be a cheaper solution? I understand pedestrians need to take responsibility as well but children have no concept of danger. Sometimes the drivers are not paying attention and I see there was careless driving cited 5x, but instead of a rear end collision it could have been a pedestrian as well. We can replace cars but not human life. Thanks for all your assistance with this matter it is appreciated and I understand you have rules to follow. I did notice the report Mike sent you says fatal injury, were non fatal injuries not included in the report then?

We failed to mention that the City is changing out all high pressure sodium street light fixture to LED. Some have been completed already and it makes a significant difference, both in the lighting level and light color. So, our engineering department is not making any modifications to existing lighting until all of these retrofits have been completed. This is planned for the end of the year. So, please get back to us after these have been changed if you still think additional actions may be required.

Thanks

The report Mike sent would include all accidents in the time period reported. The accidents in Mike's report involved no fatality; that is just the report name. Duke Energy is responsible for street lighting. Mike said he would request better lighting.

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

Ticket closed. KJ