说明
Crossing stop light was recently replaced by "flashing light crossing", like others installed around town. In most locations this would be fine, but not in front of Decker Towers. Many residents have trouble walking, some use canes, walkers, or wheelchairs. We have had quite a few close calls so far. We need a crossing light like the one at the top of Church Street, that allows a slow walker time to cross. Please look into this - it's important. Thanks, BC @ Decker - "slow walker"
35 评论s
已确认 DPW Pine Customer Service (官方验证)
RobinKate (注册用户)
Ted (注册用户)
This area of St. Paul Street, between Kilburne Street and Maple Street is a very problematic area due to the wide curve, multiple things to watch out for, and poor sight lines. Cars travel very fast heading into and out of town.
In the past two years, I had an accident turning left from Adams Street, and a dog was killed. And that's just what I am aware of. Some sort of traffic calming would be wise. I'm thinking maybe add a stop sign at Kilburne St. or Adams Street. Also, add crosswalks at Adams Street (very dangerous to cross now).
I also agree that Decker Towers is a special case. While the flashing yellow lights add consistency, they may not be enough. I think the better solution would be to add a traffic bump and crosswalk at Adams Street just to slow people down in what has become quite an urban area.
Gil (注册用户)
Traffic Signal Engineer (官方验证)
Bob Collins (注册用户)
Traffic Signal Engineer (官方验证)
Traffic Signal Engineer (官方验证)
Bob Collins (注册用户)
Gil (注册用户)
Traffic Signal Engineer (官方验证)
Traffic Signal Engineer (官方验证)
Bob Collins (注册用户)
BC @ Decker
Gil (注册用户)
Ted (注册用户)
How about try a stop sign at Adams Street? That would give oncoming traffic a straight view of the corridor--a view that is not available as they curve around Smalley Park. If traffic stops, then drivers had a chance of scrutinizing the area between Adams Street and Maple Street, at a slower speed and with clear sight lines.
The whole idea of the St. Paul Street construction was to prioritize city living and pedestrians. This concept needs to be spread one more block. Let's not have someone hurt.
T
Bob Collins (注册用户)
To: Traffic Signal Engineer
I had an unfortunate experience tonight - at about 6:30 I pushed the signal button to cross to Kerry's. When I was in the middle of the north-bound lane a van approaching from the south at about 35 mph failed to notice the blinking lights, and had to slam their brakes on to avoid hitting me. The driver, who looked to be in his late 60s with his wife in the passenger seat, lowered his window, apologized, and said he didn't see me in the dark (I had a bright blue raincoat on and the crossing is well lit and the crossing lights were flashing.)
On my way back from Kerry's I hit the button, but paused with the crossing lights flashing as a car approaching from the north failed to see the lights from about 100 feet back. It crossed in front of me doing about 30 mph, never touching the brakes. I started across as a car approached from the south from quite a ways back, lights still flashing. I played it safe and stopped in the middle of the street. The car never slowed and crossed in front of me, doing about 30 mph. I finished crossing as the flashing lights went out.
If following the rules prevailed, the blinking lights would have drawn attention to my crossing, the cars would have yielded, and gone on their way after I crossed. I'd like to agree with you, believing that drivers piloting a lethal weapon, not yielding to pedestrians, is the rare exception - but it didn't feel like that tonight. Keep crunching those numbers. BC @ Decker
Gil (注册用户)
Gil (注册用户)
Gil (注册用户)
Bob Collins (注册用户)
Gil (注册用户)
Traffic Signal Engineer (官方验证)
Mr. Collins, I appreciate your polite approach. Anything I can do to help is time well spent.
You asked, "Who at the City is invested in installing as many of the new/modern flashing crossings, even if they're not the best and safest application?"
Nobody here wants to "push" anything not needed. Nobody here wants to take away anything if it is needed. Everybody here wants to apply themselves professionally to these types of problems, using national and state standards, guidelines and numbers to justify when and where these expensive treatments should be used, and to put the most urgently needed things at the front of the line, if possible.
Not going to rehash the justification by numbers thing except to say that without standards and guidelines everyone with a driveway on North Avenue could ask for their own traffic light. To spend thousands of dollars of other people's money (taxes) we have to do the best we can at picking where, when, and why.
These decisions are not made by any one single person. I was asked to look at whether the RYG signal was justified or not. Based on what I gathered for numbers, I recommended the installation of the RRFBs. We had several meetings discussing this topic. It was presented to the Public Works Commission by the person that handles traffic requests, along with two other locations for eventual approval.
A full RYG traffic signal is referenced to a specific city ordinance for it to be legal, as are stop signs, parking signs, etcetera. The ordinance for this signal was repealed and would need to be reinstated by the commission for a full RYG signal to go back. It is not cast in stone. They would need a compelling case to revisit this decision. It would include numbers and any other information that might be pertinent.
I do not have the benefit of seeing first hand the observations you pass along. There may be an observable "difficulty" factor with the RRFBs that was not possible to predict with the RYG signal still in operation.
This request is being handled by the engineering group next door, not myself. They will apply their template for whether any further treatments are necessary based on national, state, and our own local standards and guidelines. They will have access to my prior work, but I would expect them to do counts and observations of their own to make a case for any improvements. The outcome of this second and independent analysis should answer this request.
When RRFBs first came out, people were lobbying for them all over. They were wanted at midblock RYG signals, and even at a full 4-way RYG signal for additional conspicuity, which is not allowed. When the opportunity came to address these old midblock RYG signals with the possibility of replacing them with RRFBs, using new standards and guidelines not available before, we were glad to take it on.
The bright, attention-getting nature of RRFBs made them appear to be a win-win for everybody. We were getting lobbied for these as being more desirable than a full RYG signal at places. It is surprising and disappointing that something meant as an improvement is seen by some to be less than that. Ultimately, one way or the other, this will be addressed again.
dale tillotson (注册用户)
Gil (注册用户)
Bob Collins (注册用户)
You mentioned that this request would be answered by "the outcome of their second and independent analysis". I haven't had my request answered, even though I'm guessing there's been time to complete the second analysis. I don't want to bother you, since you indicated you wouldn't be handling this, so can you tell me: the name/title of the engineering group, where "next door" is, a contact name and number.
You mentioned that someone asked you to look at whether the RYG was justified or not. I'd like to know who asked you. I'd like to see the numbers that you gathered, causing you to recommend a RRFB.
Thanks for your time helping to keep me informed, so that I can understand why the city spent thousands of dollars of tax payers' money to replace a signal that was working. BC @ Decker
Gil (注册用户)
Gil (注册用户)
Bob Collins (注册用户)
Gil (注册用户)
Burlington, VT (官方验证)
Bob Collins (注册用户)
DPW Pine Customer Service (官方验证)
DPW Pine Customer Service (官方验证)
Bob Collins (注册用户)
Bob Collins (注册用户)