What is the purpose of pedestrian facilities at traffic signals? Is it the reduction of accidents or delay to pedestrians? Or is it to improve pedestrian comfort and confidence? How effective are facilities in meeting these needs? The provision of full pedestrian stages is always difficult and is most difficult when most needed. GMC has many sites where the correct balance between traffic capacity needs and pedestrians is hard to determine. Objective methods of assessing warrants for pedestrian facilities are at present rather simplistic and arbitrary. Would it be better to treat pedestrians as traffic? The author recommends a new approach based on utility (the number of pedestrians using the facility) and outlines work planned to develop this approach. The difficulty in providing full stages for pedestrians means that other methods are used if at all possible. Many have been tried in GMC with varying degrees of success. The author gives examples and reports on the operation of different techniques, including extended intergreens, use of splitter islands at t junctions, banned turning movements, use of overlapped stages, offset crossings. What is the value of facilities not involving signal changes such as provision of refuges and shorter cycle times? There are techniques which are at present not available under UK signaling conventions. The author gives examples of sites where "pedestrian priority" rather than "pedestrian right of way" signals could yield enormous benefits. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the policies of the greater Manchester council. (a) for the covering abstract of the seminar see IRRD 273510.
Samenvatting