Signalised junctions with unsignalised pedestrian crossings

[astondb9]

I know signalised junctions without any crossing facilities are quite common, particularly in rural areas. But i've noticed Leeds has quite a few junctions where some arms have pedestrian signals, but others don't, and generally have dropped kerbs and studs as if they should. There are quite a few within Leeds city centre, but seem to be slowly being fixed when nearby works occur.

These have become a bit of a bug bear for me, as at some you can't see the signals for vehicles so you have to just kind of step out and hope for the best, and others you are expected to learn the signal stages to know when to cross. Drivers in Leeds don't take it kindly if you try and cross when they have a green light...

Are these common elsewhere? Or just a "Motorway city" feature?

Some examples in Leeds:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.79686 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.79112 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.79989 ... &entry=ttu

These ones have now been fixed, but Street View hasn't been updated yet:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.79627 ... &entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.79454 ... &entry=ttu

[jnty]

This notorious one in Edinburgh is in the process of being sorted out, weirdly as part of works to create a LEZ-avoiding ring route: https://maps.app.goo.gl/yCjrgTTn8BTgrNcd6

There are signals on the other side of the road so presumably you were simply expected to Not Walk That Way. Fine if you're there every day and so know that, not so fine if it's your first visit to the city and you're taking the most obvious route from Haymarket railway station to the Edinburgh International Conference Centre....

The idea that you'd be walking into or out of the city is simply out of the question at these recently renewed signals, however.

I agree that they're totally anachronistic, especially the ones which invite you to cross as if there were signals. Either accept that you've created a pedestrian roadblock and sign an alternative walking route or put in signals. Don't bottle it and do a dangerous compromise.

[Chris5156]

Are these common elsewhere? Or just a "Motorway city" feature?

I think they're reasonably common everywhere, but unlikely to be installed now in most places. London still has a surprising number like this.

[traffic-light-man]

Not too common to see new ones installed, although I can think of a few that have happened. This one springs to mind instantly given it's pretty new, and there's definitely an element of 'car is king' about the design decision that this particular one has been omitted (it's the one that would need a dedicated stage).

Despite that example, I think where large schemes are taking place, or completely new signal control is being implemented, generally they'll be few and far between.

Having said that, where existing traffic signals are simply replaced through something like routine end-of-life replacement works or works to target something specific, I can imagine there's plenty that don't get signalised purely due to funding constraints.

[MotorwayGuy]

This one in Ramsgate has no pedestrian facilities whatsoever. Nor does this one outside a primary school.

This one in Gravesend didn't until 2008.

Usually these are a layover from old Mellor sites, often ones which replaced tin lanterns and have never been reconfigured despite being replaced multiple times.

[jnty]

Somehow it's the tactiles and dropped kerb that feel most dishonest. It would be fascinating to spend rush hour at one of these installations with the engineers, officers and politicians responsible for that particular set of decisions and ask them to explain to a group of people who are visually impaired, infirm or use wheelchairs precisely how they're supposed to make use of those features to safely cross the road.

[traffic-light-man]

Somehow it's the tactiles and dropped kerb that feel most dishonest. It would be fascinating to spend rush hour at one of these installations with the engineers, officers and politicians responsible for that particular set of decisions and ask them to explain to a group of people who are visually impaired, infirm or use wheelchairs precisely how they're supposed to make use of those features to safely cross the road.

Does that go for all uncontrolled crossing points with tactile paving?

[Dougman]

Not too common to see new ones installed, although I can think of a few that have happened. This one springs to mind instantly given it's pretty new, and there's definitely an element of 'car is king' about the design decision that this particular one has been omitted (it's the one that would need a dedicated stage).

Despite that example, I think where large schemes are taking place, or completely new signal control is being implemented, generally they'll be few and far between.

Having said that, where existing traffic signals are simply replaced through something like routine end-of-life replacement works or works to target something specific, I can imagine there's plenty that don't get signalised purely due to funding constraints.

That's a pretty blatant breach of the CDM Regulations, I'd be fascinated to see the designer's risk assessments where they justify not putting pedestrian signals on that arm.

[jnty]

Somehow it's the tactiles and dropped kerb that feel most dishonest. It would be fascinating to spend rush hour at one of these installations with the engineers, officers and politicians responsible for that particular set of decisions and ask them to explain to a group of people who are visually impaired, infirm or use wheelchairs precisely how they're supposed to make use of those features to safely cross the road.

Does that go for all uncontrolled crossing points with tactile paving?

Not generally, no, although there are some awful ones, and many which should really be zebras or controlled crossings. However, research suggests that many visually impaired people don't use them and some people with very impaired sight find them dangerously confusing. But at least they are usually sited with reasonable visibility and allow pedestrians to concentrate on a single flow of traffic in turn.

The practical issue with uncontrolled crossings at junctions is that they're probably the worst places to cross within a 100yd radius. Crossing the side where traffic emerges from, you're directly in front of perhaps several lanes of drivers waiting to accelerate who (assuming they aren't going to be actively aggressive) will be looking at the lights, not you, and may be unable to see you until you're right in front of them. On the other side, you're crossing a road where vehicles will randomly approach from at least two directions, some of which may be behind you. The drivers may be travelling at high speeds, are unlikely to have good visibility of the crossing and in any case will be distracted by other traffic. Realistically, they are expecting unobstructed right of way. Of course, the designers of the junction will have attempted to optimise the signals in order to provide as continuous a stream of traffic here as possible!

But the really galling thing is that provision of dropped kerbs and tactiles is these situations is tokenism of the worst kind. Their presence shows that the junction has been modified during an era where we should know better. The requisite boxes have been ticked, but clearly nobody has actually thought about the needs of the people those design features are allegedly providing for.

[jervi]

It does seem that at most urban sites, when signals have been replaced they now include signalised pedestrian crossings.
But there are some new sites which do not have signalised crossings.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.01283 ... ?entry=ttu - This one was installed a few years back, no signals on either crossing, despite across the A153 there would be no conflict or additional traffic signals required, and across the A17 slip road there would need to be an extra traffic signal if it was signalised, of which this is a somewhat busy cycleway.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.83889 ... ?entry=ttu
This crossing in Brighton was supposed to be signalised a few years back, however Labour and Conservative councillors blocked it from happening a few years ago.

[Jonathan24]

I've only just noticed this one recently. There are signalised pedestrian crossings on all legs, apart from the crossing in front of where the Google car is. It's clearly intended to be a crossing route, given the dropped kerbs and tactile paving but has no signals (and I often see people standing there, waiting to make a dash for it).

I can perhaps understand why it was omitted, given that all traffic would need to be stopped for a green pedestrian signal on this leg, but that still seems more preferable than expecting pedestrians to run across...

[Worcestershire Wolf]

There's a couple of signalised junctions on the A449 through Kidderminster that don't have pedestrian lights.

These aren't helped by the narrow central reservations which means that bike or buggy users not only have to guess when to cross each section they then overhang into the road when in the middle.

This junction has no pedestrian signals at all:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.39191 ... ?entry=ttu

[the cheesecake man]

There used to be too many in Sheffield. Most such as this one and this one now have pedestrian phases but here's one that still doesn't .

[Craig91]

Are there any rules on this based on footfall, traffic levels etc?

This junction was updated not long ago and has no pedestrian signals, perhaps because the number of pedestrians is relatively low?

[Beardy5632]

A couple in Hereford, one on the A49 and another on the A438.

[Bryn666]

Not too common to see new ones installed, although I can think of a few that have happened. This one springs to mind instantly given it's pretty new, and there's definitely an element of 'car is king' about the design decision that this particular one has been omitted (it's the one that would need a dedicated stage).

Despite that example, I think where large schemes are taking place, or completely new signal control is being implemented, generally they'll be few and far between.

Having said that, where existing traffic signals are simply replaced through something like routine end-of-life replacement works or works to target something specific, I can imagine there's plenty that don't get signalised purely due to funding constraints.

That's a pretty blatant breach of the CDM Regulations, I'd be fascinated to see the designer's risk assessments where they justify not putting pedestrian signals on that arm.

My understanding is politics and developers not being hauled up for it. It's being looked at as part of a wider active travel scheme for the area.

ATE will immediately massively mark down any junction design that hasn't got GITC (that's Green Invitation To Cross in ATE-speak, I'm going to start calling it "gitsy"), so designers can't really get away with this now.

Interestingly, in Glasgow I found numerous junctions had pedestrian signals but no tactile paving or marked crossings whatsoever. Or even dropped kerbs. The 1970s are alive and well in the grid you know.

[traffic-light-man]

This junction was updated not long ago and has no pedestrian signals, perhaps because the number of pedestrians is relatively low?

I'm really not a fan of that junction now...

If you look at all the crossing points, there are actually retention sockets in all the correct* places for poles to support signal control presumably as an element of future-proofing. If you've gone that far, though, it's difficult to understand why you wouldn't just go all the way and install the pedestrian equipment, especially given the actual crossing points have been completely reconstructed during the works as well.

*Apart from the one on the nearside of the southern exit arm, that one is in a useless location slap bang in the centre of a narrow footway.

My understanding is politics and developers not being hauled up for it. It's being looked at as part of a wider active travel scheme for the area.

Works have started in the past few weeks on the footway between those signals and Tarbock Island which is presumably to improve the connectivity through the roundabout to the Garden Village.

I've also heard that the signalisation of the two priority controlled arms of the roundabout is impending - presumably an element of this work is allowing for controlled crossing points across the M57 slips and Windy Arbor Road.

[traffic-light-man]

This junction was updated not long ago and has no pedestrian signals, perhaps because the number of pedestrians is relatively low?

Strangely, it looks like that junction is now getting pedestrian signals as we speak, at least on some of the arms. There are works ongoing to replace the tactile paving with the correct colour and add the stems.

[AndyB]

There are two colours of tactile paving for the benefit of those with limited sight who can still detect colours. Brick red/terracotta is for controlled crossings, cream for uncontrolled.

Those who can't detect colour still get the benefit of the tactile paving offering some sort of dropped kerb (such as at side streets), and as whoever on SABRE posted this all before commented, at controlled crossings the tactile paving extends the width of the footway as a further tactile cue.

[Bryn666]

Don't always rely on the two tone distinction though - in conservation areas the requirement is merely contrasting.