You didn't merely criticize their design; you provided a practical and sensible solution grounded in your own experience using the trail and in pedestrian/bicycle safety design principles. As a user of that trail, I hope the town of Cheshire adopts your design to improve this intersection.
First of all, great job and you are to be commended for taking on this issue in such a serious way. I've traveled tens of thousands of miles on shared use "bike" paths, in several different cities across the western US. I've crossed roadways hundreds of times at HAWKS, along with crossing at intersections that are not marked or controlled. I've also been responsible for preparing hundreds of MUTCD signal warrant analyses for state, county and city DOTs. Here are a few comments, for what they are worth: 1) I generally do not like HAWKs signals for all the reasons you point out. Numerous times we have seen drivers blow the lights and even crash into each other one when one driver stopped and another crashed into them. I fully understand the city's engineers are trying to "get around" the MUTCD signal warrants, but the MUTCD is completely out of date and in need of a complete revamp on the approach to signals. (As a side note, in most states, a bike path meets the legal definition for a "public road", even if traffic engineers treat it differently. Under state law, an intersection of a bike path and public road would follow the rules of the road for right of way - as a bike is classed a "vehicle" in most states.) In any event, we have a well documented epidemic in the US with rising pedestrian and bicycle deaths. Something must be done about our standards. There should at least be a signal warrant for crossing shared-use paths similar to the school crossing warrant. 2) I much prefer your conventional traffic signal design. Drivers at least know what to do with a traffic light. 3) I do not like changes of direction for the bike path approaching the intersection. I have thousands of miles on a 3-wheel recumbent and even more miles on 2-wheel bikes. You need to let the cyclist look for cars, pedestrians and other cyclists when they approach, and not give them a tortuous path to contend with. Especially with cargo bikes, recumbents, etc. to consider. The cyclist are going to slow down and look, if you have signs and pavement markings, and they do not need a curving path to negotiate at the same time they are trying to avoid pedestrians on cell phones, TDF road bikers, baby strollers, and dogs on leashes. 4) I like the speed table or raised crosswalk for the cars. 5) In all cases (even with the existing design), I like the median island on the road. Median islands are not just for refuge. They provide a place for supplemental signs, and they signal drivers there is something different. Even more importantly, a median island discourages driver from going around or passing a stopped car.
Fantastic work! I'm glad you passed these along to the town, too. There seems to be a desire to increase development through this area and making it more approachable and safe for pedestrians is going to be key to that. While, as a cyclist and a local driver, I'd rather see something like the first design as I think that's the least interruptive and safest for most users, even the second option with its light (and low-cost) touches would be a huge improvement. Although I think something like this should go straight to council, I'm curious if it's best to get comments from PZ&C first.
Wow your first design is perfect! No notes, would absolutely love to see it..... That second design is very reasonable, and looks quite friendly for tactical urbanism :)
Wild that they have a *ramp* on the island that should be preventing cars from rolling over it. Loved both designs! The crossing in Arlington looks amazing and it the sign to let you know you've been detected is something I never knew I wanted but now I need it everywhere!
This is likely because of plows. In most of the northern half of the US you see this sort of things and when you do it’s usually to support plow infrastructure. A snow plow will ride up on it instead of breaking the infrastructure/plow when it’s unclear where the median begins due to snow
Great video, Adam ! Happy to see the Arlington feature, even if that signal I believe was a huge mistake to be installed and was a giant waste of money. You know how I love traffic signals, but I definitely prefer your raised table alternative, and wish that was used in Arlington as well. Overall great video though, and yes, the wait for green confirmation device is pretty awesome!
Thank you so much for this. If I had the prereq knowledge to be a Civi and I lived in your area, I would want you to be my mentor. Keep up the good work. Signed: A elec (not PEng) in Ottawa
Great work! I hope stuff like this becomes easier to build in the (near) future, and that the town puts your hard work into consideration to make the street safer for (lets be honest here) the locals on that trail who they should really be prioritizing.
One notable thing I notice about this area and the road is the amount of articulated trucks accessing the local businesses (street view only). That's why that median island has the overruns, so long truck and trailers can still navigate the area without mounting the curb, and its texture should make it uncomfortable enough that drivers who don't need it won't use it.
The gates were added, I'm sure, to slow bicyclists down. The HAWK light isn't working as designed, the cyclists were rarely stopping to press the button before crossing, in addition to the confusion with the HAWK lights for drivers that you mention. This is a very busy roadway, and I do wonder if the design of Rte. 70 there has to comply with state requirements for width of the roadway. I sat at the nearby Chinese restaurant and ate my dinner, while watching the crossing for 45 minutes and so uncounted number of violations from all types of users (pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles).
You kind of missed the elephant in the room which is this crosses a doubled-up state highway (CT-68 & Ct-70) so it was probably CT-DOT that created this monstrosity (or at least the part in the actual right-of-way). Why they put THREE state highways through the heart of Cheshire Village, I have no idea. Unfortunately the surrounding area appears to have mushroomed into a morass of single family sprawl leaving no good place for bypasses around it.
I’m well aware of the state route designation, so i also understand that getting the first design through state approvals would be a slim chance, but it’s good to push the envelope on more progressive designs after decades of cars-first thinking. The chicane gates however were installed by the town alone, and if they want to make a change to the crossing like I proposed, both the town and DOT have to be in agreement.
The current design looks like multiple iterations of "it doesn't help, so add more stuff". One much bigger issue (which seams to be a problem within the MUTCD standards) is having the road marking as a pedestrian crossing, when it really is a bicycle crossing. Here in Germany the regulation is the polar opposite: When ever cyclists are allowed to use that crossing, a bike crossing must be marked, not a pedestrian crossing. Why? Because bikes are faster so the drivers need to be more careful.
Good insight - the usual American solution at shared trail crossings is to just put a crosswalk and a “bikes dismount” sign, expecting cyclists to get off and walk across as a pedestrian. This is because it’s just not taught here how to properly design intersections for bikes, so the easy way out is to force cyclists to become pedestrians at intersections, which is not reflective of the actual cycling experience at all.
@@everydayengineering As somebody responsible for hygiene at my job, I always tell my boss: "Compliance improeves with convenience." OBVIOUSLY a solution that doesn't need cyclists to dismount just to use the crossing "properly" is not going to work...
I always hated this gated design, they say they try and stop motorcycles from using the trail but they could make a narrower shoulder and wider median.
Those gates are there to prevent bicycles from shooting out into traffic without stopping. The trail users have a stop sign. That requires them by law to stop. They can then either press the button and wait for the cross lights to activate or stop to signal the drivers with their intent to cross then proceed to cross once it is safe to do. Either way, pedestrians and bicyclists are the ones with the stop sign. NO pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run or ride into the path of a moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. Signal Intent to Cross Connecticut’s new pedestrian law also states that drivers must yield to pedestrians who signal their intent to cross the street by raising their hand toward oncoming traffic, making eye contact with a driver, or by moving any part of their body (including a wheelchair, walking stick, or other extension) into the crosswalk’s entrance.
Ok thanks for sharing some relevant laws, but in the multiple videos i’ve made on this location, it should be apparent that because the gates are so far back from the crossing, they have zero effect on people crossing without pressing the button and just create an accessibility hazard / ADA violation instead
The second variant offers no benefits to safety over the first that I can see - but it does impede throughput both on the road and the trail more. IMHO, it's definitively the worse of the two options.
A concrete stamped shoulder could help slow traffic down on the roadway, but imo the circle can be easily cut through by a speeding cyclist, or a crafty young kid looking for speed. The installed rails 100% will stop or slow down someone before they reach the road. The second design is reasonable.
In that case, the circles could be narrowed even further, say to 6’ lanes instead of 10’ as shown. The chicane gates however are not working as intended. I posted my thoughts on another site and someone who drives through here often says cyclists are still cutting across the intersection even now with the gates installed. Just as I thought, the gates placed 50’ away from the crossing may slow people down there but do nothing to fix compliance at the crossing itself.
0:50 I'm fairly sure the only group those gates are endangering are reckless cyclists that are completely disregarding any traffic and common decency rules living by the motto "I'm wearing spandex and who's more". So, no harm no foul there... 6:53 and that's where you're wrong. Not sure about cyclists across the pond, but over here, your design would allow all those wannabe Armstrongs to just fly over the entire thing in pretty much straight line, which would be further reinforced by the fact the entire crossing is now at the same level.
Your weird obsession with the specific clothing choices of cyclists aside, the fast moving cyclists are largely not using this trail, they use the road instead. There are too many walkers, runners, dogs, strollers, etc on this trail that its more for slower speed recreation only. When I was out here at the crossing, I watched an elderly person biking take the chicane very slowly and they still tipped over and lost their balance because the design is so poor and does not increase safety at all. And no, they were not wearing spandex, since you seem to care a lot about that. (We also don't need to compare people to Lance Armstrong, he's a cheater)
@@everydayengineeringI know there are federal laws around handicapped people meaning the passage has to be wider so they don’t hold up everyone else trying to get to the crossing and the other way around. In New Haven, they’re doing exactly what your concept is shown in the video. If cars can visually see they have to slow down then they will. People will break laws, I myself speed at 60mph through here when it’s clear since it’s a straight line and no bumps. And plus it’ll be cheaper to maintain a regular crossing without signals being installed. The town of Cheshire pays upkeep for this crossing and many more.
You didn't merely criticize their design; you provided a practical and sensible solution grounded in your own experience using the trail and in pedestrian/bicycle safety design principles. As a user of that trail, I hope the town of Cheshire adopts your design to improve this intersection.
First of all, great job and you are to be commended for taking on this issue in such a serious way. I've traveled tens of thousands of miles on shared use "bike" paths, in several different cities across the western US. I've crossed roadways hundreds of times at HAWKS, along with crossing at intersections that are not marked or controlled. I've also been responsible for preparing hundreds of MUTCD signal warrant analyses for state, county and city DOTs. Here are a few comments, for what they are worth: 1) I generally do not like HAWKs signals for all the reasons you point out. Numerous times we have seen drivers blow the lights and even crash into each other one when one driver stopped and another crashed into them. I fully understand the city's engineers are trying to "get around" the MUTCD signal warrants, but the MUTCD is completely out of date and in need of a complete revamp on the approach to signals. (As a side note, in most states, a bike path meets the legal definition for a "public road", even if traffic engineers treat it differently. Under state law, an intersection of a bike path and public road would follow the rules of the road for right of way - as a bike is classed a "vehicle" in most states.) In any event, we have a well documented epidemic in the US with rising pedestrian and bicycle deaths. Something must be done about our standards. There should at least be a signal warrant for crossing shared-use paths similar to the school crossing warrant. 2) I much prefer your conventional traffic signal design. Drivers at least know what to do with a traffic light. 3) I do not like changes of direction for the bike path approaching the intersection. I have thousands of miles on a 3-wheel recumbent and even more miles on 2-wheel bikes. You need to let the cyclist look for cars, pedestrians and other cyclists when they approach, and not give them a tortuous path to contend with. Especially with cargo bikes, recumbents, etc. to consider. The cyclist are going to slow down and look, if you have signs and pavement markings, and they do not need a curving path to negotiate at the same time they are trying to avoid pedestrians on cell phones, TDF road bikers, baby strollers, and dogs on leashes. 4) I like the speed table or raised crosswalk for the cars. 5) In all cases (even with the existing design), I like the median island on the road. Median islands are not just for refuge. They provide a place for supplemental signs, and they signal drivers there is something different. Even more importantly, a median island discourages driver from going around or passing a stopped car.
Fantastic work! I'm glad you passed these along to the town, too. There seems to be a desire to increase development through this area and making it more approachable and safe for pedestrians is going to be key to that. While, as a cyclist and a local driver, I'd rather see something like the first design as I think that's the least interruptive and safest for most users, even the second option with its light (and low-cost) touches would be a huge improvement. Although I think something like this should go straight to council, I'm curious if it's best to get comments from PZ&C first.
Wow your first design is perfect! No notes, would absolutely love to see it.....
That second design is very reasonable, and looks quite friendly for tactical urbanism :)
Wild that they have a *ramp* on the island that should be preventing cars from rolling over it. Loved both designs! The crossing in Arlington looks amazing and it the sign to let you know you've been detected is something I never knew I wanted but now I need it everywhere!
This is likely because of plows. In most of the northern half of the US you see this sort of things and when you do it’s usually to support plow infrastructure. A snow plow will ride up on it instead of breaking the infrastructure/plow when it’s unclear where the median begins due to snow
Great video, Adam ! Happy to see the Arlington feature, even if that signal I believe was a huge mistake to be installed and was a giant waste of money. You know how I love traffic signals, but I definitely prefer your raised table alternative, and wish that was used in Arlington as well.
Overall great video though, and yes, the wait for green confirmation device is pretty awesome!
Thanks Petru! I find myself looking to MA a lot for unique examples of roadway design and signals
Thank you so much for this. If I had the prereq knowledge to be a Civi and I lived in your area, I would want you to be my mentor. Keep up the good work.
Signed: A elec (not PEng) in Ottawa
Great work! I hope stuff like this becomes easier to build in the (near) future, and that the town puts your hard work into consideration to make the street safer for (lets be honest here) the locals on that trail who they should really be prioritizing.
I'm in Florida but going to ride this trail in two weeks. Good to learn something new about the trail
Thanks for watching and enjoy your ride!
One notable thing I notice about this area and the road is the amount of articulated trucks accessing the local businesses (street view only). That's why that median island has the overruns, so long truck and trailers can still navigate the area without mounting the curb, and its texture should make it uncomfortable enough that drivers who don't need it won't use it.
The gates were added, I'm sure, to slow bicyclists down. The HAWK light isn't working as designed, the cyclists were rarely stopping to press the button before crossing, in addition to the confusion with the HAWK lights for drivers that you mention. This is a very busy roadway, and I do wonder if the design of Rte. 70 there has to comply with state requirements for width of the roadway. I sat at the nearby Chinese restaurant and ate my dinner, while watching the crossing for 45 minutes and so uncounted number of violations from all types of users (pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles).
You kind of missed the elephant in the room which is this crosses a doubled-up state highway (CT-68 & Ct-70) so it was probably CT-DOT that created this monstrosity (or at least the part in the actual right-of-way). Why they put THREE state highways through the heart of Cheshire Village, I have no idea. Unfortunately the surrounding area appears to have mushroomed into a morass of single family sprawl leaving no good place for bypasses around it.
I’m well aware of the state route designation, so i also understand that getting the first design through state approvals would be a slim chance, but it’s good to push the envelope on more progressive designs after decades of cars-first thinking. The chicane gates however were installed by the town alone, and if they want to make a change to the crossing like I proposed, both the town and DOT have to be in agreement.
Great job explaining why you did what you did.
Question: what program are you using to do this, or is this just PS/GIMP/Paint?
Thank you, and this is AutoCAD
The current design looks like multiple iterations of "it doesn't help, so add more stuff".
One much bigger issue (which seams to be a problem within the MUTCD standards) is having the road marking as a pedestrian crossing, when it really is a bicycle crossing.
Here in Germany the regulation is the polar opposite: When ever cyclists are allowed to use that crossing, a bike crossing must be marked, not a pedestrian crossing. Why? Because bikes are faster so the drivers need to be more careful.
Good insight - the usual American solution at shared trail crossings is to just put a crosswalk and a “bikes dismount” sign, expecting cyclists to get off and walk across as a pedestrian. This is because it’s just not taught here how to properly design intersections for bikes, so the easy way out is to force cyclists to become pedestrians at intersections, which is not reflective of the actual cycling experience at all.
@@everydayengineering As somebody responsible for hygiene at my job, I always tell my boss: "Compliance improeves with convenience."
OBVIOUSLY a solution that doesn't need cyclists to dismount just to use the crossing "properly" is not going to work...
The median island I would say does only one thing: discourages drivers from even attempting an overtake near this crossing
I always hated this gated design, they say they try and stop motorcycles from using the trail but they could make a narrower shoulder and wider median.
Wow, this is a fantastic video! Nice work :)
Those gates are there to prevent bicycles from shooting out into traffic without stopping. The trail users have a stop sign. That requires them by law to stop. They can then either press the button and wait for the cross lights to activate or stop to signal the drivers with their intent to cross then proceed to cross once it is safe to do. Either way, pedestrians and bicyclists are the ones with the stop sign.
NO pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run or ride into the path of a moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
Signal Intent to Cross
Connecticut’s new pedestrian law also states that drivers must yield to pedestrians who signal their intent to cross the street by raising their hand toward oncoming traffic, making eye contact with a driver, or by moving any part of their body (including a wheelchair, walking stick, or other extension) into the crosswalk’s entrance.
Ok thanks for sharing some relevant laws, but in the multiple videos i’ve made on this location, it should be apparent that because the gates are so far back from the crossing, they have zero effect on people crossing without pressing the button and just create an accessibility hazard / ADA violation instead
The second variant offers no benefits to safety over the first that I can see - but it does impede throughput both on the road and the trail more. IMHO, it's definitively the worse of the two options.
You think that median is narrow. Take a look at the new Glastonbury Main Street median that’s being build.
A concrete stamped shoulder could help slow traffic down on the roadway, but imo the circle can be easily cut through by a speeding cyclist, or a crafty young kid looking for speed. The installed rails 100% will stop or slow down someone before they reach the road.
The second design is reasonable.
In that case, the circles could be narrowed even further, say to 6’ lanes instead of 10’ as shown. The chicane gates however are not working as intended. I posted my thoughts on another site and someone who drives through here often says cyclists are still cutting across the intersection even now with the gates installed. Just as I thought, the gates placed 50’ away from the crossing may slow people down there but do nothing to fix compliance at the crossing itself.
0:50 I'm fairly sure the only group those gates are endangering are reckless cyclists that are completely disregarding any traffic and common decency rules living by the motto "I'm wearing spandex and who's more". So, no harm no foul there...
6:53 and that's where you're wrong. Not sure about cyclists across the pond, but over here, your design would allow all those wannabe Armstrongs to just fly over the entire thing in pretty much straight line, which would be further reinforced by the fact the entire crossing is now at the same level.
Your weird obsession with the specific clothing choices of cyclists aside, the fast moving cyclists are largely not using this trail, they use the road instead. There are too many walkers, runners, dogs, strollers, etc on this trail that its more for slower speed recreation only. When I was out here at the crossing, I watched an elderly person biking take the chicane very slowly and they still tipped over and lost their balance because the design is so poor and does not increase safety at all. And no, they were not wearing spandex, since you seem to care a lot about that. (We also don't need to compare people to Lance Armstrong, he's a cheater)
@@everydayengineeringI know there are federal laws around handicapped people meaning the passage has to be wider so they don’t hold up everyone else trying to get to the crossing and the other way around. In New Haven, they’re doing exactly what your concept is shown in the video. If cars can visually see they have to slow down then they will. People will break laws, I myself speed at 60mph through here when it’s clear since it’s a straight line and no bumps. And plus it’ll be cheaper to maintain a regular crossing without signals being installed. The town of Cheshire pays upkeep for this crossing and many more.