In-road Pedestrian Sign Needed

I was thinking that you could some sort of reflective temporary bollard in the solid white line that divides the two travel lanes on Temple for about 20 feet leading up to the intersection, and at the end of a series of reflective bollards you could then place a in-street pedestrian road sign. I would also suggest that some paint be addded to the lanes of travel leading up to the crosswalk with arrows for left/straight in the left lane and an arrow for straight-only in the right lane.

I saw this in NJ I think -

The city's policy is that in street signs cannot be placed on one-way streets.

acknowledged 2 years ago- what progress has been made. the usual NOTHING.

I was walking by this intersection around 9:30am (5/23/2011) this morning--Yale graduation day!-- and saw a bunch of emergency vehicles. It looked like it might have been a pedestrian or cyclist hit. It wasn't 100% clear. But as this and other SCF posts attest to, at the very least an in-street pedestrian sign is desperately-needed here. Drivers simply are not yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk here. People have been reporting this problem here for years. It's time to do something to make this intersection safer!

Mark, I am in Timothy Dwight College, remember? And we do have a brand new master. I suppose he’ll probably be interested in this.

Does anyone have a connection to the Master of the adjacent dormitories, or to any companies based near Wall and Church, whose constituents use the intersection frequently? I'm wondering how this can be moved along. I know it will be raised within the university at a higher administrative level, at some point, but it would be good to see a resolution sooner than that.

Curb extensions would definitely be my preferred solution; beacons are just something that could be implemented in a matter of months rather than years. If the city somehow ended up with enough money, I would recommend a signal coordinated with Grove and Elm Streets like what we have on Church. In a downtown area like this, having signals spaced closer to together is actually good in the sense that it makes it possible to time the lights for slower speeds.

I'd be interested in a meeting if you set one up, Brian. Though I think traffic calming would be more cost-effective than a beacon system, and also more effective at reducing risk.

Perhaps the issue also could be brought to the attention of Elm City Cycling or Bike Walk Connecticut.

If we want to reduce risks of death by 90% or more, we need to consider some more serious measures on major walking routes like these.

It looks like the 2009 MUTCD has provisions for Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4f.htm

These would be even better than rectangular rapid flash beacons!

I vote that we meet with the city to have them put in a budget request and/or grant proposal for Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons for this location. An engineering study may be necessary. The guidelines for such a study are laid out in Chapter 4F of the 2009 MUTCD, as are design standards and guidelines for the beacons.

Pedestrian-activated rapid flash beacons installed on the yellow diamond crosswalk signs are the most well-established measure for addressing the rear-end collision issue.

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons have been granted interim approval by the Federal Highway Administration to be used for this purpose:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/ia11_rrfb_iapmemo.pdf

The most widely used systems are manufactured by Spot Devices:
http://www.spotdevices.com/index.html

I agree, BUT, when I stop for peds here, I just hold my breath and half-expect to get rear-ended. People drive so impatiently here, and for what? An in-street sign would help, because then maybe the next set of cars would be more prepared to stop and not risk an accident.

It looks like someone just got rear-ended after stopping for a pedestrian.

People need to learn to lay off the accelerator in urban areas.