[sustran] Re: Pelicans, puffings and Gap Actuated Ped Xing!

[Mohsin.Sarker at roads.vic.gov.au]

Hello,

When I was a masters course student in Utsunomiya University, Japan, I
undertook a research work on "Gap Actuated Pedestrian Crossing" using a
micro-simulation model (NETSIM / CORSIM). I presented this paper in TRB
Annual meeting in Washington DC in 1999 available at
http://trb.metapress.com/content/v616m73344u47217/. This research work
addresses some of the issues at the pedestrian crossing indicated in the
previous discussion.

Abstract of the paper:
A main concern with pedestrian crossings is the time that pedestrians are
expected to wait before a traffic light changes. Pushbutton signal systems
are mainly set to accommodate vehicular flow efficiency, and the interval
for pedestrians to cross the street remains the same even if no vehicles
are on the road or if there is a long gap between oncoming vehicles.
Pedestrians often cross the road against the go-ahead pedestrian signal
when they perceive an acceptable vehicular gap, sometimes even after
pressing the pushbutton. Vehicles must stop even if no pedestrian is
waiting to cross the street. This study examined a gap-actuated pushbutton
signal via a traffic simulation model. The results show a substantial
decrease in pedestrian waiting time with negligible effects on vehicular
flow.

If anyone interested to get a copy of full paper, please don't hesitate to
send me an email.


Kind Regards,


Dr Mohsin Sarker
Snr Traffic & Transport Engineer
Traffic Operations - Central
VicRoads Metropolitan North West Region
499 Ballarat Road, Sunshine 3030
T (03) 9313 1154
F (03) 9313 1175
E mohsin.sarker at roads.vic.gov.au
W www.vicroads.vic.gov.au


                                                                                                                            
  From:       "Craig Townsend" <townsend at alcor.concordia.ca>                                                                
                                                                                                                            
  To:         "Ian Perry" <ianenvironmental at googlemail.com>                                                                 
                                                                                                                            
  Cc:         sustran-discuss <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>                                                            
                                                                                                                            
  Date:       15/07/2010 02:45 AM                                                                                           
                                                                                                                            
  Subject:    [sustran] Re: Pelicans and puffings - thanks!                                                                 
                                                                                                                            
  Sent by:    sustran-discuss-bounces+mohsin.sarker=roads.vic.gov.au at list.jca.apc.org                                       
                                                                                                                            




Ext:                               Business Area:
Fax:                               Internet:
File Name:             File Description:
This email is from an external source. If it is a Business Record remember
to file it by selecting 'File as Business Record' from the EMS menu option
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                                                                            
                                                                            



Ian, Kanthi and others,

I wasn't so much offended as amused by my confusion regarding the pelicans
and the puffins.

Following up on Ian's comment, I live in a Canadian city (Montreal) where
there is widespread jay-walking, drivers almost never stop at zebra
crossings (I live next to one and in three years I've witnessed perhaps 10
cars stopping and the majority of those had US license plates so weren't
locals), and there is a fair amount of "running red" traffic lights,
although paradoxically there is a prohibition on right turns on red and
people obey the latter. I used to live in a Canadian city (Vancouver)
where pedestrians wait for lights even when there are no cars, motorists
will stop for a zebra crossing even if there is someone in the vicinity
and it's not clear whether or not they will use it, and drivers are very
attentive to the traffic signals. However, there are as far as I know no
appreciable differences in levels of traffic fatalities or accidents when
one factors in the quantity of driving (more in Vancouver, less in
Montreal). Also opinion as to which is better is divided, even among the
transport experts.

This would be a good subject for a study as to why. I would guess that
it's because the driver training and licensing are similar, as are the
laws concerning the results of accidents. If you injure or kill someone
and were acting illegally, the punishment can be severe and there is no
consideration of one's social standing. In a recent high profile case, the
former Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario had an altercation with
a cyclist and in the events that followed the cyclist who was extremely
drunk and belligerent was killed. The former high official had to face
charges which were eventually dropped only because evidence apparently
exonerated him of wrong-doing. The police did not give him any special
treatment and in the end his career has been damaged by the incident. He
also apparently feels very badly about the whole thing and apologized to
members of the family of the cyclist.

My observation after living in Bangkok for a number of years was that
traffic laws are applied as a money making scheme for a large contingent
of poorly paid traffic police required to provide money to their
superiors, and that in the worst case people who have injured someone make
some relatively small payments to the victim who is invariably poor.
Attempts by the wealthy (such as the family of an American killed by a
Bangkok bus in the 1990s) to follow legal proceedings for redress are
invariably pointless. Furthermore, motorists who may have killed someone
while doing nothing wrong will also be required to admit guilt and make
the payment.

It may sound ethnocentric, but I do feel that a basic problem is the lack
of universal human and legal rights and the rule of law in many developing
countries. All this is to say that pelicans and puffins may have limited
utility in the absence of other basics. But we do always have to start
somewhere. A former traffic official and engineer from Taipei told me some
years ago that things began to turn around there when they removed
pedestrian overpasses (they appealed in the media to notions of respect
for elders who would have to climb those monstrosities) at the same time
as they followed traffic police with TV cameras to ensure that they were
doing their jobs in enforcing laws without bribes.

Apologies for my long posting.

Craig




> How do the English English names, Pelican Crossing, Puffin Crossing and
> Chicken Crossing, and are known to millions of people in the UK and
India,
> cause so much upset on this forum?
>
> The original question referred to the possibility of installing pelican
> crossings (pedestrian crossings on streets, controlled by traffic lights)
> in
> Hyderabad, India.
>
> I live in a wonderful UK city where there are traffic lights, many with
> pedestrian crossing facilities on almost every street.  I watch people
> live
> their lives sat stationary in cars waiting for it to be their turn to
> drive
> their car past the green light as fast as possible.  Only sometimes does
> this result in an "accident".
>
> Meanwhile, pedestrians don't want to walk to the nearest crossing, but
> cross
> where they are, taking the shortest route - even if this means climbing
> over
> guardrails.  If pedestrians do use the crossings with traffic lights,
> often
> they cross before the green light is shown to them.  So England and the
> rest
> of the UK has spent millions of pounds on pedestrian lights that people
> don't use!  Even Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, has realised
> the folly of having so many traffic lights!
>
> In the Netherlands and UK, we are spending money to remove pedestrian
> crossings and other sets of traffic lights - so is it so wrong of me to
> suggest denying pedestrian crossings with traffic lights to those in
> countries that have not realised for themselves the perils of such
> expensive
> technological solutions to traffic?
>
> Traffic lights treat the symptoms of the chaos on our streets, and not
the
> causes.  The causes include the inappropriate vehicles we are using - and
> the expectation that people should use them to access services and
> facilities.
>
> In most parts of the world people do mostly obey traffic lights, though
> the
> colour blind, tired and distracted sometimes fail to stop, hitting those
> who
> assumed that they could use the junction safely due to a green light in
> their direction.  This is not the case in all places, including Italy and
> Spain!  Motorists in these countries frequently ignore traffic lights -
> rather like Parisian motorists ignore the existence of pedestrians on
> marked
> pedestrian crossings - at least that was my perception.
>
> What India has (minus the rubbish/garbage/trash) is what many in Europe
> want
> our streets to be like.  Would these roadsides be cleaner if it was not
> for
> the traffic making the space uncomfortable for people?
>
> Rather than make Hyderabad resemble LA - just as peak oil arrives, and
> most
> of the word realise that LA is a mistake...  better solutions are
> required.
>
>
>>From what I've seen of Hyderabad on YouTube...  Would narrowing the
> carriageways and removing larger vehicles be possible?  Larger vehicles
> include larger private vehicles, goods vehicles and buses...  Buses kill
> too
> many people, especially in India!  Trams are much safer, as their
movement
> is predictable... and trams can carry goods.  Smaller goods vehicles or
> restricting goods vehicles to certain times could be an option - and
> freight
> consolidation could work in India?
>
> Traffic lights and restricting pedestrians to specified crossings are not
> the answer - pedestrians have the right to the whole street - and this
> means
> crossing where it is convenient for them - otherwise they'll get into a
> car
> instead...
>
> "Jay" walking is a good activity - though I know this will upset some
> people!
>
>
>
> Best wishes to all
>
> Ian Perry
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit

>


-------------------------------------------------
Craig Townsend, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Geography, Planning and Environment
Concordia University

Tel       514-848-2424 ext. 5191
E-mail    townsend at alcor.concordia.ca
Fax       514-848-2032

1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West, H 1255-27
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8

gpe.concordia.ca
www.concordia.ca


--------------------------------------------------------
To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss

--------------------------------------------------------
If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to
http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real
sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.

================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South').




DISCLAIMER

The following conditions apply to this communication and any attachments: VicRoads reserves all of its copyright; the information is intended for the addressees only and may be confidential and/or privileged - it must not be passed on by any other recipients; any expressed opinions are those of the sender and not necessarily VicRoads; VicRoads accepts no liability for any consequences arising from the recipient's use of this means of communication and/or the information contained in and/or attached to this communication. If this communication has been received in error, please contact the person who sent this communication and delete all copies.