| Author |
Message |
    
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 18
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 7:08 pm: | 
|
I posted about this problem a month ago. The location is at the intersection of Tuscan and Valley. There is a traffic light there and in the evening, pedestrians cross Valley onto Tuscan at the crosswalk. This is at the same time that vehicles are turning left onto Valley and the traffic light does not give enough light to allow motorists to see said pedestrians.
A simple traffic light at the crosswalk would remedy this. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6930
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 8:11 pm: |
|
If the main problem is lack of adequate lighting at that intersection, wouldn't brighter street lighting at that location be a more appropriate solution than an added traffic light? |
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 22
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Correction: I should have said street light.
JC |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4706
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Joan is right John, and I'm not sure, but I believe you can also call PSE&G directly when street lights are burnt out or not bright enough??? |
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 26
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 8:04 pm: |
|
The streetlight isn't just burned out. There isn't one.
The location needs one. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4712
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 8:20 pm: |
|
...sorry John, better try the township committee meeting first. |
hch
Citizen
Username: Hch
Post Number: 192
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 8:47 pm: |
|
The problem is that there is no delayed green for the cars turning left from Tuscan onto Valley. Cars get the green light at the same time pedestrians get the walk signal. As a result, the cars gun it and pedestrians are in their path.
Also, cars regularly run the red light traveling along Valley towards the mill. I have had to jump back onto the sidewalk several times.
This intersection is a ticking time bomb.
Another problem is that there is no law enforcement at this intersection. There should be video cameras.
"Pedestrian safety" is an oxymoron in Maplewood. |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 739
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Most definitely more light here would help. Another thing would be a pedestrian exclusive cycle. That left turn is rough, I've done it many times and it is absolutely difficult to see pedestrians crossing even if you know about it and are on the lookout for people crossing. They just don't show up till your headlights swing over to them.
And let's be clear: no law is being broken. Legal left turn with the light. Person legally crossing the street. What kind of enforcement would rectify this, I'm not sure.
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6949
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:42 pm: |
|
The law clearly states that pedestrians have the right of way in this situation. Unfortunately, pedestrians believing in this right could easily get hit by moving vehicles which are bigger (and considerably heavier) than they are. If the two meet in the crosswalk, the pedestrian is apt to suffer the far greater damage.
I like the idea of a pedestrian exclusive cycle both at that corner and at Baker and Valley (where the same problem occurs). Perhaps the cycle could be timed so that pedestrians have the exclusive right to cross Valley Street at the both intersections during the same time interval. |
mrmaplewood
Citizen
Username: Mrmaplewood
Post Number: 288
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Or better yet, rather than having a fixed timed cycle, the pedestrian crossing should be controled by a button. At other times, when no pedestrian is present, the pedestrian crossing would not activate. |
max weisenfeld
Citizen
Username: Max_weisenfeld
Post Number: 14
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 5:10 pm: |
|
There is a control button. Doesn't it cause a pedestrian exclusive cycle? |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 742
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 9:50 pm: |
|
I have never seen a pedestrian exclusive cycle there. Either the pedestrians are not using the button or it doesn't activate an exclusive cycle. I'm inclined to believe the latter. That plus better lighting would really do the trick.
|
hch
Citizen
Username: Hch
Post Number: 194
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 10:09 pm: |
|
There is a button but it performs no useful service that I have ever been able to determine. Doesn't matter if you push it, there is no pedestrian exclusive cycle at that light. |
Richard Kessler
Citizen
Username: Richiekess
Post Number: 99
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 12:28 pm: |
|
The button doesn't work, plain and simple. Have you ever tried one of those buttons in Manhattan? People press them all the time--I was at a city goverment meeting once, where the Commissioner of Transportation said that none of those buttons in NYC worked. I am sure the one at the corner of Valley and Tuscan is in that category, having tried it many times. John's issue is right on the mark. I would also add that speeding on Tuscan, overall, is a huge problem, particularly noting that it's a street that people use to get to and from the Tuscan School. I wish that something could be done about the light issue and the speeding. I know it's a rode used by emergency vehicles, so I would imagine that getting a speed bump would be hard to do. |
Ligeti
Citizen
Username: Ligeti
Post Number: 578
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 3:17 pm: |
|
Getting a light up won't alter the more fundamental problem: most NJ drivers resent the idea of a crosswalk.
Watch them. They glare at pedestrians who try to scurry across the road lawfully, fearing for their lives.
Like mice fleeing a vacuum cleaner. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6993
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 6:32 pm: |
|
This winter I noticed that the push button on the new traffic light at Valley and Oakview would freeze whenever the temperature dropped below freezing, making it impossible to depress the button which activates a walk sign on the traffic light. I don't know if this is a problem at the older traffic lights at Valley/Baker and Valley/Tuscan.
Given that pedestrians have such a low priority when it comes to traffic planning in this region, I very much doubt that any of the push button lights in town activate a pedestrian only cycle at the present time.
|
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 38
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 8:08 pm: |
|
Again, the answer is relatively simple: add a street light to the existing traffic light. |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 64
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 10:41 pm: |
|
Joan wrote:
Given that pedestrians have such a low priority when it comes to traffic planning in this region, I very much doubt that any of the push button lights in town activate a pedestrian only cycle at the present time.
Joan,
Surely an exaggeration. The new features on Springfield Ave were expressly designed to encourage pedestrians. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6995
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Eponymous:
What features are you referring to?
Walking the length of SA is not much of a problem at most crossings but crossing SA on foot with its steady, fast moving traffic and very short lights, which pedestrians share with north/south traffic and traffic making turns onto/off of SA can be quite dangerous.
If the town really wanted to give priorities to pedestrians on SA, parts of SA would be turned into a pedestrian mall during designated hours of the day but with SA's status as a major thoroughfare and Maplewoodian's dependance on motor vehicles rather than feet to get around town, this isn't about to happen.
Since more people of voting age in our town prefer to drive even short distances rather than walk, it is not surprising that the emphasis has been placed on keeping vehicular traffic moving at speed rather than favoring pedestrians.
If we really wanted to make our town more pedestrian friendly, there would be more intersections in town where right turns on red are not permitted, pedestrian only traffic light cycles at major intersections, better enforcement of sidewalk maintenance and snow removal ordinances, walking tours rather than or in addition to functions such as house tours and studio tours where the venues are so separated that driving from one to the next becomes a necessity, etc. |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 69
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 10:27 pm: |
|
Joan wrote:
What features are you referring to?
Walking the length of SA is not much of a problem at most crossings but crossing SA on foot with its steady, fast moving traffic and very short lights, which pedestrians share with north/south traffic and traffic making turns onto/off of SA can be quite dangerous.
I was referring to the bump-outs in particular, and the parking areas on both sides of SA, both of which have slowed traffic.
In the area around Prospect, it's very very easy to cross before the light changes. I've never had a problem nor would I call the lights "very short."
Imagine where the E-W traffic would go if we shut off part of SA. |
Kathy Leventhal
Citizen
Username: Kml
Post Number: 59
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 4:31 pm: |
|
There will be a traffic study this year. The funding is limited, so areas for study will be decided on a priority basis.
The study is going to involve a process by which questionnaires will go to neighborhood groups, the Transportation Advisory Committee and the Township Committee to identify locations needing attention.
Sincerely,
Kathy Leventhal
Maplewood Township Committee
973-378-9897
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12391
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 4:59 pm: |
|
How about an education program that reminds drivers that stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks is compulsory, not an option. Drivers seem to be utterly oblivious to this obligation.
I had an instructor in a Defensive Driving course say that drivers don't have to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks!
|
Spare_o
Supporter
Username: Spare_o
Post Number: 356
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Tom--I encountered some of those drivers last night trying to cross Valley at Oakland. I had the light but 3 (!!) cars turned in front of me while I was in the crosswalk, attempting to cross. I had my arms up in the air trying to make them see me but none would look my way. Each of them knew I had the right of way but didn't care.
I always exercise caution when crossing streets and am pleasantly surprised when someone takes the time to give me the right of way the law mandates.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12393
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 5:17 pm: |
|
I firmly believe that it is not that they don't care but that they do not know they are supposed to yield to pedestrians.
Oh, and I bet most drivers can't give a definition of "yield".
|
Richard Kessler
Citizen
Username: Richiekess
Post Number: 100
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 6:06 pm: |
|
my wife and I were crossing Valley, that very same intersection last Saturday, pushing our baby in a stroller. The driver waiting to make the turn was kind enough to wait for us to cross first, but of course, someone started honking at him because he was waiting for us. I do think the idea of having a delayed green for people to cross is a GREAT idea. I also think that having a button that actually works to to trigger the light to change is a great idea too. |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1659
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Tom -
Quote:How about an education program that reminds drivers that stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks is compulsory, not an option. Drivers seem to be utterly oblivious to this obligation.
YES!!! I have to cross M-F in front of Jefferson school, we have a "Yield to Pedestrian" sign, a slow school painted on the road, and a bright white crosswalk - still, every morning the cars zoom by until the police car comes and flashes lights.
I've gone out in the middle and held up my hand and it usually takes 3 or 4 cars before anyone stops.
It's time to start issuing warnings for a month and next tickets with fines and points.
I really don't understand why we aren't enforcing the laws that are on the books now.
Racing through school zones at 40MPH is the rule, not the exception in front of Jefferson.
Pull a few drivers over and hand out tickets and I'm sure things will improve for pedestrians.
|
Spare_o
Supporter
Username: Spare_o
Post Number: 357
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Thanks for tuning in folks for tonight's latest installment of Crossing Valley!
This episode begins as Spare_o steps off the curb at Oakland to cross Valley after leaving Memorial Park. She notices out of the corner of her eye a vehicle pulling out of the gas station. Spare_o had the light to cross the street. I don't care what kind of excuse you concoct, that driver didn't have the right of way to pull out of the gas station, cross Oakland, essentially over the crosswalk and turn onto Valley but that was what the driver was going to do. The driver hit the accelerator which is when Spare_o turned her head. At that point, the car was coming very generally from over her left shoulder. Something made Spare_o stop and something made the driver stop. Thankfully. After it was clear the driver didn't have a change of heart, Spare_o proceeded to cross the street.
Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of Crossing Valley...good night! |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7006
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 5:08 pm: |
|
I frequently have the same problem at the corner of Valley and Oakview (though the new traffic light has helped a great deal --thanks TC!). Yesterday afternoon I started crossing with the light (using a walking stick since the road was still somewhat wet and slushy). A motorist turning from Oakview to Valley (coming from the direction of the train station) decided to try and make her turn before I got far enough into the intersection to impacted. Unfortunately her car hit my walking stick as her car sped past me through the crosswalk. (No! She did not stop! I doubt she even noticed the impact!)
Fortunately, the motorist didn't hit ME and walking stick (which is quite sturdy) was undamaged but this incident was still quite unsettling.
What is the sense of having a new and very expensive traffic light at that intersection if pedestrians are still denied the opportunity to cross safely when they have the right of way?
I would strongly suggest that the TC consider that pedestrian exclusive intervals be programed into the traffic lights at intersections where this is a chronic problem.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12565
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 5:11 pm: |
|
I'm shaking my head, Joan. That's amazing.
|
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3158
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 5:20 pm: |
|
No defense at all of the driver's actions, but it would be nice if the signal cycle gave the Oakview vehicle traffic a few more seconds to get through or didn't take quite so long to turn green. It is a pretty oppressive cycle to wait through. Worst is when you are driving down the hill and see it green and know that you will get there just as it goes back to red.
(I'm still glad for the traffic light, but it is on my list of things that are "a blessing and a curse".) |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7008
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 5:32 pm: |
|
SAC:
That is of course the problem in a nutshell. Traffic lights along Valley Street aren't really timed to allow both pedestrians and turning vehicles to make it through the intersection with the light in their favor during the same interval. This encourages motorists to take chances (that they might hit a pedestrian for example) which they wouldn't otherwise take. A longer interval for cross traffic would be better than what we have now but I believe that a pedestrian exclusive interval would be safer for all concerned as long as motorists didn't try to turn on red during the interval intended for the exclusive use of pedestrians.
Note: It should be possible to program traffic lights so that such an interval would only become active either at certain times during the day when pedestrian traffic is greatest and/or upon activation by a working push button. |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3160
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 6:12 pm: |
|
I have to confess - sometimes when I'm waiting for that light (in my car), I'm tempted to get out of the car and push the button ... in hopes that it will speed things up! I don't know if it would make a difference or not.
I would also support a pedestrian-exclusive period. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7009
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 6:24 pm: |
|
It doesn't speed things up. All that pushing the button does is activate the pedestrian's walk sign during the cross street interval. Light turns green for the cross street vehicular traffic either way. Pushing the button doesn't seem to extend the duration of the cross traffic cycle either. |
Richard Kessler
Citizen
Username: Richiekess
Post Number: 103
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 7:01 pm: |
|
I have pressed that button many times, on Valley and Tuscan, and am SURE that it does not work. In an earlier post I had relayed a story from the Commissioner of Transportation in NYC, who said that none of those buttons in New York City worked, at all. I am sure that's the case for the one at Valley and Tuscan. And yes, it is true that the time alloted for people to cross Valley and for cars to turn on to Valley from Tuscan, in this case, is too short. |
hch
Citizen
Username: Hch
Post Number: 206
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 11:38 pm: |
|
The time allotted for people to cross isn't too short, it's non-existent.
The button does not work, period.
Someday, a pedestrian will be hit at this intersection. |
A. Pessoa
Citizen
Username: Pessoa
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 3:11 pm: |
|
I walk along Valley every day to and from work. I'd say 5% of the time I have to take evasive action to avoid being run over by cars making reckless and illegal turns. I have actually been hit twice (fortunately at low speed) by cars not watching out for pedestrians while turning onto Valley from the streets between Baker and Rynda. It's really just a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt. There's also a quality of life issue. What should be a pleasant walk becomes a survival training course.
The pedestrian-exclusive periods discussed above seem like a very good idea. More generally, though, the speed limit on Valley needs to be enforced. If we could bring speeds down even to the current legal limit, then drivers would have less reason to take those manic turns. The police seem to be completely oblivious to the speeding, red-light running, and illegal turning that goes on under their noses. Reckless drivers have to made to feel that they're at risk, too (even if only financially), when they bully pedestrians out of the way. Can we please get some traffic enforcement on Valley? New rules aren't going to achieve anything unless they're better enforced than the current ones. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7256
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 4:49 pm: |
|
More than one pedestrian in the section you refer to has been seriously injured as a result of trying to cross Valley Street. This was one of the reasons why the new traffic light was put up at the corner of Oakview Avenue and Valley Street. The traffic lights seem to have slowed down much of the traffic on Valley Street but traffic moving along the intersecting streets trying to beat the very short green lights for vehicles crossing Valley Street remains a problem. |
Richard Kessler
Citizen
Username: Richiekess
Post Number: 106
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 11:32 pm: |
|
Valley is a huge problem. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page