(07-19-2021, 05:01 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Why does it being "still a train" mean anything. It's still a large motor vehicle, sure...like I said, anyone who is more afraid of our LRVs which operate on a fixed guideway by careful conscientious operators than a much more powerful pickup operated by random and erratic people is not rationally evaluating risk.
Also, it isn't a train, but that's just a pedantic issue, but in other ways, it isn't, it has performance characteristics at those speeds more similar to large vehicle than a train.
As for your highlighting of "be"...maybe highlight "feel" instead, that's where I agree, it should be better in that regard. I am arguing it feels unsafe, but actually is fairly safe...a rarity on our roads.
And you misunderstand the situation, on channelized turns in our region the signal button is ALSO on the post on the island, meaning one must cross the uncontrolled crosswalk to get to the island to push the button. It's exactly the same situation as here.
Omfg...WRC, tell me I'm not the only one finding this hilarious? The most cynical and evangelical, pro-bike, anti-car user on the forum is now saying pedestrians should just suck up poor infrastructure design and that it's pedantic to worry about train tracks in the middle of a pedestrian crossing? Lmao...are you just trolling? It's a train, not "another motor vehicle"...get real. At basically every other intersection, you push that button and expect traffic (all motor vehicles, yeah?) to yield to the pedestrian. I don't care whether or not some obscure rule says otherwise, that's what people expect. You push the beg button, you expect a walk signal and to walk across the street before you are expected to yield to a car or a damn entire train. If you're going to force pedestrians to cross that section of tracks to press a button, then make it safe for them. They built a crossing and added gates near Traynor Ave, after all.
This is a horrifically designed intersection and if you can't see that, shut up already, you have nothing but bad takes on infrastructure. I have a masters degree in architecture/planning and this is seriously one of the weirdest things I've ever seen and it's obviously problematic. The solution to this is so basic it should have been included in the initial design. IDK how this got approved to be honest. I am sure if a bicyclist gets run over here at some point you'll be crying about it for days.