4 Perspectives on Culver-Overland Intersection
Ideas Rejected
At first, Mr. O’Leary suggested to the City Council extending the crossing interval.
When that was rejected, he suggested erecting signs to warn oncoming traffic of the hazard.
That, too, was rejected.
Councilperson Carol Gross then asserted that there was no problem because there were median islands where pedestrians could stop and wait if the signal light changes too son for them.
Mr. O’Leary and I decided to do some research, and here are our findings.
The facts are:
- The traffic signals are currently set for a 27-second crossing interval, sufficient for an able-bodied adult to cross safely, but not enough for a handicapped senior.
- There are no median islands on Overland near the intersection.
- The median islands on Culver Boulevard do not extend to the pedestrian crosswalks..
- The Culver Boulevard median islands do not have the handicapped ramps needed for wheelchairs.
- The Culver Boulevard median islands do not have the traffic signal buttons needed for interrupted crossings.
- The Culver Boulevard median islands are very narrow, 46 inches, not enough to accommodate more than a few pedestrians.
It seems that our city has several choices:
- Do nothing, as several City Council members have advocated, and hope there will never be a tragedy.
- Erect signs to warn oncoming traffic, and hope drivers will react appropriately.
- Add new median islands to Overland, widen those on Culver, and include handicapped ramps and traffic buttons on both.
- Extend the crossing time allocated when our traffic signals are next resynchronized.
What do you think makes the most sense?
