That's high praise! I don't know about on the continent though 😅

We try though!

Compared to what can be done by the programming of dutch traffic signals @ontariotrafficman.bsky.social has a few good videos on the Dutch approach to signal operation.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSnS...

At the end of the day, one big difference between what you'd see done in the Netherlands vs the US has to do with how signal controllers work. North American standards makes it harder to look at conflicting pairs, we stick to more rigid Ring & Barrier setups

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZDY...

For example, crossing from SE to NE corners...
1. You cross EB lanes but can keep all other movements going.
2. You cross the WB thru and WBLT lane but can keep both EB lanes going.

Easy to do if you only have one crosswalk to time, but when you have a second it gets far more complicated.

Geometrically, the median just isn't wide enough. 8' for an arterial like this where people may also be biking isn't enough room.

From a signal timing standpoint, you could, but you would have to make the signal far more complex to do so.

No you cant have a ped crossing utilize a signal for 2/3rds of the crossing, then a reverse half signal in the middle (buses still need a protected phase). It's just too many different things going on within the same crossing to expect people to understand it.

This is generally one of the issues I see from a signal standpoint of median running buses with a separated guideway. The buses cant just use the coordinated phases, they need their own dedicated phase which adds complexity and requires very specific detection and TSP/Pre-emption to eliminate delay.

This setup would increase transit delay as now buses conflict with TWO left turn phases and a ped phase vs the same single left turn and ped phase.

It also just creates more conflict pairs that require more signal phases and longer cycles.

With this layout, you would have an 8' wide median vs the 16' one now (larger when measured along the diagonal). This does not allow for splitting the crossing and running an efficient signal. Ped delay would therefore be increased to similar to Paterson &you don't eliminate veh-ped conflicts.

Worst case scenario at Paterson is 168" (113" signal delay + 55" walk time), vs 117" total delay at Paterson (45" signal delay when dynamic max is fully engaged and walk time of 72").

Even with the added crossing distance at this Z crossing, the total corner to corner crossing time is going to be around 97" (72" walking + 25" average signal delay).

vs...

If you compare the signal delay here though to the signal just to the east at Paterson, you get shorter crossing times. Even with the ped phase recalled during the longest cycle there you have a ped delay for crossing EWA of 53" + 55" of walking time for a total time of 108"

This means you can get pretty aggressive with signal timing. Run shorter max green times for vehicles, program a somewhat coordinated ped crossing, and keep conflicts clean (so long as everyone follows routing).

The downside is that it asks pedestrians to go out of their way for some trips.

I cant quite visualize what you're saying. Madison has 4 of these "Z" crossings and a few more oddball ones like it (but operate much differently). The benefit of this design from a signal operations standpoint is you have two 2-phase signals basically. Thru & Turns+Peds.

The signal operation was then changed from running in coordination where cycles ranged 70-120" and favored vehicles, to free where we try to keep pedestrian delay <35" (unless TSP is engaged).

youtu.be/J1GC5lHOoo0?...

The old layout had an additional crosswalk from the median to the SE corner. The building owner cited safety concerns of a crosswalk where right and left turning vehicles conflicted and so that 3rd crossing was removed.

Oh...and dont think its a wooded lot...its a cornfield.

Lol, I didnt even notice that