I was walking in Portland today and noticed a couple of button activated crosswalks that would give the crosswalk light about 5 seconds before the parallel-straight&turning traffic got the green light. Not enough time to cross 4 lanes of traffic+2 bike lanes+median, but enough to get a good start crossing.

I think the idea is to make pedestrians more visible to turning traffic, and not allow cars to try to sneak in front of them. Probably effective.

I'm trying to think if a similar control would help with right turns across bike lanes.
It might help for those bikes stopped at the light, but might be more dangerous for those cyclists that arrive at the intersection at full speed just as the light is changing.

Nonetheless, it seemed like an interesting concept.

Montreal has this, I think it is a longer delay though. I think it is a great idea and I appreciated it both as a driver and pedestrian.

They need to increase the walk time. If there is no concrete divider. That a pedestrian could stand on in the middle of the traffic. A pedestrian would be really risking their life, trying to cross there.

Oregon's crosswalk laws are pretty specific that a car must give pedestrians about a lane and a half of space, and drivers are pretty good about it. I'll try to quote later. Thus getting a pedestrian into the middle of the road and they essentially control the entire crossing.

Carlsbad California uses an all red walk phase. All motor traffic has to stop in all directions, then peds can cross any way they want. Totally eliminates the right on red potential problems.

The OP is talking about a leading pedestrian interval. You are talking about an exclusive pedestrian interval. See Chapter 4E.

Neither "totally eliminates" uneducated and uncaring drivers of our fair city from failing to yield to a pedestrian. Think about it for a moment. You are giving far too much credence to a sign that far too many drivers ignore.

Four words.

-mr. bill

There was one particular major street here in Phoenix that did the same. I reported it to the traffic department and indicated if as a healthy active individual who could not make it across before the light changed to red, how could they expect an elderly frail or handicapped person to make it. I received two replies, the first to say they would check it out and the second to say the light was functioning normally. Go figure.

OK sure, the only real solution is to have special bridges for peds to cross... 'cause you know, we just cannot trust those folks behind the wheel... no matter what. Oh wait, never mind, I almost forgot, some drivers just go right up on sidewalks to get to the peds.

That sounds a little confusing to me, why make it more complex?. It seems the traffic wizards are just trying to adapt to people's misbehaviors (not paying attention) rather than enforcing current regulations. I'd just rather see both go 'green' at the same time so drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists all know its green. Keep it simple and enforce current traffic traffic regulations.

Crossing tunnels are popular in Europe and other parts of the world. Many are associated with subways, but not all of them.

I can think of 2 pedestrian crossing bridges over roads here in Eugene. One near South Eugene HS, and one over the freeway, but they are rare.

Hobart has this at several intersections.

The Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) helps put people crossing the road in a better position to be seen by drivers, much like taking the lane by cyclists. LPI's are combined with concurrent pedestrian phasing - you don't have a need for an LPI if you have exclusive phasing. LPI's give a person a head start when crossing so that drivers making a right turn can better see the people on foot.

Concurrent phasing helps reduce the amount of time between pedestrian phases so that pedestrians aren't tempted as much to cross against the light. FHWA studies show that concurrent phasing is no more unsafe than exclusive phasing.

Crossing times in the U.S. are dictated by the American's with Disabilities act (ADA) as 3.5' per second. Of course, this is very frequently ignored by those programming the signals.

Exclusive pedestrian phases are exactly that, all the traffic lights turn red and people on foot are allowed to cross. While simple, it does lead to much longer phases. If the walk phase doesn't come around every 60 seconds or less, people tend to cross anytime they have a break in traffic. This is why many pedestrian advocacy organizations try to get concurrent phasing wherever possible.

Of course, having pedestrian crossing lights that are on automatic recall (the crosswalks get a walk signal once every signal phase) is very important so that people can sometimes get a walk signal just as they approach the crosswalk, just like people in cars. Having to press a beg button to get a walk light means that people on foot nearly always have to wait more than a few seconds for a walk signal.

Protected intersection design does much the same as a Leading Pedestrian Interval except that people on foot and on bike get a start in space, not time.

Great summary.
As far as giving a crossing light with every signal cycle. Often the signal cycles are shorter than the crosswalk cycles. Often I can't get across the street on my bike during left turn signal cycles. But, there are traffic flow considerations to not always give a walk signal, especially on wide streets.

One thing I'd like to see in a few places is no matter what, always give a signal countdown even if there isn't enough time for a full walk cycle. At speed, I can get across a crossing in about 2 seconds (less if a yellow light sequence is added to the countdown). Even stopped, maybe 5 or 6 seconds. Legal or not, as a pedestrian I can also judge whether I can safely cross within a given time. We've got a median strip MUP crossing. The buttons are a pain to get to, and it never gives a walk unless the buttons are pressed. My rule is if I see traffic on both sides of me have a green, then there is no cross or turning traffic (at that time), so I'll just go.