"Dave Liney" wrote in message ...
"umpston" wrote in message
om...

I am aware of examples where a diagonal crossing has
been considered but rejected because this additional crossing time
would result in unacceptable traffic queues. Obviously this means the
(orthagonal) pedestrian crossing route is longer - but who cares about
them!

The planners would appear to have cared about pedestrians because the
considered the diagonal option.

..... and rejected it - in the case I was referring to

There are places where having traffic queuing at one set of lights will back
up to the point where it interferes with other junctions. Which could then
spread and help no-one. All junction timings are a balancing act, sometimes
pedestrians are prioritised, other times road traffic. I'd prefer traffic
and pedestrian flows to be optimised rather than dogmatically choosing one
over the other.

I agree absolutely. Diagonal crossings are only likely to be feasible
where either traffic is light enough or where the road is wide enough
for multi-lane approaches long enough to reduce potential traffic
queuing problems (generally the wider the approaches, the more
vehicles will get through the junction in the same length of time).
There is, of course, another trade-off here between the traffic
queuing-time saved by having wider roads versus the additional time
needed for pedestrians to cross them.

Limited road-width is another reason why diagonal crossings are less
likely to be found in this country. We tend to have narrower roads in
our urban areas.