Comment 94633

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted November 11, 2013 at 13:18:21 in reply to Comment 94632

Thanks for the references. It is true that Hamilton could be seen as a pioneer (in a positive way) in rejecting PXOs very early, and has since been followed by other municipalities.

However, the truly "nefarious" part was not so much rejecting PXOs and replacing them with safer signals (as was done in Mississauga), but removing the signs for crosswalks and leaving the pavement markings to fade. These crossings were not replaced with anything.

Neighbourhood Associations (e.g. Durand and Kirkendall) who asked for the crossings to be replaced were told that a pedestrian activated signal was not justified (because they are so expensive), but that the cheaper PXO was an unacceptable option, leaving us with no feasible alternative.

Toronto is not removing all existing PXOs and leaving the crossings un-signed, it is simply not installing new ones and upgrading some existing ones.

If Hamilton had taken the same approach with the "painted lines and signs" crosswalks at intersections, or had come up with a solution that could be feasibly implemented to replace these crosswalks then it would not have been so damaging. At the very least, they could have actively removed the decoy pavement markings.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-11-11 13:37:23

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds