Comment 94683

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted November 12, 2013 at 16:03:31 in reply to Comment 94677

It is true that much of the blame goes to the recommended standards in the various traffic manuals, although this is distinct from the actually HTA which DOES say that drivers must yield to pedestrians crossing at uncontrolled intersections (and that pedestrians must ensure that motorists have time to come to a safe stop before starting to cross). The HTA also defines "undelineated" crosswalks at every intersection, although motorists and the manual tend to forget this.

The Pedestrian Traffic Manual does not help as it clearly prioritizes vehicle flow over pedestrians, as shown by the 200m rule and pedestrian volumes. The pedestrian volume rule is particularly bizarre as it does not make sense to assess potential demand from actual demand at a location where the city actively advises pedestrians not to cross.

However, in the past (this seems to be changing) the city has been inconsistent in following the Manuals: they applied standards rigidly when it came to limiting pedestrian facilities, while being rather lax or experimental in other ways.

For example, Barry Wellar of the University of Ottawa was shocked when he observed that almost no intersections had stop bars painted at stop signs in the Durand. The city also pioneered pedestrian activated traffic signals before these were in the Manuals, but then decided these expensive and non-standard devices would be the only ones they would install, instead of the usual PXOs. Because they are so expensive they were almost never installed.

There is also the fact that when the Durand Neighbourhood Association accepted the City's offer to co-host an 8-80 Cities workshop on improving walking facilities the Traffic Department refused to even respond to the resulting report by 8-80 with a list of recommended changes until our Councillor finally forced them, months later. The final response was to reject every last recommendation, even those Gil Penalosa called "petunias": simple low cost short term measures.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...

Eventually, they said they might be able to consider increasing parking on some arterial streets, at least during certain times of day, to provide a buffer to pedestrians. Again, there was no response, until after much reminding, months later we were told that, after carefully examining the matter, they determined that due to traffic volume there was not a single location in the Durand were parking could be increased, even off-peak! The fact that buffers have recently been introduced on Bay Street, near Central School shows this was not true.

In contrast with other municipalities, in Hamilton pedestrian crossings at unsignalized intersections were simply removed rather than being replaced or upgraded.

And, as I keep saying, the fact the painted crosswalks were left to fade rather than being removed is appalling negligence. There is also no excuse for setting pedestrian activated traffic lights to provide "minimal service" after spending $150k to install them after telling residents asking for a crosswalk that it was the only approved solution.

I am very happy that things are changing for the better, but until recently the pattern was one of obstruction, refusal to compromise and rigid adherence to policy when it suited the purpose of denying upgrades for pedestrians. This should not be glossed over.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-11-12 16:06:56

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds