Raise the Hammer

> The whole point of installing an expensive, high-end signalized crosswalk is to provide a high level of service to pedestrians. Why on earth would we spend the money and then cripple them with operational decisions that undermine their function?

Public Works seems to have a knack for finding the most expensive solution to the simplest problems. I'm still not sure how knockdown-sticks, signs, rubber bumpers, and paint managed to cost over a million dollars on Cannon.

Public Works staff have a knack for being inept in most scenarios that don't involve adding lanes or smoothing out a curve for faster speeds. There are people in public works that try their darnedest to give cycling and walking a leg up in design, but there are maybe 1-4 of them out of a department of hundreds of people. A bike lane isn't sexy to most engineers, something that's big, costs big bucks, and lets people drive fast is.

That's my perception from working within government anyways.

You are forgetting the traffic signals that they had to install for the cyclists travelling east bound.

I've lived in this neighbourhood for over a decade, and have had no problems with this signal. A average delay of 26 seconds is reasonable.

I have been a pedestrian/public transit user my whole life. I don't do it once in a while, I don't walk to work on nice days because it's good for me and the environment. I do it every day, rain, snow or shine. 30 below or 40 above. And you know what? After my 40 minute walk home tonight I realized something. Not once that I can remember, not EVER have I felt inconvenienced by a bloody crosswalk as a pedestrian. Not. One. Single. Time.

Here's a news flash. Drivers aren't evil. Neither is the idea that our city isn't a gridlocked mess like Toronto.

considering Hamilton's abysmal pedestrian injury/fatality rate, count your lucky stars. Apologies on behalf of everyone working to improve Hamilton's status as the 2nd most dangerous city in Ontario for pedestrians for subjecting you to this article. We'll try to be more considerate in the future.

Strawman much? No one said drivers are evil. You seem awful defensive about driving for someone who claims to walk in Hamilton.

Reread the article. It's a common theme here, there's no "claiming" about it. I walk, I bus, I don't drive. My fiancee does but I don't.

I'm just tired of the things I constantly see, the self proclaimed experts. The fact that an accident happens on Main and it's because it's a race track, the very same week there were two other single car accidents without any mention at all. Why? Because they weren't on the "race track". People that live on the mountain disagreeing with me about Main Street when I actually live ON Main. Photos of King Street at 10:40am going "ooooh look at the wasted space" but no discussion of the exact same street at 8am or 5pm. Pictures of bike racks full on a 14 degree October day as if it somehow proves a point.

It's very one sided and if you dare disagree you get called "strawman" or veiled allusions that some how you're lying.

If you want people to take you seriously, act like you actually give a shit about balance and quit being experts on things you don't really do. Getting out of your car and onto your $3,000 bicycle when the weather is nice isn't buying you any real credit.

If you really have nothing better to do than rant that you had to wait a WHOLE CYCLE to cross the street, you need to rethink your priorities. Not one person I know that actually walks anywhere bitches about crosswalks. But then if I actually personally knew anyone that would whine about something so utterly trivial I probably wouldn't hang around with them anyway.

I'm just tired of the things I constantly see, the self proclaimed experts.

What, do we need a degree in 'crossing the street' to know how a pedestrian crossing should function?

If he doesn't have a B.A. in street crossing maybe that means that we can ignore him??

On topic - Hamilton as a whole is incredibly dismal for anything other than a car. Just because it doesn't bother you on your walk to work doesn't make it great planning. Hamilton will continue to be the basket case of the GTHA as even Mississauga begins to move towards removing lanes from major roads over the next decade as they move to truly urbanize their City Centre. Meanwhile Hamilton is stuck in the failed 1960s planning ideology that eviscerated the city centre half a century ago.

Amen. I lived downtown for years, my wife much longer than me, and we never felt put out by having to wait for a light to change to cross the street. We were one block over, at John and Charlton, and all along John there are pedestrian buttons which don't speed the lights. Would it have been nice sometimes? Sure. Other times, I could care less. I tended to go down Catherine if I was in a rush since there aren't any lights between Charlton until you hit the train tracks, then again there are no lights till Main. It's such a lie on this site that everything MUST be pedestrian-centric in this city at all times.

Great to know I can count on you adding your signature to a new petition asking the city to skip entire green light cycles when 3 or fewer cars are at a red light waiting to cross.

I've also lived in this neighbourhood for years and routinely used it as both a daily pedestrian and occasional driver. This intersection is really not a major concern for us, and the city is correct: the amount of foot traffic is light. Both the intersections at Bold and Charlton have more foot traffic due to their proximity to public transit stops, the hospital, etc.

Whether the foot traffic is light or not seems irrelevant to me. If the city is going to install a crosswalk, they should make it work properly - if foot traffic is light, it means that barely anyone will be inconvenienced by it, but those who do walk will experience a properly functioning cross walk.

Not sure someone with this level of common sense is allowed to live in Hamilton....

Nothing but complaining, sarcasm and negativity from you. Why don't you take your taxes to Burlington?

I've also been living in this area for 5 years and have never had a problem with this intersection as a pedestrian. Frankly, the traffic on James South is slow enough already. This is by no means a "deformed crosswalk", it serves the neighbourhood well.

Tell me again where anyone says drivers are evil, right no one says that, you're just ranting. Crosswalks that don't work are dumb. Walk signs that don't light up unless you push the button are dumb. Imagine if we made drivers lean out and push a button to make the light turn green, that would be dumb. That's what we're making walkers do. Crosswalks with buttons that don't do anything are dumb. You're just teaching people not to respect traffic signals. Crosswalks that take too long to change are dumb. You end up jaywalking and then the light changes and cars have to stop even though no one's there anymore. That's dumb. You ask why not just wait? How about why not just make it work properly? Whether the light changes after 40 seconds or 10 seconds, it still changes and cars still have to stop. You're making walkers wait for nothing. That's dumb. So I don't think drivers are evil, I think the way we build our streets is dumb. And I think it's weird that you walk everywhere but get so angry at people who just want to make it safer and easier to walk.

How about why not just make it work properly?

I think this is the key --- it takes absolutely no more effort or money to build it right than it does to build it wrong in this case, and the only difference in actual operation would be that it works for pedestrians versus not. Why shouldn't we be upset that the city is spending money and staff time building things that don't work for absolutely no reason?

oh for crying out loud. Yes, "evil" was an exaggeration it's this:

"In other words, once again what should be a simple, pedestrian-activated crosswalk has been deformed to the point that we need a traffic engineer to explain it to us so that it can continue to prioritize people in cars over people walking."

attitude I'm talking about. This idea that people in cars somehow should have less rights than anyone else. And read that again PEOPLE in cars. People in vehicles that are going places too, in vehicles that actually spew toxins into the air while they sit idling, you know unlike someone standing at a street corner waiting for the light.

As to strawman arguments, where does that article discuss safety? It's a rant about having to wait 26 seconds not safety, safety only came into it in the comments and at the end of the day, whether ideal or not the crosswalk made it safer. Exactly what it was supposed to do.

Wait... what? If people have to wait they'll jaywalk and you justify that? Seriously? Does that mean if I have to wait in a car it's okay to run the red? Not even sure why I addressed a concept that foolish.

I get angry at the attitude here and in the city in general. That crosswalk IS safer now. Three people that live there have said it was never an issue at all and yet you're all ranting about how awful it is. You want awful? Walk downtown and see all the homeless and hungry people. The obviously mentally ill that are wandering around. Then come back here, to this respected and powerful forum, this place with so much potential because Ryan is so well respected in our community (and deservedly so) and listen to people whine about waiting at a crosswalk.

Such a huge waste of such a powerful resource. THAT is why I'm annoyed (angry is too strong a word).

Does that make sense now?

Comment edited by calder12 on 2014-10-31 07:07:24

" Yes, "evil" was an exaggeration "

And exaggerating someone's point to attack your exaggeration is exactly what I meant by "Strawman Much", you're pissed off at a stereotype, not what the author of this article really wrote. Calm down, step away from the keyboard and get some perspective, right now you kind of sound crazy.

From the article:

...continue to prioritize people in cars over people walking.

Your reading of it:

[The] idea that people in cars somehow should have less rights than anyone else.

Bit of a logical jump there.

This idea that people in cars somehow should have less rights than anyone else.

LOL. yes this is a huge problem in Hamilton. We really need to start providing better access for cars instead of these glorious wide sidewalks, cycle tracks and speedy, reliable transit ways in Hamilton.

http://www.daveheidebrecht.com/wp-conten...

Are you going to state anything in this at all that is relevant to the discussion?

1. The article wasn't about safety.
2. It had even less to do with bike lanes.
3. Posting an image of zero traffic without context and quite obviously not at rush hour and not even of the area being discussed.

Yeah, you win the internet, congrats!

Do you walk when you get out of your car? We live in a city that is completely given over to the "rights" of people in cars to move around unfettered. 95-99% of the time the only reason a car-driver is impeded is because of the "rights" of other car-drivers. Even on our supposedly walkable streets this is the case ... This isn't about drivers or cars being evil ... We are a one-car household and my spouse drives to work during the week. Our child has to walk to school, and we enjoy not using the car when it is feasible to walk or cycle. I find it strange that people will see it as a problem to make a person in a heated vehicle wait 30 seconds at pedestrian-activated cross-walk. Do drivers complain about having to stop at an intersection to let other car-drivers cross?

I have specific issues with this post. Before I get into them, let me reiterate for those who might get confused, that I agree that Hamilton needs to do more to prioritize pedestrian activity, particularly in the downtown where more people are walking. However, where I differ is figuring out the circumstances where one can get outraged.

First, comparing the fully signalized intersection of James and Young to midblock (half) pedestrian signals at Hunter and MacNab / Herkimer and Caroline / John at Augusta is a flawed comparison. Half signals are put in place to provide pedestrian service specifically. A fully signalized intersection by definition operates differently because it has to service vehicular movements from the side street (Young) as well.

A half signal, since it's goal is to provide pedestrian service and a safe crossing environment, should therefore be operating in such a way as to prioritize the pedestrian movement, and be responsive to push buttons. Does this mean that if a pedestrian approaches just as the signal has returned to a green phase for vehicles that pushing the button should immediately reset the signal? No. A reasonable delay is fine. The definition of "reasonable" varies on the context, but should be based on the knowledge that pedestrians will only wait so long facing a "Don't Walk". I supported the outrage that the community and RTH felt when the crossing at Hunter and MacNab remained timed with the traffic signal progression on Hunter and ignored button calls.

In the case of James at Young, let's consider what happens when a vehicle on Young approaches the intersection on the red phase. Once the vehicle is detected, what happens? Does the signal change immediately? No. There is a delay in that situation while the timed cycle of the traffic signal is interrupted to move to the next phase, just as there is a delay for pedestrians who push the button for the crosswalk. Why is there a delay? For example, so that the "Walk" phase on James can switch to "Flashing Don't Walk" to allow pedestrians to finish crossing, then to "Don't Walk" when the traffic signal changes to red. It cannot immediately change.

Forgive the traffic engineering lecture, but I went through all of that for a reason. This signal is not "deformed". It's purpose is different from the signal at Hunter and MacNab, so it has been programmed and operates differently. James St S is at certain times of day a congested road, not only for vehicles but for the myriad HSR routes that use this road to head south up the mountain. Young is a very low volume side street. That has to be taken into consideration.

So I disagree that this is a situation where outrage is warranted. I think there are reasonable changes that could be requested. For example, the fact that a Walk signal does not automatically come up on the green phase for vehicles could absolutely be addressed. But the fact that the push button does not immediately change the signal in this situation, and the fact that there is an average 26 second delay before the signal changes, are not reasonable grounds for outrage. Vehicles on side streets have to wait for the same period of time for signals to change. Pedestrians should expect to wait sometimes as well.

What is the definition of an unreasonable delay? What amount of prioritization would be acceptable? These are important and interesting questions.

I welcome any and all comments.

My main concern is precisely that the walk signal does not always appear with the green light. This seems to be the standard programming in all these dual vehicle/pedestrian activated lights. This should definitely be fixed here and at all other locations with this problem. Again, why was they light designed this way, together with pedestrian activation?

My secondary concern, as echoed by some of the commenters, is that if pedestrian activated lights do not behave in a predictable way (with a standard, short, delay) pedestrians will learn to simply ignore them because they can't rely on them to predictably produce a pedestrian signal.

I'm glad that traffic staff has lowered the delay from 70s (which is completely unacceptable), but predictable operation should be a goal for pedestrians as well as drivers. I understand that a traffic engineer could look at that light, notice the induction loops on Young and the pedestrian activated buttons and deduce the operation of the system. But all the pedestrian sees is the buttons that say "push to cross" or a "don't walk" together with a green light if they push the button too late.

Again, I was crossing around 8pm under very low traffic volume conditions. It should be possible to change the timing at least for different times of day (e.g. immediate response when traffic is low), even if the goal of moving traffic require a longer delay at later times.

Regarding "outrage", unfortunately I've learnt from over 10 years of working with the DNA on traffic issues that meekly reporting an issue will lead to being ignored. This happened repeatedly, even when the City had asked the DNA for input on street design (e.g. the Walk and Bike for Life workshop).

That's not an ideal situation, but unfortunately that's the way things work.

Remember that the DNA has been trying to get a more balanced, safer and more convenient (for everyone) street network in Durand for over 40 years and has been largely ignored until recently. Read the "Durand Chronicle" for a detailed history of the efforts and responses.

As I've said before, the situation is changing for the better, but the fact that the last two pedestrian activated lights (on Herkimer and Hunter) were deliberately mis-programmed despite instructions they should operate as pedestrian activated lights does not build confidence. And these lights were built using special funds found by Councillor Farr and through the PB process.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-10-31 09:58:24

I'm more frustrated about the bike sensors that they installed at the lights on John @ Young and John @ Augusta. They don't seem to work, I don't actually know why they are there. So many times I've gotten to the light there on Augusta, stopped on the bike sensor, and waited what felt like minutes for the light to finally changed. They've installed a few others like this recently as well such as in the east end around the stadium and they function similarly. I don't think they actually work.

I've personally seen the westbound bike marking on Young at John work on two separate occasions. My friend and I were quite impressed.

I've never encountered one of these that work. Probably just a symbol painted on the road with nothing underneath. Lol

I swear I'm not being snarky. But define "work". What would happen if you didn't stop on the bike sensor? Would the light change at all?

"Work" would mean that if you stop at a light, it would change after 30 seconds.

What usually happens is that you wait for 2 minutes, then you realize you could have biked through illegally like 8 times in the last 2 minutes without being in any danger, and you start creeping out to see if you can cross and then a car pulls up behind you and triggers the light because the sensors always work for cars. Do you get off the sensor and press the pedestrian crossing button? Will that even trigger the light to change?

If the sensor doesn't work every time, and it doesn't work as quickly as if you were in a car, then it doesn't work. That's the bottom line.

" Do you get off the sensor and press the pedestrian crossing button? Will that even trigger the light to change?" Not that I can tell if we're talking about the ones at John and Augusta or John and Young.

city staff say these things are supposed to recognize a cyclist is there and speed up the light sequence. Based on my experience as driver, cyclist and pedestrian, these signals are on a timed sequence and always stay red for the same amount of time.

Again I'll defer to Vancouver. Cyclists stop on these sensors and it "triggers a signal change"

http://vancouver.ca/streets-transportati...

that's how they are supposed to work.

And back to crosswalks, even Toronto has been doing this properly for my entire life. You push the button at a PXO and it immediately activates.
We either want to become a safe walking city, or we don't IMO. Places like TO and Vancouver get it, and have for decades.

I've never once had to wait 5 seconds, let alone 25 seconds at a PXO in Toronto.

It's a fun contradiction, when you think about it.

I mean, obviously the reason that the light cycle is unfavourable to the side-street is because the vast majority of traffic is going on the major street and travelers on the side-street are rare interruptions. Obviously, you shouldn't stop dozens of people for one rare person. But if the interruption is rare, then it shouldn't be a big concern that occasionally you give them priority.

But instead we're told *both*. It happens often-enough that it would unacceptably compromise traffic on the main thoroughfare if we interrupted the normal light-cycle to let the cross-street traffic through... but it's also so rare that they only don't need a regular cycle, and the request-based cycle is good-enough.

so good. Reminds me of our meeting on York at Locke with the head-honcho from traffic a few years back to request an extra 15 seconds of crossing time due to the massive width of York and huge number of seniors and parents with toddlers in the hood. The traffic guy said in order to do that he would have to change ALL 60,000 traffic lights in the entire city!!

Needless to say we realized we weren't getting anywhere too quickly. We managed to squeeze something like 7 seconds out of him (which apparently doesn't require adjusting traffic lights at Paramount and Mud St like 15 seconds would have)

Because I didn't push the button, and wasn't aware it wouldn't turn walking man if I didn't until now, I waited for two minutes before I was able to cross.
This is why people j walk and put themselves in harm's way. City Staff should be ashamed of themselves for such childish behaviour. They clearly do it on purpose.

Wow, you waited 2 whole minutes??? How did you make it through 120 seconds of waiting???

Jaywalking is because people don't know how to wait any more. They want it immediately and it's all about themselves.

City staff are not "clearly doing it on purpose". If they are, prove it. Otherwise, shut up.