Pedestrian Crossovers

[rocketphish]

I saw one of these new crossovers in action on the weekend - the one on St. Laurent Blvd. between Montreal Rd and Brittany Dr. - and it employs multiple yellow strobe lights to get the drivers' attention. This would seem to be an improvement over a standard pedestrian crosswalk.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by roger1818

When the province banned crossovers years ago, they assumed that thousands of pedestrian controlled traffic lights between intersections would be installed across the province (at local expense) and that pedestrians would walk kilometers out of their way to get to the nearest crosswalk so that they can safely cross the street.

The province never banned crossovers. It's just that most municipalities stopped using them. Toronto never stopped.

The new law didn't recreate crossovers, it just broadened the design standards for them to encourage municipalities to start using them again, which worked in Ottawa's case.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Pedestrian Crossovers? How are they different from the crosswalks that the city had years ago? They got rid of them because of the number of accidents that took place at them, whether the fault of the driver or pedestrian. It was felt that they were not nearly as safe as signalled intersections. The old crosswalks had overhead lighted signs and I remember that there was one at Alta Vista and Ridgemont and Alta Vista and Randall, both near schools. They were both replaced with traffic lights.

If they are not so different from the old crosswalks, how are they expecting a different outcome?

Pretty every other jurisdiction in the world other than Ontario has had mandatory crosswalks forever. The weird rule we had up until January 2016 that a crosswalk had to have overhead orange lights or it would be relegated to being a courtesy crosswalk, was unique to Ontario.

One thing that might be a factor in why our experience is different here is because Ontario's roads are actually too well designed, in the sense that our road design standards and road rules coddle drivers so much that they don't bother actually learning how to be good drivers (look at our 400-series highways and how generously long the ramps are, for example--no need to teach people how to merge in and out of a ramp properly if the ramp is a kilometre long!). By contrast, in many places in the world, especially in Europe, there are far fewer road rules and design standards are much more lax. In this environment of relative chaos there is a huge amount of speeding, drivers driving quite recklessly, etc.. but there's actually fewer accidents, because the chaos makes people actually learn to pay attention and to be careful.

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Pretty every other jurisdiction in the world other than Ontario has had mandatory crosswalks forever. The weird rule we had up until January 2016 that a crosswalk had to have overhead orange lights or it would be relegated to being a courtesy crosswalk, was unique to Ontario.

One thing that might be a factor in why our experience is different here is because Ontario's roads are actually too well designed, in the sense that our road design standards and road rules coddle drivers so much that they don't bother actually learning how to be good drivers (look at our 400-series highways and how generously long the ramps are, for example--no need to teach people how to merge in and out of a ramp properly if the ramp is a kilometre long!). By contrast, in many places in the world, especially in Europe, there are far fewer road rules and design standards are much more lax. In this environment of relative chaos there is a huge amount of speeding, drivers driving quite recklessly, etc.. but there's actually fewer accidents, because the chaos makes people actually learn to pay attention and to be careful.

Does Kingston still use courtesy crosswalks right downtown? That was embarrassing.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

Does Kingston still use courtesy crosswalks right downtown? That was embarrassing.

Most were replaced with traffic lights last year. The remainder are becoming crossovers this year.

Kingston's urban neighborhoods around downtown have long had a problem where there would be long stretches of a road without proper pedestrian crossings; a proliferation of traffic signals and 4 way stops in recent years have fixed up a lot of them; although a few glaring examples (like Union Street through the Alwington neighborhood) remain.

By contrast, the downtown core itself has amazing pedestrian mobility due to short blocks resulting in traffic lights every 80m, and all lights being on short cycle times. In Kingstons downtown proper you never have to walk more than 30 seconds out of your way to get to a light and you're never waiting more than 20 seconds for the light to change. It's beautiful.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Kingston's urban neighborhoods around downtown have long had a problem where there would be long stretches of a road without proper pedestrian crossings; a proliferation of traffic signals and 4 way stops in recent years have fixed up a lot of them; although a few glaring examples (like Union Street through the Alwington neighborhood) remain.

I would say this has been a problem across Ontario. Until this year, cities have only had the options of installing courtesy crossings (useless on all but the quietest of streets) or expensive traffic control measures. The new crossovers give the cities new tools for allowing pedestrians to cross the street.

lights being on short cycle times.

It is always frustrating as a pedestrian having to wait a long time for the lights to change.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It is always frustrating as a pedestrian having to wait a long time for the lights to change.

+1. Ottawa is ridiculous for this; getting across even a traditional mainstreet is a pain. Yet, the topic is completely ignored in discussions on pedestrian friendliness; the entire pedestrian part of the transportation master plan is full of talk about more sidewalks and wider sidewalks, but entirely ignore the importance of short cycle times.

Back when I lived in Ottawa, I voted for Marc Aubin in Rideau-Vanier in the 2014 election, literally only because he put the issue of pedestrian-friendly cycle times in his top 5 priorities.

[lrt's friend]

Interesting.

I have noticed the trend to longer signal cycles as a way of moving traffic more efficiently.

Obviously, what is good for traffic is bad for pedestrian friendliness.

I note that for most of the city, we are doing almost everything wrong as far as pedestrian friendliness and you can tell by the lack of pedestrians in almost all suburban areas.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It is always frustrating as a pedestrian having to wait a long time for the lights to change.

It is even more frustrating to wait for it to change, and then to not get a walk light, because the standard in Ottawa now is to only provide pedestrians an opportunity to legally cross the street if they beg for it.

But, hey, nice official plan wut?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Interesting.

I have noticed the trend to longer signal cycles as a way of moving traffic more efficiently.

Obviously, what is good for traffic is bad for pedestrian friendliness.

I note that for most of the city, we are doing almost everything wrong as far as pedestrian friendliness and you can tell by the lack of pedestrians in almost all suburban areas.

And by the increasingly crappy treatment we are getting in the urban ones.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It is even more frustrating to wait for it to change, and then to not get a walk light, because the standard in Ottawa now is to only provide pedestrians an opportunity to legally cross the street if they beg for it.

Agreed. The official excuse is that pedestrians need a longer cycle time than vehicles, so they only trigger the walk signal if a pedestrian has pushed the button. I can see this where minor streets intersect 4+ lane boulevards, where it really does take a while for pedestrians to cross, but the difference in cycle time on a 2 lane road is inconsequential and the walk signal should be triggered every cycle. Major intersections should also always trigger a walk signal as cycle time should be long enough regardless.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Agreed. The official excuse is that pedestrians need a longer cycle time than vehicles, so they only trigger the walk signal if a pedestrian has pushed the button. I can see this where minor streets intersect 4+ lane boulevards, where it really does take a while for pedestrians to cross, but the difference in cycle time on a 2 lane road is inconsequential and the walk signal should be triggered every cycle. Major intersections should also always trigger a walk signal as cycle time should be long enough regardless.

It is especially consequential on heavily-pedestrian city-centre traditional mainstreets.

But every time there's a "road improvement" project — on Bank, Rideau, Wellington-Richmond — the old-style signals get pulled out and replaced with pedestrian beg-buttons.

But yes, City of Ottawa, tell us again that pedestrians are at the top of your planning pyramid.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It is even more frustrating to wait for it to change, and then to not get a walk light, because the standard in Ottawa now is to only provide pedestrians an opportunity to legally cross the street if they beg for it.

But, hey, nice official plan wut?

Good Day, all.
I have a question for the legal eagles on this.... in that :
Is it not legal for a pedestrian to cross on a green traffic signal,
ie: that a walk/nowalk signal is only a convenience add-on for pedestrians
(sidebar - and sometimes actually adds time to the green
for pedestrian safety at especially large intersections ),
without having to make use of the beg button ??
I wonder, since I have done exactly this many times
(which for me is a wonder in itself, being ex-Montreal).
Thanks, all.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day, all.
I have a question for the legal eagles on this.... in that :
Is it not legal for a pedestrian to cross on a green traffic signal,
ie: that a walk/nowalk signal is only a convenience add-on for pedestrians
(sidebar - and sometimes actually adds time to the green
for pedestrian safety at especially large intersections ),
without having to make use of the beg button ??
I wonder, since I have done exactly this many times
(which for me is a wonder in itself, being ex-Montreal).
Thanks, all.

Highway Traffic Act Section 144 - If there is a don't walk or flashing you can't cross. If the signal changes while you are in the intersection you still have the right-of-way.

Pedestrian crossing
(22) Where portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use, no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (22).

Pedestrian – green light
(23) Subject to subsections (24) and (27), a pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular green indication or a straight-ahead green arrow indication and facing the indication may cross the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (23).

Pedestrian – stopping at flashing green light
(24) No pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal and facing a flashing circular green indication or a solid or a flashing left turn arrow indication in conjunction with a circular green indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (24).

Pedestrian – stopping at red or amber light
(25) No pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal and facing a red or amber indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (25).

Pedestrian control signals – walk
(26) Where pedestrian control signals are installed and show a “walk” indication, every pedestrian facing the indication may cross the roadway in the direction of the indication despite subsections (24) and (25). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (26).

Pedestrian control signals – don’t walk
(27) No pedestrian approaching pedestrian control signals and facing a solid or flashing “don’t walk” indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (27).

Pedestrian right of way
(28) Every pedestrian who lawfully enters a roadway in order to cross may continue the crossing as quickly as reasonably possible despite a change in the indication he or she is facing and, for purposes of the crossing, has the right of way over vehicles. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (28).

[PHrenetic]

Good Day... and Thanks to WaterlooWarrior.
That is, to say the least, a real B, but I guess not so surprising.
Oh well.....still breaking the law in every way I can.
I still am convinced that crossing in the middle of a block is the safest place,
but that's just me.
I do appreciate the find. Thanks.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day... and Thanks to WaterlooWarrior.
That is, to say the least, a real B, but I guess not so surprising.
Oh well.....still breaking the law in every way I can.
I still am convinced that crossing in the middle of a block is the safest place,
but that's just me.

At least mid-block drivers tend to be looking ahead, as opposed to at intersections, where they tend to look in the direction of the traffic that might ding their paint job.