+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Walking in Waterloo Region (/showthread.php?tid=189)
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - Canard - 01-30-2016
But using the analogy of a bus should take priority over a car since its 50 passengers vs. 1:
Why should a roundabout jam up, delaying ~30 or 40 cars, for one person crossing the road? By placing the crosswalk further back, only one or two cars are delayed (since there is a buffer there for them to unimpede the traffic using the roundabout). Obviously it won't always work out and it will still back up traffic...
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - BuildingScout - 01-30-2016
(01-30-2016, 11:18 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Obviously no one likes waiting an extra minute, but in this case people on foot aren't being asked to wait, they're being asked to detour. Ookpik's point is entirely correct: when we talk about a 60 meter detour- at every intersection- for people on foot, it "really isn't so bad." A similar delay for motorists wouldn't garner the same reaction.
This is yet another reason why I'm not a fan of roundabouts at busy intersections. In my opinion they work best at medium traffic intersections, where (1) a red light would be unnecessary most of the time and (2) traffic would be low enough that drivers can pay attention to pedestrians crossing.
In places like Erb and Ira Needless, traffic levels are at times high enough to cause long waiting times in one of the directions (starvation), particularly coming south on Ira.
They seemed to have become the fashionable traffic solution and be applied without due consideration of local conditions.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - Canard - 01-30-2016
The core problem is when the input speed has a big delta compared to the roundabout speed, so you get bunching as people decelerate approaching the roundabout. Then there are no gaps between cars for the cross traffic to feed in to.
Ideally, everyone would have a gap, and everyone else would fit into that gap (every-other-car, zipper), but in practice typically I see "chunks" break off from the input lanes (3 or 4 cars) super close together and then zoom through leaving no room for the cross traffic to get in to.
If the roundabout speed were actually faster than the input lane speeds, it would induce this. In fact, I think that's maybe exactly what they've tried to do at Franklin/Sheldon, which has severe chicanes approaching the roundabout, mainly in the North/South direction (Franklin).
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - ookpik - 01-30-2016
(01-30-2016, 11:57 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: This is yet another reason why I'm not a fan of roundabouts at busy intersections. In my opinion they work best at medium traffic intersections, where (1) a red light would be unnecessary most of the time and (2) traffic would be low enough that drivers can pay attention to pedestrians crossing...
They seemed to have become the fashionable traffic solution and be applied without due consideration of local conditions.
The problem isn't with the concept of roundabouts but rather their implementation in Waterloo Region. Roundabouts at busy intersections can be fine for pedestrians and cyclists providing they're designed to accommodate us. In Europe that means underground passageways or overhead bridges, both with ramps for those who need them. If the Region hadn't cheaped-out on this there wouldn't be an issue for pedestrians/cyclists crossing at roundabouts.
As for the "'only' an extra minute at every crossing" argument, if the intent of our transportation plans is to get more people out of cars, then how does adding those minutes to a trip encourage more people to walk/cycle instead of drive?
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - BuildingScout - 01-30-2016
(01-30-2016, 12:21 PM)Canard Wrote: Ideally, everyone would have a gap, and everyone else would fit into that gap (every-other-car, zipper),
Incidentally Mexico City has just legislated that all "yield merge"s are every-other-car zipper merges, with tickets given if people fail to comply.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - MidTowner - 01-30-2016
(01-30-2016, 12:24 PM)ookpik Wrote:(01-30-2016, 11:57 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: This is yet another reason why I'm not a fan of roundabouts at busy intersections. In my opinion they work best at medium traffic intersections, where (1) a red light would be unnecessary most of the time and (2) traffic would be low enough that drivers can pay attention to pedestrians crossing...
They seemed to have become the fashionable traffic solution and be applied without due consideration of local conditions.
The problem isn't with the concept of roundabouts but rather their implementation in Waterloo Region. Roundabouts at busy intersections can be fine for pedestrians and cyclists providing they're designed to accommodate us. In Europe that means underground passageways or overhead bridges, both with ramps for those who need them. If the Region hadn't cheaped-out on this there wouldn't be an issue for pedestrians/cyclists crossing at roundabouts.
As for the "'only' an extra minute at every crossing" argument, if the intent of our transportation plans is to get more people out of cars, then how does adding those minutes to a trip encourage more people to walk/cycle instead of drive?
I couldn't agree more with your last point. A lot of lip service is given to getting people out of cars for a lot of good reasons. In practice, this goal is rarely given the priority it is in speech.
I have to point out, though, that an over- or under-pass also adds time to a trip for those forced to use it on foot or bike. I agree that these are a good solution in a lot of places where this is used. Here in Ontario, it's unlikely that most jurisdictions are going to incur those costs, and I agree with BuildingScout when he characterizes them as a "fashionable traffic solution" here. I think they're being implemented (poorly and cheaply as you say) without a lot of consideration to whether they're best for the specific task. Here in Waterloo Region, with the almost inevitability that they will not be designed to accommodate other road users, I think they should not be used at higher-volume intersections.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - jamincan - 01-30-2016
Part of the problem in Waterloo Region is poor driver discipline in roundabouts, and difficulty enforcing it. Key problems are failure to signal (slowly improving) and speeding through the roundabout. I think the prevalent mentality here is that a roundabout is like a mini free-flowing interchange instead of a free-flowing intersection. The important distinction is that a free-flowing interchange has limited points of interaction between other vehicles and you generally have a clear expectation where those will occur and can prepare for and anticipate them easily. An intersection has far more in a much smaller area that requires slowing down and being fully aware of your surroundings.
Brainstorming some potential solutions:
1) implementing the pedestrian crossing signals. I don't think they necessarily have to be moved from their present location despite the guidelines. The main objective is to increase the awareness of drivers to the presence of a pedestrian.
2) install speed bumps at the entrance/exits of the roundabout to force people to moderate their speed. This doesn't improve pedestrian visibility, but the reduced speeds will allow greater time for both pedestrians and motorists to react to each other. Not really suitable on higher volume roundabouts.
3) provincial guidelines on how roundabouts should operate and then better enforcement of the rules. Importantly also, awareness through media about how to behave in them. It's astonishing how ignorant so many people are about how roundabouts are supposed to operate.
4) more open design. Right now, there is always a big berm in the centre of the roundabout, probably to prevent someone from barreling straight through. This prevents someone entering the roundabout from being able to clearly see the part where they are going to exit and anticipate future conflicts. Right now, the motorist in the roundabout is concerned about steering through it and potential conflicts with vehicles on their right. A pedestrian crossing at the exit will remain invisible until the motorist is partway through the roundabout and already distracted by other things. Removing the berm and replacing it with other barriers might make it possible for them to anticipate pedestrian traffic earlier and act accordingly.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 01-30-2016
(01-30-2016, 12:24 PM)ookpik Wrote: As for the "'only' an extra minute at every crossing" argument, if the intent of our transportation plans is to get more people out of cars, then how does adding those minutes to a trip encourage more people to walk/cycle instead of drive?
I don't think any of our roundabouts are in highly walkable/pedestrian-friendly areas. The Homer Watson/Block Line roundabout sees a fair bit of pedestrian traffic, but that's because of the nearby school. In St Jacobs, or on Ira Needles, there is usually nary a pedestrian to be seen at any of them, so I think the detour will not become a major issue for many people.
(In pedestrian/transit-oriented Tokyo, major street crossings are often by pedestrian bridges, which effectively cause a pedestrian detour and require the use of stairs -- yet I have never heard anyone complaining about them.)
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 01-30-2016
(01-30-2016, 09:41 PM)tomh009 Wrote: (In pedestrian/transit-oriented Tokyo, major street crossings are often by pedestrian bridges, which effectively cause a pedestrian detour and require the use of stairs -- yet I have never heard anyone complaining about them.)
How do they handle accessibility? Not everyone can use stairs.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 01-30-2016
(01-30-2016, 10:02 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(01-30-2016, 09:41 PM)tomh009 Wrote: (In pedestrian/transit-oriented Tokyo, major street crossings are often by pedestrian bridges, which effectively cause a pedestrian detour and require the use of stairs -- yet I have never heard anyone complaining about them.)
How do they handle accessibility? Not everyone can use stairs.
It's a good question. I rarely see people in wheelchairs in Tokyo but I do see, much more often than here, very old or handicapped people walking, albeit slowly and often with the help of a cane. (And I have never seen even one scooter.) Is it a cultural difference? People walking, even if slowly, can use overpasses.
Now, some overpasses do have either elevators or escalators, a few have (steep!) ramps, but most do not. In general, I think what you would need to do is to look for the next intersection that has a crosswalk rather than a bridge.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - curious_look - 01-30-2016
(01-30-2016, 11:18 AM)MidTowner Wrote: More practically, if these crossovers are located (a minimum) sixty meters out of people's paths, many people will just not bother with them.
I think this is the real issue - though this is designed for safety, if it so inconveniences pedestrians they will not use it (and frankly, i'm probably one of those people) then the end result will be a dangerous situation - potentially worse then it is now.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - MacBerry - 01-31-2016
(01-30-2016, 12:21 PM)Canard Wrote: The core problem is when the input speed has a big delta compared to the roundabout speed, so you get bunching as people decelerate approaching the roundabout. Then there are no gaps between cars for the cross traffic to feed in to.
Ideally, everyone would have a gap, and everyone else would fit into that gap (every-other-car, zipper), but in practice typically I see "chunks" break off from the input lanes (3 or 4 cars) super close together and then zoom through leaving no room for the cross traffic to get in to.
If the roundabout speed were actually faster than the input lane speeds, it would induce this. In fact, I think that's maybe exactly what they've tried to do at Franklin/Sheldon, which has severe chicanes approaching the roundabout, mainly in the North/South direction (Franklin).
Would not larger roundabouts (at least 2x their current size) resolve much of this?
The reason IMO they make them as small as they do is to appease developers who won't give up more land for infrastructure without a development deal that gives them more units per area.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 01-31-2016
(01-30-2016, 11:17 PM)curious_look Wrote:(01-30-2016, 11:18 AM)MidTowner Wrote: More practically, if these crossovers are located (a minimum) sixty meters out of people's paths, many people will just not bother with them.
I think this is the real issue - though this is designed for safety, if it so inconveniences pedestrians they will not use it (and frankly, i'm probably one of those people) then the end result will be a dangerous situation - potentially worse then it is now.
This setup should include a (pedestrian) fence for the 30m distance from the roundabout to the crossover to discourage exactly that.
The crossover will inconvenience cars, too, yet we would not accept drivers ignoring it. Why should we accept pedestrians ignoring it?
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - plam - 01-31-2016
(01-31-2016, 08:17 AM)tomh009 Wrote:(01-30-2016, 11:17 PM)curious_look Wrote: I think this is the real issue - though this is designed for safety, if it so inconveniences pedestrians they will not use it (and frankly, i'm probably one of those people) then the end result will be a dangerous situation - potentially worse then it is now.
This setup should include a (pedestrian) fence for the 30m distance from the roundabout to the crossover to discourage exactly that.
The crossover will inconvenience cars, too, yet we would not accept drivers ignoring it. Why should we accept pedestrians ignoring it?
Because cars have the potential to hurt other people while people walking often don't. Personal freedom and all that.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - ookpik - 01-31-2016
(01-30-2016, 11:18 AM)MidTowner Wrote: More practically, if these crossovers are located (a minimum) sixty meters out of people's paths, many people will just not bother with them.Pedestrians vote with their feet.
There was something on the radio the other day about a clever idea for pedestrian walkway placement on a campus. No need to hire consultants to do complex traffic analysis. Just wait for a snowfall, then note the patterns of footprints in the snow. The following spring put in paved pathways on the most traveled routes.
(01-31-2016, 08:17 AM)tomh009 Wrote: This setup should include a (pedestrian) fence for the 30m distance from the roundabout to the crossover to discourage exactly that.And then this forum will be full of posts decrying how ugly all of this looks.