(01-12-2016, 09:56 PM)Canard Wrote: I read this as "let's do nothing and wait and see how many crashes happen, and then add signaling if it's over a certain threshold."
I read it as "What do those things even mean?"
For a while I thought the rounded rects on the thoroughfare were trains, but then it appears as though the track is to one side (so, Uptown Waterloo, Downtown Kitchener, or Ottawa/Borden). So maybe the rects are concrete islands?
But anyway, now I read it as "We're not sure how drivers at this intersection will react, or what the sight lines will be for giving them adequate information on how to make decisions... so we'll just shrug, construct it, turn it on, and see what happens."
They could guess, I guess. Post a student on the corner to count how much S-bound traffic cheats into the intersection as it is currently designed, how much W-bound traffic shoulder-checks (or, as I call it, "cyclist checks") on their right turns... then apply a model (a wild-ass guess) to hypothesize how much of that traffic will continue to do so after construction is complete and the system is on.
From there, assign a threshold ("at most N drivers may take dangerous action before we install a signal" Yes, another guess) and see if the model's results exceed it.
Or, since these guesses are probably going to be wrong, do nothing and wait for the fallout. Make sure to put in the design docs that you're considering banning left turns for E-bound traffic as needed so it underlines your considered opinion that you shouldn't need any of these measures and call it a day. (since I can't see how E-bound traffic could run afoul of the train any more often than running afoul of W-bound traffic)
But, yes, under this all lies the infernal calculus: Signals cost money, but save lives (citation needed). Stop signs and road paint are cheaper. How many deaths or dollars of damage will we tolerate before upgrading an intersection?
Taken to one extreme, don't spend any money and let Darwin sort it out.
Taken to the other, the government should hire professional drivers piloting Teslas to ferry us around and forbid us from driving since the public aren't very good at it, on balance.
I think the phrasing is probably Traditional Engineer-ese for "we shouldn't need this, but I reserve the right to change my mind" and we should rely on their expertise to have identified the most likely problem intersections and dealt with them.