Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General Road and Highway Discussion
Do they have 'timed' pedestrian crosssings?

So you hit a beg button and then it doesn't activate until an appropriate time? Sometimes that's right away, sometimes thats synced to lights, sometimes that's after a wait period from the last request?
Reply
Sometimes they're like that, yeah. I'm very aware of "logic" on things like that, and sometimes you hit the button and the change happens right away. Same location, sometimes you hit it, and a recycle timer obviously hasn't expired from the previous request because it doesn't change right away. So yes, that can certainly be done. I am all in favour of instantaneous change if a request has not been made for some period of time. If the state hasn't changed for a long while, there is no point in making a person wait for some fixed delay post-button-press, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. "A punishment", if you will.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(09-22-2017, 09:03 AM)timc Wrote: Short of building an overpass or tunnel, I don't think there is a good way to make that crossing at Weber Street less annoying. I don't like the idea of crossover there because it's such a busy road.

I don't think there's a problem with it at all.  The only changes I'd make, is the walk sign should last maximum 2 seconds.  There's no reason to make it last longer, the chances of another pedestrian arriving in the 5-8 seconds it stays on walk is near zero.  And it should change immediately to yellow and walk when a button is pressed (if there is time in the cycle).

The reasons it doesn't seem to be linked with the fact that the signal is designed for cars and roads, not pedestrians.

Canard is right though, a crosswalk would be best, if drivers were willing to yield.
Reply
(09-22-2017, 08:05 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Yes, it's useful everywhere the region uses pedestrian activated signals.  Which is why it's a shame that drivers cannot seem to learn to yield to pedestrians around them.

Which is to say, it seems that the region (and Ontario at large) prefers not to use them because pedestrians can't cross safely unless drivers are facing a red light.

Is this actually a problem? In Toronto, they're used commonly everywhere, even on suburban arterials that carry as much traffic as Weber.

The only problem with pedestrian crossovers in this region is that there are so few of them drivers might not be familiar with them. As far as I'm concerned, the solution to that is to install them everywhere.

It just feels like we let the lawyers run the show sometimes. A full traffic light is more clear and has less legal wiggle room (though less convenient, often for all involved), therefore it is in the city's best interest to install that.
Reply
(09-22-2017, 09:45 AM)Markster Wrote: It just feels like we let the lawyers run the show sometimes.  A full traffic light is more clear and has less legal wiggle room (though less convenient, often for all involved), therefore it is in the city's best interest to install that.

Very much so. The industry I work in is so "safety" conscious, but it's not really tangible safety - it's "Cover-your-ass" safety. Which, in many cases, is actually less safe!
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(09-22-2017, 09:45 AM)Markster Wrote: ...
Is this actually a problem?  In Toronto, they're used commonly everywhere, even on suburban arterials that carry as much traffic as Weber.

The only problem with pedestrian crossovers in this region is that there are so few of them drivers might not be familiar with them.  As far as I'm concerned, the solution to that is to install them everywhere.

It just feels like we let the lawyers run the show sometimes.  A full traffic light is more clear and has less legal wiggle room (though less convenient, often for all involved), therefore it is in the city's best interest to install that.

It could be, I'm not sure. I only know that it is official staff policy in the region to not install new ones, and to remove old ones at times of reconstruction. I was given the impression that this wasn't unusual in Ontario, but I don't know for sure.

Maybe it's a lawyer issue, but it shouldn't be, they're well defined under the HTA. Worse, staff are highly resistant to installing ped signals because they have a cost for traffic flow.

I can (and sometimes do) complain all day about this stuff.
Reply
(09-22-2017, 11:51 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Maybe it's a lawyer issue, but it shouldn't be, they're well defined under the HTA.

They are well defined, but they are uncommon so often drivers do not know the rules in practice.
Reply
(09-22-2017, 09:13 AM)Canard Wrote: Yeah, I feel like it should have been a crosswalk, not a full light. That way, traffic could move again as soon as the person is across. Way more efficient. The way it currently is is analogous to asking a 2000-passenger commuter train to stop at a road crossing because a car wants to cross the tracks.

Also the pedestrian stoplights have weird effects on cross streets. For example, Peppler southbound at Erb gets a lineup of cars at busy times that tends to clear up mostly when pedestrians press the button — but even while the pedestrians have their green, other pedestrians can still cross Peppler, and no matter what, traffic on Peppler is supposed to stop for the stop sign. Or Albert northbound at Seagram, where it is not at all clear that the red light controls the left turn (although I understand the police claim it does, so it’s probably prudent to act as if it does).

In a lot of cases I think a pedestrian refuge is the ultimate solution. Even quite busy roads will usually clear up one direction at a time; what gets annoying is waiting for, and confirming, a break in both directions of traffic simultaneously.
Reply
I would never have guessed that it was in question that the light at Seagram/Albert controls left turns off of Albert NB onto Seagram WB. Is that a thing?

The weird part about that intersection for me is the "Pittsburg Lefts" that happen there from NB Albert folks, because the SB Albert Stop Bar is so far back (Why??????????). Drives me batty. I also don't turn right on red when on SB Albert to WB Seagram, because of that Stop Bar being so far back. I just feel like it's wrong to creep so far forward on a red to make a right turn.

Agreed that refuges are awesome, and basically increase the odds of being able to cross by an order of magnitude!
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
It is interesting. The recently rebuilt section of Belmont between Highland and Victoria feels wider now even though I think it was actually rebuilt slightly narrower (the hydro poles seem further back from the road in my photo compared to the street view). 

I wonder if that has to do with the hard edges (curbs) in the field of view vs. the soft edges (pavement transitioning to grass) that were there before.

Regardless, holy missed opportunity for a complete street/road diet batman. All this for and AADT of 10,000:
   
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
(09-23-2017, 11:40 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: It is interesting. The recently rebuilt section of Belmont between Highland and Victoria feels wider now even though I think it was actually rebuilt slightly narrower (the hydro poles seem further back from the road in my photo compared to the street view). 

I wonder if that has to do with the hard edges (curbs) in the field of view vs. the soft edges (pavement transitioning to grass) that were there before.

Regardless, holy missed opportunity for a complete street/road diet batman. All this for and AADT of 10,000:

Agree * 1000.  So frustrating to see so much waste.
Reply
(09-22-2017, 07:23 PM)Canard Wrote: I would never have guessed that it was in question that the light at Seagram/Albert controls left turns off of Albert NB onto Seagram WB.  Is that a thing?

The weird part about that intersection for me is the "Pittsburg Lefts" that happen there from NB Albert folks, because the SB Albert Stop Bar is so far back (Why??????????).  Drives me batty.  I also don't turn right on red when on SB Albert to WB Seagram, because of that Stop Bar being so far back.  I just feel like it's wrong to creep so far forward on a red to make a right turn.

Agreed that refuges are awesome, and basically increase the odds of being able to cross by an order of magnitude!

I don’t think I’ve heard the term “Pittsburgh Left”. Is that turning left on a new green before oncoming straight-through traffic has a chance to get going?

As to the questions about which traffic is controlled by the pedestrian crossing, imagine for a moment that the crossing was moved back from the intersection, maybe 50m although it doesn’t matter exactly how far as long as it is far enough that it is clear that the pedestrian crossing is not related to the intersection at all. Then it would be absolutely clear that you can’t go through the red to make a right turn, and it would be equally clear that a left turn during the red signal would be perfectly legal, in the same way that it is legal to go when the stoplight at the next intersection is red — signals don’t control everyone who can see them, only people who are coming up close to them.

And if, on the other hand, the intersection itself was fully controlled, it would be clear, in the absence of signage to the contrary, that the right turn on red would be permitted and the left turn forbidden.

But instead we have what looks like an independent pedestrian crossing, but so close to the intersection that it seems that intersection signal rules might apply.
Reply
Curbs and street parking are poured along King between Dupont and Bridgeport, with he exclusion of the Princess intersection.

With all the curbs now in place, I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a push to get these sections reopened to traffic. At the very least, crossing at Dupont should reopen - it's been paved for a while now.
Reply
(09-23-2017, 02:13 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: ...

I don’t think I’ve heard the term “Pittsburgh Left”. Is that turning left on a new green before oncoming straight-through traffic has a chance to get going?

As to the questions about which traffic is controlled by the pedestrian crossing, imagine for a moment that the crossing was moved back from the intersection, maybe 50m although it doesn’t matter exactly how far as long as it is far enough that it is clear that the pedestrian crossing is not related to the intersection at all. Then it would be absolutely clear that you can’t go through the red to make a right turn, and it would be equally clear that a left turn during the red signal would be perfectly legal, in the same way that it is legal to go when the stoplight at the next intersection is red — signals don’t control everyone who can see them, only people who are coming up close to them.

And if, on the other hand, the intersection itself was fully controlled, it would be clear, in the absence of signage to the contrary, that the right turn on red would be permitted and the left turn forbidden.

But instead we have what looks like an independent pedestrian crossing, but so close to the intersection that it seems that intersection signal rules might apply.

Those intersections can be rather confusing. Basically, I always take them as "don't cross the crosswalk", but things again, would be safer and clearer if we didn't have right on red.

Also, jumping the left before straight traffic is a highly illegal maneuver (equivalent in penalty to 50k over the limit/stunt driving charge), and also very dangerous, because pedestrians may be crossing. And the West/Strange/Victoria intersection, among its various other problems, is notorious for drivers pulling this crap, and as a frequent pedestrian at this intersection, I watch out for drivers who do this.
Reply
(09-23-2017, 06:53 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Also, jumping the left before straight traffic is a highly illegal maneuver (equivalent in penalty to 50k over the limit/stunt driving charge), and also very dangerous, because pedestrians may be crossing.  And the West/Strange/Victoria intersection, among its various other problems, is notorious for drivers pulling this crap, and as a frequent pedestrian at this intersection, I watch out for drivers who do this.

And yet it's required in Boston. Go figure.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)