11-03-2018, 12:38 PM
Reading the new report on the proposed relocation of the signal at Bridgeport/Peppler to Bridgeport/Laurel trail has some interesting (and borderline comically (sad)) statements.
What's with the quotation marks around red-light running in the following paragraphs? It makes it sound like that it is a made up issue or something. And if someone can't tell signals apart should they really be driving at all? And why isn't that a problem elsewhere like on King?
"A question was also asked whether closely spaced signals could cause a “red-light running” problem. Traffic control signals spaced close together may result in drivers misinterpreting one set of traffic signals for another. Drivers may observe and react to a downstream traffic signal while failing to observe the indications of a traffic signal first encountered. Similarly, drivers may see the indications of a traffic signal first encountered and fail to observe or expect a downstream traffic signal soon afterwards. This condition can contribute to “red-light running” and angle collisions as a result of “red-light running”."
Why is it that if one-way streets are so horrible that the solution isn't to get rid of the one-way streets instead of denying pedestrians additional crossing?
"The Region has obtained “red-light running” data from its inventory of 16 red-light cameras. This data includes the frequency of “red light” violations and includes information regarding how long a motorist enters an intersection after the onset of a red signal indication (intrusion time). A longer intrusion time is a key indicator of drivers failing to observe a red signal indication.
Three of the top four intersections with the highest average intrusion times following a red signal indication are intersections situated on one-way streets. Of the three intersections situated on one-way streets, Erb Street at Regina Street has the highest average intrusion time of 9.2 seconds after the onset of a red signal. Regional staff believe that there are two primary contributing factors causing drivers to not observe the red traffic signal indication at this location. The contributing factors suspected include:
• The road being a one-way street; and
• Regina Street being situated only 80 metres east of King Street.
Based on the Region’s experience and supporting data, it is anticipated that the Region would create a condition very similar to Erb Street between King Street and Regina, (which has a demonstrated “red-light running” problem) if the signal at Bridgeport Road and Peppler is not removed and a second traffic signal is installed 105 metres east at the Laurel Creek Trail."
If you know people are going to speed why not post for 40kph and design for 50kph, etc.?
"Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) guidelines recommend that a roadway with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h (design speed of 60 km/h) have a stopping sight distance of 75 to 85 metres. The existing westbound stopping sight distance on Bridgeport Road approaching the Laurel Creek Trail is approximately 144 metres. Therefore, this distance meets or exceeds recommended distances approaching the proposed location for the relocated pedestrian signal."
What's with the quotation marks around red-light running in the following paragraphs? It makes it sound like that it is a made up issue or something. And if someone can't tell signals apart should they really be driving at all? And why isn't that a problem elsewhere like on King?
"A question was also asked whether closely spaced signals could cause a “red-light running” problem. Traffic control signals spaced close together may result in drivers misinterpreting one set of traffic signals for another. Drivers may observe and react to a downstream traffic signal while failing to observe the indications of a traffic signal first encountered. Similarly, drivers may see the indications of a traffic signal first encountered and fail to observe or expect a downstream traffic signal soon afterwards. This condition can contribute to “red-light running” and angle collisions as a result of “red-light running”."
Why is it that if one-way streets are so horrible that the solution isn't to get rid of the one-way streets instead of denying pedestrians additional crossing?
"The Region has obtained “red-light running” data from its inventory of 16 red-light cameras. This data includes the frequency of “red light” violations and includes information regarding how long a motorist enters an intersection after the onset of a red signal indication (intrusion time). A longer intrusion time is a key indicator of drivers failing to observe a red signal indication.
Three of the top four intersections with the highest average intrusion times following a red signal indication are intersections situated on one-way streets. Of the three intersections situated on one-way streets, Erb Street at Regina Street has the highest average intrusion time of 9.2 seconds after the onset of a red signal. Regional staff believe that there are two primary contributing factors causing drivers to not observe the red traffic signal indication at this location. The contributing factors suspected include:
• The road being a one-way street; and
• Regina Street being situated only 80 metres east of King Street.
Based on the Region’s experience and supporting data, it is anticipated that the Region would create a condition very similar to Erb Street between King Street and Regina, (which has a demonstrated “red-light running” problem) if the signal at Bridgeport Road and Peppler is not removed and a second traffic signal is installed 105 metres east at the Laurel Creek Trail."
If you know people are going to speed why not post for 40kph and design for 50kph, etc.?
"Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) guidelines recommend that a roadway with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h (design speed of 60 km/h) have a stopping sight distance of 75 to 85 metres. The existing westbound stopping sight distance on Bridgeport Road approaching the Laurel Creek Trail is approximately 144 metres. Therefore, this distance meets or exceeds recommended distances approaching the proposed location for the relocated pedestrian signal."
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.