09-13-2016, 01:15 PM
(09-13-2016, 12:04 PM)zanate Wrote:(09-12-2016, 12:16 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Easy.
I beg to differ.
Ok, I’ll admit I’m being a bit flippant, although I do have a serious point.
Quote:Quote:Promote multi-use trails to be streets that happen to have no motorized vehicles permitted. Then where they meet motorized vehicle streets, have a regular intersection. With, obviously, no turns permitted by motorized vehicles.
This requires major (provincial level) changes, because right now multi-use trails intersect with streets at crosswalks-- as in, according to the HTA, a person should dismount from their bike and walk across. So the region can't promote this.
What I mean is, make the trail be a street. Which it should be anyway for other reasons — all our trails are marked as parks, with signs saying they are closed overnight. What kind of transportation corridor is closed overnight?
A street with bicycle lanes in both directions and no general traffic lanes. I’ll admit this idea is bogus as a way of dealing with the existing rules if you can find a regulation which states that a street must have a general traffic lane.
Quote:I do think that the new Level 2 pedestrian crossovers are over-specified. But they're also the first thing in Ontario that's putting in place an obligation for drivers to stop at something other than a stop sign or an activated light. Its use for people cycling as well as walking hasn't been covered at all. Unfortunately, it's not something that can just be waved away. Traffic engineers have to always use "good engineering judgement" and a large part of that is relying on accepted practices and rules, because if they don't, they'll shoulder a lot more of the blame if something goes wrong.
Which is why I view it as a looming problem. And why I don't think it's easy.
Are you telling me that drivers didn’t actually have to stop at the crosswalks in Toronto in 1980 which consisted of signs saying it was a crosswalk and more signs encouraging pedestrians to point in order to signal to cars that they want to cross? This is the bit I find the strangest about these level 2 crossovers. The first I heard of them was when I suggested at the Spur Line Trail consultation that Allen St., Union St., and probably some other streets should have pedestrian refuges at the trail. The staff suggested instead one of these “new” crossings but were extremely vague as to how they were different from previous crosswalks. Eventually I found the technical definition somewhere, and remained unimpressed with what they were saying. While I now think I have some understanding of the difference between the two crosswalk styles, they are really relatively minor differences and certainly nothing really new compared to what has existed for decades — it’s really just two slightly different signage and signalling standards.
Also, I was left with the impression that the staff would say almost anything to avoid engaging with my idea. Why not more pedestrian refuges, anyway? Most roads don’t need anything more than a pedestrian refuge, especially if the road is only one lane in each direction. They didn’t answer that question, just talked about a minor variation on the existing concept of a crosswalk as if it were a substantial new idea.
Thanks in any case for the discussion.