09-13-2016, 04:00 PM
(09-13-2016, 01:14 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: First of all, multi-use trails do not have to intersect with streets at crosswalks....they may simply intersect streets with no provisions whatsoever, as they do for most Iron Horse Trail intersections.
If they're alongside a street and cross another street, they're generally treated as crosswalks. Whether they have to or not? That's a good question.
(09-13-2016, 01:15 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: 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.
OK, interesting idea. I hadn't pulled out that distinction.
Quote: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.
I shouldn't have said with such certainty that they're a first. But, I'm not sure what the rules were in Toronto in 1980, whether there was municipal bylaw in effect, whether anything was deliberately changed since then. What we have crosswalks away from intersections now, though, there isn't an obligation for cars to stop unless there's an activated signal.
Quote: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.
Yes, I've also seen staff avoiding engaging, and huge reluctance to new or different ideas. Often they need to hear about it from multiple different directions.
More pedestrian refuges are something that I've seen a lot of buy-in lately from local staff and politicians. And they're hard not to like-- the region itself quotes "as much as 80%" reduction in collisions as a result. We're seeing more and more and I expect that to continue. There's locations on Spur Line trail that would benefit from an island (like Union!)