Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: Walking in Waterloo Region
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(01-31-2016, 03:38 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]See, there we go again. "Precious drivers..."

That's really unfair, and makes it impossible to have a reasonable and mature discussion.

LOL, are you for real? You're just as bad with your broad generalizations that the majority of cyclists and pedestrians are scofflaws, and it's rare that you pass up an opportunity to snark about cyclists. I think it was you that once joked about installing tire shredders to prevent cyclists from running red lights and now you're crying fowl that I characterize drivers that get impatient waiting for pedestrians as "precious".

I gather from your posts and attitude that you don't walk or bike much if at all so I guess it's hard for you to see it from any other perspective than the drivers seat.
(01-31-2016, 02:18 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]I apologize if my remark sounded snide. I really was asking why it would matter that the source of foot traffic is a school. I understand now that you were saying that it is not a walkable area, but does have foot traffic in spite of its poor walkability.

About Ira Needles, I disagree when you say "In St Jacobs, or on Ira Needles, there is usually nary a pedestrian to be seen at any of them, so I think the detour will not become a major issue for many people." I don't think this is accurate regarding Ira Needles: I encounter people walking there. I think we can agree it is not heavily trafficked, but it's not right to say "nary a pedestrian." There are people who walk there. They will be inconvenienced by needless detours. They will be discouraged from walking, along with others.

First, apology accepted, I'll try to be more clear in my writing.

With regard to Ira Needles and pedestrian detours to use level 2 crosswalks, this is a little bit of a different scenario.  There isn't really a single natural street crossing (or even two or three), as the shopping area covers a huge amount of space next to Ira Needles: people's destinations may be anywhere and everywhere within this complex (but probably on the far side of the giant parking lot).  As such, the most convenient street crossing point may be just about anywhere, and the odds are that it's not where the crosswalk would be located, 30m or not.

So first, I would install a railing here, too, to encourage the use of the crosswalk (especially for our youth who focus more on their phones than the environment surrounding them).  And second, I personally believe that 30m away from each roundabout is quite reasonable when put in the context of the 100m of parking lot the pedestrians will just have crossed.

(I'll note here that I walk, and quite a lot at that.  Detouring from King to Park to get across the train tracks is crazy, but from my point of view, having to walk 30m away to a crossing is not onerous.  But maybe that's just me.)
(01-31-2016, 04:20 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]With regard to Ira Needles and pedestrian detours to use level 2 crosswalks, this is a little bit of a different scenario.  There isn't really a single natural street crossing (or even two or three), as the shopping area covers a huge amount of space next to Ira Needles: people's destinations may be anywhere and everywhere within this complex (but probably on the far side of the giant parking lot).  As such, the most convenient street crossing point may be just about anywhere, and the odds are that it's not where the crosswalk would be located, 30m or not.

This is a good point. I was envisioning someone walking along Ira Needles, having to detour sixty meters at multiple roundabouts. You're right that for various reasons, probably there are very few people making that walk. And you're also right that, for people crossing Ira Needles to get to the Boardwalk (though there are some other reasons someone might be crossing Ira Needles: just because I can't imagine them doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't completely valid), thirty meters to the north or south might make little difference.

I still am not sure we're prioritizing things correctly when, to avoid delays of a few seconds for motorists, we're asking people to divert out of their way, and then putting up fences to force them to. Crossings should be at desire lines (which are usually at intersections), and guardrails should be a last resort.
(01-31-2016, 04:42 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]I still am not sure we're prioritizing things correctly when, to avoid delays of a few seconds for motorists, we're asking people to divert out of their way, and then putting up fences to force them to. Crossings should be at desire lines (which are usually at intersections), and guardrails should be a last resort.

My assumption is that it's a level 2 crosswalk; in that case, it's supposed to have a 30m advance notice based on the HTA (to ensure drivers have time to stop), which really means a separation of 30m from the roundabout.  The advantage for vehicular traffic is not a savings of a few seconds (it really doesn't make a difference for the stopping vehicles), but the fact that a single person crossing the crosswalk won't block traffic on the entire roundabout.  (If the crosswalk is directly at the roundabout exit, the stopping cars won't be able to exit the roundabout, and thus all traffic in the roundabot will come to a standstill.)

And the railing question is really separate: but if we think pedestrians won't use crosswalks voluntarily, then we either need to help them make the right choice (ie a railing) or just forget about crosswalks altogether, and leave it as a free-for-all.
I've read a lot that suggests that a relative free-for-all (less signage and regulations, less strict separation of different types of users) might result in lower speeds, more attention paid, and improved safety for all. That might be a bit off topic, though...

This guide to guardrailing suggests that the use of guardrails should be considered a last resort.
(01-31-2016, 06:13 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]I've read a lot that suggests that a relative free-for-all (less signage and regulations, less strict separation of different types of users) might result in lower speeds, more attention paid, and improved safety for all. That might be a bit off topic, though...

I, too, have read this. It annoys me a little bit more each time that someone's solution to a traffic problem is to add another sign. From what I can tell about the current change being implemented, we will be replacing a single pedestrian crossing sign with three signs: no passing from here to crossing, pedestrian crossing ahead, and pedestrian crossing. That is on top of the myriad signs that are already in place at every roundabout.
(01-31-2016, 06:13 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]This guide to guardrailing suggests that the use of guardrails should be considered a last resort.

Not quite as a last resort, but they suggest selective use and careful consideration rather than putting railings everywhere.  For example:

Quote:The safety benefit of preventing a sudden or unexpected influx of pedestrians entering the carriageway is not in doubt. Traditionally, at locations with high volumes of pedestrians, especially those frequented by children, such as school entrances/exits, playground areas, leisure centres, transport interchanges and exits from alleyways or stairways that lead directly to the road edge, it is unlikely that existing guardrailing should be removed. Thus, the assessment procedure described in this LTN is designed primarily for pedestrian crossing and road junction sites.

and

Quote:For roundabout sites, an average of 90 per cent of pedestrians were found to cross within the designated crossing area at sites with guardrailing, compared with 32 per cent at sites without guardrailing.

The study also mostly deals with UK urban environments, rather than the car-centric suburban arterial roads where we currently have roundabouts; the environments really aren't the same.
I feel that concerns about close-to-roundabout crosswalks holding up the entire roundabout are fairly exaggerated. Take the roundabout at Kraus by Conestoga Mall. It's one of the smallest roundabouts you will find, and when I cross it on my daily commute, I do occasionally find that A vehicle has to pause for me to cross, but even this exceedingly small roundabout has the space for that vehicle to avoid blocking traffic behind them. The time it takes me to cross the 2-car-wide lane (the most lanes we have for our region's roundabouts)? About 2 seconds. Let's say that it takes 5 seconds for a really slow person. Now, at a standard, non-restricted walking speed, making a person go on a 60m detour takes an extra minute of time. Two, if they are a really slow person. So, on one hand, we can delay cars for 2/5 seconds close to a roundabout, or ask the pedestrian to take a 60/120 second detour (The equivalent of their 2/5 second journey holding up ~30 cars simultaneously, and expecting that no cars would be held up for any seconds at the detour crossing, which is even less likely due to higher speeds). This doesn't seem very beneficial for anyone in reality, only in appearance.

As for why we block out the central portion of a roundabout with a hill/tall grass/artwork, it helps to slow down cars by making it seem like a larger obstacle, and critically it removes non-useful information. When entering a roundabout, we want a driver to look left and right at their crosswalk for pedestrians, and to the left for cars. That's it, period. They should not choose to enter or not enter a roundabout because of what is happening at future exits; by the time they arrive, most happenings will have ended or changed. We especially don't want someone looking straight ahead for the entrance directly opposite them, and missing the goings-on happening at their car, or looking at the exit directly opposite them [when entering], seeing it clear, and then having that information guide them into being less likely to check that information at the critical time [when you've actually gotten to that exit]. It's like a driver looking at a crosswalk when turning left, seeing it empty, then focusing on cars coming at them, and going through when the cars clear, only to screech to a halt for a pedestrian well into their crossing, but one that started after the initial glance that the driver used to inform their decision to power through upon clear of car traffic.

The point of a roundabout is to eliminate full stops of long duration that would occur at a stop sign or light controlled intersection. They are *not* meant to be frictionless; they only work by the express presence of friction. To think that a driver having to slow down is a problem is to misunderstand roundabouts.
Today isn't April 1 so this must be for real: Pedestrian crossovers to be installed at all roundabouts 
Quote:Pedestrian crossovers will be installed at each of the 23 regional roundabouts later this summer following changes to the Highway Traffic Act.

The crossovers will be installed at each entrance and exit of the roundabouts and will be marked with paint and signage. Any driver who doesn't observe the rules and stop for pedestrians could be ticketed by police.

Region of Waterloo councillors voted in favour of moving ahead with the installations Tuesday. "We're certainly going to enhance the pedestrian mobility across the region," said Bob Henderson, manager of transportation engineering. "We're quite excited about this."...

In 2017, crossovers will be installed midblock on various roads across the region based on a priority list to be compiled by regional staff in coming months.
(02-03-2016, 08:17 AM)ookpik Wrote: [ -> ]In 2017, crossovers will be installed midblock on various roads across the region based on a priority list to be compiled by regional staff in coming months.

I can't wait to see this list. I know of a few I would choose, but I am really curious to see which criteria the Region uses to decide, and which they end up prioritizing.

These crossovers seem like a very good solution for providing added mobility at comparatively little cost. I understand the hesitance to shell out for a button-activated signal that will stop traffic for several times longer than necessary each time it's activated. With these crossovers, a lot of those arguments do not apply.
Forgive me, but aside from a sign and some paint on the asphalt, how does this change what is already at the roundabouts?

IMO, the money could be better spent on lighting improvements. Current lighting always seems to be focused on the circle itself (which makes sense), while the entrances where the pedestrian crossings are located seem much dimmer. I have sometimes struggled to see pedestrians at night, especially if they are wearing dark clothing.
It changes the legality of roundabout use. It is indeed just paint, and the cost ($250,000) reflects this. However, cars in the roundabout are now legally required to stop for pedestrians, to allow them to cross. Before, there was no real legal standing to support this. It finally also means that drivers can be ticketed for this.

Whether or not enforcement actually happens, however...
Note too that there's still nothing in the HTA that specifically mentions roundabouts. (Bills have been proposed but nothing has been passed.) So cops had an uphill battle in making tickets stick, even in the rare cases that they'd actually write them. Now they have clear legislation, at least with respect to pedestrians trying to cross safely. Baby steps, but still steps.

And perhaps more significant are plans to designate mid-block crossings. That should have a significant effect on improving the safety of trail crossings, e.g. Laurel Trail at Bridgeport and Iron Horse Trail at Victoria, especially if the cops hold periodic "safety blitzes."
(02-03-2016, 12:44 PM)ookpik Wrote: [ -> ]Note too that there's still nothing in the HTA that specifically mentions roundabouts. (Bills have been proposed but nothing has been passed.) So cops had an uphill battle in making tickets stick, even in the rare cases that they'd actually write them. Now they have clear legislation, at least with respect to pedestrians trying to cross safely. Baby steps, but still steps.

And perhaps more significant are plans to designate mid-block crossings. That should have a significant effect on improving the safety of trail crossings, e.g. Laurel Trail at Bridgeport and Iron Horse Trail at Victoria, especially if the cops hold periodic "safety blitzes."

Cue guerilla use of white spray paint and stencils to mark out a crossing for the Laurel Trail at Weber...
What do you mean? I thought at Victoria, you're supposed to cross at the intersection. Most people just cut across 50 m up the road through the Lai Lai parking lot. Or is that what you mean, to paint some kind of guide to nudge pedestrians toward the crossing instead of jaywalking?