01-17-2019, 10:42 PM
(01-17-2019, 10:21 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(01-17-2019, 07:08 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The justification?
That the HTA hasn't been updated properly to allow crossrides under a PXO...I suspect it won't be under the current regime. Literally no other reason, crossrides are allowed on other types of crossings.
The root of the problem is that only Ontario needs this "special" "made in Ontario" type of crossing that's governed distinctly from crosswalks.
Combined with a lack of creativity from our designers. Make the path a road with no general traffic lanes, only bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Install normal traffic lights. Voilà!
And while it’s an example of what might be called creative compliance, it also has the benefit of treating the active transportation route as co-equal with motor vehicle routes: it’s a road, not some second-class “pathway”.
Yeah, I think I did ask the question of whether MUTs were governed by the HTA, certainly there's an argument to be made that they are...as you are making, and I think that wouldn't be unreasonable. It's certainly an interesting philosophical question.
But it does subject them to a substantial number of regulations and standards that don't otherwise apply. For example the scooter pilot couldn't happen, it was only allowed because the trails *weren't* roads, where scooters are technically illegal. I'm sure there are signage and similar issues.
Regardless, we could do better, but at this point, whats proposed is so vastly better than what we have, even I'm not going to complain about the proposal.
As an aside, I have no idea what the laws in the Netherlands are, but there at least, the priority is on the design itself making sense...I.e., it looks right, red pathways continues through an intersection when the red pathways (the cycle track) has the right of way, it doesn't when it doesn't...so visual cues mean that everyone knows what to do without really having to read, understand, and be familiar with the laws and signage.
I sure wish we'd do that...