06-13-2021, 05:32 PM
(06-13-2021, 03:53 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(06-13-2021, 03:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Crossrides are not permitted to be combined with PXOs under Ontario provincial legislation.
They are permitted when combined with full pedestrian signals as you find at Erb and Peppler.
OK, I just realized I was implicitly imagining a pedestrian signal, not a crosswalk (PXO in modern terminology, even though the concept is not new, no matter what staff say, it having been ubiquitous in Toronto in 1980). Thanks for clarifying.
PXOs have existed for a long time (and under Ontario law they are legally different from crosswalks), but Level 2 PXOs, which is what is proposed here, have different standards, and a far far lower cost.
(06-13-2021, 03:53 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:Quote:Now, you might ask why they aren't using a full pedestrian signal, and there is a very good reason for that.
The region is in control of all traffic signals in the region, even those not on regional roads, and they refuse to place one at the trail. As a result the most the city engineers can do is place a PXO.
So it's mostly the fault of the region and province.
OK, so, seriously, why doesn’t the City reclassify parts of the trail as a street? I don’t really think they’re fighting passionately for the interests of the citizens of the city. Following the letter of the law is the spirit of the time, after all.
Even without resorting to legalistic trickery, why doesn’t City Council formally request of Regional Council to install a proper signal? Bypass the out-of-touch GM shareholders in the roads department entirely? Or has this already been tried?
The least they could do is put in a wide curb cut so it’s easy for bicycles to ride next to the crosswalk (even if, strictly, they’re not supposed to). I’m pretty sure nothing says you can’t have more roll curbs than needed. Actually I’m certain of it, given the kilometres of superfluous roll curbs that have been installed all over the Region.
Actually another question just occurred to me: does the City have the Region run its signals for convenience, or are they forbidden to run their own? If the former, then they should just go ahead and install some of their own. A pedestrian signal on a City road does not need to be synchronized with the rest of the network so there is no problem with being separate from the main traffic control system; it could just be an old-fashioned standalone signal. If the latter, how and when did that get decided and by whom?
Even if the trail was a road, the region still would not install a traffic signal, it wasn't because it was a trail, it is because it is too close to the other intersection. The city did request, because city staff feel that it is warranted, but the regional engineers did not agree. It would take regional council to override them.
As for a wide boulevard, they are doing it on one side at Glasgow, but I don't think there's any actual value in this...ultimately, trail users will cross at the trail, regardless of legality, pretending otherwise is pointless, and I'm happy to see our engineers acknowledge this.
The signal system is an integrated system, the signals, in theory are all connected together and synchronized, to a central system. The region runs that system, therefore they run all the traffic signals in the region. It would be a very bad idea for the city to run a parallel system...if it is even legally possible given the region's mandate. A unified system makes sense to me, but what is surprising is that the regional engineering staff ALSO have complete control signals on city streets. Yes, there is some synchronization question, but it would be logical for city staff to have at least and equal seat at the table.