Toronto Queens Quay & Water's Edge Revitalization | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

[Miscreant]

I was there last night too and this is what I saw. Looks way more dangerous to me than a cyclist running a red light. I guess the public shouldn't invest in any infrastructure for motorists either.

From what I've seen, the rate of cyclists running red lights paled in comparison to the rate of pedestrians disobeying Don't Walk signals, to the point that drivers were unable to proceed north-south on green lights because of the swarms of jaywalking pedestrians.

In the 40 minutes of footage I took on opening weekend, I captured easily a thousand cyclists and only two of these ran red lights. And I was by no means being selective, I have no way of knowing who's going to run a red.

And though the rate of drivers disobeying signals is probably lower than either group, it is clearly more dangerous. All but one of the collisions since opening* has been the result of a motorist running a red light.

*The one was a streetcar turning into another streetcar because its driver misinterpreted the switch position.

In fact, the only group of road user that was consistently obeying signals was streetcar drivers.

So based on your simple rule, we should stop building all kinds of infrastructure except dedicated streetcar rights-of-way.

The question is whether the violations are intentional or accidental. We can hopefully agree that cars driving down the streetcar lanes is accidental, and that means that drivers aren't contradicting themselves when they improperly use the available infrastructure.

As for pedestrians, yes, I'd agree that if they consciously and chronically disobey relevant traffic signals, then they're forfeiting their entitlement to having infrastructure developed to assist them and to keep them safe.

But the real point of my argument was a reductio--it's not that the infrastructure in question shouldn't be developed, as that's absurd; it's that all users should use it properly, on pain of irrationality (which, notice, doesn't entail that no users should unintentionally use it improperly).

 

[Tewder]

As for pedestrians, yes, I'd agree that if they consciously and chronically disobey relevant traffic signals, then they're forfeiting their entitlement to having infrastructure developed to assist them and to keep them safe.

Are you for real?

Disobeying traffic signals is an art form in NYC but the infrastructure is there in place regardless.

 

[reaperexpress]

The question is whether the violations are intentional or accidental. We can hopefully agree that cars driving down the streetcar lanes is accidental, and that means that drivers aren't contradicting themselves when they improperly use the available infrastructure.

As for pedestrians, yes, I'd agree that if they consciously and chronically disobey relevant traffic signals, then they're forfeiting their entitlement to having infrastructure developed to assist them and to keep them safe.

But the real point of my argument was a reductio--it's not that the infrastructure in question shouldn't be developed, as that's absurd; it's that all users should use it properly, on pain of irrationality (which, notice, doesn't entail that no users should unintentionally use it improperly).

This is an interesting thought. How do you propose to single out the small minority of people who disobey signals in order to deny them the use of infrastructure?

And given that your argument is based on the assumption that people are endangering themselves, how do you reconcile this strict adherence to the signals with the numerous occasions when it is safe to cross during a "don't walk" signal, often even safer than during the "walk"?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Toronto still has to have pedestrians pressing a button to activate their walk signals. When is Toronto getting into the 21st century with intelligent pedestrian activation?

No need for a human to press a button, the sensors will activate the pedestrian signals.

Can't do that in Toronto because the penny-pinchers on city council will not allow it.

 

[LNahid2000]

Toronto still has to have pedestrians pressing a button to activate their walk signals. When is Toronto getting into the 21st century with intelligent pedestrian activation?

No need for a human to press a button, the sensors will activate the pedestrian signals.

Can't do that in Toronto because the penny-pinchers on city council will not allow it.

I don't see any point to wasting money on this. At most intersections downtown, there is no need to push the button unless you're blind anyway.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I don't see any point to wasting money on this. At most intersections downtown, there is no need to push the button unless you're blind anyway.

IF and only IF the signals constantly go through a cycle. More and more signals do not, unless they are activated either by sensors in the pavement for motor vehicles and bicycles (the three white dots on the pavements, another Ontario regulation where other justifications use a bicycle stencil) or by pedestrians pressing a button (if they remember). I've seen pedestrians not pressing the button and crossing the roadway on a green light but a "Don't Walk" for the pedestrian.

 

[LNahid2000]

IF and only IF the signals constantly go through a cycle. More and more signals do not, unless they are activated either by sensors in the pavement for motor vehicles and bicycles (the three white dots on the pavements, another Ontario regulation where other justifications use a bicycle stencil) or by pedestrians pressing a button (if they remember). I've seen pedestrians not pressing the button and crossing the roadway on a green light but a "Don't Walk" for the pedestrian.

My point was that most signals downtown do constantly go through a cycle...

 

[salsa]

Toronto still has to have pedestrians pressing a button to activate their walk signals. When is Toronto getting into the 21st century with intelligent pedestrian activation?

Which 21st century cities have implemented this on a large scale?

 

[Miscreant]

Are you for real?

Disobeying traffic signals is an art form in NYC but the infrastructure is there in place regardless.

I am for real.

But I'm almost certain you're misinterpreting my argument. For one, notice that the mere fact that in NYC pedestrians often disobey traffic signals but these signals remain in place isn't a counterexample to my argument. It's possible that these signals do remain in place, but that they shouldn't, strictly speaking.

But more importantly, my argument doesn't even entail that pedestrian infrastructure should be either dismantled or discontinued (notice either would amount to a different claim, and that I haven't clearly made either). It entails only that those pedestrians--and only those pedestrians--who don't obey relevant traffic signals forfeit their entitlement to having that infrastructure in place.

Consider an analogy: those who abuse the welfare system surely forfeit their entitlement to, let's call it, this form of 'social infrastructure.' But that doesn't mean that the welfare system should be either discontinued or dismantled. It means only that those who abuse it lose the privilege; those who follow the rules do not. Likewise, my argument doesn't entail anything about traffic signals etc. for pedestrians coming down, regardless of how many people disobey them.

Admittedly, the analogy falls apart when we realize that there are no controls in place to prevent rule-breakers from using public infrastructure (traffic signals, etc.), and in that respect I'm not proposing anything as ridiculous as keeping these people off the road. But that's a practical problem. The logic of the argument remains the same: those who break rules forfeit their entitlement to the protections afforded by those rules.

Perhaps this is all a fancy way of saying what most children understand: if you want to enjoy the benefits of x, you need to assume the responsibilities of x. And if you don't want to do that, well then you're not really entitled to those benefits, are you?

 

[Miscreant]

This is an interesting thought. How do you propose to single out the small minority of people who disobey signals in order to deny them the use of infrastructure?

See my post directly above. I don't think that this small minority can be singled out, but I also don't think this impossibility is a counterexample to my point. It's just a practical problem to its implementation.

And given that your argument is based on the assumption that people are endangering themselves, how do you reconcile this strict adherence to the signals with the numerous occasions when it is safe to cross during a "don't walk" signal, often even safer than during the "walk"?

I don't think there's anything to reconcile. If my argument is based on the assumption that rule-following is important because otherwise people are endangering themselves--I'm not sure this is the main assumption, but I'm willing to assume it for discussion--then that means only that when people aren't endangering themselves rule-following isn't important.

That's perfectly consistent.

But notice--if you don't think it's dangerous to illegally cross, but then you get pegged by a car when jaywalking, I don't think you have a right to say the car was in the wrong. You were. You illegally crossed.

And isn't that exactly what most reasonable people think?

 

[W. K. Lis]

There are two kinds. One detects the presence of pedestrians and the other adjusts the time or length of time pedestrians take to cross.

From this link:

Traffic Signal Enhancements
Countdown signals may be designed to begin counting down at the beginning of the walk phase or at the beginning of the clearance (flashing DON’T WALK) interval. Countdown signals have been demonstrated to reduce pedestrian crossings when only a few seconds remain.

Since pedestrian pushbutton devices are not activated by about one-half of pedestrians (even fewer activate them where there are sufficient motor vehicle gaps), new "intelligent" microwave or infrared pedestrian detectors are now being installed and tested in some U.S. cities. These automatically activate the red traffic and WALK signals when pedestrians are detected. Detectors can also be used to extend the crossing time for slower moving pedestrians in the crosswalk (often called a PUFFIN crossing). Automatic pedestrian detectors have been found to improve pedestrian signal compliance and also reduce pedestrian conflicts with motor vehicles. However, they are still considered experimental and their reliability may vary under different environmental conditions.

Purpose
A variety of traffic signal enhancements that can benefit pedestrians and bicyclists are available. These include automatic pedestrian detectors, larger traffic signals to improve visibility, signal placement designed to deter motorists from observing cross street signals, and countdown signals provide pedestrians with information about the amount of time remaining in a crossing interval. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrians Crossings report describes numerous traffic signal enhancement measures in detail.

Considerations
• Pedestrian signals need to indicate the crossing interval by visual, audible, and/or tactile means if pedestrians with restricted vision are to take advantage of them.
• Pedestrian countdown signals can help reduce pedestrian crossings near the end of the pedestrian phase.
​

The PUFFIN "intelligence" system is being tested in London, England. See link.

SCOOT addresses the problem of how to properly time pedestrian crossings in such a way as to make sure as many people as possible cross with the lights, as well as keeping traffic flowing as smoothly as possible. This is especially difficult in high traffic areas. Ideally, the light should be timed to allow everyone to cross, but pedestrian traffic isn't uniform and what might work for two people might not work for a dozen. Worse, there’s the problem of pedestrians pressing the request button and then crossing against the lights or simply walking away, which creates needless delays.

Pedestrian SCOOT seeks to remedy this by using video cameras to count the number of people in a digital “box” on the crossing pavement. If a large number of people are detected, the system alters the timing of the green walk light to allow more people to cross safely. In addition, if no one is at the crossing, or if someone presses the request button and then crosses against the lights or walks away, the system switches to “call cancel” and doesn't activate the walk light.

 

[Miscreant]

 

[salsa]

The first two photos are proof that the MG trail design at intersections is not working.

 

[ttk77]

The first two photos are proof that the MG trail design at intersections is not working.

That corner is a bit of a mess, and I'm not sure that it could be improved much. Between the food vendors, the lines for the water taxis and the people crossing the road at York it's a very busy spot, and there isn't enough room for them to not stray onto the bike trail. If it were paved all the way though people would still be crowding it, out of necessity, not ignorance. I think WT got it right designating this area a "mixed" zone. Cyclists are just going to have to accept that they can't zip through this area. I walked though on the weekend, and the only way I could pass the intersection was to use the bike portion of this "mixed" area to skirt around the crowds.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

They need to have better street cleaning - those splotches are not exactly becoming of a prime tourist area - and the quicker they get rid of the temporary barriers, the better.

AoD