RELATED:

Crosswalk safety program flagged for removal

By NORM COLLINS
Tue. Jul 28 - 4:46 AM

A YEAR AGO, a community group received approval from HRM Traffic & Right-of-Way to implement a trial crosswalk flag program along Waverley Road in Dartmouth. In spite of community approval, we have been requested to remove the flags by July 31.

Thirteen crosswalks had buckets installed on each side of the road, in which were placed bright orange flags with reflective tape. Pedestrians use these flags to increase their visibility. Similar programs have existed in at least 22 locations in the U.S., the largest being at Salt Lake City. Although theft experience was initially high, it quickly subsided.

A community survey reported an effectiveness of 82 per cent, with 96 per cent of respondents agreeing the program should be expanded across HRM. Numerous positive comments were received, including:

"I am both a driver and a pedestrian. When I am driving, the bright flags quickly draw my attention to crosswalks. When I’m walking and using a flag, I feel safer because I know I am more visible."

"I cannot recall having seen a more simple and affordable idea have such a positive impact on pedestrian safety."

"Simple, yet effective idea! As a driver, there is no confusion if a pedestrian is attempting to cross the road. The visible flags work. As a pedestrian … crossing is easier with the high visibility flags."

Our group presented the results to HRM council, which asked the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) to include the flags as a traffic control device. However, TAC decided a crosswalk flag is not a traffic control device, based on the following factors: a) there is no legal requirement for a motorist to stop for a pedestrian with a crosswalk flag; b) crosswalk flags can be easily stolen, vandalized and/or littered, leading to additional inspections and replacement costs; c) potential liability in locations where no crosswalk flags are available; and d) the use of crosswalk flags provides a false sense of security to pedestrians, who may assume the crosswalk flag gives them the legal authority to stop traffic.

Let’s consider these factors: a) it is the pedestrian, when "lawfully within or stopped facing a crosswalk," who creates the legal requirement for a vehicle to yield the right of way, whether or not a pedestrian has a crosswalk flag or any other device; b) the cost and administration of a program should not be a concern of TAC and certainly not a factor in deciding whether a crosswalk flag is a traffic control device; and c) if there is liability in locations where no crosswalk flags are available, then consistently there must be potential liability in locations where no overhead or eye-level lighting is available.

With respect to the assertion that crosswalk flags provide a "false sense of security," TAC has yet to provide any data or support. HRM Traffic backs this view based on data that do not recognize the different volumes of pedestrians at marked versus unmarked crosswalks.

The U.S. Department of Transportation, in a report on crosswalk safety, concludes: a) "that on two-lane roads, the presence of a marked crosswalk alone was associated with no difference in pedestrian crash rate;" and b) "these studies found pedestrian behaviour to be, if anything, slightly better in the presence of marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks. Certainly the results showed no indication of an increase in reckless or incautious pedestrian behaviour with marked crosswalks."

Another research paper notes: "pedestrian crash statistics must be adjusted for exposure to risk." Yet TAC and HRM Traffic, without providing any data adjusted for "exposure to risk" or other research in support, take the opposite position.

We believe most people think overhead and eye-level lighting improves visibility at marked crosswalks. If TAC did not agree, why would it approve such lighting? We equally believe crosswalk flags improve visibility of both the crosswalk and the pedestrian at marked crosswalks. The vast majority of those surveyed, having experienced the flags along Waverley Road, believe this to be the case. TAC, on the other hand believes crosswalk flags create greater risk to the pedestrian, inconsistent with overhead/eve-level lighting, the results of our survey, and the findings of the U.S. Department of Transport.

We have asked TAC to reconsider its position, but in the meantime have been requested by HRM Traffic to remove the flags and containers along Waverley Road.

For more information, please visit www.waverleyroadcrosswalkflags.synthasite.com.

Norm Collins is chair, Waverley Road Crosswalk Flags.

RELATED
» Crosswalk safety program flagged for removal

She said there should be better signage warning drivers that they are coming up on a crosswalk and indicating what the lanes are, or the crosswalk should be moved to a safer location.

Ken Reashor, manager of Halifax’s traffic authority, says new overhead signage has been added to account for the wider roadway, but the complaint is one that is common at many crosswalks across the city.

"We’ve had complaints all along St. Margarets Bay Road, even further up, of people not yielding to pedestrians, whether it’s one lane, two lanes or not," he said. "It’s not an issue, I don’t think, of the design that’s the problem. It’s inherent with crosswalks in general and people not yielding to pedestrians."

He said there is plenty of advance warning for motorists that the middle lane is a left-turn lane, but that doesn’t keep motorists from using it to go straight.

He said Halifax Regional Police have been monitoring the crosswalk and have reported to him that there have been incidents of cars not yielding to pedestrians, but they have been in the correct lane.

Police spokeswoman Theresa Rath said the traffic unit has several areas that they keep an eye on occasionally, usually following public complaints.

She said those areas most often involve intersections with multiple lanes and high traffic volumes, such as on Quinpool Road and Connaught Avenue.

She said the police urge pedestrians to make eye contact with motorists before stepping off the curb.

( ifairclough@herald.ca)

If you looked into this matter we would be happy to publish your research.

jamrs wrote:
I agree with the above that the line is under used. However the cost of a new train system is way out of reach for this area. A Japanese company however has an alternative that would suit HRM which is a dual bus rail vehicle that would ride on existing tracks. Check out the following web site. http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/17/japanese-train... A bus like this could ride on existing tracks one way (in bound)in the morning and one way(outbound)in the evening with very little disruption of the existing rail system, and could hit all the communities from Upper Sackville downtown to the Weston and then continue on the roads. The same could happen for Eastern Passage to Burnside, and Timberlea to downtown. This would eliminate the need for new tracks, trains, maintenance equipment and personel, train engineers, new unions, stations, etc. When not used on the rails the bus would operate as normal.

Love the music. Go Tweenbot!

I'm lazy too. We do not change our ways until forced. There will come a point in our near future when most citizens will not all we be able to afford or want to live a car commute lifestyle. This will cause major shifts in government spending and development priorities when more then 50% of our population is dependent on public funded transportation. Hang in there NovaMan. The change is inevitable. The question is will the transition be smooth or hurried.

What Lachance and Haran are doing is simply entering values on open source software (all it is is a Google Maps rework). MT is building a system from the ground up, and it's completely new, as far as MT is concerned. That said, it's a good site, but it definitely needs to have a disclaimer for MT not being liable for the recommendations, especially considering that as I was plugging in some figures from my morning commute and it added 20 minutes onto my trip, making me late. You know people would treat this stuff like the gospel.

Good job on Lachance. While I can understand some of the points raised by Metro Transit regarding accountability, it still makes little sense why MT can't simply release the data under condition that a clear statement on hbus.ca informs users that this is not an official Metro Transit site/service.

As Lachance says, the data is in the public domain already, but did he really have to bike for 30 hours to manually record the locations of bus stops? The 'unwanted' end result (that Metro Transit claims to be the reason for their uncooperative approach) is now in place regardless of their efforts to stifle it.

This is yet another example of the backwards and uninspired way Metro Transit thinks and operates.

When Lachance came to them with this request, they could have given him the data, encouraged local innovation, and ensure that when his site is up, it at least presents as accurate a route plan as possible, while clearly showing a disclaimer on his site that would address their data accuracy/accountability/update concerns.

But, that would be the action of a forward thinking organization. An organization that understands what innovation is, and that innovation does not wait for or require permission in order to take place. An organization that chooses to be part of that innovation, not a (futile) force against it.

It took Lachance a little over 6 months to put this together, and he is doing it manually with a bike, a GPS, and a computer. Why exactly is Metro Transit's equivalent project taking over a YEAR so far (if it actually materializes), and they have all the data and resources that they need in-house?

I suppose that people forget that the minister responsible for Conserve NS thinks that road widening is good for the evironment. Sustainable Transportation may be a long shot with a minister that can't even Greenwash effectively.

The minister for Conserve Nova Scotia thinks the idea of widening Halifax’s Bayers Road is a good one.

“I think it’s the right approach,” Energy Minister Barry Barnet told reporters after cabinet Thursday.

“We now need long-term planning. We needed it decades ago and, frankly, there are going to be people who will be inconvenienced as a result of this, but it is a very long-term approach.”

Mr. Barnet said improving the traffic system can be beneficial to the environment by reducing the number of cars that are idling and in some cases, shortening the distances from Point A to B.

see entire post here http://www.cresthalifax.org/archives/wider-road-g...