Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015)

[ciudad_del_norte]

Shorter cycles over scrambles, which often aren't as great as they seem. It may feel exciting to cross diagonally with a bunch of people at once, but by totally seperating out peds you loose the efficiency of running parallel movements together and can actually lead to increased wait times for everybody.

They work well in some situations depending on desire lines and demand but are best used judiciously.

[B.ike]

While Vancouver does seemingly have shorter cycles, there are a few factors.

Their pedestrian speed calculation, I strongly believe is on the brisk end. 1.3-1.4 m/s (I do not know what factor they use to calculate).
Whereas Edmonton has many locations designed between <1.3m/s

It is designed in such a fashion so that when the flashing hand appears, a person, just stepping off the curb at that moment, has enough time to cross the road if they travel at the average assumed speed.
Combine with the factor that Edmonton lanes are typically 3.7m wide as opposed to the 3.0m to 3.3m wide lanes in Vancouver. On a 6-lane cross section, this amounts to 2.4m to 4.2m greater traveling distance in Edmonton.

While the above can speak for Jasper and 104th Avenue, I can't explain why 102nd and 103rd avenue are not shorter cycle. Well, I know why they are cycled so long. But the city should consider changing that.


With that said, I would have to revise my statement from couple posts up about the scrambles. Following guidelines, putting a scramble timing on Jasper and 104th avenue would have a very long pedestrian cycle. I would have to agree with c_d_n

[Rocket252]

^When visiting Vancouver I noticed that they will switch their traffic lights from normal operation during the day to flashing green/flashing red during off hours. The intersection will change signasl when there is traffic sensed. This allows - in the case of Hastings street - faster traffic flow.

Why does Edmonton not do this?

[Coldrsx]

Part of the issue is the circuitry and signalling tech...which is quite old. Once this is updated they can play with it and modify/adapt as needed.

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

Shorter cycles over scrambles, which often aren't as great as they seem. It may feel exciting to cross diagonally with a bunch of people at once, but by totally seperating out peds you loose the efficiency of running parallel movements together and can actually lead to increased wait times for everybody.

They work well in some situations depending on desire lines and demand but are best used judiciously.

Eliminating conflicts between pedestrians and right turning drivers is eliminated with a scramble, which can eliminate the need for an extra lane where we now have a right turn lane,

That shrinks the intersection, allowing cycles to be further shortened, both for people walking and driving.

Inmost cases that could be a bigger efficiency. Plus there's the big benefit to pedestrians of never having drivers trying to turn through a crowded crosswalk, an a benefit to drivers of only having to deal with a single conflict point when turning left.

[Hallsy's Toupee]

The problem with scramble crossings is that Edmontonians don't know how to use them, which is apparent at the one scramble crossing at Jasper/RHW

[Threlc]

Originally Posted by B.ike

While Vancouver does seemingly have shorter cycles, there are a few factors.

Their pedestrian speed calculation, I strongly believe is on the brisk end. 1.3-1.4 m/s (I do not know what factor they use to calculate).
Whereas Edmonton has many locations designed between <1.3m/s

It is designed in such a fashion so that when the flashing hand appears, a person, just stepping off the curb at that moment, has enough time to cross the road if they travel at the average assumed speed.
Combine with the factor that Edmonton lanes are typically 3.7m wide as opposed to the 3.0m to 3.3m wide lanes in Vancouver. On a 6-lane cross section, this amounts to 2.4m to 4.2m greater traveling distance in Edmonton.

While the above can speak for Jasper and 104th Avenue, I can't explain why 102nd and 103rd avenue are not shorter cycle. Well, I know why they are cycled so long. But the city should consider changing that.
...

I hate walking along these two avenues, as I basically hit each intersection about 1/2 way through the flashing hand. This means I wait the full, long-ass N/S signal. Which sucks because it is the best way to stop at Save-On on my way home after work.

[B.ike]

Originally Posted by Rocket252

^When visiting Vancouver I noticed that they will switch their traffic lights from normal operation during the day to flashing green/flashing red during off hours. The intersection will change signasl when there is traffic sensed. This allows - in the case of Hastings street - faster traffic flow.

Why does Edmonton not do this?

To my knowledge, none of the signals in Edmonton's downtown core are actuated (presence detection). So they all cycle fixed time depending on the time of day.

One thing I can say is that Edmonton used to have a lot of flashing amber/flashing red intersections across the city during night hours.

But there is an inherent flaw to that mode. The traffic that faces the flashing red may incorrectly think the perpendicular traffic also faces a flashing red and treats the intersections as a 4-way stop when in fact the perpendicular traffic faces the amber which means they have the right of way.


Anyhow, one reason as mentioned above is the older controller boards in the downtown core.
But another reason is how the timing section deals with downtown as one giant network. When the signals are part of the same network, they must have the same overall cycle length (a cycle length encompasses all movements green for each direction, turning phases, red for each direction). So while Jasper and 104th avenue might have 90 second cycle lengths, 102 and 103 avenue by default being part of the same network will also require 90 second cycle lengths....which is not necessary during off peak hours.


LRT will throw another wrench into things but it would be nice if the city could consider a separate network for 102ave and 103ave in the meantime. It would be nice to not jaywalk every time im walking those areas.

[CanadianCentaur]

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

The problem with scramble crossings is that Edmontonians don't know how to use them, which is apparent at the one scramble crossing at Jasper/RHW

Hm, I didn't know that was an actual scramble crossing, and I've used it numerous times. And I strongly suspect that most people don't even realize this as well, let alone have experience with this kind of street crossing. It's not just that this city has very few, if any, such crossings - that intersection looks to me like it's very poorly marked as such.

There's a grey concrete X-shaped design in the RHW/Jasper Ave. intersection. But there's no white lines painted at all to indicate it as a scramble crossing like the crossing on 102 Ave from City Centre West to the YMC and Manulife. Not to mention the lack of proper signage.

[Coldrsx]

Not the best signage or promo no, but people familiar with the area certainly use it as such and you can quickly see that no traffic is moving.

[McBoo]

There's a scramble crossing at 105 Street and 105 Ave, probably very heavily used by MacEwan students.

Not sure if it's effective or not, as seemingly never-ending construction continues to block NB traffic north of 104 ave.

[Calgarian]

There are 2 scramble crossings here and I think they are both a waste of time. These really only benefit pedestrians as cars just end up waiting longer, and Edmonton doesn't have the pedestrian volume to justify a scramble (Neither do we IMO).

[Coldrsx]

Not about volume kind sir, tis about making 1 crossing versus 2....

[s4.audios]

I don't understand the purpose of the scramble crossing at RHW and Jasper Ave????

It is a T intersection... not a 4 way intersection. If a pedestrian needs to go East/West, they can do it on the southside of Jasper Ave either prior or after crossing Jasper. It is a complete waste of time and very annoying for drivers especially going West. If you catch a red light at 100 Street, the moment it turns green, this stupid scramble turns red and you have to wait double the time.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

There are 2 scramble crossings here and I think they are both a waste of time. These really only benefit pedestrians as cars just end up waiting longer, and Edmonton doesn't have the pedestrian volume to justify a scramble (Neither do we IMO).

Agreed. There really isn't any sort of critical mass that would justify these crossings. Around here they're more soup-du-jour than anything. They need to shorten up the light cycles, done

[Mikemike]

We seem to be perfectly willing to slow cycles for cars if it's cars that benefit, as the million protected left turn signals this city has installed in the last decade.

Scramble (protected pedestrians phase) intersections have all the same benefits of reduced conflict. Downtown it's a far better way to reduce turning conflicts than with left turn phases.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Not about volume kind sir, tis about making 1 crossing versus 2....

It's about completely separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic (usually under the guise of safety), and there has to be a large volume of pedestrians crossing to justify separating the modes completely. For Calgary and Edmonton, having pedestrians cross at the same time cars go works fine, if that has an effect on traffic, then an advance turn for cars is sufficient.

[McBoo]

Originally Posted by s4.audios

I don't understand the purpose of the scramble crossing at RHW and Jasper Ave????

It is a T intersection... not a 4 way intersection. If a pedestrian needs to go East/West, they can do it on the southside of Jasper Ave either prior or after crossing Jasper. It is a complete waste of time ...

Agreed. And if I'm going E/W on the north side - I just look left, look right and when safe cross regardless of what the light says ...

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Airboy

It will be nice to see the photo progression of that building get completed.

courtesy of bulliver and sahlgoode, there is now a slight "refresh" of http://primaveradevelopmentgroup.com/ which includes a link to some photos of the existing condition of the brighton block taken last august and one (also used as the home page photo) previously taken by hugh lee (sahlgoode).

you can see more of hugh's work documenting the adjacent lodge hotel/pendenning building at https://www.flickr.com/photos/sahlgoode/6795259786/in/album-72157629149373577

as long as there are no objections, i will continue to link to additional material as it becomes available.

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Not about volume kind sir, tis about making 1 crossing versus 2....

Except it only really has a benefit when you have a reasonable volume making 2 crossings, and even then that benefit is arguable in most cases. In Edmonton on Jasper ave for example for most intersections along Jasper have the strongly favoured pedestrian movement is crossing E-W on the north side of the street. When these intersections become scrambles, people making the more commong single crossing, as well as vehicles can be expected to end up waiting longer overall. Additionally, if you are crossing in two directions the odds are you will never have to wait long for a two stage crossing anyways, even with our current timings.

Again, I'd say they are good in particular situations when the pedestrian and vehicle movements make sense. I think they feel fun from a pedestrian perspective because people kind of take over the intersection for a bit so we've come to associate them with pedestrian friendly design. However, from my experience its a symbolic nod and doesn't usually actually improve pedestrian wait times overall. Although I guess if people feel like it does...maybe it doesnt matter?