Roads/Bridges projects/issues

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

It’s more than speeding, it’s all of the congestion caused by parents driving up to the school and dropping off kids. We actually had a kid clipped on the sidewalk by a mom in an SUV doing a u-turn.

This makes the area in front of the school a safe zone while kids are walking and riding bikes to school. It’s actually a really good idea.

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

In certain parts of Barrhaven (perhaps elsewhere too) I've noticed signs attached to lamp posts saying "X school is only an X minute walk from here". I'd imagine these signs were put up to encourage more parents to have their kids walk and avoid having the entire school population be driven to/from school, leading to the chaotic and downright dangerous traffic situations we're seeing.

Ironically, I bet many parents feel more comfortable driving their kids to school because they're worried about letting them walk with all the aggressive and dangerous drivers these days.

Hate to be all "back in my day" but it was a simple 10-15 min (accounting for child-sized legs), 800m walk to elementary school for me growing up. Now whenever I visit my parents, I notice the neighbours loading up the kids into the SUV presumably to drive them to the same school. And whenever I've had the misfortune of driving by my old school during the start/finish of school hours, I can't believe the mess of cars parked in every which way, pulling all kinds of boneheaded maneuvers.

Maybe the school in the article didn't close the street specifically for kids to play on it (I wouldn't put too much weight into what Councillor Plante says, politicians say the darnedest things) but rather to force parents to consider alternate means for their kids to get to and from school, now that the "convenience" of dropping them off at the front door has been axed.

The decline in walking to school is a known and disturbing phenomenon substantially driven by our poor urban design over the last 20-30 years and our housing crisis (fewer families in subdivisions). Great video from Vancouver urbanist YouTuber Uytae Lee:

• Video Link

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I agree that car drop-offs at elementary schools are a mess but am doubtful that that many kids who go to Trille des Bois are really within walking distance (1-1.5 km) of the school.

It shares a fairly large catchment area with another school from the same board closer to the river, encompassing all of Vanier, New Edinburgh, Overbrook, Rockcliffe Park, Cyrville, St Laurent, etc.

Ontario's school set-up with 4 distinct systems isn't very conducive to having all or most of the kids walk to the neighbourhood school closest to them.

It doesn't even happen that much in the newer suburbs where most houses have school-aged kids.

So I am sure there aren't a couple hundred school-aged francophone public schoolkids in the immediate vicinity of Trille des Bois since the inner city has more retirees and childless households.

It also offers the specialized Steiner-Waldorf program so there are likely quite a few kids from outside its zone as parents shop around for school these days.

The kids who are outside walking distance are mostly getting bussed in. Bussing for the French schools is quite extensive. It's actually the parents who don't qualify for bussing actually driving in kids here. And most of them can definitely walk.

[rocketphish]

Ottawa city council OK's rural speed camera pilot project
"We want to make sure motorists slow down when they enter those villages."

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen
Published Feb 07, 2024 • 2 minute read

Coming soon to a rural road near you: automated speed cameras.

Ottawa city council on Wednesday gave its blessing to a pilot project to install automated speed enforcement cameras in some rural villages. Results from the pilot project will be used to assess whether to permanently expand the program into the countryside.

The motion came from Rideau-Jock Coun. David Brown, who said a traffic study showed that, while nine per cent of traffic collisions occurred in rural areas of Ottawa, those rural crashes accounted for 37 per cent of traffic deaths.

The city currently has about 40 ASE cameras, mostly placed in school zones and near parks, with four more installed or about to be installed along “high volume/high-speed” roads.

The city’s 2024 transportation budget included $2.4 million to add another 20 cameras, bringing the total to 60. Only eight are designated for rural areas.

When deciding where to put ASE cameras, the city uses data such as traffic volumes and average speeds, but some rural villages have low traffic volumes and wouldn’t meet those standards, Brown said.

“There are long stretches of roadway when you’re entering a village where it’s 80 km/h and then it immediately drops to 50 km/h. Many motorists, when they’re entering the village, will take their foot off the gas, but they just carry on through,” Brown said.

In one village, there are 10 kilometres of open road before any driver encounters a stop sign.

“We want to make sure motorists slow down when they enter those villages,” Brown said. “This isn’t about going around the system or creating a new system, but looking at how we can create a program to address the safety concern we have in our rural villages, knowing that many of them won’t qualify under the current criteria of the program.”

Clarke Kelly, councillor for the West Carleton-March ward, said the cameras were needed because Ottawa police speed enforcement in his ward was “non-existent.”

Speaking after the meeting, Mayor Mark Sutcliffe called the statistics on the high number of fatal crashes in rural areas “shocking.”

“We need to do everything we can to maintain and protect the security of people travelling on rural roads,” Sutcliffe said. “I think there’s a lot of evidence that speed cameras work. If there’s an opportunity to do that through this pilot project, then I think it’s a good way forward.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...-pilot-project

[J.OT13]

Now THAT's gonna be a cash cow. Nearly no one drives below 20 km/h over the limit on rural roads.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Now THAT's gonna be a cash cow. Nearly no one drives below 20 km/h over the limit on rural roads.

Yeah, yeah, year, pilot project. In another couple of years, we will have dozens more everywhere. And then they will implement speed limit reductions, so that there is inconsistent speed limits on the same road, just to confuse drivers with some safety argument for specific locations.

Those little signs announcing the camera are meeting the minimum of the law. They are easy to miss. If we are really serious about this, we should have the speed limit sign and one of those speed monitoring signs on the same post. This in combination with the camera will be much more effective in getting people to slow down. But, the city wants the cash and more effective solutions will reduce the revenue generation of the cameras. This is telling.

What is disturbing is the story earlier this week about fines being issued for right turns on red. This really becomes a grey area, about the rules on making a legal turn on a red. I really question the safety value on issuing tickets in this case and the interpretation of what is legal and what is not. Does anybody really know these rules precisely? At the very least, the fine should be much less than straight through red light crossing. But again, this will cut into the revenue stream for the cameras.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Now THAT's gonna be a cash cow. Nearly no one drives below 20 km/h over the limit on rural roads.

Some rural folks have a tendency to shoot at roadside targets. I wonder how long a camera would last?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Some rural folks have a tendency to shoot at roadside targets. I wonder how long a camera would last?

Spray painting is easier and less dangerous and we know this is already happening.

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yeah, yeah, year, pilot project. In another couple of years, we will have dozens more everywhere. And then they will implement speed limit reductions, so that there is inconsistent speed limits on the same road, just to confuse drivers with some safety argument for specific locations.

Those little signs announcing the camera are meeting the minimum of the law. They are easy to miss. If we are really serious about this, we should have the speed limit sign and one of those speed monitoring signs on the same post. This in combination with the camera will be much more effective in getting people to slow down. But, the city wants the cash and more effective solutions will reduce the revenue generation of the cameras. This is telling.

What is disturbing is the story earlier this week about fines being issued for right turns on red. This really becomes a grey area, about the rules on making a legal turn on a red. I really question the safety value on issuing tickets in this case and the interpretation of what is legal and what is not. Does anybody really know these rules precisely? At the very least, the fine should be much less than straight through red light crossing. But again, this will cut into the revenue stream for the cameras.

Right turn hooks are one of the most common collisions between vehicles and pedestrians, since drivers tend to look left for a gap, rather than looking to their right to see if a pedestrian (who has the right of way) is crossing. This why why right turns on red are restricted at high volume pedestrian intersections. Any fine that punishes drivers who put human lives at risk by violating this rule (which is pretty clearly stated on multiple signs at intersections) is good by me.

The news article with the person complaining about getting caught on camera wasn't because they violated a no right turn on red, it's because they didn't come to a full stop before turning right on red. They broke the rules, they got fined. I fail to see how that is a problem.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Lakeofthewood

Right turn hooks are one of the most common collisions between vehicles and pedestrians, since drivers tend to look left for a gap, rather than looking to their right to see if a pedestrian (who has the right of way) is crossing. This why why right turns on red are restricted at high volume pedestrian intersections. Any fine that punishes drivers who put human lives at risk by violating this rule (which is pretty clearly stated on multiple signs at intersections) is good by me.

The news article with the person complaining about getting caught on camera wasn't because they violated a no right turn on red, it's because they didn't come to a full stop before turning right on red. They broke the rules, they got fined. I fail to see how that is a problem.

Who is talking about signed no turn on red locations?

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by Lakeofthewood

Right turn hooks are one of the most common collisions between vehicles and pedestrians, since drivers tend to look left for a gap, rather than looking to their right to see if a pedestrian (who has the right of way) is crossing. This why why right turns on red are restricted at high volume pedestrian intersections. Any fine that punishes drivers who put human lives at risk by violating this rule (which is pretty clearly stated on multiple signs at intersections) is good by me.

The news article with the person complaining about getting caught on camera wasn't because they violated a no right turn on red, it's because they didn't come to a full stop before turning right on red. They broke the rules, they got fined. I fail to see how that is a problem.

Right-turn on red are only restricted if there's an Rb-79R sign sign present. These are usually used at intersections with high collision history (ped/bike or traffic), poor sight lines, or sometimes when then there's a signalized bicycle crossing. Traffic volumes alone are not a factor to determine whether or not you can turn right on red.

Regarding the case at Montreal at Brittany, based on the news reports the driver did stop for a second or two prior to turning. That's a relatively narrow intersection (at least in the E-W direction), so perhaps camera detection loops are closer to the stop bar compared to a larger intersection ... who knows.

In any case, he'll likely win his case in traffic court if he indeed stopped then turned.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Now THAT's gonna be a cash cow. Nearly no one drives below 20 km/h over the limit on rural roads.

Good. People need to learn that speeding is unacceptable everywhere. Don't like the current limit? Campaign for higher limits.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by hwy418

Regarding the case at Montreal at Brittany, based on the news reports the driver did stop for a second or two prior to turning. That's a relatively narrow intersection (at least in the E-W direction), so perhaps camera detection loops are closer to the stop bar compared to a larger intersection ... who knows.

In any case, he'll likely win his case in traffic court if he indeed stopped then turned.

He didn’t stop though.

The ticket shows the Jeep moved from the first picture (where it approaches the stop line) to the 2nd picture 1.8 seconds later, where it had completely crossed the stop line and is turning the corner.

It is impossible to come to a complete stop and then start moving forward again in 1.8 seconds. He simply didn’t stop. He deserves the ticket.

[vtecyo]

Originally Posted by TransitZilla

He didn’t stop though.

The ticket shows the Jeep moved from the first picture (where it approaches the stop line) to the 2nd picture 1.8 seconds later, where it had completely crossed the stop line and is turning the corner.

It is impossible to come to a complete stop and then start moving forward again in 1.8 seconds. He simply didn’t stop. He deserves the ticket.

Impossible? I'm not saying he did or didn't stop - but 1.8 seconds is a long time when accelerating a car from a stop. In that much time an average car can easily accelerate fast enough to go a couple of car lengths (one car length being about 4m to 5m).

Based on the photos here https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-man...ight-1.6755503 - and from Google maps - it looks to be no more than 8m to 10m (~2 car lengths) from the stop line to where his car appears to be in the photo.

Maybe he just slowed down enough for him to feel like it was a complete stop but actually rolled over the line very slowly - and then floored it a bit around the corner? Or maybe he did come come to a complete stop - but not for a long enough time for the camera (and radar?) to detect it as such.

If anything the city should at least double check all the cameras are calibrated correctly - so it's not falsely ticketing anyone.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by vtecyo

Impossible? I'm not saying he did or didn't stop - but 1.8 seconds is a long time when accelerating a car from a stop. In that much time an average car can easily accelerate fast enough to go a couple of car lengths (one car length being about 4m to 5m).

Sure, but in the first picture, the vehicle was just approaching the stop line. It was not yet stopped. 1.8 seconds is not enough time to decelerate to zero and then accelerate again.

If anything the city should at least double check all the cameras are calibrated correctly - so it's not falsely ticketing anyone.

All the infractions are reviewed by human officers before tickets are sent. Clearly, in their judgement, it is legit.

[lrt's friend]

Obviously, there is no video, so there is a degree of judgement. Regardless, even if it was 'rolling stop', how is this the same degree of an offense compared to running straight through a red light? Man, I did this myself yesterday from a private driveway, when there was a clear break in traffic. I know, I am an awful driver, endangering other car drivers and pedestrians when there was none. It seems to me that rules are different when there is a private road entrance, or a turn ramp or a stop sign or a signaled intersection when the risks are identical. The other question: Would a police officer ever stop this driver unless it was an unsafe turn? Not likely.

[TransitZilla]

I'm surprised at your opposition here given your history as a transit advocate. Remember, transit users are also pedestrians when they are walking to and from a bus stop.

To reach the closest bus stop to my house, I need to cross Hunt Club Rd at Cahill Dr, which is a T intersection, and also in the 60 km/hr section of Hunt Club. (Incidentally, nearly all vehicles on Hunt Club travelled far in excess of this speed limit until the recent installation of the speed camera).

A westbound driver approaching Cahill to turn right may think "hey, what's the point in stopping, it's a T intersection, there can't be any cars coming!" and just fly through the right on red (or make "rolling stop"). But they're forgetting about pedestrians crossing at the crosswalk.

One of the most terrifying experiences I had crossing to the bus stop there was when this exact thing happened. Because there were other cars waiting at the intersection in the through lanes, I couldn't see the approaching vehicle in the right turn lane, and the driver couldn't see me. Suddenly, a car was RIGHT THERE, and it was an extremely close call. I shudder to think about what would happen if I had been crossing with my kids that day.

So yes, I think we should enforce traffic rules to protect vulnerable people out on the road, like cyclists and pedestrians.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TransitZilla

I'm surprised at your opposition here given your history as a transit advocate.

I'm not. That's why I call him car's friend now.

[vtecyo]

Originally Posted by TransitZilla

Sure, but in the first picture, the vehicle was just approaching the stop line. It was not yet stopped. 1.8 seconds is not enough time to decelerate to zero and then accelerate again.



All the infractions are reviewed by human officers before tickets are sent. Clearly, in their judgement, it is legit.

Now that I've fully watched the interview with him on the CTV site - I noticed that at 24 seconds he says the ticket he got literally tells him that he stopped at the light - then drove through it - but we know he made a right turn on Brittany drive. So if what he says about the ticket is true - then he doesn't deserve the fine.

However - whoever reviewed it isn't infallible. Perhaps the person reviewing the ticket was confused on his direction of travel.

At this T junction intersection only the westbound side has a street you can legally turn onto on a red light - Brittany Drive. The reviewer might have thought he was going eastbound - and proceeded all the way through the intersection - then turned onto Borthwick Avenue. That both streets start with a B probably doesn't help.

It's also possible that the system the province uses has been incorrectly saying the camera is facing eastbound instead of westbound? I wonder if there are a lot more undeserved tickets being given at this intersection based on that.

Red is where he turned - blue is where they may have thought he turned.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by vtecyo

Now that I've fully watched the interview with him on the CTV site - I noticed that at 24 seconds he says the ticket he got literally tells him that he stopped at the light - then drove through it - but we know he made a right turn on Brittany drive. So if what he says about the ticket is true - then he doesn't deserve the fine.

However - whoever reviewed it isn't infallible. Perhaps the person reviewing the ticket was confused on his direction of travel.

At this T junction intersection only the westbound side has a street you can legally turn onto on a red light - Brittany Drive. The reviewer might have thought he was going eastbound - and proceeded all the way through the intersection - then turned onto Borthwick Avenue. That both streets start with a B probably doesn't help.

It's also possible that the system the province uses has been incorrectly saying the camera is facing eastbound instead of westbound? I wonder if there are a lot more undeserved tickets being given at this intersection based on that.

Red is where he turned - blue is where they may have thought he turned.

Only one of those directions has a red light camera, facing West: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4427...8192?entry=ttu

[vtecyo]

Originally Posted by Catenary

Only one of those directions has a red light camera, facing West: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4427...8192?entry=ttu

I know - but what I'm wondering is if the Province's review system doesn't make it clear to the reviewer what direction the camera faces. Or whoever reviewed was just confused when looking at whatever report they received about it.