Traffic Calming

[McKellarDweller]

I find the 'new' stoplights added to Churchill between Carling and Byron, and the light at Byron and Roosevelt that will stop dominant traffic, when there is no one waiting at the side street, annoying wastes of our tax dollars. They result in people like me winding through quiet residential streets instead of taking the arteries.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by McKellarDweller

I find the 'new' stoplights added to Churchill between Carling and Byron, and the light at Byron and Roosevelt that will stop dominant traffic, when there is no one waiting at the side street, annoying wastes of our tax dollars. They result in people like me winding through quiet residential streets instead of taking the arteries.

There are definitely sensors on Roosevelt. Probably broken. Call 311.

[Buggys]

Wider residential streets allow enough space for people to turn the corners and pass each other comfortably, despite parked cars along the street and even snow piles. There's definitely an argument for having wide residential streets.

If good new development means straight instead of twisted Street layouts, that will also enable faster traffic.

So what are we left with?

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Wider residential streets allow enough space for people to turn the corners and pass each other comfortably, despite parked cars along the street and even snow piles. There's definitely an argument for having wide residential streets.

Pass each other and turn the corners on residential streets? That's the opposite of safe.
Residential street is safer when driver is forced to actually pay attention. Once it gets comfortable that's when accidents happen.

I'm not a fan of bulb-outs myself but narrow lanes, traffic islands and bollards work great.

In the Kirkwood example they should probably restrict left turn on Byron if they want that bulb-out to stay.

[MaxHeadroom]

Traffic calming is a waste of money and just clutters the street with obstacles called "street furniture." Slowing traffic down offers no real benefit other than giving satisfaction to someone who arbitrarily feels vehicles are moving too fast.

Spend the money on more police to patrol and enforce the rules instead if that is so important. It amazes me that when I visit Myrtle Beach, pretty much everyone does exactly the limit of 40 or 45 MPH on US17, which is a seven lane road. And nobody is doing 80 MPH on the freeway like is commonly the case on the 417 to Montreal. Drivers don't make unsafe turns, run yellow or red lights. It's quite relaxing!

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by McKellarDweller

I find the 'new' stoplights added to Churchill between Carling and Byron, and the light at Byron and Roosevelt that will stop dominant traffic, when there is no one waiting at the side street, annoying wastes of our tax dollars. They result in people like me winding through quiet residential streets instead of taking the arteries.

There must be sensors at Claire/Princeton as I've often been driving up Churchill and watched the little red "don't walk" countdown 3... 2... 1... then go straight to the white "walk" symbol... not sure about Dovercourt.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by MaxHeadroom

Traffic calming is a waste of money and just clutters the street with obstacles called "street furniture." Slowing traffic down offers no real benefit other than giving satisfaction to someone who arbitrarily feels vehicles are moving too fast.

Spend the money on more police to patrol and enforce the rules instead if that is so important. It amazes me that when I visit Myrtle Beach, pretty much everyone does exactly the limit of 40 or 45 MPH on US17, which is a seven lane road. And nobody is doing 80 MPH on the freeway like is commonly the case on the 417 to Montreal. Drivers don't make unsafe turns, run yellow or red lights. It's quite relaxing!

Highways? 417? What does it have to do with traffic calming?

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by MaxHeadroom

Traffic calming is a waste of money and just clutters the street with obstacles called "street furniture." Slowing traffic down offers no real benefit other than giving satisfaction to someone who arbitrarily feels vehicles are moving too fast.

Well, it offers both satisfaction and, y'know, fewer fatalities.

Spend the money on more police to patrol and enforce the rules instead if that is so important. It amazes me that when I visit Myrtle Beach, pretty much everyone does exactly the limit of 40 or 45 MPH on US17, which is a seven lane road. And nobody is doing 80 MPH on the freeway like is commonly the case on the 417 to Montreal. Drivers don't make unsafe turns, run yellow or red lights. It's quite relaxing!

You're confusing two things here: no one is proposing that speed bumps and bulb-outs be installed on the 417 or US17; These are roads which are designed and meant for vehicles only. There are very few potentially unexpected variables, so you can just set a speed and cruise. In this context, traffic calming measures would provide very little benefit (in terms of lives saved through reduced speed) and would just be annoying and potentially dangerous for the sole users of the road (cars).

But on your residential street where there are not only cars but also kids playing in the street, people cycling through and neighbours stopping in the street to chat, or on your commercial street with stop signs, red lights and stopped buses, there are loads of other users not encased in several-tonne metal carapaces. To these users, as per the graph above, a difference of a few km/h can make the difference between a scraped knee and a violent death. And studies show time and again that people drive at the speed indicated by their environment (lane width, obstacles, street framing, etc.), not by arbitrary speed limits. So in that context, speed is both much more prone to cause accidents and death, AND it's determined by the street environment. Therefore, traffic calming (which often need not cost more than the price of two flower planters or paint, btw) is appropriate.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I went to a community meeting when they were first planning Findlay Creek. I was dumbfounded by an activist who was advocating wider streets for safety reasons. In other words, keeping children on the sidewalk farther from the traffic. But of course, the wider the street, the faster the traffic moves. Just look how unrealistic a 50 km speed limit is on a 4 lane road. Even if posted, most traffic is moving significantly faster.

Obviously you don't need wider streets to keep pedestrians further from the traffic. A better option is to have a strip of grass and trees between the sidewalk and the road.

Street width is a balance. A wider curb lane (not a bike lane) is better for cyclists; however, if you make it too wide, it not only encourages people to drive faster, but it also encourages street parking, which creates blind spots. IMHO, parking should be prohibited on most Arterial and Collector streets.

[McC]

Originally Posted by roger1818

A better option is to have a strip of grass and trees between the sidewalk and the road.

Apparently the City of Ottawa is actively against treed boulevards, Darwin frequently mentions this in describing his regular run-ins with staff and consultants on his blog.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

In the Kirkwood example they should probably restrict left turn on Byron if they want that bulb-out to stay.

A far better option is to do the exact opposite of what they are currently doing. Restrict the lane width between the intersections and then widen it at the intersections, putting in a left turn lane (or better yet a traffic circle if there is room).

IMHO, traffic circles are the best form of traffic calming. They actually increase traffic flow by not requiring cars to stop needlessly, while forcing people to slow down to go around the circle. They do require more land though, especially if buses and trucks need to use it.

[McC]

You're talking about a roundabout; a traffic circle does the opposite.

One big problem with the use of roundabouts in this City: the City doesn't consider pedestrians as part of the traffic flow in the roundabout (which always has priority), and puts the yield sign after the crosswalk. An intersection like Byron and Kirkwood that is busy for large parts of the day, all week long, a pedestrian would never get to cross unless a driver voluntarily yields for them, which is unpredictable and disruptive. And what would you do with the MUP traffic?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by McC

Apparently the City of Ottawa is actively against treed boulevards, Darwin frequently mentions this in describing his regular run-ins with staff and consultants on his blog.

I agree with discouraging boulevards (treed or otherwise) except on major arteries. Adding a barrier between directions of traffic will increase traffic speed and forces people to do U-turns if they can't turn left where they want to.

I was talking about adding grass and trees between the sidewalk and road. Most newer collectors have this (though often the trees keep dying).

[Ottawa Champ]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I went to a community meeting when they were first planning Findlay Creek. I was dumbfounded by an activist who was advocating wider streets for safety reasons. In other words, keeping children on the sidewalk farther from the traffic. But of course, the wider the street, the faster the traffic moves. Just look how unrealistic a 50 km speed limit is on a 4 lane road. Even if posted, most traffic is moving significantly faster.

And now that same activist is likely one of the community members rightfully complaining about speeding and demanding traffic calming measures. The cycle continues.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by McC

You're talking about a roundabout; a traffic circle does the opposite.

One big problem with the use of roundabouts in this City: the City doesn't consider pedestrians as part of the traffic flow in the roundabout (which always has priority), and puts the yield sign after the crosswalk. An intersection like Byron and Kirkwood that is busy for large parts of the day, all week long, a pedestrian would never get to cross unless a driver voluntarily yields for them, which is unpredictable and disruptive. And what would you do with the MUP traffic?

Pretty sure the yield or lack of it comes from the provincial code.
Also, they say there is often not enough room for a roundabout. Why? Because they built roads too wide in the first place.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by McC

You're talking about a roundabout; a traffic circle does the opposite.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on this, but it appears that a roundabout is a type of traffic circle. Thus a roundabout is a traffic circle, but a traffic circle isn't necessarily a roundabout. According to the City of Ottawa, the Key features that distinguish a roundabout from other types of traffic circles are:

• Central island: A raised area in the centre of a roundabout around which traffic circulates.
• Splitter island: A raised or painted area on an approach used to separate entering from exiting traffic, deflect and slow entering traffic, and provide storage space for pedestrians crossing the road in two stages.
• Circulatory roadway: A curved path used by vehicles to travel in a counter-clockwise direction around the central island.
• Truck apron: If required on smaller roundabouts to accommodate the wheel tracking of large vehicles, an apron is the mountable portion of the central island adjacent to the circulatory roadway.
• Yield line: Pavement marking used to mark the point of entry from an approach into the circulatory roadway; is generally marked along the inscribed circle. Entering vehicles must yield to any circulating traffic coming from the left before crossing this line into the circulatory roadway.
• Pedestrian crossings: Set back from the yield line and the splitter island to allow pedestrians, wheelchairs, strollers and bicycles to pass through.

So yes, the word roundabout would have been better, but traffic circle isn't incorrect.

One big problem with the use of roundabouts in this City: the City doesn't consider pedestrians as part of the traffic flow in the roundabout (which always has priority), and puts the yield sign after the crosswalk. An intersection like Byron and Kirkwood that is busy for large parts of the day, all week long, a pedestrian would never get to cross unless a driver voluntarily yields for them, which is unpredictable and disruptive. And what would you do with the MUP traffic?

According to the Ontario Highway and Traffic act, motorists must stop for pedestrians at crosswalks, but most Ottawa drivers ignore that law. So technically the roundabout is signed correctly. We just need better enforcement of the traffic laws. Putting the yield sign before the crosswalk would only help for cars entering the roundabout. Cars leaving the roundabout still wouldn't have a yield sign for the crosswalk.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

According to the Ontario Highway and Traffic act, motorists must stop for pedestrians at crosswalks, but most Ottawa drivers ignore that law. So technically the roundabout is signed correctly. We just need better enforcement of the traffic laws. Putting the yield sign before the crosswalk would only help for cars entering the roundabout. Cars leaving the roundabout still wouldn't have a yield sign for the crosswalk.

Except that isn't the guidance ottawa gives at roundabouts to pedestrians

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Except that isn't the guidance ottawa gives at roundabouts to pedestrians

This is what the City of Ottawa says about a Pedestrian Crossing at a Roundabout:

• Use the sidewalks and crosswalks around the outside of the roundabout. Do not cut across the middle of the roundabout.
• Point your finger across the crosswalk to say to drivers you intend to cross. Look and listen for a safe gap in traffic.
• Step up to the curb. Look at the drivers. You decide when to step out and go.
• Start to cross as soon as you are sure the driver intends to slow or stop to yield the crosswalk to you.
• Watch for a driver coming in the next lane. Make sure that the driver sees you.
• Keep watching all the way across.
• Wait on the splitter island for a safe gap in traffic before crossing to the other side of the road.
• Step up to the curb. Keep pointing your finger across the crosswalk to say to drivers that you intend to cross.

[McC]

do tell what about this situation indicates that drivers should be yielding to pedestrians?
https://goo.gl/maps/2NSpBwdhKC72

There was a CBC story from 2014 that said the rules might change in 2015:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...tawa-1.2791874

But here's a streetview image from August 2015, and what does the sign say?
https://goo.gl/maps/ycMyX5JoNgJ2

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Pass each other and turn the corners on residential streets? That's the opposite of safe.
Residential street is safer when driver is forced to actually pay attention. Once it gets comfortable that's when accidents happen.

I'm not a fan of bulb-outs myself but narrow lanes, traffic islands and bollards work great.

In the Kirkwood example they should probably restrict left turn on Byron if they want that bulb-out to stay.

...Sorry I meant sometimes residential streets are so narrow that cars can't pass each other IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS at corners when there's snow.