Let's talk about one-way streets

[flar]

If you're in the middle of an intersection waiting to turn and the light turns red, you have no choice but to go.

But that's neither here nor there, we should really get back to the fundamental issue here: one way streets, converting them, and making them better for everyone (cyclists, peds, and motorists).

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by crhayes

Maybe they can spend the 60K to study the benefits of converting King and Main to two-way

Great suggestions. Maybe use the $60K for yellow paint for the middle of the King and Main.

[adam]

The actuated operation idea promotes the same traffic patterns that have sucked the life out of the downtown for the past 30 years. The downtown as a highway instead of a destination. Its a step backwards.

[crhayes]

Yes. As the business owners say: people only notice their shops when they stop. This is true; when you are driving through downtown you can't look around and take everything in (safely anyways) your brain can't multi-task like that.

[Millstone]

Originally Posted by adam

No you are wrong.
Cars run amber lights 10-20km/h above the speed limit all the time. Cars also turn left on red lights all the time because they are "already in the intersection". Any turn on a red light is illegal. Going above the speed limit through an amber light is also illegal. Cars do illegal things at intersections all the time.

Any turn on a red light is not illegal. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

One rarely sees drivers going on the sidewalk or running stale red lights.

[Millstone]

Originally Posted by crhayes

Yes. As the business owners say: people only notice their shops when they stop. This is true; when you are driving through downtown you can't look around and take everything in (safely anyways) your brain can't multi-task like that.

You kind of can in rush hours, but beyond that it gets to be a bit like NASCAR.

[ryan_mcgreal]

I just got this from Daryl Bender, the city's manager of alternative transportation, passing along a statement from City Traffic Signals staff:

We haven't worked out the specifics yet but yes, we intend to accommodate cyclists. There are a variety of strategies and hardware options that could be used. We're in the initial stages of the process so I can't provide details at this time.

[adam]

Originally Posted by Millstone

Any turn on a red light is not illegal. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

One rarely sees drivers going on the sidewalk or running stale red lights.

Any LEFT turn on a red light is illegal. Your original point that we should not consider cyclists since you have seen some disobeying traffic rules astounds me.

[Millstone]

Originally Posted by adam

Any LEFT turn on a red light is illegal. Your original point that we should not consider cyclists since you have seen some disobeying traffic rules astounds me.

Turning left on a red is legal on one-way streets.

I'll also explain it to you again that cyclists and pedestrians alike in this town, 9 times out of 10, will completely ignore pedestrian and vehicular signals. To ask that they choose between continuing to breaking the law, or hit the crosswalk/bicycle signal and wait 10-15 seconds to cross, or wait for a car (according to the anti-car brigade in this forum, there should be plenty) to trigger the loop is not so bad. Between the latter two, you have a pretty good chance of coming up to a green light already, potentially even more so than the current timers.

Case closed!

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by Millstone

I'll also explain it to you again that cyclists and pedestrians alike in this town, 9 times out of 10, will completely ignore pedestrian and vehicular signals. To ask that they choose between continuing to breaking the law, or hit the crosswalk signal and wait 10-15 seconds to cross, or wait for a car (according to the anti-car brigade in this forum, there should be plenty) to trigger the loop is not so bad.

Case closed!

I'll give you 9 out of 10 for cyclists (it's probably higher), but no way 9 of 10 for pedestrians.

I have 243,000kms on a 2002 car (the car before had 276,000kms after 5 years - it was 1997 model year), so I'm certainly anything but anti-car. Though I do like think of myself as open to differing points of view.

So how about we make the car drivers (or their passengers) get out an press a button?

I still think spending money to speed traffic is money spent to fix a problem which doesn't really exist.

[adam]

I drive over 40km a day and its new info to me that turning left on a red light is legal.. You might want to consider the streets we are talking about are 2 way (James & John) ??

[Millstone]

Originally Posted by adam

I drive over 40km a day and its new info to me that turning left on a red light is legal.. You might want to consider the streets we are talking about are 2 way (James & John) ??

k

[SteelTown]

Bob Bratina suggested he'll bring a motion to hire a traffic officer for King and James, we used to have one in the past. Mayor Fred than said it is currently being reviewed.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to have a scramble crossing at King and James instead? Hopefully Mr. Bratina will read this.

[astroblaster]

"You may also turn left on a red light if you are moving from a one-way road onto a one-way road, but you must come to a complete stop first and wait until the way is clear."

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dan...ion3.2.3.shtml

[Bob Bratina]

Part of the reason for putting an officer on point duty at King and James is the visible police presence required to moderate some of the behaviours and activities that take place at what should be our most prominent downtown intersections. A uniformed officer would provide benefits in addition to traffic management. When I was young an officer was posted at King and James, standing on a concrete riser, keeping order among pedestrians and cars. Nowadays pedestrians are often assailed with lunatic ranting, unleashed dogs, and other things that take away from the enjoyment that a busy downtown streetscape should present.

[SteelTown]

Oh I see, well in that sense I would support a traffic officer for King and James.

I've been asked to buy drugs at the Northeast corner of King and James twice now, ruins your experience for the day.

Thanks for explaining Mr. Bratina!

[coalminecanary]

I would not oppose a uniformed presence there.

BUt I also think that king and james shoudl be the first intersectino we consider for a scramble.

The suggestion of a scramble at dundurn and main is absurd - there is not enough pedestrian activity. We'd install it and say "hey look, nobody uses it! scramble intersectinos don't work!"

We need to avoid that. Put me down as one vote for an Officer AND a scramble at james/klng!

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by flar

I saw it, but Millstone makes a valid point. Every day, I see cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike that show little regard for the rules of the road.

This post is grounds for an un-modding! Millstone's point is completely invalid to this thread and to the argument.

"most cyclists break the laws anyway, so why accommodate them" - that is, first of all, asserting casual observation as statistical fact. Secondly, it's absurd: out of one side of the mouth, complain that cyclists routinely act like pedestrians at lights, and lambaste them for it -- then turn around and support a plan that forces cyclists to ride on the sidewalk in order to actuate a light!? i mean come on.

Originally Posted by SteelTown

I often see cyclist switching to the sidewalk to skip the red light, especially at Longwood and Main St.

I routinely see cyclists riding happily along with traffic and following the rules. So what is your point?

Originally Posted by Millstone

I wonder why they would think that makes it OK. Fortunately not everyone does this. Bikes on sidewalks should be a last resort.

Exactly. So all actuated lights should accommodate cyclists without forcing them to go onto the sidewalk to press a button.

Originally Posted by Millstone

Any turn on a red light is not illegal. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

You may turn right on red, or left on red from a one way to a one way - however a valid observation (since we are allowed apparently to treat observation as statistical fact in this argument) is that most drivers do this without coming to a complete stop behind the stop-line (or pedestrian crossing line). And that is illegal. To claim that drivers rarely break laws at a red light is to close your eyes to all drivers except the ones who are going straight, and who arrive when the light is already red. Running yellows, running reds when turning, and stopping well into the pedestrian crossing are all regular occurrences that you can't just forget about simply because they go against your point.

Originally Posted by Millstone

To ask that they choose between continuing to breaking the law, or hit the crosswalk/bicycle signal and wait 10-15 seconds to cross, or wait for a car (according to the anti-car brigade in this forum, there should be plenty) to trigger the loop is not so bad.
[...]
Case closed!

Case open.
It is against the law for cyclists to be on the sidewalk. Encouraging them to go into the pedestrian areas in order to actuate the signals is akin to begging them to break the law. Your argument makes no sense.
Case closed.

[flar]

A cop standing at the entrance to Jackson Square would do wonders. There are always a bunch of drug dealers and sketchy looking kids loitering and intimidating old ladies. They all scatter ahead of the current foot patrols that walk up and down King, but come out of hiding as soon as the cops are gone.

[BrianE]

So this proposed traffic cop at King and James is going to be a robot or possibly a super human cyborg then? Because there isn't a human being in the world that can direct traffic and bust 'perps' at the same time. Each of these duties require 100% of the officers attention.