London Roads

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

As a part-time pedestrian, I have to agree that roundabouts are not at all friendly for pedestrians, unless you enjoy playing Russian roulette with the whirling cars. There never seems to be a clear understanding of when pedestrians actually have the right of way. My children have been almost flattened by numb-skulled mega-pickup-truck asswipes (God, London has these jerks in spades) and souped-up second-hand Honda civics racing through the intersection.

Ontario is terrible for pedestrian respect. In BC, where I once lived, you step on the crosswalk and cars must immediately come to a full stop, both directions, or risk a massive ticket. That is the way it should be here.

Try crossing the road at Hyde Park Rd. and Coronation. I spent 15 minutes there the other day with my son, trying to get to the park on the other side. Imfuckingpossible. Had to walk all the way to Gainsborough to cross, then walk back down.

London is carland.

Again it depends on the situation, a lower traffic roundabout is perfectly fine for pedestrians. Certainly higher volume traffic areas need special attention, in which signals are implemented and or an overpass for people to avoid traffic.

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Without signals, a roundabout deprives someone on foot of the right of way (unless motor vehicles should yield to all people wanting to cross- is that what you’re saying?). The situation becomes one in which the much faster, larger, less vulnerable traffic is given priority, and the slower more vulnerable traffic has to “wait for a gap.” I can’t personally imagine what it would be like to be disabled having to wait for an even larger gap that will come at some undetermined time, but it’s frustrating as an able-bodied person to have to wait for gaps in traffic that by definition are at undetermined intervals. I am at a loss as to how folks with visual impairment are expected to have any mobility at all with places where they are expected to ‘Yield to Traffic’ and ‘Wait for Gap.’

Add this to the fact that roundabouts increase walking distance between points…how exactly are they “fine for pedestrians”?

Increase walking distance by how much? Now we are just trying to make a point for nothing. As I said roundabouts are not the end all be all, they need to be planned and implemented for that given area and I am sure the planning committee takes into account pedestrians. They would not go and build a 3 lane roundabout at Wellington/Commissioners and just expect people to try and walk around the thing, they would have to build an over or under pass for pedestrians.

Personally I drive the hall/trafalgar roundabout at minimum 2 times a day, there are instances when a pedestrian is waiting to cross and if I am next in line yes I do take the few seconds to stop, wave them to go and then continue on. Not to say everybody does this but I would hope the large majority of drivers would do the same.

[HillStreetBlues]

To be fair, Hamilton, where I am currently living, is even worse than London. I’m not disputing that London is terrible, but Hamilton is shocking. I’m near downtown, which is trisected by two five-lane one-way expressways with three-foot-wide sidewalks. It doesn’t matter that the other streets are not as bad: motorists do not watch for people on foot or bike; drivers keep on turning left a minute after they’ve got the red (this is an unusually common problem in London, too); people on the way home from the rocket scientist laboratory zip into “bike lanes” (the space between a fading painted line and the curb, usually used to stop while you pop into the liquor store) to save the three seconds they’d wait behind some other car. To get between downtown Hamilton and the university on foot or bike (who would want to do that, right? That demographic doesn’t need alternatives to the car), you have to pass over the 403: where cars merge off and on the highway (from one-way streets pretty much as fast as it is in rush hour), they have the right of way and humans are supposed to wait for them, and dismount their bicycles.

You’re right that Ontario is generally terrible for human beings (as opposed to motorists). If you hadn’t walked hundreds of meters out of your way, and some mouth-breather who had somehow slipped through the cracks of the province’s ultra-rigorous driving license testing system and scraped together enough money to buy a used cavalier had struck and killed you and your son, he’d just have to say “they came out of nowhere!” and get off with a $500 fine. And we’d read news articles denouncing you as jaywalkers, and lazy for not walking to the crosswalk who-cares-how-far-it-is, and advising all of us that if we insist on walking, we’d better wear orange vests and helmets with flashing lights on them.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

Increase walking distance by how much? Now we are just trying to make a point for nothing. .

The answer is that it depends on the radius of the roundabout. In modern cities, road design is undertaken such that even the most vulnerable have as much mobility as possible, and increasing the distance they have to travel is not taken lightly.

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

As I said roundabouts are not the end all be all, they need to be planned and implemented for that given area and I am sure the planning committee takes into account pedestrians. They would not go and build a 3 lane roundabout at Wellington/Commissioners and just expect people to try and walk around the thing, they would have to build an over or under pass for pedestrians.
.

Are you really sure they wouldn’t do this? Also, how many examples of pedestrian overpasses do we have in London? Is there a single example of a pedestrian subway in the entire city?

It is not an argument- particularly in London- that, if something is done, it must be smart, because the planners wouldn’t have done it in that way if it wasn’t smart.

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

Personally I drive the hall/trafalgar roundabout at minimum 2 times a day, there are instances when a pedestrian is waiting to cross and if I am next in line yes I do take the few seconds to stop, wave them to go and then continue on. Not to say everybody does this but I would hope the large majority of drivers would do the same.

I’m happy to hear that you do that. It’s nice that you “hope” that the “large majority” of drivers would do the same, but you couldn’t believe that. Also, the fact is that the rules are unclear and I personally am uncertain whether motorist need to yield to people on foot. The fact that some do practice that and some do not can lead to a dangerous situation, and having to wait a highly variable (in this case, dependent on how magnanimous other individuals happen to be feeling) amount of time to cross the street makes walking extremely inconvenient.

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Are you really sure they wouldn’t do this? Also, how many examples of pedestrian overpasses do we have in London? Is there a single example of a pedestrian subway in the entire city?

Note I did not say London, I did say if there was a large roundabout implemented within the city, the city would look at pedestrian traffic and if needed build something to accommodate that.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

Note I did not say London, I did say if there was a large roundabout implemented within the city, the city would look at pedestrian traffic and if needed build something to accommodate that.

Within the city...of London, I'm guessing. Isn't this forum "London Roads"?

Notwithstanding the fact that you’ve said you know that roundabouts are only sometimes the right solution, they are so chic lately that, yes, I think they are often (in Waterloo Region and B.C. is where I have specifically seen this) implemented in places where they serve to discourage walking because they are terrible for people on foot above a very modest level of vehicle traffic. Commissioners and Adelaide was raised here as a possible spot for a roundabout, which would be a two (or more?) lane monstrosity. And, if it were ever built, I don’t think we would have any reasonable expectation from the City of London for any consideration for safety besides “wait as long as it takes for a gap in traffic.”

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Within the city...of London, I'm guessing. Isn't this forum "London Roads"?

Notwithstanding the fact that you’ve said you know that roundabouts are only sometimes the right solution, they are so chic lately that, yes, I think they are often (in Waterloo Region and B.C. is where I have specifically seen this) implemented in places where they serve to discourage walking because they are terrible for people on foot above a very modest level of vehicle traffic. Commissioners and Adelaide was raised here as a possible spot for a roundabout, which would be a two (or more?) lane monstrosity. And, if it were ever built, I don’t think we would have any reasonable expectation from the City of London for any consideration for safety besides “wait as long as it takes for a gap in traffic.”

Are you just trying to get into an argument? Certainly was not my intention, if you read back I was specifically talking about European cities who have put overpasses and other means to service pedestrian traffic at busy roundabouts. If a city in Canada didn't do the same thing and put in a roundabout on a busy corner I would agree it would be absolutely stupid and I am sure that has been done.

As I stated already if London were to put a roundabout at a busy corner I would hope they would consider pedestrian traffic, otherwise it may be counter productive to change the intersection if it is only benefiting vehicles. That said there are many instancing (in the world) where roundabouts works perfectly fine for all parties foot, bike, vehicle, donkey, whatever you are on.

[MolsonExport]

In my experience, the needs of pedestrians come last. Only after people make enough of a stink, will something get done.

1970s mindset.


Even pedestrian zones are often trampled upon. Case in point, is the wretched patio of Friday Night Lights on Richmond.

[MrSlippery519]

Sad way to think, but you are not wrong. Hopefully that is changing in time, especially "downtown"

[Pimpmasterdac]

Couple of updates from the civic works committee.

The intersection of Southdale & Boler with be studied to see what improvements could be done to the current T-intersection. A roundabout is being considered the most desirable improvement, but all factors will be considered. It's also interesting as it acknowledges that there is to be a connector road built linking Boler to Colonel Talbot eventually, and might take into consideration the (eventual) 4 lane widening of Boler Rd.

Southdale & Boler: http://sire.london.ca/view.aspx?cabi...&fileid=149647

Sarnia Rd from Castlegrove to Wonderland will be widened 5 lanes, the project was scheduled for the 2020s, however given its proximity to UWO, the growth in the Northwest end and the traffic backups, it will now be done in 2016 and co-inside with other utility work.

Sarnia Rd: http://sire.london.ca/view.aspx?cabi...&fileid=149649

Fanshawe Park Rd will be widened from Adelaide to Highbury in 2016, which after widening Fanshawe & Highbury intersection makes sense.

Fanshawe Park Rd: http://sire.london.ca/view.aspx?cabi...&fileid=149645

[haljackey]

More roundabouts? Me likey. Never knew about that one.

[HillStreetBlues]

A roundabout at that location probably makes sense. Widening Boler doesn’t seem sensible to me at all…

Making Sarnia Road five lanes on that stretch is unnecessary. Sarnia carries about 20,000 vehicles a day through there- a road like that doesn’t need more than one lane in each direction. In a lot of places, cities are looking at four lane roads that carry a lot more traffic than that, and converting them back to two lanes with a centre turning lane.

Very nice about the bicycle lanes, but a five lane road is designed to move car traffic at speeds that are ridiculous for within a city, so who will want to walk or cycle there?

[haljackey]

Sarnia Road has a lot of buses on it due to its proximity to UWO. There is only 1 westbound lane. Some stops do not have bus bays, so it sucks.

If you are on the bus, it can take a while to merge back onto the road from a bus bay during rush hour as there is only 1 lane to funnel all the cars, so it sucks.

Hyde Park is also growing so traffic volumes will continue to grow, so it makes sense in my mind to make the road a minimum of 4 lanes from Wonderland to Western.

*I must confess this may be a bit bias coming from a former Western student who commuted on this road by car and bus for years.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Sarnia widening is needed not only for UWO, but the entire growth in the west-end. Oxford and Fanshawe Park Rd. are the only other east-west alternatives to the north-west end, which are already quite congested. As well now that Sarnia has the new bridge over the CP tracks the whole area is being developed big time.

Hopefully more T-intersections are improved with roundabounts, London still taking baby steps, but getting better. Boler-Sanatorium Rd widening is still 10+ years off. Wonderland is already a shitshow most days, Hyde Park-Sanatorium-Boler-Colonel Talbot would be the far west end, north-south corridor with 4 lanes (unless any west-end freeway ever is built). But knowing Byron the NIMBY crowd will be out and full force to stop this when its day eventually does come up.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Sarnia Road has a lot of buses on it due to its proximity to UWO. There is only 1 westbound lane. Some stops do not have bus bays, so it sucks.

If you are on the bus, it can take a while to merge back onto the road from a bus bay during rush hour as there is only 1 lane to funnel all the cars, so it sucks.

Hyde Park is also growing so traffic volumes will continue to grow, so it makes sense in my mind to make the road a minimum of 4 lanes from Wonderland to Western.

*I must confess this may be a bit bias coming from a former Western student who commuted on this road by car and bus for years.

I’ve observed this on the bus there, too (although not for a while, now, and I can suppose it only gets worse). I’d suggest the province pass a law requiring private vehicles to allow buses to merge when they’re signalling. Since this law already exists, I’d suggest that the London police enforce it from time to time… That’s a much cheaper solution to the issue of jerks not giving way to buses. I don’t think the extra lane would be a solution to this at all.

The volume of traffic on Sarnia does not justify four lanes. And if you forecast growth in vehicle traffic, and then build enough capacity for your forecasts, that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: we know that traffic volume grows to use the capacity provided to it (this is kind of similar to Jevon’s paradox). The City of London could try to accommodate some of that growth in the west end through transit ridership and active transportation. It is not too late to do that, though it would have been easier before blindly approving the sprawl. Instead, it’s opting to widen this road, increasing vehicle traffic and causing years of costly maintenance that could have been avoided.

Re: Boler. Hopefully Byroners never do allow that one to be widened. It’s residential almost its entire length. I have no idea what volume it carries, but it can’t be much.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

I’ve observed this on the bus there, too (although not for a while, now, and I can suppose it only gets worse). I’d suggest the province pass a law requiring private vehicles to allow buses to merge when they’re signalling. Since this law already exists, I’d suggest that the London police enforce it from time to time… That’s a much cheaper solution to the issue of jerks not giving way to buses. I don’t think the extra lane would be a solution to this at all.

The volume of traffic on Sarnia does not justify four lanes. And if you forecast growth in vehicle traffic, and then build enough capacity for your forecasts, that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: we know that traffic volume grows to use the capacity provided to it (this is kind of similar to Jevon’s paradox). The City of London could try to accommodate some of that growth in the west end through transit ridership and active transportation. It is not too late to do that, though it would have been easier before blindly approving the sprawl. Instead, it’s opting to widen this road, increasing vehicle traffic and causing years of costly maintenance that could have been avoided.

The argument of widening roads attracting traffic is an interesting one. My theory is that such widenings, while increasing traffic on the widened road actually decreases traffic on nearby roads including residential streets. I started commuting from Byron to Western back when Oxford was still two lanes west of Wonderland, and I noticed a decrease in traffic on Riverside between Sanatorium and Wonderland after Oxford was widened from Hyde Park to Wonderland (2006). Likewise I'm sure that traffic volumes on Highway 22 west of London would be a lot higher today if it weren't for Highway 402.

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Re: Boler. Hopefully Byroners never do allow that one to be widened. It’s residential almost its entire length. I have no idea what volume it carries, but it can’t be much.

Boler north of Byron Baseline was highly congested during rush hour when I still lived there, 3+ years ago. It would be lined up solidly from Commissioners to Byron Baseline. Traffic light timings were part of the problem, but not the whole problem. I've long been in favour of widening it from Byron Baseline across the bridge up to Oxford Street.

[HillStreetBlues]

Here is an article in USA Today about a study by a few U of T researchers into just this issue. I chose this one fairly randomly: there is a lot of evidence out there that increasing road capacity leads to increased, not decreased, traffic. In addition to the finding in this study that road expansion and demand increase almost one for one, they say “a new lane kilometer of roadway diverts little traffic from other roads.”

I have to say, I'm personally most interested in this from a financial perspective. I don't drive or walk or anything else on Sarnia or most other roads, so it's not too exciting to me whether they are complete streets with mixed use that are comfortable to walk or bike along and contribute to a healthy neighbourhood...or five-lane stroads that encourage nincompoops to drive 75 kilometres an hour, making the road inhospitable for any other use than going really fast. If I lived near Sarnia or had to use it, I'd be upset. Even if you don't, though, London has something like 3500 kilometers of roadways that it has to maintain in the future. Roads are not inexpensive to maintain, so I really think there are more sensible ways to spend capital dollars than to add lane capacity that becomes a maintenance liability for decades to come, and simultaneously does little or nothing to ease congestion.

[haljackey]

All they really need do to Sarina is lay a 3m wide line of asphalt from Wonderland to Sleighthome and it will operate soooo much better than it does now.

Add a few more bus bays and a double-left to Wonderland SB and you're golden.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

In my experience, the needs of pedestrians come last. Only after people make enough of a stink, will something get done.

1970s mindset.


Even pedestrian zones are often trampled upon. Case in point, is the wretched patio of Friday Night Lights on Richmond.

I work in the Royal Bank building, which sits next to Friday Knight Lights, and rumours of the bar's closing have been going around for a while. Here's hoping it closes. That section of Richmond is full of scummy bars filled with scumbags and run-down storefronts. If FKL does close, you and I will get our wish and the patio which encroaches on the sidewalk will be gone. Soon.

How city hall ever approved that patio is beyond me. Maybe Farhi was desperate to rent the place, and the city was desperate for the tax money it would bring, so they allowed it, even though it probably violates a whole bunch of bylaws regarding sidewalks and setbacks.

[MolsonExport]

It is closing today, Hooray!!!