Comment 105190

By StephenBarath (registered) | Posted October 03, 2014 at 10:56:57 in reply to Comment 105188

Thank you for raising Dundurn- it is kind of odd that it has such a long stretch with no safe place to cross. I wouldn’t know if it a light is justified for that cost (I’m with you- it would be more efficient for people to simply yield to people crossing), but I’m curious about how that would be assessed on a stretch like this, and maybe someone can clarify.

When the Aberdeen-Kent light was installed, staff evidently went and counted how many people crossed there. Did they count specifically there, or over a wider spanse of Aberdeen? On Dundurn, people cross outside of crosswalks (because there are none) over 750 meters, as you say. If a crosswalk existed at Melbourne (or wherever on this stretch), they might well walk to that point to cross.

But if someone from the traffic department were to go and assess how many people currently cross at Melbourne, I presume it would be a low number if they do not capture the number of people who cross at Jackson, Hill, Chatham, in front of the beer store, or else wherever they happen to be when traffic allows them to. I’m curious as to whether they would say “a cross walk is not justified at Melbourne- only x pedestrians cross there per day” or “a cross walk is justified somewhere on Dundurn because x pedestrians cross somewhere in this 750 meter stretch.”

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds