Good article in today's Herald explaining how the City of Calgary has now prohibited pedestrians from a previously legal crossing at Memorial Drive near the Peace Bridge (intersection of Memorial and 8th St):
photo: Calgary Herald
Under the Alberta Traffic Safety Act, all intersections (even t-intersections like this) indicate crossing sites where pedestrians have the right of way over motor vehicles. But apparently backlash from drivers has prompted the City to erect barriers and install signs to make the intersection out of bounds to pedestrians, forcing them to find the next marked intersection to cross.
While I can see both sides of this story that puts pedestrians in conflict with auto traffic (and that the pedestrian inconvenience isn't particularly huge), I think it is telling that the City decided to erect barriers and pedestrian 'traffic' signs to make crossing illegal rather than expect motorists to obey the law. According to tweets by Jason Markusoff at the Herald, the Calgary Police Service had even been telling Calgarians that it was unlawful to cross Memorial at intersections lacking painted crosswalks! (Not according to the Traffic Safety Act guys!!) So maybe that's what prompted the barricades and signs to force it to be illegal? What a mess.
The City has also said it will fine jaywalkers who disobey the new signs, although there are no reports that any tickets were ever handed out to motorists who failed to yield to pedestrians legally crossing at the intersection. It's another example of prioritizing the speed and convenience of motorists above all else, even the privileges and safety of others. Sad.
Who's rights would be protected?
Submitted by bclark on
I wonder, if someone chose to fight a ticket, would the court uphold their rights under the Traffic Safety Act?
Interstingly, figure 2.1 (pg 26) of the 2011 Interim Complete Streets Guide for Calgary classivies Memorial Drive as an example of a "Liveable - Parkway" with walking and cycling "accommodated with high standards (high quality facilities, low travel delay)" vs. autos "accommodated with variable standars (average quality facilities, average travel delays)".
I think a pedestrian crossing is coming to this intersection.
Perhaps a crossing at 9th street NW should also be considered so that people residents and visitors can easily access the river and Centre City.
May be moot
Submitted by DarrenB on
As I understand it, there were no tickets handed out at that intersection. However, it sounds like the City and the Calgary Police Service has been strongly insinuating that crossing at the 8th St intersection is an unlawful act (i.e. jaywalking). I fail to see how this is true.
It is moot now because they have installed signs and barriers prohibiting crossing, and ignoring those IS an offence punishable by a ticket.
I also find it very interesting that the penalty for jaywalking is actually higher than distracted driving, if memory serves correctly!
The Bright Side
Submitted by Smokey Crow on
I do remember this issue being brought up about a year ago when they were putting in a pedestrian crossing a couple blocks down from the Peace Bridge and I guess it is because the residents of Sunnyside didn't want it on 8 Street (good to know people did foresee this but nothing was done about it). And now the cost to install pedestrian lights at this intersection has been disclosed and not too sure how much more publicity the city wants to get at this point with the Peace Bridge. I am sure in time when the hoopla about this whole bridge quiets down, which I am sure it is already doing, something will be done with this crossing and the landscapping (hopefully).
The good thing about all of this is that it is getting the point across that something needs to be done and that is probably going to be a great advantage. Just hope it doesn't take someone being killed first.
Rules of the road
Submitted by DD on
The details are found in the USE OF HIGHWAY AND RULES OF THE ROAD REGULATION:
Yielding to pedestrians:
41(1) A person driving a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk.
The definition of a Crosswalk is:
(i) that part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connection of the lateral line of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or
(ii) any part of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or by other markings on the road surface;
My experience is that the overwhelming majority of drivers have no clue that they are obliged to stop for a pedestrian at an intersection that doesn't have a marked crossing and/or overhead lights.
It should always be
Submitted by Richard Z on
It should always be remembered, when discussing "inconvenience", that pedestrians are 10 times slower than cars (give or take). Asking a pedestrian to take a 1-block detour is as much inconvenience (=time lost) to them as a 10 block detour is for a motorist.
So the "there is another
Submitted by amf673 on
So the "there is another bridge X m away" could be countered by, "16 th is only 10 x X meters away" what do you need Mem. drive for? Ha!
That's basically my response
Submitted by mercator on
to every motorist that complains I'm slowing them down.
If you're in such a hurry, why aren't you using deerfoot/stoney/crowchild? I promise I won't be in your way there.
Stupid
Submitted by mikewarren on
I was going to comment on the Peace Bridge that it was stupid that they built a rock wall and a bunch of trees immediately accross from this road, which is obviously going to be heavily used -- that's how I ended up getting to the Bridge for my first trip across and noticed already that there were trails in the mud (and several pedestrians crossed while I made a left onto Memorial and an immediate curb-hop right onto the pathway).
I found it "odd" that they built the pedestrian lights away from where the Peace ended up crossing; anyone know what basis the community had for their "outcry"? I think the planners should also go and take a look at the paths already forming on the south side of the bridge -- *that's* (probably) where you wanted to build the pathway connections...
p.s. for southbound cyclists at least these signs shouldn't pose a problem, as you "should" be able to do what I did -- make a legal left onto Memorial and hop off onto the path.
I will try to bring this up
Submitted by Richard Z on
I will try to bring this up at the HHSS CA AGM tonight, but my impression from looking at the survey results (here: http://hillhurstsunnyside.org/tag/peace-bridge/) is this:
- The vote was by 60/40, and by an absolute margin of only 22 votes.
- Constructing a second pedestrian signal at 8 St was not an option: people were asked to vote also for or against losing the crossing opportunity at 7 St.
- A fair number of people chose 7 St because it is safer: 7 St dead-ends into memorial so there is no turning traffic. Closing off 8 St and/or opening up 7 St was not an option.
- A fair number of people chose 7 St because either sub-option for 8 St would restrict turning onto/off 8 St.
- A fair number of people were against moving the crossing to 8 St because additional costs involved would further fan the flames of the anti-Peace Bridge crowd.
I thought this comment was especially choice: "I make daily left turns from Memorial Drive onto 8th Street ... I could turn on 9th but then I have to deal with a stop sign in order to access my garage ... so I am against the option of shutting down the ability to make left turns from Memorial onto 8th."
So a) the survey questions were loaded, and it certainly wasn't a "would you rather have a crossing at 7 or 8 St" choice and b) a margin of 22 votes is hardly an "outcry" against a crossing at 8 St.
[Correction: The margin wasn't 22 votes, but the result would have been 50/50 if only 22 people had voted for 8 instead of 7 St.]
On the bright side: you can
Submitted by Richard Z on
On the bright side: you can still make a left turn onto Memorial from 8 St on your bike.
dismount?
Submitted by Fuzz on
Just wondering if it is required to dismount at this crossing? I assume you would have to...
Received a call from the city engineers
Submitted by snowandscience on
I 311'ed this earlier in the month, and received a phone back from a nice person at the city who said their hands were essentially tied because of the HHSS CA vote. The engineer thought the 7 St crossing was a bad idea, and that it likely would be revisited at some hypothetical time in the future. The first thing he said when he called was "Why on Earth would you want to cross at 8th St?" then burst out laughing at the obvious ridiculousness of his statement. Was nice to see the city has a bit of common sense on the design side - and the engineers appear to be supportive of an 8th St. crossing. Maybe once the Peace Bridge rage has calmed down over at the Sun, it will be more politically feasible to build a pedestrian x-ing at this intersection. Until then, hop onto Memorial, turn left onto 8th seems like the best option to cross NB.
Thanks for the update!
Submitted by fixmtl on
Thanks for the update!
Their hands may be tied when
Submitted by Richard Z on
Their hands may be tied when it comes to installing a new ped crossing there, but I'm sure their hands aren't tied when it comes to enforcing the rules of the road, e.g., requirement to yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks.
Thre is now only a sign on
Submitted by Richard Z on
Thre is now only a sign on the NW corner, so it should still be legal to cross Memorial on the east side of 8 St.
It would be nice if they
Submitted by Fuzz on
It would be nice if they would just put an overpass there. The elevation the bridge exits at is already well above Memorial, it shouldn't be that expensive to put a bridge over the whole thing. Why this wasn't considered when they built the thing is beyond me. Lack of forsight?