Chris Schnurr
Carol Kosowan LL.B., B.A. (Law), B.A. (Policy)
Sharing space with other road users doesn’t come easily to North American drivers. Growing up “North American” usually means that our experience with walking and cycling is limited to going through a rite of passage known as “learning how to ride a bike” and then either riding shank’s mare or a bike as our primary means of transport until one learns how to drive a car.
Many writers point to Holland as the best example of a cycling-friendly country that seems able to accommodate cars, cyclists and pedestrians with a minimum of angst, but no one ever seems quite sure how they do it.
If I were to ask my mother how the Dutch accomplish this task, the question would perplex her. My mother comes from Amsterdam and her father and uncles owned a bicycle rental and repair shop. The first time we returned to Amsterdam with her, the bicycle culture was completely new to us, but for my mother it was an understanding that one simply grew up with. The consequences of having a car in Amsterdam are very much the same as having a car in Toronto… expensive, hard to find places to park and keep the car (attached garages are not a feature of Amsterdam city living) and often hard to manoeuvre among the throngs of cyclists and pedestrians.
The result of these realities was to give pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles equal status on the roadways. It is this distinction that has made the whole idea of sharing the road an undisputed one. The Dutch never entertain the notion that a car is the master of the roadway and pedestrians and cyclists should pay obeisance to it. Quite the opposite is true.
Traffic regulations in Holland strongly favour pedestrians and bicyclists. Even in cases where an accident results from illegal moves by pedestrians or cyclists, the motorist, in almost every case, will be found to be at least partly at fault. When the accident involves children or the elderly, the motorist will usually be found to be entirely at fault. In almost every case, the police and the courts find that motorists should anticipate unsafe and illegal walking and cycling. (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/461679 - membership required).
Contrast that with the North American approach. Pedestrians and cyclists are usually an afterthought on our roadways. If their needs, such as sidewalks, shade trees, park benches or well-designed and commodious cycling facilities, interfere with providing a quick, easy and direct access route for cars, then the pedestrians and cyclists lose every time.
You don’t have to look far to discover the truth of this. It is evident in most cities in North America and it is certainly obvious in the city of Windsor, Ontario where its automotive past has dominated the landscape and the economy of the city. With the sharp downsizing caused by the shrinking manufacturing sector, Windsor finds itself a city with a broken economic backbone. In a frantic effort to re-package itself as a great place to live and retire, it relies on promotional videos that hide the wrinkles and the rough spots – an exercise that some have described as putting lipstick on a pig.
In Windsor, the life of a pedestrian is cheap. For anyone who practices volksmarching, be prepared to deal with pedestrian signals that either don’t work at all or are timed to accommodate the steady onward rush of vehicles. As a pedestrian in Windsor, timing is everything. You can pound on the little pedestrian walk button as many times as you like…..if you haven’t made it to the curb at the right “time” to be a pedestrian…you’ll wait until the next cycle.
If you’re lucky enough to get a “walk” symbol, you’d better step smartly, because five seconds later the “don’t walk” symbol is blinking its warning. If there are more than two of you, if you are in a walker or wheelchair, or if you are only three feet tall, you’d better learn how to move faster. There are those who think that there is nothing wrong with this scenario. Why should pedestrians get preferential treatment on our roadways?
For starters, one of the unwritten rules of our North American roadway system is that pedestrians have the right of way. They are smaller than vehicles, move more slowly than vehicles, are exposed to wind, rain, snow, sleet and hail and in a vehicle/pedestrian accident will always come away with worse injuries. The dent in your hood caused by a pedestrian sailing over the top of your minivan is nothing compared to the head injury that s/he will suffer upon landing.
The vehicle is routinely, and without a second thought, given priority in the first stage of any roadway design. Everything else has to be studied and justified and if there is room it will be given a place on the roadway margin. It’s been suggested that we would arrive at a more people-friendly division of neighbourhood roadway space if we started at the margins and worked our way in, giving the vehicle whatever space is left after we build a wide sidewalk with room for neighbourhood socializing, lemonade stands and wheelchairs, a bicycle boulevard that would accommodate children and families in absolute safety, a lane for buses, fire trucks and ambulances and a passing lane to make it all work.
Traffic engineers and road designers have created the vehicle-centric model with our tacit permission. Cars make up 80% of the traffic on roadways in North America and cycling and walking lag far behind as transportation modes.
The Canadian results shown above are the same as those found locally and recorded in the Essex-Windsor Regional Transportation Master Plan 2005, p.11…
The City of Windsor has spent all of its modern existence providing a raison d’être for cars and the people who build them. As a result, it favours car-related infrastructure and pays scant attention to pedestrian infrastructure. The much ballyhooed Riverside Vista Report for example, which was supposed to meet the transportation needs of the city for the next twenty years and make it safer for all users, doesn’t even feature sidewalks for residents to walk on the north side of the street. Nor does it feature a bicycle boulevard for families because providing safety for cyclists would interfere with vehicular traffic (p. 7).
When our local health authorities exhort us to walk more and drive less it’s hard to disagree with the sentiment.
But for the 10% of pedestrians and 2% of cyclists facing Windsor’s hostile street network, they’re likely to live longer if they stay in their cars or take the bus…because we hate pedestrians here.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: City of Windsor, cycling, Essex-Windsor Regional Transportation Master Plan 2005, Holland, pedestrian, Riverside Vista Project
“doesn’t even feature sidewalks for residents to walk on the north side of the street. ”
Maybe because the majority of residents who live on the north didn’t want sidewalks on their side of the street? Or does only your opinion matter when it comes to Riverside Drive East?
The link to “Residents Oppose Cheap Airport Solution” is priceless – We want Greenrow on Riverside Drive…and a canal too!
You raise good points, but I have some disagreements as well.
I have lived in a truly pedestrian-unfriendly city — one where you literally can’t even go anywhere, not even out of the neighbourhood at all, without a car, and where your unwritten rule (which is actually written in the Highway Traffic Act Rules of the Road 140) simply does not apply. In comparison, in Windsor, I can walk to the convenience store, walk to a few restaurants, walk to a few parks, even walk to the grocery store, if I need to. The fact that this is even possible is kind of remarkable. By bike I can go even further.
And Windsor is far, far from the car paradise you make it seem in comparison. In fact, I’m stunned daily that a city so heavily invested in the auto industry paid almost no attention at all to building proper roads for itself (not even one!) and shows zero interest in fixing the design deficiencies, or even just fixing the potholes.
You say that pedestrians have to wait for the light, to cross (and let’s be honest — they often don’t wait). How is this worse than cars having to wait for the light to cross? I do agree that Windsor needs “countdown” pedestrian signals instead of “the hand”, and it would help cars and pedestrians alike if all intersections were fitted with sensors so they would be more responsive to actual use of the intersection.
You say that pedestrians are disadvantaged, and yet it is only pedestrians who have an unobstructed view, and often superior agility to deal with the unexpected. Look at that recent “viral video” about the runaway bus. Who escaped the collision? Not the car. It was the pedestrian.
I agree on the sidewalks. It’s inexcusable that we’re leaving sidewalks and bike paths out of ANY new road (whether attached to the road, or adjacent to it). But the simple reason cars must be considered first is because their requirements are more restrictive, in terms of lane width, turning radius, etc. And it’s not just cars that have to use the road. There’s also a range of emergency and delivery vehicles and also buses to consider. They all use the car part of the road. It must be given priority.
Last, please reconcile these statements you made:
(1) “… give pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles equal status …”
(2) “… strongly favour pedestrians and bicyclists.”
I believe statement (2) reflects your Holland example, and therefore I don’t believe statement (1), unless you mean that pedestrians and cyclists should be “more equal” than vehicles.
I grew up in a city that provides sidewalks in all subdivisions, including those constructed in rual areas in the 60’s. I just don’t understand Windsor’s lack of sidewalks, sidewalks on only one side of the street, and sidewalks at the curb (when there is a curb). For one of North America’s oldest settlements, Windsor ranks far behind in terms of established norms.
As an aside, Windsor is now engaged in establishing policy to become 100% accessable to those with disablities. I suppose they are anticipating more vehicle/pedestrian accidents on their substandard travel routes.
Whether or not residents of Riverside wanted sidewalks is immaterial to the notion of providing access for pedestrians on public roadways. As several writers have pointed out, it is not only Riverside that lacks adequate sidewalks… Why they are not automatically added to road design is a mystery that seems to have more to do with allowing developers and the city itself to do stuff on the cheap.
I also agree with Randy who thinks that Windsor has in fact neglected building a proper road network…that is why the existing network is so overloaded …Traffic Demand Management simply tries to “tinker” with each roadway to squeeze out a better level of service …it will not address the problems in the long run and the people who pay are the neighbourhoods that are turned into traffic carriers. Streets like Jefferson and Pillette just get run over (no pun intended) to serve an indulgent car culture.
I thought sidewalks were mandatory (or recommended) for certain classes of roads?
Regardless of whether or not residents want them, sidewalks seem to be a no-brainer.
The other issue I have is a lack of safe passageways for pedestrians to cross – with my experience being limited to Wyandotte Street.
Sure, one can walk 300 meters to the next stop light and backtrack, but this isn’t really “pedestrian” friendly.
Vincent – why does the city not install crosswalks? Is there a reason (other than budgetary)? Wyandotte could sure use a couple.
On that note, are they intending to install bike racks along Wyandotte Street?
They just finished replacing the watermains; putting in new sidewalks and coloured sidewalk “border” but I see no provision for parking your bike – another disincentive.
Last night I went to Midtown Computers, and could find no place to lock my bike. I ended up locking it to a window grill on the business next door – which I’m sure they didn’t appreciate.
Knew it was somewhere – re: sidewalks:
http://www.citywindsor.ca/DisplayAttach.asp?AttachID=5874
Current City of Windsor policy requires sidewalks on both sides of the roadway for streets designated as Collector or Arterial roads. These generate the most vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Local streets must have at least one sidewalk to provide access to the pedestrian network. No new roadway in the city is exempt from the sidewalk policy. This policy is communicated to builders and developers during the approval process.
——> Question – what is the classification of Riverside Drive? It is an arterial road? Or residential street?
What traffic volumes constitute these classifications?
Chris,
Windsor had several crosswalks (the type where a pedestrian would press the button and the lights would flash), however, due to their obscurity, many people did not know how to use them or how to respond to them, so they were either eliminated or replaced with traffic light crosswalks (like the one at Lincoln and Riverside). Don’t blame me. Speak with your Councillor ;)
Bike racks in a BIA? You are nuts ;) Why promote alternative modes of transportation per the Official Plan? if Windsor went to the use of a central parking meter a la Toronto, we could place a bike rack where the parking meter used to be.
But then, people getting out of the cars would complain that they couldn’t get out or something and public works would complain about snow removal and store owners would just complain.
In new developments, every local road must have a sidewalk on one side of the street and Class I / II Arterial and Collector roads and Scenic Drives must have sidewalks on both sides.
in existing developments, the City requires the developer/owner to build the sidewalk in front of their property or make a financial contribution for future construction.
Riverside Drive is a Scenic Drive.
There is no such thing as a “residential street” in the Official Plan.
Absolute traffic volumes are not identified in the Official, just generic statements such as ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’ volume based on the number of lanes.
So if Riverside Drive is a Scenic Drive; and they are redoing Riverside Drive, and Scenic Drives are required to have sidewalks on both sides of the road; why is that Riverside Drive will have sidewalks on only one side of the road? Your first statement above appears to contradict your most recent statement – or are portions of Riverside Drive only classified as a Scenic Drive?
Or is it because Riverside Drive is not a “new” development? I know you don’t write the OP; but that seems a little silly, and not the spirit and intent of the guidelines.
Re: volumes: Okay then, what defines “high” “Medium” or “low” volume? How is that determined? Surely there are absolute ways to determine this – eg. I could consider 40 cars/hour as “high” volume on my street – but 40 cars per hour say on Wyandotte, I would consider “low” volume. What thresholds are utilized?
The City of Toronto has absolute values posted for their road classes:
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/road_class/index.htm. Based on these numbers Riverside Drive would be considered a minor arterial road, no?
Residential versus class whatever.
I don’t refer to my home street of Chilver Avenue, as a “local” road, I call it a residential street – I’m not a traffic engineer Vincent, so forgive my bastardization of the official terminology.
_______________________
Are you stating then the lack of bike racks – or those circular locking things you see downtown – was a political decision rather than one based upon planning principles that council created and then ignored?
That makes me laugh and cry to no end if that is the case.
To Randy:
1) Refers to the assumption that road design must provide facilities for all road-user groups – in that way they have equal status..
2) Refers to the courts’ treatment of cases involving accidents or deaths..the court “strongly favours pedestrians and cyclists”…it is not my personal observation, it is the courts’……was that not clear?
When you look at the Medscape graph, the question people should ask themselves is; What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Since my mother’s family has been in the business of bicycle rental and repair for about eighty-five years now, I would suggest that cycles claimed the road early………..
Vincent, you don’t seem to realize that Riverside Drive isn’t a street like other streets. It wasn’t planned with nice neat surveyor’s markings 66′ wide, with curbs and sidewalks to boot. It grew up out of a cart trail along the fronts of the farms along the river that were established in french seigneurial fashion.
Don’t tell me the people on the north side didn’t want sidewalks or lobbied against them. Nothing of the sort happened. This is a heritage roadway where those questions were never asked when the road was created nor were they asked when the City did its great Vista report.
It’s like the so called traffic calming traffic circles that the consultants dropped into the Vista report two days before it went to Council. There was no discussion with residents before hand.
Indeed imagine how it is going to be for pedestrians on Riverside Drive who want to cross any one of the six side streets that will now have those traffic circles at their intersection with the Drive – there will no longer be a stop sign for cars entering the Drive and cars coming off the Drive will be in full swing as they head up towards Wyandotte.
Imagine yourself at that intersection with your mother on her walker or your grandchildren in tow. Good luck. Perhaps they will hit you instead. At least they will keep the traffic flowing which is of course the aim of both the Vista report and traffic circles. Pedestrians be damned..
Chris,
My statements do not contradict anything. The OP specifically refers to new development.
“but that seems a little silly, and not the spirit and intent of the guidelines.”
Welcome to my world. As a Planner I would state that the Riverside Vista report is not consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. It’s up to Council to determine how they interpret the OP.
But don’t forget one important concept: You can’t read specific clauses or subsections in the OP in isolation.
Just because the OP says there must be sidewalks on both sides of a major road, does not mean that ALL major roads should have sidewalks on both sides. Section 7.2.3.2 Pedestrian Network begins with:
“Council shall make pedestrian movement safer and more convenient by…”
That sentence lays out the reason for requiring sidewalks. If a proposed sidewalk is not safer and not convenient, then only providing a sidewalk on one side of, say a Class II Arterial or a Scenic Drive, would not be contrary to the Official Plan.
By no means am I justifying the lack of sidewalks on the north side of Riverside Drive. I’m just saying not everything is as black and white as the text in the Official Plan. It’s a matter of interpretation.
“Residential versus class whatever.”
Characterization is not the same thing as classification. Howard Avenue between Tecumseh Road and the ETR railway is predominantly residential. I would characterize the street as residential, however the classification is Class II Arterial.
“I’m not a traffic engineer Vincent, so forgive my bastardization of the official terminology.”
I’m not a traffic engineer, either. I’m an Urban Planner. But I can tell you that 40 vehicles per hour on a local road is low volume ;)
If you want specifics about traffic volume and how it relates to the terms used in the OP, you’ll have to seek that information from Transportation Planning (email Steve Kapusta). The level (low, medium and high) of volume is not relative to the classification of the road.
“That makes me laugh and cry to no end if that is the case.”
Once again, welcome to my world. I have to deal with those kind of decisions (or in this case of the bike racks, lack of decision) every day. Ever wonder why I’m such a cynic?
Thanks Vincent for the response.
As for 40 car/hour – I was trying to explain through example.
I’d be curious to read the rationale in the RVP for the lack of sidewalks on one side. I’ve parts of it, and haven’t come across yet that discussion.
But thanks for the explanation – it helps to clarify a little more.
Chris,
Something tells me that you might not find much discussion about the lack of sidewalks on the north side. I suspect it was a political decision based on input from the north side property owners. I’m sure they didn’t want to lose any of their precious landscaping and/or parking spaces ;)
Thing is, based on the concept of safety and convenience, the consultants could have easily justified their reason for NOT putting sidewalks on the north side. Some of the north side properties have garages, walls or extensive landscaping that are fairly close to the road. There may not be sufficient visibility for both drivers, cyclists and pedestrians creating an unsafe solution. Just some food for thought.
I dunno, a ‘war on’ something implies intent. They aren’t malicious – I think they’re incompetent, and just don’t care. I came to this realization when stopped at a light in front of the casino with no cross street for a whole year during construction. On one side the street was closed for construction, on the other side was the river. And there we sat idling like idiots at an utterly pointless non-intersection, waiting for no cars to go through. Why? Because no one could be bothered to change it. Or they don’t care – Windsor traffic lights are not intended to expedite the flow of traffic, but to slow it down. Visual speed bumps. Why couldn’t they have a light that was activated by pedestrians, if any? Why can’t they have sensors that only change the light when there is actually a car waiting? Why can’t we hit all greens on major roads, like Hamilton?
The nanny state needs further measures to slow us down and create more pollution.
But we already have laws against speeding.
The technology is mostly from the 1950’s because oh gee, it would cost too much to upgrade. Meanwhile they change parking meters so the drivers can’t see if there is any time left – this is an indication how petty and shameless is the public servant class of parasites. They always need a few dollars more. Meanwhile we have cops that make 100K per year passing out tickets in front of Tim Horton’s all day. What do they pay those motor scooter meter squad that patrol round and round the university waiting for some poor student’s meter to run out? – like, 24 bucks an hour or something?
Full benefits too, I’ll wager. Unemployment for the rest of us.
Why don’t we just hire half the population to ‘police’ the other half in all matters great and small?
This is the philosophy of the parasite. Why should they change anything? – belly up to the trough for another taxpayer funded feeding frenzy. Hands up, who wants a raise and fat pension with all the benefits?
I DO I DO!
Bikes don’t make any money for the vampires, so they must be discouraged as a legitimate form of transport.
Gee, I could be a ‘traffic engineer’…all I need is a miniature train set and a lobotomy.
WOO! WOO!
“Meanwhile they change parking meters so the drivers can’t see if there is any time left”
What on earth is that all about?
I do agree that you need a lobotomy.
instead of dumping on jrlo for a parking meter, how about answering his question about why lights are never changed to reflect construction?
Vincent says the people on the north side of Riverside Drive don’t want a sidewalk. How does he know that? I went to all of the Vista ‘consultations’. I am quite sure that a sidewalk in residential Riverside, i.e. Strabane to Riverdale, was never proposed or discussed.
Is that how urban planning is now done in Windsor – we let Vincent put his psychic hat on and go from there? It does seem a shame that the Offical Plan rules for traffic calming apply everywhere in Windsor execept on our one scenic drive.
Everywhere but Riverside Drive, our Offical Plan requires the substantial concurrence of residents (2/3) for traffic calming. Apparently those strictures do not apply fo rthe only scenic drive we have in Windsor.
taxpayer999
I wasn’t dumping on jrlo. I was trying to understand what he was saying since any parking meter I have used in Windsor clearly shows the remaining time.
As to changing the timing of lights, well, I’d love to answer that question but I don’t work in Transportation Planning. You want to ask Michael Fracas, Supervisor of Signals or John Wolf, Manager of Traffic Operations.
wingfan:
No need for a psychic hat. I just listen with my ears.
Why do you think that a sidewalk between Strabane and Riverdale was never proposed or discussed? The consultant was told that the issue of a sidewalk on the north side was a non-starter.
It is the Traffic Calming Policy – not the Official Plan – that requires the support of 66% or more of affected residents to initiate a traffic calming study, and only after a warrant study identifies the need for traffic calming.
Nothing in the Traffic Calming Policy prohibits Council from approving a traffic calming study if less than 66% of affected residents support the study.