Scramble Crossings (City of Toronto) (Yonge/Dundas, Yonge/Bloor, Bay/Bloor)

[CapitalSeven]

Another fact of post-communist societies such as Russia is that disabled people in large cities are kicked to the corner (or to villages?) and forgotten. You just never see them out on the street, because the streets are built that way.

 

[Forgotten]

Yeah. There are also quite a few here in Toronto. But its nowhere near as prevelant as in other countries. They make lots of sense in areas with high pedestrian traffic and wide streets. A great area for them would be the at grade sections of our LRT lines.

We should ban cars from the road instead.

 

[rbt]

We should ban cars from the road instead.

Yes. If there are enough pedestrians to use the entire width of the road, cars should be banned in favour of the higher capacity method.

There are no locations where this would apply in Toronto at this time, though it is time to widen the sidewalks on Yonge south of Bloor.

 

[M II A II R II K]

http://spacing.ca/toronto/2013/08/01/considering-the-baybloor-pedestrian-scramble/

 

[Hank]

I agree. The way they implemented scrambled intersections here in Toronto does not not make a lot of sense. But apparently the politicians or bureaucrats here "know better". Must have been the same people who made a mess of splitting the 501 streetcar route, because they "know better".

I remember reading somewhere that they did it that way at least partly because seeing eye-dogs are trained to go when they see a green light, so if you had a crossing where cars had a green light and pedestrians didn't, it could cause problems. Not totally sure if it's true or not, but I definitely remember reading it somewhere back when this was originally discussed (maybe even earlier in this thread, although I'm too lazy to check).

 

[BurlOak]

I remember reading somewhere that they did it that way at least partly because seeing eye-dogs are trained to go when they see a green light, so if you had a crossing where cars had a green light and pedestrians didn't, it could cause problems. Not totally sure if it's true or not, but I definitely remember reading it somewhere back when this was originally discussed (maybe even earlier in this thread, although I'm too lazy to check).

That means that if the hand is flashing red (and the traffic signal still green) then the dog would still take his human out and get trapped in the intersection - I do not buy it.

 

[TransitPolicyChanger]

That means that if the hand is flashing red (and the traffic signal still green) then the dog would still take his human out and get trapped in the intersection - I do not buy it.

In addition, think of advanced greens where there will be a green light with an arrow and yet the do not walk hand will still be on - my understanding is that the guide dogs don't actually make the decision to cross the street, rather they provide direction while crossing. I think someone that is visually impaired has learned how to know when to cross (i.e. listening for traffic, audible alerts at some signals, etc.) and then directs the dog to proceed.

 

[W. K. Lis]

In addition, think of advanced greens where there will be a green light with an arrow and yet the do not walk hand will still be on - my understanding is that the guide dogs don't actually make the decision to cross the street, rather they provide direction while crossing. I think someone that is visually impaired has learned how to know when to cross (i.e. listening for traffic, audible alerts at some signals, etc.) and then directs the dog to proceed.

Dogs are green-blind.

It would help dogs, and colour-blind people in general, if the red traffic light were larger than the other traffic light colours.

 

[Dan416]

Dogs are green-blind.

It would help dogs, and colour-blind people in general, if the red traffic light were larger than the other traffic light colours.

If? They ARE larger. At least on most traffic lights around here (Mississauga).

 

[BurlOak]

Dogs are green-blind.

It would help dogs, and colour-blind people in general, if the red traffic light were larger than the other traffic light colours.

Besides being bigger, I think Red is always on the bottom. I think we generally do not have horizontal traffic signals.

I thought I've seen some different shapes for lights (US?). I think green was diamond shape.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Besides being bigger, I think Red is always on the bottom. I think we generally do not have horizontal traffic signals.

I thought I've seen some different shapes for lights (US?). I think green was diamond shape.

Sorry, I'm colour blind.

Then that makes it green on the top.

 

[drum118]

Was in Quebec City a few days ago as well Montreal and their scrambler crossing are two different thing. I prefer Quebec City over what we have as well Montreal.

In Quebec City, pedestrian are only allow to cross the roads when they have the lights to do so with the intersection being a scrambler one that don't have lights for the diagonal crossing like we do.

From time to time pedestrians would cross on the red with no cars coming. Some of the timing is odd as it can be up to 90 seconds long while other are lower.

Never saw a scrambler intersection in Montreal since I wasn't there that long in the first place.

Maybe something we should be looking at than doing what we do today??

I found it odd they refer Quebec City as just Quebec, even on their highway signs.

 

[Tuscani01]

I found it odd they refer Quebec City as just Quebec, even on their highway signs.

No different than how we have "Toronto" on our signs instead of "City of Toronto", or "Mississauga" instead of "City of Mississauga".

It's officially Quebec without "City", which is only added to distinguish it from the Province. It's just Quebec on maps also.

 

[the lemur]

No different than how we have "Toronto" on our signs instead of "City of Toronto", or "Mississauga" instead of "City of Mississauga".

It's officially Quebec without "City", which is only added to distinguish it from the Province. It's just Quebec on maps also.

You don't have that ambiguity in French that you would in English if you were to say Quebec without adding 'city', because they are handled differently in a grammatical sense.

The city is just Québec, whereas the province always has the (implied) definite article: le Québec.

So there is no confusion regarding, say, 'in Quebec', because that à Québec for the city, au Québec for the province. Similarly, 'of Quebec' or 'Quebec's ___' is de Québec for the city, du Québec for the province.

 

[Tuscani01]

You don't have that ambiguity in French that you would in English if you were to say Quebec without adding 'city', because they are handled differently in a grammatical sense.

The city is just Québec, whereas the province always has the (implied) definite article: le Québec.

So there is no confusion regarding, say, 'in Quebec', because that à Québec for the city, au Québec for the province. Similarly, 'of Quebec' or 'Quebec's ___' is de Québec for the city, du Québec for the province.

Though even for english speakers driving through Quebec, you wouldn't assume a highway sign directing you to "Quebec" is taking you to another Province called Quebec. It's obvious that it is the city, since you are already within the Province.