This was originally posted to the Young Urbanist League Facebook group. I've posted it here for the record.

upload.jpg

When it's 300 paces there and back to the nearest safe crossing, you shouldn't be surprised when people run across an arterial road (Kipling in this case) to get the bus.

One solution is to signalize that closer intersection, but as it's very close to an existing signal staff will probably recommend against it (I say this without having searched to see if this intersection has ever been investigated. It could be slated to be signalized tomorrow for all I know...). We'll get mad at staff, but when the research says that close signals can be problematic we shouldn't fault staff for making evidence-based recommendations that are consistent with the applicable laws. Evidence-based decision making is what we want... right?

Another solution is to move the bus stop, but it's probably already at the most convenient location right now. Not visible are the two high-rise buildings to the left of the newer one, as well as all of the low-rise apartments on both sides of the street. So that's not ideal either...

I don't know what the right answer is, but I wanted to post this to show the types of trade-offs transportation planners and engineers must weigh when making their recommendations. I'm a planner working with traffic engineers, and I think it's important to recognize that when you have a professional responsibility to err on the side of safety it sometimes leads to recommendations that seem baffling. But, the last thing we want is for someone to lose their license to practice just for trying to think outside of the box.

Comment