Special Report: Walkable Streets

City Fixed Broken-By-Design Crosswalk at Herkimer and Caroline

City staff installed the crosswalk with a non-functioning button and a long delay for pedestrians.

By Ryan McGreal
Published January 08, 2014

For years, residents had been asking for a crosswalk at the uncontrolled intersection of Herkimer Street and Caroline Street South. Caroline is a busy north-south walking corridor and there is a drug store and a convenience store on the southeast corner.

A proposed button-activated crosswalk was included in the 2013 Ward 2 Participatory Budget, which gave ward residents the option to vote for a package of projects to be funded through $1 million in area rating money. Last fall, the Public Works Department installed the crosswalk in September at a cost of $150,000.

Button-activated crosswalk at Herkimer and Caroline
Button-activated crosswalk at Herkimer and Caroline

There was just one problem: the button didn't actually do anything.

Dysfunctional by Design

Instead, the traffic lights were programmed to be on a green-red cycle, set to provide a minimum service level for pedestrians. During peak driving periods, the light was on a 90-second cycle with 24 seconds for pedestrians to cross, dropping to 70 seconds during off-peak hours.

Other pedestrian-activated traffic lights have been programmed with a minimum service level for pedestrians on the argument that the light needs to be coordinated with adjacent traffic lights, but the light at Caroline was not synchronized with the light at Bay Street.

It was the worst possible outcome for drivers and pedestrians alike: a misleading button that didn't do anything, delays of over a minute for pedestrians to cross, regular red lights for drivers whether someone was crossing or not, and a cycle not synchronized with other intersections in the same road network.

The plan was for the traffic lights to be button-activated - in other words, to remain green for drivers on Herkimer unless a pedestrian wanted to cross, at which time they would turn red and provide a cross signal. However, somewhere between approval and installation the design was changed.

Ward 2 Residents raised the issue to Councillor Jason Farr, who was surprised that the light didn't work as proposed and quickly began to work with staff to try and get the matter addressed.

By late November, Public Works staff agreed to reprogram the light so the button would actually work as advertised, and the change was made by early December.

Needless Busywork

Happy ending, right? But why wasn't the light just programmed properly in the first place? And who in Public Works took it upon themselves to arbitrarily change the way the crosswalk worked to make it less usable (and in the case of the button entirely non-usable) to pedestrians?

This is very similar to the situation on Aberdeen Avenue at Kent Street, where a button-activated crosswalk that was approved over the objections of the Traffic Department was also programmed to provide "minimum service level" to pedestrians, with delays of up to nearly two minutes after pushing the cross button.

In both cases, it took residents months of follow-up with staff and the direct involvement of the respective councillors to do something that should have been done in the first place.

Everyone had to waste time and effort: the residents, the councillors and even the staff, who had to go back out and re-do the work they had already done.

I hope Public Works will take this into consideration the next time a pedestrian-activated crosswalk is installed: save everyone the hassle and just do it right the first time.

Pedestrian Design Matters

This may not seem like a big deal, but the responsiveness of pedestrian infrastructure has a big impact on walkability. The evidence indicates that when crosswalks don't work or take too long to work, pedestrians are more likely to cross against the light or simply to become discouraged from walking at all.

For example:

A short response time to pedestrian button pushing is important because if pedestrians push the button and do not get a fast response, they may cross at the first ample gap (depending on traffic levels). Then, when the signal turns red for drivers, no pedestrians will be crossing, possibly encouraging driver disrespect for the signal in the future.

— John L. Campbell, Human Factors Guildelines for Road Systems, Second Edition. NCHRP Report 600, Transportation Research Board of the national Academies. p. 15-5

This is also why the City of Portland's Pedestrian Design Guide [PDF] notes that the variable delay in pedestrian-activated crosswalk "causes pedestrian confusion" and that "Uncertainty about the length of delay is one factor in the perception that push buttons are pedestrian-unfriendly."

Walkability infrastructure works. After the crosswalk was installed at Aberdeen and Kent (and then fixed so it actually worked), pedestrian crossings at the intersection more than tripled.

The Public Works Department claims to be trying to change a culture that for decades has prioritized fast automobile traffic flow over every other objective. Its conduct in installing new pedestrian-activated crosswalks is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that culture change instead of digging in with passive-aggressive installations that undermine the infrastructure they're putting in place.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan writes a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal. Recently, he took the plunge and finally joined Facebook.

40 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted January 08, 2014 at 16:43:59

Pretty much "I'm not going to stand there like an idiot and wait for the light to not-change."

Comment edited by AnjoMan on 2014-01-08 16:44:08

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted January 08, 2014 at 17:15:41

I've never contacted the city before for a traffic request. Who do I contact to see about the traffic light at Dundurn and Aberdeen? I have to run a red light at least once a month because of the sensor not changing the light. Despite that intersection being on an explicit bike route. Sigh, why such a dumb oversight. (A bit off topic, but as good a time as any to find out who to contact. I don't live in that ward so I don't know if their councilor is the right person to contact.)

As for the placebo cross button - at some intersections I've crossed during a break in traffic long before the button changes the light. After I'm done crossing, then the light changes and stops a fresh wave of cars at some piddly sidestreet, no longer for any reason. A weakness of signal-or-nothing crossings that PXOs and courtesy crossings don't share. The trick is, like other cities have done, to discern which crossings are busy enough for signalized crossings, and which crossings are better suited to PXO/courtesy. Win for people crossing, and for traffic flow.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2014-01-08 17:27:49

Permalink | Context

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 15:35:39 in reply to Comment 96519

It seem the traffic dept has gone back in time on this light's programming. The east/west directions used to have longer green times at rush hour, and for the last year at least it's the same always. This means more queuing of cars at rush hour and more chance of running reds at the expense of pedestrians. While the am rush hour coincides with school ped traffic, the same is not true of pm rush hour so there is only slight delay for the N/S ped traffic in the am.

Permalink | Context

By brendansimons (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 10:57:40 in reply to Comment 96519

The buttons at Aberdeen and Dundurn are not placebos, but they're definitely broken. Each of the four directions at that corner get an advanced green for left turning. So instead of pedestrians being able to cross for ~ 50% of the cycle, you can only cross ~ 25% of the cycle. There's probably a 3 minute wait between crossing opportunities. What's worse - if you don't press the button, the light gives you 0% of the cycle to cross - allowing cars to make right turns unimpeded.

Aberdeen and Dundurn is a residential area. There isn't (and shouldn't) be enough traffic to justify such a crappy pedestrian service level. This should be the next corner on the "reprogram" hit list IMHO.

Comment edited by brendansimons on 2014-01-09 10:57:54

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted January 09, 2014 at 11:13:57 in reply to Comment 96561

Hopefully programs like the Frid Street extension and the proposed 2-way conversion of Queen South will allow more routes for western traffic going/coming from the Queen Street hill/Beckett drive. Then the traffic engineers won't be tempted to treat Aberdeen that way.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2014-01-09 11:14:44

Permalink | Context

By You "have to" break the law? LOL (anonymous) | Posted January 08, 2014 at 23:52:55 in reply to Comment 96519

Really, you have to break the law and go through a red light? LOL

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 12:50:02 in reply to Comment 96537

Under the law a faulty light is to be treated as a stop sign.

A light that never turns green for north/south is very much faulty for someone sitting there waiting. I won't apologize for doing my best to handle malfunctioning signals.

However just so you know I'm experimenting with neodymium magnets attached under the crankshaft of the bike, trying to increase my capacitance to trigger sensor loops. Going through a red would literally be my very last undesirable choice.

Externalities of Hamilton's incomplete planning and lack of flying f*. Makes life more difficult in a million and one different ways.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2014-01-09 12:55:23

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted January 08, 2014 at 17:55:19 in reply to Comment 96519

The city's Traffic department has long said they won't install PXOs because the engineers say they're not as safe as signalized crosswalks. However, the department is changing (see newly painted uncontrolled crosswalks last sumer after an 11-year hiatus) so that may be up for reconsideration.

As for the intersection at Dundurn and Aberdeen, for now the best person to contact is Councillor McHattie. You might also consider writing an article for RTH to raise public awareness. :)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jedbrown (registered) | Posted January 08, 2014 at 17:30:19

Thanks Ryan for the situation that the residents and the Durand Neighbourhood Association (DNA) encountered with the most recent Pedestrian Light at Caroline and Herkimer. Just one minor correction. This was not part of the Participatory Budget (PB) 2013 but this one came from Area Rating funds from the previous year and was requested by the DNA. We are however getting another Ped Light as part of PB 2013 at the very dangerous intersection of Hunter and MacNab. I would hope that it will operate as it should.

Contact your Ward Councillor and he will direct you to the a contact in Traffic.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 08, 2014 at 19:14:02

Only one I've ever used that works is Locke South at Democracy. Was at John/Augusta last week. Did nothing. King/Pearl. Nothing Main/Pearl. Nothing

The standard appears to be to not have them work. The Locke South one is the exception in my experience.

Permalink | Context

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 15:38:15 in reply to Comment 96522

lol. Locke at Democracy. How about changing the name of Tucket St. to Democracy?

Permalink | Context

By Dunkimer (anonymous) | Posted January 08, 2014 at 20:36:25 in reply to Comment 96522

The one at Dundurn and Herkimer works really well. I can press it to cross Dundurn before starting across Herkimer, and it's go to go east west once I'm on the other side. Timing like this should be the norm not the exception for pedestrian crosswalk buttons. Boy, I hope the traffic guys don't go and "fix" it now that I've brought this up.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By fmurray (registered) | Posted January 08, 2014 at 22:46:53

The light at Locke & Democracy works, and Herkimer/Dundurn. But the light at Pearl and Main changes without anyone pushing the button, and it isn't in sync with the light at Main and Queen (which may not be a bad thing and probably slows down traffic, but it doesn't work they way it should).

I'm happy that the light at Caroline and Herkimer now works, but I was almost hit by an SUV turning left onto Herkimer -- I guess the driver thought the eastbound cars all stopped to allow him to turn. There needs to be some kind of signage, e.g. "Yield to pedestrians" for drivers on Caroline trying to turn left onto Herkimer.

Thanks for this article, Ryan. "Passive-aggressive" does seem to be a part of the underlying culture at PW.

Permalink | Context

By LeanneP (anonymous) | Posted January 08, 2014 at 23:07:41 in reply to Comment 96527

@fmurray, I just saw your comment after posting mine. I totally agree about further adjustments needed to make the Caroline & Herkimer light safer for pedestrians.

Permalink | Context

By fmurray (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 09:11:40 in reply to Comment 96529

Thank you, Leanne :)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By LeanneP (anonymous) | Posted January 08, 2014 at 23:02:48

There is another problem with the Herkimer and Caroline light: the light only stops traffic going east on Herkimer. There is no light or signal of any kind for the traffic on Caroline wanting to turn onto Herkimer. These drivers wait for a long time for breaks in the very heavy rush hour traffic. Because Herkimer is a one-way, they have their heads turned westward watching the oncoming traffic for breaks. They rarely if ever check for pedestrians on the east corner.

When you are pedestrian crossing at that light, you run the risk of getting hit whether you cross with or against the light. People in the neighbourhood will be all too familiar with the lines of waiting traffic, quite aggressive, too, on both those streets.

My sons and I are nearly hit about a half dozen times a year attempting to cross at that corner. The entire design is awful. There really should be a no left hand turn signal when the pedestrian signal is in effect.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted January 09, 2014 at 11:51:52 in reply to Comment 96528

Why is Herkimer 1-way again? Or any of the other residential streets within Durand/Kirkendall?

Permalink | Context

By Keith (anonymous) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 18:28:42 in reply to Comment 96573

You think residents would be willing to give up their parking?

Permalink | Context

By DBC (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 22:04:01 in reply to Comment 96604

Herkimer between Queen and James is a through street - no overnight parking. The residents have parking on their property.

It's the employees of St. Joes who would be most upset to lose their free all day parking.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted January 09, 2014 at 19:08:45 in reply to Comment 96604

It does not follow that residents would have to give up their parking. There are many streets here in Westdale that bear parking on one or both sides of the street and are narrower than streets in Durand and Kirkendall. In cases where you have cars on both sides and snowbanks and two cars trying to pass each other? You just have to be slow and courteous (yeah, that'll never work in Hamilton oh wait where's Westdale again?)

I mean, for pete's sake look at this:

https://www.google.ca/maps?ll=43.252408,...

That's insane.

Permalink | Context

By moylek (registered) - website | Posted January 09, 2014 at 22:10:17 in reply to Comment 96605

It does not follow that residents would have to give up their parking. There are many streets here in Westdale that bear parking on one or both sides of the street and are narrower than streets in Durand and Kirkendall.

My street in Westdale is narrower than Charlton, for example. We have two-way traffic and parking on one side and snow on both sides and it works just fine. It astonishes me that people think that these streets with little houses must be one way lest there be accidents and chaos.

Yes, you have to slow down if someone's coming in the other direction. Which is good. Frankly, too many people drive too quickly on these streets.

Tangentially, I do get a kick of driving around here in August and September, seeing the look of panic on the faces of parents from the vast and twisty suburban tracts as I drive toward them at a reckles 30 km/h and then pass them with only a whisker-thin margin of one-and-a-half feet separating their minivan from my truck.

Comment edited by moylek on 2014-01-09 22:29:13

Permalink | Context

By StephenBarath (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 11:45:39 in reply to Comment 96528

I’ve encountered this problem (I mean, almost been hit by cars) at this intersection, and I find this to be an issue in Hamilton generally. I guess the number of people on foot do not justify motorists looking both ways. If you are walking “upstream” on some streets, each intersection can pose the risk of a motorist hitting you because he or she is only watching for vehicle traffic from the opposite direction.

This is off-topic, I know, but I just love to tell everyone about Charlton/Dundurn. The stop sign there is apparently optional, so it makes it worse, and I am either cut off (or have someone proceed on his right turn while I am already in the intersection) a few times a week.

Anyway, I don’t know how this behaviour can be modified, but the lights at Caroline/Herkimer do nothing about the issue. A ‘No Left’ signal of some sort (even though it shouldn’t be needed) would work.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 13:09:06 in reply to Comment 96572

Absolutely this is an issue. One cycling habit has become a walking habit as well, for turning vehicles - eye contact with the driver, otherwise assume they won't stop.

Permalink | Context

By fmurray (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 14:28:56 in reply to Comment 96582

The thing is, when I was almost hit by that SUV, I thought we had made eye contact. It was kind of a sunny, glary day, but I thought he saw me. And he definitely saw the cars stopped on eastbound Herkimer (for no apparent reason?)

Anyway, the comment above questioning the logic of a one-way Herkimer makes sense.

It's time for two-way Queen Street and two-way Herkimer. Charlton will be trickier as it narrows so much between Queen and Locke.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 19:12:23 in reply to Comment 96589

Sometimes a person literally simply makes a mistake. Driver made a mistake. You were aware of your surroundings and were not hit. Problem avoided and no harm was done. Hopefully driver had a mental imprint from it that makes them safer in the future!

Permalink | Context

By DBC (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 15:06:24 in reply to Comment 96589

Given the need for on-street parking, that stretch of Charlton between Queen and Locke is one of the very few places in this City where a one-way street makes some sense.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted January 09, 2014 at 15:21:30 in reply to Comment 96593

The street is wide enough for on-street parking on one side, which it has today, and two-way traffic. It just means drivers will have to slow down and negotiate when passing oncoming traffic, i.e. the right way to behave on a residential street. The one-way traffic flow merely enables fast driving on the very wide lane that results.

Permalink | Context

By Melissa (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2014 at 11:29:28 in reply to Comment 96594

Charlton between Queen and Locke? I live there and it is definitely not wide enough for parking and two-way traffic. Any of the other surrounding streets yes (ie. Herkimer between Queen and Locke, Charlton between Locke and Dundurn) but there is simply too much traffic on that particular stretch, and nowhere for drivers to go in order to negotiate two-way traffic in such a narrow lane with cars parked bumper to bumper on the one side. The speed bumps and regular policing of the stop sign at Charlton and Kent have slowed down traffic tremendously.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted January 10, 2014 at 23:28:04 in reply to Comment 96628

I live on Peter, which I'm guessing is narrower than Charlton. It's 2-way with parking on 1-side. And people still speed through here like idiots.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted January 10, 2014 at 11:52:43 in reply to Comment 96628

I live on Kent Street, which is the same width as Charlton, has curbside parking on one side and is two-way without any problem.

Charlton would not need speed bumps (one of which already seems to have been ripped out by a snowplow) and police enforcement if it was a normal two-way residential street instead of a wide one-way route for fast through traffic. It would also have significantly lower volumes of the cut-through traffic that the speed bumps and enforcement are attempting to control.

At a stroke, the street would be slower, safer and more usable to the people who actually live on and near it.

Permalink | Context

By Melissa (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2014 at 12:17:29 in reply to Comment 96629

Kent is also not a through-fare and the distance between intersections is quite short, allowing for drivers to adequately negotiate two-way traffic. Due to the long distances between intersections and the higher volume of traffic I don't see how two-way traffic would make that stretch even usable, let alone safer. It would certainly be slower!

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted January 10, 2014 at 12:34:44 in reply to Comment 96633

If you live on Charlton, you should want it to be slower. The single biggest factor in safety on city streets is vehicle speed, and vehicle speeds are higher on one-way streets - especially one-way streets with very wide lanes, like Charlton.

A peer reviewed public health study using Hamilton data found that a child on a one-way street is 2.5 times more likely to be injured by a vehicle than a child on a two-way street. This is consistent with other research on street safety, in part because one-way streets force more turning movements, which increase the risk of pedestrian collisions.

One-way streets, and particularly one-way through streets, are also more stressful and alienating for residents, and a recent study using Toronto data found that cut-through traffic is more dangerous than local traffic.

Hamilton's track record for pedestrian safety is dismal: we're the second most dangerous city in Ontario for pedestrians and among the worst for cyclists.

Given that you seem to understand the main cost of making Charlton two-way is that traffic slows down and there is less cut-through traffic, I'm at something of a loss to understand why you want to preserve the dangerous status quo.

Permalink | Context

By Melissa (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2014 at 13:22:43 in reply to Comment 96634

You're right, it could work. The rare opportunities there when I find a space to parallel park there is usually not enough space for larger cars to pass by if you try to wait for a break in traffic before turning in, but sometimes you get lucky. I'm not against complete streets, slower traffic or two-way streets - I am a pedestrian and cyclist above other modes of transportation and pro all of those things. All I'm saying is that, in addition to the distance between intersections and the volume of traffic, I just don't think Charlton between Queen and Locke has "very wide lanes" that would allow drivers to negotiate two-way traffic with a degree of success that would make the street safer or more usable for anyone, and maybe it's not the best solution for that particular location. Now if Herkimer were converted to two-way...

Keep fighting the good fight, Ryan.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted January 10, 2014 at 13:26:43 in reply to Comment 96638

Just to clarify, it currently has one very wide lane but if converted would have two narrow lanes that would force drivers to slow down to negotiate past oncoming traffic.

And yes, it definitely makes the most sense to convert Charlton and Herkimer at the same time, since they currently function as a pair.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted January 09, 2014 at 11:55:09 in reply to Comment 96572

I'm starting to think we need to compile a database of intersections that need reworking to make them more pedestrian-friendly.

Permalink | Context

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 15:40:46 in reply to Comment 96575

I vote for Locke and Charlton. Namely, kicking Charlton westbound drivers in the ass for how they treat pedestrians.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted January 09, 2014 at 14:28:26 in reply to Comment 96575

The light at Augusta and John is still ridiculous. If it turns green for a car, it does not turn green for a pedestrian. The pedestrian delay upon button push is so long that most people cross against the light when there is a gap, and drivers end up waiting at a red light for nobody. I hate it when I'm crossing John, I hate it when I'm cycling on Augusta and I hate it when I'm driving on John. It serves no user.

You may recall the city's personal response to these exact issues when i raised them over a year ago

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 19:20:19 in reply to Comment 96588

Over many years I've encountered countless crosswalks everywhere, I don't even recall specific ones, it just seems pervasive; that don't green for pedestrian unless the button was pressed sufficiently in advance of that cycle. I have always thought it was weird and pedestrian hostile, long before I read RTH. Although I think it's reduced recently but many sure such intersections still exist. I just cross the bloody street when the traffic light turns green, obviously as long as there's no advance left in progress.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ms Me (anonymous) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 07:24:47

"Ward 2 Residents raised the issue to Councillor Jason Farr, who was surprised" Look no further then this Councillor being the problem. It seems most things he is involved with ends in a blunder.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By fmurray (registered) | Posted January 09, 2014 at 09:14:03

Sorry, Ms. Me. That's just not true. Jason Farr follows through and tries to find balanced solutions to problems. He had no reason to suspect this outcome and since it's also happened in other wards (e.g. Kent and Aberdeen), the evidence points to a problem at Public Works.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds