A recent traffic count has indicated there is still no need for a stoplight at this town’s main intersection.
However, replacement of the flashing light at Main and William Streets with a Level B pedestrian crossing is under consideration.
The oft-rejected idea of a downtown crosswalk or traffic light in Palmerston was raised again in November of 2015, when councillor Ron Elliott pointed out local residents were raising concerns about the difficulty of crossing the street, which is part of Wellington Road 123.
At the time, Mayor George Bridge agreed to raise the concerns with the Wellington County roads committee.
At the Nov. 6 meeting, council received a report from Triton Engineer services providing the latest data on local traffic and options for traffic control.
The engineering report notes a traffic count conducted by the county on May 11, 2016.
“During the eight-hour period counted, 249 pedestrians crossed Main Street on the east side of William Street, and 123 pedestrians crossed Main Street on the west side, for a total of 372,” the report states. “Vehicular volumes on Main Street and William Street during this period were 3,471 and 1,114 respectively.”
In addition, Triton Engineering carried out pedestrian counts on Nov. 14 and 17, which included a measurement of pedestrian delay. The pedestrian counts were split into those that crossed the road within 10 seconds of reaching the curb, and those that had to wait more than 10 seconds before crossing.
Analysis of the data collected revealed the traffic counts did not meet any of the seven justifications contained in warrant calculations for full traffic signals in Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 12.
One of the warrants – “collision experience” – requires 15 accidents over a 36-month period in order to be “susceptible to correction by a traffic signal.”
The county report indicates only five accidents over a five-year period at the intersection, which is “well below the warrant value.”
Another calculation examines both pedestrian and traffic volumes for the highest eight hours of pedestrian movement.
It takes into count volume alone and also examines delays. The latter analysis includes a consideration of the number of pedestrians that are delayed 10 seconds or more before being able to cross.
“This justification was not met with the existing volumes at the intersection,” the report states.
The studies also indicate the intersection does not meet the warrants for other types of traffic control methods, including push-button intersection pedestrian signals or an all-way stop.
The report points out the Main Street and William Street approaches are flat and straight.
“There are no sight distance issues for traffic approaching the intersection from all directions.”
The report did indicate there are sight distance restrictions for traffic stopped at the stop bar on William Street. To the west, sight distance is restricted by a building on the corner.
“Once vehicles stop at the stop bar, drivers will move ahead to view oncoming traffic before proceeding with their turn,” the report states.
“While not desirable, this situation is not uncommon in downtown areas with zero-frontage buildings. Mitigating factors are the low traffic speeds, moderate traffic volumes and presence of the flashing amber light. The low incidence of reported accidents indicates that there is not an existing safety concern.”
The report concludes the installation of a traffic or pedestrian signal at the intersection is not justified. It notes the engineers do not recommend the installation of unwarranted signals as they are inefficient and result in additional delays.
“The counts showed that the majority of pedestrians are now crossing with minimal delay (less than 10 seconds). Pedestrian delay could also be increased with the installation of a traffic signal since pedestrians must push the button to activate and wait for the light to change,” the report explains.
The report indicates the intersection could be a candidate for a Level 2, Type B Pedestrian Cross-over, under recently introduced methodology in Ontario Traffic Manual Book 15.
A Type B crossing consists of pedestrian signs mounted beside the crossing and overhead. The side-mounted signs are supplemented with double-sided rectangular rapid flashing beacons on the side-mounted sign that are actuated by the pedestrian. Pavement markings consist of a ladder crosswalk and “shark’s teeth” yield lines.
While noting “this type of PXO is new and may not yet be well understood by the travelling public,” the report explains the county has recently installed Level 2, Type D pedestrian crossovers on Toronto Street in Palmerston.
If the pedestrian cross-over is installed, additional parking restrictions would be required that would result in the elimination of some parking spaces on Main Street, and the existing flashing amber/red lights would need to be removed, the report continues.
“There was some indication that traffic had increased, which I think the study does show,” commented CAO Bill White.
“But it hasn’t increased to the point that it warrants certain installations. Nothing has to be done, but if council wishes to do something they should do something that complies with the traffic manual and the Level B crossing would be the only thing that would be warranted under that code for this location.”
White suggested input from the Palmerston downtown revitalization committee would be helpful.
“My concern is that we don’t have any real idea of numbers or dollars so we would have to look at that a little more,” said Bridge.
The public works director estimated it would cost around $10,000 to install the Level B crossover.
Council referred the report to the downtown revitalization committee for input and recommendations. The report points out any recommendations would require county approval.
