Editors Comments - Catherine Woodgold
Pedestrian Safety - The game of chicken is played on our streets many times every day.
One player is a pedestrian who has the right of way. The other player is a driver who is allowed to go if there are no pedestrians in the way. Perhaps the pedestrian is crossing on a green light and the motorist is turning, or perhaps the motorist has a stop sign.
How is the game played? It goes like this. The pedestrian hesitates, looking at the car (or truck etc.) to see whether it looks as if it's going to stop. The driver waits to see whether the pedestrian seems to intend to go, often allowing the vehicle to move slowly (or, at times, alarmingly fast!) towards the disputed territory during this waiting period.
What are the stakes? For the driver, a few seconds of time gained or lost. For the pedestrian, a few seconds of time, or about a minute of time if he has to wait for the light to turn green again -- or his life. One is always aware of the possibility of being severely injured or killed by the vehicle.
All too often, the driver goes first even though the pedestrian has the right-of-way.
If we were to ask the driver afterwards why he did that, he would probably say something like this: "Well, he wasn't going. I waited, and he didn't go. So I went." Sounds reasonable. But how much time should a motorist allow a pedestrian? And what distance between the pedestrian and the moving car forms a reasonable safety zone?
These questions are subjective. Different people have different perceptions of risk. A few seconds of time balanced against a one-in-a-million risk of death tend to look quite different to two different people. Perhaps one is thinking, "If I don't get to this job interview on time, I almost might as well commit suicide." Perhaps the other is thinking, "I'll go for a walk in the park while I daydream about my upcoming wedding." The valuation of time vs. risk looks quite different to these two people.
And who is to say that a certain risk is one-in-a-million? An estimate of how much risk is actually present also varies between people. A driver who's been driving for years and has never been in an accident may feel quite certain that he won't hit the pedestrian. But a pedestrian has usually never seen a given driver before and has no way of knowing whether the person is drunk or short of sleep, or how much that driver usually breaks the rules of the road. (Sadly, practically all drivers break rules such as speed limits at times.) The pedestrian sees a car moving towards him. It's natural to assume that there's a significant risk of injury, especially if you're the one who'll be injured.
So the driver is thinking, "I'm giving the person plenty of time to show that he wants to cross the street, and there's plenty of distance between my car and him," and at the same time the pedestrian is thinking, "I waited for that car to come to a complete stop and it didn't ... it just zoomed by almost close enough for me to touch."
Since the pedestrian is the one whose life is at stake, it should be the pedestrian's right to choose the size of the margin of safety. Sadly, this is often not possible if one wants to cross a street.
Furthermore, it is not enough that the pedestrian get across the street uninjured. A feeling of safety is also important. Pedestrians deserve not to be scared out of their wits. Walking across the street tranquilly and confidently, without having to make split-second decisions, should be normal at every intersection.
A pedestrian can use hand signals and screams to get the attention of drivers, but these do not completely solve the problem even for the few individuals who do this. Videotapes of intersections could allow strict enforcement of the rules of the road. Intersections can be designed to be more pedestrian-friendly, for example by making cars take sharp turns that force them to slow down.
(The pronoun "he" or "she" in the above article was chosen by flipping a coin.)
Courtesy of Auto-Free Times Nov.-Dec. 1996
Next AFO meeting on Tuesday January 14th 1997 at 7:00 PM at the Steaming Bean Cappuccino Caffe 135 Besserer (a little east and 1 short block south of the Rideau Centre by OC Transpo stops, near Dalhousie). Phone the AFO contact number 237-1549 or check out the WEB site for further information. The subsequent meeting on February 11th.
"Green Alternatives" at the Stone Angel Coffee House at 314 Lisgar on Jan. 24th, 7 p.m. presents a writer, visionary, community activist and AFO member, Chris Bradshaw, who will talk about how to restore a sense of community and more to neighbourhoods.
Auto-Free Ottawa information is also available via Internet WWW: http://www.flora.ottawa.on.ca/afo/
Editors: Dennis Whitfield can be contacted at 565-0578 ci456@freenet.carleton.ca and Cathy Woodgold 231-4311 an588@freenet.carleton.ca. Our Events Coordinator is Caroline Vanneste 236-9370 and Richard Briggs 237-1549 rgb@conscoop.ottawa.on.ca is the general contact person. Auto Free Ottawa's mail address is Box 57006 797 Somerset St. W., Ottawa Ontario CANADA K1R 1A1.
AUTO-FREE ZONE is published quarterly and is mailed to subscribers or members of Auto-Free Ottawa (see form inside last page). Opinions expressed in AFZ do not necessarily reflect those of Auto-Free Ottawa members. Articles should be submitted on diskette (WP 5.1) or by E- mail and limited to 1,000 words. Letters to AFZ must be marked "For publication" (include address and phone number which will not be pub- lished), and are subject to selection and editing. Articles reprinted from other publications are abridged to save space.
Thanks to the following for contributing articles (original or borrowed), graphics, ideas or their time: Cathy Woodgold, Chris Bradshaw, Darrell Richards, Peter Martin, Lucy Segatti, Russell McOrmond and Caroline Vanneste. AFZ Graphic: Cathy Woodgold
Deadline for next issue: Feb.
10, 1997. Tentative Topic:
Alternatives to Cars
ISSN 1195-1958
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (US) Report Summary: The Economic Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes - 1994, August 6, 1996 Contact: Barry McCahill
The cost of motor vehicle crashes that occurred in 1994 was $150.5 billion. This total represents the present value of lifetime economic costs for 40,676 fatalities, 5.2 million non-fatal injuries, 3.7 million uninjured occupants and 27 million damaged vehicles. These incidents include both police-reported and unreported crashes. Property damage costs of $52.1 billion accounted for the most significant portion of the total cost, followed by lifetime losses in marketplace production of $42.4 billion.
Economic cost components include productivity losses, property damage, medical costs, rehabilitation costs, travel delay, legal and court costs, emergency service costs, insurance administration costs, premature funeral costs and costs to employers. Injury costs are presented by severity level using the Abbreviated Injury Scale. All costs are expressed in 1994 economics. Significant findings on cost include: The cost of motor vehicle crashes that occurred in 1994 was $150.5 billion, the equivalent of $580 for every person living in the United States, or 2.2 percent of this country's Gross Domestic Product. Each fatality resulted in lifetime economic costs to society of over $830,000. Over 85 percent of this cost is due to lost workplace and household productivity. The average cost for each critically injured survivor was $706,000 -- nearly as high as for a fatality. Medical costs and lost productivity accounted for 84 percent of the cost for these Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) level 5 injuries. Present and future medical costs due to injuries occurring in 1994 were $17 billion, representing 11 percent of total costs. However, medical costs accounted for 22 percent of non- fatal injury crash costs. Lost market productivity totalled $42.4 billion, accounting for 28 percent of total costs, and lost household productivity totalled $12.3 billion, representing 8 percent of total costs. Because of their high incidence, crashes of vehicles that sustained only property damage were the most costly type of occurrence, totalling $38.9 billion and accounting for 26 percent of total motor vehicle crash costs. About 24 percent of medical care costs resulting from motor vehicle crashes are paid from public revenues, with Federal revenues accounting for 14 percent and states and localities 10 percent. Roughly 9 percent of all motor vehicle crash costs are paid from public revenues. Federal revenues account for 6 percent and states and localities paid for about 3 percent. Private insurers pick-up 55 percent while individual crash victims absorb about 29 percent. Overall, sources other than the individual crash victims pay about 70 percent of all motor vehicle crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums and taxes. Motor vehicle crash costs funded through public revenues cost taxpayers $13.8 billion in 1994, the equivalent of $144 in added taxes for each household in the United States.
Significant findings on incidence include: 5.2 million persons were injured in motor vehicle crashes in 1994; 1.1 million of these, or roughly 22 percent, were injured in crashes that were not reported to police. 27 million vehicles were damaged in motor vehicle crashes in 1994; 86 percent of these were damaged in property-damage-only impacts, with injuries occurring in, or pedestrian injuries caused by, the remaining 14 percent. Roughly half of all property-damage-only crashes and over a fifth of all nonfatal injuries are not reported to police.
The report also includes findings on alcohol-involved crashes. Estimates were made of incidence and costs involving cases where drivers or pedestrians were legally intoxicated (.10 BAC or greater), as well as where there was alcohol involved below the level of legal impairment. Adjustments were made to reflect police underreporting of alcohol. Findings related to alcohol crash involvement include: Alcohol-involved crashes resulted in $45 billion in economic costs in 1994, accounting for 30 percent of all crash costs. Seventy-eight percent of all alcohol-involved crash costs occur in crashes where a driver or pedestrian had a blood alcohol content of 0.10 percent or greater, the definition of legal intoxication in most states. The impact of alcohol involvement increases with injury severity. Alcohol-involved crashes accounted for 17 percent of property-damage only (PDO) crash costs, 29 percent of nonfatal injury crash costs, and 47 percent of fatal injury crash costs.
An estimate was also made of the impact of excess speed on motor vehicle crashes: Crashes in which police indicate that at least one driver was exceeding the legal speed limit or driving too fast for conditions cost $27.7 billion in 1994. Speed-related crashes resulted in 12,480 deaths, 710,000 nonfatal injuries, and damage to over 2.3 million vehicles in property damage only crashes in 1994. This represents 31 percent of all fatalities, 14 percent of all nonfatal injuries, and 10 percent of all PDO involved vehicles.
An analysis was conducted of trends in motor vehicle crash costs since 1990: Inflation increased the cost of motor vehicle crashes by over 16 percent since 1990. A variety of factors including increased safety belt use, decreased driving under the influence of alcohol, safer vehicles, and improved roadways reduced the incidence of crashes, death and injury. This offset about half of the potential cost increase due to inflation, leaving costs 8.1 percent higher than in 1990. If fatality and injury rates had remained at 1990 levels, 1994 crash costs would have been $29.7 billion (or 20 percent) higher than the $150.5 billion measured in this study.
SCOPE:
There is a basic perception by most people who walk very little that walking is not a pleasant experience. There are many reasons for this thinking, many of which may relate to reasons that are justified. Among the justified and unjustified lists is Safety. Security, on the other hand, refers to threats from intentional acts (e.g. assault) and are not discussed here. That is not to say that the conditions that create safety problems -- by designers or drivers -- is unintentional; it is just that the outcome -- an accident -- is not intended. The purpose of this walk is to notice the features of the road and behaviours of road users which increase or decrease the actual and perceived level of safety.
EXTENT OF PROBLEM:
How unsafe is walking? Each year in Ottawa-Carleton, about 15 pedestrians are killed and 450 injured on the public rights- of-way [i.e., excluding incidents on private property (driveway or parking lots) or on public property that is not used as a right-of-way under the Highway Traffic Act]. The number of fatalities represent between 1/3 and 1/4 of all traffic fatalities; the ratio of deaths to injuries is the highest for any user group (e.g. cyclist experience about the same number of injuries annually, but have fewer than one death). Most pedestrians are killed while on the roadway, vs. being on a sidewalk or on an island in the roadway. Most fatalities occur at intersections. About one death per year occurs from trucks backing up, from school buses starting up before having a clear path, and from the errant movement of a vehicle onto a sidewalk or refuge (island) after being struck by another vehicle at an angle. Many pedestrians victims do not really do much walking; they were simply doing a bit of walking that all car or transit trips require. This fact may contribute to their vulnerability in several ways: too little experience walking in traffic, their sudden appearance from a vehicle, or their failure to remind themselves of their heightened vulnerability. The purpose of the walk, however, is not to analyze statistics, but actual behaviour and design from an experiential (and common sense) perspective. It should be kept in mind that the organizers of the conference agree that an option that is not on the table is to limit walking, either explicitly or indirectly; even though that would -- as it already has -- reduced the numbers of pedestrian injuries and deaths. Why should we reduce the mode that poses the least safety threat to others? Rather, it is important to increase the number of walking trips, which will require not just greater safety but a greater perception of safety. Few people develop their sense of risk after reading statistics; they arrive at them after hearing stories or having experiences, and by related those lessons to specific features of the right-of-way that evoke the fear by being associated with the possibility of a collision.
THE ECOLOGY OF STREET TRAFFIC
We have to ask ourselves as we take this walk what specifically evokes these fears and what is our response. In what ways do we alter our behaviour when walking to avoid taking chances: yielding the right-of-way to an intimidating driver, choosing routes that seem safer, shifting a trip to a different time of the day, or just avoiding taking the trip by foot at all. And what can be done to improve the situation? As all pedestrians know, in the "ecology" of the streets, the risk of injury is not distributed evenly, just as the threat to others that each road user represents is not the same. Pedestrians are members of the group that road and safety engineers refer to as vulnerable. This refers to pedestrians' lack of protection if struck by a vehicle, even by a bicycle. It also refers to the shortcomings of many pedestrians in their physical, sensory, and cognitive capabilities. Ironically, these same capability limitations that make them more vulnerable also limit most of them being allowed or able to drive. This is a very important point, because this public concern about the danger a driver poses to others has little impact on the way roads are used today. Drivers for many decades have been trained in what is called, appropriately, defensive driving. This specifically directs each driver to be concerned about the harm others can do to them (to assume, incidentally that those who can do them harm are equally defensive), not what harm they can do to others. However, this makes sense only where all road users are pretty much equal: in ability and in the protection their vehicle affords. However, not only are drivers and vehicles different, but many road users are not in vehicles at all, which not only denies them protection, but denies them any clout to gain the defensive-driving attention of motorists. It results in assigning extra responsibility to the very road use that is most likely to lack the ability to be able to either "read" the complexity and danger of motor traffic or have the sharp senses to see conditions clearly or have the motor capability to "escape" a perceived threat. Pedestrians not only are not licensed, but there is no equivalent to the CanBike training for them. During the walk, efforts will be made to find ways in which this imbalance is compensated for in either the behaviour of drivers or the design of the roads. In fact, there are more examples of intimidatory behaviour -- drivers speeding or rolling toward pedestrians in a crosswalk (vs. coming to a full stop), using the horn -- or the long radii at corners that reduce drivers' needs to slow down when turning. In fact, there were several cases where conflicts between left-turning motorist and pedestrians was resolved by removing the crosswalk and posting a sign banning pedestrian crossings there. The result of the defensive driving credo in a road population of people and vehicles with widely varying capabilities and inherent protections, is to invert the traditional hierarchy of modes -- walking first and largest, fastest vehicles at the bottom -- which corresponds to the level of danger the vehicle poses to others -- to something akin to the "law of the jungle".
ENFORCEMENT:
Few police are assigned to pre-emptory traffic enforcement work in the areas with the highest pedestrian volumes and told to focus on the kinds of infractions that most endanger pedestrians. The idea of using photo-radar at intersections might help a great deal. There is also a need to increase driver accountability when a police officer is not present by providing for victims or witnesses (or photos) to register citations based on identifying only the vehicle plate # and the time and location, rather than requiring the driver to be identified. Finally, the justice system needs to address the increased number of hit-and-run accidents which are probably caused by the higher fines for impaired driving and for repeat offenders. These are especially heinous when a pedestrian or cyclist is the victim, since it leaves the victim usually defenseless and laying prone on a roadway.
DRIVER TRAINING:
The driver must be trained to be "pedestrian-sensitive". Since most collisions are with a pedestrian who is reported to have "darted" out in front of the car, there must be training for drivers to slow down not just when pedestrians are near but when visibility is limited. Training must make the point that the young (who have little knowledge of motor traffic and are capable of sudden changes in momentum) and the old (who have poor senses and can easily become confused, but who rarely "dart") and the disabled and inebriated are over-represented among the walking population. It is wrong of a driver to assume that the pedestrian will always yield or display common sense defensiveness or that whomever the driver can't see is not his responsibility. If the driver cannot see clearly all the points from where a pedestrian could reach his path by "darting", then he must be required to slow down (and be reminded that speed limits are maximums, not minimums).
DRIVER EXPECTATIONS:
When cars were first introduced, the car companies, the early users, and government authorities all promised that pedestrians would not be killed, injured, or intimidated. Today, this has been forgotten as more people drive and road engineers widen roads and reduce the causes of delay. Drivers in turn are setting higher and more rigid expectations about how a trip will "unfold" and thus are getting more and more impatient with any other road user who might "upset" those plans or who might "complicate" the trip. This principle of certainty -- as one become more certain, anything which challenges the certainty is more surprising and resented -- applies to safety. Professor Gerald Wilde of Queen's University has published a report documenting "risk homeostasis". It not only explains the extra caution drivers display when a stretch of road lack basic safety measures, but also explains the extra carelessness drivers display when he is provided extra "safety" -- e.g., wider lanes, better lighting, or air bags or better brakes. In the latter case, the resulting reduction of risk will often push his risk below the level he considers optimum and he compensates, usually by increasing his speed, to "translate" the safety "dividend" that is intended to accrue to all road users to personal benefit, usually to make trips shorter (in time) or to try to accomplish more travel in a particular period of time. Professor Wilde suggested that each person has a particular level of risk they seek as both a minimum and maximum, and will adjust behaviour if some design feature of the car or road has reduced the risk below that level of, what must be a leading oxymoron: "Target risk level".
"Traffic Calming" -- which results in narrower lanes and restrictions at intersections -- shows this principle in reverse. The practice is an admission that the "improvements" engineers have been making to roads not only did not result in increased safety, but distributed the "safety dividends" unequally (disadvantaging the more vulnerable road users, many of which simply had to take extra precautions, or switched to less vulnerable modes). Thus, traffic calming results in reducing the safety buffer in order to reduce driver speeds and the use of other "dividends" (such as engaging in distractive activities).
LESSONS LEARNED:
CONCLUSION:
A guided walk provides observers a high level of awareness of the safety liabilities for pedestrians. The observations of "interaction" of road users will show the effects road design has on whether the vulnerable road users are provided more of a "level playing field".
Derek Raymaker declared the work of Auto-Free Ottawa a lost cause ("Best Space to Blow a Gasket," Metropolis, Sept. 26). As one of the founding members and a continuing supporter, I couldn't disagree more. Changing Ottawa from what it is now into a city with clean air and civilized streets in neighborhoods with a sense of community may be a cause lost on the defeated and anyone in denial about their own irrational dependence on cars, but in fact the work of Auto-Free Ottawa is becoming more relevant with each passing day. As air quality in Ottawa continues to deteriorate, public transit cuts loom, sprawling suburbs continue to be built and the effects of global climate change are becoming harder to ignore, more and more people are looking for the types of ecologically sustainable alternatives that Auto-Free Ottawa promotes. Auto-Free Ottawa was instrumental in promoting traffic calming, which now exists or is being implemented in many downtown neighborhoods. Auto-Free Ottawa has run bike delivery trials in the ByWard Market to demonstrate that people can go shopping without their cars. Perhaps most importantly, Auto-Free Ottawa has lobbied city and regional councillors to apply full-cost accounting to transportation in the Ottawa area. By reversing the current subsidies being paid to car drivers (i.e. cheap roads and free parking), there would be more tax dollars available for alternative modes of transportation, thus giving more people the option to live without a car. Finally, Auto-Free Ottawa is part of a growing movement in cities around the world where cars have been banned from city centres (resulting in increased business and tourism) and where citizens continue to lobby for a better quality of life. Far from a lost cause, Auto-Free Ottawa is merely on the cutting edge of the work being done to make cities liveable and communities healthy. Lucy Segatti
I am writing about Derek Raymaker's Metropolis column (Sept. 26). He made mention of Auto-Free Ottawa as being Ottawa's best hopeless cause. I am glad to see that not only did he recognize this important issue, but he recognized one of the hardest things to deal with relating to this issue. Many people recognize the negative environmental, social and economic impacts that private transportation has on our lives. These people are often left feeling that they wished they were not forced to drive in a society designed around the automobile, but are left with the feeling that it is a necessary evil in their daily lives. They feel that any attempt to change this would be a hopeless cause. The volunteers of the AFO have one major difference -- they look at the impacts and have come to the conclusion that while it is evil, it isn't really necessary. There are many more acceptable alternatives. Is it 75 years too late? I don't think so. Many of the problems we are aware of now were not known 75 years ago. The automobile was looked at as being a boon for personal freedom. Nobody at that time realized the costs of this freedom -- to the point where freedom itself was lost. Is it a waste in time? Not at all. Many achievements have been made. While it may not seem obvious to everyone, a change in attitude towards private transportation is already seen -- one person at a time. We hear phrases such as traffic calming being used all the time at city council meetings, as well as discussions of zoning issues that no longer put the movement of automobiles above all other concerns. Auto-Free Ottawa is not about the immediate disappearing act of a piece of transportation hardware; it is about the slow social change required to gain back freedoms that people don't even realize that they have lost. Does it take time? Yes, lots of time. Today's car culture was generations in the making. Is there a place to find out more, and possibly put in a bit of your own time? Russell McOrmond
Steve Baer in his book Sunspots describes the Clothesline Paradox, which is about solar energy. I will summarize this, then describe an analogous paradox about walking.
The Clothesline Paradox: Solar energy advocates are continually humiliated by being shown pie charts in which solar energy is about 1% or less and hydroelectric, nuclear etc. make up the vast majority of the pie. It's implied that solar energy can't be taken seriously until it forms a significant percentage in the pie charts.
When someone dries their clothes in an electric clothes dryer, the electricity they use is counted in these pie charts. But when someone hangs clothes on the clothesline and dries them with the wind and the sun, nobody counts this up.
When someone uses oil to heat their house, it's counted as oil energy. But when the sun shines in a window and helps warm a house, reducing the amount of oil that has to be used, nobody counts the solar heat.
When someone installs an expensive solar water heater, it's counted as use of solar energy and they might even get a government subsidy for it. But when someone decides to help keep their house warm by opening the curtains when the sun is shining and closing them at night, nobody counts this up or provides subsidies.
The oil used to heat a house from the outdoor temperature up to acceptable room temperature is counted, but not the sun which heated the outdoors from the cold of space up to only a few tens of degrees below room temperature.
When somebody grows plants under electric lights, the energy they use is counted ... all of it, whether it is used by the plants or not. But when someone grows food in a field under the sun, nobody counts the solar energy they're using.
If all of the solar energy used to grow food and warm the earth were counted, it would completely dwarf the other energy sectors in the pie chart. Furthermore, except for nuclear and geothermal, all our energy ... food, coal, oil, hydroelectric, wind ... comes indirectly from the sun.
But I wonder how they counted this up and what their definition of "trips" is. If someone drives to a store, parks their car, and shops in three stores near each other before driving home, I suppose they count the drives as "trips" but not the walks from one store to another. These walks, by the way, are extremely important to the economy of the city; they tie in closely with impulse purchases. What if someone spends 5 minutes driving to the stores and 30 minutes walking and shopping in and among the stores?
If someone drives to a friend's house for a visit, driving past large numbers of people they've never met, it counts as a "trip". If someone stops to chat with a neighbour while walking to the grocery store, does this visit count as an additional "trip"?
If someone drives to a gym or pool to exercise, it counts as a "trip". If someone walks around the block or to the park and back for exercise, does that count as a "trip"? Or does it count as "only" recreation? Does the drive to the pool count as "only" recreation?
If someone drives to the grocery store, that counts as a "trip". If someone chooses to live half a block from a corner store and frequently walks out to buy some stuff, do those count as "trips"? What if the convenience store is located in the same building where the person lives?
If someone spends 7 minutes walking from their workplace to a cafeteria to buy lunch, that should count as just as much of a "trip" as if someone spends 7 minutes driving from their workplace to a restaurant. But if you ask someone how many "trips" they made, will they even think of walking to the cafeteria? "I stayed at my workplace for lunch today ..."
A glance at some Ottawa streets makes it look despairingly as if the 1% figure is correct. Lots of cars; very few pedestrians. But this is deceptive, too. Suppose ten thousand people go out to drive for 30 minutes, and the same number go out to walk for 30 minutes. Suppose you're watching a certain street during this time. The drivers each cover a lot of distance during their 30 minutes, so they each drive on many streets. If you picked a typical street, large numbers of drivers will zip past on it. Meanwhile, a much smaller number of pedestrians will go past. If cars go ten times as fast, you'll see about ten times as many cars as you see pedestrians. This might give the false impression that only one-tenth as many people enjoy and use walking.
When you see a pedestrian on a street, they're really present. When you see a car zip past, it is present for only a very short time. It is like a ghost, flickering for an instant and then vanishing. It has little real presence, little reality on the street. To get a more realistic idea of the numbers of people using each mode, count the number of cars on the street and divide by 10 before comparing to the number of pedestrians.
Nevertheless, on some Ottawa streets, notably downtown, there are large numbers of pedestrians. These people crowd onto relatively narrow sidewalks, leaving the wider roads for the small number of cars present. Each walks as if their time is valuable, yet they do not walk straight to their destinations but wait at traffic lights for the small number of cars to get out of their way first.
Everybody is a pedestrian while inside a grocery store or a shopping mall. Everybody is a pedestrian while exiting their front door to start a trip of any mode. With very few exceptions, stores sell things only to pedestrians. Nobody windowshops or buys anything while driving on the Queensway. Pedestrians form the basis of the economy. Supporting and encouraging the pedestrian mode helps keep the economy going by providing a ready stream of customers to stores and restaurants. Making it easy and quick to walk from one store to another, or from home to a store, supports shopping, benefitting both customer and store.
The importance of walking is much greater than is implied by a tiny percentage of "trips" defined by travelling a certain minimum distance.
Corroboration from The Provision of Global Energy by C.H.A. Cole in Entropy amd Entropy Generation, Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996 ...about 25% of the energy used in an industrialised country is involved with general domestic and commercial purposes. Careful architectural design of buildings can reduce this energy requirement by as much as 90% thus leading to substantial energy saving...(In reference to passive solar energy D.W.)
Ottawa Citizen Oct 6 1996 - Don Campbell
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada wants to see multi-track railway crossings made safer for pedestrians as a result of its investigation into the April 1995 death of two Brockville teenagers who were struck and killed by a train.
Dawn Cowan and Candace Mathieson, both 16, were struck while standing on the westbound tracks as an eastbound train passed. It appears the two young women never heard the approaching westbound train.
Chemical and Engineering News Nov. 4 1996
The first five-year assessment of progress made under the 1991 Air Quality Agreement between the U.S. and Canada show significant decreases in acid precipitation and some improvement in the environment. Compared to the base year of 1980, sulfur dioxide emissions from coal fired utilities declined more than 50% in each country - to 1.9 million tons in Canada and to 5.3 million tons in the U.S. Nitrogen oxides emission controls for stationary sources are just now being put into place. Research and monitoring of acid rain show a significant decrease in sulfate deposition, but no consistent change for nitrates. Surface water sulfate concentrations are also down in the Northeast U.S. and in Canada, but continued nitrate deposition at current levels might erode sulfate reduction benefits over the long term. The report says epidemiologic research validates human health concerns from acid deposition, but cites no studies to show that reduced emissions have led to improved health.
Editors note (D.W.): Automobiles especially those with catalytic converters emit very little sulfur dioxide but motorized vehicles, especially diesel trucks and buses, contribute approximately half of nitrogen oxide emissions. Perhaps explaining the failure to control emissions reported above.
Ottawa Citizen Nov. 6 1996 Chris Taylor
An Algonquin College student has her classmates to thank after they took on the City of Nepean - and won. Inger-Lise Christensen, 21, who has cerebral palsy, has had blackouts and seizures after flipping her motorized scooter last month behind the Woodroffe campus. Christensen blamed her accident on the sidewalks along Navaho Drive, which she says aren't graded for wheelchairs.
Nepean officials agreed Monday to an immediate solution after receiving a letter signed by 17 of her classmates. " I feel a lot safer now," she said. "I couldn't have done it without them."....
Ottawa Citizen Oct. 2 1996 Carolyn Abraham
The Ontario government plans to impose mandatory tailpipe emissions test on cars next year to curb air pollution. Environment Minister Norm Sterling said Tuesday car owners would be responsible for having their vehicles tested regularly for excessive emissions at local garages or face penalties....
Ottawa Citizen Oct. 17 1996 Sarah Marchildon
Ten-year-old Adam Barbe used to think his job as a crossing guard at Barrhaven Public School was fun. But that was before the abuse started. He can't count all the times he was laughed at or given the finger while on duty.
"It wasn't nice," said Adam, a Grade 5 student. "They would yell at us or push us on the road. People roll down the window and go 'Ha, ha sucker' for no reason."
The Barrhaven school stopped using children as crossing guards this week after Grade 5 patrollers like Adam frequently were heckled and intimidated by impatient drivers and pedestrians...
Excerpts from Canadians Against Bigger Trucks Fact Sheet (613) 565-2706
The Canadian Government is considering a proposal to allow longer combination vehicles (LCVs) to run on north-south highways into Canada under the pretext of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). The Government will decide on this issue prior to January 1, 1997. Once the industry has its foot in the door with LCV's, there will be no turning back. Shippers and truckers will lobby to allow LCV's on the rest of the highways.
Each year about 300 Canadians are killed in accidents involving big trucks. Thousands more are injured (National Transportation Act Review Commission data for 1986 to 1989).
Big trucks in Canada are subsidized $2.82 billion annually ($450 million public road costs not covered by fuel taxes and licenses, $2.37 billion accident and pollution costs). IBI group in association with Boon, Jones and Associates, Full Cost Transportation And Cost-Based Pricing Strategies, prepared in support of the Transportation and Climate Change Collaborative, November, 1995, Exhibit 4.12.
The Road to Wilderness Recovery organized by ROAD-RIP the Road Removal Implementation Project, P.O. Box 7516, Missoula, MT U.S.A. 59807. I (D.W.) received some literature from this group and was very impressed. Sufficiently so that I got a money order and added AFO as a supporter of this cause. The following is quote from their brochure: "Using a visionary strategy that integrates conservation biology with law, we work with grassroots activists and through public agencies to achieve road removal and revegetation in national forests, parks, and other public lands. Such road removal has already proved successful in some areas - including Redwood National Park, the Lolo National Forest, the Flathead National Forest, and the Gifford Pinchot National Forest - but unfortunately, these efforts are dwarfed by the road- building that continues.
Urban Ecologist Number 3 1996
Volvo is developing low- pollution urban truck and bus prototypes that rely on electric motors in combination with extremely efficient gas turbines. The marriage of technologies should allow these heavy duty vehicles to drive 25 kilometres within cities entirely on batteries, and should reduce overall emissions to a tenth or less of current levels.
Urban Ecologist - Saving Delhi's Biodiversity by Ashish Kothari and Sunita Rao
...The original group of students stuck together and formed an organization called Kalpavriksh, after the mythical wish-granting tree of Hindu folklore...
Another ongoing crusade is the one against indiscriminate tiling of pavements and road dividers without leaving any breathing space for trees and other vegetation. Indeed, tiling in Delhi has consistently violated the administration's won stipulation that three by four feet of open space be left around trees.
Kalpavriksh members took pictures of huge avenue trees along Delhi's prominent roads that were choking to death. Reporters were contacted and the issue made front page headlines. Some quick calculations revealed that the cost of unnecessary tiling was wasting millions of tax-payer' rupees. The group organized protests in which schoolchildren joined in digging tiles, freeing the trees they were choking. All this had some effect, as the authorities passed orders restricting tiling and began removing paving on some roads themselves.
Angewandte Chemie International Edition English, 35, 1996 has the complete texts of the 1995 Nobel Medal Prizes in chemistry by P.J. Crutzen, M.J. Molina and F.S. Rowland. Their subject is the connection between chlorofluorocarbons and Stratospheric Ozone depletion. The following graph excerpted from these texts shows that thanks to the Montreal Protocol the levels in the stratosphere of these compounds is levelling off if not decreasing. If these compounds are phased out of use and all compounds significantly contributing to ozone depletion (methyl bromide a commonly used fumigant and chloroform a common industrial solvent have not been phased out) have been identified then the ozone layer should return to "normal" by the end of next century (D.W.).
Letters written by AFO members
I heard that Capital Beef is going to move and that the south end of of Strathcona Park will be connected to the pedestrian bridge near the Quensway and Algonquin college sometime next July by a Proper Bicylcle/Pedestrian Path.
A little detail on the Capital Beef business might be interesting: The Capital Beef facility is closed down for good. I happened by one Saturday afternoon a few weeks ago and saw their equipment auction in progress.
The Capital Beef people are apparently retaining ownership of the property but it will be redeveloped in the immediate future. Low rise dwellings (condos, or freehold, I'm not sure which) will occupy the site. Pre-sales will take place this winter and construction will begin in the spring. The bike/ped recreational path will be extended southwards from the northern edge of the Capital Beef property (where it now ends), over the property and through the bit of bush to the south, under the Queensway and all the way to the Hurdman's footbridge (which gives convenient access to all the pleasures and excitement to be enjoyed on the other side of the Rideau).
A minor property swap was worked out to make this possible. The City gets the shoreline across the Capital Beef property in exchange for a small portion of road allowance to the west of the property (Hey, this could be called "depaving"!).
The construction of the recreational pathway extension is an interesting and encouraging example of public/private initiative.
Reine Degarrie, an environmentalist and a member of the Board of Action Sandy Hill, together with architect Barry Padolsky and other volunteers, have raised the money and found the volunteer labour needed to extend the path. The City has co-operated with matching funds and operational assistance.
Reine's biggest coup, in my opinion, was getting Ottawa U to kick in $1,000 for the project. Quite amazing and praiseworthy.
I think the project will be completed next spring (there was a problem with a contractor last I heard, causing a slight delay but not derailing the project).
The initiative taken by Reine and her collaborators provides an important lesson for all. Instead of complaining about inadequate facilities, bitching at the City for its shortcomings, or fretting about theoretical issues, the Degarrie group simply charged ahead, found allies, and got a real improvement for non-auto transportation under way. Not a big one,of course; it's just a short stretch of pathway. But an important one.
When the next construction season rolls around, there's a good chance that volunteers will be needed for some of the grunt work like landscaping the vergest of the new path. For anyone who wants to get on the volunteer list, Reine can be reached as bs885 at Freenet. Peter Martin
Big Trucks (over 4.5 tonnes) are overrepresented in deaths because of their size and weight. On average 600 people are killed annually in collisions involving big trucks. This is 17% of all traffic fatilities. Darrell Richards-Transport Concepts
The following is part of a letter from Lynne Bricker describing an Accident at the Intersection of King Edward and Rideau Streets October 4, 1996. As noted in further parts of her letter and at several public meetings that I (D.W.) have attended that this is a notorious intersection. The traffic is especially bad due to numerous trucks making turns at this corner.
On Friday, October 4, 1996 at approximately 3:15 p.m. I was walking eastward on the north side of Rideau Street. On reaching King Edward Street, I began to cross when the pedestrian light indicated that I had the right of way. Before walking even halfway across the east half of King Edward a car which had been travelling eastward on Rideau turned to travel northward on King Edward. The car struck me on my left side, I was thrown onto the pavement, lost hold of my possessions, and was splashed with the coffee I was carrying. The car stopped. Before the driver could get out of the car I was approached by a Commissionaire who had seen the impact. The driver was out of her car by this time and the Commissionaire said that she had turned before the light had changed for her. He wrote down his name and telephone number both at home and work. The driver who hit me accused him of cutting her off so that she couldn't see. She was upset and very apologetic and offered to take me where I was going. Although I didn't seem to be greatly injured other than having a sore leg where her bumper had struck me and a bit of a pain in my back from the impact with the asphalt I was concerned that the incident be reported in case of any further problems I could experience as a result of it, particularly as I am epileptic and this could initiate a seizure, because I was once paralysed on my left side, have done a great deal of work, swimming, walking and bicycling long distances, and playing piano to learn to operate that side more or less normally, and the impact could possibly have a physical effect that would negate that work. A report was also needed, as I and many others have experienced this intersection to be dangerous for both pedestrians and motorists I asked to go to the community police station on Rideau Street at Nelson to report the incident which we did. We filled in the police forms reporting the accident. The officer in charge indicated that she did not feel it necessary to lay any charges as no-one seemed to have been injured badly. That seemed reasonable to me at the time. However, later I realised that I had a rather severe bruise an my left calf, that my left ankle was swollen and that the twist in my back was fairly severe, and so arranged to be treated by a registered massage therapist for these injuries. I hope my medical insurance will cover the cost of this treatment, and if not will contact the police depot to determine if the cost can be covered by the insurance of the driver that struck me. On further reflection about charges not being laid I realised that while I, the pedestrian had been struck while crossing on a signal giving me the right of way, by a car turning on a signal giving them the right of way, nonetheless charges should have been laid as the law had been broken in that the pedestrian has the right of way over a vehicle and that it was impossible for this car to have been "cut-off" by another car, as, if the car that struck me had been "cut- off" the car that cut it off would have struck me first, and the only action on the part of another car that could have resembled cutting off would have been a turn from the south lane of Rideau, which could have confused the driver who hit me but even if this is what happened the vehicle that hit me was still closer to the pedestrian crossing and responsible to give right of way to the pedestrian and since a pedestrian moves much slower than a vehicle, the driver struck me, the pedestrian, was in the wrong in not yielding, and that charges should have been laid. Lynne Bricker
The final version of the following letter was written by D.W. but the content was decided by consensus at the September AFO meeting.
I am writing to express my concern about the possibility of adding a 3rd lane to the Champlain Bridge which links Aylmer Quebec with the west end of Ottawa Ontario. In particular, I do not think that is appropriate to spend scarce federal funds on services for commuters. Also, an extra lane on this bridge will increase automobile use and this is directly contrary to the federal government's commitment to reduce CO2 and other emissions of pollutants. Perhaps the most serious consequence of the bridge widening will be the increased reliance of Aylmer residents on places of employment and sources of commercial goods in Ottawa at the expense of their own community's economic development.
I am in favour of reinforcing the Champlain bridge so that public transit vehicles can use the bridge. It would also be an asset to the region if the bridge could be modified to make it more bicycle friendly and in particular to be incorporated in the National Capital Commission bicycle experience by linking the existing paths on either side of the Ottawa river. Finally I believe that the money to be spent on this bridge would be much more efficiently spent on promoting light rail commuter trains for the region including across the Ottawa river.
CARS ARE RUINING MY LIFE AND OUR BIOSPHERE! Sign me up, and ....................................................................... ............send a complimentary copy to: ___ $20.00 individual or family ___ $10.00 un/underwaged ___ $50.00 corporate/institutional ___ donation (sorry, we don't issue tax receipts) Nam