Not in Plain Sight: Dangerous Engineering Flaws in Winnipeg’s Design of Pedestrian Corridors
Updated: 1 day ago
Author: Christian Sweryda and Andrew P. Weber, ed.
Winnipeg has experienced a recent string of major automobile crashes, many of which have resulted in serious and critical injuries – even fatalities, with about half resulting in the death of a pedestrian. It is time to assess the underlying causes of these incidents, re-evaluate how we understand them, and work towards future prevention.
Many pedestrian-involved crashes occur within a crosswalk. For instance, on April 14, 2011, a 22-year-old woman was killed within one on Henderson Highway. Years later, these incidents not only still occur, but are increasing in frequency. On February 13, 2018, an 8-year-old boy was killed on St. Anne's Road. Only nine days later, a 16-year-old high school student was sent to the hospital in critical condition after being struck on Roblin Boulevard in front of his school.Also in 2018, on August 30, a collision on Keewatin Street left a woman in critical condition and a man in unstable condition, both of whom are now in protracted recoveries.The same pattern continued into this year, when on March 18, 2019, a crash on Isabel Street ended a four-year-old girl's life and left her mother with serious lower body injuries. On August 1, 2019, a 23-year-old woman died after being struck on Sargent Ave. Most recently, on September 10, 2019, a 37-year-old woman was killed on William Ave. In sum – and just in the last two years – Winnipeg has had six major crashes resulting in four fatalities (two of which being children), and these all occurred at or within crosswalks.
The above is stated, emphasizing the dangers surrounding crosswalks, in consideration of the fact that, on average, Winnipeg sees a grand total of about fifteen road fatalities per year.A vigil was held for the 4-year-old girl who was killed in the crosswalk at Isabel St. and Alexander. Ave.
The tragic end of even one person's life, especially a child's, cannot be overstated. A pointed discussion about the engineering deficiencies at crosswalks is overdue, the two most serious being:
1) the lack of eye-level side-mounted flashing beacons, and;
2) the lack of a delay in the auditory beeping at crosswalks, which serves as a cue to pedestrians that they should enter.
These deficiencies are found at only one of the three different types of crosswalks; the three types of crosswalks will now be covered.Crosswalks can be either unmarked, marked, or of a special sort known as pedestrian corridors. Many crosswalks, as in the first case, comprise nothing more than an indent in the curb without signs or painted lines (most people do not even realize that these are crosswalks). Marked crosswalks feature side-mounted signs and two parallel lines, painted across the road. The third type is the most advanced, developed in the 1970's: pedestrian corridors (or simply “corridors, ”for short); they are also referred to as “lighted crosswalks.” The corridors have certain enhancements, such as overhead lighted signs – remaining lit at all times – direct illumination of the crosswalk, and push-button-activated overhead flashing yellow beacons, which warn drivers.Unmarked Crosswalk Marked Crosswalk Pedestrian Corridor.
The first step in analyzing how we aught to make roads safer should be a determination of where crashes most often occur. Despite the engineering enhancements at corridors, corridors are the type of crosswalk where all the aforementioned injuries and fatalities occurred. This suggests that preventing crashes should likely begin with focusing on any deficiencies in corridor design.
The Lack of Side Mounted Flashing Beacons
The most egregious and obvious problem with corridors is that their flashing yellow beacons are located only overhead, far from eye-level, such that drivers already close to a corridor cannot see them, despite the fact that pedestrians are auditorily prompted to cross the road. To maximize visibility, an ideal placement for traffic control devices, such as road signs or flashing beacons, is at eye-level, directly in front of an approaching driver. With the exception of devices placed at the end of a dead end road, in front of a lane not extending through an intersection, or a gate that crosses a road (e.g. at railway crossings), high above placements are impractical and dangerous.Checkerboard signs (left) and flashing lights on railway crossing gates (middle) are located directly in front of approaching drivers for maximum visibility. Many intersections have dedicated turning lanes that do not extent through intersections, as well. Hazard markers and turn control signs are commonly placed at the far side of an intersection, directly in front of approaching vehicles.
Two alternative locations for such devices are above, or on the side of, a roadway, each with respective advantages. Overhead devices are easily visible from afar, but this benefit diminishes with approaching proximity, becoming ultimately ineffective once the devices are above the driver's vertical sight angle. In contrast, devices placed on the side of a roadway remain visible at a much closer distance, because they stay within the driver’s cone of vision.
Diagrams from the national Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), published by the Transportation Association of Canada and used in Manitoba, which demonstrate the considerations that traffic engineers contend with regarding the placement of traffic control devices; the idea being that the devices should be placed in areas most easily observed by approaching traffic.At corridors, the beacons are exclusively placed overhead, so while they may be visible to a driver from afar, they are ineffective when the driver is close to the corridor. Another problem is that, due to their proximity, drivers already stopped are often unable to observe when the flashing lights cease to flash. It may be presumed that such a driver will recognize when a pedestrian has cleared the road, but sometimes there is another pedestrian approaching from the opposite side. This second pedestrian may have pushed the button, which will reset or lengthen the flashing duration, but a driver stopped at the corridor will not observe this extended flashing.
When it comes to moving traffic, drivers that are a short distance from a corridor must take their eyes off the road to look up, perhaps at an extreme angle, to determine whether the beacons are still flashing; at this time, they may not be able to look out for vulnerable road users. Agencies responsible for road safety have encouraged what is called “eye lead,” which is the practice of looking ahead for pedestrians or others, but the current placement discourages this practice.
Speed is also an important factor. Counterintuitively, a surprisingly high proportion of fatal crashes involve cars travelling at very low speeds, often involving vehicles turning at intersections, and in some cases, even occurring in parking lots. Pedestrian activity is greatest at the morning rush hour (partly because it coincides with the start of a school day), and rush hour also happens to be when traffic is most slowed due to congestion. A driver approaching at high speed may be too close to observe the flashing beacons at all, but might still clear the corridor before a pedestrian has had time to enter. With slower moving vehicles, although drivers might have more time to observe the overhead flashing beacons, the likelihood of a pedestrian entering the corridor in the interim is greater; the flashing beacons are also out of a driver’s cone of vision for longer, with slower-moving vehicles. This furthers the need for beacons to be side-mounted, being true even on roads with lower speeds.
When close to a pedestrian corridor, overhead beacons are no longer within the “cone of vision” for drivers; for slower-moving traffic, this means that the beacons remain out of sight for longer, putting pedestrians at a greater risk of being hit.Another factor to consider is that pedestrian corridors are commonly placed beside intersections.
This means that drivers turning from a cross-street into a corridor will not have a chance to observe whether the overhead beacons are blinking, and therefore also have no knowledge as to whether the beacons are blinking; eye-level beacons, on the other hand, would be observable.
The current lack of eye-level beacons poses serious risks, and based on the city's own report, was a necessary engineering improvement needed at the St. Anne's corridor where the eight-year-old boy (previously mentioned) was killed in February 2018. This improvement has now been made, but only to that one corridor, which doubled the number of beacons and placed them at eye-level. The current pedestrian corridor on St. Anne's Rd., which demonstrates the greatly improved visibility created by the added eye-level crossing beacons.
Comparison to Traffic Signals
The need for eye-level beacons is most apparent when considering the fundamental differences between pedestrian corridors and signalized intersections (i.e. those with traffic lights). This comparison may also bring to light the original source of the engineering oversight.
Approaching drivers must be able to observe traffic signals before entering intersections, but after having committed to going through (and entering) an intersection, drivers must no longer be concerned. Since traffic signals are typically at the far-side of an intersection, at least one display (e.g. the traffic lights) will be purposely mounted above the road for long-distance visibility.
In the current engineering manual (MUTCD), this is known as the “primary display.” A “secondary display” can be optionally side-mounted, but this is sometimes unnecessary, since visibility from within the intersection is not needed. Many traffic signals will only have overhead displays for through-traffic, such as at the many intersections along Bishop Grandin Blvd.Traffic signal displays are often mounted exclusively overhead (left), but may have a “primary” overhead display accompanied by a “secondary” display at eye-level (right). Eye-level displays are typically located on the left side of the road to control left turning traffic, which directly faces the signal from the turning lane.
Backing up a bit, overhead traffic signals are a largely North American practice; in many other parts of the world, they are located at the near side of an intersection at the stop line. In these jurisdictions, the signals do need to be visible to drivers directly in front of them, so they are often placed (sometimes exclusively) at eye-level. This is considered by some to be superior, because it prevents drivers from overshooting stop lines to collide with, or block, pedestrians.
In other parts of the world, traffic signals are often placed exclusively on the near side of intersections. The left image shows a German intersection, where an eye-level display is supplemented by an overhead display for traffic approaching from a distance. The right image depicts a Dutch intersection, where the displays are located only at eye-level.Pedestrian corridors are generally different from North American traffic signals, because drivers stop immediately before (or essentially at) the corridor, rather than 100 or more feet back. When Winnipeg invented pedestrian corridors, this should have been considered in the design phase.
What is especially peculiar is that Winnipeg's engineers have followed logical practices in determining whether to use overhead or eye-level traffic signal displays, yet have not applied the same logic to corridors. There are many locations where Winnipeg has placed traffic signals at the near side of an intersection to supplement ones at the far side; these placements are known as “auxiliary displays,” and when implemented, seem to be exclusively placed at eye-level. This is a common Winnipeg practice for left turn indicators.
Near side “auxiliary” traffic signal displays, which are sometimes used at intersections for through-traffic (left), and are always used at new intersections for left-turn displays (right).
In contrast to those used at the far side of intersections, displays on the near side are almost always mounted at eye-level for enhanced visibility.
A comparison that also warrants attention is a few select intersections in Winnipeg that are adjacent to railway crossings. At these locations, engineers did not want approaching traffic to be stopping at a red light while blocking the railway, so additional traffic signals were installed in advance of the railway. These signals are unique for not having an intersection between them and the oncoming driver, so in this respect are most comparable to those in Europe, as well as our corridors. At these locations, eye-level side-mounted traffic signal displays are always used, with overhead displays being the optional ones.The railway crossing at King Edward St, north of Saskatchewan Ave (left), is immediately preceded by traffic signals used to prevent vehicles from stopping on the tracks if the signals at the upcoming intersection are red. The displays at this location are placed only at eye-level. A similar set-up can be found at the railway crossing on Shaftesbury Blvd, north of Wilkes Ave (right). This location also has two eye-level displays, but also a supplementary overhead display for drivers that are further back.
Railway Crossing – An Analogous Situation
The mere observation of railway crossing beacons makes the issues patently clear. Railway crossings are like corridors, because a driver will stop immediately in front of the crossing rather than farther back (at the opposite side of an intersection). Railway crossings have side-mounted beacons placed at eye-level that will always be present, while overheads may be used for increased visibility from afar – but only when warranted, such as on high speed or high volume roadways.
Railway crossing beacons may be mounted exclusively at eye-level (left), but may also have supplementary ones placed above the road (right). When used, the overhead indicators do not replace those at eye-level.In contrast to corridors, railway crossing beacons are activated well in advance of a train reaching a crossing, giving drivers ample opportunity to come to a full stop before the gates (if present) are lowered. A driver is much more likely to be far enough back from the crossing to see overhead beacons, as they are operating well before trains arrive. At pedestrian corridors, pedestrians may push the button and enter traffic long before it is safe to do so, making the close attention of drivers in near proximity all the more important at corridors.
Unlike signalized intersections, but comparable to corridors, turning traffic does need to be aware of the activation of railway beacons, so if there is a nearby cross-street, additional beacons will be oriented to face this traffic. Corridors do not have eye level beacons let alone additional ones facing cross-street traffic. Vehicles turning from a side streets have hit and killed many pedestrians, for instance: a six-year-old boy was killed in St. Albert when hit by a turning school bus.
Whenever a cross-street is in close proximity to a railway crossing, extra beacons are oriented towards the turning traffic. This is done for all cross-streets, whether paved city street (left) or small gravel service roads (right).
The issue is especially blatant when a corridor is immediately adjacent to a railway crossing.A pedestrian corridor on Plessis Rd is located immediately before a railway crossing, showing the stark contrast between the beacons being placed exclusively overhead (for the corridor) while the ones for the railway crossing can be seen only at eye-level.
Broader Comparisons
Other types of right-of-way control devices, such as stop and yield signs, are also placed on the near side of the intersection and this pattern is consistent such that they will be found mounted at eye-level. Although most often associated with railway crossings and corridors, other devices like stop signs may also have supplementary beacons, but these too are typically placed at eye-level. With the exception of advance warning flashers (AWF) before traffic signals, which trigger only for impending signal changes, the beacons are continually flashing. This means there is less need for continual visibility for approaching drivers, as unlike with corridors or railway crossings, drivers are not expected to watch for the activation of them by pedestrians. Even despite this difference, the beacons at stop signs which require continual observance are placed at eye-level where they are visible for a driver’s entire approach.
Flashing beacons can be found above stop signs (left) and occasionally accompany other types of signs (see middle) for added emphasis. Advance warning flashers (right) are sometimes posted before traffic signals to give drivers advance warnings of signal changes.Another comparison is to corridors from other jurisdictions:
Corridors in other cities such as Toronto (top), Calgary (bottom-left) and Regina (bottom-right) typically have beacons located at eye-level. Note that the Regina location also has beacons oriented to face traffic turning from cross-streets.
Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB) consist of flashing square LED lights triggered by a pedestrian push button to give warning to an approaching driver. They have been tested and are now widely used in some American and Canadian cities. Whenever used, they are at eye-level without any devices situated over the road. Both the practices in other jurisdictions (with normal flashing beacons) and those involving RRFB's demonstrate the need for such devices to be made visible at eye-level. Two such jurisdictions include Flin Flon, which has eye-level flashing beacons, and Morris, which has eye-level RRFB's at some crosswalks.Similar to railway crossings, some crosswalks in Flin Flon (left) have beacons posted exclusively at eye-level rather than overhead. Many cities in North America such as Morris (right) use RRFB's, posted only at eye-level rather than over the road.
Overall, when a traffic control device needs visible from farther away, it is often posted above the road. When visibility is needed at a closer distance, eye-level is the proper positioning. In cases where both are needed, overhead and side-mounting will be used, seen in the case of railway crossings, as well as on high speed, high volume roads. Traffic engineers have demonstrated an understanding of these concepts for virtually every other type of traffic control except pedestrian corridors. It is this inconsistency that has created a dangerous situation which is prevalent throughout the entire city of Winnipeg, and has been a contributing factor in pedestrian injury and deaths. Unfortunately, it is not the only deficiency in corridor design.
A Second Issue – Auditory Signals
One final problem is the current programming of the corridor auditory signals, which are triggered along with the overhead beacons when a pedestrian pushes the button; the beacons begin flashing, but the beeping sound is immediately audible. This creates an unsafe situation, as vehicles cannot stop immediately, yet the beeping stimulates (or triggers) a conditioned response for the pedestrian to begin crossing. This perceived pressure also makes the pedestrian realize that the time they have to cross (under protection of the beacons) diminishes as they wait. This encourages pedestrians to enter roadways contrary to the Highway Traffic Act, which requires them to wait until traffic has had a chance to stop. Especially dangerous is that these auditory signals are most often relied upon by blind people, who may be unable to see the traffic at all.
It is likely that the problem with the immediate activation of the auditory signal has in part contributed to the problem of pedestrians entering corridors before it was safe to do so. As one road safety expert stated when discussing the concerns at corridors, the following was stated:"there is a problem of pedestrians stepping out too soon into traffic."CAA Manitoba has also observed this problem in their studies of human behaviour at pedestrian corridors.
Serious consideration aught to be attended to the accumulated effects of design inadequacies at pedestrian corridors. The lack of eye-level beacons is exacerbated by the auditory signals which encourage pedestrians to immediately walk out into oncoming traffic. It is likely this dual nature that has led to so many fatal and serious crashes at pedestrian corridors in Winnipeg.
Currently, the beacon blinking time and auditory signalling are timed based on the length of the crosswalk. The most common programming is for one second of activation per one meter of crosswalk length.
Ultimately, the solution is to extend the length of time by which the beacons flash, for about four seconds (i.e. the length of a yellow light), universally at all corridors, encouraging a similar buffer between conflicting movements that traffic signals already have. The auditory sound could remain at the current duration but should not begin signalling for four seconds after the button is pressed, such that pedestrians are not immediately encouraged to cross the road until after the beacons have been blinking for at least four seconds.
Winnipeg's Worst Corridor
With respect to the above discussed deficiencies, the corridor on William Ave, at the Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre, has the highest severity of danger, and being also the site of the most recent fatality. Like other corridors, the beacons are exclusively overhead, but are also mounted on the front of a skywalk which passes over the crosswalk. While other corridors have the beacons located directly over the crosswalk, this one has them offset by the width of the skywalk, putting them not only above, but also slightly behind.
Compounding the problem is the congestion in the area and subsequent slower driving speed, which is well below the 50 km/h limit. The lower speed means that approaching drivers take much longer to enter the crosswalk, following the point from which the overhead beacons are no longer within their cone of vision. This provides ample opportunity for a pedestrian to push the button, proceed immediately into the conflict path, and be hit by a driver that had not had an opportunity to see the beacons activate. The congestion and slower speeds also result in obstructed sightlines, making it easy for pedestrians to step out from behind parked vehicles without being seen. Similar conditions also exist in 30 km/h school zones.The pedestrian corridor on William Ave, at the Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre, has the flashing beacons for the skywalk directly mounted; this puts them above and slightly behind the crosswalk (left). A driver at a reasonably close proximity to this crosswalk has no line-of-sight or vision of the beacons, but would be easily able to observe beacons placed at eye-level on the poles currently used for the pedestrian push-buttons.
The William corridor already has short poles (i.e. “standards”) located at either side of the crosswalk to hold the pedestrian push buttons. For this reason, it would be very easy to simply outfit these poles with additional eye-level beacons.
Pedestrian corridors are unique, being locations where drivers are not able to observe traffic control devices from the point at which they are expected to stop. Likewise, it is inappropriate for stopped traffic to be unable to see traffic signals which they are expected to obey. To allow for visibility, the traffic engineering manual (MUTCD) requires that, when an overhead traffic signal display is used, it must be placed at a minimum of 15 metres after a stop line. There is no consideration of the fact that corridors have the stop line immediately at the beacons. If side-mounted beacons were installed, with the poles at corridors being offset on either side of the crosswalk (so that the push button is to the right of approaching pedestrians), there will be a set of beacons visible to them. This is the standard for railway crossings and be so for corridors, too.
