The apartment building we live in has no extra parking spaces, so since November I have been parking my car every night along Russell St. as I had seen cars parked there over night with no problem. I also never saw any signs or was given any notification that it was illegal to park there.

From December 12th to January 4th I went back to B.C. to visit with my family over the holidays. During that time I received 4 parking tickets, which along with towing fees is costing me $800. An amount I really cannot afford as I am barely working. I was completely unaware of any winter ban as I do not receive the local paper, I know few people here and they do not have these restrictions where I used to live.

I wrote a letter to the cheif of police and to the city of Halifax begging for some forgivness on this. No luck! I am out $800! A not so nice welcoming into this province after I gave up my friends, family and job so my husband can serve in the military!

If you're talking about more cars, forget it. More parking, more traffic, more problems. Give people a reasonable alternative to auto travel and they will choose it. This city and this province still aren't putting enough resources behind public transport and then are simultaneously wondering why everyone drives in to work. Someone in power should visit a train station in France.

"Neither ferry nor train would directly reach the other big employment destination on the peninsula — the hospitals"

Currently, the ferries that run from Woodside and Alderney do not meet up wtih bus routes that serve the hospitals, Dalhousie, or SMU. There are 5 buses that stop near the ferry terminal in Halifax and they use North, Chebucto, and Quinpool to move passengers west. Not one route moves them South West and up Spring Garden, Morris, or South Streets. There is ferry service RIGHT there and the answer to getting more people on it is ONE NEW BUS ROUTE! Less expensive, quicker to implement. Is it even a consideration?

Paul Hales
Technical Director
Hales Energy Ltd

Crosswalk safety program flagged for removal

By NORM COLLINS
Tue. Jul 28 – 4:46 AM

A YEAR AGO, a community group received approval from HRM Traffic & Right-of-Way to implement a trial crosswalk flag program along Waverley Road in Dartmouth. In spite of community approval, we have been requested to remove the flags by July 31.

Thirteen crosswalks had buckets installed on each side of the road, in which were placed bright orange flags with reflective tape. Pedestrians use these flags to increase their visibility. Similar programs have existed in at least 22 locations in the U.S., the largest being at Salt Lake City. Although theft experience was initially high, it quickly subsided.

A community survey reported an effectiveness of 82 per cent, with 96 per cent of respondents agreeing the program should be expanded across HRM. Numerous positive comments were received, including:

"I am both a driver and a pedestrian. When I am driving, the bright flags quickly draw my attention to crosswalks. When I’m walking and using a flag, I feel safer because I know I am more visible."

"I cannot recall having seen a more simple and affordable idea have such a positive impact on pedestrian safety."

"Simple, yet effective idea! As a driver, there is no confusion if a pedestrian is attempting to cross the road. The visible flags work. As a pedestrian … crossing is easier with the high visibility flags."

Our group presented the results to HRM council, which asked the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) to include the flags as a traffic control device. However, TAC decided a crosswalk flag is not a traffic control device, based on the following factors: a) there is no legal requirement for a motorist to stop for a pedestrian with a crosswalk flag; b) crosswalk flags can be easily stolen, vandalized and/or littered, leading to additional inspections and replacement costs; c) potential liability in locations where no crosswalk flags are available; and d) the use of crosswalk flags provides a false sense of security to pedestrians, who may assume the crosswalk flag gives them the legal authority to stop traffic.

Let’s consider these factors: a) it is the pedestrian, when "lawfully within or stopped facing a crosswalk," who creates the legal requirement for a vehicle to yield the right of way, whether or not a pedestrian has a crosswalk flag or any other device; b) the cost and administration of a program should not be a concern of TAC and certainly not a factor in deciding whether a crosswalk flag is a traffic control device; and c) if there is liability in locations where no crosswalk flags are available, then consistently there must be potential liability in locations where no overhead or eye-level lighting is available.

With respect to the assertion that crosswalk flags provide a "false sense of security," TAC has yet to provide any data or support. HRM Traffic backs this view based on data that do not recognize the different volumes of pedestrians at marked versus unmarked crosswalks.

The U.S. Department of Transportation, in a report on crosswalk safety, concludes: a) "that on two-lane roads, the presence of a marked crosswalk alone was associated with no difference in pedestrian crash rate;" and b) "these studies found pedestrian behaviour to be, if anything, slightly better in the presence of marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks. Certainly the results showed no indication of an increase in reckless or incautious pedestrian behaviour with marked crosswalks."

Another research paper notes: "pedestrian crash statistics must be adjusted for exposure to risk." Yet TAC and HRM Traffic, without providing any data adjusted for "exposure to risk" or other research in support, take the opposite position.

We believe most people think overhead and eye-level lighting improves visibility at marked crosswalks. If TAC did not agree, why would it approve such lighting? We equally believe crosswalk flags improve visibility of both the crosswalk and the pedestrian at marked crosswalks. The vast majority of those surveyed, having experienced the flags along Waverley Road, believe this to be the case. TAC, on the other hand believes crosswalk flags create greater risk to the pedestrian, inconsistent with overhead/eve-level lighting, the results of our survey, and the findings of the U.S. Department of Transport.

We have asked TAC to reconsider its position, but in the meantime have been requested by HRM Traffic to remove the flags and containers along Waverley Road.

For more information, please visit http://www.waverleyroadcrosswalkflags.synthasite.com.

Norm Collins is chair, Waverley Road Crosswalk Flags.

She said there should be better signage warning drivers that they are coming up on a crosswalk and indicating what the lanes are, or the crosswalk should be moved to a safer location.

Ken Reashor, manager of Halifax’s traffic authority, says new overhead signage has been added to account for the wider roadway, but the complaint is one that is common at many crosswalks across the city.

"We’ve had complaints all along St. Margarets Bay Road, even further up, of people not yielding to pedestrians, whether it’s one lane, two lanes or not," he said. "It’s not an issue, I don’t think, of the design that’s the problem. It’s inherent with crosswalks in general and people not yielding to pedestrians."

He said there is plenty of advance warning for motorists that the middle lane is a left-turn lane, but that doesn’t keep motorists from using it to go straight.

He said Halifax Regional Police have been monitoring the crosswalk and have reported to him that there have been incidents of cars not yielding to pedestrians, but they have been in the correct lane.

Police spokeswoman Theresa Rath said the traffic unit has several areas that they keep an eye on occasionally, usually following public complaints.

She said those areas most often involve intersections with multiple lanes and high traffic volumes, such as on Quinpool Road and Connaught Avenue.

She said the police urge pedestrians to make eye contact with motorists before stepping off the curb.

( ifairclough@herald.ca)

I'm a big fan of this particular Feed in tariff, because it focuses on smaller projects, which will increase the percentage of local ownership.

We need a strong government that recognizes that our status quo of imported fossil fuel use is the worst case scenario for both rate payers and our economy in general.

http://www.gov.ns.ca/energy/energy-strategy/

http://www.gov.ns.ca/energy/energy-strategy/

see Nova Scotia EnergGuide for Homes http://www.conservens.ca/pdfs/EnerGuide-for-Homes...

Rebates

Federal Eco-energy program: $4375

Federal Home Renovation tax rebate: $1350

Commercially the Federal Government offers incentives as well. Please contact us for info.

Nova Scotia

Nova Scotia interest-free loan for 5 years: $5000

New Bruswick

Provincial 20% rebate (up to $2000) or interest free loan of up to $10000 for 6 years

Provincial Home Heating System Upgrade Bonus: $500