With all due respect to the person who reported this, regardless of whether the contractor was in error for painting the crosswalk this corner is still a legal crossing of Claremont. As long as there are no signs prohibiting crossing then it is allowed, which applies even if the crosswalk is not painted.

If the city wants to restrict that crossing and put up signs directing pedestrians to the other crosswalk they can do so, but otherwise it seems that painting the crosswalk across Claremont north of Clifton is a good idea, demarcating an already legal crossing. The addition of another pedestrian crossing signal head here would be beneficial, if anything.

The term "jaywalk" is often applied erroneously to pedestrian movements which are entirely allowed. The only non-permitted pedestrian crossings of roadways are midblock outside of a painted crosswalk on any blocks where there are traffic signals (not stop signs) at each of the closest intersections, or at any area that a city has specifically designated and signed as an illegal crossing.

When pedestrians legally cross mid-block with no crosswalk they are required to yield to traffic already in the roadway. However, they always have the right of way at a stop light with the light in their direction, at a mid-block painted crosswalk, at any intersection with a stop sign, and at any intersections without stop signs or stop lights that are not specifically restricted whether the crossing is painted or not.

Do drivers often break the law and fail to yield to pedestrians with the right of way? Yes. Does that mean we should put more restrictions on pedestrians and make it harder for people to walk? I hope not.

I just checked out the crosswalk in question and I apologize for misunderstanding the original report as the contractor updated the already existing curb ramps near the NW and NE corners of Claremont and Clifton, but did not actually paint the crosswalk. There was a painted crosswalk here once, by the way, which must have been ground out at some point although the remnants can still be seen.

Regardless, this is still a legal pedestrian crossing as there is no signage prohibiting it. As opposed to removing the curb ramp I would prefer to see the city take additional steps toward making this crosswalk safe, such as painting it with a ladder-style crossing, installing pedestrian signal heads, and changing the traffic signal to a three-stage phasing so that Claremont in both directions gets one phase, the highway off-ramp traffic gets one phase, and westbound Clifton and pedestrian traffic crossing Claremont in both directions gets one phase together. This way pedestrian traffic is not restricted unnecessarily, but they are also not put in conflict with car traffic coming off the highway.