I'm still of the opinion that there is already a perfectly legal unmarked crosswalk at this location per the motor vehicle code. And that was is really being discussed is not a "new" crosswalk, but the upgrading of an unmarked crosswalk to a marked crosswalk, which is designed to enhance safety and avoid accidents to the benefit of all the users of the road.
I think that when the issue is discussed in those terms, then the whole "let them walk 300 meters out of their way so I don't have to slow down" issue is a little harder to defend. What IMHO is really being said is, "let's mark the crosswalk so the incredible number of Victoria drivers who think only marked crosswalks are legal crosswalks don't accidentally kill some one in an at-fault accident."
Can anyone provide evidence that this site is somehow exempt from the MVA? Maybe there is an exemption due to the median, but I haven't been able to find it.
(a) a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or
(b) the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway;
Otherwise I think people are arguing from a false premise.