News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6.2K     0 

Some might enjoy this compilation:

The City (Toronto) recently installed new pedestrian buttons at my intersection that are only meant to activate the audible signal for Leslie, the walk sign appears automatically. To my annoyance, they opted for the four-tone chime (I’m familiar with from North Bay). It’s somehow more annoying than the birds chirping - the slow/fast clicking (European) sounds would’ve been preferable. In Minneapolis, the same buttons we have would announce ”Walk sign is on for X Street”.

Oddly enough, only the buttons crossing the side-street make the chime - the new buttons actually crossing Leslie make no sound. The red (acknowledge) light doesn’t even activate on all four units when one is activated, although working together. The old buttons would light up together.
 
Brampton is a "suburban city" of stroads, built for the automobile, SUVs, and private pickup trucks. Not for pedestrians. Not for cyclists. The stroads are designed for the "safety" of speeders, not for the safety of pedestrians. They may change the speed limit signs downward, but the stroads remain designed for high speeds, so they do.

The stroads are very wide, without pedestrian refugee islands in the middle. Many of the so called "safety" islands don't even have beg buttons to activate the pedestrian signals if the pedestrians get caught half way.

Brampton just copied what "worked" in America. We should be copying what works in Europe for all traffic signals; pedestrian, motor vehicles, and cyclists. Starting with locating f traffic signal on the nearside of intersections, instead of the farside of intersections like we have here. See the video at this link.
Why change it if 95% of the residents are happy? Everyone here is obsessed with density but look at the densest areas of Toronto? It took city place 15 years to get a school? There's still just 1 streetcar that serves the area with a transit line potentially opening 30 years after it was made? Or humber bay that has had their streetcar line closed most of the last decade with a go station only added due to political medaling.

Some people want wide roads and backyards!
 
Why change it if 95% of the residents are happy? Everyone here is obsessed with density but look at the densest areas of Toronto? It took city place 15 years to get a school? There's still just 1 streetcar that serves the area with a transit line potentially opening 30 years after it was made? Or humber bay that has had their streetcar line closed most of the last decade with a go station only added due to political medaling.

Some people want wide roads and backyards!
And I'm sure there are plenty of differing opinions on this front, but, we are currently living in a climate crisis and we need to move and house people more efficiently. Wide roads are just not going to cut it.

People also want safe streets, clean air, clean water, and natural spaces. These are directly in conflict with wide roads and large backyards. However, compact streets and communities are compatible with these goals. Goals with a larger societal impact.
 
And I'm sure there are plenty of differing opinions on this front, but, we are currently living in a climate crisis and we need to move and house people more efficiently. Wide roads are just not going to cut it.
Honestly, peoples QOL's have fallen so bad I don't think the majority of people care, especially when Canada is such a small percentage on the world scale.
If you care about carbon just mandate 1 or 2 days of WFH
 
Honestly, peoples QOL's have fallen so bad I don't think the majority of people care, especially when Canada is such a small percentage on the world scale.
If you care about carbon just mandate 1 or 2 days of WFH
When people work from home they are more likely to live further (and travel farther on the days they do commute) and the road space freed up by less commuting immediately gets filled up by new car trips for other purposes, resulting in absolutely zero reduction in vehicle-kilometres.

We keep on trying administrative approaches to traffic demand management (and now climate action) and they keep proving not to work.

Meanwhile we consistently see that changing street networks prioritize other modes relative to driving nearly always reduces vehicle kilometres.

Just because it sounds like it would work in your head doesn't mean it works in real life in a complex urban environment where there are countless interacting variables and feedback loops. We have decades of practice to observe and we can see what actually works and what actually doesn't and that's what we base transport policy on, at least when the evidence-based process doesn't get overruled by citizens or politicians who think their "common sense" solution is equally valid despite all the evidence that it doesn't work.
 
When people work from home they are more likely to live further (and travel farther on the days they do commute) and the road space freed up by less commuting immediately gets filled up by new car trips for other purposes, resulting in absolutely zero reduction in vehicle-kilometres.

We keep on trying administrative approaches to traffic demand management (and now climate action) and they keep proving not to work.

Meanwhile we consistently see that changing street networks prioritize other modes relative to driving nearly always reduces vehicle kilometres.

Just because it sounds like it would work in your head doesn't mean it works in real life in a complex urban environment where there are countless interacting variables and feedback loops. We have decades of practice to observe and we can see what actually works and what actually doesn't and that's what we base transport policy on, at least when the evidence-based process doesn't get overruled by citizens or politicians who think their "common sense" solution is equally valid despite all the evidence that it doesn't work.
I'm an essential worker and travel all around the GTA, and I noticed a big drop in traffic while people were working from home 3-4 days a week. I even filmed it since I knew people would say things like I'm making things up lmfao.
You really think mandating 1 day of wfh is suddenly going to convince people to sell their homes and move to the countryside? Or that people will magically get the time to drive around for fun at 9am? I get your point if it was a 100% thing but even then look at the land transfer taxes etc.
 
I'm an essential worker and travel all around the GTA, and I noticed a big drop in traffic while people were working from home 3-4 days a week. I even filmed it since I knew people would say things like I'm making things up lmfao.
You really think mandating 1 day of wfh is suddenly going to convince people to sell their homes and move to the countryside? Or that people will magically get the time to drive around for fun at 9am? I get your point if it was a 100% thing but even then look at the land transfer taxes etc.
No one is saying that you're making it up. Traffic volumes decrease in the short-term from administrative policies, but they are not sustainable long-term policies. That's been consistent across the transportation planning industry, we cannot be designing for the short term given how long it takes for travel patterns to change and for infrastructure to change.
 
No one is saying that you're making it up. Traffic volumes decrease in the short-term from administrative policies, but they are not sustainable long-term policies. That's been consistent across the transportation planning industry, we cannot be designing for the short term given how long it takes for travel patterns to change and for infrastructure to change.
So we mandate wfh for 1 day a week, you're saying the 410 is going to have the same volume? If you call that a losing battle you're not going to convince people who purposefully bought big detached houses in a low density area to suddenly decide to take walk 20 mins to a bus, then switch vehicles 2 or 3 times even if the frequency was every 5 mins
 
So we mandate wfh for 1 day a week, you're saying the 410 is going to have the same volume? If you call that a losing battle you're not going to convince people who purposefully bought big detached houses in a low density area to suddenly decide to take walk 20 mins to a bus, then switch vehicles 2 or 3 times even if the frequency was every 5 mins
Yes. It will have the same volume in the long term. This is what we are telling you.
 
So we mandate wfh for 1 day a week, you're saying the 410 is going to have the same volume? If you call that a losing battle you're not going to convince people who purposefully bought big detached houses in a low density area to suddenly decide to take walk 20 mins to a bus, then switch vehicles 2 or 3 times even if the frequency was every 5 mins
And once again, you have brought the point back. To maximize benefits to society, we cannot keep building low-density, monolithic, auto-centric communities. Just because people will work from home, doesn't mean that they should do leisure, recreation, and other activities all from home.
 
I'm an essential worker and travel all around the GTA, and I noticed a big drop in traffic while people were working from home 3-4 days a week. I even filmed it since I knew people would say things like I'm making things up lmfao.
You really think mandating 1 day of wfh is suddenly going to convince people to sell their homes and move to the countryside? Or that people will magically get the time to drive around for fun at 9am? I get your point if it was a 100% thing but even then look at the land transfer taxes etc.
If people could drive on 100% free-flowing highways, they would 100% move to Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph, Niagara, etc. for lower home prices.
 
If people could drive on 100% free-flowing highways, they would 100% move to Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph, Niagara, etc. for lower home prices.
This is why my suggestion was for one or two days a week. Even if we make it 100% work from home what would they use the highway for?
 
Yes. It will have the same volume in the long term. This is what we are telling you.
And I fundamentally disagree! It’s like the tired induced demand argument. I’m not going to drive somewhere just because the road is empty! Tickets to Vancouver or five times cheaper than the last time I went! I’m still not going for no reason
 
And I fundamentally disagree! It’s like the tired induced demand argument. I’m not going to drive somewhere just because the road is empty! Tickets to Vancouver or five times cheaper than the last time I went! I’m still not going for no reason
You will drive further (more km) if you can do so in the same time. People who are only willing to live as far as Mississauga could consider moving to Burlington if highways were less congested. I don't know what to say if you think induced demand is 'tired'. There is ample evidence to support it. Every highway expansion quickly fills up and returns to a similar level of congestion within a matter of years.
 

Back
Top