|
|
|
TOareaFan
Superstar
Not defending him or his complaining....but the resto was a great spot at one time....I used to go to FNH a lot from the late 80’s into the 90’s.....not sure why I stopped.....I guess I just “moved on”.....,but for a good number of years it was my “go to” restaurant to entertain clients, family and friends.....I never had a bad experience there and people I introduced to the place were always grateful I did.
Obviously a lot could have changed in the year’s since......and obviously he does not get off scot free for his habitual complaining....,,but to have a restaurant survive for over 30 years in this city you have to be doing something right.
MetroMan
Senior Member
The city’s “solution” to drivers not following the signs is to put up even more signs.
Spoiler: it doesn’t work.
Drivers shouldn’t be expected to read a novel on a plaque up ahead to know what they should and shouldn’t do. An open road up ahead and a green light invite the drivers through. If this pilot has taught us anything (confirmed what many of us knew) is that drivers in Toronto don’t read the signs.
Toronto’s problem isn’t insufficient signage, it’s too much. Well designed streets are intuitive and enforce the intended traffic flow by their design. The chosen King Street Pilot design is not intuitive. It should have been a series of alternating one ways. Drivers would be met with a dead end and would never see any solid green lights, only right turn greens.
Spoiler: it doesn’t work.
Drivers shouldn’t be expected to read a novel on a plaque up ahead to know what they should and shouldn’t do. An open road up ahead and a green light invite the drivers through. If this pilot has taught us anything (confirmed what many of us knew) is that drivers in Toronto don’t read the signs.
Toronto’s problem isn’t insufficient signage, it’s too much. Well designed streets are intuitive and enforce the intended traffic flow by their design. The chosen King Street Pilot design is not intuitive. It should have been a series of alternating one ways. Drivers would be met with a dead end and would never see any solid green lights, only right turn greens.
Attachments
TransitBart
Senior Member
I am not certain that the average driver - and for sure one from out of town - would have a clue what the hell 'pilot' was referring to. Messaging is not easy. Choosing the right message is tough. This is the work of a transportation planner when a communications pro is required.
steveintoronto
Superstar
The answer is lit, visible *signal lights*. With a transit vertical white bar in a four light head. As described and covered by the HTA. And programmable priority, to satiate any kowtowing to the likes of Luk, and/or for any changes that become necessary along King whether the "pilot" is a success or not. And to have input from advanced sensors, like any world class city does.
Would Toronto Council send an army to fight wearing bathroom slippers? Then don't expect the Pilot to show what it can do without glasses.
Would Toronto Council send an army to fight wearing bathroom slippers? Then don't expect the Pilot to show what it can do without glasses.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
Signs aren't meant to stop everyone from breaking the rules. They're meant to let police ticket the people who do.
You've been constantly calling this project a failure since before it even started, but you need to realize that this is a pilot project, so it's limited by the fact that it needs to be reversible. In my industry we'd call it a proof-of-concept. It's not meant to be the final solution, it's meant to show us that the final solution is going to work.
The changes on King are working really well. Even if they don't have 100% compliance, the project is a huge success. Sometime in early 2019 this will go to City Council, and in all likelihood there will be a vote to make this permanent, at which point the irreversible changes can start happening. Until then, complaining about the project and calling it a failure is just going to strengthen the opposition to it.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Yes, it's "reversible". That's the problem and the challenge.
In a half-assed approach stifled from the systems other cities use...*PILOT OR NOT*? Like intelligent priority signalling systems for transit...
By what measure? There's been some promising incremental improvement, nothing like the radical improvement claimed by some. I wouldn't want you playing on my team. You'd be declaring victory before the struggle had finished, and then wasting energy on celebrating before the victory was achieved.
lol...not at this rate! There's some serious issues to confront, *even if they are baseless* like the claims of lost business. Moneris might have a few surprises. Only a fool would slack off at this point in time. When the Star headlines like it has, you know this isn't a slam-dunk.
The changes can start happening now for Gawdsakes. Like investing in a *world class* signalling system that not only gives transit priority, it does so on an advanced algorithm determined basis, fully re-progammable remotely for changing weather conditions, events, weekends, vehicle substitution and accidents. And *experiments* to optimize the parameters used.
That is needed NOW...Pilot alive or dead. How could you possibly argue against *equipping* the Pilot for "Proof of Concept" when according to you, it's going to be needed inevitably anyway?
'Johnny has no shoes. Let's not buy them now, because we know he's going to have them in a year's time and I'm sure he's going to live'.
And needless to say, except for some, the signalling system will be equipped with Red Light Cameras at every major intersection. The City itself sings the praises of doing so. Best it start singing in tune. It called the pitch...bad enough it can't remember the words...
Last edited:
Neutrino
Senior Member
Interestingly, one of my acquaintances from Mississauga had an appointment downtown and she was aware of the pilot. She described it as "you're not allowed to drive on King anymore."
micheal_can
Senior Member
That should be the attitude of all drivers.
DSC
Superstar
Yes, I agree that we are not good with signage. Sometimes one way streets have an arrow, sometimes a red bar. We also impose complex regulations that are very messsy on signage. E.g the many which have things like no turn Mon-Fri 4-7 and Sat 4-6.30. Why not 4-7 6 days?
MetroMan
Senior Member
I actually agree with that. Roads should be intuitive to use through their design, rather than signs. Signs are just there to make the rules official.
I'm not suggesting the city build permanent infrastructure. What I'm pointing out is that the city chose the wrong model. Alternating one way streets was the superior option. Drivers would reach an intersection and find a dead end. Without reading any signs, they'd have no option but to turn right and follow the intended traffic flow through street design, not written instructions. Barriers, traffic lights, road markings would accomplish this and are reversible.
How is this and this "working really well"?
I've been saying as soon as this model was chosen that it depended too critically on drivers voluntarily obeying signs and that the taxi exemption was a mistake. Both have turned out to be 100% accurate. The solution to this is to recognize that they chose the wrong model, and as is the intention of a pilot, modifications should be made until most of these issues are resolved and in a year they'll have a working street. If they're going to keep this broken model, they'll have accomplished nothing because they'll be building a permanent street based on a model that doesn't work.
MetroMan
Senior Member
Let's take the Alternating Loops model that was one of the finalists.
Here's how this would be intuitive without relying on drivers reading signs.
- Streetcar lanes are exclusive to streetcars. Harsh humps could be added at regular intervals, intuitively getting drivers to move to the curb lane. Nobody wants to drive on humps, specially if there's a clear lane without them. Flexiposts could be added to further separate the streetcar lanes from the single car lane along each block.
- Cars would reach an intersection and be faced by a closed lane up ahead and no solid green light, only a green right light.
Unlike the sneaking through the intersection, any car driving in a streetcar lane would be immediately obvious even to a cop further down the street, long after the initial infraction was committed.
Here's how this would be intuitive without relying on drivers reading signs.
- Streetcar lanes are exclusive to streetcars. Harsh humps could be added at regular intervals, intuitively getting drivers to move to the curb lane. Nobody wants to drive on humps, specially if there's a clear lane without them. Flexiposts could be added to further separate the streetcar lanes from the single car lane along each block.
- Cars would reach an intersection and be faced by a closed lane up ahead and no solid green light, only a green right light.
Unlike the sneaking through the intersection, any car driving in a streetcar lane would be immediately obvious even to a cop further down the street, long after the initial infraction was committed.
Attachments
Neutrino
Senior Member
She still drove downtown, but her family took the GO to meet with her. I was fairly impressed they were aware of all that (even though that sounds condescending on my part).
micheal_can
Senior Member
The biggest failure of the pilot is timing. This should have been started in the spring. Then if new things needed to be built, then they could. Now, we are stuck with this till the construction season starts up.