News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

Unfortunately I doubt we will see more enforcement from TPS. What we can hope for are way more red light/speed cameras and a concerted effort to actually redesign roads. And, honestly, the latter is really the most effective long-term way to reduce fatalities and make for better neighborhoods. We’re just too cheap to do it; we’re ok with a 20+ deaths per year and some hand-wringing.
 
crs1026 said:
Given that trucks have governors required by law, I can't see why cars shouldn't.

With respect to Vision Zero, the problem in a city is that the speeds that are unacceptable are within what a governor-equipped vehicle can still manage.... it's the going 70 in a school zone that is the problem, not going 150 on the 401.

I don't see why there couldn't be technology that limits speed based on fixed sensors in the road - so when the car hits a school zone, 40 is all it will do. Cancel by a second sensor and/or automatically after x meters, so even if the car misses the second sensor, full speed capability is restored. It's kind of part-way towards AV technology.

Some of the legalistic opposition can be mitigated by recognizing that most of these restrictions are aimed at an administrative matter (posession of a license) rather than a criminal charge. Maybe no fines at all.... but when your points add up, your license is gone. And your insurance company finds out as the normal course. One 150 km/hr offense is pegged at 15 points....you only do it once to lose your license. I'm far more interested in taking bad drivers off the road than in criminalising them. That's all the deterrence required.

- Paul
Click to expand...
They were discussing just that back in the 1920's. The automobile lobby helped in getting the "NO!" vote out.
The-Cincinnati-speed-governor-referendum-frightened-motordom-into-organizing-to-reshape.png

The Cincinnati speed governor referendum frightened motordom into organizing to reshape the traffic safety problem. This advertisement appeared the day before the vote. (Source: Cincinnati Post, 5 November 1923. Courtesy of the Cincinnati Post.)​

From link.
 
crs1026 said:
If you are transporting weapons, or drugs, or a dead body....no, I would not go that far.

I actually think the police have too much power to take a traffic stop for broken tail light and turn it into a criminal investigation. The interaction should stop with the traffic infraction.

But yeah, detection of driving behaviour can be automated in my law book.

- Paul
Click to expand...

As long as a simple routine record search of the car and driver after a justified stop doesn’t reveal a reported stolen car or an outstanding arrest warrant, I would agree.
 
Admiral Beez said:
JMFC, I’m tired of looking at the Netherlands. Are there no examples of North American cities doing best practices that we can consider?
Click to expand...
NL is best practice for most things. There are many cities in NA, or the UK implementing these practices, often in a half assed way. This outfit has a Canadian office, and they have consulted on some things here, such as for the City of Canmore.

mobycon.com

Canada's Dutch inspired street in Canmore, Alberta - Mobycon

“The more difficult it is to drive, the safer drivers behave. The easier it is to drive, the less safe” says Dick van Veen, one of Mobycon’s designers on the project. “The visual transition in the street should be what makes you change your behaviour.” On Spring Creek Drive, these transitions...
mobycon.com mobycon.com

They talk about it a bit at the 30:00 mark in this video:

 
afransen said:
NL is best practice for most things.
Click to expand...
Yes, but to be useful we need to look at similarly governed and geographically sized jurisdictions like those we have impacting Toronto and the GTA's roads. Imagine for example that we wanted to reduce Eglinton Ave. from Yonge to Warden to a single lane each way, twisting and with obstructions to slow traffic. Toronto council can’t do that alone, we’d need the province to agree. That’s what bugs me about the fanboy Toronto-needs-to-be-NL vids and posts in that they always focus on the benefits of the end result but never address the means to get there within the confines of Toronto and Ontario’s unique governmental processes. We don’t need any more evidence or convincing that what the NL does would be beneficial to Toronto and the GTA, it’s just repetitive urbanplaner porn now. We don’t need the what or the why, we need the how.

And if someone replies we just need to vote in the right politicians, please punch yourself in the nose. Because again, that’s the what and the why, but ignores the how. How do we elect a majority of politicians at both Queen’s Park and Toronto city hall that would support the dramatic urban planning that the Toronto-needs-to-be-NL crowd demand? A pox on the next person who posts a NL is great vid without any ideas on implementation in TO.
 
Last edited:
When automobiles use increased from the 1920's onward, cities created by-laws to have "no parking/no standing/no stopping" along roads with 2+ lanes of traffic in each direction during "rush hours". This created want-to-be expressways. In the suburban arterial roads, they have "no parking/no standing/no stopping" 24-hours, again to create want-to-be-expressways.

Along Roncesvalles Avenue, they did away with "no parking", allowing automobiles to park.

With COVID-19, the city create CaféTO to provide space for expanded outdoor dining areas to help some restaurants and bars who are impacted by COVID-19. See link. There are discussions to make this permanent. It also forces motorists to slow down around the "obstacles". Maybe they should also allow parking along those streets, even during the "rush hours", which would also help to slow down the traffic.

Maybe we should allow parking along the suburban arterial streets, to help slow down the traffic?
 
Admiral Beez said:
Yes, but to be useful we need to look at similarly governed and geographically sized jurisdictions like those we have impacting Toronto and the GTA's roads. Imagine for example that we wanted to reduce Eglinton Ave. from Yonge to Warden to a single lane each way, twisting and with obstructions to slow traffic. Toronto council can’t do that alone, we’d need the province to agree. That’s what bugs me about the fanboy Toronto-needs-to-be-NL vids and posts in that they always focus on the benefits of the end result but never address the means to get there within the confines of Toronto and Ontario’s unique governmental processes. We don’t need any more evidence or convincing that what the NL does would be beneficial to Toronto and the GTA, it’s just repetitive urbanplaner porn now. We don’t need the what or the why, we need the how.

And if someone replies we just need to vote in the right politicians, please punch yourself in the nose. Because again, that’s the what and the why, but ignores the how. How do we elect a majority of politicians at both Queen’s Park and Toronto city hall that would support the dramatic urban planning that the Toronto-needs-to-be-NL crowd demand? A pox on the next person who posts a NL is great vid without any ideas on implementation in TO.
Click to expand...
NL wouldn't do that with a street like Eglinton. They would let Eglinton be a traffic sewer and direct placemaking elsewhere. Toronto f***s up by thinking we can put bike lanes on 8 lane arterials and make them vibrant, walkable streets that people should want to live, shop etc. on. Impossible. They will always be awful places to be. I laughed out loud at Brampton's plan to make Steeles pleasant enough for a sidewalk cafe. You can't make this sh!t up. You cannot make a heavily trafficked arterial pleasant for pedestrians. So don't try. Put those uses on pedestrian-oriented streets away from roaring trucks and 70 kph traffic.

The whole idea of a 'complete street' is a North American concept and it is completely wrong. NL shows that what works is independent networks of infrastructure. You should have a network of high speed arterials with minimal access role (ie, not lined with business, etc.). You should have a completely separate network of high quality cycling & walking-oriented streets. They should absolutely not be mixed.

We are also still building greenfields and making the same mistakes over and over. Maybe it is too late to fix Toronto, but the cornfields in Caledon don't need to be screwed up in the same way.

The 'how' for now is raising awareness of what is possible and doing some half-hearted retrofits. I can harp about making cycling the transit more attractive. I don't want to only talk about what Vancouver or Seattle is doing it because half the time they aren't getting it quite right. We need to know what good looks like, even if we fall short.
 
Last edited:
W. K. Lis said:
Maybe we should allow parking along the suburban arterial streets, to help slow down the traffic?
Click to expand...

Should we systemmatically redesign suburban arterials to be safer and more pedestrian/cyclist friendly? Absolutely.

Is on street parking a tool to help this? Absolutely.

Is parking the “magic bullet” that will make arterials slower and safer? Not necessarily.

I will admit that at times it’s amazing how far one has to drive to find a parkable street in places. No parking/stopping is overused in many places.

A cautionary case study is Parkside Drive. One of the features that makes this street so nasty is the somewhat random parking allowed northbound. The gaps in parked cars along the curb lane are used as bypass lanes by impatient motorists, and the need to overtake before the next parked car is what encourages drivers to be so aggressive. Allowing users to park at random on arterials has down sides.

I would support having lanes narrowed or eliminated altogether, but whether the space that is freed up should be assigned to vehicle parking is debatable. There may be better uses. And a lot depends on the design. Just being able to stop and park is unsafe if it forces drivers who are hoping to use the lane as a through pathway to merge. Better to do away with the lane altogether.

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top