News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

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
Many of the suburban arterial roads have very w-i-d-e traffic lanes, designed for the "safety" of speeders doing 100+ km/h. Over the years, I have seen the suburban roads reduce their speed limits from 60 km/h down to 50 km/h (sometimes down to 40 km/h), but the traffic lanes remain at their old w-i-d-e widths. They signs may say "50 km/h" (or no signs, since the default urban speed limit is 50 km/h), but because the road design hasn't changed, the motorists continue to do 100+ km/h. The road design should be changed to FORCE motorists to slow down.

Many of the suburban arterial roads can be narrowed to include segregated cycling lanes and wider (or new) sidewalks, but the suburban councillors continue to veto that for their fiefdoms. See link.


Dated Thu., July 18, 2019

Where does the Sidewalk End? In Etobicoke, of course

There was a lot of debate at this week’s Toronto City Council meeting about sidewalks and, for once, it had nothing to do with the smart-city proposal at the waterfront.

At issue was the “missing sidewalk installation policy” that was to give city staff the authority to build sidewalks on streets that don’t already have them. Despite Toronto ostensibly being a proper city, there are quite a few streets where people have to walk on the road with moving traffic.

A sidewalk is a fundamental part of a city. It is where building meets road, where every motorist becomes a pedestrian once they exit their car and where the public life of the city plays out.

It’s why the urban innovation firm behind the smart-city plan is called Sidewalk Labs rather than, say, Off Ramp, Left Turn Lane or Underpass. The children’s television show Sesame Street could have been called Sesame Sidewalk, as just about all the outdoor action in the entire series takes place on sidewalks.

Despite their benign ubiquity, Councillor Stephen Holyday (Ward 2, Etobicoke Centre) moved a motion on Tuesday to amend the city’s road-safety plan to give local councillors a possible veto over new sidewalks, allowing them to take objections to the city’s infrastructure committee. Holyday said some residents in his ward who don’t have sidewalks are happy without them and don’t want them.

Ensuring all streets have sidewalks was a key part of what’s been called the Vision Zero 2.0 road-safety strategy, after the first watered-down, meek attempt three years ago failed to stop the carnage on our streets.
I’m lucky I often get to visit family in Councillor Holyday’s ward, particularly the Humber Valley Village neighbourhood northwest of Royal York Rd. and Dundas St. W. It’s a lovely place designed by the influential postwar architect and planner Eugene Faludi in the 1940s and has circuitous streets, treed lots and cul-de-sacs. But many of the streets don’t have sidewalks, so pedestrians must share the road with cars.

It’s curious, in light of Holyday’s motion, to walk these sidewalk-free streets and see residents reduced to begging cars to slow down in an attempt to keep their children safe.

Along and around Wimbledon Rd., one of the main through streets in the neighbourhood, you’ll see that in front yards and on corners residents have put out bright orange pylons and tent-like nylon signs that read “CAUTION: CHILDREN AT PLAY” with the image of two youngsters holding hands, seeming scurrying out of the way of traffic. Even more conspicuous are the upright plastic figures of children wearing cute red beanies, standing at the side of the road waving orange flags with the word SLOW written on their hips.

Holyday’s motion was vocally supported by his neighbouring councillor, Mark Grimes (Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore). On Twitter, Grimes’ policy adviser Mary Campbell was (at least before she made her account private) making bizarre arguments for why local councillors and residents should be able to object to sidewalks, including arguing that her ward was simply planned without sidewalks.

While true, and never mind that we improve on old designs all the time, some streets designed without sidewalks were planned in a more idyllic time, when each house might have had just one car rather than three or four and perhaps when people had more respect for the law.

You don’t need to be in Toronto long to know that speed limits, stop signs and even red lights are optional for many drivers and enforcement is almost non-existent. We all know what that pathetic neon kid is up against here.

The “designed without sidewalks” argument is even more absurd if you consider parts of Ward 3 were designed before the car itself, like Mimico and New Toronto, areas that pre-date the mass adoption of cars and their inherent danger. By this logic, we should remove the road itself since they weren’t designed with cars in mind.

In the end, 16 councillors, including Mayor John Tory, voted to pass Holyday’s motion, defeating the remaining 10 and yet again chipping away at the city’s road-safety plan.

Honestly, the incremental process of trying to make Toronto streets safer is exhausting. It would be comically absurd if it weren’t so routinely deadly.

If we are indeed a city, it’s our duty to make it safe for everyone who lives here. Perhaps the homeowner doesn’t want a sidewalk, but these are public streets, and the postal worker, nanny, kid walking to a friend’s place, vision-impaired people and users of mobility devices all deserve safe and accessible infrastructure.


In his famous 1974 children’s poem “Where the Sidewalk Ends,” Shel Silverstein evoked an imaginary, childlike place of innocence. Had he been writing in Toronto, it might have been set in Etobicoke and included those neon kids with the flags trying desperately to slow traffic coming towards them.

They might as well be waving white flags of surrender in this city.
img_8651.jpg
 
Last edited:
Many of the suburban arterial roads have very w-i-d-e traffic lanes, designed for the "safety" of speeders doing 100+ km/h. Over the years, I have seen the suburban roads reduce their speed limits from 60 km/h down to 50 km/h (sometimes down to 40 km/h), but the traffic lanes remain at their old w-i-d-e widths. They signs may say "50 km/h" (or no signs, since the default urban speed limit is 50 km/h), but because the road design hasn't changed, the motorists continue to do 100+ km/h. The road design should be changed to FORCE motorists to slow down.

Many of the suburban arterial roads can be narrowed to include segregated cycling lanes and wider (or new) sidewalks, but the suburban councillors continue to veto that for their fiefdoms.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/con...-the-sidewalk-end-in-etobicoke-of-course.html
You may be drifting off course into discussion of local and residential roads (where parking is already largely allowed) versus arterials (a very different dynamic.

The main reason why arterials are designed as they have been is throughput, not residential pressure or wayward councillors. In many cases the traditional assumption was that people would only be venturing onto the street in a vehicle, so sidewalks are redundant. They were built wide in the belief that speed was acceptable. Those beliefs began in the Roads department, with Councillors and residents generally acquiescing, perhaps.

I agree that arterials are oversized, and promote excessive speed. (If you have ever used Renforth Drive where the speed camera used to be, it was virtually impossible to remain at 40 km/hr….. that speed just felt like a crawl, the street is so straight and wide…) - but that’s a different discussion than local roads, which generate far fewer prdestrian incidents, and have more built in disincentives to speeding.

- Paul
 
Many of the suburban arterial roads can be narrowed to include segregated cycling lanes and wider (or new) sidewalks,
I don’t like using the facade of bike lanes to reduce traffic speed. Look at Eglinton in Scarborough, they can put in bike lanes but no one is going to use them. If you want to reduce speed there are better means.
 
I don’t like using the facade of bike lanes to reduce traffic speed. Look at Eglinton in Scarborough, they can put in bike lanes but no one is going to use them. If you want to reduce speed there are better means.

Opponents of building bike lanes (separated or not) have always, and continue to, make the claim that "no one is going to use them".
 
Opponents of building bike lanes (separated or not) have always, and continue to, make the claim that "no one is going to use them".
I'm not an opponent of bike lanes, I'm a big fan of them. But if we deploy them not primarily for cyclists to use but instead as lane narrowing to slow vehicular traffic we're doing bike lane advocates no favours.

A bike lane might slow traffic below, but I expect few bikes will use it. Though anyone who hates bike advocacy will be triggered.

Cycling-Lane-Fail-3.jpg
 
I'm not an opponent of bike lanes, I'm a big fan of them. But if we deploy them not primarily for cyclists to use but instead as lane narrowing to slow vehicular traffic we're doing bike lane advocates no favours.

A bike lane might slow traffic below, but I expect few bikes will use it. Though anyone who hates bike advocacy will be triggered.
Separated bike lanes are better, since they provide a visual clue.
Hilarious!
 
A bike lane might slow traffic below, but I expect few bikes will use it. Though anyone who hates bike advocacy will be triggered.

Just for clarity, that's not in Toronto.... Dana Point, Ca.....and there's no way I would cycle down the Pacific Coast Highway with no separation from autos....

- Paul

Screen Shot 2021-11-03 at 6.40.40 PM.png
Screen Shot 2021-11-03 at 8.09.42 PM.png
 
Last edited:
... particularly the Humber Valley Village neighbourhood northwest of Royal York Rd. and Dundas St. W. It’s a lovely place designed by the influential postwar architect and planner Eugene Faludi in the 1940s and has circuitous streets, treed lots and cul-de-sacs
"lovely" ?? Well that's in the eye of the beholder. Personally, you could not pay me enough to convince me to live in Etobicoke. Those sidewalk opponents are dead wrong if they think they are enhancing the value of their real estate.
 
Just for clarity, that's not in Toronto.... Dana Point, Ca.....and there's no way I would cycle down the Pacific Coast Highway with no separation from autos....
IMO, no street with a posted limit of 50 kph or higher should have bike lanes denoted by solely paint. If it's 50 kph or higher there should be a hard separation, and no damn flexy bollards.
 
Looks like some of you may have shamed Councillor Perks into action on Parkside Drive.

No proposal for Cycle Tracks; but his motion at the next meeting of Council will seek to lower to the speed limit to 40km/ph, add an additional traffic light and install sidewalks along most of the west side of Parkside Drive.
Its a solid start, but I would love to see Cycle Tracks there too. That said, nothing listed would preclude adding those in the future.

Motion Link: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.MM37.1

From the above:

1636035857267.png
 
A couple of other Vision Zero motions coming to Council.

This one from Cllr. McKelvie seeks some explanation of and improvement in use of speed data, but also includes a request for a report in Q1 2022 on accelerating the rollout of Vision Zero.
Of note here is that the seconder is Cllr. Crawford, who is the budget chief, and the Councillor for the Birchmount-Danforth area where a HS student was recently killed crossing the road.

Motion: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-172650.pdf

From same:

1636036673443.png
 
And three motions from Cllrs. Bradford and Fletcher, 2 specific to O'Connor; and one other all on the Vision Zero theme.

Motion 1)

Link: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.MM37.14

From the above:

1636036943787.png


Motion 2)

Link: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.MM37.15

From the above:

1636037084876.png


The two motions above, together, would create a uniform speed limit of 40km/ph on O'Connor between Paper and Greenwood, and between Coxwell and St. Clair.

For reasons that mystify me, that omits the Greenwood to Coxwell section of the road.

They also seek enhanced speed and red-light enforcement.

All good, but excepting a single intersection, there doesn't seem to be much focus on road design which must be amended in order to sustain improved safety.

*******

A further motion is general in nature and seeks to expand the number of automated speed enforcement locations to a minimum of 5 per ward.

 
Looks like some of you may have shamed Councillor Perks into action on Parkside Drive.

No proposal for Cycle Tracks; but his motion at the next meeting of Council will seek to lower to the speed limit to 40km/ph, add an additional traffic light and install sidewalks along most of the west side of Parkside Drive.
Its a solid start, but I would love to see Cycle Tracks there too. That said, nothing listed would preclude adding those in the future.

Motion Link: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.MM37.1

From the above:

View attachment 360523
Speed limt signs are useless. You can put up 40 km/h speed limits up and motorists will still go 60+ km/h down Parkside Drive. Step one, make parking on the east side of Parkside Driver permanent. Step two, put in segregated cycling paths on the west side. As for the sidewalks, remember this...
800px-Please_walk_on_the_grass.jpg
From link.
 
Looks like some of you may have shamed Councillor Perks into action on Parkside Drive.

No proposal for Cycle Tracks; but his motion at the next meeting of Council will seek to lower to the speed limit to 40km/ph, add an additional traffic light and install sidewalks along most of the west side of Parkside Drive.
Its a solid start, but I would love to see Cycle Tracks there too. That said, nothing listed would preclude adding those in the future.

Motion Link: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.MM37.1

From the above:

View attachment 360523
No proposal for Cycle Tracks;
At least he is not proposing his beloved "sharrows"

Installing a sidewalk is a start, but walking on it will remain a terrifying exercise as long as drivers are speeding the way they have been.
 

Back
Top