News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

Hi guys? Can anyone please explain to me the difference between Vision Zero and Complete Streets Guidelines? I understand that Vision Zero is about eliminating fatalities and that Complete Streets is about moving away from 20th century street design, but I don't understand how the two sets of guidelines shape the city's projects. Sometimes a project is guided by Vision Zero, sometimes by Complete Streets - so it's kinda confusing.
There's definitely overlap; some would argue they both strive for the same objectives.

I was going to answer but I think you'd get a much better answer by reaching some awesome people at Transportation: @McgaugheyOwen or @inHrEye on Twitter.
 
From Wikipedia, at this link...

Lane width​


Assumed widths and heights in road design (in meters)

The widths of vehicle lanes typically vary from 2.7 to 4.6 m (9 to 15 ft). Lane widths are commonly narrower on low volume roads and wider on higher volume roads. The lane width depends on the assumed maximum vehicle width, with an additional space to allow for lateral motion of the vehicle​
In the United States, the maximum truck width had been 8 ft (2.4 m) in the Code of Federal Regulations of 1956, which exactly matched then standard shipping container width. The maximum truck width was increased in 1976 to 102 in (2.59 m) to harmonize with the slightly larger metric 2.6 m (102.4 in) world standard width. The same applies to standards in Europe, which increased the allowable width of road vehicles to a current maximum of 2.55 m (100.4 in) for most trucks, and 2.6 m (102.4 in) for refrigerator trucks. These widths do not include side mirrors, but only the vehicle body. The minimum extra space had been 0.20 m (7.9 in) and it is currently assumed to be at least 0.25 m (9.8 in) on each side. The international standard allows roads with less traffic to add a second or third lower width lane in the same direction for cars 1.75 m (69 in) – those that have been built exclude trucks from these narrower lanes; however lower width lanes are not a recommended design principle for new roads, as it could be dangerous if traffic becomes heavier in future.​
In the United States, the Interstate Highway standards for the Interstate Highway System use a 12 ft (3.7 m) standard lane width, while narrower lanes are used on lower classification roads. In Europe, laws and road widths vary by country; the minimum widths of lanes are generally between 2.5 to 3.25 m (8.2 to 10.7 ft). The federal Bundesstraße interurban network in Germany defines a minimum of 3.5 m (140 in) for each lane for the smallest two lane roads, with an additional 0.25 m (9.8 in) on the outer sides and shoulders being at least 1.5 m (59 in) on each side. A modern Autobahn divided highway with two lanes per direction has lanes 3.75 m (12.3 ft) wide with an additional clearance of 0.50 m (20 in) on each side; with three lanes per direction this becomes 3.75 m (12.3 ft) for the rightmost lane and 3.5 m (11 ft) for the other lanes. Urban access roads and roads in low-density areas may have lanes as narrow as 2.50 m (8.2 ft) in width per lane, occasionally with shoulders roughly 1 m (39 in) wide.


https://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledg...-trucks-heavy-trucks-truck-exempt-routes.html

No Heavy Trucks


From link.

Heavy Truck C​

A commercial vehicle having a weight, when unloaded, of three (3) tonnes or more or, when loaded, of five (5) tonnes or more, and includes a school bus longer than eight (8) metres and a road building machine, but does not include a passenger vehicle, an ambulance or any vehicle of a police or fire department.

The most common regulation we implement on (predominantly) local residential streets is "No Heavy Trucks". This regulation applies at all times. On some higher capacity roads with predominantly residential properties we will implement a "No Heavy Trucks, 7:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M." regulation. This time-specific regulation is intended to prevent heavy trucks from travelling on the road in the evening and overnight hours when the noise created by these vehicles is disturbing to residents.

Both forms of this regulation come with a necessary exemption that stipulates the prohibition does not apply to any vehicle actually engaged in making a delivery or a collection from a premises which cannot be reached except by way of a road or portion of road where heavy trucks are prohibited, but they may only travel on that road to the extent that is unavoidable in getting to/from that premises. If this exemption was not in place residents or businesses on that street could not legally receive deliveries or servicing (garbage pick-up as an example).

The intent of the heavy truck prohibition is to prevent heavy trucks from using the street as a cut-through route to avoid traffic congestion on major arterial roads, not to prevent or inconvenience heavy trucks with a legitimate reason from being on the street or in the neighbourhood.

Large vehicles​

In some circumstances where a public thoroughfare is too narrow to safely accommodate vehicles of a larger size, we will implement a "No Vehicles Over 2.0 metres In Width" regulation. In most circumstances this regulation is applied in public lanes/alleys where the width is about 3 metres in width and larger vehicles could potentially cause damage to adjacent buildings/properties.

Weight restrictions generally do not apply on any of our public roads. However, a restriction to vehicles less than 5 tonnes is in effect on some roads/bridges along park roads.

Delivery vehicles​

The only other regulation directly impacting on trucking/delivery activity is the "No Standing" regulation. No standing regulations are specifically intended to prohibit vehicle from stopping to deliver or pick-up merchandise. No vehicle, regardless of size, making a delivery or pick-up of merchandise may legally stop to do so in an area identified as a "No Standing" zone during the times/days of the week the regulation is in effect.

A vehicle may only stop in these areas to pick-up or drop-off a passenger. Many of the arterial streets in the downtown core of Toronto have a standing prohibition in effect between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., Monday to Friday to enhance transit operations through the city core.



t_notruck.gif
From link.

If a truck has a maximum width of 2.6m, why have traffic lanes in residential streets (those posted with the NO HEAVY TRUCKS signs) of 3.0m? Isn't 2.5 m sufficient? Wouldn't that also force drivers to slow down? Why do we have residential streets that would support heavy tracker trailers, which shouldn't be on those streets (except for deliveries or collections) on a regular basis.

We already allow vehicles to be over the centre line in some circumstances, where the street is narrow.
 
From link.

May not still offer protection from some drivers. However, better than wearing black at night.

Yup. I respect the concerns of those who feel that this kind of messaging serves motorists over walkers, but out of pure self-preservation I do wear reflectors, and an LED light, when I’m out walking at night.

- Paul
 
Obviously both Pusateris and the cycling barrier needed to have a hi-vis armband on! They solve everything! (according to certain councillors and the police department)
 
Obviously both Pusateris and the cycling barrier needed to have a hi-vis armband on! They solve everything! (according to certain councillors and the police department)

Maybe some agency should distribute jersey barriers that pedestrians ought to carry with them as they walk ?

Seriously, car-mounts-sidewalk is a cheap shot case study for encouraging pedestrians to be visible. The issue is that even where motorists are driving with care, on a well-designed road, it is easy to miss a poorly lit anything. Hell, a driver can miss spotting a pedestrian while stopped at an intersection-if the walker is dressed dark and in a shadow.

Every photographer or visual artist knows that the eye is drawn to the lightest objects and doesn’t register detail in shadows. I’m confident that the cognitive science backs this up.

The issue gets attention because people infer from these campaigns official attitudes towards walkers vs drivers…. and not because the underlying science is wrong. (although it may have been misapplied)

Please, people, wear something bright when you are on a roadway. Your safety is more important than winning an argument on social media.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
A person is dead after being hit by a car in Scarborough on Saturday morning.

According to Toronto police, the pedestrian was hit around 11:30 a.m. while walking near Midland Avenue and Broadbent Avenue, a residential area north of Eglinton Avenue East.

The driver fled the scene by foot, police say, but was quickly located.

The pedestrian died at the scene.

The area is now closed to traffic. Police are asking anyone who witnessed the collision or has any dashboard camera footage or relevant information to contact its traffic services division at (416) 808-1900.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fatal-pedestrian-collision-scarborough-1.6282564
 
Seriously, car-mounts-sidewalk is a cheap shot case study for encouraging pedestrians to be visible. The issue is that even where motorists are driving with care, on a well-designed road, it is easy to miss a poorly lit anything. Hell, a driver can miss spotting a pedestrian while stopped at an intersection-if the walker is dressed dark and in a shadow.
This. Happens to me every day driving *and walking* in suburbia and I wince every time because between the rain, sleet, snow, tracks from my wipers, poorly lit crossings and everyone wearing dark clothes, there's a lot of low hanging fruit to address WRT ped safety before we get to blaming drivers/their training.

Unfortunately, nuance is lost on the activist crowd who mindlessly emote "drivers/cars bad, pedestrians victims." That reality is so much more murky and complicated is utterly lost on this small group of vocal sillies.

There's no way I, or any other driver, is perfect as a driver or person. I've done things I regret as a driver, but dear god, the urbanist safety narrative is simplistic and misguided.
 
Last edited:
There's no way I, or any other driver, is perfect as a driver or person. I've done things I regret as a driver, but dear god, the urbanist safety narrative is simplistic and misguided AF.

You think leaving the scene of an accident after killing a pedestrian in the middle of a bright and clear day is just a case of not being a "perfect" driver?
 
You think leaving the scene of an accident after killing a pedestrian is just a case of not being a "perfect" driver?

His post was not referencing yours, or the incident duly noted.

It was referencing Paul's post (CRS) in reference to the reaction to the safety vest comments of Barrie Police.
 

Back
Top