W. K. Lis
Superstar
The suburban anti-Vision Zero councillors will do their
|
|
|
- Thread starter salsa
- Start date
The suburban anti-Vision Zero councillors will do their
H4F33Z
Active Member
Quick-build initiatives are great because they don't require council approval for every implementation.
It's quick, cheap and easy, we just need leadership.
Northern Light
Superstar
And to think, they altered/widened the road, on purpose to make it the way it is now.
That illustrates why all decisions should be subject to scrutiny and question; including popular ideas.
Road widenings were once seen as great by a large number of people.
Today, it may be something else, but just because an idea is sweeping the nation doesn't mean it should be endorsed without reflection.
That should not be understood an a desire for more red tape/bureaucracy; I'd even argue for less.
Rather, its a call both for the processes we already use to be sincere, rather than iterative; and for people not to be apathetic on the one hand, reactionary on the other.
sche
Active Member
Toronto has permanent curb extensions and chicanes in many places and it seems to be fine.
Rumble strips are a good idea, but speed bumps are just more effective. Raised crosswalks are basically just long speed bumps so I don’t think there’s all that much of a problem.
When the roadway is flat and continuous at the intersection, while the sidewalk is discontinuous and drops down the curb to the level of the roadway, of course people will behave as if drivers have the right of way, and of course drivers will assume the right of way and creep forwards even if there are pedestrians who should technically have the right of way. Everything about the road design indicates priority for the driver, so that is how people will instinctively behave. The fact that the law actually gives the right of way to pedestrians actually makes it even worse, since now the road design and law conflict with each other, increasing ambiguity.
We shouldn't need to enforce something like safe rolling stop speed. It should uncomfortable or even physically impossible to enter the intersection faster than what we consider to be safe, because of speed bumps, chicanes, or other measures.
It's just a cheaper version of a chicane, not sure what the big deal is. If there's enough snow to bury a ~50cm tall planter similar to the ones Toronto sometimes uses to protect bike lanes, I'm not exactly sure how you're even driving on the road in the first place. Obviously proper chicanes would be preferable, but those are more expensive and would take longer to roll out.
Also, a car crashing into a planter or chicane is always better than a car crashing into a pedestrian.
sche
Active Member
This is just disingenuous.
1. Obviously "not paying attention" and "paying attention" is not binary. Someone is obviously more likely to notice a roundabout, or chicane, or speed bump, than a sign.
2. Even if somebody is completely drunk and continues speeding after bouncing over a speed bump, you can still do damage control. At that roundabout, that driver could only have hit pedestrians or traffic on the near side of the intersection, and anybody on the far side would have been safe, but if it was a normal intersection, they would have hit pedestrians and traffic on the far side as well. And maybe if this was a local street where chicanes were appropriate, they would crash into a chicane before they even get to an intersection.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm broadly pro when it comes to this treatment; but there are indeed 'issues'.....It does change what equipment you can use to remove snow and how, etc.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't use this option, just that you shouldn't discount the challenges.
I much prefer rumble strips, and let me share why.
My father had a broken back and had to ride in an ambulance to hospital, I went with, the ambulance had to go over speed bumps.
Even slowing down, traversing them caused him excruciating pain.
And really, you'd rather an ambulance, in an emergency move as quickly as responsible and safe.
I'm all for traffic calming, road dieting, bike lanes and rumble strips and I'm not completely opposed to raised intersections either.
But speed bumps/humps are harmful to lots of people, and dangerous too for drivers and cyclists alike, they often misdirect a car, in icy conditions.
Not a fan.
I agree its an issue; I'd be careful on which solutions to advocate.
As noted above, not a speed bumps/humps fan. Lots of other good measures.
Ward8
Active Member
When it comes to the snow removal and maintenance challenges... We're completely inept at maintaining roads and clearing snow now, so we might as well start from ground zero with safer road design. After this last snowfall, it's clear that a new approach on snow removal is needed regardless.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Although the terminology is imprecise in the industry, there is a difference between 'speed humps' and 'speed bumps'. Speed humps tend to be wider and more gradual, in the range of 2 metres - think a narrow raised intersection, while speed bumps tend to be much narrower and more abrupt, and usually added, either as asphalt or modular, bolted or held down with adhesive, often found in commercial parking lots.
The more abrupt they are, they are prone to damage by plow blades (a typical 'dump truck mounted plow blade weighs over a tonne) but even the more gradual humps can suffer damage, particularly they are modular.
tiffer24
Senior Member
A man has died after being struck by the driver of a vehicle in Etobicoke Friday afternoon. Emergency crews responded to a collision in the area of Islington Avenue and The Queensway just after 3 p.m. Toronto paramedics said a man in his 60s was taken to a trauma centre with life-threatening injuries.
A second person was also transported to the hospital with minor injuries. Police said the driver of the vehicle remained at the scene.
A second person was also transported to the hospital with minor injuries. Police said the driver of the vehicle remained at the scene.
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
Safe infrastructure design doesn't rely on elimination of driver/user error, but instead making those errors less likely (easier to comply without requiring enforcement) and less disastrous when they do occur.
DSC
Superstar
Road safety and Vision Zero really needs several things:
1. Roads that are designed to reduce speed to what is posted - including traffic lights 'tuned' to help enforce this.
2. Visibility and good lighting and sight-lines.
3. Signage that is clear, minimal and consistent.
4. Enforcement.
1. Roads that are designed to reduce speed to what is posted - including traffic lights 'tuned' to help enforce this.
2. Visibility and good lighting and sight-lines.
3. Signage that is clear, minimal and consistent.
4. Enforcement.
Northern Light
Superstar
Councillor Matlow has an urgent Member Motion at this Council meeting to stop a new sidewalk from being installed.
The contract, I gather has already been let.
His position seems to be that a sidewalk is fine idea, but not now, in the proposed configuration, because it may impact some mature trees.
I haven't seen the proposed design, and I am certainly one who appreciates mature trees...........
But finding this highly dubious.
First, this request is way late.
Second, the time to consider adjusting a sidewalk location is certainly when the road is being reconstructed; it would be absurd to reconstruct the road and then come back and dig it up move the location of the gutters/drains in order to install a sidewalk.
Motion: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2022.MM39.25
Road in question:
And
and
I'll wager the proposed new sidewalk is next to the existing curb on the south side.
There are virtually no trees of significance likely to be impacted.
Just using streetview, the most I could see would be two 1/2 way decent specimens, and neither would be an automatic removal.
This looks pretty suspect.
The contract, I gather has already been let.
His position seems to be that a sidewalk is fine idea, but not now, in the proposed configuration, because it may impact some mature trees.
I haven't seen the proposed design, and I am certainly one who appreciates mature trees...........
But finding this highly dubious.
First, this request is way late.
Second, the time to consider adjusting a sidewalk location is certainly when the road is being reconstructed; it would be absurd to reconstruct the road and then come back and dig it up move the location of the gutters/drains in order to install a sidewalk.
Motion: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2022.MM39.25
Road in question:
And
and
I'll wager the proposed new sidewalk is next to the existing curb on the south side.
There are virtually no trees of significance likely to be impacted.
Just using streetview, the most I could see would be two 1/2 way decent specimens, and neither would be an automatic removal.
This looks pretty suspect.
Last edited:
evandyk
Senior Member
Is there anything new that Matlow did not fight against?
crs1026
Superstar
^The original Missing Sidewalk mandate approved by Council has a huge non-sequitur. It calls for sidewalk installations to be prioritized according to several sensible factors such as traffic and pedestrian volume, connectivity to trip generators, and feasibility/construction impact. But then the actual execution is conditional on SOGR roadwork - which means that streets that have had roadwork in recent memory (which may be crying for siidewalks, per the priority criteria) are skipped, and streets that need roadwork (which may have absolutely no pedestrian traffic) are placed at the top of the pile.
If the City were serious about missing sidewalks, it would start with the obvious no-brainers such as sidewalks adjacent to public schools. It would be much harder for local interest groups to oppose the policy if the entry into a local area had these precedents as the beachhead.
I don’t have any data on this particular street, so I can’t comment on how much of an issue this specific proposal is. One streetview shot appears to show a sidewalk on the other side of the street, so there is some minimal accessibility and safety present already.
But in general, with such a lack of prioritization and no data focus, I am hard pressed to say that citizens are wrong to apply political pressure to opt out of sidewalks….on local roads, anyways.
As well, if you remember the last time citizens went to council to seek relief from sidewalk construction during roadwork… where before Council, staff admitted that the road involved was a high priority for roadwork but a low priority for sidewalks,,..well, close to 2 years later, the roadwork in question has never happened… apparently deferred, perhaps due to covid. So any belief that roadwork will lead to more sidewalks in this city is whistling in the dark.
- Paul
If the City were serious about missing sidewalks, it would start with the obvious no-brainers such as sidewalks adjacent to public schools. It would be much harder for local interest groups to oppose the policy if the entry into a local area had these precedents as the beachhead.
I don’t have any data on this particular street, so I can’t comment on how much of an issue this specific proposal is. One streetview shot appears to show a sidewalk on the other side of the street, so there is some minimal accessibility and safety present already.
But in general, with such a lack of prioritization and no data focus, I am hard pressed to say that citizens are wrong to apply political pressure to opt out of sidewalks….on local roads, anyways.
As well, if you remember the last time citizens went to council to seek relief from sidewalk construction during roadwork… where before Council, staff admitted that the road involved was a high priority for roadwork but a low priority for sidewalks,,..well, close to 2 years later, the roadwork in question has never happened… apparently deferred, perhaps due to covid. So any belief that roadwork will lead to more sidewalks in this city is whistling in the dark.
- Paul
Last edited:
tiffer24
Senior Member
Another hit-and-run.