News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

^Thanks for that. One would think that with all those years of use, there would be abundant indication of problems, or lack of same. It would be interesting to know if the measured average speed for these streets differs from streets with speed bumps, or nothing at all. And if there were emergency vehicle objections, we would have heard by now.

I trust that the residents haven’t made noise to have them removed.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
^Thanks for that.
Click to expand...

YW

crs1026 said:
One would think that with all those years of use, there would be abundant indication of problems, or lack of same. It would be interesting to know if the measured average speed for these streets differs from streets with speed bumps, or nothing at all. And if there were emergency vehicle objections, we would have heard by now.
Click to expand...

That would seem reasonable.

crs1026 said:
I trust that the residents haven’t made noise to have them removed.
Click to expand...

While it isn't something :I've followed closely, I don't believe so.

***

Implementation has been slow; but I think that can be put down to the following:

1) This was an old (pre-amalgamation) City of Toronto project; Metro Transportation's culture became dominant after the merger, along with those of the suburban municipalities.

2) This was done coincident to reconstruction, which is only every 60 years these days.

3) This was done with decorative pavers at intersections and other elements that did add some accretive costs.

I suspect current staff may be more willing to pursue this type of project as the opportunity arises, but it is not default policy to do so.
 
crs1026 said:
^ Is there any current use of chicanes in the GTA? Seems surprising to me - sure seems we aren’t even trying the idea as a pilot or test program.

- Paul
Click to expand...
Although you can't see on outdated satellite imagery, there is one that was just installed here (near Antibes Dr and Don lake gate) within the past couple years.
 
Typically the residents on a specific street (especially people with kids) love traffic calming measures of any sort. It's the suburbanites who want to race through the city who object.

Though I was recently surprised by the opposition to the road diet measures they put in place on the Esplanade recently from old people who live in St. Lawrence. The street is so much better now, but you wouldn't know it if you spend a lot of time on Facebook!
 
evandyk said:
Typically the residents on a specific street (especially people with kids) love traffic calming measures of any sort. It's the suburbanites who want to race through the city who object.
Click to expand...

The typical measures are speed humps, to which I frankly object. I rode in the back of an ambulance with my father when he broke his back and the ambulance had to go over those, the agonized screams are enough
to make you feel like this is not the right way.

I much prefer the design on Ballioil which was shown to actually improve emergency response times, which almost certainly means cars actually passed through faster overall, but at a slower, safer speed.

The brilliance of measures that slow traffic down, without humps, but also with fewer stop signs.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
The report on the re-do and pedestrian prioritization of Kensington is headed to the next meeting of TEYCC.

It looks like it got slightly watered down to me.........with no pedestrian-exclusive zones being approved, pending a 'pilot'.

Click to expand...
Disappointing. In some places, the whole area would be an obvious candidate for pedestrianization and blocked for through traffic. Even for the permit parking, there is a Green P lot there that could absorb some of the permit parking demand.

I am impressed that we have 148 year old water mains that still function!
 
I popped by the Danforth/Kelvin site yesterday. Work is 95% finished. Plants are in. Only thing missing is the limestone coping on the seatwalls.

Photos taken June 15th, 2023:

Danforth side:

DSC01841.jpg


DSC01842.jpg


Cycle Track needs a bit of a sweep, but otherwise, looking really good here.

The plants aren't mature yet, but should do well.

There was supposed to be a tree in this island, unfortunately the as-built experience here was different from the plans, and a shallow gas line precluded that; but there are trees in the Kelvin planters.

Kelvin - West Side:

DSC01849.jpg


Kelvin - East side:

DSC01851.jpg
 
Last edited:
A report on the preliminary options for Parkside Drive is headed to next week's Infrastructure and Environment Ctte.


Upside: The recommendation is to pursue road reconfiguration/reconstruction which means removing at least one travel lane for cars, and aiming for a more complete street

Downside: Estimate for a timeline is latter half of the 2025-2035 Capital plan, so sometime from 2030 onwards.

One thing that is clearly wrong, however, is that when parking is included, all the proposals retain 3 lanes for cars in combination with cycle tracks/pedestrian/greening improvements in various combinations.

What this means is that, we can't have any green infra (new trees/boulevard planting) and have cycle tracks.

I vote no. At the very least an option with no parking should be considered, this would allow for cycle tracks/MUP AND greening/boulevard treatments.

Concepts:

1687355628933.png

1687355650941.png

1687355675512.png



My ask UT is that you write Councillor Perks and/or Councillor Saxe (she's on the Committee) and ask for a motion to include study of an option with no parking and how the demand for same could
be met by using pay and display on nearby streets. Such option to feature both cycle tracks and widened, green sidewalks. (one added boulevard and/or landscape buffer for an Multi-use path)

My preference is the MUP, or bidirectional cycle track here, as that would be consistent w/the design of Martin Goodman Trail to which it could be linked; it also allows for a landscaped buffer between the trail and the road, which could be done with native plants and aid in the ecological restoration of High Park in the process.
 
^I'm supportive of eliminating parking, but if that doesn't fly

Does the option(s) retaining parking include barriers/islands to discourage impatient drivers from jumping into empty parking space and/or at intersections in hopes of overtaking one or more vehicles ahead?

I see a lot of that on Parkside northbound. Using the curb lane as parking (sometimes) and a driving lane (at peak) doesn't work well here. I would be opposed to any proposal that retains parking but doesn't address that issue.

- Paul
 
Listening to a couple of the speakers Peter Sanagan of the market is opposing the pedestrian-only zones. He's the not the only such business owner, but certainly a well known one.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top