[W. K. Lis]

From Phoenix, AZ. Sounds like a good idea, but being Toronto, it won't be used here because it is a good idea.

 

[Neutrino]

Glad to see transit priority implemented for a roundabout.

 

[11th]

From Phoenix, AZ. Sounds like a good idea, but being Toronto, it won't be used here because it is a good idea.

There are better reasons. We don't even have the room for roundabouts at major intersections here in Toronto. The implementation of them have so far been limited mostly to suburban or rural intersections (I am not counting those mini-roundabouts in residential area); makes sense as they aren't the most pedestrian friendly. Then the chances of an LRT-line being built in those area are slim.

 

[steveintoronto]

From Phoenix, AZ. Sounds like a good idea, but being Toronto, it won't be used here because it is a good idea.

As @11th states, space is a problem. Arizona cities sprawl endlessly, but there's a couple of innovations in that design that are very clever and intuitive. It's my observation that roundabouts don't lend themselves to most North Am...well, Southern Ontario drivers, especially double lane roundabouts. It's dependent on choreography, intuition, grace and signalling for them to work. Toronto loses on all four points. And cycling through a roundabout? Even the Brit drivers have lost the art of using them (I've spent extensive time living and cycling in the UK and the Mainland), but this design takes that into consideration. The truck aprons are a brilliant innovation, more on how they channel cars to pick a left turn lane than accommodate truck turning radii, but unfortunately, it's also going to be a high collision rate point, as drivers will be reluctant to stop when entering the roundabout at that point. For Toronto, a triggered light would be necessary to 'gate' drivers on when there's nothing oncoming.

Melbourne has something similar, along with trams not only going across the roundabout as in this pic, but also around it as well!

As this all relates to 'Zero Vision Toronto': The channelling of cyclists off the roundabout to cross at lights is an excellent idea. When in the UK now, I've lost my 'nerve' on roundabouts, there's no freakin' way for mixing with idiot drivers who can't dance. Ditto when in Waterloo County. I hop off and walk around or across them. All it takes is one idiot driver, and I'll never be riding again...

As per Phoenix: It seems the Dutch have left an impression on at least some North Am jurisdictions.

 

[pman]

Roundabouts on smaller streets can be quite pedestrian-friendly. For example, the one on Darling Point road in Sydney, which I’ve walked and driven a lot. However, its success does rely on driver skill and respect for the law, which are of course mostly absent in Toronto.

 

[Neutrino]

If a given roundabout is expected to receive high volumes of pedestrians, the car lanes could be narrowed to slow down drivers. I understand the point of a roundabout is to increase throughput, but even a slow roundabout is faster than four way traffic lights. I am also a big fan of curb extensions to create pedestrian friendly corner geometry. This could be done for the right turns at least. And pedestrian crossings must be as narrow and quick as possible with maximum lighting. At the moment Ontario pedestrian crossings are awful in the dark and even worse in wet weather.

 

[pman]

If a given roundabout is expected to receive high volumes of pedestrians, the car lanes could be narrowed to slow down drivers. I understand the point of a roundabout is to increase throughput, but even a slow roundabout is faster than four way traffic lights. I am also a big fan of curb extensions to create pedestrian friendly corner geometry. This could be done for the right turns at least. And pedestrian crossings must be as narrow and quick as possible with maximum lighting. At the moment Ontario pedestrian crossings are awful in the dark and even worse in wet weather.

That’s exactly the Sydney example I mentioned. Darling Point Road is kind of like Glen Road in Toronto (though the former comes to a dead end at the harbour). It has lane narrowing at a strategic points to slow down traffic near a school, a roundabout with narrow lanes (which somehow a bus smaller than the TTC’s one-size-fits-all navigates), at least one speed bump (ditto bus), and a radar speed readout at the school. The whole thing is engineered to keep pedestrians safe. And it works. Drivers obey the limit, and crossing the roundabout is easy for pedestrians, even with fairly heavy traffic. What they don’t rely on is Tory’s model of public awareness campaigns where the mayor exhorts drivers to obey speed limits on roads that are quite obviously built for higher speeds, backed up by exactly zero enforcement.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Engineering Group Takes on High Speed Limits

From link.

Speed limits on urban streets will no longer be set almost exclusively by how fast drivers choose to drive.

The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, a powerful group of engineers, voted last week to require city transportation officials to consider “pedestrian and bicycle activity” when determining the speed limit on most urban and suburban streets. The changes will be incorporated into the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices — perhaps the most important traffic engineering manual — when it is revised some time in the next few years.

Here’s why this is so profound: Current guidance on speed limits conform to the infamous “85th percentile rule,” which pegs the speed limit on any particular roadway to the speeds of the fastest 15 percent of drivers in “free-flowing conditions.” So if 85 percent of the drivers stay below 40 miles per hour and 15 percent of drivers exceed it, that becomes the speed limit, even if 40 miles per hour is a bit too fast for that roadway.

Critics say that such a rule raises the speed limit to what drivers want as opposed to what is safe for that road’s condition or context. The current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices say that engineers may use other criteria — like the presence of pedestrians — in setting speed limits. But the new language orders them to use that information in addition to the 85th percentile rule.

“It has the potential to have a significant impact,” Peter Koonce, an engineer with the City of Portland and a sitting member of the NCUTCD, told Streetsblog.

The engineering group also voted to strike language that said the speed study should be conducted in “free-flowing” traffic conditions.

“That’s really a recipe for getting higher speeds,” said Koonce.

The League of American Bicyclists called the changes “welcome improvements,” but the organization added that NCUTCD should have gone further.

The rule changes come as there has been growing awareness of the dangers of speeding, especially as traffic fatality rates have been surging. In 2017, the National Transportation Safety Board sounded the alarm about the issue and suggested rethinking the 85th percentile rule.

Speed management is important for everyone’s safety, including drivers. But it can be especially critical for pedestrians. A pedestrian struck by a car at 40 miles per hour has a 55 percent chance of surviving compared to a 88 percent chance at 25 mph.

Streets themselves have to be designed for a slower speed. New streets are wide, making them acceptable for higher speeds than posted. They need to be narrower or have pinch points to slow the drivers down.

 

[steveintoronto]

If a given roundabout is expected to receive high volumes of pedestrians, the car lanes could be narrowed to slow down drivers. I understand the point of a roundabout is to increase throughput, but even a slow roundabout is faster than four way traffic lights. I am also a big fan of curb extensions to create pedestrian friendly corner geometry. This could be done for the right turns at least. And pedestrian crossings must be as narrow and quick as possible with maximum lighting. At the moment Ontario pedestrian crossings are awful in the dark and even worse in wet weather.

Roundabouts have a huge advantage, both for pedestrians and vehicles when there is an accident in the roundabout: You only have to look one way, and impacting vehicles in an accident are never head-ons, so the collateral is always less, and extremely rarely fatal, unlike head-ons.

K/W claims the number of accidents haven't been reduced with their extensive use of roundabouts, but the severity of the accidents is a fraction of what it used to be, and that alone is enough to find them a success.

@pman 's point on driver ability is starting to wear thin in the UK, many drivers now unable to get the 'choreography' of it all, a good part of that is checking and signalling turns and change of lane if it's a double lane roundabout.

As recently as twenty five years ago in the UK, I had the confidence to cycle through rounabouts, albeit it had an element of risk, but just like doing a square dance, if everyone moves correctly, it works like clockwork. Last time cycling back in the UK, (little over a decade back) there's no freakin' way I'd risk my life doing it. I dismounted and walked across them, risky in itself, but at least you could see what the blighters were doing...and most of it was wrong.

I sound like an old timer, but I don't trust drivers who can't use a manual xmssn. It's not whether they can manually shift or not, it's their intimacy with understanding the machine that's indicative, and thus with the road.

 

[W. K. Lis]

All the Bad Things About Uber and Lyft In One Simple List

See link.

• They increasing driving — a lot
• They spend half their time ‘deadheading’
• They operate in transit-friendly areas
• They mostly replace biking, walking or transit trips
• They hurt transit
• They reduce political support for transit
• They increase traffic fatalities
• They hoard their data
• Oh, and one more thing…
  
  These are just the transportation related drawbacks. To say nothing of these companies treatment of their employees, or the behavior of their top management or their huge financial loses.

 

[Thorns_Embrace]

All the Bad Things About Uber and Lyft In One Simple List

See link.

• They increasing driving — a lot
• They spend half their time ‘deadheading’
• They operate in transit-friendly areas
• They mostly replace biking, walking or transit trips
• They hurt transit
• They reduce political support for transit
• They increase traffic fatalities
• They hoard their data
• Oh, and one more thing…
  
  These are just the transportation related drawbacks. To say nothing of these companies treatment of their employees, or the behavior of their top management or their huge financial loses.

Honestly Uber is a pretty bad company however the arguments for banning them in favor of taxi's are not very convincing considering I honestly believe the taxi industry has the same types of drawbacks. I also don't really buy the claim in the article that they do not reduce drunk driving since the only time I see people use Uber is coming out of bars or establishments that serve alcohol. May be a skewed methodology used in the study in order to make Uber look bad. It certainly makes things much more convenient as a suburban person who likes to go to parties. The TTC is not an option unless I have a lot of time to waste. I could theoretically call a taxi company but they do not tell you how much the trip will be ahead of time, or it least wasn't possible before Uber started competing.


The main thing is that there is clearly a large demand for these types of ride sharing services and there was a demand for a reason. The taxi industry clearly wanted to keep there monopoly and low customer service standards and tried to get the politicians to back them up. Thankfully, the councilors last term actually listened to the majority. I really dislike the concept of tipping drivers as well it is completely nonsensical and glad that I actually only pay what is stated beforehand using Uber.

 

[tiffer24]

The current state of Toronto's Vision Zero Plan...

"Wow. Two different drivers hit a pedestrian and allegedly left the scene, then a suspected impaired driver hit the cruiser of police responding to the initial collision. Which goes to show delinquent drivers are apparently in no short supply in TO." Ben Spurr, February 5, 2019

 

[steveintoronto]

The current state of Toronto's Vision Zero Plan...

"Wow. Two different drivers hit a pedestrian and allegedly left the scene, then a suspected impaired driver hit the cruiser of police responding to the initial collision. Which goes to show delinquent drivers are apparently in no short supply in TO." Ben Spurr, February 5, 2019

https://twitter.com/x/status/1092802113934188545

Pedestrian hospitalized, two officers hurt after Scarborough hit-and-run leads to suspected drunk driver crash into cruiser
By CLAIRE FLOODYStaff Reporter
Tues., Feb. 5, 2019

Toronto police are investigating a chaotic hit-and-run in Scarborough after multiple vehicles hit a pedestrian Monday night causing life-threatening injuries.
Soon after, two responding officers suffered minor injuries when a suspected drunk driver slammed into their cruiser. The woman had to be Tasered for resisting arrest and faces nine charges, police say. [...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...ed-driver-then-slams-into-police-cruiser.html

Further to this, and I just got in from my daily long distance walk with Big Black Lab, I've been doing a slow burn on the "Pedestrians don't understand the count-down crossing signals" Well FFF you TPS, Mayor and Minions!

You give pedestrians three seconds to actually cross, and then a 'count-down' that lasts multiples more when they're not supposed to, and then minutes+ for vehicles during their phase....and consider that you have a "Vision Zero" policy? In what jurisdiction? Mmmmm maybe Toronto? Toronto has no right to use the term, let alone pretend to adhere to the principles of it.

Ontario: Governed by Ford (and GM)...

The Right to Safe Mobility
Vision Zero—a term that’s increasingly being used and misused around the world—was coined by the Swedish government when it pledged to eliminate death and serious injury from its roads. Launched in 1997, Sweden’s Vision Zero program has attracted widespread attention by cutting its traffic death in half, in the space of just two decades. This remarkable achievement can be attributed to the commitment to failsafe systems of road design, vehicle design and speed control.


Throughout North America politicians, transport engineers, police and professional advocates are now piously declaring that “no loss of life is acceptable” on our streets and highways. Many would have us think that by saying this, and that by setting zero or interim “moving towards zero” targets, they are “committing” to “Vision Zero.” But in most cases they are not doing anything worthy of the name.

The essence of Vision Zero is not a nice sentiment or a target. It is, rather, the action of continuously and preemptively removing the very possibility of violence (and that means serious injury as well as death) from our transportation systems. True Vision Zero systems prioritize the safe passage of our most vulnerable populations, whether they are walking or using any number of light mobility devices from bicycles to wheelchairs.

Before getting into the logisitics of safe systems policy, let’s look at some basic tenets of Sweden’s Vision Zero:
[...]

https://visionzero.ca/

I posted a few very sharp opinions, in grace and respect of the mods, and the dignity of the cause, I erased them...

 

[W. K. Lis]

Why Sweden Clears Snow-Covered Walkways Before Roads

See link.

In Swedish cities, the approach to snow removal used to be pretty similar to the way it is in the United States (and Toronto).

First cities would plow major highways. Then they would plow big surface streets, especially near large employers. Last, they would clear walkways and bike paths.

But after analyzing government services through a process known as “gender-balanced budgeting,” many Swedish cities, including Stockholm, prioritize snow clearance very differently. They now clear walkways and bike paths first, especially those near bus stops and primary schools. Next, they clear local roads, and then, finally, highways...

Of course clearing walkway, sidewalks, and bike paths first here in Toronto would upset the automobile gods. So it is done last. "Vision Zero"? Definitely not.

An analysis of Sweden’s snow clearance practices showed that it disadvantaged women, who were more likely to walk, while employment districts where men predominantly worked were more likely to have streets plowed first.

Not only was the impact of snow clearance priorities discriminatory, there were negative consequences for society as a whole. Three times as many people are injured while walking in icy conditions in Sweden than while driving. And the cost of those injuries far exceeds the cost of snow clearance.

So the order was reversed. Municipalities faced no additional cost for clearing pedestrian paths first. And it reduced injuries, in addition to being objectively fairer.

Now Canadian officials are interested in importing the idea of gender-balanced budgeting, the CBC reports, which is expected to be a hot topic when world leaders gather in Davos this week.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

An 80-year-old man struck on Monday has died, as per Toronto Police. 7th pedestrian killed this year, 8 if you include the guy walking on the 401.

Fatal collision #11/2019
Finch Avenue West and Pearldale Avenue

Broadcast time: 15:45
Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Case #: 2019-357586

On Monday, February 25, 2019, at 7:49 p.m., police responded to a call for a Personal Injury Collision that occurred on Finch Avenue West and Pearldale Avenue.

It is reported that:

• a 63-year-old man was driving a Toyota on westbound Finch Avenue West near Pearldale Avenue
• a 80-year-old man crossing Finch Avenue West at Pearldale Avenue from the south to the north side
• the vehicle struck the pedestrian
• the pedestrian sustained life-threatening injuries and was transported to hospital

-On Tuesday, February 26, 2019, the pedestrian succumbed to his injuries.