[Northern Light]

We are constantly trying and piloting new things so now we have a mish mash which is confusing. It's time to stop the trying and start doing. "Do or do not. There is no try."

This is why @PinkLucy is the wise sage of UT!

You don't have to be green, to be good! LOL

 

[W. K. Lis]

Unfortunately, we have politicians who are dead set against Vision Zero.

"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."

From link.

 

[crs1026]

^Is there an update? That article is over a year old.

- Paul

 

[Steve X]

When cars drive like road rages and cut in front of the bus like this: https://www.cp24.com/news/three-tra...shes-into-north-york-condo-building-1.4821514

If someone was walking there, they would be killed. It's not just a smarter design, it's the driving behaviour. Some of them drive like madmen out there, cause a collision, drive off and think they can get away.

We got people driving with suspended licences, making illegal turns on purpose due lack of enforcement, excessively speeding by driving what they feel like and being super impatient.

 

[salsa]

^Is there an update? That article is over a year old.

- Paul

Etobicoke councillors (with the help of Tory loyalists) successfully blocked provisions that would have given city staff authority to install sidewalks.

 

[crs1026]

^ I will confess that I'm a resident in Etobicoke (not in Holyday's Ward) where the city has served notice that they are installing sidewalks. At present sidewalks on local streets are very rare indeed.

The city has to do two blocks' worth of road work in the middle of this district, so they have, as per their policy, decided that the work will include sidewalks. Residents' reaction you can imagine.

I read the minutes of the Council deliberation on sidewalks from last July's meeting. In theory, the policy as approved by Council is to prioritise sidewalk installation. In the case I am referring to, City staff picked two blocks pretty much at happenstance. None of the factors in the City Missing Sidewalk policy that would make this street a priority apply, and in fact there may be tree loss and drainage issues created. The sidewalk will not connect to anything, there is no timetable for connectivity, and the roads closer to and leading to public schools and playgrounds are not on the City's priority list (as Council direction has mandated). It could be ten or fifteen years before anything happens closer to the public schools..... it's a question of which sewers on which streets need fixing.

It's also important to clarify what Council decided (the article cited is a bit slanted, imho) After debate, Council approved a transfer of final decisionmaking authority from Community Councils (elected) to the GM Transportation Services (Staff) The Holyday motion referred to did not allow Councillors to arbitrarily block sidewalk proposals. Rather, it created the option where a Councillor could take a proposal to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee. That implies that Council could override, true.... but it's not a slam dunk for the Councillor.

As I write this, the usual street sports are being played on the affected street. Road hockey has been ongoing pretty much continuously since we moved in in 1985. It's the stuff that people like Dave Bidini write about. I'm not sure how sidewalks will make the neighbourhood's road hockey safer, but okay.

The real hazard to pedestrians in this district is the volume of contractors' trucks, cement mixers, and large work equipment that is related to converting modest affordable single-story bungalows into unaffordable single family monster homes. Every street has at least one of these projects going on. (And when they do this work, if there is a sidewalk, they block it and make people detour onto the road). We seem to be trying to solve the city's smaller problems (local roads is not where people are being killed) while letting the bigger ones (loss of affordable housing) slide by.

If the city wants residents to get on board, they need to have a roll-out plan for sidewalks that assures residents that there is some logic and order to what they are doing. They need to make the program comprehensive, so that residents understand they are all in the same boat. There has to be a timetable showing that all streets will reach completion. There mustn't be winners and losers. It can't be an arbitrary process that pits the city against residents. It can't be a lottery based on which roads need other roadwork.

As it stands, in this case the residents are leaning on their Councillor, who hasn't committed himself yet. We will see.

- Paul

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

We are constantly trying and piloting new things so now we have a mish mash which is confusing. It's time to stop the trying and start doing. "Do or do not. There is no try."

Piloting something is a very Canadian excuse of cancelling something later. You know they are not serious about making changes the moment you hear that word.

AoD

 

[jje1000]

Piloting something is a very Canadian excuse of cancelling something later. You know they are not serious about making changes the moment you hear that word.

AoD

What about the King Street Pilot? Or even the Broadway pedestrianization pilots in New York- later transformed into permanent closures?

IMO, while permanent changes are always the best, pilots are still a step above studies- which are the true Canadian excuse of 'progress without progress'.

A street redesign pilot (even with temporary sandbins) takes the 'theoretical' (yes, proven in other countries but uncommon in our local context) and rapidly transforms it into the real without the time of design/construction, the sticker shock, or the fear of change that permanent alterations bring about- perhaps it may be more similar to a 'foot in the door' sort of thing?

 

[Max Sterling]

Actually, when you criticise motorists, the "just stay out of my way and let me drive" argument is immediately raised. Right now the transit fare enforcement debate is pointing out that traffic fines are ridiculously low and seldom are tickets actually handed out. They are totally correct (I'm not arguing for fare evasion, I'm arguing for raising traffic fines and intensifying enforcement to a proper level to create a fairer balance with fare evasion enforcement, which I consider reasonable). The whining about photo radar and red light cameras is also knee-jerk in some camps.

To be fair with the way many parts of the GTA are constructed with low density and everything spread out, it really is built for cars and there's hardly any pedestrians around even in perfect summer weather when we're talking about the suburbs. So until we change the way we decide to layout and build our neighborhoods, alot of times it is necessary to have things be more car oriented. And also that's why I keep wishing they would make sidewalks be dual use pedestrian and bicycle/small electric vehicle traffic and at least try and encourage people to use all that wasted sidewalk infrastructure.

While I can't argue against your point of "don't do it if you aren't sure it's safe", one has to recognize how much this approach reduces the quality of life for the less able. I know of a seniors' residence on Hurontario where the nearest signalled crosswalk is beyond a senior's walking range, but the important stores and medical offices are directly across the street. I have witnessed seniors using walkers trying to cross that street mid-block at rush hour. It's terrifying to watch. We need far more closely spaced and signalled crosswalks on major arterials, and much more effort to design in pedestrian pathways wherever those may be needed. Right now, roads are designed for cars first, and the impacts on pedestrians and cyclists are an afterthought.

I agree we can definitely make adjustments to make crossing roads more pedestrian friendly like adding more crosswalks on long stretches of road so people can cross more safely in more places, but still in general if you're not sure you can cross safely then just don't do it or at least wait until you're sure you have a large enough distance between you and oncoming traffic that you're sure you can cross safely. I mean it sucks that it'll take more time, but is it worth losing your life over it?

 

[Max Sterling]

Or do a parallel positioning turn (I can't remember if it's called an 'S' or 'Z' turn) when you position you vehicle parallel to traffic as close to the line of obstructed visibility as possible. It's not always possible due to lack of room and you pretty much have to decide to do it when you move forward from the stop line. The problem with sticking you nose out in a partial turn is your eyes are several feet back from the front of the vehicle.

Yes that's what I mean when doing a left turn. Move forward into the intersection and keep your car wheels mostly straight until you see oncoming traffic become less and then you start crawling forward to the left very slowly while leaning as far to the left in your seat as you can to see if the way is clear before committing to the turn.

 

[tiffer24]

Toronto police say a 79-year-old pedestrian was killed as she crossed Victoria Park Ave. yesterday, struck by a 57-year-old woman driving a Lexus SUV. She is the fifth pedestrian killed so far this year.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Orlando, Florida has a bad repetition because it has the world's largest fleet of rental cars. Wonder if Toronto is getting to be a centre for tourism, maybe it will be a double-edged sword.

See link.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The single most cause of traffic fatalities remain the single-occupant motor vehicle.

Ten Simple Policies to Subtract Cars From Our Streets
We can't end roadway deaths unless we reduce motor vehicle miles traveled. Here's how.

From link.

Last week, we explored the emerging idea that the Vision Zero approach to ending roadway fatalities is missing a pillar: policies that directly reduce car travel on our roads — and not just by providing drivers optional transportation alternatives. Today, we’re laying out the tools some cities are already using to subtract motor vehicles from their streets — and a few they might consider putting into practice in tandem with increases to sustainable transportation.

1. Toll roads

Let’s start with the most prevalent car-reducing mechanism on American streets: the humble toll box. After all, who hasn’t paid a few bucks to drive on the turnpike now and then? Expanding toll roads into our cities is a simple and effective way to make drivers think twice about hopping behind the wheel when a greener transportation option is available — and help bring the real costs of our auto-centric road network into better alignment with what drivers pay to use it. (Reminder: they only pay about 51 percent of road spending now.)

Yes, putting tolls on roads disproportionately burdens poor drivers. But so does every other way we fund roads — and toll roads may be one of the only ways to collect the revenue we need to build lower-income residents a sustainable alternative to driving, which would save everyone money in the long run.

2. Congestion pricing

Tolling highly traveled roads is a great first step — but tolling roads more when there’s the high demand to drive on them is even better. Congestion pricing, otherwise known as “variable demand pricing,” is an innovative way to get drivers to pay the actual cost of the asphalt they use, and encourages them to skip a clogged commute in a single occupancy vehicle if they can.

New York City is poised to become the first in the U.S. to try congestion pricing (if the feds ever let Gotham out of environmental review purgatory). If you’re a resident of the Empire State, it might be a good moment to call U.S. DOT Secretary Elaine Chao and urge her to get this project off the ground — so the rest of the country can learn from NY’s bold step.

3. Surge pricing for parking

Variable demand pricing isn’t just for roadways. Jacking up the price of parking when there’s more demand for spaces can be a simple way to discourage unnecessary car trips — and if you’ve ever taken the bus to a major league baseball game so you don’t have to pay extortionate lot fees to park near the stadium, you already know this works.

Why shouldn’t your city get a share of the profits when there’s big demand for parking? It should — and we should invest every penny of that money into alternative transportation that doesn’t require parking at all.

4. Increase gas prices

There’s a well-documented relationship between increases in gas prices and decreases in driving — and unfortunately, the opposite is true, too. And though it’s hard to influence oil prices directly, the U.S. is long overdue to increase its federal gas tax, which hasn’t been raised since 1993. Ending oil company subsidies probably couldn’t hurt, either.

No matter how you slice it, studies show that a 10-percent increase in gasoline prices results in between 2.2 and 6 percent decreases in pedestrian deaths. A few extra cents at the pump is a small price to pay to save lives.

5. Vehicle-miles-traveled taxes

What might be even better than increasing gas taxes is to get rid of them altogether and replace them with something better. After all, when your road network gets more funding from a fuel inefficient vehicle than a hybrid or an electric car, you give lawmakers a perverse incentive not to clean up the vehicle fleet. Wouldn’t it be better if our transportation system rewarded people who drove less — and simply scaled down our road spending as car-focused roads empty out and revenue drops?

It’s called a “vehicle miles traveled” tax, or a “pay-by-mile” tax, and it gets assessed at the end of the year based on a mileage reader on your car. Oregon is already piloting it. Maybe your state should be next.

 

[W. K. Lis]

6. Distance-based vehicle insurance

Another simple way to reward drivers for skipping the occasional ride is to cut their insurance rates every time they leave the whip in the garage. It makes a ton of sense for insurance companies, too: a car you leave at home, after all, is literally never going to be found at fault in a crash that triggers an expensive pay-out.

There are already pay-per-mile insurers out there — this isn’t #SponCon, but we’ve heard pretty good things about Metromile. Every major insurance company should add the option for customers to save by engaging in the safest driving behavior of all: leaving their car at home.

7. Car-free streets

Before anyone starts clutching his or her pearls: #BanCars doesn’t have to mean #BanCarsEverywhereForeverRightNow. And recent experiments in closing sections of the city to private vehicles have already saved lives in New York and San Francisco.

The thing about car bans is that American cities have a ton of them already — even if they don’t think of them that way. The Seattle neighborhood group Queen Anne Greenways had a great Twitter thread the other day about the many car-free spaces Americans already embrace, from indoor shopping malls to school campuses to Disney World. Banning cars on strategic stretches can be a surprisingly pain-free way to show skeptical drivers how much easier it is to get around when you don’t prioritize auto travel over everything else — even if that seems like a paradox to them today.

8. License plate lotteries

This is more extreme but it isn’t science fiction. In Beijing, private vehicle ownership is actually capped by a vehicle permit lottery, which limits how many new cars can legally be sold and put on the road. Residents have just a one-in-2,000 chance of winning the lottery, which happens bimonthly; if you don’t win, your transportation needs will still be covered, thanks to the city’s excellent public transit network.

The Chinese government is not exactly forthcoming with their roadway stats, but one report indicates that Beijing’s roadway mortality rates decreased 34 percent between 2014 and 2016. The license lottery has been in effect since 2011, so it’s a pretty good guess that reducing cars on the road had something to do with that astonishing dip.

9. Road space rationing

Again: not sci-fi. In dozens of major global metros, the solution to keeping cars off the road is elegant: they only allow drivers to take their vehicles out on specified times or days.

Here’s how it typically works: every day, drivers whose license plates end with certain numbers are banned from using the roadways outright, or they’re limited to driving during non-peak hours, or only outside of highly congested downtowns. Drivers who violate the ban get ticketed; drivers who don’t get to enjoy less congested streets on their designated driving days; sustainable transportation users, meanwhile, get to move freely along streets with fewer dangerous vehicles threatening their lives.

It’s a complicated system that requires a lot of communication, especially when cities adjust their rations dynamically, as some do. But still: isn’t all that bureaucracy worth it if we can save even a single life?

10. Cold, hard cash

Hey, we collectively subsidize driving in all kinds of ways, from free parking to debt-fueled car infrastructure to government grants to oil companies and auto manufacturers. Is it really so outrageous to give a cyclist or a bus passenger a few bucks a month, simply for choosing a mode that doesn’t cost carry outrageous costs to society?

Individual companies already pay employees for not taking advantage of their at-work parking benefit; Todd Litman has some compelling research that suggests these programs saved CEOs money in the long run, compared to what those organizations previously spent on real estate and asphalt maintenance to store their employees’ cars all day. Why shouldn’t members of the public see a benefit for saving departments of transportation dollars when we pick cleaner ways to get around? And more importantly, why should we be so shy about putting a little financial hurt on people who insist on driving, even if we provide them a financial incentive not to?

 

[W. K. Lis]

How To Make Every City Walkable in Three Infographics
America doesn’t need an ambitious pedestrian-safety target. We need seven of them.

From link.

Germany doesn’t have a single goal to improve the pedestrian experience on its streets — it has seven.

That’s right: Germany not only has a comprehensive National Walking Plan — something American street-safety advocates only dream of — but its transportation leaders are holding themselves accountable to seven distinct benchmarks for measuring how their policies affect the safety and comfort of people on foot.

Seriously, just check out this infographic, which spells out exactly how walkable Germans want their cities to become by 2030:

It’s a shocking contrast to the American approach to pedestrian policy and goal setting. The Federal Highway Administration doesn’t even have national pedestrian-fatality-reduction goals; its last safety plan focuses, instead, on such non-quantifiable targets as “Motivate drivers to look for and stop for pedestrians” and the maddening “motivate pedestrians to use crosswalks and designated-crossing locations.”

That’s perfectly in keeping with America’s broader approach to roadway safety. Last week, U.S. delegates only reluctantly agreed to an international pledge to reduce total roadway fatalities by 50 percent in 10 years, giving the excuse that “not all” nations had agreed to the target before the pledge was drafted. (Read: They didn’t think halving road deaths was realistic, even as city after city eliminates them.)

Germany signed the 50 percent pledge, which makes its pedestrian–only safety goals even more impressive. Deutschlanders are pledging to reduce non-driver/cyclist fatalities by at least 20 percent by 2030; they’re also requiring states to set aggressive cycling-fatality-reduction targets as part of a National Cycling Plan.

But the push doesn’t just stop at safety. The Germans also aim to make walking more attractive and convenient by shortening the average pedestrian trip to under 5 miles, increasing accessibility for disabled people, and reducing car use.

That’s a night-and-day difference from U.S. pedestrian policies, which focus almost exclusively on increasing safety through modest gains in pedestrian infrastructure — and don’t address the question of whether walking is comfortable and attractive.

But as a decade of rising American pedestrian-fatality stats has shown, adding meager amounts of pedestrian infrastructure to otherwise completely car-focused streetscapes in hopes of saving lives doesn’t even work. “This supply-side oriented approach has not delivered the expected benefits [in the realm of pedestrian safety,]” German consultancy group GIZ said in a report about its country’s pedestrian policy. “Induced traffic has been created and roads continue to exhibit unacceptable levels of congestion, greenhouse-gas emissions and other externalities. For this reason, the traditional approach is nowadays regarded as obsolete.”

That’s a very German way of saying that the traditional — read: American — style of cars-first, pedestrians-later transportation planning totally sucks. There’s a better way, and it’s called the Avoid, Shift, Improve model, or ASI.

Rather than simply focusing on pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, an ASI approach demands that cities, states and even nations think more holistically about saving lives on their streets. The “avoid” column — which refers to policies designed to reduce the necessity of long trips usually taken by car — is especially under-discussed in American transportation policy, because, of course, it falls outside the realm of traditional transportation planning. The ASI model insists, however, that leaders think broadly about housing, commercial development, and creating complete neighborhoods in which people don’t need to drive to the grocery store or their kids’ school, because essential services are right next door.

Here’s another look at the ASI approach that even more concisely illustrates why Americans need to stop treating pedestrian safety as just an infrastructure problem, and start thinking bigger.

It’s refreshing to see a transportation plan that doesn’t start with cars, and instead positions private motor vehicles exactly where they should be in our road hierarchy: as the mode of last resort. If America wants to do better by its pedestrians, we should open up our minds, set many ambitious goals to make sustainable transportation better, and — just maybe — start thinking like the Germans.