Undead
Senior Member
Four lanes (Bloor) is "shockingly" wide? It's a typical city main street width.
Just typical urbanist exaggeration.
|
|
|
Four lanes (Bloor) is "shockingly" wide? It's a typical city main street width.
I mean, the lanes are also too wide.Just typical urbanist exaggeration.
Expect by the 22nd century, they'll be reconstructing Six-Points intersections to the newer narrower traffic lanes and lower speed limits.
I mean, the lanes are also too wide.
Dunbloor and Dundas both have 3.5m lanes, and almost all other lanes are 3.3m lanes.
3.5m lanes should not exist, period, curb lanes should be 3.3m max, and other travel lanes should be 3.0-3.2m. Narrowing all the lanes by 10-20cm each could have easily narrowed the road by ~1m, which would have allowed for a narrower ROW or cycle tracks wide enough to allow passing.
Even the plans for Yonge in NYCC only include 3.2 and 3.3m lanes, while the Beecroft option also had 3.0m lanes on both Yonge and Beecroft.
Edit: Also, the dual left turn lanes at Dundas and Bloor are very unfortunate.
I stand by my assertion that these streets are too wide to support a lively street life. Since you disbelieve me, you are welcome to post pictures proving otherwise.Just typical urbanist exaggeration.
It’s shocking, because it no longer represents good planning - and hasn’t for a while. NACTO recommends 3m wide lanes - not 3.3, not 3.5. And even they suggest reducing the number of lanes and rethinking dedicated turn lanes where possible to make roads safer and better for pedestrians. Instead, these roads all include wider lanes and have multiple dedicated turn lanes at intersections. Not exactly a “road diet”.Too wide, but what's shocking about it
I stand by my assertion that these streets are too wide to support a lively street life. Since you disbelieve me, you are welcome to post pictures proving otherwise.
After all, the point of this reconfiguration was to build a complete street that supported pedestrians and cyclists. If they are none because people feel uncomfortable on them (and 4 lanes of constantly flowing traffic will do that) the reconfig has failed on that level.
Too wide, but what's shocking about it
edit: if this is all it takes to shock you, you're in for an unnecessarily difficult life lol
Too wide, but what's shocking about it
edit: if this is all it takes to shock you, you're in for an unnecessarily difficult life lol
And, I appreciate your concern for the quality of my lifeIt’s shocking, because it no longer represents good planning - and hasn’t for a while.
I stand by my assertion that these streets are too wide to support a lively street life. Since you disbelieve me, you are welcome to post pictures proving otherwise.
After all, the point of this reconfiguration was to build a complete street that supported pedestrians and cyclists. If they are none because people feel uncomfortable on them (and 4 lanes of constantly flowing traffic will do that) the reconfig has failed on that level.
But, let’s be realistic. How many major thoroughfares are there in Etobicoke? Where is the traffic supposed to go?
Surely you mean high ... we are trying to cut pedestrian deaths, not increase them.There's also the fact that many streets in Toronto have ludicrously low speed limits.
There's also the fact that many streets in Toronto have ludicrously low speed limits.