Road Safety & Vision Zero Plan

[Towered]

Well, let's not throw the rhetorical baby out with the bathwater. For the first 40+ of those past 60 years, there was very widespread popular agreement that relying on the auto was fine. In fact, it was demanded. There was no "at the expense of everybody else" - the auto dependent population was almost all of us. That's how the GTA was built. Including, in fact, the inner suburbs....auto dependent streets started to come into vogue back around 1920.

That is no longer possible. The auto won't get us any further, and it's already getting in the way. So times have to change, and change they will, but let's not demean the last 100 years as part of that. I agree with @kali, sometimes it seems that reinventing our streets isn't exciting for some unless they get to judge and punish and shame auto owners and declare "injustices" in the process.

The Business section of most bookstores are chock full of how-to books on "change management". Virtually none of those books would advise that the best way to get change is to go low on the status quo. For most of us, taking posession of our first auto was a proud moment, and an empowering one. I don't drive downtown very often any more, but I'm not about to apologise for having done so all my life. I suspect I'm pretty typical.

As for driver behaviour, and pedestrian behaviour - I'm afraid it's still a dead heat. Putting ones' self first, and ignoring common good, has become very normal in our society. So lots of that on the roads, but for every selfish drive I observe, there is a selfish pedestrian. It all needs to change. But again, you catch more flies with something other than moral outrage.

- Paul

For the record, I’m a frequent car driver, and yet I strongly advocate for the rapid dismantling of auto-focused infrastructure in order to be replaced with pedestrian, cyclist and transit oriented projects.

 

[W. K. Lis]

It's actually worse in the north end of Avenue Road. Before 1949, we could bicycle or even walk on a mostly level road from Avenue Road and Wilson Avenue over to Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue. Not so today.

From link.

In the foreground is the intersection of Wilson Avenue and Avenue Road, with north to the left.

the same view.

 

[kali]

All these posts proving my point lol

As if the sheer number of pedestrian and cyclists deaths in this town and the kid gloves on traffic enforcement haven't poisoned the well already?

AoD

Call me a contrarian, but I don't think 50 people a year in a rapidly growing city of 3 million even remotely resembles a crisis.

If you think it's over the top (...)

I've driven and walked Avenue in the last two years, thank you very much.

Is there an earlier post I'm missing?

I don't see anything demeaning or shaming or outrageous.

I see an accurate description of Avenue Road as it is today and an insistence that it be changed.

Not demeaning - but an over the top exaggerated response that gets us nowhere (first post on previous page).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Call me a contrarian, but I don't think 50 people a year in a rapidly growing city of 3 million even remotely resembles a crisis.

If the lives of 50 people a year isn't something worth making changes for, I am not sure why mere inconveniencing drivers with roadway changes is something we need to care about and give credence to. It is also important to note aggressive driving isn't just a threat to pedestrians and cyclists - they are also a threat to other drivers.

AoD

 

[crs1026]

I don't see anything demeaning or shaming or outrageous.

No argument that the road needs to be made safe. I was reacting to the implied statement of grievance, as if car users over the past 60 years were somehow guilty of something. We can change for the future without judging past lifestyles.

If the lives of 50 people a year isn't something worth making changes for, I am not sure why mere inconveniencing drivers with roadway changes is something we need to care about and give credence to. It is also important to note aggressive driving isn't just a threat to pedestrians and cyclists - they are also a threat to other drivers.

Not disagreeing that we need to save the 50 lives. But it's a more complicated equation than just "all it takes is to inconvenience drivers and lives will be saved".

We need to manage the impact of the changes to roads, for auto users as well as for the cyclists and pedestrians. We can't just say "live with it" - for instance, if the impact of fewer auto lanes, less aggression and more cautious driving is for fewer vehicles to move through an intersection per hour, we have to ask how that is going to work. Not all of these vehicles will be replaceable with transit, active transportation, etc. Are we happy with more idling vehicles, lower vehicular flows, slower transit? What about slower deliveries, more expensive courier service, longer taxi and ride sharing rides? Making it all fit is complicated. Safety is paramount but it is not the only goal or performance metric.

And, re behaviour - not all bad behaviour is malicious. Impatience is the natural result of being unable to accommodate everybody's haste. That haste is shared by all users and all experience frustration. We have to understand what may encourage risky behaviour, whether it be by drivers or pedestrians, and look for ways to mitigate it.

- Paul

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Not disagreeing that we need to save the 50 lives. But it's a more complicated equation than just "all it takes is to inconvenience drivers and lives will be saved".

Of course it is more complicated - but if someone is just going to dismiss 50 lives per year as "the price of progress", I wouldn't hesitate to argue that convenience is a lower priority than saving lives.

And, re behaviour - not all bad behaviour is malicious. Impatience is the natural result of being unable to accommodate everybody's haste. That haste is shared by all users and all experience frustration. We have to understand what may encourage risky behaviour, whether it be by drivers or pedestrians, and look for ways to mitigate it.

- Paul

Not intentionally malicious - but if impatience combined with lack of self-awareness as to impact of one's decisions lead to death or bodily harm, arguing whether it is malicious or not doesn't change the fact that their haste lead to someone else's death.

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

Tribute to 90-year-old ‘Hogg’s Hollow Bridge’

From link.

The “original” bridge that carried Yonge St. over a branch of the Don Rivert that continues to flow through the hollow named in honour of the pioneer Hogg family is seen in this early 1900s penny postcard.

Since it was officially opened to traffic exactly 90 years ago Saturday — on January 5, 1929 — what was initially known as Yonge Boulevard Viaduct, then more colloquially as the Hogg’s Hollow Bridge or Viaduct, over the years the structure has been enlarged with the addition of three more spans.

But the original single span structure remains an integral part of the 14 lane stretch of Hwy. 401 across the top of the city.

The viaduct concept was first proposed in 1921 as a way for traffic to detour around the treacherous stretch of old Yonge St. that descended through the valley of the West Don River — a locale that had gained the title Hogg’s Hollow in recognition of the Hogg family, local millers and land developers.

Towering 39 meters (128 feet) above the valley floor and stretching 384 meters (1,260 feet) in length, the ends of the new structure would connect with the existing Yonge Boulevard on the high ground to the west and Yonge St. some distance south of Sheppard Ave. to the northeast.

Financed by the City of Toronto (20%), the County of York (20%) and the province (60%), the obligatory ribbon cutting was performed by George S. Henry, the Minister of Highways 90 years ago

This Nov. 23, 1928, map shows the location of what was then known as the Hoggâs Hollow Viaduct. This substantial structure combined with Yonge Blvd. allowed traffic to get around the deep often flooded or ice-covered hollow that impeded all forms of traffic traveling to and from the city via the stretch of Yonge St. north of the city limits. Also seen in this map are the proposed alignment and extensions to the existing Avenue Rd. that if and when undertaken would permit another north-south route into and out of the city and thereby take pressure off an already heavily trafficked Yonge St.

Cameron Bevers, who has documented the history of numerous highways throughout our province (see thekingshighway.ca) took this photo in 2003 of a portion of the underside of the multi-lane Hwy. 401 where it crosses the Don Valley. On the left is the original 1929 bridge across the valley that now carries the Eastbound Express lanes. To its right (south) is the bridge that now carries the Eastbound Collector lanes. Newer bridges have been constructed to carry Westbound Express and Collector lanes over the valley. Note also the high-mast lighting.

The new viaduct was built to convey traffic around the deep valley of the Don River north of the city. The west and east ends of the structure connected with Yonge Blvd. and Yonge St. respectively. This unattributed photo shows the various ancient buildings located on the floor of the valley, some of which had to be replaced when the West Don River flooded each spring. The city operated 18-hole Don Valley Golf Course has occupied this area since opening in 1956.

See also torontosun.com/author/mike-filey

mfiley@postmedia.com

 

[Towered]

No argument that the road needs to be made safe. I was reacting to the implied statement of grievance, as if car users over the past 60 years were somehow guilty of something. We can change for the future without judging past lifestyles.



Not disagreeing that we need to save the 50 lives. But it's a more complicated equation than just "all it takes is to inconvenience drivers and lives will be saved".

We need to manage the impact of the changes to roads, for auto users as well as for the cyclists and pedestrians. We can't just say "live with it" - for instance, if the impact of fewer auto lanes, less aggression and more cautious driving is for fewer vehicles to move through an intersection per hour, we have to ask how that is going to work. Not all of these vehicles will be replaceable with transit, active transportation, etc. Are we happy with more idling vehicles, lower vehicular flows, slower transit? What about slower deliveries, more expensive courier service, longer taxi and ride sharing rides? Making it all fit is complicated. Safety is paramount but it is not the only goal or performance metric.

And, re behaviour - not all bad behaviour is malicious. Impatience is the natural result of being unable to accommodate everybody's haste. That haste is shared by all users and all experience frustration. We have to understand what may encourage risky behaviour, whether it be by drivers or pedestrians, and look for ways to mitigate it.

- Paul

Of course all modes should be accommodated, but as the most inherently wasteful, cars must become the least prioritized compared to the needs of the others. Such a shift in public policy is far overdue.

And I disagree regarding not judging past lifestyles. Past mistakes must be identified and measures put in place to prevent their repetition. That is the whole point of learning history and why it's crucial to enable informed decision making.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Of course all modes should be accommodated, but as the most inherently wasteful, cars must become the least prioritized compared to the needs of the others. Such a shift in public policy is far overdue.

I think that may be a little bit of an extreme view. There are many reasons why people choose there type of transportation and I don't really think it's right to try and force the one we like on people just because we don't like there choice of transportation.

 

[BejewelledCarp]

I think that may be a little bit of an extreme view. There are many reasons why people choose there type of transportation and I don't really think it's right to try and force the one we like on people just because we don't like there choice of transportation.

I disagree - one of the main goals of policy-making is to encourage people to make the choices that benefit society. We do this all the time, encouraging people to wear seat belts, pay taxes, drive on the right side of the road, have children, get a job, etc. Much like these other policy goals, it makes sense to make cars less appealing (or at least make other modes of transportation more appealing). You're right that there are many reasons people choose cars, but the vast majority of people choose cars for simple reasons that we can change: habit/socialization, status, sprawling neighbourhoods that don't contain services and employment, an emphasis on infrastructure that makes driving efficient, etc. Very few people need a car in a properly organized city and society. So let's begin, as Towered suggested, to "de-prioritize" cars. It will take time. Cars can't be done away with tomorrow, but we can begin policy changes that make them less necessary and less attractive. Change zoning laws to encourage density, improve transit, take road space away from parking, give space to bikes and pedestrians, etc.

 

[crs1026]

^I agree that public policy should *encourage* and even incent.... but non judgementally. The Automobile was the right choice for post- horse-drawn WWI industrialised nations. It created enormous benefit in mobility and productivity. However, it’s no longer sustainable. So by all means let’s move forward.
I disagree however with those who think we can just pass a law and get rid of autos. We spent the last 100 years building infrastructure around the car. At best, we can only change gradually.
My grandparent’s home was in one of the small villages that were annexed into the City of Toronto. When I was a kid, that village still had a town centre where schools, city offices, medical and dental services, and retail were all clustered together. My grandfather used to say “I’m going to the Village to get X”.... and he could walk there. Toronto has eradicated those old town centres....Weston, Newtonbrook, Mimico, New Toronto, Long Branch, Leaside, Seansea, Forest Hill, Fairbank, Islington, the Junction, Parkdale...... nowadays people have to drive from pillar to post to run errands. Only when we move things back to village “hubs” will We create an urban layout that moves us away from the auto. Messing with roads and sidewalks and bike lanes in the meanwhile is just tinkering with the deck chairs.

- Paul

 

[W. K. Lis]

^I agree that public policy should *encourage* and even incent.... but non judgementally. The Automobile was the right choice for post- horse-drawn WWI industrialised nations. It created enormous benefit in mobility and productivity. However, it’s no longer sustainable. So by all means let’s move forward.
I disagree however with those who think we can just pass a law and get rid of autos. We spent the last 100 years building infrastructure around the car. At best, we can only change gradually.
My grandparent’s home was in one of the small villages that were annexed into the City of Toronto. When I was a kid, that village still had a town centre where schools, city offices, medical and dental services, and retail were all clustered together. My grandfather used to say “I’m going to the Village to get X”.... and he could walk there. Toronto has eradicated those old town centres....Weston, Newtonbrook, Mimico, New Toronto, Long Branch, Leaside, Seansea, Forest Hill, Fairbank, Islington, the Junction, Parkdale...... nowadays people have to drive from pillar to post to run errands. Only when we move things back to village “hubs” will We create an urban layout that moves us away from the auto. Messing with roads and sidewalks and bike lanes in the meanwhile is just tinkering with the deck chairs.

- Paul

Used to be that small hardware, grocery, fruit markets, hardware, banks, dentists, lawyers, doctors, etc. were scattered all over. Nowadays, there are clustered in big box stores far from the people they need them, requiring the use of the automobile to fetch a carton of milk.

 

[W. K. Lis]

 

[W. K. Lis]

 

[W. K. Lis]

Suburban roads in the GTA are too wide.

Why 12-Foot (3.65m) Traffic Lanes Are Disastrous for Safety and Must Be Replaced Now

Let's make "10 (3m) not 12 (3.65m)!" a new mantra for saving our cities and towns.

See link.

A little background: First, we are talking only about high-volume streets here. Neighborhood streets can have much narrower lanes. The classic American residential street has a 12-foot lane that handles traffic in two directions. And many busy streets in my hometown of Washington, D.C., have eight-foot lanes that function wonderfully. These are as safe and efficient as they are illegal in most of the United States, and we New Urbanists have written about them plenty before, and built more than a few. But what concerns us here are downtown streets, suburban arterials and collectors, and those other streets that are expected to handle a good amount of traffic, and are thus subject to the mandate of free flow.

Second, you should know that these streets used to be made up of 10-foot lanes. Many of them still exist, especially in older cities, where there is no room for anything larger. The success of these streets has had little impact on the traffic-engineering establishment, which, over the decades, has pushed the standard upward, almost nationwide, first to 11 feet, and then to 12. Now, in almost every place I work, I find that certain streets are held to a 12-foot standard, if not by the city, then by a state or a county department of transportation.

In some cases, a state or county controls only a small number of downtown streets. In other cases, they control them all. In a typical city, like Cedar Rapids or Fort Lauderdale, the most important street or streets downtown are owned by the state. In Boise, every single downtown street is owned by the Ada County Highway District, an organization that, if it won't relinquish its streets to the city, should at least feel obliged to change its name. And states and counties almost always apply a 12-foot standard.

Why do they do this? Because they believe that wider lanes are safer. And in this belief, they are dead wrong. Or, to be more accurate, they are wrong, and thousands of Americans are dead.

They are wrong because of a fundamental error that underlies the practice of traffic engineering—and many other disciplines—an outright refusal to acknowledge that human behavior is impacted by its environment. This error applies to traffic planning, as state DOTs widen highways to reduce congestion, in complete ignorance of all the data proving that new lanes will be clogged by the new drivers that they invite. And it applies to safety planning, as traffic engineers, designing for the drunk who's texting at midnight, widen our city streets so that the things that drivers might hit are further away.

The logic is simple enough, and makes reasonable sense when applied to the design of high-speed roads. Think about your behavior when you enter a highway. If you are like me, you take note of the posted speed limit, set your cruise control for 5 m.p.h. above that limit, and you're good to go. We do this because we know that we will encounter a consistent environment free of impediments to high-speed travel. Traffic engineers know that we will behave this way, and that is why they design highways for speeds well above their posted speed limits.

Unfortunately, trained to expect this sort of behavior, highway engineers apply the same logic to the design of city streets, where people behave in an entirely different way. On city streets, most drivers ignore posted speed limits, and instead drive the speed at which they feel safe. That speed is set by the cues provided by the environment. Are there other cars near me? Is an intersection approaching? Can I see around that corner? Are there trees and buildings near the road? Are there people walking or biking nearby? And: How wide is my lane?

When lanes are built too wide, pedestrians are forced to walk further across streets on which cars are moving too fast and bikes don't fit.

All of these factors matter, and others, too. The simplest one to discuss, and probably the most impactful, is lane width. When lanes are built too wide, many bad things happen. In a sentence: pedestrians are forced to walk further across streets on which cars are moving too fast and bikes don't fit.

In the paragraphs that follow, I will lay out the evidence against 12-foot lanes, evidence compiled by traffic engineers, for traffic engineers. When presented with this evidence, DOT officials will face a mandate: provide conflicting evidence, or give in. In over a year of searching for conflicting evidence, I have failed to find any. The closest I came was the following conversation, with a DOT district commissioner in a western state, which I recorded faithfully within moments of it taking place:

"Yeah, you've got your studies that say that 10-foot lanes are safer than 12-foot lanes. But I've got a pile of studies this high," he insisted, waving at his hip, "that say the opposite."

A number of studies have been completed that blame wider lanes for an epidemic of vehicular carnage. One of them, presented by Rutgers professor Robert Noland at the 80th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, determined that increased lane widths could be blamed for approximately 900 additional traffic fatalities per year. Unfortunately, Noland is a mere Ph.D. and not a practicing engineer. His evidence apparently didn't mean squat to the TRB. If you don't have short-sleeved white shirt and a pocket protector, you may as well stay home.