News   Mar 28, 2024
 939     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 536     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 831     0 

Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s

There's no trees and no room for any..................that's awful!

That will make the area very unappealing aesthetically and for walkers, it means no respite from the hot sun and no wind breaks.

I'm all for bike lanes, but those should have come at the expense of a lane of traffic, not streetscaping.
While I'm glad these LRT projects are happening, it's unfortunate the street redesigns are happening at a time when it's not very politically possible to shrink bloated 4 lane arterials down to something more reasonable. First we have to get out of the mindset of "traffic will always increase" and instead, "how can we choke traffic down to a minimal level on urban streets".
 
While I'm glad these LRT projects are happening, it's unfortunate the street redesigns are happening at a time when it's not very politically possible to shrink bloated 4 lane arterials down to something more reasonable. First we have to get out of the mindset of "traffic will always increase" and instead, "how can we choke traffic down to a minimal level on urban streets".
I think in the context on a crosstown arterial road like Eglinton 4 lanes is completely appropriate.
 
I think in the context on a crosstown arterial road like Eglinton 4 lanes is completely appropriate.

So you want a treeless landscape where all the businesses will suffer financially and pedestrians are left with an unpleasant environment? Or you want to cancel the bike lanes?

Pick.

I don't mean to seem aggressive, but something does have to give.

I will unapologetically pick the traffic lanes.
 
While I'm glad these LRT projects are happening, it's unfortunate the street redesigns are happening at a time when it's not very politically possible to shrink bloated 4 lane arterials down to something more reasonable. First we have to get out of the mindset of "traffic will always increase" and instead, "how can we choke traffic down to a minimal level on urban streets".

So you want a treeless landscape where all the businesses will suffer financially and pedestrians are left with an unpleasant environment? Or you want to cancel the bike lanes?

Pick.

I don't mean to seem aggressive, but something does have to give.

I will unapologetically pick the traffic lanes.

The city should ensure that sidewalks are a reasonable width, that there are bike lanes and there is enough travel lanes to handle the traffic.

How would a business suffer financially without having a tread street?
 
So you want a treeless landscape where all the businesses will suffer financially and pedestrians are left with an unpleasant environment? Or you want to cancel the bike lanes?

Pick.

I don't mean to seem aggressive, but something does have to give.

I will unapologetically pick the traffic lanes.
Haha, don't make it all doom and gloom. The upgrades are already a massive improvement, and there's always potential to improve it in the future.
 
The city should ensure that sidewalks are a reasonable width, that there are bike lanes and there is enough travel lanes to handle the traffic.

How would a business suffer financially without having a tread street?

Because I'm their target shopper and I wouldn't shop on a street I find ugly; or unpleasant to walk along.

The majority of customers for these businesses are not drivers; they are walkers, cyclists and transit users.

They are locals.

Make the experience unpleasant and they will go elsewhere.

The businesses on Eglinton don't win customers on price.
 
Because I'm their target shopper and I wouldn't shop on a street I find ugly; or unpleasant to walk along.

The majority of customers for these businesses are not drivers; they are walkers, cyclists and transit users.

They are locals.

Make the experience unpleasant and they will go elsewhere.

The businesses on Eglinton don't win customers on price.

I guess you never shop....

Also, trees in a street are actually a bad thing. Their roots break up concrete and asphalt. Look at the old streets with mature trees that have not been recently repaved and you will see the heave.
 
I guess you never shop....

Also, trees in a street are actually a bad thing. Their roots break up concrete and asphalt. Look at the old streets with mature trees that have not been recently repaved and you will see the heave.

We disagree about pretty much everything.

Trees are important to the environment; important to aesthetics, important to shade/wind conditions, and important to property values. All facts supportable by evidence.

Also, I'm not going to be patronized by you.
 
We disagree about pretty much everything.

Trees are important to the environment; important to aesthetics, important to shade/wind conditions, and important to property values. All facts supportable by evidence.

Also, I'm not going to be patronized by you.

Haha, I feel the same way, I literally disagree with almost everything micheal_can says on this board.
 
We disagree about pretty much everything.

Trees are important to the environment; important to aesthetics, important to shade/wind conditions, and important to property values. All facts supportable by evidence.

Also, I'm not going to be patronized by you.

I am not patronizing you or anyone else. I do not disagree that trees should be planted, however, arguing that they are needed or no one will shop is a straw man argument. Trees tend to be planted so that if a car leaves the road they hit a tree and not the pedestrian. That is a good reason for it. Also, the city tends to plant deciduous trees which provide no shelter or aesthetics in winter. So it looks horrible in winter. So, why not plant conifers and trim the lower branches away to created a green and aesthetically pleasing year round?
 
^Not sure that is the reason. Other countries use bollards to protect pedestrians from sidewalk intrusions. I think sidewalk trees are more for aesthetics and livability.
They don't typically put bollards in every street, especially not quiet residential streets.

That sounds rather far fetched to me - do you have a source?

While I haven't heard of using trees as barriers (crashing into trees has a high fatality rate), trees usually make streets feel narrower to drivers thus making the them slow down. It is apparently more calming for drivers which can decrease road rage.
More sources in the article.
Trees Are a Tool for Safer Streets | DeepRoot Blog
 
I've read in multiple places that having trees and other vertical elements at the side of the road psychologically encourages drivers to slow down. It's why lots of sound barrier walls on the 401 have visible vertical lines along them. I'm pretty sure that's also part of the "edge effect" that's referred to in NoahB's link. Blaming trees for requiring maintenance of roads is absurd, roads will require maintenance and upkeep no matter what.
 

Back
Top