Planned Sprawl in the GTA

[Transportfan]

This is a ridiculous notion, you're trying to tie in your own broader feelings about social media and then concluding that there is a 'sudden trend of people being afraid of street crossing'. Why don't you read a little more about our local history before spewing such nonsense. Last I recalled, there wasn't social media back then.

Historicist: Pedestrian-blaming, 1930s style

Toronto struggles to reduce the number of traffic fatalities during the holiday season.

torontoist.com

‘Point Your Way to Safety’: The complicated history of crosswalks in Ontario | TVO.org

In the mid-1950s, growing frustration over careless drivers and an increasing number of pedestrian fatalities led to a controversial innovation: pedestrian crosswalks.

www.tvo.org

The thing is once those measures were implemented, the widespread fear of pedestrian deaths diminished. You have to conclude there is a trend towards increased fear of cars and instilling such fear nowadays. And much of it come from people like the UT crowd who hates cars in general as them being hostile to their image of urbanity, and their desire for cities to get rid of them.

 

[Northern Light]

The thing is once those measures were implemented, the widespread fear of pedestrian deaths diminished. You have to conclude there is a trend towards increased fear of cars and instilling such fear nowadays. And much of it come from people like the UT crowd who hates cars in general as them being hostile to their image of urbanity, and their desire for cities to get rid of them.

Why do you come to UT?

You have just 'othered' a large number of your fellow posters/members and done so in a rather pejorative way.

A diversity of view points is fine; but its entirely possible to express your own view, supported by evidence, without being needlessly insulting to others.

A great many of us here, if not the majority, are licensed drivers and car owners.

We simply acknowledge the environmental and aesthetic cost of that; and express a preference for the urban world to cater to cars less than it does now.

Hardly an extreme position; or an irrational fear.

Your hostility towards positions that differ from your own is not endearing.

 

[Undead]

^The lack of political diversity I mentioned in the other thread.

That being said, I would support expanding the green belt, restoring previous damage and building higher density in existing areas before building more sprawl.

 

[Memph]

Well, there's definitely a very very big difference in pedestrian casualty rates between outer suburban major arterial intersections with low pedestrian counts and downtown intersections with the highest pedestrian volumes.

Using the data from these pages:

Interactive maps: Toronto’s worst intersections for pedestrians | Globalnews.ca

A globalnews.ca investigation reveals the most dangerous Toronto intersections for pedestrians are mostly in the suburbs.

globalnews.ca

Vision Zero Mapping Tool

www.toronto.ca

I looked at 40 major arterial intersections in Toronto, mainly North Scarborough and a few of the more outlying/newer/most suburban parts of North York and Etobicoke.

Combined Daily Pedestrians: 76,561
Combined Pedestrian Injuries (2000-2009): 556
Combined Pedestrian Fatalities (2008-2021): 9

An example of an outer Toronto arterial intersection I looked at that is typical of that dataset would be Sheppard & McCowan

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

I also looked at 40 intersections in Downtown with very high pedestrian volumes

Combined Daily Pedestrians: 751,919
Combined Pedestrian Injuries (2000-2009): 515
Combined Pedestrian Fatalities (2008-2021): 2

A typical example of one of these downtown intersections would be College & Bay

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

Note that there's 4-5x more fatalities at the suburban intersections despite there being 10x fewer pedestrians using them. The risk of injury for pedestrians is 10-11x higher at the suburban intersections. Overall, the fatality rate for the suburban intersections that is a staggering 40-50 times higher.

And it can probably get worse. If I split the suburban arterial intersections into categories based on daily pedestrians, the fatality rates turn out to be significantly higher for the less busy ones.

Daily Pedestrian Volumes + Injury Rates
<1500 daily pedestrians: 1 injury per 320,000 pedestrian uses
1500-3000 daily pedestrians: 1 injury per 425,000 pedestrian uses
3000-6000 daily pedestrian: 1 injury per 640,000 pedestrian uses

This means the Toronto arterial intersections with the lowest pedestrian volumes might have close to 100x risks of death for pedestrians than the busiest downtown intersections.

So, for the typical 1000 daily pedestrian suburban intersections (ex Albion & Kipling), if you're a pedestrian crossing an intersection like that 6 times per day (ex once to get to your bus stop, once to transfer buses, once to get to your destination, and repeat in reverse to come back home), every day, for your whole adult life (say 70 years), you'd have a roughly 0.5% chance of getting killed that way. The chance of injury would be about 30%. For comparison, the chance of getting killed by someone in a homicide in Toronto during your life time would be about 0.2%, and probably much lower if you avoid the criminal element and make good spousal choices.

And 1000 daily pedestrians is still about 1 per minute. Somewhere like Weston & Rutherford probably gets only 100-200 per day (~1 every 10 min), which is significantly less than the suburban Toronto arterials, so it could be even more dangerous. Also, this is just the risk of death from crossing suburban arterial intersections 6 times a day, it doesn't include other risk areas, like arterial mid-block accidents, minor suburban intersections, people pulling out of driveways without looking, etc.

 

[afransen]

Note that there's 4-5x more fatalities at the suburban intersections despite there being 10x fewer pedestrians using them. The risk of injury for pedestrians is 10-11x higher at the suburban Overall, the fatality rate for the suburban intersections that is a staggering 40-50 times higher.

This is a function of, I would say, negligent design. We are actively trading lives for a measure of driver convenience. And as a consequence, vulnerable road users avoid using these roads at all cost.

 

[Northern Light]

Well, there's definitely a very very big difference in pedestrian casualty rates between outer suburban major arterial intersections with low pedestrian counts and downtown intersections with the highest pedestrian volumes.

Using the data from these pages:

Interactive maps: Toronto’s worst intersections for pedestrians | Globalnews.ca

A globalnews.ca investigation reveals the most dangerous Toronto intersections for pedestrians are mostly in the suburbs.

globalnews.ca

Vision Zero Mapping Tool

www.toronto.ca

I looked at 40 major arterial intersections in Toronto, mainly North Scarborough and a few of the more outlying/newer/most suburban parts of North York and Etobicoke.

Combined Daily Pedestrians: 76,561
Combined Pedestrian Injuries (2000-2009): 556
Combined Pedestrian Fatalities (2008-2021): 9

An example of an outer Toronto arterial intersection I looked at that is typical of that dataset would be Sheppard & McCowan

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

I also looked at 40 intersections in Downtown with very high pedestrian volumes

Combined Daily Pedestrians: 751,919
Combined Pedestrian Injuries (2000-2009): 515
Combined Pedestrian Fatalities (2008-2021): 2

A typical example of one of these downtown intersections would be College & Bay

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

Note that there's 4-5x more fatalities at the suburban intersections despite there being 10x fewer pedestrians using them. The risk of injury for pedestrians is 10-11x higher at the suburban Overall, the fatality rate for the suburban intersections that is a staggering 40-50 times higher.

And it can probably get worse. If I split the suburban arterial intersections into categories based on daily pedestrians, the fatality rates turn out to be significantly higher for the less busy ones.

Daily Pedestrian Volumes + Injury Rates
<1500 daily pedestrians: 1 injury per 320,000 pedestrian uses
1500-3000 daily pedestrians: 1 injury per 425,000 pedestrian uses
3000-6000 daily pedestrian: 1 injury per 640,000 pedestrian uses

This means the Toronto arterial intersections with the lowest pedestrian volumes might have close to 100x risks of death for pedestrians than the busiest downtown intersections.

So, for the typical 1000 daily pedestrian suburban intersections (ex Albion & Kipling), if you're a pedestrian crossing an intersection like that 6 times per day (ex once to get to your bus stop, once to transfer buses, once to get to your destination, and repeat in reverse to come back home), every day, for your whole adult life (say 70 years), you'd have a roughly 0.5% chance of getting killed that way. The chance of injury would be about 30%. For comparison, the chance of getting killed by someone in a homicide in Toronto during your life time would be about 0.2%, and probably much lower if you avoid the criminal element and make good spousal choices.

And 1000 daily pedestrians is still about 1 per minute. Somewhere like Weston & Rutherford probably gets only 100-200 per day (~1 every 10 min), which is significantly less than the suburban Toronto arterials, so it could be even more dangerous. Also, this is just the risk of death from crossing suburban arterial intersections 6 times a day, it doesn't include other risk areas, like arterial mid-block accidents, minor suburban intersections, people pulling out of driveways without looking, etc.

Brilliant post; I love research, evidence, specificity and comparables.

I can't reasonable ask you to go back and do more; because that would have been a bit of work.

But I'd be curious to see the same accident statistics broken down by the number of lanes of traffic present at the intersection.

(ie a 6-lane road, with a double left turn lane is 8 lanes to cross, assuming no right-hand turn lanes vs crossing a road with only 2 lanes).

Its my understanding that studies substantiate that the longer the crossing and more complex the intersection, the greater the risk of accidents to all road users.

 

[lenaitch]

A map is posted in the consultation showing the location of the Paris Galt Moraine.

Note that this is not a proposed border for the expanded Greenbelt; but rather an illustration of the area into which the Greenbelt might be expanded in whole or in part.

View attachment 300418


I would like to see the Greenbelt completely envelop Barrie, Alliston, Orangeville and Brantford so as to cut off most further sprawl in the GTA.

Beyond that, I think we need to prohibit new highways, prohibit new water-bottling operations and phase-out existing ones, and severely limit new quarries within the designated area.

Finally, I think its important to note, that there is a need to repair/offset past damage; that involves active restoration.

There is nothing in the Greenbelt designation that assists w/this.

What that requires is Provincial Park, or Conservation area status, generally, and we need to see more of that.

While not disagreeing with your proposal, limiting quarries, particularly limestone, creates a conundrum. Limestone for concrete is necessary for construction, such as condos, transit tunnels, etc. Pushing it farther out increases both costs and traffic. Quarries of any type are a hot-button issue in many areas, both because of this disruption as well as impacts on the water table.

This is a rough map of significant karst (limestone, dolomite, gypsum) areas in Ontario. Note that two large areas encompass the Niagara Escarpment.

 

[Northern Light]

While not disagreeing with your proposal, limiting quarries, particularly limestone, creates a conundrum. Limestone for concrete is necessary for construction, such as condos, transit tunnels, etc. Pushing it farther out increases both costs and traffic. Quarries of any type are a hot-button issue in many areas, both because of this disruption as well as impacts on the water table.

This is a rough map of significant karst (limestone, dolomite, gypsum) areas in Ontario. Note that two large areas encompass the Niagara Escarpment.

View attachment 300503

My take here is that we are using far more aggregate than is truly needed.

By mandating the use of recycled aggregate, reducing the amount of paved road/hardscaped area in cities, and by shifting some construction to steel and to timber we can at the very least reduce our current demand by 1/3.

That would allow existing quarries to meet demand for quite some time.

Eventually new quarries will be required; but hopefully, with further innovation, we can go for smaller and shallower quarries for the most part and not make the atrocious holes in the landscape that we have in the past (see Dufferin Quarry)

I think restrictions may (one can hope) serve to drive up prices and compel some of the innovation I'm noting above.

 

[Memph]

Brilliant post; I love research, evidence, specificity and comparables.

I can't reasonable ask you to go back and do more; because that would have been a bit of work.

But I'd be curious to see the same accident statistics broken down by the number of lanes of traffic present at the intersection.

(ie a 6-lane road, with a double left turn lane is 8 lanes to cross, assuming no right-hand turn lanes vs crossing a road with only 2 lanes).

Its my understanding that studies substantiate that the longer the crossing and more complex the intersection, the greater the risk of accidents to all road users.

The downtown intersections were mostly busy arterial streets, Yonge, Bay, King, Queen, Bloor... so typically 2 lanes in each direction.

The suburban arterials were also mostly roads that were 2 lanes in each direction, however, they had left turn lanes, right turn lanes and a small concrete median.

I think one of the major dangers of suburban arterial intersections is with left turns, especially when cars are trying to make them without an advanced green, since you have to watch out for both oncoming traffic and crossing pedestrians. Advanced greens usually don't last long, so a lot of drivers will have to turn without an advance green (and face pressure from impatient drivers behind them). I think most of the downtown intersections I looked at don't allow left turns but even if they did I think they'd be much safer.

1) In these suburban intersections, due to the extra turn lanes, the left-turning car will have travelled about 18-20m compared to 11-13m in the typical urban signaled intersection. This longer distance allows them to build up more speed. Higher speed means longer stopping distances (especially if your foot is on the accelerator rather than covering the brake due to the fact that you're trying to quickly get through the intersection), and if you do fail to stop before a pedestrian, higher speeds also mean higher chance of death. Twice the speed translates to more than twice the stopping distance. Also force of impact is correlated to speed squared, so twice the speed means 4x the force of impact.

2) Oncoming traffic is much faster. Higher general speeds plus the existence of turning lanes means that you'll have oncoming through lanes with high speed traffic, probably going at about 70 km/h. The view will often be obstructed, and people are pretty bad at judging how fast an oncoming car will reach them when they're coming so fast. Our brains and eyes are more designed to assess speeds that are more typical of humans (5-30km/h). In Old Toronto, you usually have through traffic going about 30-40km/h, but often forced to slow down at intersections since one lane will be used to turn left and the other to turn right, leaving no lane exclusively for through traffic. If the intersection is busy (risk of obstructed views) the oncoming traffic will probably only be going 10-20km/h at most, and if it's less busy and they're traveling more around 30-40km/h, then that probably also means the view won't be obstructed. As a result, left turning drivers at suburban intersections are much more likely to focus on avoiding getting t-boned and won't be watching for pedestrians as much as they should.

Right turns are probably the second most common danger at intersections. Partly because pedestrians might be in your blind spot. Drivers should see them as they're approaching the intersection, but if it's dark especially, they might not. A lot of pedestrian collisions happen at night, or at dusk/dawn (sun in the eyes). Drivers at suburban intersections are more likely to approach at higher speeds, and the turn radiuses often don't require them to slow down as much.

But I think a lot of the reason for more collisions in the suburbs is also just that drivers aren't paying attention to pedestrians as much, just because there aren't as many of them, so they forget that they should check for them. I strongly suspect that comparing pedestrian collision rates in a suburban arterial intersection with a large number pedestrians (ex Jane & Finch) vs somewhere with a similar intersection but much fewer pedestrians (ex Jane & Langstaff or McLaughlin & Britannia), you'd find there's a significantly higher risk to pedestrians in the low-pedestrian intersections.

 

[Transportfan]

Why do you come to UT?

Because I'm interested a lot in cities and transportation. As some may have noticed, I know a lot about the political structure of municipalities and even transit.

Your hostility towards positions that differ from your own is not endearing.

Same could be said about almost all posters on UT when opinions differ--which is rarely. My take on things just differs from most on here. Suburbs and suburban arterial roads are a type of urban form.

 

[lenaitch]

My take here is that we are using far more aggregate than is truly needed.

By mandating the use of recycled aggregate, reducing the amount of paved road/hardscaped area in cities, and by shifting some construction to steel and to timber we can at the very least reduce our current demand by 1/3.

That would allow existing quarries to meet demand for quite some time.

Eventually new quarries will be required; but hopefully, with further innovation, we can go for smaller and shallower quarries for the most part and not make the atrocious holes in the landscape that we have in the past (see Dufferin Quarry)

I think restrictions may (one can hope) serve to drive up prices and compel some of the innovation I'm noting above.

No argument with less hardscape (but don't tell folks they're not getting that sidewalk . ). Everybody seems to want paved paths, etc. otherwise, you know it's unsafe, inaccessible, or something.

Nothing wrong with timber - been used for centuries - but does have limitations in terms of large, multi-story buildings. No good deed goes unpunished. More steel means mining and smelting, increased timber means more logging. We can't seem to win.

I don't know much about mining but the extent of a quarry tends to follow the seam - but I get what you are saying. Going deeper generally means they don't have to go wider.

 

[Memph]

No argument with less hardscape (but don't tell folks they're not getting that sidewalk . ). Everybody seems to want paved paths, etc. otherwise, you know it's unsafe, inaccessible, or something.

Nothing wrong with timber - been used for centuries - but does have limitations in terms of large, multi-story buildings. No good deed goes unpunished. More steel means mining and smelting, increased timber means more logging. We can't seem to win.

I don't know much about mining but the extent of a quarry tends to follow the seam - but I get what you are saying. Going deeper generally means they don't have to go wider.

Well, I think with these limestone quarries you're not mining a seam, you're just mining the entirety of the bedrock. Just gotta remove a few meters of top soil and then you mine everything as far as your property line and/or regulations allow you to go.

The other thing though is that right now, Toronto has pretty big average home sizes compared to other countries. This is not entirely the result of free market forces. SFH zoning covering existing neighbourhoods, and minimum street widths and setback requirements in new neighbourhoods are both major factors in encouraging large 2500-5000 sf homes to be built instead of more modest sized homes (even a lot of families would be fine with 1000-1500 sf). We should also allow existing SFHs to be converted to duplexes and triplexes, could be quite valuable to a lot of empty nesters for instance.

 

[Northern Light]

No argument with less hardscape (but don't tell folks they're not getting that sidewalk . ). Everybody seems to want paved paths, etc. otherwise, you know it's unsafe, inaccessible, or something.

Nothing wrong with timber - been used for centuries - but does have limitations in terms of large, multi-story buildings. No good deed goes unpunished. More steel means mining and smelting, increased timber means more logging. We can't seem to win.

I don't know much about mining but the extent of a quarry tends to follow the seam - but I get what you are saying. Going deeper generally means they don't have to go wider.

There's no question that there are always trade-offs.

I would argue for a more efficient use of resources across the board; and a more balanced use as well.

Forestry looks terrible on the landscape when its a clear cut; but when done with sustainability principles isn't that bad; though I'd rather we left all old-growth alone at this point.

Mining that's open-pit of any kind is a scar on the landscape, and typically one that is never erased.

Mining underground can be done with minimal aesthetic harm; through there certainly are potential consequences to the environment, both in the act itself and onward through processing.

The answer, to my mind is a mix of actions across the economy/society. Its not a single action.

But to take it back to quarrying; I really do want to see less of it; I don't want the Escarpment to be nothing but pockmarks.

That would be adverse to my quality of life (I enjoy hiking it!), the environment and tourism.

I also think we're using the resource at a unsustainable rate.

 

[lenaitch]

Well, I think with these limestone quarries you're not mining a seam, you're just mining the entirety of the bedrock. Just gotta remove a few meters of top soil and then you mine everything as far as your property line and/or regulations allow you to go.

The other thing though is that right now, Toronto has pretty big average home sizes compared to other countries. This is not entirely the result of free market forces. SFH zoning covering existing neighbourhoods, and minimum street widths and setback requirements in new neighbourhoods are both major factors in encouraging large 2500-5000 sf homes to be built instead of more modest sized homes (even a lot of families would be fine with 1000-1500 sf). We should also allow existing SFHs to be converted to duplexes and triplexes, could be quite valuable to a lot of empty nesters for instance.

Your correct - I used the wrong term. Limestone and their ilk are generally pervasive where they are found.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Some people have gotten so chicken recently, and it's gotten worse since urban hipsters started demonizing cars. Nowhere outside of UT, Reddit, etc. have I seen so many people afraid of crossing streets.

Whilst I will agree with you that people in general have gotten way too soft, it's a fact that drivers are absolutely incompetent as a demographic.

I'm a daily driver and I don't mind telling you that 80% (no exaggeration) of drivers around here should not have their licences without further training.

When I'm not driving, walking is my preferred mode of transport and it behooves one's sense of self-preservation around these degen drivers here to watch oneself.

The problem isn't cars, the problem is the licensing standards here.