Road Safety & Vision Zero Plan

[Northern Light]

Some updates: https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...icism-over-pedestrian-and-cyclist-deaths.html

Also this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1108416082375831552

My first reaction: 120kph on Queen Street??? This is nuts, even worse than the 200 kph on Rexdale.

But reducing speed limits won't do anything if street design remains unchanged. Personally, I'm a big fan of curb extensions to make pedestrian crossings safer. Driving this winter I noticed the snow and ice mounds at street corners acted as fairly effective curb extensions, slowing down turning drivers.

That being said, I don't think we need to lower speeds on arterials. Unless we reduce the actual width of the road (lines of paint don't count), speeds won't come down. I would focus instead on residential streets, including speed bumps, curb extensions and much better illuminated pedestrian crossings. Oh and get rid of channelized right turns. As both driver and pedestrian, I shudder at pedestrian crossings going past these turns.

Road design is definitely the key, not signage or suggestions.

Safe speed should be intuitive to a great degree.

Enforcement is ideally for those determined to break the law and be dangerous not for the casual road user who should generally be driving at a speed that feels safe.

While I would agree that speed limits don't need to drop on most arterials I would differ in that I think there are design changes that can and should be made.

First off, channelized right-hand turns should be removed in all but the rarest of cases. They are a design feature designed to promote a no-stop turn, at speed.

They encourage a wrong-headed and unsafe approach to turns.

Highway acceleration lanes are another key, when you have a long build up lane that curves, stop-free onto a highway, and yet pedestrians are expected to cross at a point where motorists might be reasonable in having gotten to 80km/ph plus....it just begs for trouble.

Highway on/off ramps need to be T-ed with the major road and have a traffic-light regulated right-turn movement, from a stop position. Changing this will take time and money (and MTO cooperation) as it will mean redesigned ramps with longer lanes adjacent the main highway to permit acceleration.

Third, I think we need to make crossings, were we intend them to happen, safe. That means that traffic lit crossings should have pedestrian lighting on the corners, and the crosswalk area itself should be lit from above.

PXOs, I think, are inherently unsafe, and should either be removed or replaced with traffic lights.

Finally we do need to consider where we don't want pedestrians to cross.

This means reconsidering bus stop locations that may encourage dangerous crossings; as well as considering the use use of tree-lined medians that block road crossings in select locations.

 

[pman]

What Neutrino said. Also pervasive use of speed cameras with zero tolerance enforcement 100 percent of the time. After spending the winter in Sydney, where Big Brother is always watching you drive, I’m having a hard time adjusting to Toronto’s relative free for all on the roads.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Meanwhile, the opposite "Vision Zero" maybe happening in York Region.

Does York Region's new tax to speed up road widenings make sense?
'Build it and they will come,' opponent of adding road lanes complains

From link.

The most striking part of York Region’s budget this year is a bold step to boost taxes an extra one per cent to speed up road-widening projects as a way to tackle gridlock.

Of the $95 added to the average tax bill in 2019, $24 will advance widenings that otherwise would take more than 10 years to reach.

Council has indicated it will also add one per cent to the tax bill in each of 2020, 2021 and 2022.

The 13 projects are in addition to regional road construction work already in the queue for the growing region, which will see its population balloon by 700,000 by 2041 under growth rules dictated by the provincial government.

Although the accelerated projects are in Richmond Hill, Vaughan and Markham, East Gwillimbury Mayor Virginia Hackson pointed out they are streets that commuters from her community, as well as from Georgina, Newmarket, Aurora, King and Whitchurch-Stouffville, rely on as they make their way to work or other destinations.

Still, the region’s decision to bankroll faster road widenings is controversial.

Markham resident Peter Miasek, president of advocacy group Transport Action Ontario and co-founder of Keep York Moving, favours widening roads as long as the new lanes are dedicated to public transit buses and HOV lanes.

But others strongly oppose that view.

“In fact, the vast majority of residents I have talked with who have studied road widening strongly oppose the concept, as all evidence concludes it simply does not reduce traffic congestion and the cost, disruption and negative effects on health, the environment and the community are massive,” Unionville resident Roy O’Neill said in an email.

Elisabeth Tan, a member of Markham’s Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CPAC), and Unionville resident and ratepayer association member Nesta Morris, a retired transportation research planner, also both adamantly oppose widening roads.

Pointing to studies that show adding lanes can make traffic congestion worse, Tan argues that wider streets are more dangerous for pedestrians, especially children and the elderly, and that they encourage driving, increase speeding in off-peak hours, reduce a sense of community, add to pollution and boost maintenance costs.

Worried about the practicality of enforcing rules for HOV lanes, she believes the answer to fighting traffic congestion lies in studying other jurisdictions that have implemented such measures as free or cheap transit and toll roads during peak hours.

Upset with never-ending development being forced on residents, Morris agrees there are many studies proving adding lanes only encourages more traffic.

“Build it and they will come,” she said.

There is a long history of research showing that expanding roads only leads to short-term improvements in traffic congestion, said Jonathan Hall, an assistant professor with the University of Toronto’s economics department and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy.

Not only do additional lanes contribute to a community’s growth, but they encourage existing residents to make more trips on the roads, he said.

“In the end, if we want to reduce traffic congestion, we need to raise the cost of driving,” Hall said in an email.

“This is best done through road tolls, so that the toll can be low in the middle of the night and high during rush hour, but higher gas taxes and vehicle registration fees are other ways of accomplishing this.”

Judy Farvolden is the executive director of the University of Toronto’s Transportation Research Institute.

She sympathizes with well-meaning politicians grappling with the very complex headache of traffic congestion, especially in high-growth areas like York Region that are working to change their history as bedroom communities based around the car.

“The automotive age was a great thing. Until it wasn’t,” she said.

“One could add that congestion is part and parcel of living in a booming region. We wouldn’t want the alternative, which would be to have less economic opportunity.”

Widening roads is not a long-term solution because additional capacity will be consumed, Farvolden said.

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers but devising solutions must involve residents acknowledging that the status quo is not sustainable and being part of a bigger conversation about alternatives, she said.

But Vaughan Coun. Linda Jackson said it’s time to “bite the bullet” and approve the tax, arguing that growing traffic congestion will chase new residents and businesses from York Region.

Addressing gridlock is “mission critical,” and failure to do so would be an injustice to “frustrated-as-hell” commuters and first responders reacting to emergencies, Markham Mayor Frank Scarpitti said.

But the region has no evidence that homeowners, especially seniors on fixed incomes, are willing or able to pay the additional tax, Newmarket Mayor John Taylor said.

The region could remove the additional burden on taxpayers by borrowing the funds for the 13 projects from a reserve account instead, he said.

The region is already investing more than $1.6 billion on roads between 2015 and 2022, so it’s wrong to suggest roads aren’t a priority, Taylor argued.

SIDEBAR​

​

​

York Region has approved an additional one per cent tax increase to speed up the following road projects from their current status of beyond 10 years:​

​

• Mid-block crossing Hwy. 404 north of 16th Avenue moved up to 2022;​

​

• Leslie Street from Bethesda Sideroad to Bloomington Road up to 2022;​

​

• Intersection of Keele Street and King Vaughan Road up to 2023;​

​

• Elgin Mills Road from Yonge to Bathurst streets up to 2023;​

​

• Major Mackenzie Drive from Keele to McNaughton/Avro roads up to 2024;​

​

• Dufferin Street from Major Mackenzie to Teston Road up to 2025;​

​

• Bayview Avenue from Bantry to 16th avenues up to 2025;​

​

• 16th Avenue from Woodbine to Warden avenues up to 2025;​

​

• Mid-block crossing Hwy. 404 north of Major Mackenzie up to 2026;​

​

• Langstaff Road from Keele to Dufferin up to 2026;​

​

• Warden Avenue from Major Mackenzie to 19th Avenue up to 2027;​

​

• Weston Road from Hwy. 407 to Rutherford Road up to 2028;​

​

• Kennedy Road from Major Mackenzie to Elgin Mills Road up to 2028.​

 

[11th]

But reducing speed limits won't do anything if street design remains unchanged. Personally, I'm a big fan of curb extensions to make pedestrian crossings safer. Driving this winter I noticed the snow and ice mounds at street corners acted as fairly effective curb extensions, slowing down turning drivers.

That being said, I don't think we need to lower speeds on arterials. Unless we reduce the actual width of the road (lines of paint don't count), speeds won't come down. I would focus instead on residential streets, including speed bumps, curb extensions and much better illuminated pedestrian crossings. Oh and get rid of channelized right turns. As both driver and pedestrian, I shudder at pedestrian crossings going past these turns.

That is really apparent when you are on one of those suburban arterials at say 12am on a Sunday morning - it's five lanes wide and the speed limit is 50km/h. If they want to reduce fatalities, mid-block crossings alone should help. Those going 40, 50km above are the real danger, and reducing the speed limit from 60km/h to 50km/h isn't going to help; especially when the road's designed for higher speed.

 

[Neutrino]

That is really apparent when you are on one of those suburban arterials at say 12am on a Sunday morning - it's five lanes wide and the speed limit is 50km/h. If they want to reduce fatalities, mid-block crossings alone should help. Those going 40, 50km above are the real danger, and reducing the speed limit from 60km/h to 50km/h isn't going to help; especially when the road's designed for higher speed.

Yeah, the design of the road encourages people to drive 10-20 km/h over the limit.

 

[11th]

Yeah, the design of the road encourages people to drive 10-20 km/h over the limit.

I'd say the hierarchy of roads and also the city's wide geographic span kind of dictated that. Outside of the core, the arterials were/are designed to be pseudo-highways. Blame the large concession blocks and the lack of higher speed routes alternatives.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From CP24:

Two drivers pulled over in less than 24 hours for travelling at speeds in excess of 220 km/h

Police are warning drivers about the dangers of speeding after pulling over two vehicles for travelling in excess of 220 kilometres an hour within hours of each other.

www.cp24.com

The first incident occurred on Highway 401 in Whitby on Thursday afternoon. OPP. Sgt. Kerry Schmidt said that a 20-year-old man was handed a seven-day licence suspension after he was clocked at 227 km/h.

The second incident happened early Friday morning on Highway 403 in Mississauga. Schmidt said that a 19-year-old male from Oakville was clocked at 254 km/h. The driver’s vehicle was impounded on the sport and he was issued a seven-day licence suspension

7 days, what a joke. If they really want to make a difference with speed racing, they should raid the Tim Hortons at Dundas and 403 instead

AoD

 

[innsertnamehere]

432 vehicles impounded in 3 months? That's crazy. They must really be enforcing 50 over.. I feel for those who get their vehicles impounded for doing 152 on the 407. That's gotta suck. It's not actually all that unreasonable a speed in that situation. Definitely speeding, but I'm not sure a vehicle impound is the correct response either. I guess it just comes down to how speed limits really need adjusting in the province - some highways need higher limits while local and arterial roads in urban areas need lower limits.

But yea - no reason or excuse to do something ridiculous like 220. They should be getting the book slammed on them - that's real street racing.

 

[Northern Light]

432 vehicles impounded in 3 months? That's crazy. They must really be enforcing 50 over.. I feel for those who get their vehicles impounded for doing 152 on the 407. That's gotta suck. It's not actually all that unreasonable a speed in that situation. Definitely speeding, but I'm not sure a vehicle impound is the correct response either. I guess it just comes down to how speed limits really need adjusting in the province - some highways need higher limits while local and arterial roads in urban areas need lower limits.

Huh?

Impounding a vehicle is harsh, for 50km/ph or 50% (or more) over the speed limit?

I would have no problem w/this being increased, particularly for repeat offenders to 30 days.

You don't do 50 over by accident.

The law is completely and utterly meaningless if you allow that kind of flouting.

Most people, however much they may think differently, are not competent to drive safely at those speeds.

I say this as someone would could get behind an increase in the limit on 400-series highways to 110km/ph or even 120km/ph.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Huh?

Impounding a vehicle is harsh, for 50km/ph or 50% (or more) over the speed limit?

I would have no problem w/this being increased, particularly for repeat offenders to 30 days.

You don't do 50 over by accident.

The law is completely and utterly meaningless if you allow that kind of flouting.

Most people, however much they may think differently, are not competent to drive safely at those speeds.

I say this as someone would could get behind an increase in the limit on 400-series highways to 110km/ph or even 120km/ph.

If you drive on the 407 at all you will get what I mean - Traffic flows at about 130km/h, meaning that 150 isn't totally crazy. Definitely speeding - but not crazy. That's more my point. It's roughly equivalent to doing 135 on the 401 in terms of speed differential between the speeder and other traffic.

Doing 90km/h in a 40 zone is nuts - and needs an impound. Doing 150 on the 407 is much less nuts, and is not actually all that dangerous.

Comes back to what I was saying about changing speed limits to better suit the highways. If the 407 had a 120 limit - a 50 over impound would make a lot of sense since 170 is a "crazy" speed. I'd be supportive of adjusting limits on freeways and rural highways upwards by 10-20km/h depending on the situation (maybe even a few 130km/h highways like the 407) and dropping the impound speed to 40 over. Makes more sense to me than the current system.

Another thing about the 407 that bothers me is that cops seem to specifically aim for 50 over tickets since they are so common. I've been passed by cops on the highway when I myself am doing 140.. It's just a weird system where there are no real penalties until you get to the impound stage then they come down on you with the full force of the law.

 

[darth_freeman]

Meanwhile, the opposite "Vision Zero" maybe happening in York Region.

York Region has approved an additional one per cent tax increase to speed up the following road projects from their current status of beyond 10 years:​

​

• Mid-block crossing Hwy. 404 north of 16th Avenue moved up to 2022;​

​

• Leslie Street from Bethesda Sideroad to Bloomington Road up to 2022;​

​

• Intersection of Keele Street and King Vaughan Road up to 2023;​

​

• Elgin Mills Road from Yonge to Bathurst streets up to 2023;​

​

• Major Mackenzie Drive from Keele to McNaughton/Avro roads up to 2024;​

​

• Dufferin Street from Major Mackenzie to Teston Road up to 2025;​

​

• Bayview Avenue from Bantry to 16th avenues up to 2025;​

​

• 16th Avenue from Woodbine to Warden avenues up to 2025;​

​

• Mid-block crossing Hwy. 404 north of Major Mackenzie up to 2026;​

​

• Langstaff Road from Keele to Dufferin up to 2026;​

​

• Warden Avenue from Major Mackenzie to 19th Avenue up to 2027;​

​

• Weston Road from Hwy. 407 to Rutherford Road up to 2028;​

​

• Kennedy Road from Major Mackenzie to Elgin Mills Road up to 2028.​

Keep in mind York Region is not Toronto. Transit along all of these routes is not feasible due to population density so some road widening will be the best course of action. "Induced demand" parrots look foolish when they are against ANY form of road widening, particularly in extra suburban/rural areas.

Some of the roads on that list are two lane rural roads. Of course widening to 4 lanes will help...it's not like you're going to put a BRT on those roads.

 

[W. K. Lis]

While trucks have speed limiters, automobiles do not.

A case for making speed limiters in cars mandatory

See link.

Speeding is deadly. The faster you’re going the less reaction time you have to avoid that other car, that debris in the road, that absent minded pedestrian. The UK government estimates that, each year, “excessive and inappropriate” speed kills 1,200 people and injures over 100,000 more.

This is all pretty obvious – but most people still speed. In 2011 almost half of cars monitored exceeded a 30mph speed limit, while a similar number broke the 70mph national speed limit on a motorway. Legally the limits set for particular roads are the “absolute maximum” vehicles should be travelling - yet one in two drivers are still going faster.

It all comes down to capability: unless a car is on its last wheels, it’s going to be able to drive faster than 70mph. In fact, you’d be extremely unlikely to buy a car that couldn’t go past 70 – even though there is no need for the average driver to travel this fast.

But there is a technical solution: devices that cars can be fitted with, to prevent them from breaking speed limits. Called ‘limiters’ or ‘governors’ (perhaps appealing to the East End gangster demographic), these cap the top speed of a vehicle by restricting the fuel supply to the engine.

Some larger vehicles already have mandatory limiters built in, preventing any naughtiness with the speed restrictions. If you see any vehicle with more than eight passenger seats, or any goods vehicles weighing more than 3.5 tonnes, they will have a top speed of 70mph. These limiters were brought in to reduce accidents. So why not cars, too?

Actually, as things stand, most cars already have do have speed limiters. But they’re not there to reduce the driver or other road users, though. No, existing limiters are there to protect the car: sustained high speeds can damage the engine and tires. Engines also work much less efficiently at speed, meaning more pollution and a greater environmental impact.

These inbuilt limits are set way above the highest UK national speed limit, however. There is no uniform standard, but German car manufacturers may limit the cars they produce at 155mph, while Japanese producers limit them at 112mph.

The thresholds for the speed limiter can be easily changed in modern computerised cars. Since 2012, the Ford MyKey has allowed parents to limit their kids’ speeding tendencies. Going one step further, the Nissan GT-R automatically raises the top speed when the GPS detects it has been brought onto a race track. GPS data on speed limits is already available and in use by sat-nav devices. If this technology could be coordinated, an entire country’s speed could be controlled automatically.

Yes, compulsory speed limiters would kill the £20m a year profits that the Treasury currently makes from speed cameras – but no Chancellor is going to argue against mandatory limiters if it means saving thousands of lives every year. Besides, safer roads would reduce the £470m per year spent on medical and ambulance costs for road traffic accidents. Savings would also be made in building and maintenance of speed enforcement infrastructure, such as speed bumps, chicanes and other bizarre street obstacles.

The UK led the way with the first ever speed limit in 1832. Let’s revive that streak of innovation and be the first country to require cars to be fitted with GPS speed limiters. One day, a 30mph will really mean a 30mph limit – and our roads will be safer for it.

Maybe there are no speed limiters on automobiles because that would take away a source of revenue. Not a question of safety, but money for the government.

 

[Neutrino]

The 407 should be 130, no doubt. Hell, if the 400 series used to be 130... But we also need better driver training and certification.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The 407 should be 130, no doubt. Hell, if the 400 series used to be 130... But we also need better driver training and certification.

AND... the default urban (unsigned) speed limit should be 40 km/h. Use signage for 30 km/h zones and 50 km/h arterial roads.

 

[Neutrino]

AND... the default urban (unsigned) speed limit should be 40 km/h. Use signage for 30 km/h zones and 50 km/h arterial roads.

No