I know this will be an unpopular position to take, but here goes. I happen to be involved in one of the streets affected. It is a back street with a measured traffic count that is among the lowest in the area.
The heart of the argument is the assertion that local streets without sidewalks are a risky place to walk or to navigate as a disabled person, and sidewalks are the only solution that can change that. Sounds good? It just isn't true.
Data on the TPS Portal shows that between 2006 and recently, 677 pedestrians were struck on Etobicoke streets. 653 of these incidents happened on major roads, not local roads. Of the 24 incidents on local roads, 21 happened on streets that already have sidewalks.
Depending on where you read, somewhere between 25% and 40 % of Etobicoke back streets lack sidewalks....yet these supposedly "unsafe" zones have triggered exactly 3 pedestrian injuries since 2006. If you don't believe me, check the TPS data yourself.
The risk factor for local roads is vehicle speed, not separation of pedestrians. Speed control can be achieved much better by creating pinch points, implementing speed bumps, and enforcement. Sidewalks are the highest-cost solution. I'm told that there are studies showing that sidewalks actually induce higher speeds because drivers perceive the road to be speed-capable. Local experience tends to support that.
The community opposition that will be tabled at Council includes letters of concern from disabled residents who state that local streets are not the barrier to mobility that they are claimed to be - whereas the poor condition of sidewalks and crossings on major streets cause more problems.
One would think that (as last year's Missing Sidewalks motion mandated) the City would prioritise sidewalk construction towards priority and high risk areas. They have not done this. One of the streets planned for next year's sidewalk installation - Clueson Court - is a cul-de-sac with only 11 houses. Meanwhile, because sidewalk installation is timed around road and sewer reconstruction, much busier streets that were rebuilt just prior to the Missing Sidewalks motion will wait another 50-60 years for sidewalks....meaning the sidewalk network will always be patchwork and lacking connectivity in priority areas.
I'm not opposing sidewalks where they are wanted, or on busier roads. If people on other streets request sidewalks, then by all means take the money away from the streets that oppose and spend it where is is wanted. Nor am I downplaying the alarming frequency with which pedestrians are injured in this city. The point is - those injuries are happening on the larger streets, most frequently mid-block where there are insufficient measures to cross the street...... and at intersections. Adding sidewalks on local streets will not address that.
The City recently closed a bike and pedestrian bridge over Mimico Creek at Van Dusen Blvd. It is heavily used by cyclists and pedestrians because it parallels Bloor Street, and is a much safer route. Thanks to the closure, cyclists are forced into riding on Bloor in an area lacking bike lanes. The City is not expediting repairs due to funding issues. Here's where the money to fix the bridge could be found. and applied to a more pressing problem that represents a higher risk exposure. Or, spend the money on making Bloor safer.
A common sight on local roads in the area is a basketball net - pointed at the road. By a very large margin, residents consider their streets sufficiently safe that they let their kids shoot hoops and play road hockey on the road. Please explain how sidewalks will make road hockey safer? As I understand it, the concept of woonerf argues for sharing quiet roads, not separating uses of roadways.
Vision Zero is a highly dogmatic program that is being rolled out on rhetoric, not through use of facts and good planning. As unpopular as it may be to say so, the opposition to sidewalks on local streets is fact based and reflects the knowledge and experience of residents. There is a petition signed by 31 of 37 households on South Kingslea Drive objecting to the sidewalk installation. There is broad support on surrounding streets also. This level of opposition will arise just about everywhere the City tries to insert sidewalks onto local roads that never had sidewalks. There will be many more motions like this as the City moves on to other bits of road reconstruction. If Vision Zero is to succeed, it's a good time to drop back and punt the local sidewalks idea. There are bigger priorities.
- Paul