Roads: Six Points Interchange Reconfiguration (City of Toronto, UC)

[Undead]

Four lanes (Bloor) is "shockingly" wide? It's a typical city main street width.

Just typical urbanist exaggeration.

 

[sche]

Just typical urbanist exaggeration.

I mean, the lanes are also too wide.

Dunbloor and Dundas both have 3.5m lanes, and almost all other lanes are 3.3m lanes.

3.5m lanes should not exist, period, curb lanes should be 3.3m max, and other travel lanes should be 3.0-3.2m. Narrowing all the lanes by 10-20cm each could have easily narrowed the road by ~1m, which would have allowed for a narrower ROW or cycle tracks wide enough to allow passing.

Even the plans for Yonge in NYCC only include 3.2 and 3.3m lanes, while the Beecroft option also had 3.0m lanes on both Yonge and Beecroft.

Edit: Also, the dual left turn lanes at Dundas and Bloor are very unfortunate.

 

[Northern Light]

Expect by the 22nd century, they'll be reconstructing Six-Points intersections to the newer narrower traffic lanes and lower speed limits.

Isn't your sarcastic cynicism overly optimistic! LOL

No chance the road lasts 80 years.

Reconstruction by the 2080s for sure!

 

[Undead]

I mean, the lanes are also too wide.

Dunbloor and Dundas both have 3.5m lanes, and almost all other lanes are 3.3m lanes.

3.5m lanes should not exist, period, curb lanes should be 3.3m max, and other travel lanes should be 3.0-3.2m. Narrowing all the lanes by 10-20cm each could have easily narrowed the road by ~1m, which would have allowed for a narrower ROW or cycle tracks wide enough to allow passing.

Even the plans for Yonge in NYCC only include 3.2 and 3.3m lanes, while the Beecroft option also had 3.0m lanes on both Yonge and Beecroft.

Edit: Also, the dual left turn lanes at Dundas and Bloor are very unfortunate.

Too wide, but what's shocking about it
edit: if this is all it takes to shock you, you're in for an unnecessarily difficult life lol

 

[allengeorge]

Just typical urbanist exaggeration.

I stand by my assertion that these streets are too wide to support a lively street life. Since you disbelieve me, you are welcome to post pictures proving otherwise.

After all, the point of this reconfiguration was to build a complete street that supported pedestrians and cyclists. If they are none because people feel uncomfortable on them (and 4 lanes of constantly flowing traffic will do that) the reconfig has failed on that level.

 

[allengeorge]

Too wide, but what's shocking about it

It’s shocking, because it no longer represents good planning - and hasn’t for a while. NACTO recommends 3m wide lanes - not 3.3, not 3.5. And even they suggest reducing the number of lanes and rethinking dedicated turn lanes where possible to make roads safer and better for pedestrians. Instead, these roads all include wider lanes and have multiple dedicated turn lanes at intersections. Not exactly a “road diet”.

 

[Undead]

I stand by my assertion that these streets are too wide to support a lively street life. Since you disbelieve me, you are welcome to post pictures proving otherwise.

After all, the point of this reconfiguration was to build a complete street that supported pedestrians and cyclists. If they are none because people feel uncomfortable on them (and 4 lanes of constantly flowing traffic will do that) the reconfig has failed on that level.

Too wide, but what's shocking about it
edit: if this is all it takes to shock you, you're in for an unnecessarily difficult life lol

 

[allengeorge]

Too wide, but what's shocking about it
edit: if this is all it takes to shock you, you're in for an unnecessarily difficult life lol

It’s shocking, because it no longer represents good planning - and hasn’t for a while.

And, I appreciate your concern for the quality of my life

 

[W. K. Lis]

The city continues build for the automobile, not pedestrians.

 

[crs1026]

I stand by my assertion that these streets are too wide to support a lively street life. Since you disbelieve me, you are welcome to post pictures proving otherwise.

After all, the point of this reconfiguration was to build a complete street that supported pedestrians and cyclists. If they are none because people feel uncomfortable on them (and 4 lanes of constantly flowing traffic will do that) the reconfig has failed on that level.

I’m of mixed minds on this. If the goal is to calm traffic in the interest of safety, then yes this design is a fail.

But, let’s be realistic. How many major thoroughfares are there in Etobicoke? Where is the traffic supposed to go?

I suspect the design was informed by data and projections saying, there will be x number of vehicles needing to turn left here, and one left turn lane won’t suffice. We may be getting ahead of ourselves to be building roads that assume a shift away from the auto when that shift has only started. Rebuilding in future years may be as soon as can be expected.

It may have been an urban design fail to suggest that this particular intersection could ever be a ”quiet” walkable district. At least it has reasonable compromise for pedestrians and cyclists. I am very interested in how transit priority works out when all is done.

I will be very interested to see if the design of the sidestreets and public spaces off the main drags creates good people spaces. There’s a lot more potential there. No way I will be sitting in a streetside cafe on that part of Dundas, with all the trucks roaring by, at any speed.

- Paul

 

[W. K. Lis]

Doesn't help where 4 of 6 Etobicoke councillors have a history of being allegedly anti-pedestrian.

Councillor Rob Ford
Ward 2 Etobicoke North

Councillor Doug Holyday
Ward 3 Etobicoke Centre

Councillor John Campbell
Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre

Councillor Mark Grimes
Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore

 

[ADRM]

But, let’s be realistic. How many major thoroughfares are there in Etobicoke? Where is the traffic supposed to go?

I think this is a false choice, though -- wide lanes don't promote more efficient traffic flow-through than narrower lanes; they're just more likely to promote dangerous driving.

And that reality hits at one of the big current institutional failings of Toronto's Transportation department (in addition to its overall outlook, sense of prioritization, and design sensibilities), which is that precisely zero of its design standards encourage drivers to operate their vehicles at the design speed limits; this is true at every level they design for -- 30kph/40kph/50kph and so on.

 

[Dan416]

There's also the fact that many streets in Toronto have ludicrously low speed limits.

 

[nfitz]

There's also the fact that many streets in Toronto have ludicrously low speed limits.

Surely you mean high ... we are trying to cut pedestrian deaths, not increase them.

Or are you in favour of more pedestrians dying?

 

[ADRM]

There's also the fact that many streets in Toronto have ludicrously low speed limits.

Surely you mean the polar opposite of this.