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

[innsertnamehere]

Surely you mean the polar opposite of this.

While I don't think that Toronto has too low of a limit everywhere, especially in the city, it does have an issue of posting low limits on many roads, especially larger roads specifically designed for higher vehicle speeds.

Roads like Don Mills or the Bayview extension for example. The Bayview extension has 0 sidewalks, and the adjacent bike lane is barrier protected, yet the city tried to stick a 50 limit on it (luckily reversed). In any other municipality in the province that road would have a 70 or even 80 limit as it's designed for those speeds and doesn't have any pedestrian traffic to protect.

Don Mills is a 50 limit as well, despite having very low pedestrian counts, sidewalks well separated from the street, and being designed for much much higher speeds. It shouldn't have been dropped from a 60 limit. The standard of road would likely have resulted in a 70 limit in other municipalities. A 50 limit makes sense around Eglinton and Lawrence as pedestrian counts are higher, but north of that the ped counts are low and the road built to very high standards.

 

[Northern Light]

While I wouldn't agree that Toronto doesn't have too low of a limit everywhere, especially in the city, it does have an issue of posting low limits on many roads, especially larger roads specifically designed for higher vehicle speeds.

Roads like Don Mills or the Bayview extension for example. The Bayview extension has 0 sidewalks, and the adjacent bike lane is barrier protected, yet the city tried to stick a 50 limit on it (luckily reversed). In any other municipality in the province that road would have a 70 or even 80 limit as it's designed for those speeds and doesn't have any pedestrian traffic to protect.

Don Mills is a 50 limit as well, despite having very low pedestrian counts, sidewalks well separated from the street, and being designed for much much higher speeds. It shouldn't have been dropped from a 60 limit. The standard of road would likely have resulted in a 70 limit in other municipalities. A 50 limit makes sense around Eglinton and Lawrence as pedestrian counts are higher, but north of that the ped counts are low and the road built to very high standards.

I agree 50 was too low on Bayview, as currently configured.

I would, however, add that Bayview is likely to see a radical re-design in the not-too-distant future, there will likely be a sidewalk/walking path, along with enhanced cycling facilities and native-plant streetscaping, the clover-leaf will likely be chopped; and

I think lane reductions are likely.

At that point a lower limit may be reasonable.

***

I think the question to be asked on many of these roads is not whether a lower speed limit is appropriate given the road's geometry; but whether the road's geometry is appropriate.

I would add that I'd be supportive, in general of slower maximum speed by design; but trading that, in many cases, for fewer traffic lights which Toronto does install too frequently in some areas, in my opinion.

 

[Undead]

Surely you mean the polar opposite of this.

Nope. It's ridiculous having a 50 kph limit on suburban arterials with sidewalks and low pedestrian counts as insertname mentioned. The City did things ass backwards, as always. Lanes need to be narrowed before lowering posted limits. In my experience, at least half the drivers I see still drive 60-70 on the newly signed 50 roads.

 

[crs1026]

^I frequently drive Renforth south of Eglinton, which is the school zone with photo radar cam that gets all the press about absurdly high speed offenses.
I know it’s a speed zone, I know (exactly) where the camera is, and I’m pretty principled about not driving aggressively in the city, so I’m happy to slow down..
And yet..... I have trouble keeping my speed down to the limit.
It’s entirely about the road design. Renforth is just so wide and open, 40 km/h feels like 10.
Leaving a road that wide and straight through a school zone, and then blaming excessive speed on the driver alone, is really bad psychology.

- Paul

 

[Dan416]

If it makes you feel better, Mississauga has some ludicrously low speed limits on some streets as well. Eglinton is signed at 60 when it's clearly designed for 70 or 80. Similarly Britannia was an 80 zone and has been dropped to 60 for no discernable reason.

 

[nfitz]

Nope. It's ridiculous having a 50 kph limit on suburban arterials with sidewalks and low pedestrian counts as insertname mentioned.

It's ridiculous killing less people?

This is Urban Toronto ... not Suburban Brampton.

 

[Undead]

^Imagine simplifying the issue so much. You're making that typical urbanist/progressive mistake where policy changes are pushed toward some well- intentioned idea, but any reasonable opposition is tarred as though it's unethical/malicious. Maybe that's why your politics are getting so much pushback. Something to ponder.

 

[nfitz]

^Imagine simplifying the issue so much. You're making that typical urbanist/progressive mistake where policy changes are pushed toward some well- intentioned idea, but any reasonable opposition is tarred as though it's unethical/malicious. Maybe that's why your politics are getting so much pushback. Something to ponder.

If you just expressed concern about lower speed limits, you may have a point. But tarring a speed limit as "ridiculous" is not reasonable opposition - it's set up to reject any reasonable opposition to your position.

Even I find that 50 km/hr may be slow on some suburban arterials ... but despite me never actually expressing an opinion on speed, you've already declared me as unethical/malicious simply because I objected to your extreme language!

 

[Undead]

You're still doing a pretty good job missing the point.

 

[nfitz]

You're still doing a pretty good job missing the point.

That roads should be narrowed? Sure ... no issues there. If that's not your point, I don't know what it is.

 

[Undead]

That's it's putting the cart in front of the horse lowering posted limits before narrowing. And that urbanists pushing for such policies are poisoning the well for genuine pedestrian/transit/cycling improvements. These things don't occur in a vacuum and the general public will always remember *how* something was implemented (especially when it affects their day to day), not just the initial good intentions. This kind of nuance and context is lost in breathless exclamations that roads are shockingly wide. Anyway, I'm done with this.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Probably to get the overpass interchange replaced with surface intersections, they had to agree with the want-to-be-expressway supporters that the traffic lanes will be w-i-d-e, so they can speed through the intersections over the speed limit "safely".

 

[allengeorge]

That's it's putting the cart in front of the horse lowering posted limits before narrowing. And that urbanists pushing for such policies are poisoning the well for genuine pedestrian/transit/cycling improvements. These things don't occur in a vacuum and the general public will always remember *how* something was implemented (especially when it affects their day to day), not just the initial good intentions. This kind of nuance and context is lost in breathless exclamations that roads are shockingly wide. Anyway, I'm done with this.

In all fairness, no ‘urbanists’ are pushing for lower speed limits only. Frankly, you’re being disingenuous by suggesting that.

What actually happens is that some accident or road incident happens, everyone knows that road geometry is to blame, but city policy is to only replace roads when they’re at the end of their useful life. Since the community is hot and bothered what ends up happening is the fastest, simplest thing to do: lower speed limits. Are they effective? Not as much as people imagine, but it allows for the city to posture and say they did something.

The only effective way to improve safety is through road geometry, one aspect of which is narrowing lanes. When I suggested that the new lanes in this neighbourhood were too wide you took issue with that too, so...I’m not sure what change you actually want or are willing to accept.

 

[Undead]

I thought it's pretty clear that I support narrow lanes over lowering limits. I

When I suggested that the new lanes in this neighbourhood were too wide you took issue with that too

Did you read what I wrote? Seems like my ignore button is going to get a little more exercise lol

 

[allengeorge]

I did. You took issue with the fact that I said the lanes were “shockingly” wide, and dismissed me as an ‘urbanist’ as a consequence. This appears to be your default when you want to dismiss someone’s opinion/concern. You are welcome to ignore me; I’m not going to lose any sleep over that.

Frankly, Paul’s response was much more nunaced: he took the time to lay out an argument that _was_ persuasive and explained why the city could have taken the path it did. It was valuable and respectful. I truly appreciated that.