Public Realm in Canadian Cities - Developments

[wg_flamip]

I understand the skepticism, but there's private money and the institutional heft of U of T behind the project in this case—in some ways closer to the relatively expeditious Bentway project than the languishing John St. revitalization.

University moves quickly by car most times of the day because more space is given over to the roadway than is needed. Besides, with the bike infrastructure moving to the linear park, we aren't actually losing much lane capacity here. On the whole, the loss of two-stage pedestrian crossings will benefit more people than will be inconvenienced by potentially increased travel times by car. In any case, this is one of the most transit accessible parts of the city and will only be made more so with the OL and GO Expansion: Very few people need to be driving here.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It really just comes down to space being at a greater premium as more people occupy the same urban area so space needs to be used more efficiently. General traffic road lanes are among the least efficient uses of urban space (when there's no congestion pricing) since they get clogged by so many private vehicles that require much more room than their occupants. Expanding public space, green or otherwise, tends to be one of the more beneficial things a city can do to improve the quality of life for residents as crowding increases. Whether or not public space is officially called a "park" doesn't really factor into it.

Also, reducing the area dedicated to vehicular traffic and impermeable surfaces can be an improvement in and of itself even without the new public space created. Wide multi-lane roads are both harder to cross and noisier. People in residential nabes often talk about how even the subtlest things can affect (aka "destroy") the character of the area. A building a bit too tall, a touch too dense, a shadow here and there, etc. A lot of those people would have a heart-attack and die if you increased the traffic on their two-lane local street by 25%. But in downtown where far more people live and spend time, something that has a major affect on the area character like a huge traffic filled mini-freeway running through it just gets shrugged off. Some of it's just a status quo thing in that if the street had existing public space and there was a proposal to remove much of it to add traffic lanes in the name of traffic capacity there would be an outcry. But when the lanes already exist, it's fine.

It's finding an equilibrium. You have already failed when you have to prioritize one at the expense of another. Let's learn from prioritizing personal vehicles over the past half century.

Even the smallest of things does make an impact and they compound on top of one another The last part matters as it's never just one or a handiful of subtle things in Toronto. One or a handiful leads to a floodgate.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

I understand the skepticism, but there's private money and the institutional heft of U of T behind the project in this case—in some ways closer to the relatively expeditious Bentway project than the languishing John St. revitalization.

University moves quickly by car most times of the day because more space is given over to the roadway than is needed. Besides, with the bike infrastructure moving to the linear park, we aren't actually losing much lane capacity here. On the whole, the loss of two-stage pedestrian crossings will benefit more people than will be inconvenienced by potentially increased travel times by car. In any case, this is one of the most transit accessible parts of the city and will only be made more so with the OL and GO Expansion: Very few people need to be driving here.

Bikes is another transportation mode. It should not be considered a capacity replacement. Some of the renderings show one lane of traffic remaining in each direction with curb cut loading areas. That is inappropriate for an emergency route. This is a local downtown street. This is a major arterial.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Bikes is another transportation mode. It should not be considered a capacity replacement. Some of the renderings show one lane of traffic remaining in each direction with curb cut loading areas. That is inappropriate for an emergency route. This is a local downtown street. This is a major arterial.

Where are you seeing this? As far as I can tell, the proposed plan would maintain two lanes in each direction for the entire length. This should not impede the emergency traffic that uses University (FWIW, much of the emergency traffic to the hospitals on the strip doesn't touch University at all as ER access generally faces toward the side streets).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's finding an equilibrium. You have already failed when you have to prioritize one at the expense of another. Let's learn from prioritizing personal vehicles over the past half century.

I'm not sure I follow. An equilibrium, which implies that two things are equal, literally means you're prioritizing one at the expense of the other. If two things are 50/50, it means you're sacrificing the ability for one to have say, 75% or 100% so that the other isn't reduced to 25% or 0%. But cities are full of trade-offs and their existence certainly doesn't mean failure. Well, other than that having to do something as a major project means means you've failed to do it already.

That said, there's no (non-dogmatic) reason to assume it should be a magic number of 50/50. The best number could be anything from 0/100 on one end to 100/0 on the other. Just have to figure out what works best. What we've learned from the recent history of prioritizing automobiles is that they're not an efficient or beneficial use of space in cities. And this becomes even more true as a city grows and becomes denser. The wrong lesson would be that this is reciprocal. It isn't. Cities have thrived long before cars even existed and cities that give low priority to cars do not experience the negative effects incurred by those doing the opposite. Balance for the sake of balance is a fallacy.

[WhipperSnapper]

The aerials have two lanes of traffic in each direction. The first streetview image infront of the courthouse doesn't have two lanes of traffic in each direction.

I'll change it to balance if you prefer. There's a good argument that there isn't enough park space per person in downtown Toronto. The solution to create small paved plazas everywhere as POPs or as these grandiose boulevard plans replacing lanes of traffic are well and good if there wasn't also a giant push to double the residential population within our lifetimes. It also doesn't consider that the resident population is less than a third of the total population of the downtown on a daily basis. The population density for downtown residents is 16,500 per kilometre. The total downtown population is estimated at over 60,000 per square kilometre. A congestion tax is unfair if you don't provide viable alternatives. Bikes are not a viable replacement in most situations. Transit is and Toronto's system is severely inadequate and typically laughable to systems where there are a congestion taxes. It is only going to get more inadequate considering how long it is taking to build Crosstown.

That Chinese planner I met 15 years ago suggesting most of Toronto should be torn down to build larger boulevards and grander downtown park seems to be more thought out than the direction I see Toronto going.

[J.OT13]

Proposed Aqueduct Park between Claridge Eastern Flats and Ottawa Public Library survey:

https://engage.ottawa.ca/aqueduct-park-survey

The proposed new park amenities are listed below:

• One (1) on-leash dog zone.
• One (1) covered structure.
• One (1) playground with two (2) play structures for 2-5 years old and one (1) for 5-12 years old.
• Two (2) basketball keys.
• An asphalt path that circles around and crosses the park.
• Two (2) viewpoints to the aqueduct.
• A training circuit.
• An open-field grassed area.
• Twelve (12) benches.
• Five (5) accessible picnic tables.
• Three (3) sun loungers.
• Three (3) platform loungers.
• One (1) ping pong table.
• One (1) public art piece.
• 40 double bike racks.
• 11 pedestrian light posts along pathways.
• Five (5) wayfinding signages.
• Four (4) waste collection bins with space for recycling addition.
• New deciduous and coniferous trees.
• Shrub and groundcover plantings.

Here's the greater context of the site.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lebreton-east-planning-committee-approval-1.4721112


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/claridge-east-flats-construction-phases-1.6151767

[thebasketballgeek]

Wait aren’t there already bike lanes on University? I swore I was riding on a protected bike lane that turns into a painted lane with a few bollards South of College.

If anything, these street improvements are more likely going to affect the on-street parking plastered on this supposed arterial then remove any vehicular lanes.

Anyways, why do you keep insisting that bike lanes are inadequate in most situations? I would hardly call keeping bike lanes on a road that directly connects U of T with Union Station a waste especially since most college students aren’t going to be driving.

Toronto is not going to become Amsterdam in cycling mode share sure, but cycling around cities is the future because it’s usually the fastest and most convenient way to get around an inner city area if the infrastructure is adequate.

Also, we can’t discount the effect that public realm improvements have on people walking. We can’t just take traffic counts as gospel because it removes the people in the area who would usually walk. So while traffic capacity might be “reduced”, the max number of people who will actually be able to use University Ave will increase.

[ssiguy]

I have no empathy for those lamenting the loss of traffic lanes along University Ave. This is, after all, a street with a subway running underneath it. Too bad that don't do a similar thing with Yonge----a truly ugly street if ever there was one.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by samne

I’m all for added public space, but a little concerned how this would effect one of only a few roads with decent traffic flow in a downtown that’s choking traffic and getting worse.

there is really no need to drive on here as there is a subway line underneath the length of the street. we need to build cities for the people who live in them instead of for people just trying to go through them.

Hopefully Chow can get the remove the Gardiner as well. Love Park shows how much you can do with the space the Gardiner and it's ramps take up.

[WhipperSnapper]

Ugh. It's wasted breath to have a conversation on such matters when people post, "we need to build cities to live in" inferring its 905ers clogging the roads or mentioning a subway under the street which is of little use to anyone living, building a business, dying in South Riverdale or Parkdale.

Once again, it takes me over an hour to go 8 kilometres by transit doing bus/subway/subway or streetcar. That is much longer than even ten years ago. That is not how to build a city. The Ontario Line should have been completed 10 years ago. It's far too late opening ten years from now

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

I understand the skepticism, but there's private money and the institutional heft of U of T behind the project in this case—in some ways closer to the relatively expeditious Bentway project than the languishing John St. revitalization.

University moves quickly by car most times of the day because more space is given over to the roadway than is needed. Besides, with the bike infrastructure moving to the linear park, we aren't actually losing much lane capacity here. On the whole, the loss of two-stage pedestrian crossings will benefit more people than will be inconvenienced by potentially increased travel times by car. In any case, this is one of the most transit accessible parts of the city and will only be made more so with the OL and GO Expansion: Very few people need to be driving here.

I think this should be effectively be considered as two, separate projects: one is closing the vehicular portion of Queen's Park Circle west (southbound) and psychologically extending Queen's Park (the park) into the St. George campus.

That plan has $30 million in funding from U of T, is not controversial, and is relatively easy to implement.

Then there's the part that involves closing the northbound lanes of University from Queen to College, turning that into pedestrian public space, and squeezing northbound vehicular traffic into one half of the existing southbound ROW.

Controversy aside, that one has no funding, has only been approved for study by the city only in the last month or so, and - as I understand - would undo an already funded project to repave the vehicular lanes of University Avenue using the existing ROW and to build separated cycle tracks that is earmarked for 2024.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Ugh. It's wasted breath to have a conversation on such matters when people post, "we need to build cities to live in" inferring its 905ers clogging the roads or mentioning a subway under the street which is of little use to anyone living, building a business, dying in South Riverdale or Parkdale.

Once again, it takes me over an hour to go 8 kilometres by transit doing bus/subway/subway or streetcar. That is much longer than even ten years ago. That is not how to build a city. The Ontario Line should have been completed 10 years ago. It's far too late opening ten years from now

If u took a bike it would take 30 mins to go 8 kilometres, and closer to 20 minutes on a E-Bike so thanks for proving my point

Also, better late then never in regards to the Ontario Line and Crosstown. Would you rather it not be built at all? What do you propose as an alternative for University Ave Sir Whippersnapper?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Ugh. It's wasted breath to have a conversation on such matters when people post, "we need to build cities to live in" inferring its 905ers clogging the roads or mentioning a subway under the street which is of little use to anyone living, building a business, dying in South Riverdale or Parkdale.

Once again, it takes me over an hour to go 8 kilometres by transit doing bus/subway/subway or streetcar. That is much longer than even ten years ago. That is not how to build a city. The Ontario Line should have been completed 10 years ago. It's far too late opening ten years from now

That's why I'm such a big proponent of congestion pricing. If you clear up congestion, surface transportation can actually move efficiently and any loss of volume from having fewer cars can be offset by more surface transit like bus and streetcar (and on certain routes, subway). Although there may not even be any loss of capacity since the smaller number of cars may be fully offset by the remaining ones moving faster. Clogged roads aren't very good at transporting people.

We've already seen the improvement in the 504 King after the King transit priority measures took effect. But all of these changes are pieces of a puzzle. None of them achieve much on their own.

[WhipperSnapper]

These posts are getting even more asinine.

I'm not going to abuse my 45 year body and bum knee biking or e biking 8 kilometres in this humidity and sweat profusely if its dinner, a show, or just shopping. Bikes are more of an alternative to walking for the majority of people across all seasons than as an alternative to driving or transit.

Obviously I support Crosstown and the, I'll be senile by the time the Ontario line opens when I say the transit system is laughable in Toronto. These additions are not going to make the metro system first class.

University Avenue can support bike lanes. There has to be a better reason than let's just put bike lanes on the street. If it doesn't provide a missing link in the bike system than what is the point? Some better greening and a commitment to maintenance and that's it. Let's hire China to build us a first class metro system for a city of 5 million (2.7, 2.8 million currently) in half the time it will take the Ontario Line to open and I'll be right with you ripping out traffic lanes for landscaped concrete plazas and bike lanes to nowhere.

[theman23]

Congestion pricing in Toronto would really be another perfect example of our "worst of both worlds" approach in this country.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That's why I'm such a big proponent of congestion pricing. If you clear up congestion, surface transportation can actually move efficiently and any loss of volume from having fewer cars can be offset by more surface transit like bus and streetcar (and on certain routes, subway). Although there may not even be any loss of capacity since the smaller number of cars may be fully offset by the remaining ones moving faster. Clogged roads aren't very good at transporting people.

We've already seen the improvement in the 504 King after the King transit priority measures took effect. But all of these changes are pieces of a puzzle. None of them achieve much on their own.

504 King is one street. The measure redirected traffic to other streets. Congestion pricing is to punish those that live in their cars. It's not fair if you don't provide a meaningful alternative for residents to get around that have no other choice. It's then just another tax for the overtaxed. Once Toronto builds something similar to Munchen U and S Bahn system map we can talk congestion pricing. I love the streetcars. I would do everything to keep them for short jaunts. They just aren't practical for distance.

[thebasketballgeek]

I'm so surprised at the backlash that adding bike lanes in Toronto gets even on a mostly urbanist forum. No wonder it sucks biking there...

Anyways let me address all your points.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

These posts are getting even more asinine.

I'm not going to abuse my 45 year body and bum knee biking or e biking 8 kilometres in this humidity and sweat profusely if its dinner, a show, or just shopping.

Well if you are worried about a bum knee you should know that cycling by almost all accounts makes knee joint bend and stretch gently and helps to ease the movement of the joint. Cycling also for the most part improves the muscle strength around the knee joint, which ultimately protects the knee joint if there are any impact actions.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Bikes are more of an alternative to walking for the majority of people across all seasons than as an alternative to driving or transit.

It doesn't have to be this way...







So based on other cites cycling can be the PRIMARY mode of transportation, and generally can have higher capacity to move people then a respective car lane. It makes sense that putting bike lanes on University Ave would actually increase the maximum amount of people that can utilize the road at any given time.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Obviously I support Crosstown and the, I'll be senile by the time the Ontario line opens when I say the transit system is laughable in Toronto. These additions are not going to make the metro system first class.

No your right Toronto has a very long way to be a first class public transportation city. However, these projects, along with the planned GO expansions and Scarborough extension will make it much easier to go from point A - point b via public transit then before. Besides maybe LA, it seems like Toronto is pushing forward the most new transit projects in the continent. It's really interesting too see from an outside lens when I come from a place that is struggling to build BRT lol.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

University Avenue can support bike lanes. There has to be a better reason than let's just put bike lanes on the street. If it doesn't provide a missing link in the bike system than what is the point?

Of course I am not even close to as familiar with Toronto as yourself, but in my limited time there I thought the connections to Richmond and Adelaide were at least passable E-W infrastructure although definitely needs to have longer stretches of the curb as protection, and I don't like the massive gap between Logan and Parliament. College shouldn't even be considered a bike lane, and the intersection between Bloor and Uni is very poorly designed which is why hopefully they throw a few bones too make an improvement there with this funding.

Other reasons I would put it is for the direct connection/missing link between U of T and Union Station which for that reason alone could really improve congestion in the summer months at the very least with some improvement in winter.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Some better greening and a commitment to maintenance and that's it. Let's hire China to build us a first class metro system for a city of 5 million (2.7, 2.8 million currently) in half the time it will take the Ontario Line to open and I'll be right with you ripping out traffic lanes for landscaped concrete plazas and bike lanes to nowhere.

Touché

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

504 King is one street. The measure redirected traffic to other streets. Congestion pricing is to punish those that live in their cars. It's not fair if you don't provide a meaningful alternative for residents to get around that have no other choice. It's then just another tax for the overtaxed. Once Toronto builds something similar to Munchen U and S Bahn system map we can talk congestion pricing. I love the streetcars. I would do everything to keep them for short jaunts. They just aren't practical for distance.

Surface transit isn't practical now in large part because it's too slow due to congestion. That wouldn't apply under congestion pricing. Surface transit becomes a meaningful alternative on uncongested streets. And bypassing surface congestion is a major rationale for rapid transit to begin with. And of course, the funds raised from congestion pricing can help fund higher order projects like subway lines.

I also don't think it's true that all the traffic from King shifted to other streets considering that they were already congested too. But regardless, that's tangential to the point which is that removing congestion - whether from one street or an entire area - significantly improves the operation of transit in the affected area. I honestly haven't see any strong argument against it beyond convoluted edge cases where people are forced to drive for some reason. But in most cases such as if they're driving for work, congestion pricing isn't actually a burden because eliminating congestion allows them to be more productive. People forget that you're paying either way. Either with the wasted time and productivity due to congestion or the the money spent on the toll. The only difference is that with the money, it's predictable and the value isn't destroyed since it can be used to fund other things. While with congestion, what you're paying in time, money (lost productivity) and frustration is just wasted.

[WhipperSnapper]

This is hearsay. I have friends that have told me that there was a noticeable increase in congestion when King was redone. Queen saw more congestion when Eastern following Dundas were reduced to one lane in either direction for bike lanes. Danforth was a thrill ride to drive on in the past. The curb lane was shared so it was quite a narrow line to keep with crashing. Apparently, it's an absolute 24 hour jam today now that the lane has been replaced with another east/west bike lane.

Goals are great but, you have to take into account every little circumstance in order to obtain them without destroying everything.

Toronto is nothing like Copenhagen or Amsterdam. Can Toronto become more like Copenhagen or Amsterdam? Perhaps in broadest terms. You can't do it aggressively and it's gonna cost to do it right.