Public Realm in Canadian Cities - Developments

[Nite]

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

You should advocate for better transit then, not more traffic lanes. The best cities in the world are the ones that make the streets more friendly and accessible to pedestrians, not the ones that prioritize speed and convenience for drivers.

Love Park is a great example of how removing a highway off-ramp created a beautiful and enjoyable public space for most Torontonians. CafeTO and Cabbagetown Parkscape are other examples of how transforming traffic lanes into outdoor dining and greenery improved the public realm for locals, while only upsetting those who didn't live in the area and oonly see these places as a place to drive through not live in. These projects all came at the expense of car infrastructure, but imagine how much more livable and safer Toronto could be if we did this city-wide on every street with more than one lane.

Love Park




CafeTO





Cabbagetown Parkscape







• Video Link

[WhipperSnapper]

Naw, you actually care about creating a pretty display for tourist. I care about livability. I'm not advocating more lanes of traffic. I'm advocating not removing so many of the existing ones. Every east west street in the East End that isn't also a streetcar line has seen a 50% reduction in street capacity. I can support transit and understand it's woefully inadequate to move people long distances to our super duper high density employment clusters with massive catchment areas. That ain't Copenhagen. Even their TODs in suburbia will be mixed use with enough employment to coverage the planned housing and then some.. None of this 3000 plus apartments and 1500 square metres of retail next to another 2000 home development with 500 square metres of retail.

There's a rationale why you can't parking on the street during rush hour. These boulevard cafe create bottlenecks for everyone commuting except pedestrians. I've sat on a few of them. It's not an enjoyable experience to have a meal. Look how close you are to the streetcar! Replace the streetcar with a diesel van/truck; a garbage truck. In my neighbourhood, most places already have outdoor seating. There's only a handiful and they are used as overflow on a busy night. Those 3 or 4 cafes with combined seating for 30 people used only 2 or 3 times a week causes so much headache to area residents when traveling.

I'm sure you didn't even notice that only one picture has people enjoying the parkscape.

This stance to create traffic chaos to get people out of their car is only going push them out of the city. In this era, they don't even have to quit their jobs right away or ever. These are the eroding middle class in the city. Work hard for a good life.

[WhipperSnapper]

That one picture is so Toronto. The sidewalk has nice pavers. The scubby tree has a decent decorative guard. Century old utility poles and chairs in the right hand lane with pilons and police tape.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Naw, you actually care about creating a pretty display for tourist. I care about livability. I'm not advocating more lanes of traffic. I'm advocating not removing so many of the existing ones. Every east west street in the East End that isn't also a streetcar line has seen a 50% reduction in street capacity. I can support transit and understand it's woefully inadequate to move people long distances to our super duper high density employment clusters with massive catchment areas. That ain't Copenhagen. Even their TODs in suburbia will be mixed use with enough employment to coverage the planned housing and then some.. None of this 3000 plus apartments and 1500 square metres of retail next to another 2000 home development with 500 square metres of retail.

There's a rationale why you can't parking on the street during rush hour. These boulevard cafe create bottlenecks for everyone commuting except pedestrians. I've sat on a few of them. It's not an enjoyable experience to have a meal. Look how close you are to the streetcar! Replace the streetcar with a diesel van/truck; a garbage truck. In my neighbourhood, most places already have outdoor seating. There's only a handiful and they are used as overflow on a busy night. Those 3 or 4 cafes with combined seating for 30 people used only 2 or 3 times a week causes so much headache to area residents when traveling.

I'm sure you didn't even notice that only one picture has people enjoying the parkscape.

This stance to create traffic chaos to get people out of their car is only going push them out of the city. In this era, they don't even have to quit their jobs right away or ever. These are the eroding middle class in the city.

Restaurants are paying fees and installation costs for CafeTO therefore this program is beneficial to them because it attracts more customers and adds more space to their restaurants.

While you may want the city to be a place to drive through as fast as possible, the people who live in these neighborhoods want a more enjoyable place. The Cabbagetown project (not a tourist spot) illustrates this desire. An Overton window appears to have occurred in Toronto where both the public and local politicians are now prioritizing the public realm and pedestrian infrastructure over car lanes. This shift is aimed at making the city safer and more desirable to live in for locals above all else.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

That one picture is so Toronto. The sidewalk has nice pavers. The scubby tree has a decent decorative guard. Century old utility poles and chairs in the right hand lane with pilons and police tape.

I mean do you literally ever have something positive to say?

[WhipperSnapper]

Does that bother you that I see so little positive things to say about all the cheapened, half assed, poorly thought out things going on in the city?

I like the boutique hotel posted in the construction thread because the addition, while not perfect, isn't just slapped on top. More of that attention to detail, respecting the built environment, consideration how neighbourhoods more about please.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nite

Restaurants are paying fees and installation costs for CafeTO therefore this program is beneficial to them because it attracts more customers and adds more space to their restaurants.

While you may want the city to be a place to drive through as fast as possible, the people who live in these neighborhoods want a more enjoyable place. The Cabbagetown project (not a tourist spot) illustrates this desire. An Overton window appears to have occurred in Toronto where both the public and local politicians are now prioritizing the public realm and pedestrian infrastructure over car lanes. This shift is aimed at making the city safer and more desirable to live in for locals above all else.

Of course, you assume I'm a driver putting my own selfish desires ahead of how my community functions. I can't say how many taxis I've taken this year. I've only driven three times in Toronto this year. I've ridden my bike too many times to count a few blocks at a time. Causing needless commuter chaos creates anger and division and that actually makes things a whole lot unsafer.

Beautifying the public realm and traffic calming should be the goal of council/ city departments but it involves a lot of nuance in implementing it. You just don't attack things with a sledgehammer. An analogy to your train of thought is the block busting in the 1960s for future development that never happened and seas of surface parking as a result. Surely, that will leave you quite confused.

[niwell]

I've used CafeTO dozens of times (minimally) and it's great, albeit mismanaged this year. I can see the logic of maintaining certain thoroughfares like the Gardiner and a semblance of University but it's not like most of the streets CafeTO operates on weren't blocked 75% of the time anyways. 2-3 hours of rush hour priority that's rarely enforced weren't exactly doing a lot. The implementation on Danforth with separated bike lanes and dedicated turning bases is the best option, but other streets like Ossington feel completely revitalized. The vibe on Queen E in Riverdale was great too despite being a streetcar route.

I don't drive often (except to travel to Napanee) but honestly get a lot more frustrated on the highways than driving on urban surface streets. The debacle on Lakeshore E around Jarvis is far worse than anything I've experienced on Queen or Dundas.

[WhipperSnapper]

that's why I come here to SSP to read actual different perspectives. It doesn't change my opinion of the few CafeTo installations in my neighbourhood. There's a ton of patio options already. I have to consider the street is a major traffic thoroughfare nad most installation will not be on avenues like this.

Like i said, Danforth was a thrill ride to drive on in the past with barely enough room in the right hand lane to drive without clipping a car. It's an appropriate street for bike lanes. My issue remains the preference of dedicated right turn lanes at intersections over more useful left turn lanes and the sheer number of lanes that are being removed for bike lanes that still don't formulate a real grid. There is no rationale to put bike lanes on Eastern Avenue when the Lake Shore bike path is right there and Danforth's installation becomes questionable when other nearby east/west bike lanes have already been installed. Or Woodbine Avenue given its extreme gradients. I'm indifferent to bike lane installations in post war subdivision Scarborough. It's hubris to think they provide more than for a niche group of individuals.

I'm in Germany. Locals there trash masterplanned development that from design to execution blows anything out of the water in Toronto. Toronto's masterplanning and execution literally comes across as warehouses by comparison. I see Montreal and, to a lesser extent Vancouver outclassing Toronto. I spent months in the US sunbelt during Covid. They are frequently outshining Toronto too with neighbourhoods exclusively of 1 plus 5 snoozefests.

I wouldn't deny that I'm a half empty guy because I don't think being a glass half full guy being as productive. It's "better than a parking lot " or" it adds more people to the area " are frequent posts in these urban enthusiast forums. I find it untruthful on how they really feel about the physical building that was built.

Germany love driving. They still invest as much as it needed in roads, in transit and, other modes like bikes. There's not this war between worlds at the administrative level as we now see in Toronto. One side wants fewer cars. The other wants to rip out the most popular bike lanes.

I have also brought up numerous times the standard of 600 to 800 bike spaces (both long and short term) for a 600 unit building is not nearly enough for what is being aggressively pursued. This number of spaces is for short local trips (over walking) than longer commutes by car or transit.

[MonkeyRonin]

I'm as much an advocate as anyone for prioritizing transit, cycling, and pedestrian infrastructure above cars and investing accordingly; but even I must admit to having some concern about the way that Toronto seems to be removing car traffic capacity faster than it's adding capacity to other modes of transport. Which compounded by rapid population growth is really setting itself up for being a difficult place to get around (and more congestion in turn also negatively affects mixed-traffic surface transit).

I'm not of the view that making it more difficult to drive is the optimal way to increase transit or bicycle usage. The goal of transportation planning should be to get people around as quickly & efficiently as possible.

[niwell]

Toronto is kind of hampered by its street network that's based around narrow(ish) main streets and non-continuous side streets. We have very few wide thoroughfares. It's probably not popular but I'd be in favour of maintaining some "through routes" such as the Gardiner, Lakeshore (W and E of downtown), Richmond/Adelaide and maybe Dupont? Most of the streetcar routes aren't ideal for large volumes of traffic and King's transit priority needs to be better enforced.

Like with many things (cycling...) the issue is things are being done kind of haphazardly when the opportunity presents itself as opposed to following a well thought out network plan.

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

Originally Posted by niwell

Toronto is kind of hampered by its street network that's based around narrow(ish) main streets and non-continuous side streets. We have very few wide thoroughfares. It's probably not popular but I'd be in favour of maintaining some "through routes" such as the Gardiner, Lakeshore (W and E of downtown), Richmond/Adelaide and maybe Dupont? Most of the streetcar routes aren't ideal for large volumes of traffic and King's transit priority needs to be better enforced.

Like with many things (cycling...) the issue is things are being done kind of haphazardly when the opportunity presents itself as opposed to following a well thought out network plan.

I agree with this sentiment. It's difficult to work with our existing thoroughfares downtown when the roads aren't very wide, so the compromises made for all road users becomes very drastic when considering the prior arrangements made for cars. Streets like Queen and King don't necessarily need bike lanes, so I'm glad to see them employed on side streets or less collectors like Richmond. These are major transit corridors, adding too much infrastructure to the surface level of a street can be very redundant, and dangerous at times. I think in the case of East York, Danforth is best for bike lanes, but I can't imagine any other streets going W-E that are ideal without major traffic studies and reworks. Eastern would need to be reworked in some spots to be more conductive to cycling affairs, and I'm not entirely sure how to link that to a grid going east, then north.

I find the implementation of bike lanes curious due to how half-baked the whole process feels. I didn't mind seeing an aggressive implementation of them in the city during the pandemic, but the overall plan clearly wasn't fully thought out when it comes to traffic flow and the fact that a substantial amount of people who want to drive will drive downtown.

[WhipperSnapper]

There's no debate. The average downtown boulevard is narrow from the sidewalks to the number of traffic lanes. The one thing I have suspected but far from convinced is Ontario having generous lane widths.


There will be 40,000 new parking spots (residential and commercial) once all the buildings (office and apartment) above 6 storeys currently under construction are completed.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I'm as much an advocate as anyone for prioritizing transit, cycling, and pedestrian infrastructure above cars and investing accordingly; but even I must admit to having some concern about the way that Toronto seems to be removing car traffic capacity faster than it's adding capacity to other modes of transport. Which compounded by rapid population growth is really setting itself up for being a difficult place to get around (and more congestion in turn also negatively affects mixed-traffic surface transit).

Yes I have the same concern. While congestion pricing would address these issues by improving the speed of surface transit allowing for more capacity to be run, there hasn't been any serious talk on implementing it in Toronto afaik. The transportation system is very much just that. A system. Make a change to one aspect and you need to make corresponding changes to others. As someone in a smaller urban area I realize it doesn't require an extensive subway network since distances around 10km can easily done by surface transit. I do it all the time and it's fine if the roads aren't congested. And the door to door travel time isn't necessarily that much greater since you don't need to worry about parking. But without a way for transit to bypass congestion, be it dedicated lanes or congestion pricing, it just doesn't work very well.

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I'm not of the view that making it more difficult to drive is the optimal way to increase transit or bicycle usage. The goal of transportation planning should be to get people around as quickly & efficiently as possible.

If that is in fact the goal, then discouraging people from using less efficient modes and nudging them toward more efficient modes would definitely help achieve it. But yes, bikes are not the sole solution. Not everyone has the physical capability, sometimes you're carrying too much stuff, and sometimes the weather is crap. If you cut back on automobile flow by 50%, walking and biking can make up perhaps 1/5 if you're lucky, but transit would need to do the rest.

[WhipperSnapper]

Efficiency is a product of usage than mode. One person per car is an inefficient use. A family of four in a car going to Ikea is more efficient than a family of four on four bikes and a trailer.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by niwell

It's probably not popular but I'd be in favour of maintaining some "through routes" such as the Gardiner, Lakeshore (W and E of downtown), Richmond/Adelaide and maybe Dupont? Most of the streetcar routes aren't ideal for large volumes of traffic and King's transit priority needs to be better enforced.

That's how I see it too. We should take the loose downtown grid and assign priority to different modes on different streets. I'd say there should be three "street types" based on its priority function: public space, transit and cars/goods. I'd argue that the bike infrastructure is something that you can layer on top of any of these, but in different ways.

The public space streets would be like what Yonge street will be transformed into. They're primarily about public gathering and using space for walking or interacting. They're good for areas where there's a high volume of pedestrians or a big demand for large sidewalk cafes and public spaces. You can thread a bike lane into this, but bikes should be forced to slow down with things like chicanes and bumps/changes in elevation to the pavement. Traveling through in a car should be very difficult and parking should be impossible.

The transit streets would be like what the King St. pilot would have been if it were built as it was intended: signals are timed and synchronized with the movement of streetcars, and the roadspace on the side is largely reallocated to wider sidewalks and more generous transit stops, through travel by car is difficult or restricted and there shouldn't be things like left turns. The purpose is to move a lot of streetcars quickly through the core.

The cars/good movement streets would have things like proper left turn lanes and signals, no parking (i.e. no expectation that a right lane will end, squeezing everyone to the left) but more loading zones, light synchronization at 40 km/h, etc.

Not every street has to follow one of these 3 typologies, but there should be some which are emphatically one or the other.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by niwell

Toronto is kind of hampered by its street network that's based around narrow(ish) main streets and non-continuous side streets. We have very few wide thoroughfares. It's probably not popular but I'd be in favour of maintaining some "through routes" such as the Gardiner, Lakeshore (W and E of downtown), Richmond/Adelaide and maybe Dupont? Most of the streetcar routes aren't ideal for large volumes of traffic and King's transit priority needs to be better enforced.

King St. IMO is a good example of an imitative that made it unnecessarily difficult to drive. The streetcar ROW was sorely needed, but I'd rather have seen the right lane maintained as a through traffic lane (with no stopping allowed. And no left turns obviously) than the convoluted system of making everyone turn right at the end of each block, which has the effect of just pushing traffic to adjacent streets.

Either that, or just go full pedestrianised transit mall. The current arrangement is an awkward compromise.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If that is in fact the goal, then discouraging people from using less efficient modes and nudging them toward more efficient modes would definitely help achieve it. But yes, bikes are not the sole solution. Not everyone has the physical capability, sometimes you're carrying too much stuff, and sometimes the weather is crap. If you cut back on automobile flow by 50%, walking and biking can make up perhaps 1/5 if you're lucky, but transit would need to do the rest.

More people taking transit is a good thing of course, but the right way to do that is by making transit more appealing - fast, safe, comprehensive & easy to use. And reductions in car capacity need to be accompanied by corresponding increases to transit capacity.

[someone123]

I wonder if you could get municipal politicians and the public to agree to implement traffic-oriented streets through many neighbourhoods. I don't think there's any consensus generally around wanting fast and efficient travel and we've been moving away from that with our two-tier economy and remote work.

Around here there are some more car-oriented streets but they still often have on-street parking and so on. Some places have large traffic tie-ups every day caused by a couple blocks of on-street parking (e.g. in New West). But to the area residents, especially well-off people who have more flexibility in how and when they travel (mostly Boomer-aged and older in detached housing that takes up a disproportionate amount of land and therefore is close to a disproportionate number of traffic bottlenecks), that's a bug, not a feature.

This often plays out very inequitably with high-density residential areas being turned over to cars while wider low-density streets get traffic calming. In theory it would be better to turn over one low-density corridor to traffic but there's no way to get there politically and nobody wants their street to be the one that's sacrificed.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Efficiency is a product of usage than mode. One person per car is an inefficient use. A family of four in a car going to Ikea is more efficient than a family of four on four bikes and a trailer.

I'd need to see the data on that one. Yes having more people in a car greatly improves the efficiency. But four people in a 1500kg car means you're bringing 375kg in extra weight per person while a typical bike weighs around 15kg. And 4 people on 4 bikes plus an extra 15kg means the family would be using 75kg of machinery vs 1500 kg for a typical car. Seems pretty hard to believe the car would be more efficient, particularly at low in town speeds where aerodynamics has less effect. And the people on bikes might cover more road surface, but not if you count the extra space cars need between them for stopping distance. Unless you're combining efficiency with convenience?

Also, paying a congestion charge is also very affordable when it covers 4 people.

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

More people taking transit is a good thing of course, but the right way to do that is by making transit more appealing - fast, safe, comprehensive & easy to use. And reductions in car capacity need to be accompanied by corresponding increases to transit capacity.

Giving transit priority over private cars makes transit more appealing by making it faster and more reliable.

[WhipperSnapper]

I wasn't considering weight. I was considering road coverage. Hmm. You maybe right on spacing for safe stopping. Four bikes, one with a trailer will need spacing to stop safely too.

Everyone agrees on the theory that more transit capital projects are needed over other spending initiatives. It's just not haopening. Cars and commercial vehicles Aren't in urban Toronto either.