Public Realm in Canadian Cities - Developments

[WhipperSnapper]

The Toronto Parking Authority does a piss poor job adjusting on street parking to increase the flow of traffic. That includes recognition for the longer length of streetcars. Removing a space to allow cars to pass around them. It's just as often a right turn cue extending into the left through lane because of parked cars.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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

Of course, and that's why I'd never argue against any projects that prioritise transit over cars (eg. bus-only lanes, streetcar ROWs, etc). Likewise for taking space away to add in bike lanes & wider sidewalks in areas that make sense (ie. streets with high pedestrian/bike traffic and/or routes that are necessary to create a cohesive bike network). However, there are a number of road diet-type projects where that's not necessarily the case, and simply reducing vehicular capacity is the end goal in and of itself. Or, projects like University Ave. where the needs of a major vehicular thoroughfare need to be weighed against the need for more park space (I'm still undecided on this one).

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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.

There was a serious proposal to toll the Gardiner and DVP around 2017, but the provincial government blocked it.

There have been baby steps - the half-baked RapidTO (painted bus lanes), the King Street project, but they are accompanied by service cuts and reliability degradation. Typical Toronto.

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.

It's never a magic number - induced demand works both ways. If you reduce road lanes, people will get around. If you remove a driving lane (or even better, parking) for a bike lane, people will figure it out.

As for the possibility of biking, the limitations are as much cultural as physical.

Originally Posted by GeneralLeeTPHLS

-snip-

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.

Cars are not an efficient use of land in the country's most valuable real estate. We are very good at making master plans, and not very good at implementing them. I much prefer a disjointed network that can be filled in, rather than a master plan that takes 30 years to implement and is only ever half built anyways.

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

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.

If King Street became car-free, we will inevitably get complaints about how road capacity is being reduced.

The King Street project improved reliability, which was a major improvement. You can consistently plan around a 30 minute trip, can't plan if it takes 15 minutes on Monday and 45 minutes on Wednesday.

Steve Munro article on the King St Pilot Project

Unfortunately, lack of enforcement has reduced its effectiveness - but it is taking less road capacity than a full closure.

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

-snip-
Or, projects like University Ave. where the needs of a major vehicular thoroughfare need to be weighed against the need for more park space (I'm still undecided on this one).

University Avenue isn't congested even during peak periods, it's not an ideal use of space. I for one, would rather get rid of that traffic sewer.

[WhipperSnapper]

If you reduce road lanes, people will get around. If you remove a driving lane (or even better, parking) for a bike lane, people will figure it out.

That's quite a low standard for removing a lane of traffic.

As for the possibility of biking, the limitations are as much cultural as physical.

I wouldn't say culture is equal to the practicalities of biking. It is present and, thus, should be a consideration in every decision.

The self confidence here that Toronto will continue prospering with the low standard that people will still move around and that culture is something to write down is memorizing. Likewise, labeling any development criticism as NIMBYism or the aggressive posturing towards single family neighbourhood particularly on UT. Happiness matter.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

That's quite a low standard for removing a lane of traffic.

I wouldn't say culture is equal to the practicalities of biking. It is present and, thus, should be a consideration in every decision.

The self confidence here that Toronto will continue prospering with the low standard that people will still move around and that culture is something to write down is memorizing. Likewise, labeling any development criticism as NIMBYism or the aggressive posturing towards single family neighbourhood particularly on UT. Happiness matter.

I find that a lot of the arguments for car lanes rests on the fact that it is there - you need a standard to remove it, but even if it is underused (see: University), we get arguments that the case is bad.

There are plenty of ways to make biking more practical. Higher bike parking minimums and lower car parking minimums. Winter biking. Cycling improves physical health - the same cannot be said for sitting in a car. More cargo bikes. etc. We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas.

Not to mix threads, but housing supply matters as well - SFH for everybody was feasible in 1950, not anymore in the City of Toronto in 2023.

[Nite]

https://twitter.com/Penalosa_G/statu...266700800?s=20

Guelph

[Truenorth00]

I love this video for showing how function impacts form. Now, as I walk down streets and look at the giant ugly store signs this comes to mind:

• Video Link

[Truenorth00]

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).

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.

I see the concern. But also, I don't think a perfect 1:1 transition is possible. They have to pedestrianize where and when possible. And wait for GO RER to finally enable a lot of suburbanites to leave their cars at home.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I see the concern. But also, I don't think a perfect 1:1 transition is possible. They have to pedestrianize where and when possible. And wait for GO RER to finally enable a lot of suburbanites to leave their cars at home.

Well he is wrong, Toronto is increasing traffic capacity by removing a lane of car traffic for more bike and pedestrian space. More people can pass through with less car lanes.
People who think that the street has lower capacity are those who can't imagine people move around their city and neighbourhoods outside of a car.

How Can Cities Move More People Without Wider Streets? Hint: Not With CarsHow can cities make more efficient use of street space, so more people can get where they want to go?

This graphic from the new NACTO Transit Street Design Guide provides a great visual answer. (Hat tip to Sandy Johnston for plucking it out.) It shows how the capacity of a single lane of traffic varies according to the mode of travel it's designed for.

Dedicating street space to transit, cycling, or walking is almost always a tenacious fight, opposed by people who insist that streets are for cars. But unless cities make room for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders, there's no room for them to grow beyond a certain point.

NACTO writes:

While street performance is conventionally measured based on vehicle traffic throughput and speed, measuring the number of people moved on a street -- its person throughput and capacity -- presents a more complete picture of how a city’s residents and visitors get around. Whether making daily commutes or discretionary trips, city residents will choose the mode that is reliable, convenient, and comfortable.

Transit has the highest capacity for moving people in a constrained space. Where a single travel lane of private vehicle traffic on an urban street might move 600 to 1,600 people per hour (assuming one to two passengers per vehicle and 600 to 800 vehicles per hour), a dedicated bus lane can carry up to 8,000 passengers per hour. A transitway lane can serve up to 25,000 people per hour per travel direction.

Of course, it usually takes more than changing a single street to fully realize these benefits. A bike lane won't reach its potential if it's not part of a cohesive network of safe streets for biking, and a transit lane won't be useful to many people if it doesn't connect them to walkable destinations.

But this graphic is a useful tool to communicate how sidewalks, bike lanes, and transitways are essential for growing cities looking to move more people on their streets without the costs and dangers inherent in widening roads.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/...-not-with-cars

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

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.

That's a great approach, and I find it's the direction Montreal has been taking for the last decade. Hence, why traffic always seems to move so much more orderly there relative to downtown Toronto. Boulevards dedicated to cars like Rene-Levesque and Sherbrooke are left free-flowing. Pietonnes like Mont-Royal centralize all the pedestrian activity. Grand-allees that prioritizes cycling like De Maisonneuve and Saint-Denis' REV makes it so much easier to plan cycling trips across town. If there's construction, there's often adequate signage and planning to divert you to a detour route - even for pedestrians and cyclists!

Right now, downtown Toronto just feels like a chaotic free for all, where nothing works and every mode is in snail mode. It also doesn't help that TTC subway delays are so much more common than Montreal Metro delays to top it all off.

[P'tit Renard]

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).

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.

Agreed, and a lot of times capacity is removed willy-nilly for construction, with no thought as to whether the construction sites even need that much road closure to accommodate it. Even worse, they often try to keep the parking in place even if we've already lost space to construction. I am still at a lost how the city allowed parts of Adelaide and Richmond to be reduced to a single lane, when it's the only viable E-W route for cars to travel through the city.

This is what happens when the city decides to protect the yellow belt at all costs, and turn the central city into a perpetual construction war zone, with unsustainable densities that would make Hong Kong blush.

[WhipperSnapper]

Simply put, we are reducing the capacity for cars while increasing the number of cars via parking spaces. That's going to create chaos for everyone. The demands of each mode need to be considered individually and collectively. There's no value pretending to blink away a pro car built form established over the past 80 years with miles of residential rings surrounding an uber dense commercial core.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Simply put, we are reducing the capacity for cars while increasing the number of cars via parking spaces. That's going to create chaos for everyone. The demands of each mode need to be considered individually and collectively. There's no value pretending to blink away a pro car built form established over the past 80 years with miles of residential rings surrounding an uber dense commercial core.

When you increase capacity of other modes, it really doesn't matter if you reduce capacity to cars.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Simply put, we are reducing the capacity for cars while increasing the number of cars via parking spaces. That's going to create chaos for everyone. The demands of each mode need to be considered individually and collectively. There's no value pretending to blink away a pro car built form established over the past 80 years with miles of residential rings surrounding an uber dense commercial core.

Pretty much so. At this point they should eliminate all of TPA's street parking on major city streets to free up the capacity. There's already too much excess underground parking around the central city, there' no need to keep the street parking.

[WhipperSnapper]

Transit takes eons to build in Toronto. It's not keeping up with the level of population you guys admire. You won't get people out of the cars simply by building more bike lanes. It continues to be ignored that tens of thousands of parking spaces are being built with all the new construction. The high cost of those parking spaces means they won't be used. Once again, we are drastically reducing road capacity for cars while increasing the supply of them. It's like increasing the number of people moving to Canada with housing shortages, etc. Oh wait.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Transit takes eons to build in Toronto. It's not keeping up with the level of population you guys admire. You won't get people out of the cars simply by building more bike lanes. It continues to be ignored that tens of thousands of parking spaces are being built with all the new construction. The high cost of those parking spaces means they won't be used. Once again, we are drastically reducing road capacity for cars while increasing the supply of them. It's like increasing the number of people moving to Canada with housing shortages, etc. Oh wait.

You can build a functional BRT in under 2 years at the cost of a lane of traffic pretty easily.

Anyways here is another example. St. Clair lost a lane of traffic for a dedicated streetcar line and here are the results


https://transittoronto.ca/streetcar/4126.shtml

After looking at this, how can anyone think keeping or build ing more traffic lanes is good for any city
The street became much safer, traffic volumes dissolved and transit usage went up

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Pretty much so. At this point they should eliminate all of TPA's street parking on major city streets to free up the capacity. There's already too much excess underground parking around the central city, there' no need to keep the street parking.

I agree on drastically reducing on street parking. However, Toronto's built form is post war. Cars remain highly desirable eventhough they are less attainable.

I agree on the downtown densities. Imo, absolutely miserable environment. However, there is merit with 600,000 jobs a stone throw away from King and Bay and this desire for bikes trips to be the dominant mode

Re: yellow belt

Imo, It's design is not ideal for mass intensification. For me, the question is why do we desire all these new people every year or to see the 416 with double or triple the population. We concentrate on housing here on SSP but everything is cracking with these record growth numbers. Replacing half the 416's single family housing with 4 plex shoeboxes will buy Toronto how many years of reprieve from overbuilding the downtown ?

[WhipperSnapper]

Who is suggesting more traffic lanes? Everyone one of these posts by me and others is over existing road capacity as it pertains to traffic jams And an increasing number of cars on the road.

One street is just a snapshot. It's doesn't provide a story. The king transit corridor changed patterns all around it.

Countries have opened subway lines in a year or two. Toronto built 12 storey high rises in 8 months in the 1960s. None of that happens in Toronto circa 2023. A grade separated BRT in Toronto in 2 years seems like a really bad bet.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Who is suggesting more traffic lanes? Everyone one of these posts by me and others is over existing road capacity as it pertains to traffic jams And an increasing number of cars on the road.

One street is just a snapshot. It's doesn't provide a story. The king transit corridor changed patterns all around it.

Countries have opened subway lines in a year or two. Toronto built 12 storey high rises in 8 months in the 1960s. None of that happens in Toronto circa 2023. A grade separated BRT in Toronto in 2 years seems like a really bad bet.

Yes it's only one street and 70 people a year are not being injured from this one street alone.
now imagine how many people would be saved from injury if every street in Toronto lost a car lane for another mode of travel.
Thousands of Toronto Torontonians every year would be saved from injuries based on what happened on this one street

lets not forget that transit usage increased by 5,000 on a daily basis and car volumes decrease as a result resulting in a less congested street overall.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Re: yellow belt

Imo, It's design is not ideal for mass intensification. For me, the question is why do we desire all these new people every year or to see the 416 with double or triple the population. We concentrate on housing here on SSP but everything is cracking with these record growth numbers. Replacing half the 416's single family housing with 4 plex shoeboxes will buy Toronto how many years of reprieve from overbuilding the downtown ?

The yellow belt is so massive in Toronto that I actually think opening it up completely would substantially absorb downtown demand. And increasing that density would also mean more service and retail closer to these streets and would provide enough demand for higher frequency transit services throughout the city. Imagine a world where there's more corner stores and the regular neighborhood bus runs every 8-10 mins off-peak and integrates into GO running every 15 mins or less for downtown trips.