Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

[innsertnamehere]

They have needed a left turn lane at the DVP ramp for years for the 505, and now especially since the cars can't get around left turners either.

A quick measure of the asphalt indicates it's ~14.2m sidewalk to sidewalk there, which is plenty for two 3.2m lanes, a 3m turn lane, and two 2.4m bike lanes.

It just needs a TTC track realignment, which makes it quite expensive.

The problem with Dundas through Regent Park prior to the bike lanes was that it had limited street parking and it's curbside lane is massive at about 4 metres in width, leading to a super-wide road for vehicles even when there is curbside parking.

There is enough width through the street that they could easily reconstruct it with left turn lanes at intersections and some permanent curbside parking spaces like Bloor without shifting the curbs. The problem is that they would have to do a bunch of streetcar track realignments which equal $$$$.

The lack of left turn lanes right now is very problematic though, it makes the effective capacity of the street almost hilariously low.

 

[evandyk]

The DVP itself should be deleted! Restore the river valley!

 

[innsertnamehere]

The DVP itself should be deleted! Restore the river valley!

sure why don't we just ban cars south of Steeles while we are at it!

 

[Northern Light]

sure why don't we just ban cars south of Steeles while we are at it!

He's not wrong; it would never pass an EA today.

Of course its not coming out in the foreseeable future; but I would like to think it will in 40-50 years, though I may not be around to see it.

As to your suggestion above; that's such an absurdly extreme statement; equating the removal of one six-lane parking lot with removing all roads everywhere; I can't even fathom why you would make that leap.

The DVP north of the 401 is not in the valley and of less concern, other than it being over-bearing in its width, wasteful of land and forming a material barrier between communities; but that can probably be addressed by downsizing it a bit and building a couple of new crossings etc.

No such mitigation would restore the Don Valley properly.

Its all moot anyways; for the next many years; and at any rate, this is the Cycling thread.......

*****

To get back to where this tangent started; car capacity in downtown IS being slashed.

We've already seen that with the various bike lanes/cycle tracks.

More of the same is coming, there will be further lane removals (permanent); not to mention the profound reductions associated with the Ontario Line construction.

It is, therefore, entirely reasonable to assume we can and must have fewer cars coming into the core via the DVP.

With that in mind, removing the comparatively low-use Dundas and Queen entry points is not the least bit unreasonable and would serve to dramatically improve
the pedestrian, cycling and transit experience in the applicable area of the City.

There is sufficient capacity via Eastern, Bayview/Bloor and the Gardiner to meet driver's needs.

 

[evandyk]

I was obviously joking, but it's just funny to see people complain about the congestion in the core, without recognizing that the congestion is caused by the fact that we have a very efficient highway system encouraging people to drive downtown, then dumping them in a local road network that will never match up to that type of capacity. If you don't want congestion on our city streets, we need people to leave their cars north of Steeles. Or at least north of Sheppard or Eglinton.

 

[innsertnamehere]

He's not wrong; it would never pass an EA today.

Of course its not coming out in the foreseeable future; but I would like to think it will in 40-50 years, though I may not be around to see it.

As to your suggestion above; that's such an absurdly extreme statement; equating the removal of one six-lane parking lot with removing all roads everywhere; I can't even fathom why you would make that leap.

The DVP north of the 401 is not in the valley and of less concern, other than it being over-bearing in its width, wasteful of land and forming a material barrier between communities; but that can probably be addressed by downsizing it a bit and building a couple of new crossings etc.

No such mitigation would restore the Don Valley properly.

Its all moot anyways; for the next many years; and at any rate, this is the Cycling thread.......

*****

To get back to where this tangent started; car capacity in downtown IS being slashed.

We've already seen that with the various bike lanes/cycle tracks.

More of the same is coming, there will be further lane removals (permanent); not to mention the profound reductions associated with the Ontario Line construction.

It is, therefore, entirely reasonable to assume we can and must have fewer cars coming into the core via the DVP.

With that in mind, removing the comparatively low-use Dundas and Queen entry points is not the least bit unreasonable and would serve to dramatically improve
the pedestrian, cycling and transit experience in the applicable area of the City.

There is sufficient capacity via Eastern, Bayview/Bloor and the Gardiner to meet driver's needs.

good thing the DVP doesn't exist north of the 401

As for removing the DVP, what a way to shove all the mandatory vehicles accessing the core onto local streets.. How do you propose a truck from a Scarborough warehouse would deliver your Amazon package? Drive down Kingston Road and Dundas Street plowing over the poor cyclists?

Not all road infrastructure is evil and we can't get rid of it all.

As for it never getting built today, Hamilton built it's version less than 15 years ago... albeit under much political strife.

Regarding access to the DVP, you need something other than Lakeshore and the Bayview-Bloor interchange to access the DVP. I'd be amenable to removing one of the two ramps, but neither are particularly intrusive in the first place.

I mean, I'm not sure how you are expecting cars to enter and exit the core.

Going off conversation's we've had elsewhere, by my count your preferred primary road accesses would involve a 4-lane arterial replacing the Gardiner and... nothing? replacing the DVP. Even if the DVP stayed, you would have a 2lane access road via the Bayview access and a single left turn lane off Lake Shore, which is in itself would already be handling the massive volumes coming from the west end that the DVP currently handles..

I mean, where *can* you drive to get downtown in that scenario? Not every street can be, nor does it need to be, a 2-lane road with bike lanes.

 

[evandyk]

As for removing the DVP, what a way to shove all the mandatory vehicles accessing the core onto local streets.. How do you propose a truck from a Scarborough warehouse would deliver your Amazon package? Drive down Kingston Road and Dundas Street plowing over the poor cyclists?

I think all of us support clearing the roads of single-occupant commuter vehicles so that contractors, delivery services, etc. can actually work efficiently.

 

[Northern Light]

As for removing the DVP, what a way to shove all the mandatory vehicles accessing the core onto local streets.. How do you proposed a truck from a Scarborough warehouse deliver your Amazon package? Drive down Dundas street plowing over the poor cyclists?

I propose people do as I do..........never order anything from Amazon, ever ( I never have)

***

Beyond that, understanding that some people are terrible and do business with etailers they should not; I expect trucks to be radically downsized, to get sideguards, and eventually to be automated (10+ years from now) and traffic to be optimized through AI.

Not all road infrastructure is evil and we can't get rid of it all.

Again with the hyperbole, the removal of one road was suggested, not all roads; please confine your responses to the arguments made, not to fictional ones you've invented. Also no one used the word evil; you keep acting like you don't know at th is point that I own a car and drive.

As for it never getting built today, Hamilton built it's version less than 15 years ago... albeit under much political strife.

That was 15 years ago, that was in Hamilton, and its not exactly a popular decision today; Red Hill should be removed in its entirety as well.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I think all of us support clearing the roads of single-occupant commuter vehicles so that contractors, delivery services, etc. can actually work efficiently.

I propose people do as I do..........never order anything from Amazon, ever ( I never have)

***

Beyond that, understanding that some people are terrible and do business with etailers they should not; I expect trucks to be radically downsized, to get sideguards, and eventually to be automated (10+ years from now) and traffic to be optimized through AI.



Again with the hyperbole, the removal of one road was suggested, not all roads; please confine your responses to the arguments made, not to fictional ones you've invented. Also no one used the word evil; you keep acting like you don't know at th is point that I own a car and drive.



That was 15 years ago, that was in Hamilton, and its not exactly a popular decision today; Red Hill should be removed in its entirety as well.

Removing the DVP removes probably about 20-30% of vehicle capacity in and out of the former City of Toronto.. maybe it's not all of it, but it's a huge portion.

I'm not saying all road capacity reductions are silly, but going off your comments on basically any piece of road infrastructure, I don't think my comments are unreasonable.

And may I remind our dear readers that even the likes of Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris, and Barcelona have freeway accesses to their cores from at least one direction, and often large arterials atop that.

Like or not we live in the 21st century and need some level of road capacity in our cities. Doesn't mean Toronto has to be Dallas with 8 different freeways feeding ~50 lanes of freeway traffic into the core.. but it can't be 0 either.


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.39409,2.2059105,130a,35y,245.76h,64.98t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

 

[Northern Light]

Removing the DVP removes probably about 20-30% of vehicle capacity in and out of the former City of Toronto.. maybe it's not all of it, but it's a huge portion.

I'm not saying all road capacity reductions are silly, but going off your comments on basically any piece of road infrastructure, I don't think my comments are unreasonable.

I don't, and the initial comment to which you responded didn't come from me.

And may I remind our dear readers that even the likes of Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris, and Barcelona have freeway accesses to their cores from at least one direction, and often large arterials atop that.

Like or not we live in the 21st century and need some level of road capacity in our cities. Doesn't mean Toronto has to be Dallas with 8 different freeways feeding ~50 lanes of freeway traffic into the core.. but it can't be 0 either.


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.39409,2.2059105,130a,35y,245.76h,64.98t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

Removing the DVP.........eventually..........and again, don't confuse tomorrow, or next year with 4 decades hence........

Is entirely do-able and unto itself, would leave the Gardiner in place (hence not zero highways).

***

Also, Vancouver has zero highways into its central core. It seems to be doing ok.

Edit to add: Can we please let this thread get back on-topic now?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Removing the DVP removes probably about 20-30% of vehicle capacity in and out of the former City of Toronto.. maybe it's not all of it, but it's a huge portion.

I'm not saying all road capacity reductions are silly, but going off your comments on basically any piece of road infrastructure, I don't think my comments are unreasonable.

And may I remind our dear readers that even the likes of Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris, and Barcelona have freeway accesses to their cores from at least one direction, and often large arterials atop that.

Like or not we live in the 21st century and need some level of road capacity in our cities. Doesn't mean Toronto has to be Dallas with 8 different freeways feeding ~50 lanes of freeway traffic into the core.. but it can't be 0 either.


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.39409,2.2059105,130a,35y,245.76h,64.98t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

How about a road toll on non-416 registered motor vehicles on the Don Valley Parkway and the Frederick G. Gardiner Expressway. If your vehicle is registered in Toronto, you get to use it for "free", since Toronto's property tae actually pay for it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

They have needed a left turn lane at the DVP ramp for years for the 505, and now especially since the cars can't get around left turners either.

A quick measure of the asphalt indicates it's ~14.2m sidewalk to sidewalk there, which is plenty for two 3.2m lanes, a 3m turn lane, and two 2.4m bike lanes.

The bike lanes from Sackville to the DVP are far too wide. I’ve often seen cars driving down the bike lanes, likely due to Murphy’s Law, since a car fits the lane. The bike lanes should be narrows to the more common 1 m or so width. This may allow a WB right turn lane onto the DVP. But EB, there is no way to have a left turn lane.

 

[Admiral Beez]

How about a road toll on non-416 registered motor vehicles on the Don Valley Parkway and the Frederick G. Gardiner Expressway. If your vehicle is registered in Toronto, you get to use it for "free", since Toronto's property tae actually pay for it.

That won’t work. London, UK tried congestion fees but the traffic remains one of the world‘s worst. If you make it possible people will just pay the fee. Especially folks like me that can expense all tolls and mileage back to my employer. Charge me $20 to enter the DVP, I don’t care. The fix is to eliminate the option, so delete the Dundas DVP on-ramp. There isn’t an off-ramp, so clearly commuters have figured it out.

Mind you, it’s easy for me to say, my car must have square tires by now, as I my office closed and moved to WFH in March 2020.

 

[DirectionNorth]

That won’t work. London, UK tried congestion fees but the traffic remains one of the world‘s worst. If you make it possible people will just pay the fee. Especially folks like me that can expense all tolls and mileage back to my employer. Charge me $20 to enter the DVP, I don’t care. The fix is to eliminate the option, so delete the Dundas DVP on-ramp. There isn’t an off-ramp, so clearly commuters have figured it out.

Mind you, it’s easy for me to say, my car must have square tires by now, as I my office closed and moved to WFH in March 2020.

It creates revenue for the city to invest back into improving transit, cycling infrastructure, and other infrastructure - the goal is to get 905ers to pay for using Toronto maintained infrastructure for which they pay no tax to use.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It creates revenue for the city to invest back into improving transit, cycling infrastructure, and other infrastructure - the goal is to get 905ers to pay for using Toronto maintained infrastructure for which they pay no tax to use.

This is the same issue with parking tickets. Is the goal revenue generation or more beneficial behaviour? That‘s where London went wrong, instead of outright prohibiting private autos they made it into a revenue centre, and once government has a new revenue source it expands to absorb it, meaning it can’t do without it later.