News   Mar 28, 2024
 985     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 554     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 847     0 

Road Safety & Vision Zero Plan

From link.

...By the middle of the last century, city streets across North America had come to be viewed as the domain of motor vehicles. Road design was geared towards the maximization of vehicle throughput, or Level of Service, as it was called in engineering jargon. So in the only domain where the bureaucrats did claim direct responsibility—engineering—safety was not the primary concern...
...Nobody was harangued more than pedestrians, who were taught defensive, deferential behaviours that not only maximized the flow of motor vehicled but also shifted liability for road violence away from the builders of roadways and vehicles. It was during these first decades of motordom that auto clubs, oil companies and municipal authorities worked hard to turn jaywalking from a casual slur into a punishable offense...
...While the admonishing of scofflaws was effective in establishing motor vehicle dominance, it did not turn back the rising tide of traffic violence. A 1955 CBC feature on the ‘success’ of Elmer the Safety Elephant—a mascot who urged kids to be responsible for their own safety in traffic—actually celebrated a recent 14% rise in child injuries on Toronto’s roads as a win, because the number of cars had gone up by 45% in the same years...
1636927783412.png

1636927866586.png


 
Last edited:
@ Northern Light says "I will, however, note, that there are no stop lines present, despite the intersection being a 4-way stop, with stop signs present."

Yes, the inconsistencies in traffic signage and street line painting are NOT helpful. Are the rules more important in some locations?

The City needs to look at ALL street signage and line painting to see if it meets current standards. We may not need pedestrian crossing paintings at every suburban corner but a white STOP line at every STOP sign sounds reasonable to me.
 

Not In My Front Yard: The controversy of installing sidewalks

From link, dated March 16, 2016.

Sean-Marshall-sidewalks_3357-600x450.jpg

McNicoll Avenue at Boxdene Avenue. There’s no sidewalk on the south side of this busy Scarborough road.

I have been data mining the Toronto Police Services' Data portal.

In the five year period period 2016 - 2020, there were 180 pedestrian fatalities and many more non-fatal pedestrians struck.

Of these, only 43 incidents happened on local streets. Of these 43, only 6 happened on local streets where there were no sidewalks. Only two of the 6 were fatalities. The database shows that in in one fatality, the driver lost control due to inattention ( fatal) and in the other case the driver struck a pedestrian who was crossing at an intersection, with the pedestrian having the right of way (fatal). Of the four non-fatals, one was a case of a driver turning left failing to yield right of way (to a pedestrian crossing the street). One was attributed to a driver passing improperly. Two only are described as involving motorists who were "driving properly".

Two out of 180, and one of those involved crossing a street - no sidewalk will help with that. That's a very small share of the disturbing death rate on our streets.

The reality is, the push for sidewalks on local streets is not data driven. Somehow the narrative that local streets that lack sidewalks are unsafe for pedestrians got inserted into the Vision Zero program along with more on-target proposals. That untrue narrative continues to be promoted. With great sincerity.

A great many of these sidewalk-omitted local streets happen to be found in some of the city's nicer neighbourhoods. These neighbourhoods have more than their share of walkers, and expensive bikes. They are not unaware of active transport, nor are they a bastion of autocentricity..... they contribute significantly to TTC ridership, for example. And property values on these local streets are not falling behind property values on sidewalked streets - so clearly buyers do not attach a premium to having sidewalks on local streets.

I have to wonder if some people are attracted to the "local streets need sidewalks" mantra because they hate well off people. It's a nice way to stick it to the better folks.

Or, perhaps, having sidewalks (or not) has become the ideological litmus test of autocentricity, and so it’s fair game for advocates to shame sidewalk free neighbourhoods to demonstrate their personal commitment to some urbanist cause. That’s no reflection on the facts.

It's a bit like a situation where an individual is accused of murder, and convicted, and then years later it is proven that they didn't do the crime. They are freed, but in many peoples' minds they remain guilty and are never really accepted back into the community. Meanwhile, the real murderer has gone free. Are we really happy that we spent all that energy denouncing the not-guilty party over the years? Should we not be more concerned that we didn't get it right?

Let me be clear - the current rate of pedestrian fatalities in this city is abysmal, and needs to be addressed. And if you want to talk about sidewalks on more major streets, where speeds are higher and there are fewer effective barriers to control speed, I'm right there with you.

But let's look for the real causes, and not create a cause out of something because it happens to coincide with someone's agenda. Let's put our focus on the real causes, so the real perpetrators don't get away.

From my vantage point, the data does not support the premise that putting sidewalks on local streets is a burning priority. Please correct me if I'm reading it wrong

- Paul
PS - Full disclosure - there are no sidewalks on my street.

Screen Shot 2021-11-14 at 7.36.28 PM.png
 
Last edited:
@ Northern Light says "I will, however, note, that there are no stop lines present, despite the intersection being a 4-way stop, with stop signs present."

Yes, the inconsistencies in traffic signage and street line painting are NOT helpful. Are the rules more important in some locations?

The City needs to look at ALL street signage and line painting to see if it meets current standards. We may not need pedestrian crossing paintings at every suburban corner but a white STOP line at every STOP sign sounds reasonable to me.
The majority of motorists (including cop cars) do not stop at stop signs or lines. Better if the street design forces the motorists to slow down. Replace the stop sign with yield signs and "shark's teeth" on the road.


raised-intersections-1.jpg
From link.
Raised Intersections reinforce slow speeds and encourage motorists to yield to pedestrians at the crosswalk.
 
The majority of motorists (including cop cars) do not stop at stop signs or lines. Better if the street design forces the motorists to slow down. Replace the stop sign with yield signs and "shark's teeth" on the road.


raised-intersections-1.jpg
From link.
Raised Intersections reinforce slow speeds and encourage motorists to yield to pedestrians at the crosswalk.
While I agree that many motorists do not stop at stop signs or lines, I think the majority do so. I agree that we need to look at ALL options and it's not one or the other but painting lines is a VERY cheap way to reinforce the STOP signage. Raised intersections are certainly good (but expensive) and I can see shark teeth being more trouble than they would be worth!
 
I have been data mining the Toronto Police Services' Data portal.

In the five year period period 2016 - 2020, there were 180 pedestrian fatalities and many more non-fatal pedestrians struck.

Of these, only 43 incidents happened on local streets. Of these 43, only 6 happened on local streets where there were no sidewalks. Only two of the 6 were fatalities. The database shows that in in one fatality, the driver lost control due to inattention ( fatal) and in the other case the driver struck a pedestrian who was crossing at an intersection, with the pedestrian having the right of way (fatal). Of the four non-fatals, one was a case of a driver turning left failing to yield right of way (to a pedestrian crossing the street). One was attributed to a driver passing improperly. Two only are described as involving motorists who were "driving properly".

Two out of 180, and one of those involved crossing a street - no sidewalk will help with that. That's a very small share of the disturbing death rate on our streets.

The reality is, the push for sidewalks on local streets is not data driven. Somehow the narrative that local streets that lack sidewalks are unsafe for pedestrians got inserted into the Vision Zero program along with more on-target proposals. That untrue narrative continues to be promoted. With great sincerity.

A great many of these sidewalk-omitted local streets happen to be found in some of the city's nicer neighbourhoods. These neighbourhoods have more than their share of walkers, and expensive bikes. They are not unaware of active transport, nor are they a bastion of autocentricity..... they contribute significantly to TTC ridership, for example. And property values on these local streets are not falling behind property values on sidewalked streets - so clearly buyers do not attach a premium to having sidewalks on local streets.

I have to wonder if some people are attracted to the "local streets need sidewalks" mantra because they hate well off people. It's a nice way to stick it to the better folks.

Or, perhaps, having sidewalks (or not) has become the ideological litmus test of autocentricity, and so it’s fair game for advocates to shame sidewalk free neighbourhoods to demonstrate their personal commitment to some urbanist cause. That’s no reflection on the facts.

It's a bit like a situation where an individual is accused of murder, and convicted, and then years later it is proven that they didn't do the crime. They are freed, but in many peoples' minds they remain guilty and are never really accepted back into the community. Meanwhile, the real murderer has gone free. Are we really happy that we spent all that energy denouncing the not-guilty party over the years? Should we not be more concerned that we didn't get it right?

Let me be clear - the current rate of pedestrian fatalities in this city is abysmal, and needs to be addressed. And if you want to talk about sidewalks on more major streets, where speeds are higher and there are fewer effective barriers to control speed, I'm right there with you.

But let's look for the real causes, and not create a cause out of something because it happens to coincide with someone's agenda. Let's put our focus on the real causes, so the real perpetrators don't get away.

From my vantage point, the data does not support the premise that putting sidewalks on local streets is a burning priority. Please correct me if I'm reading it wrong

- Paul
PS - Full disclosure - there are no sidewalks on my street.

View attachment 362830

I find your anti-sidewalk rant.............problematic.

I'm happy to concede that the absence of sidewalks is not a leading cause of accidents; I don't recall anyone saying it was......

The chief reason for installing sidewalks is actually accessibility; particularly in winter.

Those with mobility aides cannot be expected to navigate snowbanks, windrows, etc etc, nor be trapped walking down the middle of a potentially icy road.
For this reason, sidewalks, in some form are absolutely essential.

Your attack on proponents is out of character for you, as you typically post in a more moderate and thoughtful way.

****

I will then add, the following:

a) One part of improving pedestrian safety/culture is actually creating a walking culture, and increasing modal share for pedestrians. The data is very clear that in most areas without sidewalks, pedestrian modal share is lower. Clearly, this is for a variety of reasons that go beyond the absence of sidewalks (built-form, distance to retail/parks etc., student demographic, transit service etc etc.) but there is little doubt that the absence of sidewalks is a contributing factor.

b) Many extremely affluent areas have sidewalks on the majority of streets, notably Rosedale, Moore Park and The Beach.
 
Both of these streets do have sidewalks on both sides of the road. Neither street is particularly conducive to speeding either (not super wide, parked cars present).

The sidewalks are narrow, and the intersection itself could probably use tighter turning radii. There are no crosswalk markings, but its not type of intersection to normally see those.

I will, however, note, that there are no stop lines present, despite the intersection being a 4-way stop, with stop signs present.

View attachment 362804

From link.

But we had to hear it many times over from professional land surveyors who say the dimensions of the road allowance on the average, two-lane residential street is 66 feet, and not just in Toronto but across North America.

Our Saturday column was about how the city figures out how much land between the sidewalk and a homeowner’s property line is road allowance or city property.

We asked the city if a common standard or measure is used. The answer was no, so we asked to talk to someone who could tell us how it’s done.

We eventually got a call from Naz Capano, manager of operational planning and policy with transportation services. He insisted that there is or was no common standard. But he was unable to explain how the city figures it out.

So that’s what we wrote, which prompted a deluge of email from readers, including many in the surveying business, who said the city’s answer is nonsense.

Several scolded us for not asking a surveyor in the first place, but since it’s the city that makes the final call we wanted to give it a chance to say how it is done before turning to third parties.

Doug Jemmett’s note said “most streets and road allowances are 66 feet, but the underlying plan of survey would need to be checked for confirmation.”
Brent Raymond said our column “was not entirely fair to Mr. Capano,” and that it “seems as though you were going out of your way to embarrass him,” adding that the typical right-of-way on older residential streets is about 20 metres, which translates to 65.6 feet.

A surveyor who identified herself only as Donna emailed us eight lot plans used to lay out streets in various GTA communities, including North York; all of which show the road allowance as 66 feet.

Perhaps the best explanation came from Gunars Vestfals, retired after a 38-year career in surveying that included working for the City of Toronto and the pre-amalgamation Metro level of government.

Vestfals explained that the 66-foot road allowance originated in 1620 with Edmund Gunter, an English cleric who invented a survey measuring device that came to be known as Gunter’s chain.

“It was 66 feet long, comprising 100 links, so there after, land measurements were recorded in chains and links,” he said. “By the late 1800s, distances were measured in feet and inches, then feet and decimals (easier to calculate) and finally in metres.
“Most municipal streets were laid out at 66 feet wide in towns, subdivisions, etc. Modern subdivisions are now in metric and at 20 metres. Roads such as downtown Yonge St. or Bay St. are literally 66 feet building to building across their widths.

“Over time, municipalities required wider arterial roads, so they expropriated abutting lands by 10 feet or 17 feet on either side, making the roads 86 feet or 100 feet wide.”

Vestfal’s explanation was so thorough and convincing that we went back to Capano, told him what he and other surveyors had told us and asked if he wanted another kick at the can.

“Sixty six feet was the minimum standard not just to accommodate a road, but all the various utilities that were being introduced,” he responded, adding that the idea was to create enough room for two lanes of traffic, parking sidewalks and any work required along the periphery.

“So that’s how they came up with that standard, and it has been in existence almost since the turn of the century,” he said, adding it’s a “general standard” that can vary, particularly on narrow streets in the inner city.

We asked him if he agreed that the 66 feet roads allowance makes up the majority of Toronto streets, particularly in areas such as Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough.

“Yes I do,” he replied. “Generally, the bulk of the suburban roads are 66 feet.”

We wish we could’ve told you that last week.

This means the city "owns" the land that the fences, bushes, and trees are on next to the sidewalk. It could, in theory, tear up those fences, bushes, and trees to create more visible space at the corners, for the safety of everyone. Whether or not they will is another question.
 
The chief reason for installing sidewalks is actually accessibility; particularly in winter.

Those with mobility aides cannot be expected to navigate snowbanks, windrows, etc etc, nor be trapped walking down the middle of a potentially icy road.
For this reason, sidewalks, in some form are absolutely essential.
I never really thought very much about sidewalks until I had a baby and had to push a stroller around in the winter.

And then there are sidewalks like this one, which although there is a sidewalk, it's completely unusable if you have a stroller (or are in a wheelchair etc.) because there are hydrants and poles right smack in the middle.
1637005507145.png
 
I find your anti-sidewalk rant.............problematic.

I'm happy to concede that the absence of sidewalks is not a leading cause of accidents; I don't recall anyone saying it was......

Call me sensitive, but I do find that a why-no-sidewalks grievance seems to arise frequently when lamenting the lack of progress on some other aspect of pedestrian safety. I'm not arguing against the lament, but the two are not necessarily connected. (There was a time when prairie farmers used to curse the CPR when they got poor weather - same phenomenon).

That's what I was trying to call out. I don't see why this particular issue can't be accepted as the lower priority it is, based on the statistics, and let's stay focused on other things that aren't being advanced as they should.

The chief reason for installing sidewalks is actually accessibility; particularly in winter.

Those with mobility aides cannot be expected to navigate snowbanks, windrows, etc etc, nor be trapped walking down the middle of a potentially icy road.
For this reason, sidewalks, in some form are absolutely essential.

That's an entirely reasonable reason to build more sidewalks.... but if that's the rationale, then it should stand on its own. I'm not sure how that fits within the Vision Zero envelope, which is founded on a sense of urgency around correcting known hazards that are maiming or killing people on a daily basis.

The sense of urgency around removing mobility barriers is remarkably selective. This year's street cafe program, which overall is a very positive step forward, was very unkind to those with mobility challenges. People who are wheelchair- or walker-bound have remarked to me that they find the existing sidewalks are not maintained to meet their needs.

Your attack on proponents is out of character for you, as you typically post in a more moderate and thoughtful way.

****

I will then add, the following:

a) One part of improving pedestrian safety/culture is actually creating a walking culture, and increasing modal share for pedestrians. The data is very clear that in most areas without sidewalks, pedestrian modal share is lower. Clearly, this is for a variety of reasons that go beyond the absence of sidewalks (built-form, distance to retail/parks etc., student demographic, transit service etc etc.) but there is little doubt that the absence of sidewalks is a contributing factor.

b) Many extremely affluent areas have sidewalks on the majority of streets, notably Rosedale, Moore Park and The Beach.

I think I went out of my way to look for factual data to speak from, although I certainly added a couple shots.

I see pedestrian safety as a more pure here-and-now matter. Some may combine it with a desire to change the built form of our streets away from the automobile.... others are attracted to a narrative that just blames drivers and refuse to place any accountability on anyone else. When the they-don't-want-sidewalks gripe comes up, it is often from that vein. Rightly or wrongly, that's my trigger. Overall, I think I'm being more balanced in my perspective than many.

I'm a firm believer that the auto has an unfair share of our roadway space, and the pendulum needs to be shifted. And I would like to see accountability of drivers greatly increased. I'm just calling out what I see as some excesses or agendas in that discussion.

- Paul
 
I never really thought very much about sidewalks until I had a baby and had to push a stroller around in the winter.

And then there are sidewalks like this one, which although there is a sidewalk, it's completely unusable if you have a stroller (or are in a wheelchair etc.) because there are hydrants and poles right smack in the middle.
View attachment 363117
This is an excellent point. Taking a stroller out can really open your eyes to the challenges wheelchair users face. Many of Toronto's sidewalks are not conducive to mobility devices and aids, including walkers and canes as well.
 
I never really thought very much about sidewalks until I had a baby and had to push a stroller around in the winter.

And then there are sidewalks like this one, which although there is a sidewalk, it's completely unusable if you have a stroller (or are in a wheelchair etc.) because there are hydrants and poles right smack in the middle.
View attachment 363117
Gilead Place is classified as a "Local Road" but is really a 'lane" and VERY few lanes have sidewalks as most are too narrow. If you put in a real sidewalk here I doubt you could have any vehicles as what would be left would be too narrow.
 
Gilead Place is classified as a "Local Road" but is really a 'lane" and VERY few lanes have sidewalks as most are too narrow. If you put in a real sidewalk here I doubt you could have any vehicles as what would be left would be too narrow.

See, now you made me look...........

I think there actually is a fix here.........

(Though I would argue the lane and the building design are incorrect.....but I digress)

1637077395764.png


The Red Line, drawn across Gillead Pl is a distance measure on TO Maps (the City's site) from lot line to lot line.
It shows the R-0-W inclusive of the sidewalk at 6.63m (note that the lane is somewhat narrower at other points)

On the sidewalk, you need roughly 2.1M clear for mobility aids and strollers, and about 0.4M for light poles and hydrants.
That would still leave 4.2m (plus curbs) That would appear to provide sufficient space to get the light poles and hydrants out of the way, either with a slight widening of the existing sidewalk, shifting them to the opposite side.

I believe this would require the lane, to be one-way, however. Which it does not appear to be currently.

****

Back to my digression; this is the proper space to be looking at a 'shared street' concept, ideally with semi-permeable interlocking pavers.

The challenge being, you need to get the lane to slope up slightly at the edges to create single-step access into properties which is best achieved when new buildings are put up, especially in tight confines.

I think the entire lane should be a pedestrian space, just one which permits limited vehicle access for residents/business owners as required, at very low speeds.
 

Back
Top