I don't see anything there that contradicts mm. As expected, travel speed is 48 to 51 km/h as the road was designed and posted. Changing to a lower number on the sign is a stupid political ploy with minimal real impact. The proposed reconstruction has a chance to change things but I think it is being done for all the wrong reasons.
Can you point out what differs in report? It appears to reinforce things as the facts match.
www.toronto.ca
Ok i just meant it wasn't the exact numbers the Oct 2024 study was quoting. There were 5 serious injuries and the 2 collisions caused 3 fatalities. @Mad Mike
Trees are in some municipal databases. I had a dying cherry tree that needed a cut permit. When the town arborist visited, he had satellite photos of my property with trees circled and identified by type.
The same argument could be had by saying reduce speed to 10 km. There is no proven reduction in road safety by reducing a 4-lane arterial road from 60-40KMH. It is proven to reduce the likelihood of an accident when pedestrians and cyclists break laws.
You're not accounting for traffic flow at speed. It's not linear, and you're not talking 2 minutes. The city study puts a lot of perfuming on their conclusions and somewhat confounds things. The rationalize a small increase in drive times by expecting 30% of drivers to find an alternate route (meaning they are sharing congestion delays, but reporting only those on Parkside). At PBH the travel time would go from approx 3 minutes to it's current 7 minutes by reducing from 60kmh to 40kmh the artery reaches a congested state faster and stays there longer.
Yup - that's as I said.
Road design considers speed and safety - people have to get around. I get the fact there are other vulnerable road users however slowing traffic to 40KMh and adding protected bike lanes isn't thee default solution. Parkside is no more dangerous than Sheppard Ave, or Don Mills, or any other arterial road. It simply has a strong lobby and a council that has never challenged the lobby's studies.
Yeah... explain that to the 5 year old on their way to school or the park
Physics. Getting hit at 60 has very low survivability vs getting hit at 40 which has a higher chance of survivability. It's road along one of the biggest parks in the city. People are going to cross.
As soon as we add traffic lights, the gains made at a higher speed in each stretch of road become smaller and smaller. More time is lost waiting at lights. I'm sure you've experienced the aggressive driver that passes you aggressively 20km/h above your own speed (even if already 10-15km/h higher than the limit) only to be next to that same person a km later at the next red light. The gains get more and more marginal as the traffic gets more dense. We can increase the speed limit on the 401 but it's still going to be the same mess simply due to sheer volume.
Road design considered originally speed and volume. Safety of all road users was lower on the list, which is why we are getting all these studies to make the roads safer. Safety has gone up another notch on our priority list as we see human life as a bit more valuable than it used to be. This is basically a park adjacent road. Not a high speed boulevard so they're redesigning it as so
Lakeshore runs parallel to gardiner. So why not just use lakeshore when driving
It's surprisingly easy to bicycle (or motorcycle) from Bloor St. to the Queensway through High Park and I sincerely doubt it takes any longer than on Parkside Dr.
Yes, and I'd agree that would be a problem if that was actually a problem on Parkside -- not a hypothetical problem.
Somewhat. As as you increase speed, volume increases and the impact of congestion gets reduced. The reverse is also true, as you decrease speed the volume drops and gets further exacerbated as congestion sets in sooner and lasts longer.
I think we disagree on the type of road -- it's a 4-lane arterial road designed for significantly higher volume than a side street.
Hmmm. So it's OK for busy hour motorists to lose 7 minutes on the commute so cyclists don't have to meander an extra 2 minutes through the very bike-safe park? Or perhaps down Indian RD which has the same length and transit time as Parkside, yet 1/10the the traffic and a speed limit of 30?
I'm not against cyclists -- I'm all for a safe cycling network across the province. That said, I don't believe cyclists have a god-given right to demand that every cyclable pathway be reduced to a low common denominator. Sharing the travel network requires compromises from cyclists as much as it does from vehicular users.
20 kmh supposedly but have you ever seen a cyclist adhere to that ?
people live on that street. people walk out as well from the side streets, the physics don't change.
If volume increases as speed increases, you get more cars waiting in between at lights no? As speed decreases volume drops, less cars will travel on that road and choose alternate routes. In the end the speed bumps will add more slow downs and traffic i'm guessing because other methods have failed.
and that's where the big problem lies, between the purposes of "street vs road" design; one is designed for getting volume through, the other is designed to accommodate travelling to a destination (ie. the houses all along it) when we try to get a section to do both at the same you get a riskier street or an inefficient road.
indian could be nice, it's a bit tight with all the parked cars and bi-directional traffic but something might be possible if on street parking would be removed...but then one group of people wouldnt like it either, half parkside drive (similarly to bloor) is on street parking as well so it doesn't move that much more traffic but it does create more potential conflict situation where cars have to go in and out of a lane.
I mean we have about 5000 km of road for our cars and motorcycles in toronto, 700km+ of that are considered arterial roads (multilane). In comparison there aren't that many on-street kms, about 5% And the rest is multi-use paths shared with everyone and their dogs and doesnt get in the way of cars. I don't think it's asking for the world to provide some efficient way to get from a to b in a city that already has alternate methods of transportation as an afterthought (looking at you LRTs lol)
when they have ticketing blitzes in the park they do LOL
Yes. Not unlike many busy streets. There are only 2 hours a day when the sidewalk is not protected by parked cars.
No. The density doesn’t change, only the volume.
That does happen. The question is still what problem did you solve by creating a new problem?
That’s more or less how it goes in parts of thd city designed post war. Before that it wasn’t hard pulling your horse out onto Bloor street.
Another PR gesture.
Whenever speedhumps are installed, the loudest objectors are the local residents trashing their cars by jumping them daily. Coincidentally, they were also the ones screaming for them to be installed.
