(07-31-2020, 02:31 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(07-31-2020, 01:23 PM)Momo26 Wrote: I was disappointed to see what they did on Queen from Charles to King. Just widen sidewalk? IMO That's not a revitalization of a block. I was expecting a lot more.

What more would you have done, given that there is no municipal property there to work with? (And, no, I don't think turning it into a pedestrian street would have been approved.)

Personally I am pleased that it is much more pedestrian-friendly now. No dedicated bike lanes, but they would not have fit without cutting down the sidewalks, and hopefully Ontario/Gaukel will be bicycle-friendly in the future.

(08-01-2020, 10:25 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(07-31-2020, 02:31 PM)tomh009 Wrote: What more would you have done, given that there is no municipal property there to work with? (And, no, I don't think turning it into a pedestrian street would have been approved.)

Personally I am pleased that it is much more pedestrian-friendly now. No dedicated bike lanes, but they would not have fit without cutting down the sidewalks, and hopefully Ontario/Gaukel will be bicycle-friendly in the future.

I agree there's not much more they could do than refreshing the sidewalk, but I also think they could have done that better.

For one the sidewalks are way too narrow at intersections....so that there is room for turn lanes, again, even in the most pedestrian focused areas, driver convenience over pedestrian facilities.

But other stuff seems like just so much an unforced error...the curbs encourage drivers to drive on the sidewalks (and we see that happening).  Worse, outside the hotel, where the temporary asphalt was, they now have installed permanent decorative pavers...which are "decorative" with that broken look...they are so uneven that anyone with a mobility issue, a cane, a walker, I suspect will struggle...there's just no reason for that...

I was excited about this project, I participated in it, yet I'm still disappointed...maybe I have unrealistic expectations of progress in the city, but this is a 50 year project, they should be asking what people want in the future, not the past.

(08-01-2020, 11:53 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Isn't that precisely the intention (not to drive but to be able to pull over) ?

(08-01-2020, 11:53 AM)panamaniac Wrote:

(08-01-2020, 10:25 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I agree there's not much more they could do than refreshing the sidewalk, but I also think they could have done that better.

For one the sidewalks are way too narrow at intersections....so that there is room for turn lanes, again, even in the most pedestrian focused areas, driver convenience over pedestrian facilities.

But other stuff seems like just so much an unforced error...the curbs encourage drivers to drive on the sidewalks (and we see that happening).  Worse, outside the hotel, where the temporary asphalt was, they now have installed permanent decorative pavers...which are "decorative" with that broken look...they are so uneven that anyone with a mobility issue, a cane, a walker, I suspect will struggle...there's just no reason for that...

I was excited about this project, I participated in it, yet I'm still disappointed...maybe I have unrealistic expectations of progress in the city, but this is a 50 year project, they should be asking what people want in the future, not the past.

Isn't that precisely the intention (not to drive but to be able to pull over) ?

(08-01-2020, 12:09 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(08-01-2020, 11:53 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Isn't that precisely the intention (not to drive but to be able to pull over) ?

You’re making Dan’s point again. There is (apparently) space for cars to pull over, but not space to reserve exclusively for pedestrians. Why don’t we say that there isn’t space for cars to pull over? No stopping. The hotel can create a loading zone around back or something (but ultimately, it’s their problem to figure out, not ours). Alternately, the road could be made one way, which would free up an entire lane’s worth of space.

This also relates to Dan’s comment about turn lanes. Generally speaking, I support the inclusion of turn lanes; but in this location, they should instead forbid the turns in question. The traffic engineers are saying there isn’t space for wide sidewalks at the intersections; I say there isn’t space for turn lanes (or, therefore, turns) at the intersections.

While I’m at it (no longer really responding to panamaniac), I would point out that if an intersection has no turns you can have the ultimate in low-radius corner curb (nominally 0; actually maybe 10cm to avoid making a sharp point which would just wear out prematurely) and therefore absolutely minimal pedestrian crossing distance. Which should be a very high priority goal in Downtown.

(08-01-2020, 01:35 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Turn lanes are an interesting question, I support them in some instances, when they improve safety, but I don't really support them just to improve motor vehicle flow. In some places, realistically, they are needed, but in other places, especially downtown like this, the space would be better used for other purposes...then you have the choice between restricting turns (and using camera enforcment to make the restriction legitimate), or just allowing turns and dealing with the reduction in vehicle throughput--basically it's one more form of traffic calming, which again I don't see as a bad thing (I am after all a "soldier" in this entirely real and totally not made up "war on cars").

(08-01-2020, 01:35 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: On turn Radii you're absolutely right, if there's a low roll curb, the radii should be effectively zero...

(08-01-2020, 02:13 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(08-01-2020, 01:35 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: On turn Radii you're absolutely right, if there's a low roll curb, the radii should be effectively zero...

I’m not sure what you’re agreeing with here. I didn’t say anything about roll curbs; my point is just that if right turns aren’t permitted, the curb can come to a sharp corner instead of being rounded off to provide a turn radius. A roll curb that comes to a sharp corner is dangerous because it makes it look to pedestrians like they have a safe space right at the corner but provides not even a hint to a vehicle that it has transgressed into pedestrian space.

(08-01-2020, 02:10 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(08-01-2020, 01:35 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Turn lanes are an interesting question, I support them in some instances, when they improve safety, but I don't really support them just to improve motor vehicle flow. In some places, realistically, they are needed, but in other places, especially downtown like this, the space would be better used for other purposes...then you have the choice between restricting turns (and using camera enforcment to make the restriction legitimate), or just allowing turns and dealing with the reduction in vehicle throughput--basically it's one more form of traffic calming, which again I don't see as a bad thing (I am after all a "soldier" in this entirely real and totally not made up "war on cars").

Turn lanes are needed anywhere that there is significant turning traffic, which as far as I’m concerned pretty much means anything busier than the driveway of a house. If they can’t be fit in, turning should be forbidden; it’s more efficient for those turning to perform an alternate maneuver (e.g., 3 right turns around the block) than for the entire road to come to a halt every time somebody wants to turn.

Making the entire street wait for one person to turn left isn’t traffic-calming; it’s destroying the value of the investment in travel lanes. If we’re going to pay for motor vehicle lanes reaching every destination, we should get the value out of that enormous expenditure by making intersection capacity comparable to the capacity of the roads between the intersections.

Also consider this: turn lanes are a form of traffic calming, in that straight-through traffic can smoothly and predictably move past the people waiting to turn, rather than trying to squeeze through unpredictably whenever they can (with the sudden and dangerous changes in velocity associated with this sort of maneuver).

As to your final comment, suggesting that we not build turn lanes so as to slow traffic down to a complete mess with even moderate traffic levels is the exact kind of thing that legitimately makes people think there is a war on the car. It’s not a war on the car to want cars to stay off the sidewalk or to want 2-lane roads instead of 4-lane roads or good separate bicycle infrastructure; but at the point where the goal is just to make using a car as inconvenient as possible whether or not it helps anyone else, you’ve gone beyond bicycle/active transportation/safety advocacy and into just vindictively opposing anything that helps motor vehicle traffic.

Please remember that I am the guy who thinks almost all our 4-lane roads should be 2-lane roads, almost no freeway construction or expansion should be done, freeways should be 100% paid for by tolls, and all our transit routes should run on a 5 minute schedule most of the day. So I’m not a big booster of private vehicle transportation. If I’m saying that a superficially anti-car/pro-bike policy is problematic, you would be well advised to take what I’m saying seriously.

(08-01-2020, 10:25 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(07-31-2020, 02:31 PM)tomh009 Wrote: What more would you have done, given that there is no municipal property there to work with? (And, no, I don't think turning it into a pedestrian street would have been approved.)

Personally I am pleased that it is much more pedestrian-friendly now. No dedicated bike lanes, but they would not have fit without cutting down the sidewalks, and hopefully Ontario/Gaukel will be bicycle-friendly in the future.

I agree there's not much more they could do than refreshing the sidewalk, but I also think they could have done that better.

For one the sidewalks are way too narrow at intersections....so that there is room for turn lanes, again, even in the most pedestrian focused areas, driver convenience over pedestrian facilities.

But other stuff seems like just so much an unforced error...the curbs encourage drivers to drive on the sidewalks (and we see that happening).  Worse, outside the hotel, where the temporary asphalt was, they now have installed permanent decorative pavers...which are "decorative" with that broken look...they are so uneven that anyone with a mobility issue, a cane, a walker, I suspect will struggle...there's just no reason for that...

(08-01-2020, 01:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(08-01-2020, 11:53 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Isn't that precisely the intention (not to drive but to be able to pull over) ?

No, they are sidewalks, cars should not be there at any time...not to pull over, not to park, not to squeeze around a turning vehicle.  But I thank you for demonstrating why it is such a bad decision.

(08-01-2020, 05:09 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(08-01-2020, 10:25 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I agree there's not much more they could do than refreshing the sidewalk, but I also think they could have done that better.

For one the sidewalks are way too narrow at intersections....so that there is room for turn lanes, again, even in the most pedestrian focused areas, driver convenience over pedestrian facilities.

But other stuff seems like just so much an unforced error...the curbs encourage drivers to drive on the sidewalks (and we see that happening).  Worse, outside the hotel, where the temporary asphalt was, they now have installed permanent decorative pavers...which are "decorative" with that broken look...they are so uneven that anyone with a mobility issue, a cane, a walker, I suspect will struggle...there's just no reason for that...

Yeah, I agree on the roll curbs. I have no idea what the rationale was for putting those in. Haven't seen the pavers yet.

Turn lanes ... I see your point. I'll withhold my opinion until I have looked at those more, to see to situation on the ground, so to speak.

(08-01-2020, 06:17 PM)panamaniac Wrote:

(08-01-2020, 01:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: No, they are sidewalks, cars should not be there at any time...not to pull over, not to park, not to squeeze around a turning vehicle.  But I thank you for demonstrating why it is such a bad decision.

(08-01-2020, 05:09 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Yeah, I agree on the roll curbs. I have no idea what the rationale was for putting those in. Haven't seen the pavers yet.

Turn lanes ... I see your point. I'll withhold my opinion until I have looked at those more, to see to situation on the ground, so to speak.

It would be interesting to ask the City about this.  They might not be willing to admit it, but I think the rationale is pretty clear, as I indicated earlier.  Note that I make no comment about "should", just about "is".  Time will tell, but I really don't see a police vehicle or ambulance attending to an emergency in that block just stopping in the middle of the street while they deal with the emergency.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised.

(08-01-2020, 06:53 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(08-01-2020, 06:17 PM)panamaniac Wrote: It would be interesting to ask the City about this.  They might not be willing to admit it, but I think the rationale is pretty clear, as I indicated earlier.  Note that I make no comment about "should", just about "is".  Time will tell, but I really don't see a police vehicle or ambulance attending to an emergency in that block just stopping in the middle of the street while they deal with the emergency.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised.

This may be their intention, but there is zero justification for it, there are plenty of other two lane roads in the city...those roads also have ambulances, and emergency vehicles which block the street...if this is their justification, it's nothing more than BS.

(08-01-2020, 02:29 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I am actually quite surprised at how well traffic is flowing on Westmount and I have adjusted by beliefs based on that.  I am not accusing you of being pro-car, do not take that opinion, but do not advise me to take you seriously, I do, we are allowed to disagree.

(08-01-2020, 09:33 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(08-01-2020, 02:29 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I am actually quite surprised at how well traffic is flowing on Westmount and I have adjusted by beliefs based on that.  I am not accusing you of being pro-car, do not take that opinion, but do not advise me to take you seriously, I do, we are allowed to disagree.

This is obviously due to low traffic levels. Right now at Glasgow southbound there is a single lane for left-turning, right-turning, and straight through traffic. During a typical (not now-typical, typical-typical) rush hour, the first person who wants to turn left will stop southbound traffic entirely until the red light comes and they can make their turn. If the next person is also turning left, they may well have to wait until the next red to make their turn. Meanwhile the entire southbound road south of Glasgow will be empty of vehicles — just empty asphalt uselessly waiting for somebody to use it. Guess what impatient drivers will, understandably, do when they finally get to it?

Problems similar to the above were already regularly observed before Covid, with 2 lanes southbound at Glasgow. Of course what is really needed there is what was there previously — 1 left turn lane, and 1 straight through lane; and given that there is only 1 straight through lane at Glasgow, there obviously only needs to be one straight through lane from at least Erb south to Glasgow (and personally I would make that Benjamin Rd. to Fischer-Hallman, i.e., the entire road).

On the other hand, if everybody happens to be going straight, no problem — everybody waiting might get through on a single light.

No, predictable, smooth (not unfettered; smooth) traffic flow is much better. Don’t forget, buses are also waiting for traffic (of course, I would build more bus lanes and dedicated roads; but there is no reasonable scenario in which bus traffic doesn’t mix with other traffic in some places).

You’re 100% right about lane widths however. It is totally ridiculous how wide lanes are in many places.