HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Toronto


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 10:17 PM
Wharn's Avatar
Wharn Wharn is offline
Torontonian Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Oxy County
Posts: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by telyou View Post
This is obviously BS. Yes there are a few business owners who are not happy but that is mainly due to their closed mindedness. The street is a lot more vibrant then it used to be and has become a destination for many people around the city.
If a botched municipal construction project causes you to have several bad years, I would not call it "close mindedness". While the street is certainly more vibrant than it was back around 2009 or so, I don't think it has changed at all since the early 2000s. St. Clair was always a vibrant street the closer you got to Yonge, and it was always an unsightly street the closer you got to Jane (despite what the Barenaked Ladies would have you believe).

Quote:
Originally Posted by telyou View Post
I've been there many times. Thank you Ikea. And all i see is a suburban wasteland. Towers in the park type condos. Absolutely no pedestrian activity. Big box stores. Nothing remotely attractive about the area. Everyone gets out of their cars and drives everywhere. Even to get milk.
Obviously there's a lot of new development. There was absolutely nothing there but empty land. St-Clair on the other hand was already heavily developed.
I'll take CityPlace over Sheppard any day. At least you can walk to King Street and other hotspots.
Funny how you called me out on BS earlier, because I see an awful lot of it in this post. Aside from IKEA and Canadian Tire, which are remnants and cheaper land prices, there are absolutely no "big box" stores on Sheppard Avenue between Victoria Park and Yonge. If you're counting Fairview Mall and Bayview Village as "big box" centres then you have a very warped view of urban planning. Can't comment on the new condos being towers in the park because I haven't taken a detailed look at the street level (something you've obviously also failed to do), but I know for sure some new apartments at Bessarion and Don Mills make decent attempts to address the street, much like many of the newer condos along Queens Quay. I agree walkability remains an issue, but that's just the way things go when concessions are 2 kilometres apart.

Last edited by Wharn; May 25, 2012 at 10:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 27, 2012, 7:30 PM
osmo osmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wharn View Post
If a botched municipal construction project causes you to have several bad years, I would not call it "close mindedness". While the street is certainly more vibrant than it was back around 2009 or so, I don't think it has changed at all since the early 2000s. St. Clair was always a vibrant street the closer you got to Yonge, and it was always an unsightly street the closer you got to Jane (despite what the Barenaked Ladies would have you believe).



Funny how you called me out on BS earlier, because I see an awful lot of it in this post. Aside from IKEA and Canadian Tire, which are remnants and cheaper land prices, there are absolutely no "big box" stores on Sheppard Avenue between Victoria Park and Yonge. If you're counting Fairview Mall and Bayview Village as "big box" centres then you have a very warped view of urban planning. Can't comment on the new condos being towers in the park because I haven't taken a detailed look at the street level (something you've obviously also failed to do), but I know for sure some new apartments at Bessarion and Don Mills make decent attempts to address the street, much like many of the newer condos along Queens Quay. I agree walkability remains an issue, but that's just the way things go when concessions are 2 kilometres apart.

Sheppard is a mirage. Even from VP to Yonge its a barren dead zone. You have fleets of Condos going up which all just run onto the 401 to get places. The only reason Sheppard gets any type of attention is because of a Subway that should not be there, all of this construction would take place regardless. Its proximity to the 401 and Suburban work hubs has made it idea just as much as CityPlaces initial proximity to the Gardiner and Downtown employment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 28, 2012, 4:22 PM
Tony's Avatar
Tony Tony is offline
Super Moderator / Sr. Committee
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 5,999
One-way street systems have already been regarded as generally bad planning for quite a number of years now as they have a detrimental affect on smaller businesses since they encourage increased traffic speeds which not only prevent drivers & passengers from actually realizing what stores are there, but also creates a less friendly environment for pedestrians.

It might be a better solution to provide a signalized lane along Bay St. instead. (Southbound morning, northbound afternoon).

ALSO please be respectful to your fellow forumers and knock out the insults people!!
__________________
Hunan, China 1 | Hunan, China 2 | Hong Kong | NYC 2 | NYC 1 | Florence | Venice | Rome | London | Paris


Flickr®
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 29, 2012, 9:05 PM
Wharn's Avatar
Wharn Wharn is offline
Torontonian Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Oxy County
Posts: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by osmo View Post
Sheppard is a mirage. Even from VP to Yonge its a barren dead zone. You have fleets of Condos going up which all just run onto the 401 to get places. The only reason Sheppard gets any type of attention is because of a Subway that should not be there, all of this construction would take place regardless. Its proximity to the 401 and Suburban work hubs has made it idea just as much as CityPlaces initial proximity to the Gardiner and Downtown employment.
As I've said before, if that logic held true, the same thing would be happening to Sheppard east of Vic Park, and west of Yonge. As soon as you're more than a ~10 minute walk from the nearest station, not much is happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
It might be a better solution to provide a signalized lane along Bay St. instead. (Southbound morning, northbound afternoon).
That's actually a good idea, except it may cause some issues when Bay becomes narrower south of Queen. If traffic speeds are a concern as far as the street environment goes, couldn't we just impose a 40 km/h limit? Volume would be the main issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
ALSO please be respectful to your fellow forumers and knock out the insults people!!
For some reason, transport planning really boils peoples' blood. It's almost like discussing religion. I'm sorry for being uncivil.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:58 PM
JayCortese
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
unfortunately its true ^
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 7:50 PM
Phil McAvity Phil McAvity is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 3,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wharn View Post
That's actually a good idea, except it may cause some issues when Bay becomes narrower south of Queen. If traffic speeds are a concern as far as the street environment goes, couldn't we just impose a 40 km/h limit? Volume would be the main issue.
Is speed really an issue? I live in a city much smaller than Toronto (Victoria) and it is almost impossible to even approach the speed limit given all the traffic. Your only chance to drive at all is late at night when few businesses are open. It seems to me that in urban centers, speed limits are irrelevant. In fact moving too slowly or not at all, is the real problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2014, 6:08 PM
tradephoric tradephoric is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McAvity View Post
I don't know why we ever switched to one-way streets since it often forces people to drive further to get where they're going.
Why do people take the freeway to work when surface streets are often the most direct route? Drivers will usually pick a route that takes the least amount of time to get from point A to B.

In this real world example in the video below, an aggressive driver on 3rd Avenue (one-way street) is able to drive 0.5 miles farther than an aggressive driver on Park Avenue (two-way street) in the same amount of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
One-way street systems have already been regarded as generally bad planning for quite a number of years now as they have a detrimental affect on smaller businesses since they encourage increased traffic speeds which not only prevent drivers & passengers from actually realizing what stores are there, but also creates a less friendly environment for pedestrians.
Quote:
Enustun N., 1969
Study of the Operational Aspects of One-Way and Two-Way Streets: A ‘before and after’ study of one-way traffic operations in the cities of Lansing and Kalamazoo in Michigan. The study focused on traffic volumes on the streets and did not involve the analysis of any accident data. Analysis of data collected showed average speeds had increased on all the routes converted to one-way. The average speed in Kalamazoo had increased from 18.1 to 23.1 mph and from 25.3 to 28.2 mph in Lansing. Average number of stops in some sections of the study area had dropped from 6.3 to 1.0. Delay in one case dropped from 71 to 11 seconds per mile. Fifteen-minute afternoon peak traffic leaving traffic sections of the study area was observed to have increased by 74%, compared to the 17% increase for the 24 hour total. It was also noted that increased gaps in traffic on the one-way streets made it easier for traffic on side streets to turn unto the one-way streets.
Two-way proponents would read the bold line and automatically assume cars speed faster on one-way streets. They don’t recognize that “average speed” includes the time a driver is sitting idle. After the conversion to one-way streets, delay per mile dropped from 71 seconds to 11 seconds, a reduction of 84%. This reduction in delay is what accounted for the increase in “average speed”. Simply put, drivers on one-way streets don’t get stopped at many red lights.

The “moving speed”, which is the speed a driver averages when not stationary, is a more important concept to consider especially in regards to pedestrian safety. This video illustrates how a one-way street can experience a higher “average speed” yet a lower “moving speed” when compared to a two-way street:

Video Link



The traffic signal timings is the most interesting aspect of the video. The one-way street is set up for smooth signal progression, where a driver experiences a "wave" of green lights and low delays. The two-way street is set up so that all the lights turn green (or change red) simultaneously. This type of progression is characteristic of lots of starts and stops, leading to large delays. Obviously, both drivers in this video are aggressive, but only the driver on 3rd Avenue is forced to slow down (thanks to the traffic light timing).

The concepts of "average speed" and "moving speed" are almost universally misunderstood by two-way proponents. These are really fundamental concepts to comprehend, especially when "average speed" is cited in these one-way to two-way street conversion studies.

Last edited by tradephoric; May 29, 2014 at 6:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Toronto
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:59 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.