Is your city on a road diet?

[Argus]

I first heard of this in an issue of the New York Post, which I kind of dismissed because, well, its the Post. They accused the city of deliberately slowing down traffic in Manhattan in order to deter people from driving in and make them use public transit or bicycles. Of course the city denied it. And of course, Canadian cities never say they're doing this either. But from reading the papers over the last some years it looks evident to me that while they're denying it they're certainly doing it.  Street calming and bicycle lanes proliferate. In Ottawa, a number of streets have had their lanes cut, with Scott Street being the next to go - to make way for more bike lanes. The city is putting a lot of money into its new LRT system and it seems to me they're actively trying to make it harder to commute any other way. Of course, they deny it, but then, city politicians are rarely very honest. If they actually told people, most of whom commute by car "Yeah, we're trying to make your commute longer and more unpleasant to force you to take public transit" people would be furious. 

But city governments are notoriously Left wing. Left wingers ALWAYS know what's best for the rest of us, and are always determined to see we do it, like it or not. Since they lie to themselves they have no moral qualms in lying to the rest of us. 

It's for our own good, after all.

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-how-road-diets-are-making-our-car-commutes-even-more-painful

[Bonam]

Yes, Seattle certainly is. And here, they aren't even hiding it. The term "road diet" has been language that's actually been used in official planning documents recently. Road capacity through the busiest parts of the city has been cut by about 1/3 even as the population has grown by 50%, and rush hour commute times have, predictably, gone up by 2-4 times, often taking upwards of an hour to drive just 4 km or so through the city (I routinely out-walk cars stuck in traffic on what used to be arterial roads). The worst is coming next year, when they shut down a viaduct highway that goes through downtown and replace it with a tunnel that entirely bypasses downtown, forcing any traffic that wants to go into/out of downtown onto surface streets (which have mostly already been converted into bus/bike lanes). The new bike lanes are rarely used since Seattle rains 152 days per year and few but the most hardcore commute by bike in the rain, and furthermore most of the bike lanes are poorly designed so that they are still very dangerous to bike in. Meanwhile, the promised new light rail transit system, for which a referendum was recently passed raising taxes by $54 billion dollars starting last year, will not be built until 2040. Welcome to liberal utopia. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Bonam

[Boges]

Toronto has essentially banned cars on one Main downtown East-West street to make room for Street Cars. 

If you're really an environmentalist you'd not want Gridlock. People will use public transit if it's affordable and good. It's often not that way in Big Canadian cities. 

[Bonam]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

If you're really an environmentalist you'd not want Gridlock. 

Anti-road people genuinely believe that gridlock is not worsened by reducing road capacity, nor can it be improved by increasing road capacity. I've talked to plenty of them. They say with a straight face that no matter how much you increase road capacity, you'll always have gridlock, so you may as well decrease road capacity instead. The problem is, like with anything else in 2017, ideology comes before reality. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Bonam

[Argus]

59 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Anti-road people genuinely believe that gridlock is not worsened by reducing road capacity, nor can it be improved by increasing road capacity. I've talked to plenty of them. They say with a straight face that no matter how much you increase road capacity, you'll always have gridlock, so you may as well decrease road capacity instead. The problem is, like with anything else in 2017, ideology comes before reality. 

It's part of social engineering. The Left knows what's best for us but knows we don't agree, so they will make us change our minds, one way or another. Insist on driving? Well we'll make it so unpleasant you don't have any choice but to get out there and take a bus (with three transfers). And they all insist its important for the environment to put in more bike paths, even though almost no one uses them, especially in winter.

[?Impact]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Street calming and bicycle lanes proliferate.

Street calming is trying to address the excessive speeding that kills on city streets. Bicycle lanes take a very small fraction of real-estate, perhaps the single occupancy vehicle crown feels too entitled and anyone else that uses public spaces are the enemy.

2 hours ago, Bonam said:

Anti-road people genuinely believe that gridlock is not worsened by reducing road capacity, nor can it be improved by increasing road capacity.

Roads are public spaces, why do single occupancy vehicle drivers feel entitled to 110% of the real-estate?

[Bonam]

47 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Roads are public spaces, why do single occupancy vehicle drivers feel entitled to 110% of the real-estate?

Don't see where I said that. Roads are obviously shared with buses, bicycles, pedestrians at intersections and crosswalks, and of course vehicles with multiple occupants. Reducing roads without having a European style metro system is a recipe for disaster, because existing mass transit in most North American cities is slow and inconvenient, and less roads means it takes longer to get places, stifling economic and social activity. I was recently spent some time in several European cities and found myself thinking about why the roads are even there... getting anywhere by metro is super fast and convenient, and no matter where you are, you are never ever more than a 10 minute walk from the metro. They could probably get rid of roads altogether in city centers and have people keep their cars on the outskirts of town for when they need to take them to go on a trip outside the city.

But that is not the case in North American cities, and until it is, trying to force drivers out of their cars onto terrible terrible bus transit systems is a horrible idea. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Bonam

[?Impact]

9 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Reducing roads without having a European style metro system is a recipe for disaster,

Yes, we need to invest in alternative transport systems. The subways, trains, bicycle, and pedestrian networks in Europe are far superior. Many (most?) European cities have closed part of the downtown to road traffic entirely, creating large pedestrian malls; we have very few examples of that in Canada (Sparks street in Ottawa, and part of St. Catherine in Montreal for a few weeks in the summer being the exceptions). The bicycle networks are extensively developed, and along with dedicated bicycle lanes in the downtown they have well interconnected bicycle paths in the suburbs that connect with commuter rail transit.

[taxme]

3 hours ago, Bonam said:

Anti-road people genuinely believe that gridlock is not worsened by reducing road capacity, nor can it be improved by increasing road capacity. I've talked to plenty of them. They say with a straight face that no matter how much you increase road capacity, you'll always have gridlock, so you may as well decrease road capacity instead. The problem is, like with anything else in 2017, ideology comes before reality. 

Common sense and logic would tell me that maybe there is an immigration problem? Geez, do you really think that could be it? It is quite obvious that the more immigrants a country brings in the more traffic problems it will create. Those 300, 000 new immigrants entering Canada every year want a own a car to drive around in also. Why do most politicians seem to want to avoid this immigration question?  

The Mayor of Coquitlam, BC has said that he wants to increase the population in that city which already has enough vehicles on it every day and which is making it hard at times to try and get around. As I always say "politicians are the problem, never the solution".  

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

Common sense and logic would tell me that maybe there is an immigration problem?

The problem is that the so called economists (bankers with connections) that influence our politicians demand that we grow the population to drive their models. They don't really care how we grow it, but because their models have made it economically difficult for Canadian families to have more children, the politicians resort to immigration. We need new economic models that are not designed by bankers.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Street calming is trying to address the excessive speeding that kills on city streets. Bicycle lanes take a very small fraction of real-estate, perhaps the single occupancy vehicle crown feels too entitled and anyone else that uses public spaces are the enemy.

Roads are public spaces, why do single occupancy vehicle drivers feel entitled to 110% of the real-estate?

Nonsense. You can use that for any amount of traffic slowing measures. You know, if we limited highway speeds to 10 kmh we'd save a lot of lives too.
Bicycle lanes often move an entire lane. Or two. That's certainly how they've done it in a number of streets in Ottawa, from Laurier to O'Connor to Main to Scott. All to accommodate 1% of the population at best, and only in summer.

[taxme]

35 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The problem is that the so called economists (bankers with connections) that influence our politicians demand that we grow the population to drive their models. They don't really care how we grow it, but because their models have made it economically difficult for Canadian families to have more children, the politicians resort to immigration. We need new economic models that are not designed by bankers.

I agree. The banksters and their many controlled corporations and their control of the puppet strings which our politicians are forced to dangle on is the problem. That is why Canadians should be demanding a halt to all immigration until we can fix our own house and problems. More immigrants does not help the situation. All this keeps showing us is that we the people are not the masters of our Canadian house but the bankster elite are. When will Canadians ever try to learn this and do something about it. It amazes me as to why most Canadians just don't seem to give a chit, and apparently could careless. Sometimes I have to wonder as to whether Canadians really should have or need a country. They appear to want to keep trying to destroy it. Just saying.  

[taxme]

12 minutes ago, Argus said:

Nonsense. You can use that for any amount of traffic slowing measures. You know, if we limited highway speeds to 10 kmh we'd save a lot of lives too.
Bicycle lanes often move an entire lane. Or two. That's certainly how they've done it in a number of streets in Ottawa, from Laurier to O'Connor to Main to Scott. All to accommodate 1% of the population at best, and only in summer.

It's not called Father Knows Best anymore, today it is called politicians knows best. Isn't it wonderful to see how your tax dollars are well blown and at work in Canada?  If only the taxpayer would give a chit now and then about how their tax dollars are spent. I am still waiting for that day to come if it ever does come. 

[Michael Hardner]

I can't deny the political alignments that come out of the car vs. transit idea, however in practical terms there is no more room for roads and moving more people necessarily requires people to go by transit or car-sharing vs. single-car drivers.

I don't see how else this can work in Toronto.  Saying "transit is terrible" may be relatively true, however it is improving and bad transit is not an immutable problem.  It's far cheaper and easier to improve the service than to add more highways.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I can't deny the political alignments that come out of the car vs. transit idea, however in practical terms there is no more room for roads and moving more people necessarily requires people to go by transit or car-sharing vs. single-car drivers.

I don't see how else this can work in Toronto.  Saying "transit is terrible" may be relatively true, however it is improving and bad transit is not an immutable problem.  It's far cheaper and easier to improve the service than to add more highways.

If there is 'no more room' then what sense is there in restricting the room there is? Cutting back four lane roads to three or two is not a matter of 'no more room' but pursuit of ideological aims. Ottawa had, for the longest time, something called the Alta-Vista corridor. This was a long, wide strip of land set aside many decades ago as a route for a future highway to take cars from the south into the city. I used to live next to it, in fact. As the south grew there started to be pressure to build this highway, but the city didn't want another highway taking cars into the downtown and did everything they could to ensure it wasn't built. What they eventually succeeded in doing was renting out a chunk in the middle at $1 a year to the Ottawa Hospital on a 99 year lease. Oh well, can't build a highway now. Tooo baaaad.

As to bad transit. Our cities are not like European cities. Our cities are far more spread out, which means that a comfortable 15-20 minute trip by car can routinely take 60-90 minutes by public transit - including multiple transfers standing shivering in the cold/rain. Where I am now is a 25 minute drive to downtown. To take a bus would require a half mile walk, then two transfers, so including wait times for transfers it would take well over an hour.

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. If there is 'no more room' then what sense is there in restricting the room there is? Cutting back four lane roads to three or two is not a matter of 'no more room' but pursuit of ideological aims.

1. They can improve transit time for a large majority of travellers by restricting it for a few.  That's just a trade-off.  Your anecdotes of bad decisions are worthwhile, though.  I seem to remember an unused bus road going through Ottawa.

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

2. As to bad transit. Our cities are not like European cities. Our cities are far more spread out, which means that a comfortable 15-20 minute trip by car can routinely take 60-90 minutes by public transit - including multiple transfers standing shivering in the cold/rain.

2. Granted.  But the core of our largest cities do have to be revised.  They have frickin' street parking on core streets during the day... streetcars full of people have to wait while ma and pa kettle back up their station wagon in multiple attempts at parallel parking.  

Identify the dumb parts of the debate on both sides, and kick them out of the core discussion I say.

[Argus]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. They can improve transit time for a large majority of travellers by restricting it for a few.  That's just a trade-off. 

Agreed, but bike lanes downtown do the opposite.

Quote

2. Granted.  But the core of our largest cities do have to be revised.  They have frickin' street parking on core streets during the day... streetcars full of people have to wait while ma and pa kettle back up their station wagon in multiple attempts at parallel parking.  

Businesses need short term parking or nobody will shop downtown. Again, as a personal anecdote, I used to shop at a store on Laurier. After the bike lanes came in and eliminated much of the street parking I stopped shopping there and started going to another store in a suburban mall which had ready parking. We need more parking garages in the downtown core. Although, if self-driving cars fulfil the promise people are talking about no one will need to park any more. And, btw, much of the demand for public transit will vaporize too when you can cheaply summon an individual car (which will have no driver and thus be VERY cheap) and ride that to your destination, then simply exit and ignore it. Even if it's your own car you can simply relax and nap or watch TV or work on your laptop while it takes you downtown, then get out and have it return home - no parking fees. Who would want to go through the hassle of multiple transfers on a crowded bus if that's available?

 

 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

Agreed, but bike lanes downtown do the opposite.

I never thought of that, but the lanes are being heavily used right now as an alternative to cars and transit.  They are also cheaper but I haven't considered the pros- or cons- much.

 

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

Businesses need short term parking or nobody will shop downtown. Again, as a personal anecdote, I used to shop at a store on Laurier. After the bike lanes came in and eliminated much of the street parking I stopped shopping there and started going to another store in a suburban mall which had ready parking. We need more parking garages in the downtown core. Although, if self-driving cars fulfil the promise people are talking about no one will need to park any more. And, btw, much of the demand for public transit will vaporize too when you can cheaply summon an individual car (which will have no driver and thus be VERY cheap) and ride that to your destination, then simply exit and ignore it. Even if it's your own car you can simply relax and nap or watch TV or work on your laptop while it takes you downtown, then get out and have it return home - no parking fees. Who would want to go through the hassle of multiple transfers on a crowded bus if that's available?

Wait - we're talking about Ottawa now for real ?  I wasn't thinking of that in terms of Canadian 'large cities'. 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I never thought of that, but the lanes are being heavily used right now as an alternative to cars and transit.  They are also cheaper but I haven't considered the pros- or cons- much.

Bike lanes are NOT cheap. They transport a tiny fraction of what the roads do but have to be maintained even more than the roads. After all, if your administration has an ideological aim to encourage biking you need to make sure the bike lanes are well-cleared in winter. Cars can go through a lot more snow and slosh than bicycles so these have to be cleared down to bare pavement. Have a look at a few of these pictures of bike lanes in Ottawa and consider their impact on what used to be high volume traffic on those now narrowed roads.

https://ottawa.ca/en/news/milestone-bike-track-expands-ottawa-cycling-network

http://clean50.com/project/city-of-ottawa-laurier-avenue-segregated-bicycle-lanes-project/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/video-captures-latest-collision-on-new-ottawa-bike-lane-1.3154257

 

[Michael Hardner]

Can you provide cites for the claim they're not cheap ?  Maintained more than roads ?  Since they are part of roads how do you measure it ?  I almost got lulled into accepting your assertions without evidence, congrats.

Those frills like posts and cement barriers aren't necessary.  A lane is enough.  

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Bike lanes are NOT cheap. They transport a tiny fraction of what the roads do but have to be maintained even more than the roads.

Yes, all those fat bicycle riders cause significant damage to the bike lanes. We need more featherweight trucks instead.

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, all those fat bicycle riders cause significant damage to the bike lanes. We need more featherweight trucks instead.

That's as crazy as what HE said.  Do I have to come down to cyberspace and knock your heads together ?  At least those fancy posts can be attributed directly to bikes.  If the road is just a road with a painted lane, it's a wash.  Am I right ?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Can you provide cites for the claim they're not cheap ?  Maintained more than roads ?  Since they are part of roads how do you measure it ?  I almost got lulled into accepting your assertions without evidence, congrats.

Those frills like posts and cement barriers aren't necessary.  A lane is enough.  

The city doesn't like to talk about costs, much. But the O'Connor bike lanes is given as $4 million to put in place. This does not count the cost of maintenance or the cost of removing parking spaces, which, in the downtown core, are a gold mine for the city. As far as maintained more than roads, that's simply a matter of common sense. If they're to be used in winter they need to be heavily plowed, down to bare pavement. And not by the regular plows because these are segregated.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/oconnors-new-bike-lanes-open-on-thursday-ahead-of-schedule

Edited December 16, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, all those fat bicycle riders cause significant damage to the bike lanes. We need more featherweight trucks instead.

No trucks, but winter's freeze and melting cycle, water, sunlight, and the need to salt and clean them through the winter (small plows usually have treads, not tires) all take their tole. Cars handle potholes and cracked pavement far better than bicycles.

[Bonam]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Those frills like posts and cement barriers aren't necessary.  A lane is enough.  

For a bike lane to be safe, physical barriers are absolutely 100% necessary. A painted line does nothing. 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Bonam