steveintoronto
Superstar
Amen!
|
|
|
Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
TransitBart
Senior Member
steveintoronto
Superstar
I beg to differ. Hoskin Ave has a much better implementation, and on Bloor, *even with the bollards* what I saw yesterday was cars parked right next to the bollards such that passenger side doors *will* impact passing cyclists. They need concrete barriers to delineate the buffer, and there's nothing to stop a car backing into a space, hitting a bollard, and that bollard extending into the cycle lane and catching a cyclist.
It's a very poor layout, and does not instill confidence, at least not to me, while some lanes elsewhere in Toronto do. The feeling is akin to riding a tightrope, with added unexpected hazards, not the least some other cyclists with no space to avoid them.
Edit to Add: You'll note on Salsa's excellent photos that most of the cars were parked properly, and compliant to the vehicle side solid line (Many of those cars belong to the press, albeit there's a CityNews one that makes my point being over the line, and almost against the bollards) but look at the last pic posted:
The red Fiat is parked correctly, but that door will still impinge on the cycle lane, let alone a disembarking passenger, and then look closely at the SUV in front of it!
Tell me that passenger side door(s) isn't swinging open into oncoming cyclists.
After those pics were taken, ostensibly early in the day (Ninish), later parking jobs were nowhere near as ordered. I rode the stretch and back at around 3-4PM. Most cars were parked crooked and haphazardly, with some actually up against the bollards.
Hello Houston, we have a problem...
Last edited:
TransitBart
Senior Member
I was definitely thinking of after a car was parked. I can parallel park a semi in a small space. I forgot how brutal it is watching some people parallel park.
ADRM
Senior Member
It's still very much possible to get doored along the piloted stretch of Bloor.
steveintoronto
Superstar
That's a very important point! *Especially* shoppers. As cyclists, we see and deal with this all the time, how they can't reverse into a spot since they have no feel for the perimeter of their vehicle, and then as they try to park, they nose out into the cycle lanes without looking.
There *have to be* concrete curbs installed along where the solid white lines are. But that raises a new issue, and this has been discussed in some of the earliest posts in this string years back as that pertains to Sherbourne and Roncy: If you install concrete curbs, is it better to then infill the bike path to bring it up to sidewalk level? And then what about extant gutter drainage, et al?
By this installation being half-azzed, it's doomed to fail. Show pics and diagrams of this to someone in Holland, and they'll lose their chocolate. Even by North Am standards, this is a horror show. What really concerns me is that so many cyclists are oblivious to the very real hazards of what will go wrong.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Thank you ADRM! I was the lonely voice of dissention here on the matter. I'm headed back there now to triple check my impressions. Someone is going to get seriously hurt before the shortcomings of this are made clear.
I've been studying Salsa's pics, and it's becoming clearly obvious that with the limited width of Bloor St, and necessity deemed by 'interests' that one side of the street hosts parking, that a two-way bicycle lane behind that parking is the only way to *improve* safety (it's still highly problematic) such that if a cyclist impacts an opening door on the present south side, it's a glancing deflection more than a direct head-on to the edge of the opening/opened door. That's because the northern side of a bi-directional bike lane on the south is going west. The cars the parked adjacent to the buffer are facing east. With the economy of space affected by not needing a buffer the other side of the street, just one would be needed and it can be twice the width, but it must be mass-substantial and rigid, acting as a real barrier, not like bollards alone, which *will* cause a severe accident(s).
I post this again to illustrate the point:
Note that the discreet cycle lanes are no wider, but by being bi-directional twinned, *psychologically* as well as physically, there's far more room to react to emergencies and passing. This implementation has its own set of shortcomings, but *far less* than the mess now extant on Bloor. I'd cycle the above path with confidence and comfortable speed. A good layout like this promotes safer habits too, and it is *very clear* to motorists as to who should be where....well...one should never presume motorists will get it, but they have little choice in this implementation.
Edit to Add: Been juggling some paper sketches...it would seem that the buffered bi-directional lane implementation, as shown above, at least in the Bloor instance, would be be far better for all concerned if the parking was on the *other side* of the street, not adjacent to the bike-lane barrier. Sight-lines would be radically improved, and the chances of vehicle passengers obstructing the bike lanes greatly reduced. Dare I say it...but the buffer barrier could be slightly less width than that as shown in the pic above. It must still be wide enough for a cyclist or pedestrian to stand on, ready to cross the traffic lanes when clear. And the barrier/island must be high enough to block cars from impinging.
The point is with a rejig, a lot of the glaring problems with the present layout can be addressed. One trade-off for cyclists is that access to the shops on the other side of the street won't be as readily available, but that is more than neutralized by being more so for cars. And overall, the street view and sight-lines for and of cyclists will be far less cluttered and/or obscured.
The barrier/island could be done, temporarily at least, with flagstone anchored the way the bollards are now. Painted lines just aren't going to work.
Last edited:
ADRM
Senior Member
I mean, you're objectively correct - the Bloor lanes, while a welcome addition, fail a bevy of basic design standards.
I'm hopeful that the local BIAs will soon place planters, a la Simcoe, along stretches of the pilot area. It's a damn shame that we have to rely on local BIAs rather than our city officials and planners to affect real safety changes, though.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Wonder how many months/years/decades it will take to extend the Bloor Street bike lanes to reach the Railpath, near Dundas Street West?
ADRM
Senior Member
If DMW, Holyday, Campbell, et al have their way with this pilot, probably over their dead bodies. So, call it 35 years?
ADRM
Senior Member
Related question, though: I recall at Council during the Bloor pilot debate, KWT motioned to have the Bloor pilot extended east of Avenue, but I can't recall what happened thereafter. Anyone know?
TransitBart
Senior Member
If you are referring to passengers, yes. But much less probable.
steveintoronto
Superstar
"Much less probable?" Questionable. The false sense of security amongst cyclists is going to compound the fact that passengers are even less aware than drivers when it comes to dooring, plus where are they going to stand when they exit the door, even if the door doesn't hit a cyclist?
Study this image, and tell me where they'll stand, even if they can stand. If someone is in poor health, and they need to be helped from the vehicle, it's even more dire a situation, for all.
The more I think this through, and study the lines on the pavement, extant and prior (blackened strip where the white was) I can see a vastly safer and more efficient way to doing it with a twinned bi-directional lane one side with a raised concrete barrier strip a foot or more wide, and normal parking on the *other side* of the street.
One concern is where side streets intersect the twinned lanes. I suggest the barrier be reduced in height at those intersections to ease vehicle traffic over it, but not a complete break in the barrier, as a reduced height would be an incentive to reduce speed when crossing it. Vehicles making sudden turns are a very real problem as it is, especially with the lane markings so irrational and illegal (solid white line not broken prior to the intersection).
When I'm faced with a door opening on me, and nowhere to avoid it, I'm forced to aim for inside of the door. That's right, the passenger is going to have to take the impact, or else I have a door splitting my skull open (a helmet will do very little if anything in these instances). It's a terrible scenario, one made very probable by this arrangement. With street cycling, at least it's the errant driver paying the price of absorbing the impact as well as the cyclist. Passenger side? It could/would most likely be an old person or a child.
WTF were they thinking?
Last edited:
TransitBart
Senior Member
"Much less probable?" Questionable. The false sense of security amongst cyclists is going to compound the fact that passengers are even less aware than drivers when it comes to dooring, plus where are they going to stand when they exit the door, even if the door doesn't hit a cyclist?
Study this image, and tell me where they'll stand, even if they can stand. If someone is in poor health, and they need to be helped from the vehicle, it's even more dire a situation, for all.
The more I think this through, and study the lines on the pavement, extant and prior (blackened strip where the white was) I can see a vastly safer and more efficient way to doing it with a twinned lane one side with a raised concrete barrier strip a foot or more wide, and parking on the *other side* of the street.
Number of points here.
1. Car passengers (and drivers) will have to change their behaviour. It has been said elsewhere and QQ is a great example. So is your picture above.
2, Not sure what everyone thinks bike lanes are for. They bring a host of their own challenges. I am willing to bet I am responding to a post by a man, who is young enough to bike or want to bike fast. In my experience, very few women commuters are as aggressive. I have witnessed younger guys cursing at other commuters to move over and let them pass in bike lanes in various places. This begs the question is a bike lane for a recreational/average biker or a serious "I am on a mission" biker. They are two different animals. The majority of people on Dundas East in the morning are not worried about taking two minutes longer, or getting stopped at a light. Unlike downtown, where I see bikes running reds like cars at the end of a green cycle. Most of the more aggressive cycling I have seen is younger guys.
My point in the previous is is. If you are travelling faster than 20km/h in a bike lane, you are in a minority. You will have to exercise more caution and you can/ could get doored by anyone. The vast majority of cyclists should be able to stop responsibly givnen the speeds they are travelling.
It may come to the point, that if you cycle rapidly, it is better to stick to the road. Is QQ a recreational ROW (sometimes) or a street surrogate for cyclists (sometimes). On weekends, the two uses are in conflict.
TransitBart
Senior Member
Folks. This is a test. It has all the provisional measures of a test. In a million years, my parents would never have taken a bike on anything other than a recreational ride. Whether, the current excitement around cycling is still in place in five years, remains to be seen. Part of this discussion is also transit build out.
I grew up in Etobicoke and my parents had a one-size-fits-all-journeys-mentality. We took the car to the corner. We took the car downtown. We took the car to Halifax.
It being more than a few years later, most of us probably choose a variety of transport methods depending on where we are going, when and with how many people.
We are all usually trying to minimize cost or time or both.
The motivated and altruistic amongst us, are trying to minimize green house gas and stay thin (ner).
None of the issues, I have just listed ever came into a discussion thirty years ago other than where are we going to park, and will that be one car or two?
Patience.
Perfect is the enemy of good.