Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

[nfitz]

You're incorrect here.

Only if you have are looking for perfection.

Yes, shave the sidewalks. They don't need to be wider than the very busy sidewalks at Bloor and Bathurst where the ROW is only 20 metres. Simply use that design, and add two, 3 metre wide lanes. And you've still got a metre to use for something. The current design has an average lane width of 3.75m, even with the wide sidewalks!

Is it ideal? No. Will it save lives? Yes.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

 

[Northern Light]

Only if you have are looking for perfection.

We disagree. This is not a search for perfection. Its math.

Yes, shave the sidewalks.

1) Some of the sidewalks on this section of Danforth are only 2.4M wide, the minimum standard for a side street is 2.1M

2) The standard requirement along Danforth and other major streets is currently 6M, no sidewalk here exceeds that, and most is less.

3) You don't 'just' shave the sidewalks, IF the sidewalks were reconstructed and made smaller, you would have to move utility poles, trees, and reconstruct the road, because the catch basins would have to moved to be against the new curb.

This section of Danforth is not planned for reconstruction.

They don't need to be wider than the very busy sidewalks at Bloor and Bathurst where the ROW is only 20 metres. Simply use that design, and add two, 3 metre wide lanes. And you've still got a metre to use for something.

Bloor there is one lane each way, not two lanes each way, this is not a valid comparison at all.

Remember, parking lanes and turn lanes are only 2.5M wide, not 3.0M

The current design has an average lane width of 3.75m, even with the wide sidewalks!

This is not correct. You need to re-measure. The interior lanes on this section of Danforth are 3.0M

The curb lanes range, but are generally ~3.3M

Is it ideal? No. Will it save lives? Yes.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Your math remains faulty.

For reasons outlined above, it does not and cannot work.

 

[nfitz]

We disagree. This is not a search for perfection. Its math.

2) The standard requirement along Danforth and other major streets is currently 6M, no sidewalk here exceeds that, and most is less.

Bloor there is one lane each way, not two lanes each way, this is not a valid comparison at all.

Remember, parking lanes and turn lanes are only 2.5M wide, not 3.0M

Go back to basics. The right-of-way along Bloor (around Bathurst) is only 20 metres. The right of way along Danforth is 27 metres. This allows for the addition of two 3.5-metre lanes, if you used the existing Bathurst cross-section.

This is not correct. You need to re-measure. The interior lanes on this section of Danforth are 3.0M

I just remeasured. I got 15 metres. Where were you looking? Perhaps we are looking at two different things.

The curb lanes range, but are generally ~3.3M

Where? I keep seeing stuff like this (at Pharmacy). There's enough to paint in parking spots that easily leave the width of a bike lane!

With great respect, you've had a challenge for all the years we've been on UT that you like to draw a conclusion without proper evidence and then defend it vociferously even after the evidence clearly proves you wrong.

It would serve you well to just say 'oops' now and again, and admit your idea doesn't work.

I've said oops many times. And I will here if you show the evidence. And how 20 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 27 is false.

You've said statements. Not evidence.

 

[evandyk]

If you canceled all right/left turn lanes as well as all parking, you could fit four traffic lanes with bike lanes, couldn't you? Isn't it virtually all four lanes now if you include those? Traffic wouldn't go any faster than a well-designed 2 lane road with the appropriate turning lanes, but that's not the ask from the province...

Example here. There are four active traffic lanes plus two bike lanes. Just make them all go through with no parking or turning lanes, and you have what Doug wants.

 

[DSCToronto]

If you canceled all right/left turn lanes as well as all parking, you could fit four traffic lanes with bike lanes, couldn't you? Isn't it virtually all four lanes now if you include those? Traffic wouldn't go any faster than a well-designed 2 lane road with the appropriate turning lanes, but that's not the ask from the province...

Example here. There are four active traffic lanes plus two bike lanes. Just make them all go through with no parking or turning lanes, and you have what Doug wants.

View attachment 610732

That would certainly piss off the BIA and the merchants!

 

[nfitz]

1) Some of the sidewalks on this section of Danforth are only 2.4M wide, the minimum standard for a side street is 2.1M

In your example, the road is 15-metres wide (I get 15.8 metres in the same location, using the city's mapping tool). So 15 + 2.1 + 2.1 ≈ 20 metres. So where's the other 7 metres?

Looking at the location of your example, I get 4.8 metres from the curb to the property line. Not 2.1 or 2.4.

 

[Northern Light]

If you canceled all right/left turn lanes as well as all parking, you could fit four traffic lanes with bike lanes, couldn't you? Isn't it virtually all four lanes now if you include those? Traffic wouldn't go any faster than a well-designed 2 lane road with the appropriate turning lanes, but that's not the ask from the province...

Example here. There are four active traffic lanes plus two bike lanes. Just make them all go through with no parking or turning lanes, and you have what Doug wants.

View attachment 610732

Sigh...........

Parking lanes are not travel lanes, they aren't as wide. I've said this several times now and given the appropriate measurement.

****

In a 15M cross section, if you wanted 4 vehicles lanes, with zero parking and no turn lanes, you be able to do two 1.5M bike lanes, but only with paint, no flexiposts or parking curbs.

 

[Northern Light]

Go back to basics. The right-of-way along Bloor (around Bathurst) is only 20 metres. The right of way along Danforth is 27 metres. This allows for the addition of two 3.5-metre lanes, if you used the existing Bathurst cross-section.

Sigh.

First off, the ROW on Danforth here is NOT consistently 27M at all.

Its designated as 27M in the Official Plan. That means, whenever a redevelopment occurs, the developer must concede lands to the City to bring the ROW up to the width prescribed in the Official Plan.

See:

Property Line to Property Line, its not 27M

I do wish you would get that I know this file and understand what I'm talking about........ but since you don't, I will not engage further.
]

I just remeasured. I got 15 metres. Where were you looking? Perhaps we are looking at two different things.

Where? I keep seeing stuff like this (at Pharmacy). There's enough to paint in parking spots that easily leave the width of a bike lane!

Danforth/Pharmacy is 25.4M within the ROW and is 15.4M curb to curb

. And I will here if you show the evidence. And how 20 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 27 is false.

As shown above, there is not 27M actually there along most of the road, 27 is false., as a starting point.

For the above reason, you don't have the available space to put 20M between the curbs, because the City doesn't own that land along much the road, its got buildings on it!

You've said statements. Not evidence.

This is incredibly insulting, and untrue. You're going on ignore for that, where you were for years.

 

[nfitz]

Sigh.

It's not necessary to be condescending. I'm being perfectly polite here.

First off, the ROW on Danforth here is NOT consistently 27M at all.

Yes, there are some sections, particularly closer to Victoria Park, that are narrower; oops, I hadn't looked there. Going through in detail, I'm not aware of anything narrower than 23 metres. And of anything less than 25 metres that isn't within 2 blocks of Victoria Park.

The only thing that I see that could be problematic is the Victoria Park intersection. Except it's already one-lane eastbound, east of Victoria Park. So there's no need for more than a 20-metre wide right-of-way (and it's at least 23 metres there).

Its designated as 27M in the Official Plan. That means, whenever a redevelopment occurs, the developer must concede lands to the City to bring the ROW up to the width prescribed in the Official Plan.

For most of that area along Danforth, the extra land has already been acquired. Much more so than between Victoria Park and Broadview. Didn't we discuss in one of the other threads that the minimum width in Scarborough Township was greater than the 66 feet (one chain) found in Toronto and most of York Township?

Danforth/Pharmacy is 25.4M within the ROW and is 15.4M curb to curb

I said 27 metres and 15 metres above. I'm remeasuring yet again. I still get 27 metres - or at least 26.5 metres, which is within the accuracy of the notoriously dreadful PIN mapping. Can you show your 25.4 metres?

]

For the above reason, you don't have the available space to put 20M between the curbs, because the City doesn't own that land along much the road, its got buildings on it!

Which I believe you only need at intersections (though you'd only need 18.8 metres using the standards they used on Woodbine). Which intersection is this an issue? With 20 metres, you still have room for 2.4 metres on each side of the road, for pedestrians. Which is 24.8 metres. Which major intersection doesn't have 24.8 metres?

This is incredibly insulting, and untrue.

I don't see anything here that's even mildly insulting. It certainly wasn't meant that way.

 

[bearcat]

It's not necessary to be condescending. I'm being perfectly polite here.


Yes, there are some sections, particularly closer to Victoria Park, that are narrower; oops, I hadn't looked there. Going through in detail, I'm not aware of anything narrower than 23 metres. And of anything less than 25 metres that isn't within 2 blocks of Victoria Park.

The only thing that I see that could be problematic is the Victoria Park intersection. Except it's already one-lane eastbound, east of Victoria Park. So there's no need for more than a 20-metre wide right-of-way (and it's at least 23 metres there).


For most of that area along Danforth, the extra land has already been acquired. Much more so than between Victoria Park and Broadview. Didn't we discuss in one of the other threads that the minimum width in Scarborough Township was greater than the 66 feet (one chain) found in Toronto and most of York Township?


I said 27 metres and 15 metres above. I'm remeasuring yet again. I still get 27 metres - or at least 26.5 metres, which is within the accuracy of the notoriously dreadful PIN mapping. Can you show your 25.4 metres?

View attachment 610751]

Which I believe you only need at intersections (though you'd only need 18.8 metres using the standards they used on Woodbine). Which intersection is this an issue? With 20 metres, you still have room for 2.4 metres on each side of the road, for pedestrians. Which is 24.8 metres. Which major intersection doesn't have 24.8 metres?

I don't see anything here that's even mildly insulting. It certainly wasn't meant that way.

I am sure if you narrow the sidewalks and the car lanes and have very narrow bike lanes with just paint marking them you can fit everything in, but that would require $$$$ to move the curbs and streetlights and you end up with a suboptimal results with narrow sidewalks, narrow unprotected bike lanes and narrow car lanes with no street parkin and literally everyone is not happy lol

This was also my original idea about how to solve this problem, but as @Northern Light pointed out it's not a simple fix if you want to have car and bike lanes of usable and not suboptimal width.

And even if everything fits along most of the street, it still might not be possible at intersections unless we get rid of turn lanes.

 

[nfitz]

I am sure if you narrow the sidewalks and the car lanes and have very narrow bike lanes with just paint marking them you can fit everything in, but that would require $$$$ to move the curbs and streetlights and you end up with a suboptimal results with narrow sidewalks, narrow unprotected bike lanes and narrow car lanes with no street parkin and literally everyone is not happy lol

This was also my original idea about how to solve this problem, but as @Northern Light pointed out it's not a simple fix if you want to have car and bike lanes of usable and not suboptimal width.

And even if everything fits along most of the street, it still might not be possible at intersections unless we get rid of turn lanes.

Comparing to the Woodbine sections, this can be done without just doing lines. Or extra narrow lanes. We certainly have bike lanes now, that convert into a sharrow right at the intersection, to allow for turns - and that might be necessary.

I'm not seeing anywhere other than near VP where there's still less than 25 metres. The worst looking old building I've seen - is a very poor looking building indeed. If it got expropriated, knocked down for this project, and then redeveloped, it might actually make a profit! Very few other buildings are even built out to the 3.4 metres or so of widening of the ROW that they've been taking over the years.

 

[valvenis]

I am sure if you narrow the sidewalks and the car lanes and have very narrow bike lanes with just paint marking them you can fit everything in, but that would require $$$$ to move the curbs and streetlights and you end up with a suboptimal results with narrow sidewalks, narrow unprotected bike lanes and narrow car lanes with no street parkin and literally everyone is not happy lol

This was also my original idea about how to solve this problem, but as @Northern Light pointed out it's not a simple fix if you want to have car and bike lanes of usable and not suboptimal width.

And even if everything fits along most of the street, it still might not be possible at intersections unless we get rid of turn lanes.

I can't think of a more optimal solution...to drive away customers and businesses from the area.

Congrats - we turned a street into a highway / stroad! Wait a second - where did all the costumers go? People don't like shopping or eating next to a busy road? Who knew?

 

[robmausser]

Weston Loop

www.westonloop.com

The Humber Gap has a new name and is apparently proceeding after the Golf course nearby finally agreed.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Humber Gap has a new name and is apparently proceeding after the Golf course nearby finally agreed.

What? No Sankofa Gap?

 

[UntitledCyclist]

Weston Loop

www.westonloop.com

The Humber Gap has a new name and is apparently proceeding after the Golf course nearby finally agreed.

View attachment 611326

This is so interesting. This apear to be a joint project of council, the Weston residents association and developers. I'm guessing the slick website and branding comes from the latter. Look like they are counting on this as an attractive sell for home and condo buyers.

Notably, TRCA is not listed on the website as being any part of this. Which is eyebrow raising.

Not sure what happened to the BlogTO link you initially had in here, but here it is.

I'm unclear when the golf course backtracked on their opposition. The most recent article I could find on it from this past April, when the club was still claiming "mass fatalities" could occur if the trail ran through their course.

Like others I'm sure, I'm skeptical about the outsized role developers seem to be playing here – and often do – in nominally public projects. They hold too much power and sway and have the ear of the political elites, especially at Queen's Park. If it gets it done, I suppose ends justify means, but I'm ashamed to live in a city that can't simply get projects done for the public good without having big, wealthy developers involved to grease the skids (or at least not logjam things).

I'm also trying to parse their claim it will be a "4 km trail." The Mid-Humber Gap between the staircase below Mallaby Park and the enrance to the trail north of there is about 800m. So the new trail through the golf course wouldn't be much more than 1km. I guess they are including the already existing trail north and south of the gap, in their measurement, because they are branding it as a newly interconnected set of parks. Whatever. Sell the sizzle!

(Also learning that cheatin' Frances Nunziata has a cool "FN" logo for branding purposes. I guess when you've been around as long as she has, why not?)