News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 620     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1.1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 2.9K     8 

Dufferin Street: Eliminating the jog

Mar 8, 2020

fullsizeoutput_36b2.jpeg




DSCN2415.JPG




DSCN2417.JPG




DSCN2443.JPG




DSCN2445.JPG




DSCN2447.JPG




DSCN2448.JPG




DSCN2450.JPG




DSCN2458.JPG




DSCN2459.JPG
 
This is probably the right thread for updates on the Peel/Gladstone reconstruction?

The city released the final designs for this project last week:
peel_gladstone_final_design.png


Overall, I'm disappointed. On Gladstone, parking is still placed between the bike lane and the sidewalk on the west side, and neither bike lane has any physical protection, all but guaranteeing that they will be blocked by illegally parked cars. The sharrows on Peel, like all sharrows, are useless and would be better off not existing at all.

The original design had one-way traffic with buffered contraflow bike lanes on Peel and Gladstone, but apparently neighbours complained and the city felt it was more important to provide two car lanes plus on-street parking both streets than safe infrastructure for people on bikes.

Curb radii are all much larger than necessary, with the northwest corner of Queen/Gladstone being the worst offender. When I brought this up at a public consultation, staff told me that they need to accommodate turning movements for large trucks serving the FreshCo. I'm still skeptical that this is the best that they can do, given how wide the lanes on Gladstone are approaching Queen.

The only positive thing I can say about this design is that it's better than the status quo, which is a very low bar.
 
smably said:
This is probably the right thread for updates on the Peel/Gladstone reconstruction?

The city released the final designs for this project last week:
View attachment 276087

Overall, I'm disappointed. On Gladstone, parking is still placed between the bike lane and the sidewalk on the west side, and neither bike lane has any physical protection, all but guaranteeing that they will be blocked by illegally parked cars. The sharrows on Peel, like all sharrows, are useless and would be better off not existing at all.

The original design had one-way traffic with buffered contraflow bike lanes on Peel and Gladstone, but apparently neighbours complained and the city felt it was more important to provide two car lanes plus on-street parking both streets than safe infrastructure for people on bikes.

Curb radii are all much larger than necessary, with the northwest corner of Queen/Gladstone being the worst offender. When I brought this up at a public consultation, staff told me that they need to accommodate turning movements for large trucks serving the FreshCo. I'm still skeptical that this is the best that they can do, given how wide the lanes on Gladstone are approaching Queen.

The only positive thing I can say about this design is that it's better than the status quo, which is a very low bar.
Click to expand...

Disappointing.

Out of curiosity, have you flagged the issue w/Councillor Bailão?

I'm not sure I'd have any faith she'd address it; but ya never know.

At the very least, the parking on Gladstone should be swapped with the bike lane positioning.

But that's hardly adequate.

Though that would seem a no-brainer that wouldn't actually displease anyone.

******

Tangential rant; the desire for parking on-street is a function of free parking during the day; and cheap permit parking a night.

If we fix that, demand would decline, and we could have more intelligent use of road space.

Permit Parking needs to cost at least $150 per month (that's only $5 per day), but a lot more than the current price.

We need to eliminate free parking on side streets, within 100M of a main road.

If people had to pay and display, a minimum of $3, again, demand would fall off, sharply.

/end rant.
 
Northern Light said:
Out of curiosity, have you flagged the issue w/Councillor Bailão?
Click to expand...
I have not. I suspect that it might be too late in the process now, given that this is the third (and apparently final) design advanced by staff. But worth a try, I suppose.

Northern Light said:
At the very least, the parking on Gladstone should be swapped with the bike lane positioning.

But that's hardly adequate.

Though that would seem a no-brainer that wouldn't actually displease anyone.
Click to expand...
The reason that staff gave for this lane arrangement (and the reason that they they tend to do this in general) is that more space is required for parking-protected bike lanes. TTC and emergency services require a minimum amount of clearance, and as long as the bike lane is adjacent to the car lane, the width of bike lane can be included in the width of the roadway for the purposes of calculating clearance. But if parking is outside the bike lane, the car lanes are often too narrow for fire trucks or buses to get through. Given that there is no bus route here, it is almost certainly the fire department that's responsible for this particular compromise. So as long as there are two car lanes, on-street parking, and street trees, a painted lane in the door zone is all we're going to get.

(Don't even get me started on how the fire department dictates street geometry in this city. Instead of sourcing smaller equipment that can navigate narrow streets, as is the norm in many other parts of the world, they demand wide lanes that accommodate their current fleet of trucks. Wide lanes mean less space for people who walk or bike and higher speeds for people driving -- exactly the opposite of what needs to be done to make streets safe. So the fire department has likely, in an indirect way, contributed to many unnecessary injuries and deaths. But that's a rant for another thread.)
 
Northern Light said:
At the very least, the parking on Gladstone should be swapped with the bike lane positioning.
Click to expand...

For the love of god, please no. Bike lanes right against the curb with parking to the left of them is the worst idea that I've seen yet with automobile versus bike infrastructure.

Sure, it provides a measure of spacing between the traffic lanes and the bike lanes - but now passengers on the right side of the vehicle need to be aware of bike traffic passing upon leaving the vehicle when they've never been taught to before. Cyclists not only have to have an even more aware eye on doors opening suddenly, but you have no way to "escape" if one does. And then there's the issue of people still pulling up to curb to park or stop.

Depending on the bike I'm riding, I frequently forego the bike lane on Woodbine and ride in the regular traffic lanes.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
For the love of god, please no. Bike lanes right against the curb with parking to the left of them is the worst idea that I've seen yet with automobile versus bike infrastructure.

Sure, it provides a measure of spacing between the traffic lanes and the bike lanes - but now passengers on the right side of the vehicle need to be aware of bike traffic passing upon leaving the vehicle when they've never been taught to before. Cyclists not only have to have an even more aware eye on doors opening suddenly, but you have no way to "escape" if one does. And then there's the issue of people still pulling up to curb to park or stop.

Depending on the bike I'm riding, I frequently forego the bike lane on Woodbine and ride in the regular traffic lanes.

Dan
Click to expand...

Many cyclists have a different take; to each their own.

Statistically speaking, driver-side doors will open way more often than passenger side doors.

A sidewalk can serve as an escape if you have any notice at all.

Ideally there would be a buffer to cover off the door zone; but that may not always be possible.

Of course, the best answer is a whole lot less street parking, period.
 
nfitz said:
I do have a hard time seeing how the passenger door is more of an issue than the driver's door, given that most trips have no passenger, but very few trips have no driver.
Click to expand...

Very few indeed, I should hope!
 
As much as I never want to be doored, I'd also much rather be thrown onto the sidewalk by a car door than under the wheels of a passing truck. (But really, bike lanes shouldn't be in the door zone, no matter which side of parking they're on. The buffer is essential.)
 
The argument is that drivers have to check for traffic no matter what (bike or car), while passengers often don't look because there is no oncoming vehicle traffic on their side. I'd be curious to know, statistically, what side has more incidents of dooring? Anecdotally, I've nearly been doored twice, and both times were between the car and the curb with a passenger exiting their vehicle.

The curb radii is disappointing but inevitable. Trucks should be designed to fit the streets, not vice versa.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top