Toronto Queens Quay & Water's Edge Revitalization | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

[reaperexpress]

These suggestions unfortunately will be ignored by the people in charge because they did not think about it. They did not think about it because they are very addicted to the automobile, and consider bicyclists and pedestrians second-class "things" and have to be tolerated.

While there has indeed been a history of car-centric planning, it is ignorant and frankly counterproductive to blindly assign this mentality to everyone involved in designing something you don't like.

The new Queen's Quay was designed by West 8 Architects, of Rotterdam, the Netherlands - a city where the bicycle is very much a transport mode on par with the automobile. The conceptual design clearly places a higher focus on pedestrians and cyclists than on cars. It removed half the car lanes to replace them with a generous sidewalk, a bicycle path with fully-protected traffic signals and widened streetcar platforms. Meanwhile, the car lanes are the absolute minimum permitted width, and turning movements are heavily restricted.

The issues we experience on Queen's Quay with conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists are entirely due to poorly designed details within the larger well-designed plan. Namely we're talking about paving materials, pavement markings and signage. It seems as though the bicycle path was designed by a landscape architect rather than a traffic engineer, which is why the design sends mixed signals to various users - hence the mixed and conflicting behaviours.

Full blog post on how to fix it:
https://ontariotrafficman.wordpress...e-track-reconciling-cyclists-and-pedestrians/

A couple pictures from my above article:

 

[drum118]

Did they mention what kind of traffic light changes are coming?

So no and never asked the question.

 

[MetroMan]

Benches, trees and parked bikes create enough of a separation between the sidewalk and the bike lane...

... unless of course, you're these two idiots who got on at some point and just stroll along the bike path completely oblivious:

 

[nfitz]

... unless of course, you're these two idiots who got on at some point and just stroll along the bike path completely obvlibious:

Oblivious to what? Why is there no clear signage in the picture or paint on the path to indicate this is a no-no?

 

[reaperexpress]

Benches, trees and parked bikes create enough of a separation between the sidewalk and the bike lane...

Yeah, I was going to say. I tested the clearance on a bench, and even with my legs stretched all the way out, I wasn't infringing on the bike path.

... unless of course, you're these two idiots who got on at some point and just stroll along the bike path completely oblivious:

Can you really blame them when there are no bicycle symbols on the actual path? There are even signs proclaiming it a "shared pathway".

It's a design issue more than a behaviour issue. There need to be bicycle symbols on the path, and those "shared pathway" signs need to be replaced with "reserved bike lane" signs. It makes no sense to permit pedestrians on such a busy bicycle path when there's a massive sidewalk next to it.

 

[reaperexpress]

Did they mention what kind of traffic light changes are coming?

I expect that the left turn signals will be relocated to place them in front of the left turn lane, instead of over the streetcar ROW. That should resolve the issue of people turning left on red left turn signals and scratching up our new streetcars. Simcoe will be the first intersection to be modified since that it had the most collisions.

 

[PinkLucy]

Can you really blame them when there are no bicycle symbols on the actual path? There are even signs proclaiming it a "shared pathway".

It's a design issue more than a behaviour issue. There need to be bicycle symbols on the path, and those "shared pathway" signs need to be replaced with "reserved bike lane" signs. It makes no sense to permit pedestrians on such a busy bicycle path when there's a massive sidewalk next to it.

Except that it's not just a bicycle path. It's also signed for runners and roller bladers.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Is there a law, or by-law, that makes the fire trucks, ambulances, or police vehicles using bicycle lanes illegal? They paved the streetcar tracks for EMS, but there seems to be room on the bicycle lanes for them to use instead.

If I saw (or heard) a fire truck coming at me on the bicycle lane, I would get off the bicycle lane to let it go by. Wouldn't you?

Hopefully, they will leave access on the Transit City lines for emergency vehicles, that may end borrowing a on-road bicycle lane, if the need arises.

 

[Megaton327]

Is there a law, or by-law, that makes the fire trucks, ambulances, or police vehicles using bicycle lanes illegal? They paved the streetcar tracks for EMS, but there seems to be room on the bicycle lanes for them to use instead.

If I saw (or heard) a fire truck coming at me on the bicycle lane, I would get off the bicycle lane to let it go by. Wouldn't you?

Hopefully, they will leave access on the Transit City lines for emergency vehicles, that may end borrowing a on-road bicycle lane, if the need arises.

I've seen several cars driving down the bike lane--not nearly as many as the streetcar ROW, but several nonetheless--and they seem to fit fine. Additionally, hydro and other utilities have had trucks on it a few times, so the weight of a vehicle apparently isn't a problem for the silva cells underneath. So, I'd imagine that definitely police cars and ambulances can fit on the trail, though fire trucks may be another thing.

That said, I sincerely doubt that there is an official policy allowing them to use it, and I doubt they ever would. As many others have noticed, since the rebuild emergency vehicles seem to almost exclusively use the road lanes and do just fine, without even going on the streetcar ROW...I'd imagine they're much more likely to use that than the MGT.

Interesting point, though. Definitely technically possible.

 

[reaperexpress]

Is there a law, or by-law, that makes the fire trucks, ambulances, or police vehicles using bicycle lanes illegal? They paved the streetcar tracks for EMS, but there seems to be room on the bicycle lanes for them to use instead.

If I saw (or heard) a fire truck coming at me on the bicycle lane, I would get off the bicycle lane to let it go by. Wouldn't you?

Emergency vehicles on bicycle paths is not unheard of. In the Netherlands it's possible because the paths are built to a very high standard in terms of width, radius and strength.

 

[Zach6668]

Benches, trees and parked bikes create enough of a separation between the sidewalk and the bike lane...

... unless of course, you're these two idiots who got on at some point and just stroll along the bike path completely oblivious:

These parts are fine, of course, but it's the intersections (aka the mixing zones) that provide the most frustration to all users. The paving material tends to be the same as the pedestrian areas, so it's understandable that the large crowds of pedestrians don't realize they shouldn't be standing in the way of the bike path. There needs to be better differentiation there, whether that's different paving material, some sort of curb, or something else. As mentioned, the placement of the pedestrian crossing buttons only encourages people to stand between the streetcar ROW and the MUP as well. As it's been said, just really poor design details in certain spots - something that can be tweaked and fixed pretty easily.

 

[salsa]

As mentioned, the placement of the pedestrian crossing buttons only encourages people to stand between the streetcar ROW and the MUP as well. As it's been said, just really poor design details in certain spots - something that can be tweaked and fixed pretty easily.

When will it be fixed?

 

[reaperexpress]

As mentioned, the placement of the pedestrian crossing buttons only encourages people to stand between the streetcar ROW and the MUP as well.

I think the current placement of pedestrian buttons is correct.

If the buttons are placed before the bicycle path, then the pedestrian-bicycle conflict becomes signalized, and the Flashing Don't Walk needs to be increased to account for that. For example, at Simcoe the crossing distance is currently 19.7m, which translates to a 17s FDW. If the bicycle path is included in the signalized crossing, the crossing distance would become, 25.7m, which translates to a 22s FDW. Since the north-south pedestrian crossing time is the limiting factor for the signal timings at all the intersections in the central waterfront, that means that each cycle an extra 5 seconds will need to be allocated to the north-south phase. If the cycle length is kept constant, that means a significant reduction in east-west green time, which will delay streetcars and bicycles, while increasing the rate of red light running by pedestrians and cyclists. If the cycle length is increased to compensate, then the already-excruciating waits for the north-south pedestrian signal will become even more ridiculously long.

Once we have a more clearly marked (i.e. asphalt) bicycle path through the conflict point, it should be less common for pedestrians to inadvertently wander across the bike path.

Here's an example of a clearly-defined pedestrian crossing point at Wellesley and Queen's Park West. The intersection is stop-controlled for cars, but it could just as easily have been a signalized and pedestrians would still understand that they need to wait for a gap when crossing the bicycle path.

Image from Streetview

 

[k10ery]

Once we have a more clearly marked (i.e. asphalt) bicycle path through the conflict point, it should be less common for pedestrians to inadvertently wander across the bike path.

Is that definitely happening? I see the argument in favour but I'm not sure. The original intent was to transition to cobblestone as a warning to cyclists to slow down in the conflict area. Has the pendulum really swung so far that we have to warn pedestrians to be aware, and not cyclists?

 

[reaperexpress]

Is that definitely happening? I see the argument in favour but I'm not sure. The original intent was to transition to cobblestone as a warning to cyclists to slow down in the conflict area. Has the pendulum really swung so far that we have to warn pedestrians to be aware, and not cyclists?

Yes, pedestrians are definitely crossing the bicycle path without being aware that they are doing so.

As for using the cobblestone as a warning for cyclists, that would make sense at a pedestrian-priority crossing point. But with the exception of Spadina (where I agree with its use as per my rendering above) these crossings are part of signalized intersections. It is simply not intuitive to yield to pedestrians while facing a green light, so pedestrians should be instructed to yield to bicycle traffic. When the light is red for bicycles, locating the stop bar before the crossing point effectively lets pedestrians cross with priority during that part of the cycle. They technically need to yield to bicycle traffic, but that traffic isn't moving so they can simply walk across.

For reference on how to make intuitive unsignalized ped-bike conflict points at signalized intersections, check out any intersection in the Netherlands.

Gordelweg & Soetendaalsekade, Rotterdam (selected randomly)