|
|
|
There are existing permanent ones on Eglinton, on Steeles East at Milliken Station, and several along Queens Quay (for streetcars west of York and buses east of Yonge).
Very interesting, as you know, some UTers are particularly keen on traffic signals and are constantly suggesting new varieties so I hope they may be able to get in touch with the OTC to put their views forward. (See the Traffic Signals thread, started by @reaperexpress ) At https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/roads-traffic-signals.23916/
Maybe I'm missing something (apologies if so!) but isn't the novelty of the earlier picture shown on Yonge the fact that the platform is to the left of the bike lane, rather than IN the bike lane. In this Eglinton example, it seems just like a more permanent variant of the style used on Bloor and elsewhere where the passengers are meant to stand in the bike lane (in the yellow boundary) while waiting to board the transit vehicle. The new one shown on Yonge has a small "bridge" that crosses the cycle track, but the bulk of the platform is separate so passengers need not obstruct cyclists when boarding/disembarking.
In all of the examples I named, passengers can wait between the cycle track and the roadway. That's why there are tactile markings on both sides of the bike path, not just the right side. In some cases the platform wasn't wide enough to fit the shelter so people also have the option of waiting outside of the bike path, but that doesn't make the platform not a platform.
Thanks. So, I think I am following you. Sorry to focus on Eglinton, but it's the one with a visual which suits my brain. When I look at the narrow interlocking brick area at the curb, to the left of the tactile marks and the cycle track, it may give an option to stand out of the bike lane but I can't imagine people standing there for long. Passengers hopping off a bus will end up in the bike lane by momentum alone. The Yonge Zicla platform variant, which in effect pens passengers in with a railing when they disembark, will more effectively keep them out of the cycle track – at least temporarily. The grade difference also has that function, as the Yonge cycle tracks are at street level. Whether or not this is a GOOD design, or one passengers will like, is another story! I guess they just seem like quite different designs to me, though I see how you are drawing a parallel with other "non-Roncy" style platforms as well. Cheers!
I think it's easier for cyclists to yield to pedestrians in the set up on Yonge as the crosswalk is not the full width of the island stop, so the area where cyclists interact with bus riders is much smaller.
It doesn't really matter whether people choose to stand on the interlocked platform on Eglinton. When defining what type of bus stop it is, the question is simply "is it a platform or not". If the answer is yes, then cyclists do not necessarily need to stop when a bus pulls up. If the answer is no, then cyclists must stop regardless of seeing someone getting off (same as a mixed-traffic streetcar stop). This is primarily important for people getting off the bus. In this case people step off onto an area that is separate from the cycleway (a platform) and then need to cross the cycleway (either a marked crosswalk or just stepping over the bike path during a gap).
According to current design standards the Eglinton example should also have a marked crosswalk in line with the front doors, which indicates where cyclists will need to yield to pedestrians headed to/from the platform. It was still under construction in that picture, it's possible that the crosswalk has since been added.
Even if we had a hardened separation here, the cyclist is still exposed when he enters the intersection. I'm not sure what infrastructure improvements, beyond removing the cyclist entirely, would have made a difference when the risk is a speeding truck that makes an illegal right turn across your path.
