News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

allengeorge said:
My guess is that the lanes don’t have barriers for the same reason they added center turn lanes: access to driveways.

That said, I do agree with @Northern Light - adding center turn lanes is ridiculous. It makes the street wider, more inhospitable and makes it worse for cyclists (now someone could be turning into you from two lanes away).
Click to expand...

Driveways don't seem to be a huge issue: (photos run south to north along Port Union from Lawrence)

1620480112540.png


1620480133875.png


1620480165739.png


This segment has some, though only on one side of the road, and a fair bit of space between them.

1620480215253.png



But they disappear again after a few hundred metres:

1620480275213.png


Driveways could account for maybe 20-25% of the route lacking separation.........but not the rest.
 
The proposed bike lanes are buffered, which gives them plenty of room to install physical protection. That would not only provide cyclists with real protection, but also visually narrow the roadway, which slows down traffic. There's no excuse for the lanes to not be protected. Here's some research from right here in Toronto that shows that protected bike lanes are safer and attract more cyclists than painted bike lanes.

The intersections are badly designed, with car traffic crossing over the bike lanes to turn right. This is where protection is needed the most yet it's where the bike lane design is most compromised. If Ottawa can build protected intersections all over the city then so can Toronto.
 
Why not multi-use path?

Alternately, you could get 3.7m two way cycle track + 0.5m buffer if they were combined.
 
afransen said:
So do we stop prosecuting theft under $5k? The cop being interviewed in that piece mentioned reduction in theft worth millions of $, in one city.
Click to expand...
Toronto cops have been much abandoned policing. If you’re not actively being murdered they’re not interested. Property theft? Forget about it. Safe Streets Act, HTA, vandalism and bike lane obstructors? TPS don’t care. Think about it, when was the last time you saw a TPS officer not on paid duty who was on their feet rather than in a car, on a bicycle or a horse? IDK why TPS are issued with shoes at all.

How do I stop my bike from being stolen? I never, ever leave it anywhere. I don’t bring a lock in case I’m tempted. If I stop for a coffee, the bike‘s coming in with me, or neither am I. If I need to ride for an errand, I take bike share.
 
Andy_in_Toronto said:
What is proposed on Port Union Rd is a utter disgrace on how to design a street in a residential area. Well said:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1391907424953585665
Click to expand...
Honestly building these bike lanes is just a waste of time, even if protected imo. Concrete curbs are okayish in lower speed downtown streets, but normal people are not going to feel comfortable cycling 40cm away from 60-70km/h suburban traffic, even if the bike lane is protected with concrete barriers, curbs, or flexiposts. On suburban roads with few pedestrians like Port Union, especially when we are essentially doing a complete road reconstruction, we should really just be putting in nice and wide (3.5-4m) MUTs on both sides of the road.

And there should *really* be no centre turn lane on a road like Port Union, just so a couple of people can get to their driveways faster. Stick in a median and plant some trees and allow U-turns, or narrow the roadway.
 
Last edited:
sche said:
Honestly building these bike lanes is just a waste of time, even if protected imo.
Click to expand...

Not willing to go this far. Progress, however slow or inadequate, remains progress. We should fight for better; but not decline better than present, because its less than ideal.

sche said:
Concrete curbs are okayish in lower speed downtown streets, but normal people are not going to feel comfortable cycling 40cm away from 60-70km/h suburban traffic, even if the bike lane is protected with concrete barriers, curbs, or flexiposts.
Click to expand...

I'm not a regular on this road, by any means, but I have to say, when I have been out there, most of it doesn't currently function that way. Its currently only a single lane NB, and only 2 short sections of centre turn lane.

Outside of the bit w/the highway interchange (and north to Sheppard), I think it functions in a way that would probably be fine w/protected bike lanes.

Now, here's the thing..............this project is adding a NB lane, AND adding additional centre turning lane. That IS a real problem, because they are actually creating the conditions for far greater speed.

I could live with the one new NB lane..........but going to a 5-lane configuration is just a step too far. It also means the road widening is more about the car than pedestrians or cyclists.


sche said:
On suburban roads with few pedestrians like Port Union, especially when we are essentially doing a complete road reconstruction, we should really just be putting in nice and wide (3.5-4m) MUTs on both sides of the road.
Click to expand...

I'm iffy on this one. Unless the trail is curbside, on one side of the road only, I can't see anyway to squeeze it in without removing all the trees on one side.

Just like cyclists, the trees need room; also, if you put a trail in at-grade w/the boulevard, and then salt it in the winter, you will almost certainly kill the landscaping .

You do an MT on Eglinton West, because the ROW was wide enough for an 8-lane expressway; most arterials don't have space that is that wide; certainly Pt. Union does not.

I also worry that if you isolate cyclists from the road (not separate, isolate); you run the risk of never educating drivers on how to interact w/cyclists; and never educating cyclists how to use the road.

I'm pro high quality, separated bike lanes, but want motorists and cyclists to interact (safely).

sche said:
And there should *really* be no centre turn lane on a road like Port Union, just so a couple of people can get to their driveways faster. Stick in a median and plant some trees and allow U-turns, or narrow the roadway.
Click to expand...

Absoutely!
 
Interesting to me how the City of Toronto has barely built any road widenings (or road infrastructure at all for that matter) in the last 15 years, yet suddenly has 4 major road projects in Scarborough all at once. (Steeles underpass / 6 landing, Steeles widening to Donald Cousens, Morningside Extension, port union road widening).

Honestly given the location a curb separated multi use trial is probably the best solution for Port union.
 
Honestly, at this rate I’d rather Port Union stay as it is. Paint is not adequate for bike lanes, and there definitely shouldn’t be dedicated center turn lanes.

From what I understand, Port Union is fairly low-traffic; drivers can afford to wait a few minutes for someone to turn in/out of a driveway. This plan seems to be going backwards on everything we know so far about good road design for cities.
 
When they built underpasses and overpasses in North York, Etobicoke, etc. in the 1950's, 1960's, and even 1970's, they assumed that the roads would be widened from 2 lanes to 3 lanes in each directions. This photo is from Lawrence Avenue West, just west of Caledonia Road. It is 3 lanes under the railway, however, 2 lanes east and west of it. They did put in bicycle lanes but left it as three traffic lanes. It would have been better if they raise the bicycle lane to be level with the sidewalk (to avoid the hill climb), but they do have the budget for the automobile but not bicycles.

1620742604833.png

From link.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top