[smably]

Having just a contraflow bike lane instead of bidirectional bike lanes helps reduce the complexity of intersections, which can actually improve safety on low-volume and low-speed streets compared to a bidirectional path.

This is true. Maybe some of the budget could also be reallocated to separated infrastructure elsewhere where there's greater need.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not sure why they would need a cycle track at all north of Front. With the proposed one way changes and the filter at Wellington Street it will become impossible for motorists to use Portland as a through route, so traffic volumes will be minimal. The street would become a local street, which therefore has a 30 km/h limit and I assume this project would redesign the geometry accordingly.

Having just a contraflow bike lane instead of bidirectional bike lanes helps reduce the complexity of intersections, which can actually improve safety on low-volume and low-speed streets compared to a bidirectional path.

I haven't discussed this with staff, so I may be off-base here.....

But my thoughts would go in a couple of directions.

The first is the importance of perceived safety vs actual. A lot of riders, particularly women and parents with young children simply aren't comfortable in mixed traffic. On some streets they probably should be; but we aren't necessarily there.

My other thought goes to 'branding'; the idea of being able to show a network, of preferred, protected cycle routes building off the existing downtown network.
Keeping in mind that there will not be such routes on Bathurst or Spadina in the near-term, Portland becomes the network anchor in this west-of-downtown area.

Just a thought.

 

[TRONto]

Some things don't change as quickly as they should.......

But things do indeed change.

I did two counts of queues at lights, while on my big walk on Wednesday.

On College, at McCaul, going west, cyclists outnumbers cars.

On Dundas, wb at University, the queue was 10 cyclists, 14 cars in rush hour.

That is remarkable change from a few years ago.

I hope our cycling infrastructure will be sufficient for the tidal wave of cyclists coming in 5-7 years when all the condos with no car parking are occupied.

 

[Northern Light]

I hope our cycling infrastructure will be sufficient for the tidal wave of cyclists coming in 5-7 years when all the condos with no car parking are occupied.

Lots more consultations coming this fall. Stay tuned.

Regrettably, Danforth-Kingston is delayed with the Council seat vacant. Consultation, hopefully, in the new year, maybe implementation next summer, IF the new councillor is supportive.

 

[reaperexpress]

This is true. Maybe some of the budget could also be reallocated to separated infrastructure elsewhere where there's greater need.

I don't imagine it would make much difference to the budget but it would certainly free up some space for wider sidewalks and/or more greenspace.

I haven't discussed this with staff, so I may be off-base here.....

But my thoughts would go in a couple of directions.

The first is the importance of perceived safety vs actual. A lot of riders, particularly women and parents with young children simply aren't comfortable in mixed traffic. On some streets they probably should be; but we aren't necessarily there.

My other thought goes to 'branding'; the idea of being able to show a network, of preferred, protected cycle routes building off the existing downtown network.
Keeping in mind that there will not be be such routes on Bathurst or Spadina in the near-term, Portland becomes the network anchor in this west-of-downtown area.

Just a thought.

Perceived safety is certainly an important consideration if we want to encourage people to travel by bicycle or fast wheelchair but I don't think it's feasible to have a dedicated bike path on every street. So anyone who gets on a bicycle would at least need to be comfortable riding on a quiet local street.

When people say "mixed traffic" it evoques images of road cyclists riding on an arterial road which is clearly designed as a car space. But on streets such as the proposed Portland arrangement, it wouldn't necessarily be that bikes are using a "car space" but rather that cars would be allowed to slowly travel in a "bicycle space" as guests.

In the Netherlands this type of arrangement is known as a "fietsstraat" (bicycle street). To create a fietsstraat, through motor traffic is prevented using intermittent modal filters, which is exactly what the City of Toronto is already proposing to do on Portland Street. In the proposal, the longest distance it's possible to drive along Portland is only 370 metres (northbound from Queen to King).

Fietsstraat along one of the main cycling routes in Delft. (Abtswoudseweg) In this case, the paving materials create the illusion that the street is only as wide as a bicycle path, though in fact there is (just barely) enough space for motor vehicles to operate in both directions. Portland St would only need to fit motor vehicles in one direction.

People from other countries often assume that the main bike routes in the Netherlands are all cycle paths. But in reality a very large proportion of the main bike routes allow cars to operate on the bike route to access their final destination if necessary. Whether a segment of the main cycling network is a bicycle street or a bicycle path has no bearing on the continuity or the branding of the Dutch main cycling network. In my experience the average cyclist in the Netherlands (especially foreign visitors) doesn't even notice the difference between a fietsstraat and a bicycle path.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't imagine it would make much difference to the budget but it would certainly free up some space for wider sidewalks.


Perceived safety is certainly an important consideration if we want to encourage people to travel by bicycle or fast wheelchair but I don't think it's feasible to have a dedicated bike path on every street. So anyone who gets on a bicycle would at least need to be comfortable riding on a quiet local street.

When people say "mixed traffic" it evoques images of road cyclists riding on an arterial road which is clearly designed as a car space. But on streets such as the proposed Portland arrangement, it wouldn't necessarily be that bikes are using a "car space" but rather that cars would be allowed to slowly travel in a "bicycle space" as guests.

In the Netherlands this type of arrangement is known as a "fietsstraat" (bicycle street) People from other countries often assume that the main bike routes are all cycle paths but in reality a very large proportion of the main bike routes allow cars to operate on the bike route to access their final destination if necessary.

Whether a segment of the main cycling network is a bicycle street or a bicycle path has no bearing on the continuity or the branding of the network.

Do share your thoughts when the opportunity arises.

 

[DSC]

At the St Lawrence celebration of/for the City bike folk yesterday and the official opening of the new(ish) path through Parliament Square Park, it was confirmed that the bike track on The Esplanade from Market Street to the Park will be a proper raised track. This work will be done when they 'refresh' David Crombie Park following City work laying a new watermain. The watermain work is scheduled to start in Q4 2023 and be finished next summer so I assume the bike track work may get done in fall 2024.

 

[afransen]

Definitely seems like there is an opportunity to dramatically narrow the roadway on Portland at least between Wellington and Front, add a row of street trees, leaving one traffic lane and some parking/loading bays. Maybe a bit of the future Yonge St treatment with rolled curbs and pavers.

 

[reaperexpress]

The public ROW on Portland seems to be about 14.2 m based on the satellite images. Here's a concept for how that could look as a fietsstraat (bicycle street).

The Ontario Traffic Manual requires a minimum width of 1.8 m for a contraflow bicycle lane, which is probably overkill on a 30 km/h local street where bikes can use the whole width of the street as required. But anyway I kept the road visually as narrow as possible by paving part of both of the lanes in a contrasting material. The sum of the asphalt plus the bricks is the OTM minimum lane width.

Making the road appear too narrow for cars/trucks (while actually being wide enough thanks to the coloured shoulder) substantially lowers the speed of motor vehicles and emphasizes that they are not in a space designed for cars.

Most of the buildings are set back from the public right of way so there is room for patios outside of this cross-section.

Here's my guess for what the City is actually planning:

 

[W. K. Lis]

The public ROW on Portland seems to be about 14.2 m based on the satellite images. Here's a concept for how that could look as a fietsstraat (bicycle street).

View attachment 500989
The Ontario Traffic Manual requires a minimum width of 1.8 m for a contraflow bicycle lane, which is probably overkill on a 30 km/h local street where bikes can use the whole width of the street as required. But anyway I kept the road visually as narrow as possible by paving part of both of the lanes in a contrasting material. The sum of the asphalt plus the bricks is the OTM minimum lane width.

Making the road appear too narrow for cars/trucks (while actually being wide enough thanks to the coloured shoulder) substantially lowers the speed of motor vehicles and emphasizes that they are not in a space designed for cars.

Most of the buildings are set back from the public right of way so there is room for patios outside of this cross-section.

If the street was designed for 30 km/h then both motorists and cyclists could share the road. Starting with red asphalt and cobblestones to warn motorists to slow down.

From link.

 

[max]

What’s with those traffic signals? Is this Syracuse?

I just realized your profile photo is that light! Nice

 

[Admiral Beez]

I went for a long downtown cycle today. Can we stop with the “on your left“ shout outs? Use your bell to alert your fellow cyclists and pedestrians that you‘re approaching.

 

[PL1]

I went for a long downtown cycle today. Can we stop with the “on your left“ shout outs? Use your bell to alert your fellow cyclists and pedestrians that your approaching.

I do both, but always the bell. When I'm running I *really* want cyclists to use their bells.

 

[Northern Light]

I went for a long downtown cycle today. Can we stop with the “on your left“ shout outs? Use your bell to alert your fellow cyclists and pedestrians that your approaching.

I agree w/the bell, but I think, depending on the scenario, the 'on your left' makes some sense.

I regularly walk in the valleys, along the multi-use trails. Walkers in particular, but sometimes cyclists too don't stick to the right, they wander to the middle or even left of the trail.

I can see where a cyclist approaching from behind, at speed, wants to make sure than the warning doesn't send the person in front to the left, and into their path.

Calling out 'on your left' in that case is a clear direction to stay where you are, so you can be passed.

I get where that may seem self-evident. just with a bell.

But some people hear a bell and think its a 'get out of the way'; when in fact the cyclist is already willing and able to go around, they just want predictable movement.

Some people are not keen followers of pedestrian/cyclist etiquette.

Does it make the same sense in a uni-directional bike lane, where both riders appear to be experienced? Probably not.

 

[WillTo]

I went for a long downtown cycle today. Can we stop with the “on your left“ shout outs? Use your bell to alert your fellow cyclists and pedestrians that your approaching.

Why?