News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5K     0 

The Richmond lights are a good thing, but lights at Simcoe/Queen and Simcoe/Dundas as well would essentially extend the Simcoe St. bike lanes to College (with a few jogs north of Dundas)

I live at Simcoe/Dundas, so go north on Simcoe frequently, but never liked Queen there. Technically the lane ends there, and paint markings indicate bikes should turn right only. However, I usually wait for a gap to cross north to cut through that closed off section between the insurance buildings. As for lights, I definitely think Richmond needs it, but not sure about Queen because of that closed off road. As for Dundas, I personally think St Patrick is a better stop for lights due to northbound traffic trying to get onto Dundas plus the curve there causes many close calls between impatient motorists and pedestrians alike.
 
FYI the Leaside Trail has been extended to York Mills Road

kLxxsQw.png

pExI3Gr.jpg


UUHUCrU.jpg
 
It doesn't. The trail north of Bond Ave has been designated pedestrian only. Cyclists should be using Scarsdale Road. See slide 7 below:

https://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_tor...ervices/cycling/files/pdf/project1-notice.pdf

Uh, that's from 2010. The trail photographed above is as wide as any other multi-use trail as well. And who had the bright idea of making it pedestrian-only? Cliff Jenkins? Who thinks that can be enforced? And what's the sense of that? Note that Google Maps shows it as a bike route, as does the Toronto cycling connections map two posts up.
 
It doesn't. The trail north of Bond Ave has been designated pedestrian only. Cyclists should be using Scarsdale Road. See slide 7 below:

There is a connection. Immediately south of York Mills, this road takes you onto the trail. I've been using it since last summer, and I've never seen anything saying that it's pedestrian-only. I guess they're just making it an "unofficial" connection like at the south end, so that the city doesn't have to expropriate land.
 
There is a connection. Immediately south of York Mills, this road takes you onto the trail. I've been using it since last summer, and I've never seen anything saying that it's pedestrian-only. I guess they're just making it an "unofficial" connection like at the south end, so that the city doesn't have to expropriate land.
Good to know! This is one of my favourite trails in the city since it's straight and smooth. Is the unofficial south end connection open again? When I was there last summer, there was construction at the factory next door and I wasn't able to get in there.
 
How does it connect to York Mills Road?

The trail stops just short of the York Mills overpass, where it becomes a short informal path leading up to the plaza parking lot. So if I'm cycling westbound on York Mills, this is the route I like to take. No traffic lights or left turns required.


Screen Shot 2017-05-04 at 5.35.28 PM 2.png




And when I'm going in the reverse direction, I use the road that amnesia suggested.

Screen Shot 2017-05-04 at 5.35.28 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-05-04 at 5.35.28 PM 2.png
    Screen Shot 2017-05-04 at 5.35.28 PM 2.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 425
  • Screen Shot 2017-05-04 at 5.35.28 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-05-04 at 5.35.28 PM.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 434
The trail stops just short of the York Mills overpass, where it becomes a short informal path leading up to the plaza parking lot. So if I'm cycling westbound on York Mills, this is the route I like to take. No traffic lights or left turns required.


View attachment 107611



And when I'm going in the reverse direction, I use the road that amnesia suggested.

View attachment 107612

thanks for this information I wasn't sure how this worked.

It would be cool if in the future this could be connected to the North Don Trail somehow

0154lcL.jpg
 
Last edited:
thanks for this information I wasn't sure how this worked.

It would be cool if in the future this could be connected to the North Don Trail somehow

0154lcL.jpg

That's exactly what I had in mind too, but unfortunately no such plans are proposed in the current bike plan.
 
It would be cool if in the future this could be connected to the North Don Trail somehow
That's exactly what I had in mind too, but unfortunately no such plans are proposed in the current bike plan.

I'm not sure that it's realistic for the city to buy land to build a trail through there. What would be nice though is if they added some bike lanes to make the connection there, and on the east side of Leslie from Overland to Eglinton. That'll be especially useful once they have the bike lanes in place on Eglinton.
 
For those who are interested...


Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 2.26.31 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 2.26.31 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 2.26.31 PM.png
    96.3 KB · Views: 329
This is so incredibly sad, but the case for retrospect and reflection should be on preventing occurrences like this in the future.

From today's TorStar, editorial on the recent death of the 5 year old on the Martin Goodman Trail.
Better safety needed on bike trails: Editorial
[...]
Pedestrians, too, are at risk of being hit by cyclists and roller bladers on the Martin Goodman Trail and other multi-purpose paths.

There’s a good reason that Vancouver separated its pedestrian pathway from its cycle/roller-blade trail circling busy Stanley Park. It was simply becoming too dangerous.

Toronto should consider doing the same on high-traffic multi-purpose trails.

In short, a safety overhaul of the entire Martin Goodman Trail, and others like it, is in order.

Some issues city councillors and planners should consider:

Where should there be guardrails? What kinds of signs or markings are needed to alert drivers to watch out for cyclists and pedestrians when they are on roads that cross paths? How can cyclists and roller-bladers be educated to be more careful around pedestrians? What trails in the city need separate biking and walking paths to prevent pedestrians and cyclists from colliding?

It should not have taken the death of a young boy to prompt this overdue conversation. We should not wait until someone else gets hurt to act.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/edi...r-safety-needed-on-bike-trails-editorial.html

I have to take issue with this, well-meant as it is:

[Though the trail veers dangerously close to the high-speed boulevard at that point, there is no guardrail there separating it from the roadway.

There should be — at that point and others along the trail that come too close to traffic.]
The Devil is in the details when stating "guard-rail" as what is commonly used as one is inappropriate and dangerous for cyclists. The tendency, if colliding with one, is to go over the top of it. "Some form of a barrier" would be a far more appropriate statement.

Even by writing on safety, the Star misses the point. A "guardrail" is needed to protect cyclists and pedestrians from vehicular traffic. Some other taller barrier is needed to prevent cyclists ending up on the roadway in the case of an accident.

More on this at CBC interview:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...yclists-on-waterfront-advocate-says-1.4132443
 
Last edited:
Maybe benches to separate the pedestrians from the bicyclists, and a "great wall" between the them and the roadway?

d3c0e8f2ca09b27ef8e1c1859d0ebc4f.jpg


1e5a8b_0c8bd7d856dcf1a6387b2555955ad9a4.jpg_512


2011-06-seg-bike-lanes-06.jpg
 

Back
Top