News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     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
 5.4K     0 

MisterF said:
I knew that Ottawa was ahead of the curve with protected intersections but I was surprised that they have that many. Props to Ottawa then.

We really need updated provincial standards for cycling infrastructure. Too many municipalities are still designing new bike infrastructure as lines of paint that disappear at intersections or multi use trails that treat cyclists like pedestrians at intersections. You can tell which municipalities take cycling seriously and which treat it as little more than checking a box. Clearly the provincial government (and MTO in particular) falls in the latter camp.
Click to expand...
We do indeed need to drag the MTO kicking and screaming when it comes to cycling infrastructure, but luckily the provincial cycling design book (Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18) is actually led by the Ontario Traffic Council which is mostly separate from the MTO. The current OTM Book 18 (2021) is actually pretty good. In the past I would usually need to refer to Dutch design standards when advocating for better infrastructure but nowadays I can just point to our very own manuals that say the same thing. It can take many years between design and construction so some designs currently under construction predate the current manual (and nearly all of them predate the Protected Intersection guide) so we can expect an improvement in quality in the coming few years as smaller cities now have world-class Ontario manuals to look to.

The previous Book 18 was crap, it basically said "i dunno, just do whatever i guess". I think it was the shortest-lived OTM book ever, it was published in 2014 and was already replaced in 2021. By comparison the current Book 12 (Traffic signals) is from 2012 and will be replaced in 2025.
 
Last edited:
afransen said:
That is a very good design for deconflicting transit, cars, bicycles and riders. I guess we'd have to see how it stands up and how maintainable it is in all seasons.
Click to expand...
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).

Capture.JPG


I don't think it's much different than a normal cycle track and bus stop in terms of maintenance. The bike path plow will pile up some snow between the bike path and the sidwealk and then the bus stop crew will clear a path to the island at the front door of the bus.
 
reaperexpress said:
We do indeed need to drag the MTO kicking and screaming when it comes to cycling infrastructure, but luckily the provincial cycling design book (Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18) is actually led by the Ontario Traffic Council which is mostly separate from the MTO. The current OTM Book 18 (2021) is actually pretty good. In the past I would usually need to refer to Dutch design standards when advocating for better infrastructure but nowadays I can just point to our very own manuals that say the same thing. It can take many years between design and construction so some designs currently under construction predate the current manual (and nearly all of them predate the Protected Intersection guide) so we can expect an improvement in quality in the coming few years as smaller cities world-class Ontario manuals to look to.

The previous Book 18 was crap, it basically said "i dunno, just do whatever i guess". I think it was the shortest-lived OTM book ever, it was published in 2014 and was already replaced in 2021. By comparison the current Book 12 (Traffic signals) is from 2012 and will be replaced in 2025.
Click to expand...
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/

EDIT: I looked at the OTC site and they do seem to accept 'requests"

"The OTC has a representative on the Updates to OTM Book 12 and 12A Technical Advisory Group (Heide Schlegl). If you have any comments please send them to the OTC through geoff@otc.org. ”
 
reaperexpress said:
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).

View attachment 590910

I don't think it's much different than a normal cycle track and bus stop in terms of maintenance. The bike path plow will pile up some snow between the bike path and the sidwealk and then the bus stop crew will clear a path to the island at the front door of the bus.
Click to expand...
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.
 
UntitledCyclist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

The fundamental difference is that at a Roncy-style stop (i.e. where the path is right against the road), cyclists must always stop when the bus/streetcar has its doors open, whereas at an island stop such as the one pictured on Eglinton, they can pass stopped buses as long as they yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.
 
reaperexpress said:
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.

The fundamental difference is that at a Roncy-style stop (i.e. where the path is right against the road), cyclists must always stop when the bus/streetcar has its doors open, whereas at an island stop such as the one pictured on Eglinton, they can pass stopped buses as long as they yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.
Click to expand...
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!
 
reaperexpress said:
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.

The fundamental difference is that at a Roncy-style stop (i.e. where the path is right against the road), cyclists must always stop when the bus/streetcar has its doors open, whereas at an island stop such as the one pictured on Eglinton, they can pass stopped buses as long as they yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.
Click to expand...
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.
 
UntitledCyclist said:
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!
Click to expand...
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).

The question is not "is this an ideal design". I'm well aware that the Eglinton Avenue example is far from ideal, primarily due to space constraints, but also because it was designed a very long time before construction, when there were not yet design standards for island bus stops next to bike paths. In particular a railing or height differential would be very helpful to delineate the edge of the platform as in the Zicla example. The width of both platforms are actually about the same, but a railing or canopy shelter would help make the Eglinton platform feel more substantial and distinct than it does currently.

bearcat said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I took my first cycle ride on Adelaide from University to Sherbourne on the weekend. I really like the left turn only lights for vehicular traffic, though twice cars ignored them and turned left in front of me. I almost crashed into the old concrete island on Church, placed right in front of the bike lane - I understand that will be part of an improved Dutch-like system soon. That aside I really liked this.
 
afransen said:
That's horrifying. We're only seeing the footage because he wasn't killed. More disturbing is that was a society we treat this as a matter of a driver not obeying a sign instead of infrastructure inadequacy that leads to this predictable failure mode.
Click to expand...
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.

What I would like to see are rules that no multi-axle commercial vehicle can operate in the city without a 2nd crewman serving as a spotter - and our spotter must get out of the truck before turning at any intersection within the city where the speed limit is 40 kph or less (Bloor and Dufferin streets where this occurred is 40 kph max).
 
IMG_20240825_160446.jpg


Walking down Gladstone yesterday - the section between Peel and Queen only have painted lanes, instead of any protection/curb/etc between cars and cycling - anybody know why? seems like the ROW is wide enough have protected cycling while still having space for emergency vehicles
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top