[LNahid2000]

I just saw someone fall off a bike and get hurt on Saturday on this bike path on Lake Shore when I was walking along it. There is a railway track crossing the bike path near Carlaw Avenue, and the bicyclist hit it and fell over. Fortunately the bicyclist only got a few cuts and bruises. But this clearly shows how much of a hazard streetcar tracks are for bicyclists in Toronto, and why bicycling is dangerous.

lol 1 example = biking is dangerous...great logic there.

I fell over because of streetcar tracks when I first started biking, but I quickly learned how to cross them properly and haven't had any issues since.

 

[reaperexpress]

I just saw someone fall off a bike and get hurt on Saturday on this bike path on Lake Shore when I was walking along it. There is a railway track crossing the bike path near Carlaw Avenue, and the bicyclist hit it and fell over. Fortunately the bicyclist only got a few cuts and bruises. But this clearly shows how much of a hazard streetcar tracks are for bicyclists in Toronto, and why bicycling is dangerous.

The railway crossings on the Lakeshore East path are indeed a serious hazard, which is something I've noticed every time I pass through. They cross at a very shallow angle, which is a recipe for exactly the situation you described.

Fortunately, this does not mean that cycling is inherently dangerous. It merely means that that particular segment of that particular bike path is dangerous and should be redesigned. Best practice is to deviate the bike path such that the crossing occurs at a 90 degree angle. Then there is no risk of getting a tire caught. And even easier, remove all the railway crossings that aren't used anymore.

Until recently there was a similar dangerous situation on the Iron Horse Trail in Kitchener, where the path crossed the Kitchener spur line in Victoria Park. In 2013, they realigned the bike path and there have not been any issues since.

Iron Horse Trail at Victoria Park in 2009:

Iron Horse Trail at Victoria Park in 2016:

 

[44 North]

The railway crossings on the Lakeshore East path are indeed a serious hazard, which is something I've noticed every time I pass through. They cross at a very shallow angle, which is a recipe for exactly the situation you described.

Fortunately, this does not mean that cycling is inherently dangerous. It merely means that that particular segment of that particular bike path is dangerous and should be redesigned. Best practice is to deviate the bike path such that the crossing occurs at a 90 degree angle. Then there is no risk of getting a tire caught. And even easier, remove all the railway crossings that aren't used anymore.

Until recently there was a similar dangerous situation on the Iron Horse Trail in Kitchener, where the path crossed the Kitchener spur line in Victoria Park. In 2013, they realigned the bike path and there have not been any issues since.

Just to add on to this, the image of rail line crossing the Lake Shore path you're showing is completely disused, and not actually connected to the tracks next to it (nor where they disappear south of there). Best thing in that case would be completely rip them up. The section andrewpmk described is an active spur, and there's very little room to rejig the trail so it intersects perpendicularly. Perhaps those yellow fences we've seen elsewhere (that have riders forcibly ride slow over the tracks) could work, but they seem inherently dangerous as well.

 

[reaperexpress]

That's a beautiful path (although those dark clouds would make me want to move quickly!). Out of curiosity, if I were to try to string and out-and-back or loop ride up to the trail from downtown, what's the best way to get there? Any good cycling infrastructure to reach it?

No, there is no good route from here to downtown. The main issue for me is Highway 401: there are no safe crossings between Weston and Leslie. To bike downtown I either take my bike on the subway or GO train, or I park at the station and use Bike Share downtown. Unfortunately there is no bike share in North York so the second option is not available to you.

If you don't mind an enormous detour, you could go up the Humber trail and down the Don Valley trail, but even then you'd end up going through the Finch/400 interchange. The Leaside Rail trail is another new high-quality piece of infrastructure, but it is completely useless since it dead ends into a fence at the CP line rather than connecting to the Don Valley trail:

 

[reaperexpress]

Just to add on to this, the image of rail line crossing the Lake Shore path you're showing is completely disused, and not actually connected to the tracks next to it (nor where they disappear south of there). Best thing in that case would be completely rip them up. The section andrewpmk described is an active spur, and there's very little room to rejig the trail so it intersects perpendicularly. Perhaps those yellow fences we've seen elsewhere (that have riders forcibly ride slow over the tracks) could work, but they seem inherently dangerous as well.

I noticed some of the crossings weren't even connected to other tracks, but I didn't know any of them were still in use - I was assuming they could all be removed. If there isn't room to realign the path, the band-aid solution for the active crossing is to narrow the path to a single lane over the crossing, and realign within the existing ROW. Placing barriers as traffic calming is not a solution, since the barriers are more dangerous than the danger they are supposed to mitigate. It was actually the barriers on the Iron Horse Trail that resulted in injuries and a fatality, not the cuts and bruises from people slipping on the tracks.

Besides, there definitely is enough room to realign the path, since the spur on the north side dead ends at the crosswalk and is too short to use for anything.

 

[MisterF]

I don't think this is so much the case anymore. New paths still have issues of course, but they are good enough that there is clearly some thought going into them. The Finch Hydro Corridor bike path (built 2011-present) is a good example. There are very few pedestrians, and those that do exist are easy to overtake safely thanks to the clear markings (dashed centre line with directional arrows) and the path's generous width. At intersections, the path always has a dedicated bicycle crossing with bicycle signals. Whereas many older paths are little more than widened sidewalks, the 400-to-Yonge segment of the Finch Path is is more like a miniaturized two-lane highway.

I often cruise at 40km/h along that path, and have never really encountered any issues. Of course I slow down and ring my bell if there is any indication of unpredictability (such as kids), but for an average jogger or pedestrian it suffices to just move over into the opposite lane.



It's quite possible to make a side of road path that is perfectly safe, they're all over the place in the Netherlands. The highest-scoring bike path I've ever reviewed is even a side-of-road path. The mid-block design is pretty easy, just make sure the path is wide enough, and if there are a significant number of pedestrians then provide a sidewalk as well.

But at intersections, conflicting left turns absolutely must be fully-protected, since drivers would otherwise be looking up the road for a gap, unaware of a bicycle coming from behind at 30 km/h. And here should also be some measures to manage right-turn conflicts, such as protected signals and right-on-red prohibitions.

Unfortunately I've not seen any best-practice examples in Ontario. We sometimes get the mid-block cross-section right, but then at intersections cyclists just get dumped onto the sidewalk. I think the best example I've seen is the Lakeshore Blvd East north-side bike path, since it has a separate sidewalk, one of the intersections is protected from left turns by a dedicated signal (Leslie), and one of the intersections prohibits the conflicting right turns on red (Carlaw).

Unfortunately, there are no measures to manage conflict with right turns off Lakeshore, and those aforementioned turn restrictions are only at one intersection each. Also, the path is not always delineated through the pedestrian conflict area, which results in annoyed pedestrians and disrupted cycling flow.

There's a huge variety in the quality of roadside bike paths and multi-use trails. Another good one I've seen is this new one near Sir Sandford Fleming College. I don't think there are any dedicated signals as that stretch of road has much lower traffic volumes than Lakeshore Blvd, but it has a clearly delineated intersection (aside from the faded paint) that lets drivers know to expect cyclists even if none are around.




The worst one I've seen is this one in Collingwood, which believe it or not is officially a multi-use path. It's a pretty decent urban streetscape, but as bike infrastructure it has so many things wrong with it I don't even know where to start.

Roadside bike paths can be done right, but the standards are either inadequate or inconsistently applied.

 

[steveintoronto]

Just to add my observation, since I cycled across that a few days back: The rubber cushion that fills the gap between the railhead and the side flange is missing in spots. That cyclist has every right, if hurt, to put in a claim to the City, which owns the tracks and the infrastructure. I noticed a few spots of very poor maintenance along that stretch.

Mind you, and my patience is becoming ever shorter in this city, the majority of persons on bikes haven't a clue, on anything. Those of us who do, end up dealing with them. Any cyclist who knows what they're doing would know how to cross tracks like that.

I'm completely with this guy:

First of all, let me clarify: I am not a “cyclist.”

I bike to work.

I am not a front-line soldier in the “war on cars.” I am a poor, simple victim of traffic — in that I hate it.

We all hate it, I get that. But I hate it enough that about 10 years ago, I said — to myself and to the 6,000 cars crawling ahead of me on the Gardiner — “Screw this, I’m riding to work from now on.”

And now I do, all four seasons.

Oddly, I dread the spring the most, when most cyclists dust off their wheels and come out to play, and to ride just as fast as they can.

The bike lanes are once again full of sunny-day riders — many of whom have zero respect for the rules of the road. And nearly as little for those around them.

After months of having bike lanes almost to myself, I am now suddenly joined by these people who are out to kill me.

For ever pedestrian they wing — those poor phone-reading walkers who unwittingly step into a bike lane — is one more steaming mad person on the way back to his car. I’m stopping at stop signs, slowing down in heavy-pedestrian areas, staying off sidewalks, signalling and waving to drivers who offer me the right-of-way.

But it doesn’t matter. When that pissed-off pedestrian gets behind the wheel, he’s not going to know me from the idiot who just about ran him down. I’m just another jackass on a bicycle — and a target.

It’s clearly something bonehead cyclists don’t understand: They aren’t only putting their own lives at risk, they are putting all of us in danger.

I’ve often seen cyclists ring incessantly (seriously, the only way these cyclists ring those little bells is incessantly) at delivery trucks and taxis parked momentarily in bike lanes. These self-righteous morons, still feeling insulted that drivers aren’t following the rules, then blow through the next red light, barely dodging pedestrians.

Look, it’s dangerous out there.

Whether you are driving, walking or riding a bike, a skateboard, or inline skates, we all have to pay attention to the world around us. People get hurt and people get killed.

We also have a responsibility to look out for each other.

Whether you’re out for a joyride or commuting, it’s the only way we’re all going to get home in one piece.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/06/26/lets-all-get-home-in-one-piece

 

[Zach6668]

Just to add my observation, since I cycled across that a few days back: The rubber cushion that fills the gap between the railhead and the side flange is missing in spots. That cyclist has every right, if hurt, to put in a claim to the City, which owns the tracks and the infrastructure. I noticed a few spots of very poor maintenance along that stretch.

Mind you, and my patience is becoming ever shorter in this city, the majority of persons on bikes haven't a clue, on anything. Those of us who do, end up dealing with them. Any cyclist who knows what they're doing would know how to cross tracks like that.

I'm completely with this guy:
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/06/26/lets-all-get-home-in-one-piece

Surprising that this "guy who bikes to work" doesn't understand why we ding our bells at taxis and delivery trucks parked in the bike lane. It's not to express anger, it's to announce our presence to those people who may just be about to open their doors right into our path.

 

[reaperexpress]

There's a huge variety in the quality of roadside bike paths and multi-use trails. Another good one I've seen is this new one near Sir Sandford Fleming College. I don't think there are any dedicated signals as that stretch of road has much lower traffic volumes than Lakeshore Blvd, but it has a clearly delineated intersection (aside from the faded paint) that lets drivers know to expect cyclists even if none are around.

Roadside bike paths can be done right, but the standards are either inadequate or inconsistently applied.

I wouldn't call that a good example. The midblock cross-section looks perfect, but the at the intersection, cyclists just get dumped onto an ordinary sidewalk-style crossing. If you need to depend on signs or road markings to tell users what to do, then the design is not good. A good design would be subconsiously clear to all users even when the signs and road markings were missing.

I see several issues here:

1. Most importantly, the angle of conflict between left turning cars and parallel cyclists is terrible. Drivers will be looking way up the road waiting for a gap, and cyclists would be coming from behind. And unlike pedestrians, bicycles move so fast that even if the driver sees a clear crosswalk the instant they start turning, there could be a bike in the way when they reach the crossing.

Generally this conflict should be fully-protected using signals. But this is a two way stop controlled intersection, so that's not applicable here. The next best thing would be to shift the crossing back by one car length, so that drivers can complete their turn and yield to cyclists/pedestrians separately.

2. Drivers turning right off the main street do not get a clear view of approaching parallel cyclists at any point: conflicting bikes approach in their blind spot.

This conflict can be mitigated by shifting the crossing point back by one car length so that the conflict is at a 90 degree angle.

3. Cars waiting to turn right onto the main street will block the bicycle crossing. At a signalized intersection, this would correspond to a right turn on red. They will also tend to be looking left, potentially missing cyclists approaching from the right.

This conflict can be avoided by shifting the crossing point back by one car length so there is room for cyclists to pass behind a car waiting to turn.

4. The bicycle path is not delineated through the pedestrian conflict points. This is a two way stop controlled intersection, so pedestrians crossing the bike path must always yield to cyclists travelling along the main street. Yet pedestrians just see an ordinary sidewalk - there is no indication that they need to wait for a gap in bicycle traffic. At a signalized intersection, this would correspond to pedestrians inadvertently crossing a bike path that has a green light (which should sound familiar to anyone who has been on Queen's Quay).

This conflict would not be an issue if the bike path were completely continuous all the way through the intersection. It is after all a priority movement: all other traffic must yield to north-south bikes, cars and pedestrians.

5. The radius of the corners is very large, which means that drivers will turn more quickly than is safe. Whenever a movement involves yielding, the most important factor for safety is how quickly those users are going.

To minimize cars' turning speeds while still allowing trucks to turn, corners can use over-run aprons such as those found on the inside of roundabouts.

--

A good design might look more like this:

 

[steveintoronto]

Surprising that this "guy who bikes to work" doesn't understand why we ding our bells at taxis and delivery trucks parked in the bike lane. It's not to express anger, it's to announce our presence to those people who may just be about to open their doors right into our path.

Hey...I almost lost it with an idiot today dinging her bell right on my tail every ten seconds. Now believe me, I'm a very powerful cyclist, and she saw ample demonstration of that every time I blasted away from a stop light, even with her pulling in front of me when I stopped where the law dictates, on the thick white line. But some cyclists just don't have a freakin' clue...so eastbound along Dundas around Dufferin, it's very dangerous, you have to presume any parked car where you can't see a driver has one, and may be going to open that door at any second, and the drivers on the left don't look in their mirrors, let alone stay in their lanes, so I use common-sense, check every possibility, and go slow enough that I can brake for any eventuality (and indeed, pedestrians and other cyclists pop into the lane from between parked cars without looking) and this F^$%ing idiot keeps ringing her bell behind me. Now that may be the way you behave, all fine and good, but don't do it on my tail like a car beeping their horn right behind you when you have the lane. You're liable to get damaged.

What is it about so many idiot cyclists that they can't understand the basic principles of awareness of fellow cyclists, let alone the laws of nature? It's *TAILGATING* let alone complete ignorance. Why that's so difficult for some to understand is exactly my point. I've cycled in many nations I've lived in, and toured many more. And Toronto is way off the charts for idiot cyclists. You just don't do shid like that in other progressive nations.

But it's rampant in Toronto.

Edit to Add: And why is it that so many cyclists in this little town think that a van or car pulling out in front of them can hear that pathetic, incessant, annoying ting-a-ling? Being narcissistic doesn't get attention save your own. Now if a pedestrian or driver steps into the road in front of you, they'll hear, use it *then*. What if every car driver honked their horn all the time? Would that make us all safer?

C'mon folks, use some common sense. Use the bell when protocol and reason calls for it. Or scream if you really need to get attention...not that I want to encourage Toronto ding-a-lings to start doing that too on a chronic basis...

 

[steveintoronto]

I wouldn't call that a good example. The midblock cross-section looks perfect, but the at the intersection, cyclists just get dumped onto an ordinary sidewalk-style crossing.

In all fairness to Mister F, what he posted does look inviting, and he makes excellent points, but you also make such good ones that it's upsetting to view.

1. Most importantly, the angle of conflict between left turning cars and parallel cyclists is terrible. Drivers will be looking way up the road waiting for a gap, and cyclists would be coming from behind. And unlike pedestrians, bicycles move so fast that even if the driver sees a clear crosswalk the instant they start turning, there could be a bike in the way when they reach the crossing.

I had to stop quoting you there, this and your following points are so incredibly valid.

Those corners are accidents not just waiting to happen, but *prone* to happening. They encourage grief by being so poorly thought out. The planners presume everyone is riding an upright CCM coaster brake bike with a wicker basket on the front...and that motorists actually look as the HTA requires before turning. I'm going through one of my angst periods wondering if poorly designed street parallel biking paths don't do more harm than good? The point is made by the Dutch examples you post. There is *still* an *undue onus* on the cyclist to look completely to safeguard themselves before going through those intersections, but angles are far more apt for canting the neck to look over the shoulder, and there's much more braking distance for a driver who realizes late that a cyclist is coming through.

I'm just looking at the other pics you post. My sixth sense tingles...we have a long way to go in this jurisdiction to provide *safer* (nothing is fully safe) cycling paths...and educating so many cyclists who haven't a clue on innate safety and how they are or aren't seen by motorists.

Edit to Add: Just watched the Youtube vid linked, and I'm somewhat envious....but what makes it work when it does is *choreography*! When it does go wrong in a few instances, the dance is broken. The protocol observed, by and large, is smooth and controlled. Both motorists and cyclists are doing 'what is expected of them'. I do take serious issue with the powered scooters using the bike paths though, and not surprisingly, they don't 'do the dance' and get into trouble by being out of step.

I'm intrigued to know whether the signs facing the motorists turning across the bike lanes are (equiv of) 'Yield' or 'Stop'. Some turning right into the store parking lot fail to signal, albeit that's a small point.

Groningen, for obvious reasons, fascinates me.

I tracked down that video on Youtube to find out more, and here's the blurb to it:
[Uploaded on Apr 16, 2010
Some think a separate cycle path can be dangerous at junctions. This video shows a typical junction in the Netherlands with a separate cycle path where cyclists have the right of way over turning cars. It is far from dangerous. As can be seen, all the cars give the bikes priority. Mainly because they simply obey traffic rules, but also because of the right design of the junction. Cyclists are very visible for cars and there is enough space for drivers to wait for passing cyclists without being in the way of other cars. Everything runs smoothly at this junction in 's-Hertogenbosch (a.k.a. Den Bosch) on a Friday afternoon. In rush hour it can be much busier.]

"Mainly because they simply obey traffic rules"...and that's an essential part of the "choreography".

There's a collection of Dutch vids linked at the Youtube site.

 

[MisterF]

I wouldn't call that a good example. The midblock cross-section looks perfect, but the at the intersection, cyclists just get dumped onto an ordinary sidewalk-style crossing. If you need to depend on signs or road markings to tell users what to do, then the design is not good. A good design would be subconsiously clear to all users even when the signs and road markings were missing.

I see several issues here:

1. Most importantly, the angle of conflict between left turning cars and parallel cyclists is terrible. Drivers will be looking way up the road waiting for a gap, and cyclists would be coming from behind. And unlike pedestrians, bicycles move so fast that even if the driver sees a clear crosswalk the instant they start turning, there could be a bike in the way when they reach the crossing.
View attachment 79880
Generally this conflict should be fully-protected using signals. But this is a two way stop controlled intersection, so that's not applicable here. The next best thing would be to shift the crossing back by one car length, so that drivers can complete their turn and yield to cyclists/pedestrians separately.

2. Drivers turning right off the main street do not get a clear view of approaching parallel cyclists at any point: conflicting bikes approach in their blind spot.
View attachment 79884
This conflict can be mitigated by shifting the crossing point back by one car length so that the conflict is at a 90 degree angle.

3. Cars waiting to turn right onto the main street will block the bicycle crossing. At a signalized intersection, this would correspond to a right turn on red. They will also tend to be looking left, potentially missing cyclists approaching from the right.
View attachment 79881
This conflict can be avoided by shifting the crossing point back by one car length so there is room for cyclists to pass behind a car waiting to turn.

4. The bicycle path is not delineated through the pedestrian conflict points. This is a two way stop controlled intersection, so pedestrians crossing the bike path must always yield to cyclists travelling along the main street. Yet pedestrians just see an ordinary sidewalk - there is no indication that they need to wait for a gap in bicycle traffic. At a signalized intersection, this would correspond to pedestrians inadvertently crossing a bike path that has a green light (which should sound familiar to anyone who has been on Queen's Quay).
View attachment 79883
This conflict would not be an issue if the bike path were completely continuous all the way through the intersection. It is after all a priority movement: all other traffic must yield to north-south bikes, cars and pedestrians.

5. The radius of the corners is very large, which means that drivers will turn more quickly than is safe. Whenever a movement involves yielding, the most important factor for safety is how quickly those users are going.

To minimize cars' turning speeds while still allowing trucks to turn, corners can use over-run aprons such as those found on the inside of roundabouts.

--

A good design might look more like this:

The question, then, is why engineers and road designers in this country continue to do the same thing again and again. That example I posted is among the best in Ontario; most of the rest (and there are a lot of them) are worse. If some people on a forum are aware of the Dutch examples, surely the people who write our engineering standards must be too.

 

[PinkLucy]

They do it over and over again because other than lip service for cyclists and pedestrians, they don't really care.

 

[salsa]

That's a beautiful path (although those dark clouds would make me want to move quickly!). Out of curiosity, if I were to try to string and out-and-back or loop ride up to the trail from downtown, what's the best way to get there? Any good cycling infrastructure to reach it?

The path is great. I live near it and use it quite often, but for now the trail doesn't go anywhere past North York. The only "good" way to get there is at the east end where it connects to the Don Valley trail. The west end is not connected to the Humber River, thus requires an ugly detour on Finch and Weston roads. Also note the two gaps at Dufferin and Yonge street.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Flangeway filler.

See link. Will not be looked at because it will cost money that the TTC does not have because of the budget cuts that Tory wants from everyone.