[bleu]

Urban advocate Gil Peñalosa and councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam are working to bring "open street" periods to Toronto

In the future, people will be able to travel around Toronto without the aid of cars and public transportation. They can have brunch in Leslieville, fly over to hike in High Park, and enjoy dinner in Etobicoke without turning on the ignition or even doling out subway fare.

Perhaps you’re envisioning a far-off space age, each of us with a jet pack. But if you are Gil Peñalosa, the executive director of 8-80 Cities, and Kristyn Wong-Tam (Ward 27, Toronto Centre-Rosedale), the future is almost here. And that self-propelled vehicle? It’s you. On a bike. Or maybe roller blades. On foot. Or who knows, maybe on a dog sled or snowshoes in the wintry months. Peñalosa and Wong-Tam are trying to bring ciclovías (see-clo-VI-as) to Toronto. Spanish for “bike path,” the original Ciclovía was created in 1976, and ran through part of Bogotá, Colombia. In the mid-’90s, Peñalosa, then Bogotá’s commissioner of recreation, decided to revive and radically expand the Ciclovía, to dramatic effect.

The new ciclovía is a simple concept: the city opens up certain streets to non-motorized traffic, and people are free to do as they please in the public space. Essentially, it turns long stretches of the city into a paved park. Cars are permitted to move through the city, but they are restricted to certain routes. (When you talk to him about it, Peñalosa is quick to say that the city is opening up to the people instead of being shut down or off to cars.) In Bogotá and other Colombian cities, they do this from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Sundays and holidays; hundreds of thousands of people come out and take part. Other cities around the world have started introducing them as well.

.....

Toronto is the only large city I have seen without a single pedestrian only street. Even Los Angleles have some, and it boggles my mind.
King and Queen st for example. between Yonge and bathurst, should be car free (except streetcars and delivery trucks). I mean, aren't Richmond and Adelaide enough for them? So should Yonge st between King and Bloor. There is Bay, university, Jarvis etc.

We even allow parking on Queen W, for Christ's sake. Toronto is still all about cars.

 

[nfitz]

Toronto is the only large city I have seen without a single pedestrian only street.

What about Market between King and Front?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Toronto is the only large city I have seen without a single pedestrian only street. Even Los Angleles have some, and it boggles my mind.
King and Queen st for example. between Yonge and bathurst, should be car free (except streetcars and delivery trucks). I mean, aren't Richmond and Adelaide enough for them? So should Yonge st between King and Bloor. There is Bay, university, Jarvis etc.

We even allow parking on Queen W, for Christ's sake. Toronto is still all about cars.

Church Street does get closed off a couple times in a year.

 

[bleu]

What about Market between King and Front?

that's 120m, 2 minutes on foot. Do we really need to count that?

 

[nfitz]

that's 120m, 2 minutes on foot. Do we really need to count that?

It fufills your original criteria. As does much of Victoria street from Gerrard to Dundas, a chunk of Gould Street. A chunk of Simcoe Street north of Queen. What about John Street south of Front? What's Trinity Square if it isn't a pedestrian-only street?

I don't think your looking hard enough.

 

[TOareaFan]

Toronto is the only large city I have seen without a single pedestrian only street. Even Los Angleles have some, and it boggles my mind.
King and Queen st for example. between Yonge and bathurst, should be car free (except streetcars and delivery trucks). I mean, aren't Richmond and Adelaide enough for them? So should Yonge st between King and Bloor. There is Bay, university, Jarvis etc.

We even allow parking on Queen W, for Christ's sake. Toronto is still all about cars.

Where are the pedestrian only streets in LA?

 

[ShonTron]

Where are the pedestrian only streets in LA?

Santa Monica has one, but of course that's not technically LA.

 

[junctionist]

The Distillery District is all pedestrianized, as is the entire grid of streets on the Toronto Islands, making for the largest car-free community in North America. There's perhaps a dozen examples of side streets pedestrianized for short stretches around downtown. I suppose what we want is a more significant example that's longer and more prominent. That's fair, but there are indeed pedestrian-only streets in the city.

 

[TOareaFan]

Santa Monica has one, but of course that's not technically LA.

Been to often (but not enough to say I know everything about the place) and in my travels the street neighboring Santana Monica is the only true pedestrian street I have encountered. So, if Mississauga had one would we consider it a Toronto feature? Maybe, I don't know.

 

[Max Sterling]

This may have been suggested before, but one thing I don't understand is that why can't we convert sidewalks into bike paths? Pretty much everywhere outside of the downtown core, there's literally hundreds of kilometres of seldom used sidewalks that simply sit there as wasted space. Why not convert one side into a smooth bike path for bikers to use away from traffic and leave the other side for pedestrians?

This solves the problem of finding space for bike lanes, keeps bikers separate and safe from cars and it also makes better use of sidewalks that are rarely used by pedestrians. Its a win win situation for everyone. Bikers can have lanes that go from the city core all the way out to the suburbs and car drivers don't have to worry about losing space to accomodate more bikers. I mean how great would it be to have sidewalks on major streets paved for bikes and connected into a 'bike highway' that cyclists could use to travel all over Toronto from far north right down to the lakeshore and from west all the way across to the east? Such a relatively simple solution I'm surprised the city hasn't done this ages ago.

 

[reaperexpress]

This may have been suggested before, but one thing I don't understand is that why can't we convert sidewalks into bike paths?

This has indeed been suggested numerous times before. The fundamental issue is that it is actually very unsafe to cycle on a sidewalk, even though it "feels" safe. Here's one response I gave on page 14 of the bicycle paths thread:

In Toronto, sidewalk cycling is illegal, and for good reason. On the sidewalk, cyclists are less visible to cars, so they are more likely to get hit at an intersection. Painting a white line and a bike symbol does nothing to change this.

In order for separated bike lanes to be safe, their intersections need to address the increased risks due to reduced visibility. At complex intersections, that means controlling movements which conflict with bicycles (see this post for an example).
At simple intersections, it can be addressed by ensuring clear sightlines and making the bike path obvious, like this example on the MGT:

[video=youtube;BlTFF-j1aK4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlTFF-j1aK4&feature=plcp[/video]

Responding to how Finland builds bike paths in the way you suggested (painting a bike symbol and a line on a widened sidewalk):

I certainly hope we won't build bike paths like that. As I stated above, these designs likely suffer from conflicts between bicycles, cars and pedestrians.

Furthermore, Finnish bike paths have a tendency to be too narrow. In order to allow cyclists to pass each other, single-direction bike paths need to be at least 2m wide, with bi-directional paths recommended to be at least 3m.
If we build any bike paths less than 2m wide, they will be disliked by all but the slowest cyclists, creating unneeded opposition to separated cycling infrastructure.

Sadly, Toronto is actually starting to build infrastructure the way you've illustrated. Rather than designing infrastructure specifically for bicycles as is done in Denmark and The Netherlands, we are taking the Finnish strategy of painting a white line on a widened sidewalk, which does nothing to improve the situation for cyclists.

Note that a standard suburban sidewalk is 1.5m wide.

 

[Fred.S]

Intersections are the key. That's one of my biggest criticisms about Sherbourne lanes (that and the fact that they're really not separated).

Good intersection design has bike lanes crossing car lanes at a minimum of 45 degrees. This is difficult with much of our current roadway design, but not too hard in the suburban parts of Toronto.

Although in my opinion, we should be concentrating on building lots of good infrastructure downtown where cyclists are first, then expanding the network outwards as ridership increases.

 

[the lemur]

This has indeed been suggested numerous times before. The fundamental issue is that it is actually very unsafe to cycle on a sidewalk, even though it "feels" safe. Here's one response I gave on page 14 of the bicycle paths thread:



Responding to how Finland builds bike paths in the way you suggested (painting a bike symbol and a line on a widened sidewalk):



Note that a standard suburban sidewalk is 1.5m wide.

And as I suggested later in that thread, one way to make it feasible to share the sidewalk space (i.e., everything off to the side of the road) is to make the pedestrian and cyclist portions grade-separated, with the cycle track lower than the pedestrian portion. This would still require bike signals at intersections, not to mention reconfiguring intersections.

 

[M II A II R II K]

April Fools Joke - Toronto to get $500 million bike lane network:

http://www.blogto.com/city/2013/04/toronto_to_get_500_million_bike_lane_network/

.....

On major roads, the lanes will be separated from vehicular traffic by a raised bed of planters or, in some cases, a rubber hump. Activists who have long campaigned for better protection for cyclists on roads like Bloor St., Danforth Ave., and Yonge St., and Queen St. will be pleased: all are included in the program.

- Toronto has needed a viable east-west bike lane for some time. Under the plans released today it will get two: Bloor/Danforth and Queen. Where two of the "bicycle highways" meet - at Yonge and Queen for example - a special European-style roundabout will help cyclists move through the intersection in both directions at the same time during a new "bike only" phase of the traffic lights. More details are expected soon. What? Come on! You lose. This is Toronto. We don't do shit like this.

.....

 

[Max Sterling]

This has indeed been suggested numerous times before. The fundamental issue is that it is actually very unsafe to cycle on a sidewalk, even though it "feels" safe. Here's one response I gave on page 14 of the bicycle paths thread:



Responding to how Finland builds bike paths in the way you suggested (painting a bike symbol and a line on a widened sidewalk):



Note that a standard suburban sidewalk is 1.5m wide.

My point is that there are literally hundreds of kilometres of sidewalk outside of the core that are rarely if EVER used by pedestrians as most people are driving rather than walking. Take Victoria Park ave for example. You could go from Steeles right down to the beaches in the middle of summer and maybe barely see a person every few kilometres. Seriously outside of the core with few exceptions most sidewalks are empty almost all the time so why not better utilize them?

If you implement a few rules with sharing the sidewalk/bike lane with pedestrians (ie have a bell to alert pedestrians of your approach and to slow down when passing etc) then you could easily make much greater use of current sidewalks by turning them into dual use bike lanes/sidewalks.