News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

Rules? People don't follow them. I use the Martin Goodman Trail regularly on foot and by bike, and it can be dangerous. People don't keep to the right, cyclists don't use bells or let people know they are passing, pedestrians ignore bells, dogs are off leash, roller bladers take up so much room, people step out onto the trail without looking ... it can be crazy out there! Granted, that is busier than the stretches of sidewalk you're talking about, but my point is that people don't follow rules.
 
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.

And I agree with you 100%. We merely have a difference in semantics. I wouldn't call grade-separated paths with reconfigured intersections "sharing sidewalk space", I would call it "high quality cycling infrastructure" or "exactly what we should be doing right now". Saying "sharing sidewalk space" just encourages the government to widen a sidewalk, paint a line down the middle and then go about telling everyone what an awesome job they've done for cyclists even though all that's changed is that it is now legal to cycle on unsafe infrastructure.

The fundamental difference is in level of design. When we're going about building separate paths and reconfiguring intersections, we will inevitably be designing to accommodate the differences between cyclists and pedestrians (much higher momentum, higher speed, more space required, less capable of dealing with poor surfaces). "Sharing sidewalks", on the other hand, implies not really considering their needs at all, but simply telling them to "go ride over there with the pedestrians".

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?

Like I said, we shouldn't just start riding all over them because we would get hit by turning automobiles. As mentioned above, we should indeed be "better utilizing" the space beside the road, but we first need to make it safe for cyclists to use. This is called building cycle infrastructure, and there is no magic solution that will instantly do it for low cost, because it requires design and construction.

That said, you are definitely right that since there are so few pedestrians in many parts of the suburbs, our default roadside infrastructure should be bicycle paths, rather than sidewalks. This is what they do in the Netherlands. In built up areas where there are pedestrians, there are always separate bicycle and pedestrian paths. But once you start reaching the edge of the city, the sidewalks end, and the (rare) pedestrians walk on the bike path. Note that it's not that "cyclists ride on the sidewalk".

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.

We already have these rules about how to ride on multi use trails, but they aren't the ones that really work in practice. Riding on multi use trails in Toronto's suburbs, I find that as long as there are very few pedestrians and everyone acts as they would on a two lane rural highway, everything works beautifully. Walk or cycle on the right, and wait for a gap to pass in the oncoming lane. No need for bells or slowing down. But as PinkLucy mentioned, this completely falls apart once there is anything higher than a low density of pedestrians, and by the time you reach the density of the MGT, it's a complete fiasco. The solution isn't telling people what to do, it's to design infrastructure which inherently causes people to act in a way that works.

For example, rather than telling the cyclists to slow down and the pedestrians to be more alert, we should build separate paths for each so that cyclists can speed and pedestrians can relax.

EDIT: You might also want to check out the City's webpage about why sidewalk cycling is illegal.
 
Last edited:
Good points reaperexpress ... and of course if we could get people to stay on their separated lanes. Even in a few spots where the MGT is separated, there are pedestrians on the biking side (occasionally but not as often you will see bikes on the pedestrian side) ... and then of course the pedestrians get angry at the cyclists. Sigh.

My favourite were the couple who were walking on the left side of the trail on a busy day. They looked scared, and cyclists were looking angry, so I politely explained that you're supposed to stay to the right because it's safer for everyone, but they said that they didn't like to walk on that side, so they were going to stay on the left. Sometimes, there is just no cure for stupid.
 
Last edited:
Good points reaperexpress ... and of course if we could get people to stay on their separated lanes. Even in a few spots where the MGT is separated, there are pedestrians on the biking side (occasionally but not as often you will see bikes on the pedestrian side) ... and then of course the pedestrians get angry at the cyclists. Sigh.

My favourite were the couple who were walking on the left side of the trail on a busy day. They looked scared, and cyclists were looking angry, so I politely explained that you're supposed to stay to the right because it's safer for everyone, but they said that they didn't like to walk on that side, so they were going to stay on the left. Sometimes, there is just no cure for stupid.

I think the issue with the MGT is that the pedestrian route is not always obvious, continuous or practical. Starting from the west end, a meandering pedestrian trail starts just east of Park Lawn, but to get to it you have to turn off the main trail. It's quite understandable that pedestrians don't move off onto it, you would have to know it was there. Then there's the Humber Bay Arch Bridge, where although there are separate trails on both ends, there are no markings dividing up the (abundant) space. The next section through to Sunnyside has nice continuous pedestrian and cycle paths, though they could be more clearly signed. But as the trail moves north toward Lakeshore Blvd, the sidewalk narrows, then peters out. Who can blame pedestrians for not walking on a sidewalk that looks like this?
The sidewalk then crosses the path and runs immediately next to Lakeshore Boulevard. People don't want to walk there, when they could walk on the bicycle path away from traffic.
Then there's another segment with no pedestrian path, until the path reaches the waterfront. But once the path reaches Ontario Place, the pedestrian route leaves the direct path, so pedestrians predictably joint the bicycle path. There are not even attempts at separate infrastructure for the rest of the path to Queens Quay.

Basically what I'm saying is that since the bicycle path is continuous but the pedestrian paths are not, people prefer the bicycle path. The solutions would be to paint a bicycle path along the Humber Bridge and to build a separate pedestrian path for the parts where it's missing.
 
Last edited:
And I agree with you 100%. We merely have a difference in semantics. I wouldn't call grade-separated paths with reconfigured intersections "sharing sidewalk space", I would call it "high quality cycling infrastructure" or "exactly what we should be doing right now". Saying "sharing sidewalk space" just encourages the government to widen a sidewalk, paint a line down the middle and then go about telling everyone what an awesome job they've done for cyclists even though all that's changed is that it is now legal to cycle on unsafe infrastructure.

The fundamental difference is in level of design. When we're going about building separate paths and reconfiguring intersections, we will inevitably be designing to accommodate the differences between cyclists and pedestrians (much higher momentum, higher speed, more space required, less capable of dealing with poor surfaces). "Sharing sidewalks", on the other hand, implies not really considering their needs at all, but simply telling them to "go ride over there with the pedestrians".

That's true. Instead of 'sharing the sidewalk space' I should have referred to it as something like dividing up the space where sidewalks currently are.
 
It's going to be interesting to see how we all get along on the new Queen's Quay when it's all finished :)
 
To show that the works/roads department is committed to making bicycling a form of transportation, not just a recreational pastime, it should look into creating a more friendly roadway for bicycles. Motorists, in theory, would prefer to have bicyclists ride as far to the right on roads as possible. However, how can they, when they have to face this:

drain_cramp_pair_of_sunken_grates_menacing_dupontcyclists.jpeg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpeg

grates.jpeg


Toronto at least started using the herringbone design decades ago, but they still attract potholes, especially around them.

Wouldn't it be better to shift the sewer grates more into the heavier traffic lanes, leaving the bicycle lanes with a more smoother surface (baring potholes that will still appear). They should create a little bit of a ramp to separate the motor vehicles from the bicyclists, if designed right.

Bay-St-Raised-Path-Southerly-KK.jpg


Shifting the sewers away from the bicycle lanes could result in less of this:
bike_lanes_fall.jpg
 

Attachments

  • bike_lanes_fall.jpg
    bike_lanes_fall.jpg
    73 KB · Views: 406
Last edited:
Motorists, in theory, would prefer to have bicyclists ride as far to the right on roads as possible.
Cyclists aren't supposed to be as far right as possible. They are supposed to take their lane. As a pedestrian, I shouldn't be standing next to a light pole on the sidewalk waiting for an approaching streetcar, and have bikes whizz past me so close, I'm afraid their handlebars are going to hit me.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be better to shit the sewer grates more into the heavier traffic lanes, leaving the bicycle lanes with a more smoother surface (baring potholes that will still appear). They should create a little bit of a ramp to separate the motor vehicles from the bicyclists, if designed right.

Unfortunately you cannot just move the sewer grates into heavier traffic lanes. Roadways are designed to have a convex surface (not flat) so that water can runoff to the sides of the road; the curbs catch the runoff and direct them to the nearest sewer grate. You can see the convex surface when during heavy downpours when the centre of the roadway is relatively dry in comparison to the sides when there might be ponding.

The last pic of the two bicycle lanes to the side and the roadway to the left would be the most ideal design. With this design you can have the whole roadway (including bike lanes) as a concave surface. Therefore the roadway slants to the right towards the catch basin/sewer grate and bicycle lanes would slant to the left.

I do wonder, would having two bicycle lanes to one side of the street act as a deterrent against motorist from parking their cars in the path of bicycle lanes? After all it's not just one lane that the car would be block but two.
 
Last edited:
Cyclists aren't supposed to be as far right as possible. They are supposed to take their lane. As a pedestrian, I shouldn't be standing next to a light pole on the sidewalk waiting for an approaching streetcar, and have bikes whizz past me so close, I'm afraid their handlebars are going to hit me.

Actually, cyclists are required under the HTA to ride as far to the right on the roadway as possible. If conditions (debris near the curb, roadworks, stopped vehicle) or circumstances (if riding close to the curb were unsafe for some reason) require it, THEN they may take the lane. Granted, riding so close to the curb that their handlebars protrude over the edge of the curb isn't required either, but that's often where the road is in poor condition and they'd risk striking a pedal against the curb.
 
Actually, cyclists are required under the HTA to ride as far to the right on the roadway as possible.
The Highway Traffic Act doesn't say that. If multiple lanes, should be in right-hand lane. And otherwise should be "as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway". It's not practicable to cycle so close to the curb, that you risk winging someone standing on the sidewalk! Also when passing parked cars, it's not practicable to be close enough to the car you are passing, to be hit by the door if it opens. It's also not practicable to be far enough to the right in traffic, if it tempts a driver to pass if there's not really enough space. See http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--9mHleRJx...s1600/480654_156467597843296_1062126059_n.png

The police consistently say that a bicycle has the right to take the lane.
 
"As practicable" is different than "as possible" - that's what they teach in CAN-BIKE. Debris and sewer grates have to be avoided, but "taking the lane" is sensible only when necessary for safety.

There's nothing specifically wrong with bikes creeping to the right of queued cars approaching an intersection for instance. It can be hazardous though. It is illegal and extremely dangerous to pass a car already starting a right turn on the right.
 
Here's an idea to leave more room for pedestrians on the sidewalks but still have a place to store bicycles. Remove the bike racks from the sidewalk and use the street instead.

From streetsblog.org at this link.

Eyes on the Street: Bike Corrals Protect Ninth Avenue Bike Lane

corral_9thave.jpg

A new bike corral on 9th Avenue, between 39th and 40th Streets. Photo: Clarence Eckerson Jr.

Bike parking corrals adjacent to a protected bike lane — a first for New York City, and perhaps the nation — have been installed along Ninth Avenue in Chelsea and Hell’s Kitchen.

First requested by Community Board 4 in fall 2011, and receiving a supportive 11-0 committee vote in February, the corrals provide 18 bike racks along the “floating†parking lane the between the bicycle lane and general traffic lanes.

At the request of the community board, sidewalk bike racks on blocks that are receiving bike corrals will be removed.

island_9thave.jpg

A pedestrian island and bike corral on 9th Avenue at 36th Street. Photo: Clarence Eckerson Jr.

Casa di Isacco restaurant is maintaining a four-rack corral between 39th and 40th Streets, Pomodoro restaurant is maintaining a seven-rack corral between 38th and 39th Streets, and Ora Thai Cuisine is maintaining a seven-rack corral by a pedestrian island between 35th and 36th Streets.

In the words of Streetsblog reader Eric McClure: Is there a higher form of bike lane than the bike-parking-protected bike lane?

In addition to the new bike racks, new curb-and-concrete pedestrian refuge islands continue to be installed along Ninth Avenue, most notably for pedestrians at 34th Street.

constr_9thave.jpg

Asphalt is removed for a pedestrian refuge island on 9th Avenue at 34th Street. Photo: Clarence Eckerson Jr.

Too bad a non-world class city like New York City is doing this, unlike the world class city that Toronto is trying to be.
 
Last edited:
Today I almost got hit by a guy who was speeding on his SUV while talking on the phone and who hazardously passed me in a single lane road just in time to get to a stop sign.

Oh the joy. We should license drivers so that they can't act like that... oh wait.
 
Too bad a non-world class city like New York City is doing this, unlike the world class city that Toronto is trying to be.
So, Toronto should strive to be a World Class city by simply demolishing buildings as necessary to make all major streets at least 6 lanes wide and convert them to one way traffic configuration, ain't going to happen my friend. Just converting traffic patterns to one-way streets gives the trolley people a rash, no need to dream any further.
 

Back
Top