[nfitz]

They certainly REPAIR narrow sidewalks without making them wider but do you have examples of a new sidewalk being narrower than 2.1 meters. If so, I would ask the appropriate Councillor why.

Completely new - no. But there's many, many examples of a sidewalk with only about 1.2 metres clearance, being reduced even more with new poles, street furniture, and patios.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Meanwhile, in Berlin, they got rid of traffic lanes to put in a grassy tram right-of-way....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1655634022582591488

It looks like the got rid of the on-street parking, reduced the traffic lanes from 3 down to 1 in each direction, put in cycling lanes (which can be used by emergency vehicles like fire trucks), and wider sidewalks. Assuming there are off-street parking lots and garages available. Just no more movie scenes where a car finds an empty parking spot exactly in front of their destination.

Looking at you Avenue Road and University Avenue.

Berlin Turmstraße. Images of what would replace the 6 lane road. From link.

Berlin is basically saying bye-bye to the automobile, and turning completely to the trams (public transit) and cycling.

 

[DSC]

Completely new - no. But there's many, many examples of a sidewalk with only about 1.2 metres clearance, being reduced even more with new poles, street furniture, and patios.

That is certainly true. Patios are certainly NOT allowed to do this and if you see one you can report it to MLS. Hydro putting poles is a very common thing and nobody seems able to control them! The street furniture folk are also not supposed to do it and you can report examples to streetfurniture@toronto.ca

 

[Northern Light]

Completely new - no. But there's many, many examples of a sidewalk with only about 1.2 metres clearance, being reduced even more with new poles, street furniture, and patios.

To be clear, that's not supposed to happen. Regrettably, its not a complete surprise that some agencies/staff are not following guidelines.

We all know Hydro and the TTC both work to the beat of their own drummer.

Planning is the most insistent on the 2.1M, they tend to impact what happens only when a new building is going up or there is a City Masterplan guiding changes.

Transportation generally seeks to comply when doing major road reconstruction, if feasible; but is far less attentive to minor maintenance projects.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Other cities use the building's walls for street lighting, electrical supply, and even tram catenary supports.

 

[adys123]

Completely new - no. But there's many, many examples of a sidewalk with only about 1.2 metres clearance, being reduced even more with new poles, street furniture, and patios.

I have witnessed on multiple occasions on the projects I work on where the City has justified using the "constrained" minimum or use of MUPs to reduce sidewalk width. I would certainly be disappointed if they took an approach in the suburbs and refused to budge on narrower right of ways.

 

[KhalilHeron]

I applaud the ambition, but just to note, the City's minimum standards for accessibility require all sidewalks to be 2.1M wide at the minimum.

South of Dundas, though the City/TTC would doubtless object, you could easily run the LRT on a single track in that section, so as long as you had a two-track area right at Queen, and another north of Dundas where you could hold vehicles. This is done in many places around the world.

***

North of Dundas, I think the streetcar volumes are likely too high for any one-way operation.

***

In theory, I think you might choose to combine the pedestrian and cycling movements at Riverdale with a multi-use path of 4M. The problem there lies in that I don't see any logical way to extend that trail north of Danforth, so its a bit of dead-end.

Didn't know about the sidewalk minimum thanks! It is a tight squeeze when accounting for stops and shelters though midblock there is totally room for wider sidewalks and even other street furnishings.

I should note the broadview idea was just for north of gerrard by the park. South of gerrard there are enough businesses that likely need deliveries that I think road access should be maintained on both sides, though they would be low priority.

 

[Northern Light]

@KhalilHeron

Good work.

Another note for you for any future work.

In general, the minimum width for a space containing trees is 1M wide. (more is preferable)

(if you're thinking of an open boulevard).

If you want the trees in pits so that you can encroach further, you need to think of how to sustain tree (likely an open grate system over the pit that you can walk on); and silva cells underneath to create more room for root growth.

The grate would still need to be 1M across, minimum, but it can be fairly easily walked over by most people. However, it would interfere with an MUP (wheels and grates can be an issue), and may also pose a problem for those with mobility aids (walkers etc.)

 

[nfitz]

That is certainly true. Patios are certainly NOT allowed to do this and if you see one you can report it to MLS.

I reported a brand new one to 3-1-1 the other day (sidewalk intrusion they called it, after confirming there was no permits in place). I'm not sure what MLS is.

 

[DSC]

I reported a brand new one to 3-1-1 the other day (sidewalk intrusion they called it, after confirming there was no permits in place). I'm not sure what MLS is.

MLS= Municipal Licencing and Standards. "Municipal Licensing & Standards provides bylaw administration and enforcement services, including targeted strategies to address graffiti, noise, business inspections, parks regulations and animal services issues. Services also include business licensing and permitting, property standards, and animal care including control, shelter and adoption services."

 

[JSF-1]

Currently finishing up my video on the 511 Bathurst, but I had to make an image of all the former North-South steetcar routes that no longer exist since the Bathurst streetcar for a time was the only north-south line in the network. Thought you guys might like to see it.

 

[JSF-1]

New video up, this one looking at the Bathurst Streetcar.

 

[W. K. Lis]

New video up, this one looking at the Bathurst Streetcar.

Should have kept the streetcar tracks on Adelaide Street for diversions and detours at least. Should have extended the Richmond Street tracks to Bathurst Street for the same reasons.

 

[DSC]

Should have kept the streetcar tracks on Adelaide Street for diversions and detours at least. Should have extended the Richmond Street tracks to Bathurst Street for the same reasons.

Be grateful that they finally repaired (are repairing) the tracks on both Adelaide and Richmond - not to say that it would not be good to have Adelaide with tracks returned right to Bathurst but not really sure it would be cost effective. Richmond would have a tight squeeze getting there from York (for the first time). Better to use any $$ to add a few more of the curves we have discussed here many times/

 

[drum118]

Should have kept the streetcar tracks on Adelaide Street for diversions and detours at least. Should have extended the Richmond Street tracks to Bathurst Street for the same reasons.

At one times tracks ran to Bathurst St From Church St and both roads were duel direction, not the current one way.

Adelaide track has been rebuilt from Spadina to University and Victoria to Church for eastbound with the westbound removed. The missing section can't be built until the waterline is rebuilt.

It would be great to have Richmond connect to Bathurst as a bypass for Queen/King, but will get a push back from the local as it will mean removing on street parking. Oh!!...you can't remove my parking spot considering there is very little there in the first place.

There is the issue from Peter to Bathurst where the road gets narrow and twist which isn't a big issue in the first place.

Getting the line to Spadina is more important than Bathurst.

At the end of the day, is it worth it???