Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

[Northern Light]

To me the thinking here goes: "Well, we don't want to give the cyclists too much room, they might treat it as a bidirectional

The original intent was to have side with a bidirectional cycle track, that's why there's so much space there.

But then the area councillors intervened.......

See this report:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-236454.pdf

Option 1 was the staff proposal.

The rest was appeasing the then councillors so it would get approved.

That would have been Robinson, and Fletcher.

 

[UntitledCyclist]

The original intent was to have side with a bidirectional cycle track, that's why there's so much space there.

But then the area councillors intervened.......

See this report:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-236454.pdf

Option 1 was the staff proposal.

The rest was appeasing the then councillors so it would get approved.

That would have been Robinson, and Fletcher.

Thanks for that explanation! I am still astounded by that proposal, even as an alternative.

In their diagram they show a wheelchair used in that narrow, painted gutter, wedged between fast moving bikes/ebikes and a curb. I cannot fathom how that passed muster as any kind of a plan, even if the local councillors rejected the 1 way + 2 way cycle track idea.

Pardon my lack of familiarity with this process, but how/when would the two councillors (one of whom is sadly no longer with us) have been able to intervene or kaibosh the staff recommendation?

Was there a follow-up report that just landed on Option 2, and did it explain why?

The only rational explanation is the idea to "identify space" to widen the actual sidewalk there when they do SoGR work. So the painted pedestrian gutter is a temp thing, but it's a bad one. Leaving as a wider cycle track until they get to widening the sidewalk would be far more sensible for all. And to be honest it's how it will be used anyway.

 

[Northern Light]

Thanks for that explanation! I am still astounded by that proposal, even as an alternative.

In their diagram they show a wheelchair used in that narrow, painted gutter, wedged between fast moving bikes/ebikes and a curb. I cannot fathom how that passed muster as any kind of a plan, even if the local councillors rejected the 1 way + 2 way cycle track idea.

View attachment 603801
Pardon my lack of familiarity with this process, but how/when would the two councillors (one of whom is sadly no longer with us) have been able to intervene or kaibosh the staff recommendation?

Was there a follow-up report that just landed on Option 2, and did it explain why?

The link was the follow-up report (supplementary).

That report was directed to be made to Council by Executive Ctte when approving last year's Cycling and Pedestrian works program.

The ctte did so at the behest of the local councillor.(s)

The only rational explanation is the idea to "identify space" to widen the actual sidewalk there when they do SoGR work. So the painted pedestrian gutter is a temp thing, but it's a bad one. Leaving as a wider cycle track until they get to widening the sidewalk would be far more sensible for all. And to be honest it's how it will be used anyway.

Right now, ECS (Engineering and Construction Services) is working on seeing if suicide barriers can be added to the bridge.

If the answer is yes, then that will likely be done in the 2020s and everything will be re-thought then.

If the answer is 'no', its a bit murkier.

What the councilllors really wanted was a widened sidewalk, but that work would have been considerably more invasive than was done/planned. Put simply, it was out of scope, out of budget, and too big a change to ask for at the last minute.

In theory, the current intent would be to widen the sidewalk, possibly in conjunction w/various other Mx road works in the area associated with the Ontario Line.

But I don't think anything can be sorted like that until a decision is made on whether suicide barriers will be prioritized in the near term.