Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

[nfitz]

This is true of the Kingston Road section.

Danforth, most particularly from just east of the railway underpass to Victoria Park, however, will require removing traffic lanes.

For clarity, I think the project should go ahead anyway; I'm just making sure people have a clear picture.

Danforth has a 27-metre wide right-of-way.

If they can get 2 lanes and bike lanes on a 20-metre right-of-way, I think they should be able to shoehorn 4 lanes and bike lanes into a 27-metre ROW. What they can't do is add permanent parking spots.

From the city's Official Plan

 

[Northern Light]

Danforth has a 27-metre wide right-of-way.

If they can get 2 lanes and bike lanes on a 20-metre right-of-way, I think they should be able to shoehorn 4 lanes and bike lanes into a 27-metre ROW. What they can't do is add permanent parking spots.

From the city's Official Plan
View attachment 610703View attachment 610706

You're incorrect here.

Let me explain why.

You're thinking of ROW as so many do, as curb to curb distance.

That's not right.

ROW includes the sidewalks.

So when you're thinking of those 20M streets like parts of Shuter or River etc. What you're thinking of often streets with 2M wide sidewalks.

The sidewalks on Danforth are much wider. You can't shrink them. There's trees, pedestrian lights, they are busier there's bus stops. etc etc.

So when you see 7 additional meters that is not 7 additional meters between the curbs, which is where you need it.

Here's the section of Danforth in question:

You have 15M available. Each vehicle lane is at least 3.0M That's 12M You now have only only 3M left, while yes, you could, in theory, do a 1.5M bike lane, with a painted line, you wouldn't even
have room for flexiposts, for which you require 1.8M of total room.

Also........what happens when you add a left hand turn lane, which occupies 2.5M?

Right, the bike lanes have to go away at the intersections.

Doesn't work.

Completely apart from that, you would have to get rid of 100% of the on street parking here and the pushback would be fierce. The BIA already opposes cycle tracks here.

 

[nfitz]

You're incorrect here.

Only if you have are looking for perfection.

Yes, shave the sidewalks. They don't need to be wider than the very busy sidewalks at Bloor and Bathurst where the ROW is only 20 metres. Simply use that design, and add two, 3 metre wide lanes. And you've still got a metre to use for something. The current design has an average lane width of 3.75m, even with the wide sidewalks!

Is it ideal? No. Will it save lives? Yes.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

 

[Northern Light]

Only if you have are looking for perfection.

We disagree. This is not a search for perfection. Its math.

Yes, shave the sidewalks.

1) Some of the sidewalks on this section of Danforth are only 2.4M wide, the minimum standard for a side street is 2.1M

2) The standard requirement along Danforth and other major streets is currently 6M, no sidewalk here exceeds that, and most is less.

3) You don't 'just' shave the sidewalks, IF the sidewalks were reconstructed and made smaller, you would have to move utility poles, trees, and reconstruct the road, because the catch basins would have to moved to be against the new curb.

This section of Danforth is not planned for reconstruction.

They don't need to be wider than the very busy sidewalks at Bloor and Bathurst where the ROW is only 20 metres. Simply use that design, and add two, 3 metre wide lanes. And you've still got a metre to use for something.

Bloor there is one lane each way, not two lanes each way, this is not a valid comparison at all.

Remember, parking lanes and turn lanes are only 2.5M wide, not 3.0M

The current design has an average lane width of 3.75m, even with the wide sidewalks!

This is not correct. You need to re-measure. The interior lanes on this section of Danforth are 3.0M

The curb lanes range, but are generally ~3.3M

Is it ideal? No. Will it save lives? Yes.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Your math remains faulty.

For reasons outlined above, it does not and cannot work.

 

[nfitz]

We disagree. This is not a search for perfection. Its math.

2) The standard requirement along Danforth and other major streets is currently 6M, no sidewalk here exceeds that, and most is less.

Bloor there is one lane each way, not two lanes each way, this is not a valid comparison at all.

Remember, parking lanes and turn lanes are only 2.5M wide, not 3.0M

Go back to basics. The right-of-way along Bloor (around Bathurst) is only 20 metres. The right of way along Danforth is 27 metres. This allows for the addition of two 3.5-metre lanes, if you used the existing Bathurst cross-section.

This is not correct. You need to re-measure. The interior lanes on this section of Danforth are 3.0M

I just remeasured. I got 15 metres. Where were you looking? Perhaps we are looking at two different things.

The curb lanes range, but are generally ~3.3M

Where? I keep seeing stuff like this (at Pharmacy). There's enough to paint in parking spots that easily leave the width of a bike lane!

With great respect, you've had a challenge for all the years we've been on UT that you like to draw a conclusion without proper evidence and then defend it vociferously even after the evidence clearly proves you wrong.

It would serve you well to just say 'oops' now and again, and admit your idea doesn't work.

I've said oops many times. And I will here if you show the evidence. And how 20 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 27 is false.

You've said statements. Not evidence.

 

[evandyk]

If you canceled all right/left turn lanes as well as all parking, you could fit four traffic lanes with bike lanes, couldn't you? Isn't it virtually all four lanes now if you include those? Traffic wouldn't go any faster than a well-designed 2 lane road with the appropriate turning lanes, but that's not the ask from the province...

Example here. There are four active traffic lanes plus two bike lanes. Just make them all go through with no parking or turning lanes, and you have what Doug wants.

 

[DSC]

If you canceled all right/left turn lanes as well as all parking, you could fit four traffic lanes with bike lanes, couldn't you? Isn't it virtually all four lanes now if you include those? Traffic wouldn't go any faster than a well-designed 2 lane road with the appropriate turning lanes, but that's not the ask from the province...

Example here. There are four active traffic lanes plus two bike lanes. Just make them all go through with no parking or turning lanes, and you have what Doug wants.

View attachment 610732

That would certainly piss off the BIA and the merchants!

 

[nfitz]

1) Some of the sidewalks on this section of Danforth are only 2.4M wide, the minimum standard for a side street is 2.1M

In your example, the road is 15-metres wide (I get 15.8 metres in the same location, using the city's mapping tool). So 15 + 2.1 + 2.1 ≈ 20 metres. So where's the other 7 metres?

Looking at the location of your example, I get 4.8 metres from the curb to the property line. Not 2.1 or 2.4.

 

[Northern Light]

If you canceled all right/left turn lanes as well as all parking, you could fit four traffic lanes with bike lanes, couldn't you? Isn't it virtually all four lanes now if you include those? Traffic wouldn't go any faster than a well-designed 2 lane road with the appropriate turning lanes, but that's not the ask from the province...

Example here. There are four active traffic lanes plus two bike lanes. Just make them all go through with no parking or turning lanes, and you have what Doug wants.

View attachment 610732

Sigh...........

Parking lanes are not travel lanes, they aren't as wide. I've said this several times now and given the appropriate measurement.

****

In a 15M cross section, if you wanted 4 vehicles lanes, with zero parking and no turn lanes, you be able to do two 1.5M bike lanes, but only with paint, no flexiposts or parking curbs.

 

[Northern Light]

Go back to basics. The right-of-way along Bloor (around Bathurst) is only 20 metres. The right of way along Danforth is 27 metres. This allows for the addition of two 3.5-metre lanes, if you used the existing Bathurst cross-section.

Sigh.

First off, the ROW on Danforth here is NOT consistently 27M at all.

Its designated as 27M in the Official Plan. That means, whenever a redevelopment occurs, the developer must concede lands to the City to bring the ROW up to the width prescribed in the Official Plan.

See:

Property Line to Property Line, its not 27M

I do wish you would get that I know this file and understand what I'm talking about........ but since you don't, I will not engage further.
]

I just remeasured. I got 15 metres. Where were you looking? Perhaps we are looking at two different things.

Where? I keep seeing stuff like this (at Pharmacy). There's enough to paint in parking spots that easily leave the width of a bike lane!

Danforth/Pharmacy is 25.4M within the ROW and is 15.4M curb to curb

. And I will here if you show the evidence. And how 20 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 27 is false.

As shown above, there is not 27M actually there along most of the road, 27 is false., as a starting point.

For the above reason, you don't have the available space to put 20M between the curbs, because the City doesn't own that land along much the road, its got buildings on it!

You've said statements. Not evidence.

This is incredibly insulting, and untrue. You're going on ignore for that, where you were for years.

 

[nfitz]

Sigh.

It's not necessary to be condescending. I'm being perfectly polite here.

First off, the ROW on Danforth here is NOT consistently 27M at all.

Yes, there are some sections, particularly closer to Victoria Park, that are narrower; oops, I hadn't looked there. Going through in detail, I'm not aware of anything narrower than 23 metres. And of anything less than 25 metres that isn't within 2 blocks of Victoria Park.

The only thing that I see that could be problematic is the Victoria Park intersection. Except it's already one-lane eastbound, east of Victoria Park. So there's no need for more than a 20-metre wide right-of-way (and it's at least 23 metres there).

Its designated as 27M in the Official Plan. That means, whenever a redevelopment occurs, the developer must concede lands to the City to bring the ROW up to the width prescribed in the Official Plan.

For most of that area along Danforth, the extra land has already been acquired. Much more so than between Victoria Park and Broadview. Didn't we discuss in one of the other threads that the minimum width in Scarborough Township was greater than the 66 feet (one chain) found in Toronto and most of York Township?

Danforth/Pharmacy is 25.4M within the ROW and is 15.4M curb to curb

I said 27 metres and 15 metres above. I'm remeasuring yet again. I still get 27 metres - or at least 26.5 metres, which is within the accuracy of the notoriously dreadful PIN mapping. Can you show your 25.4 metres?

]

For the above reason, you don't have the available space to put 20M between the curbs, because the City doesn't own that land along much the road, its got buildings on it!

Which I believe you only need at intersections (though you'd only need 18.8 metres using the standards they used on Woodbine). Which intersection is this an issue? With 20 metres, you still have room for 2.4 metres on each side of the road, for pedestrians. Which is 24.8 metres. Which major intersection doesn't have 24.8 metres?

This is incredibly insulting, and untrue.

I don't see anything here that's even mildly insulting. It certainly wasn't meant that way.

 

[bearcat]

It's not necessary to be condescending. I'm being perfectly polite here.


Yes, there are some sections, particularly closer to Victoria Park, that are narrower; oops, I hadn't looked there. Going through in detail, I'm not aware of anything narrower than 23 metres. And of anything less than 25 metres that isn't within 2 blocks of Victoria Park.

The only thing that I see that could be problematic is the Victoria Park intersection. Except it's already one-lane eastbound, east of Victoria Park. So there's no need for more than a 20-metre wide right-of-way (and it's at least 23 metres there).


For most of that area along Danforth, the extra land has already been acquired. Much more so than between Victoria Park and Broadview. Didn't we discuss in one of the other threads that the minimum width in Scarborough Township was greater than the 66 feet (one chain) found in Toronto and most of York Township?


I said 27 metres and 15 metres above. I'm remeasuring yet again. I still get 27 metres - or at least 26.5 metres, which is within the accuracy of the notoriously dreadful PIN mapping. Can you show your 25.4 metres?

View attachment 610751]

Which I believe you only need at intersections (though you'd only need 18.8 metres using the standards they used on Woodbine). Which intersection is this an issue? With 20 metres, you still have room for 2.4 metres on each side of the road, for pedestrians. Which is 24.8 metres. Which major intersection doesn't have 24.8 metres?

I don't see anything here that's even mildly insulting. It certainly wasn't meant that way.

I am sure if you narrow the sidewalks and the car lanes and have very narrow bike lanes with just paint marking them you can fit everything in, but that would require $$$$ to move the curbs and streetlights and you end up with a suboptimal results with narrow sidewalks, narrow unprotected bike lanes and narrow car lanes with no street parkin and literally everyone is not happy lol

This was also my original idea about how to solve this problem, but as @Northern Light pointed out it's not a simple fix if you want to have car and bike lanes of usable and not suboptimal width.

And even if everything fits along most of the street, it still might not be possible at intersections unless we get rid of turn lanes.

 

[nfitz]

I am sure if you narrow the sidewalks and the car lanes and have very narrow bike lanes with just paint marking them you can fit everything in, but that would require $$$$ to move the curbs and streetlights and you end up with a suboptimal results with narrow sidewalks, narrow unprotected bike lanes and narrow car lanes with no street parkin and literally everyone is not happy lol

This was also my original idea about how to solve this problem, but as @Northern Light pointed out it's not a simple fix if you want to have car and bike lanes of usable and not suboptimal width.

And even if everything fits along most of the street, it still might not be possible at intersections unless we get rid of turn lanes.

Comparing to the Woodbine sections, this can be done without just doing lines. Or extra narrow lanes. We certainly have bike lanes now, that convert into a sharrow right at the intersection, to allow for turns - and that might be necessary.

I'm not seeing anywhere other than near VP where there's still less than 25 metres. The worst looking old building I've seen - is a very poor looking building indeed. If it got expropriated, knocked down for this project, and then redeveloped, it might actually make a profit! Very few other buildings are even built out to the 3.4 metres or so of widening of the ROW that they've been taking over the years.

 

[valvenis]

I am sure if you narrow the sidewalks and the car lanes and have very narrow bike lanes with just paint marking them you can fit everything in, but that would require $$$$ to move the curbs and streetlights and you end up with a suboptimal results with narrow sidewalks, narrow unprotected bike lanes and narrow car lanes with no street parkin and literally everyone is not happy lol

This was also my original idea about how to solve this problem, but as @Northern Light pointed out it's not a simple fix if you want to have car and bike lanes of usable and not suboptimal width.

And even if everything fits along most of the street, it still might not be possible at intersections unless we get rid of turn lanes.

I can't think of a more optimal solution...to drive away customers and businesses from the area.

Congrats - we turned a street into a highway / stroad! Wait a second - where did all the costumers go? People don't like shopping or eating next to a busy road? Who knew?

 

[robmausser]

Weston Loop

www.westonloop.com

The Humber Gap has a new name and is apparently proceeding after the Golf course nearby finally agreed.