News   Aug 07, 2024
 343     0 
News   Aug 07, 2024
 348     0 
News   Aug 07, 2024
 284     0 

Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

Saw this on Reddit. Looks like they narrowed the bicycle lane and widened the right turn lane? And did an awful job of putting new lane markings in. Perhaps it's because the right turn lane was too narrow for the buses turning into Main Street station?


I wouldn't draw any conclusions at this point.

I would say, I don't think that looks like a finished markings plan at all.

Also, this section of Danforth will be getting some enhancements soon.........all going well.
 
I'm wondering what the break down of offenses is but I don't think you can publicly pull that from police data.

When I did my bike lane study on Bloor I found ~1 out of 10 cyclists will go the wrong direction in the bike lanes or just ride on the sidewalks. Looking at another groups results they had similar counts.
What was the design of your study? I believe it was observational. Were there repeats at different times? Did you also repeat the same time in different weeks?

I ask, because study design matters, and it affects what you can interpret. (Obviously, observational studies are all you can do for this). But I would be careful with your conclusions if it was only 1 or 2 times.

And yes, there are some cyclists that ignore rules. I don't like them because they give the vast majority of cyclists a bad reputation. For instance, I called 911 a couple of weeks back for a pedestrian that got hit when an e-bike food delivery guy ran a light at a T-intersection. (She was shaken, but ok I think)
 
What was the design of your study? I believe it was observational. Were there repeats at different times? Did you also repeat the same time in different weeks?

I ask, because study design matters, and it affects what you can interpret. (Obviously, observational studies are all you can do for this). But I would be careful with your conclusions if it was only 1 or 2 times.

And yes, there are some cyclists that ignore rules. I don't like them because they give the vast majority of cyclists a bad reputation. For instance, I called 911 a couple of weeks back for a pedestrian that got hit when an e-bike food delivery guy ran a light at a T-intersection. (She was shaken, but ok I think)
I'm doing my best to make it statistically significant, the city report wasn't amazing imo but I'm aiming for the same standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
Tender is in process for cycle tracks and other improvements to Sentinel Road:

1722522451831.png
 
I wouldn't draw any conclusions at this point.

I would say, I don't think that looks like a finished markings plan at all.

Also, this section of Danforth will be getting some enhancements soon.........all going well.
I wouldn't say "all going well" when they rescinded the protection on a stretch of Toronto's longest and most touted protected bikeway.

In effect this turns Danforth/Main into a situation like at Bloor/Avenue, where a cyclist expecting protected lanes gets sharrows. And one was killed last week.

I hope the end product is better, but it doesn't bode well. To me it feels like clawback, and I expect we'll see more of it.
 
I wouldn't say "all going well" when they rescinded the protection on a stretch of Toronto's longest and most touted protected bikeway.

That's not what I said 'all going well' about.........that was about the enhancements coming to Danforth in 2025.

In effect this turns Danforth/Main into a situation like at Bloor/Avenue, where a cyclist expecting protected lanes gets sharrows. And one was killed last week.

I hope the end product is better, but it doesn't bode well. To me it feels like clawback, and I expect we'll see more of it.

Now, I've done more digging about what happened here, and I'm not pleased.

This is a clawback of sorts..........but........ well, read for yourself:

This all originates with Council and a motion by Brad Bradford:


From the above, staff's opinion:

1722532484652.png


***

The changes were subsequently revised, but staff did not endorse implementation:


1722532576022.png

1722532618449.png

1722532635379.png

1722532654015.png

1722532668049.png


***
1722532707630.png

Key Paragraph:

1722532738087.png


So......is this ok? Absolutely not.

Here's where the complaints go:

Councillor Brad Bradford:

1722532828329.png

Email: councillor_bradford@toronto.ca
 
Last edited:
Bradford did exactly the same thing on Woodbine, against staff recommendation.

If there's ever a serious injury, I'm filing a complaint with PEO to go after whichever engineer in the city even made a design for something they say is more dangerous, and they don't recommend. Let alone sign off on.
 
Bradford did exactly the same thing on Woodbine, against staff recommendation.

If there's ever a serious injury, I'm filing a complaint with PEO to go after whichever engineer in the city even made a design for something they say is more dangerous, and they don't recommend. Let alone sign off on.

I have a question.

Not sure you can answer.........but I'll ask you and open it to the floor.........

Does anyone think City Council has the statutory ability to order a City staffer to implement something they feel would be unsafe, where that is supported by any type of objective evidence?

I'm curious.

In theory, the basic rule is that that staff implement what Council orders.

But Council to my knowledge has never ordered Buildings to issue permits they don't believe meet criteria under the Building Code.

To the extent that there are equivalent Transportation standards..........does/should Council have authority to order staff not to follow them?

Let's bring @reaperexpress into this discussion.
 
Bradford did exactly the same thing on Woodbine, against staff recommendation.

If there's ever a serious injury, I'm filing a complaint with PEO to go after whichever engineer in the city even made a design for something they say is more dangerous, and they don't recommend. Let alone sign off on.
The engineering profession, recognizing they are not typically the decision makers do have exactly that clause. If an engineer's recommendation is not taken, and the decision maker has made that decision, the engineer can sign to remove liability. This is a little bit of a grey area because transportation infrastructure doesn't have the same clear-cut injury breakdown as structures, for example.
 
Whether or not it's "allowed", if someone gets hurt in an accident at that corner, these are mouth-watering documents for any personal injury lawyer to have their hands on.

It's one thing to recognize that there are tradeoffs everywhere, and that safety can't be the only thing that is considered, but it clearly indicates that mitigation measures were not in place here. It's not even "negligence" at that point.
 

Back
Top