Toronto Queens Quay & Water's Edge Revitalization | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

TheTigerMaster said:
I've previously suggested installing fences along the entire length of the cycle path, with large gaps in between them to still allow for easy pedestrian movement. Perhaps more than half the length of the route would be gaps in this fence. I think this would be enough of a visual cue to keep pedestrians off the cycle path, while maintaining pedestrian flows.
Click to expand...
I really think that as the trees grow, this will create a natural barrier and more of a visual cue.

44 North said:
Also, it's still part of the roadway, and vehicles and cyclists will be on various parts of the ROW. So I can't see MTO allowing such a surface.

How about granite bricks? The very same that were brought to this country as ballast and have been on our streets and streetcar tracks for over a century? They look good, and any driver would easily identify that it's not a typical roadway (and therefore possibly shouldn't be driven on). Or, failing that, a few cans of paint?
Click to expand...

Why would vehicles and cyclists be on it, except where it is necessary to cross the road? You just leave it off of those bits. I don't think granite bricks are enough of a clue, since drivers can't figure it out now and the whole area that has different use of bricks/paving/blue boxes/white stencils doesn't seem to be visual enough for a lot of people.

I like the idea of retractable bollards to the ROW that the streetcars can trigger.
 
Last edited:
PinkLucy said:
Why would vehicles and cyclists be on it, except where it is necessary to cross the road? You just leave it off of those bits. I don't think granite bricks are enough of a clue, since drivers can't figure it out now and the whole area that has different use of bricks/paving/blue boxes/white stencils doesn't seem to be visual enough for a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Emergency vehicles will undoubtedly use it at one time or another, and probably utilities. And like I posted above, I was cycling on it (IMO it was safer than being on the MGT). Regardless, has there been any discussion as to whether MTO would even allow grass? I really see it being a non-starter for this reason.

As for granite bricks...I'd like to see these for much of our streetcar trackage. They're aesthetically pleasing, they make sense, and accessing the rails during construction can be done in a matter of hours instead of days of god-awful noisy jackhammering that we see now.
 
44 North said:
As an aside, I was down on QQW last night. Massive, massive amounts of people. Many had no choice but to walk on the cycle path. I had to keep a hand on the brake and travel probably 5km just to be sure not to hit anyone (before deciding that if I still wanted to ride, the streetcar ROW was a safer place to be). A few other cyclists didn't have the same level of courtesy. I heard "OUTTA MY WAY!", "THIS IS THE BIKE LANE", etc. And lots of bell ringing.
Click to expand...

Do you think the planned foot-bridges will help divert some of the pedestrians away from the main sidewalk?


PinkLucy said:
I really think that as the trees grow, this will create a natural barrier and more of a visual cue.
Click to expand...

This is precisely what the designers intended based on what they said during the QQ site-tour in May
 
salsa said:
Do you think the planned foot-bridges will help divert some of the pedestrians away from the main sidewalk?
Click to expand...

Probably. I know I'd love to walk along the waterfront if a continuous path existed. I'm definitely hoping we get them in place, but doubt we'll be seeing them any time soon due to funding issues. IMO WaterfrontTO's most pressing issue is getting the East Bayfront streetcar started - which I believe will be funded through their coffers somehow. And I also have my doubts about this particular bridge. Looks pretty steep.

484_footbridges_police_585_282_crop_max_width_4_60_596_288.jpg
 
TheTigerMaster said:
If the bridges are that steep it will discourage pedestrians from using them.
Click to expand...

It does look pretty damn steep for those pedestrians in the render. It's like a slide. But I was more thinking for those with mobility issues. Would we even be allowed to build something like that, and which is in accessible for anyone pushing a stroller or using a mobility device? I'd think it would require switchbacks or something.
 
44 North said:
It does look pretty damn steep for those pedestrians in the render. It's like a slide. But I was more thinking for those with mobility issues. Would we even be allowed to build something like that, and which is in accessible for anyone pushing a stroller or using a mobility device? I'd think it would require switchbacks or something.
Click to expand...

We had this debate pages ago.

AoD
 
44 North said:
I must've missed that discussion.
...So, what was the consensus reached?
Click to expand...

Consensus on UT? :rolleyes: Mainly two schools of thought - 1. Accessibility above all and 2. Functional accessibility (i.e. access to the promenade in general) is sufficient - specific elements need not be accessible, particularly if it becomes prohibitively costly or create too many design issues.

AoD
 
"Accessibility above all" means giving the disabled and people with strollers the ability to quickly cross the slip like everyone. If the bridges are not accessible, those people will have to go all the way around--back towards Queens Quay, across the slip and then down to the harbour. They're already at a disadvantage. They won't be able to enjoy the practical advantage of using the bridge, which is to easily cross the slip.
 
junctionist said:
"Accessibility above all" means giving the disabled and people with strollers the ability to quickly cross the slip like everyone. If the bridges are not accessible, those people will have to go all the way around--back towards Queens Quay, across the slip and then down to the harbour. They're already at a disadvantage. They won't be able to enjoy the practical advantage of using the bridge, which is to easily cross the slip.
Click to expand...

The promenade is not intended as a throughfare in the first place. It wasn't meant to serve the functional purpose of going from A to B - that's what Queen's Quay is for.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top