The new Front Street design is based on vague planning ideas about "shared space" as if some fancy brick on its own would solve traffic problems between drivers, taxis, pedestrians and cyclists. At least as pedestrians we got some solid bollards, revealing that the City didn't really believe in the magic. Meanwhile as cyclists we get nothing but a few sharrows and a narrow strip between moving cars and the door zone of cabs. Photo: Cycle Toronto
How is this any different from all the other downtown streets that are urban hells for cyclists? Anyone who rides on Queen is very acquainted with the feeling of fear being squeezed from the left and worrying about the day when their number is called and a door suddenly swings open in front of them.
It's even worse that the "shared space" fairy dust is being advanced by the "progressive" planners. They're doing it with a distinct sparsity of data and in contradiction of other jurisdictions that have put specific limits on where shared streets makes sense and where they don't make sense.
Toronto's Chief Planner, Jennifer Keesmaat, has been enthusiastic about the space, and seems unconcerned about the implications for cycling:
Toronto's first 'shared' space - a mid-block 'welcome mat' for all in front of #UnionStation #TOpoli pic.twitter.com/rohBSqUBZI HT @haroldmadi
Some welcome mat. More like the door got slammed in cyclists face (the City even ignored recommendations from Metrolinx that better cycling infrastructure be considered).
Harold Madi, by the way, is the guy who led this design as well as the controversial changes on John Street. This is how they imagined this urban utopia in the EA:
Remarkably different from what we see now that it's finally reality.
We need rules for shared space!
The best example of sensible restrictions on shared space are just south of the border in New York City where their Street Design Manual spells it out clearly:
Consider on narrower streets (at most two moving lanes), or outer roadways of boulevard–type streets, with little or no through–traffic, and which are not major vehicular or bicyclist through–routes or designated truck routes.
Front Street, and even John Street for that matter, do not meet these criteria! There is lots of through-traffic and it is a major vehicular route. At least with John we still have the opportunity to take different measures for traffic calming and diversion (such as making sure only local traffic will use the street by diverting cars from going through the entire street). But Front Street is supposed to be a through street and is therefore is a completely unsuitable candidate for shared street.
That is, if we use New York's guidelines. We've got nothing else to go on.
Comments
Clark in Vancouver (not verified)
My theory is that "Shared
Thu, 07/09/2015 - 12:48My theory is that "Shared Space" is being sold to city planners by the auto industry who are wanting to maintain the status quo (where cars dominate and they profit) while appearing to satisfy the desires of the public.
This is what David Hembrow has to say about shared space.
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/shared%20space
Antony (not verified)
Doesn't look remarkably
Fri, 07/10/2015 - 11:00Doesn't look remarkably different - is it the trees you mean? Guess the roots would have been a problem for underground stuff, if the trees didn't die after the first winter from road salt ingestion. I hear giant planters are on the way to provide pedestrian refuge from U-turning cabs.
The design outcome was pretty clear when the plans were first shown. Great space for leisure, huge concession to motorcar pickup/dropoffs, okay for walking. That's about it.
herb
I mean more the sparsity of
Sat, 07/11/2015 - 08:27I mean more the sparsity of cars and happy coexistence with the cyclist riding in the centre median for some reason (artist trying to send a message for cyclists to stay away from the door zone?). The infrastructure looks more or less the same as you say.
hamish (not verified)
With respect, the real missed
Sun, 07/12/2015 - 14:25With respect, the real missed opportunity is/was with transit. Using Front St. for a transitway is yet another obvious thing, or was, given the overloads to the transit of the King/Queen cars, the proximity to subway/transfers, the dire need for some improvements to the east-west transit flows, especially from the west end. A few years went to deflect the car-based Front St. Extension, where I and others were urging why not do transit instead - right here? - and towards the end, found that 1993 WWLRT EA that modelled the time from Etobicoke, and it was faster... But as pretty typical in Moronto, the obvious doesn't get done, and it's about cars..
Of course it'd still be possible to do improved transit on Front St., but now it has to be on surface, with surface priority. We cyclists do need to fuss about smarter transit, including the subway extension in scarborough, as we can't always tell others to ride a bike for greater distances if the transit isn't better, nor can we squeeze the cars in the core if the transit isn't improved first, which at least GO has been doing.
Alex Korobchevsky (not verified)
Well put, Herb. Shared space
Tue, 07/14/2015 - 10:38Well put, Herb. Shared space works. Woonerfs and pedestrian malls in Europe are essentially shared space (ever seen delivery trucks and emergency vehicles parked in the middle of these magnificent squares?). All Toronto laneways, driveways and cul-de-sacs without sidewalks where kids play are shared space. I feel safer to ride on a dead-end residential street than on a cycle track downtown.
What makes this work is the number of vehicles that use it. 10 cars or even trucks per hour that yield to other street users are not a big deal. John Street or Front Street through traffic? No thanks.
Aaron (not verified)
Herb, Just wondering what
Thu, 07/16/2015 - 00:54Herb,
Just wondering what your opinion is on what SHOULD have been done outside Union?
I do think they should have done a better job of visually highlighting the cycle lane, but beyond that, I don't see what else could be done.
In your own words "There is lots of through-traffic and it is a major vehicular route." Also, as there are so many cabs required there, then there really was no choice other than to sandwich the cyclists between a line of pickup spaces, and through-traffic on the other side.
Aaron
Alex Korobchevsky (not verified)
Aaron - Front Street has been
Thu, 07/16/2015 - 14:23Aaron - Front Street has been closed for a while and traffic adjusted just fine. There was no overflow observed on adjacent roadways. I do not see why Front cannot be simple blocked off by planters a la Willcocks or Gould at the crossing area which would allow cyclists through but keep the cabs at bay (no pun intended). This is feasible especially after Wellington is converted to two way operations as approved by council.
herb
Alex may be right, Aaron. And
Thu, 07/16/2015 - 16:02Alex may be right, Aaron. And given comments from Keesmaat it seems that she would prefer to close off Front to car traffic. But I really question how politically feasible that is. Not only is Transportation Services going to strenuously object (at least with the current old guard schooled in car-first methods), but councillors across the city will object given that Front is considered a heavily used main route.
Moreover, if closing off Front Street is the City's aim, then it didn't make sense to put the taxi bays right there instead of on Bay or elsewhere. Now we've got the taxi industry fighting it as well.
So politically it would be easier to get protected bike lanes on Front rather than close off the whole street. But cyclists lost that fight (for now).
Now all we can hope for are tweaks to the current mess to make it safer for cycling without forcing us to walk (because then we'd just be pedestrians in a car city). I hope that the City takes New York's guidelines seriously and finds ways to decrease the car traffic on Front. They could switch it to one-way traffic which would give room for protected bike lanes. Or prevent cars from using it as a through route along Front. Force cars to only make right turns onto Front and right turns off. That would make it inconvenient enough to chop a good chunk of traffic. We'd still have the chaos of the drop off zones, but it'll be a bit safer.
These are just ideas -- it would be great if Planning and Transpo took them seriously and experimented with ways of reducing the traffic rather than just making big claims.