Sharrows installed on Lansdowne Ave.

Yes- these sharrows indicate where bikes could go if they could fit beside traffic that is speeding on non peak hours, and congested during peak hours...traffic planners know as a general rule that by widening lanes, they are encouraging speeding which is now happening on Lansdowne...these sharrows also provide a false sense of security for bicyclists...the sharrows do not represent legal right of way...so the sharrows are a sham. More concrete has been added on both sides of Whytock for entrances, and untreated storm water is going right off the sidewalks into sewers without being absorbed by green boulevards...this is environmentally unsound design at its best... in addition, pedestrians are no longer protected by greenspace to buffer them from the traffic...buses and trucks are passing within inches of pedestrians walking on the sidewalk on the east side of the street...

BTW, I want to clarify that bike paths WERE promised to the residents by Councillor Giambrone and sharrows are paint, not a clear, safe demarcated lane. Lansdowne had the possibility of becoming a boulevard in the best sense of the word- with green spaces beside the road, and trees beside them, protecting pedestrians from traffic and greening the neighbourhood substantially. A tremendous amount of money has been spent without an environmental assessment done of its final affect on the avenue- which from the congestion from the stalled traffic during peak hours, has increased carbon emissions substantially.

so are sharrows a lane in according to the highway traffic act or not? can bicycles legally 'pass on the right' or not? if not, then it's a waste of time, money, and paint.

Every time there is a dispute over adding or removing motor vehicle lanes, the people who want more lanes for cars claim that slower traffic in fewer lanes will result in increased carbon emissions. Is this really true, considering that more car lanes also results in more car traffic overall according to the induced demand theory? As a cyclist and pedestrian, I prefer slower traffic, fewer lanes for cars, more lanes for bikes, and wider sidewalks. That makes me more likely to cycle or walk rather than drive (as an owner of both a car and a bike, I have a choice) which reduces my own personal carbon emissions. Does anyone know of any legitimate research into this matter? Right now, I am wary of those who cite "carbon emissions" as a reason to add and maintain road space for cars rather than bikes and peds.

I completely agree with the previous comment. If the lane's too narrow to share, don't try to pretend that it should be shared. Put the sharrows in the goddam center of the lane. But I guess that's just too bold of a move. To do so is to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that a cyclist CAN and SHOULD slow down cars for safety... omigod, omigod, we can't allow THAT! :-(

When I ride on a non-bike lane road, my understanding is that I am to ride as close to the right as is safe -- which in effect puts me about a metre or so left of the curb or parked cars ... basically where these sharrows seem to be.

So, what's the point of the sharrow? Drivers need to share the lane with me on every road in the city and generally seem to do so without difficulty. I do tend to ride at a pretty decent pace, particularly when taking a traffic lane (usually ~ 30 kph or greater) which I think helps things a bit. Perhaps utility riders doing the same at ~20 kph or slower have a much different experience.

To me, it looks like the lane is too narrow for a car to pass a bike if the bike is properly positioned, riding through the point of the chevron. In effect, bicyclists are being asked to serve as mobile traffic calming devices. I'm not sure what I think of this.

Public education is required to let cyclists and motorists alike know that the ideal riding position in this area is through the point of the chevrons. Without the education, the meaning of the markings will be a mystery for most road users.

I was happy to hear that Lansdowne was being narrowed, since I never believed it should be used as an arterial down to the Gardiner (as was the argument given by many of those opposed to the narrowing), as it runs through predominantly residential neighbourhoods and was in need of a more compact, residential scale. That being said, I think that the design fell short of being vehicle, pedestrian or cyclist-friendly. On-street parking is now located only on the west side, rather than the east side where it would have been beneficial. There are more residences and no boulevard on the east side and on-street parking could have created a buffer between the sidewalk and traffic. Instead, what we have now is an extremely wide sidewalk and boulevard on the west side, by the school and park, and no buffers on the east side.
The City has given cyclists a false sense of security by using the “sharrows” and is creating an environment that will lead to further cyclist-motorist conflict. As a resident of St. Helen’s who cycles on Lansdowne every day, I will tell you that I 1) no longer feel safe in the northbound lane and will use the sidewalk on the west side of Lansdowne (illegal I know) and 2) motorists are certainly not giving cyclists any space to share the lane. Not that it is their fault – if a motorist, or TTC drivers in particular, wants to pass a cyclist in the sharrow lane, they have to swerve into the southbound lane.
Let’s hope the City can come up with some better, and safer, solutions for cyclists rather than meaninglessly painting the asphalt.

2) motorists are certainly not giving cyclists any space to share the lane. Not that it is their fault – if a motorist, or TTC drivers in particular, wants to pass a cyclist in the sharrow lane, they have to swerve into the southbound lane.

This comment shows very well what's wrong with the current mindset. Somehow improper passing and squeezing cyclists off the road is not the poor motorists fault. They have to swerve, ah, poor babies.

Passing is not a right. Going at or over the speed limit is not a right. If there is a slower road user in front of you, you're not entitled to immediately be able to pass them. If you want to pass, you're required to wait until it is safe to pass. If you don't, it bloody well is 100% your fault. Case closed.

Its the Donway 162 and it runs once per hour. But only Monday to Friday between 6:45 am and 6:45 pm. For the record, the 6:45 am bus picks up 10 people along route no problem. When my leg was busted, this was the only bus stop I could reasonably hobble to, cause the stop is at the top of my street (no I don't live on the Bridle Path. The route goes through some "normal" areas as well).

Out of all the TTC routes I use, this one is probably the coolest. Because it has such regular clientel it feels more like a community bus. Its quite chatty as people catch up on news or gossip about the latest going on's in the mansions. Thanks to the domestics and construction workers that use this route, you can get quite a bit of information about whos doing what renovation where, updates on Gordon Lightfoot's health, that sort of thing. Unfortunately I can rarely get my act together to catch it, but when I do, its a most pleasant commute.

Notwithstanding, I agree with the previous two post (a) if a route needs cutting, this one is it; and (b) the domestic staff and the under 16 years of age will be screwed if it gets cut.