FRONT STREET ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW
Prepared For:
And
July 2012
www.c2planning.com
July 10, 2012
To: Alan M. Heisey, Q.C. From: Christian Chan Partner Partner PMH Law C2 Urban Planning Standard Life Centre 676 Huron Street Suite 510, 121 King St. W. Toronto ON P.O. Box 105, Toronto, ON M5H 3T9 M5R2R9
Re: Evaluation of Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for Front Street Reconfiguration
You have retained us on behalf of Cycle Toronto as planning consultants to evaluate the recommended design contained in the environmental study report “Front Street Reconfiguration (York Street to Bay Street), Municipal Class Environmental Assessment – Final Report”, dated April 2012 (the “Report”).
The project concerns the reconfiguration of Front Street at Union Station (the "Project"), for which the City of Toronto (the "City") is the proponent. The Project is closely related to the revitalization of Union Station, which is also a project of the City. The subject site is located on Front Street between Bay Street and York Street in the City of Toronto. The subject site includes the entire Front Street right-of-way.
The Report presents 14 alternative solutions comprised of nine alternatives and five sub-options. The Report ultimately selected alternative 2B (with modifications) as the basis of its preferred design.1
The purpose of this letter is to evaluate the Report’s alternative solutions and alternative design concepts, and ultimately, its recommended (technically preferred) design. These are compared against the Province of Ontario’s and the City of Toronto’s planning policies, plans and guidelines.
In our opinion, the preferred design -- particularly with respect to cycling -- does not conform to and is not consistent with the City of Toronto Official Plan or with several provincial policies, plans and guidelines. The proposed inclusion of “sharrows” and unmarked bike lanes, instead of clearly demarcated bike lanes, does not satisfy the tests and other evaluative frameworks under many provincial and municipal planning criteria for infrastructure projects, as described more fully below. The absence of bicycle parking on the Front Street entrance further illustrates the lack of conformity to provincial and municipal cycling-supportive policies, plans and guidelines.
Should you require any additional information or have any questions with respect to the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Christian Chan, B.U.R.Pl
Partner – C2 URBAN PLANNING
1 Report, p. 113. C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY OF HOW THE PROJECT AND EA REPORT ADDRESSES CYCLING 1 CONSIDERATIONS
SHARROWS 2
TORONTO BICYCLE/MOTOR-VEHICLE COLLISION STUDY, 2003 4
SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL PLANNING POLICY 4 IN RELATION TO THE RECOMMENDED RECONFIGURATION OF FRONT STREET
THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (“PPS”) 6
GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE 8
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO – MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE 11 GUIDELINES
CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY OF TORONTO OFFICIAL PLAN OFFICIAL PLAN 16
SECONDARY PLANS: RAILWAY LANDS EAST SECONDARY PLAN 18
METROLINX BIG MOVE PLAN 19
METROLINX MOBILITY HUB GUIDELINES 21
LACK OF BICYCLE PARKING AND THE INADEQUACY OF BIKE STATION PARKING 24
CONCLUSION 24
REFERENCES 25
C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
SUMMARY OF HOW THE PROJECT AND EA REPORT ADDRESSES CYCLING CONSIDERATIONS
The Report provides that the reconfiguration of Front Street is to create a pedestrian priority zone, while enhancing the cycling environment, and the development of a cycling amenity strategy. The Technical advisory Committee included members from the City of Toronto Transportation Services Cycling unit and stakeholders such as the Toronto Cycling Advisory Committee.
The Front Street reconfiguration was identified as a short term priority for implementation as part of the Union Station District Plan; a cycling review was to be included in this recommendation. A Needs and Opportunity review in the Report includes a provision for a more “complete street”, and a balance between motor vehicle, cycling and pedestrian zones. The addition of cycling facilities at Union Station provides for the accommodation of roadway functions and operations, which indicates the application of a balanced approach with respect to addressing potential conflicts within the right-of-way. Furthermore, the Union Station Master Plan and District Plan place emphasis on the integration of cycling and transit for commuting.
The Report provides a rationale for alternative solutions, and explicitly states the objective of minimizing overall impacts with motorized traffic, as well as the creation of a safe and convenient cycling environment. In other street configurations presented in the Report, cycling conflicts with pedestrians were identified – with the intention to give the Union Station Plaza a pedestrian priority focus. The Report addresses feedback received with respect to bicycle lanes, with the stated intention that Union Station will increasingly become a cycling destination, in concert with the bike rental (BIXI) station, as well as the private sector providing initiatives such as businesses offering bicycle commuter facilities. The Report recognized these concerns, yet the preferred design provided only a shared curb lane (with sharrows). This is despite the Report’s cycling safety concerns, stating that the occurrence of vehicle parking manoeuvres would take precedence over the safety of cyclists.
Non-conformity to Toronto’s Bike Plan was explained: that the intent of the design was to be more pedestrian-oriented to minimize pedestrian crossing distances and roadway widths; however, full motor vehicle access was provided for in the Technically Preferred Design. Some comments on alternatives designs by participants and stakeholders supported better cycling infrastructure. The Report dismissed those concerns, so that the reconfiguration could provide a more “pedestrian oriented design”. The Report stated that the addition of bicycle lanes would widen the roadway, thereby increasing the crossing distance for pedestrians.
As such, the sharrows were proposed in the Technically Preferred Design simply to remind drivers to be aware of cyclists. The Technically Preferred Design includes the introduction of a signed bicycle route with shared curb lane outside the mid-block crossing area. Overall, the Technically Preferred Design provides for a 4.7 metre wide travel lane on Front Street, to be signed as a shared bicycle route and 3 metre wide lay-by areas along the curbs. The City of Toronto has road design guidelines that provide 3.0 metres of lane-width for an arterial road; so there are 1.7 metres available for a clearly demarcated cycling lane. It is noted that the design intent of safety is provided for with the provision of visual cues such as pavers of differing colours, in order for cyclists, drivers and pedestrians to move with caution throughout the area.
1 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
The Report explicitly states that the purpose of the Environmental Assessment is for the reconfiguration to result in better coordination of all transportation modes, including cycling. It was noted in the stakeholder consultations that there were concerns regarding the provision of bike lanes as Front Street will be increasingly used by cyclists as a result of the Union Station Revitalization. Further on in the Report, Phase Three consultation activities also included concerns about the lack of bike lanes and continued concerns regarding “sharrows.”
The concerns of some stakeholders regarding cyclists having a dedicated lane on Front Street, as opposed to sharrows, are that the cyclist may “race” through their space, endangering pedestrians. It was noted in the Phase Three consultations that the Fairmont Royal York Hotel had concerns with the plan encouraging increased bicycle traffic on Front Street, and wished that cyclists are redirected away from the Hotel for their patrons’ safety. Redcliff Realty, the lead lessee of Union Station, shared concerns about cycling safety. It is important to note that the July 5 2010 “Changes to Front Street at Union Station, Questions and Answers, Public Information Centre #1" did not address any questions in regards to the provision of bike lanes as part of the reconfiguration. Comment forms for the Public Information Centre #2 of November 3, 2011 provided that from the vehicle driver perspective, they liked sharrows as the best way to share the roadway. There were no categories that provided the cyclist perspective with the ability to provide comments; the comments were exclusively framed around the perspectives of drivers and pedestrians.
In review of the configurations provided in the Report and in reference to our commentary as maps and visual submissions, Figures 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, and 7 – 4 all show what are known as “Sharrows” to indicate some form of right-of-way for cyclists in the Front Street Reconfiguration. Section 7.1, Figure 7-5, 7-6, and 7-7 show the Technically Preferred Design’s recommended typical cross sections.
SHARROWS
The Report identifies that its solution for providing cyclists with a safe right-of-way on Front Street is through the design intervention of a recent Transportation Services practice of placing quasi bike lanes, called “sharrows” or shared lane markings, on roads. In order to conceptualize the implication of these sharrows, it is important to explain what they are, their development and appropriate use – in relation to their evaluation against provincial and municipal planning principles.
Sharrows are a type of bicycle lane marking used on various Toronto streets. They are a recent addition to the inventory of cycling interventions that are meant to provide cyclists with increased safety placed on right-of-ways in the City of Toronto. In 2004, San Francisco pioneered the implementation of sharrows on roads as an indication to drivers of cyclist access to the entire right-of-way, in the direction indicated. Secondary purposes include; reducing the amount of cyclists impacting the open door of a parked vehicle; lateral positioning of cyclists in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane; alerting motorists of the likely location of a travelling cyclist; and reducing the incidence of wrong way cycling. The City of Pittsburgh also provides that their guidelines for
2 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
implementing sharrows are where there would be not enough shared road space for motorists and cyclists together.
First painted on roads in the city in 2007, the City of Toronto identifies sharrows as different from bike lanes, where motorists are not allowed to park, stop or drive (with some exceptions, such as emergency vehicles). This indicates that the implementation of sharrows on Front Street (other than a coloured or otherwise similar type of intervention to indicate the travelling path of cyclists) that cars will invariably impede and park in the path of travelling cyclists. The City also provides that they will implement sharrows on roads where there is not enough space for both cars and bikes to have individual rights-of-way. This is not the case with the Technically Preferred Design, which shows a 1.7 metre potential space for a demarcated bike lane in figures 7-5 and 7-7 of the Report. The Toronto Cycling Survey also has concluded that cyclists prefer bicycle lanes over sharrows.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) – Federal Highway Administration has evaluated the use and application of “shared lane markings”. They employ sharrows as a means of helping to convey to motorists and bicyclist that they must share the roads on which they both operate. The Front Street Technically Preferred Design, along with the Union Station Precinct Plan, addresses the need to provide for an increased pedestrian environment and safety. If we go by the definition of the U.S. DOT, then pedestrians are not considered regarding how they will interact with cyclist being guided by the sharrows. This statement continues to support our conclusion that sharrows are not intended for either cyclist or pedestrian safety in the Union Station Precinct and on Front Street.
The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) published a report entitled “An Overview of Shared Use Lane Pavement Markings for Cyclists” in 2009. It stated that sharrows are intended as an alternative marking option when roadway geometry and operations do not lend themselves to bike lane implementation. The shared use, side by side application (of a sharrow), as presented in the report, is intended for use on lanes which are wide enough for side by side cyclist/driver operation, but not wide enough for bike lanes. By this definition, the Report outlines that where there is, in fact, enough space to provide cyclists with their own lane; this should be used as a test of planning rationale for the proper application of sharrows anywhere in the City.
The TAC also states that the sharrows are to be used in what they call a “conflict zone.” It may seem at first reading that the Front Street Technically Preferred Design falls into this category of the proposed application of sharrows. However, in the TAC report, a “conflict zone” is one that is defined as areas where cyclists have the right-of-way. Although this may not be the case for Front Street, the TAC report does direct that increased demarcation should take place to notify all road users of the path of cyclists.
The Front Street Technically Preferred Design proposes sharrows, where they are depicted in the maps and visual streetscape cross sections, to have adequate space for an entire demarcated bike lane. The City of Toronto explicitly states that “sharrows are to remind drivers to share the road.” Policies of the province and the City aim to provide better pedestrian and active transportation corridors. It is inherent in the sharrow design philosophy for the City of Toronto that the implementation of sharrows is meant to engage drivers almost exclusively - sharrows will not visually engage pedestrians in Union Plaza. The plaza, which is to be a pedestrian-oriented
3 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
configuration (with sharrows) now further endangers the safety of all non-motorists on Front Street.
Thus, in the evaluation of the U.S. DOT, TAC, and the City of Toronto’s guidelines for the application of sharrows on mixed traffic roads presented above, the Technically Preferred Design does not conform to the appropriate use of sharrows in any instance.
TORONTO BICYCLE/MOTOR-VEHICLE COLLISION STUDY, 2003
Sharrows do not provide consistent visual cues for drivers and pedestrians while travelling along a right-of-way or parking next to a route traveled by cyclists. It is important to note the prevalence of sharrows with respect to open door collisions, since in 2003 11.9% of Toronto car- cyclist collisions were open door collisions. The study also outlined the frequency and severity of bicycle/motor vehicle collisions involving motorists who drive into or out of on street parking, which will occur with the temporary dropping off and parking of passengers on Front Street at the lay-bys. It was noted that the majority of these collisions occurred in central areas of the city, while poor weather and road conditions did not appear to be significant factors in the incidents studied. Sharrows do not provide adequate and marked spaces to indicate to drivers and vehicles parked in the proposed lay-bys at Union Station of the path of travelling cyclists. There is a potential for increased open door collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles, and there is no proven data that sharrows increase the safety of cyclists in mixed traffic, as well as their interactions with the expected increase of pedestrians.
SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL PLANNING POLICY IN RELATION TO THE RECOMMENDED RECONFIGURATION OF FRONT STREET
The Technically Preferred Design of Front Street does not conform to provincial or municipal Policies regarding the safety of all road users and the implementation of cycling infrastructure to achieve the aims of transit-supportive infrastructure. On the following pages, the Technically Preferred Design, which includes sharrows as part of its cycling provisions, is evaluated against multiple policies, which include:
Province of Ontario, Provincial Policy Statement (2005); The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2012); Province of Ontario – Ministry of Transportation - Transit-Supportive Guidelines (2012); The City of Toronto Official Plan (2010); The Railway Lands East Secondary Plan, of the City of Toronto Official Plan (2010); Metrolinx, The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area – (2008); and Metrolinx, Mobility Hub Guidelines for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area –(2011)
Our review of the particulars of the policies, guidelines, approaches and strategies of the various applicable documents are provided in detail on the following pages. They address specific policies and explain as to how the inclusion of sharrows is inadequate in the provision of better cycling infrastructure on Front Street and not responsive to the concerns of cyclists. Through our review, it is apparent that sharrows are to be used on roadways where there is not enough width to accommodate a dedicated bike lane. In the Front Street proposed reconfiguration, there is
4 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
space for such a bike lane provision, yet it is not considered. Sharrows also do not address the safety concerns in regards to areas that may have conflicts between pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists. A complete street is stated as a design intention of the reconfiguration of Front Street. In our opinion, and with the evidence below, the Technically Preferred Design does not represent good planning, and does not provide for a “complete street.”
5 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (“PPS”)
The Technically Preferred Design of the Front Street Union Revitalization must be consistent with Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The Planning Act requires that all decisions affecting land use planning matters "shall be consistent with" the PPS. The Report and its recommendations for the design of bicycle spaces on the Front Street right-of-way are not consistent with the aims of Ontario’s PPS;
Section 1.1 Managing and Directing Land Use to Achieve Efficient Development and Land Use Patterns
1.1.1 Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by:
c) avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns; and
g) ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to meet current and projected needs.
The sharrows do not represent aligned conformity to the concerns of safety, as raised in this section of the PPS. The Report identifies the use of sharrows as primarily to inform motorists to watch for cyclists. It does not provide for the safety concerns of cyclists or pedestrians.
Section 1.5 Public Spaces, Parks and Open Space
1.5.1 Healthy, active communities should be promoted by:
a) planning public streets, spaces and facilities to be safe, meet the needs of pedestrians, and facilitate pedestrian and non-motorized movement, including but not limited to, walking and cycling;
Similar to the policies in section 1.1.1, the sharrows and provided cycling infrastructure do not make the streetscape safe for the needs of pedestrians or cyclists; instead, the focus is on making the Union Station Precinct, including Front Street, automobile-oriented. Also, if does not facilitate non-motorized movement; rather, the sharrows reinforce the fact that the Technically Preferred Design facilitates motorized movement above all else on Front Street.
Sections 1.6 Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities
1.6.1 Infrastructure and public service facilities shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner to accommodate projected needs.
Section 1.6.5 Transportation Systems
1.6.5.4 A land use pattern, density and mix of uses should be promoted that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support the development of viable choices and plans for public transit and other alternative transportation modes, including commuter rail and bus.
6 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
The overall aim of a transit station precinct in a downtown area is to carry out the desires of this specific policy. The land use pattern and mix of uses regarding transportation and alternative transportation modes is not provided for in the Technically Preferred Design, - with the proposed implementation of sharrows instead of fully demarcated bicycle paths/rights of way. The projected needs of the City of Toronto show that it will require a substantial increase in cycling infrastructure in the coming years. The Technically Preferred Design fails to address this projection of the future transportation trends.
1.7 Long-term Economic Prosperity
1.7.1 Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by:
a) maintaining and, where possible, enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and main streets; ...
f) providing opportunities for sustainable tourism development;
Neither of these two policies is supported in the Technically Preferred Design of Front Street. Cycling routes and tourism, in concert with provisions for cycling rental and infrastructure, are by their very nature the core of sustainable tourism development. By providing sharrows, the Technically Preferred Design does not carry out the directives of that policy.
1.8 Energy and Air Quality
1.8.1 Planning authorities shall support energy efficiency and improved air quality through land use and development patterns which:
a) promote compact form and a structure of nodes and corridors;
b) promote the use of public transit and other alternative transportation modes in and between residential, employment (including commercial, industrial and institutional uses) and other areas where these exist or are to be developed;
The Technically Preferred Design of Front Street does not support these provincial policies. The very fact that sharrows - according to the City of Toronto, U.S. DOT, and the Transportation Association of Canada - are provided to alert motorists of cyclists, does not support the promotion of a compact form and a structure of nodes and corridors. Motorists and taxis will be going to and from various locations along Front Street and will not promote a compact form, considering that curtailing automobile use has been stated by provincial and municipal planning authorities to be one of their chief aims for the future growth of urban areas.
7 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE
2.2 Policies for Where and How to Grow
2.2.3 General Intensification
7. All intensification areas will be planned and designed to –
d) support transit, walking and cycling for everyday uses
By definition, the Union Station Precinct, including Front Street, is an intensification area – which includes urban growth centres (and is identified in the Growth Plan as such), and major transit station areas (Union Station Precinct is also identified in the Growth Plan as such). The policy explicitly states that the planning and design of the Precinct shall support transit walking and cycling for everyday uses. The Technically Preferred Design of sharrows on Front Street does not conform to this policy. Rather, it supports motorized traffic on Front Street to accommodate for U-turns and parking, and passenger drop off and pick up, predominantly by commercial vehicles and taxis.
2.2.5 Major Transit Station Areas and Intensification Corridors
2. Major Transit Station areas will be planned and designed to provide access from various transportation modes to the transit facility, including the consideration of pedestrians, bicycle parking and commuter pick-up/drop off areas.
There are no provisions in the Technically Preferred Design of Front Street for any cycling access to Union Station from Front Street. The only provision that is forwarded is the creation of parking for motorists that could curtail cycling access to the station.. This design is also not congruent with Metrolinx’s Mobility Hub Guidelines,
Bicycle parking is proposed to be located in places that do not serve the function of convenient access to Union Station. As stated in the Report, “bicycle parking is recommended to be provided through post and ring facilities located within the tree line along the north side of the road, while BIXI stations were determined to be located in the northwest and northeast corners of Front Street/University Avenue and Front Street/Bay Street intersections.” These locations are outside the visual cue of entrance / egress from Union Station, secondary in location to all other road uses (taxis, private vehicles, public transit).
3.2.2 Transportation – General
1. The transportation system within the GGH will be planned and managed to –
b) offer a balance of transportation choices that reduces the reliance upon any single mode and promotes transit, cycling and walking;
c) be sustainable, by encouraging the most financially and environmentally appropriate mode for trip making; and
e) Provide for the safety of system users.
8 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
The PPS sets out that the transportation system are the corridors and rights-of-way for the movement of people and goods, and associated transportation facilities - including transit stops and stations, cycle lanes, among other logistical infrastructure. In evaluation of the Technically Preferred Design of Front Street, the configuration does not carry out the policy of offering a balance of transportation choices, as it continues to focus on the precedence of motorized vehicles on the roadway through the implementation of sharrows. It does not carry out the policy of being sustainable, financially and environmentally appropriate by having sharrows that may discourage cyclists in the Union Station Precinct. It does not conform to the provision of safety for systems users, as sharrows are separated marked suggestions and a reminder for motorists only, they do not indicate to pedestrians of the exact and expected location of the passage of a cyclist.
3.2.3 Moving People
3. Municipalities will ensure that pedestrian and bicycle networks are integrated into transportation planning to –
a) Provide safe, comfortable travel for pedestrians and bicyclists within existing communities and new development; and
b) Provide linkages between intensification areas, adjacent neighbourhoods, and transit stations, including dedicated lane space for bicyclists on major street network where feasible.
The Front Street Technically Preferred Design does not ensure that the bicycle network will be integrated into the transportation planning for the Union Station Precinct.. This is combined with non-conformity with the provision of safe and comfortable travel for both pedestrians and cyclists. Sharrows are intended to indicate to drivers the presence of cyclists, not pedestrians – which is at odds with the goals of the project considering that the Union Station Plaza and Precinct will be pedestrian focussed. The proposed reconfiguration clearly shows on the maps and streetscape figures that there will be adequate space for dedicated lanes for cyclists on Front Street, which is in an intensification area; however, the design does not meet this provision with the recommendation of sharrows over bike lanes, as directed by Provincial policy. The proposed location of bicycle parking on the north side of Front Street is less convenient and less safe than would typically be found in other major transportation locations or destinations.
5. Municipalities will develop and implement transportation demand management policies in official plans or other planning documents, to reduce trip distance and time, and increase the modal share of alternatives to the automobile.
The Toronto Official Plan and the Railway Lands East Secondary Plan, in which are located Front Street and the Union Station Precinct, have various provisions for the implementation of safe cycling infrastructure. The Technically Preferred Design does not carry out the implementation of transportation demand management policies that reduce trip distances and times, and similarly does not carry out design intentions to increase the modal share of trips, other than by car.
9 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
5.4.1 General Implementation and Interpretation
5. The policies and targets of this Plan represent minimum standards. Planning authorities and decision – makers are encourages to go beyond minimum standards established in specific policies and targets, unless doing so would conflict with any policy of this Plan, the applicable PPS, or any other provincial plan.
The minimum standards of the Growth Plan are not met in the Technically Preferred Design for the provision of bike lanes on Front Street. The placement of sharrows to alert motorists of cyclists instead of dedicated bikes lanes to guide cyclists - showing pedestrians exactly where the cyclists will travel - endangers the safety of pedestrians and does not carry out the policies, as outlined above. The province, through the PPS, has stated that it will not limit municipalities from going beyond the minimum standards; in contrast, the proposed reconfiguration of Front Street does not meet this minimum standard.
10 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO – MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE GUIDELINES
Chapter 1: Community – Wide Guidelines
Section 1.1.2 Nodes
Section 1.1.4 Built Up Areas
Strategy6: Improve pedestrian and cycling infrastructure to increase convenient and comfortable access to transit. This is particularly important in post-war suburban neighbourhoods and employment areas where densities are low and distances between uses are greater.
The proposed Front Street Technically Preferred Design does not adhere to this strategy. Cycling infrastructure is said to be improved by the introduction of sharrows on the right-of-way. This does not do enough to improve the convenience and comfortable access to transit for both cyclists and pedestrians within the Union Station Precinct.
Section 1.2 Regional Mobility Planning
Section 1.2.1 Layout, Spacing and Design of Arterials and Collectors
Strategy 2: The classification of arterials and collectors should include transit types, with unique right-of-way standards to facilitate rapid or conventional transit routes, walking and cycling.
Front Street is classified as a minor arterial under the City of Toronto’s Road Classification System. As such, strategies of the design standards of Front Street as set forth by Ministry of Transportation’s Guidelines support unique right-of-way standards to facilitate walking and cycling; this reconfiguration does not. The sharrows present both dangers to cyclists as motorists will continue to be mixed with cyclists, and pedestrians will be unsure of the travelling lanes of cyclists as sharrows are intended exclusively to alert motorists of bicycles.
Chapter 2: District-Level and Site- Specific Guidelines
Section 2.1 Layout of Local Streets and Open Spaces
Strategy 4: Transit Plazas - Explore the creation of a station-related open space at regional destinations or at stations along rapid transit corridors to:
enhance connections between a surrounding neighbourhood and the station area;
The Technically Preferred Design of Front Street does not conform to this strategy. This strategy directly relates to the Union Station Plaza as a transit plaza, and included in this is that Union Station is a regional destination along not less than two rapid transit corridors. The inclusion of sharrows instead of bike lanes on Front Street does not address the guideline of enhancing the connections between the rest of the city and the station area; instead, it focuses the right-of– way provisions on the exclusive and unhindered movement of cars from the travelling lanes to the parking and lay-by locations.
11 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
Section 2.2 - Complete Streets Planning Process
Strategy 1: Identify and develop a range of design elements and features aimed at facilitating movement by different users. These should promote a shift in travel behaviour based on the following passenger transportation hierarchy:
• Trip avoidance or shortening, for example by encouraging a mix of uses • Active transportation such as walking or cycling • Transit • Ride-sharing, for example by carpool or vanpool • Carsharing and taxis • Single-occupant vehicles
The Report provides a Needs and Opportunity review that calls for a more “complete street” in the Front Street Technically Preferred Design. The above provincial strategies assist in evaluating the Report’s recommendations. The Technically Preferred Design does not adhere to any of the above strategies. Active transportation is listed as second on the hierarchy. The sharrows, as part of the recommended reconfiguration, do not support this hierarchy.
Sharrows, as stated before, are the primary means of marking to alert motorists of the presence cyclists, and are not meant for cyclists themselves or pedestrians. Similarly, the addition of lay-bys and parking travel behaviours place motorist interests above that of pedestrians and cyclists. The suggested Front Street Technically Preferred Design does not support a “complete street”, as set out by the province.
2.2.1 Strategy 3:
3. Work with local stakeholders to identify level of service criteria for all modes of transportation including walking and cycling.
5. Review existing street planning processes and revise as necessary to integrate routine consideration of a full range of users. Codify circumstances where exceptions to the provision of design features intended to support different users are made, demonstrating how conflicts between users will be resolved.
7. Regularly evaluate design elements and street treatments implemented against performance standards related to factors such as safety, comfort or ease of use to ensure the achievement of complete streets.
The public consultations leading to the Report included motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. The level of service criteria seems to have been met mostly for motorists, secondly for pedestrians, and thirdly, for cyclists. This can be seen through the exclusion of the considerations of cyclists in the Question and Answer Information Sessions # 1 and #2 feedback charts. The 5th strategy outlines the review and revisions of the street plan to integrate a full range of users.
With sharrows, minimal consideration has been given to the safety of cyclists travelling on Front Street in the Technically Preferred Design. It does not demonstrate how conflicts between the right-of-way users will be resolved, as sharrows increase conflicts between motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians because they do not show a predictable path in which to expect cyclists. In regards to Strategy 7, there appears to have been no evaluation of the design elements, such as
12 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
sharrows, as they relate to the safety or ease of use in the achievement of a “complete street” for Front Street.
Section 2.2.3 Supporting Cyclists
2.2.3 The design of streets should help support the establishment of an extensive cycling network, creating safe and convenient streets for cyclists that are linked with transit, minimize conflicts between cyclists and other modes of transportation and contain amenities to support cycling.
Strategy 1: Coordinate the identification and layout of bicycle routes with transit planning to enhance connections to transit stops and station areas.
Strategy 4: Establish signed cycling routes leading to and from station areas within a 3 to 5 km radius of rapid or regional transit stations.
Highlighting dedicated bike lanes with a solid colour may help to alert drivers of their existence and enhance user safety. Lanes should be coloured with durable, slip-resistant and reflective material to prevent sliding when wet and improve visibility.
Strategy 6: In areas where there are high levels of vehicular traffic or speed limits, for example, over 60 km/hr, the provision of segregated cycling facilities should be considered. Segregation can be achieved in a number of different ways, using bollards, concrete islands, boulevards with medians or other methods to separate and protect cyclists. When choosing a treatment, considerations should include location of driveways, space for manoeuvring around hazards, ease of maintenance, and the safety of pedestrians.
Similar to the above strategies for achieving a “complete street”, the inclusion of sharrows does not create a safe and convenient street in the Union Station Precinct for cyclists. Sharrows are not linked with transit; rather they provide direction to traverse through the Union Station Plaza on Front Street, in no way linking the cycling right-of-way with Union Station and its cycling amenities. The sharrows do not achieve the aim of minimizing conflicts with pedestrians, travelling vehicles, or vehicles that are temporarily parked in the lay-bys.
Strategies 1, 4, and 6 have not been adhered to in the Technically Preferred Design of Front Street. The sharrows do not enhance the connection to the station areas – they simply indicate to drivers where cyclists may appear, and there are no connections to Union Station. The sharrows also do not provide a “signed bicycle route” that is highlighted by a solid colour to alert drivers to cyclists and enhance user safety. Segregated cycling facilities, as they relate to pedestrian and cyclist safety, are in no way provided for in the Technically Preferred Design of Front Street.
Section 2.3.4 Enhancing Access for Cyclists in Station Areas
2.3.4 Station design should promote the use of cycling as a component of a wider transportation system by providing accommodations for cyclists entering the station area, safe and convenient bike storage and amenities to support riders on their journey.
13 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
Strategy 1: Keep cycling routes and pedestrian pathways within the station area separate to minimize conflicts. Where cycling routes to and from bike parking are adjacent to pedestrian areas or transit zones, such as a bus loop, they should be clearly marked through the use of distinct paving treatments and signage.
Strategy 2: Cycling access points and routes should be clearly identified and located to minimize conflicts with transit and private vehicle users. Where cyclists share access points with private vehicles, they should be provided dedicated or painted curb-side lanes to minimize conflicts.
The Technically Preferred Design does not conform to these two strategies that call for cycling amenities in and around Union Station. The sharrows do not minimize conflicts between motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. The cycle lanes in the Report do not show any clearly marked cycling routes along Front Street through the use of distinct paving and signage. There is minimal consideration through the inclusion of sharrows to manage potential conflicts between cyclists and private vehicle users. There are no considerations in the design for painted curb side lanes to manage conflicts in an area where cyclists share access points to Union Station with private vehicles.
Section 2.6.1 Major Transit Stations
2.6.1 Major transit stations should be designed to optimize their potential as transit-supportive places. Plans should be put in place to capitalize on new development and place-making opportunities that can help to integrate them into their surroundings and support connections between various modes of movement.
Strategy 2: Within and around major transit station areas, prioritize initiatives that promote travel behaviour and transportation modes according to the following hierarchy:
• Vehicle trip reduction: encouraging a mix of uses within and around the station and enhancing intermodal connections to avoid or reduce trips; • Walking and cycling: enhancing access for pedestrians and cyclists; • Transit: providing efficient access and egress for transit vehicles; • Ridesharing: promoting access for high occupancy vehicles such as carpools • Car sharing and taxis: facilitating car sharing and passenger drop-off; • Single-occupant vehicles: providing safe and efficient automobile parking and access.
The Front Street Technically Preferred Design is not in conformity with the strategic hierarchy to prioritize initiatives that promote walking and cycling. The sharrows do not influence behaviours which reduce vehicle trips and encourage a mix of uses around Union Station. The location of bicycle parking on the north side of Front Street is less enhanced than that which would be provided at other major destinations in Toronto
Section 3.4.2 Access for Cyclists
3.4.2 Evaluate existing transit facilities and services to determine the best and most effective approaches for enhancing access to transit for cyclists.
Strategy 3: Develop a program to improve bicycle access by considering all stages of the bicycle commute, including routes to and from the stop or station area (Guideline
14 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
2.2.4), the design of the station, bike parking and storage Guideline 2.3.4) as well as the ability to load onto transit vehicles.
The recommended design including sharrows does not provide the minimum standard for a complete street – which is to include the provision of proper cycling rights-of-way for cyclists in the Technically Preferred Design. Specifically, it does not address any program to improve bicycle access to Union Station, including the routes to and from the station area and the location of parking and BIXI facilities.
15 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY OF TORONTO OFFICIAL PLAN OFFICIAL PLAN
2.2 – Structuring Growth in the City – Integrating Land Use and Transportation
Key elements of the City's transportation network are: - city wide bikeway network
A key element of the City’s transportation network is a city-wide bikeway network, yet the sharrows and current bike provisions in the Front Street Technically Preferred Design do not consider this element. The Union Station Revitalization presents a perfect opportunity to integrate land-use and transportation. The use of sharrows means that cycling provisions do not meet the minimum standards, and therefore do not conform to the aims of the Official Plan.
2.1.1 – Downtown: The Heart of Toronto
Policy 11: A program of street improvements will be developed to enhance the pedestrian environment and measures undertaken to make it safer to walk and cycle in the Downtown.
As stated before, the inclusion of sharrows does not conform to policies relating to street improvement to make it safer to cycle on Front Street. The requirement for all bicycle parking to be on the north side of Front Street makes it less convenient and less safe for people who wish to access Union Station by bicycle.
2.4 – Bringing the City Together: A Progressive Agenda of Transportation Change
Policies 2 d): integrate development into the surrounding public access system of roads, walkways, bikeways, and transit facilities.
Policy 7: Policies, programs and infrastructure will be introduced to create a safe, comfortable and bicycle friendly environment that encourages people of all ages to cycle for everyday transportation and enjoyment including:
a) an expanded bikeway network.
d) Measures to improve the safety of cyclists through the design and operation of streets and through education and promotion programs.
The reconfiguration does not support the expansion of the bikeway network, since the sharrows break up the continuous nature of what constitutes a bikeway network. Measures to improve the safety of the street are not addressed, and there is no proven data that sharrows increase the safety of cyclists in mixed traffic, as well as their interactions with the expected increase of pedestrians.
3.1.1 The Public Realm
Policy 5: City streets are a significant public open space that served pedestrians and vehicles, provide space for public utilities and services, trees and landscaping, building access, amenities such as view corridors, sky view and sunlight, and are public gathering places. Streets will be designed to perform their diverse roles, balancing the spatial needs of existing and future users within the right-of-way. This includes
16 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
pedestrians, people with mobility aids, transit, bicycles, automobiles, utilities and landscaping.
Policy 14: New Streets will be designed to:
e) create adequate space for pedestrians, bicycles and landscaping as well as transit, vehicles, utilities and utility maintenance;
The improvement of the public realm around Union Station has been bypassed in the provision of sharrows in the Front Street Technically Preferred Design. As a public open space, this street appears not to be designed to perform a diverse role, with motorists taking priority over cyclists.
Sharrows do not meet the goal of balancing the spatial needs of future users within the right-of- way, especially for cyclists. Sharrows also do not provide adequate space for bicycles in relation to vehicles, as the vehicles will be encouraged to interrupt the flow of cyclists and the safety of pedestrians. Cyclists will now have to yield and move in unpredictable paths to avoid moving, stopping, and parking vehicles.
17 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
SECONDARY PLANS: RAILWAY LANDS EAST SECONDARY PLAN
8. 3 – Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
8.3.2 The use of bicycles in and through the Railway Lands East will be encouraged in line with policies to facilitate modes of travel other than the private automobile.
The proposed Front Street Technically Preferred Design does not facilitate cycling as an alternative to private automobiles. Sharrows do not provide exclusive safety for cyclists to encourage them to travel on Front Street and to access Union Station, contrary to Official Plan policies.
18 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
METROLINX BIG MOVE PLAN
3.0 Goals and Objectives
Goal D: Safe and Secure Mobility
Objective 9. Continued progress towards zero casualties and injuries on all transportation modes
Objective 11. Improved safety for cyclists and Pedestrians
The Technically Preferred Design of Front Street does not support the Metrolinx objectives for transit supportive infrastructure as part of the Regional Transportation Plan. Sharrows are used to indicate to drivers that cyclists will operate in mixed traffic on Front Street, which will not significantly improve cyclist and pedestrian safety in the new Union Station Plaza and Precinct.
Goal H: Foundation of an Attractive and Well-Planned Region
Objective 21. More transit and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, and improved walking and cycling amenities
Cycling amenities on Front Street are only marginally improved in the Front Street proposed reconfiguration by the use of sharrows. Cycling amenities with respect to parking are less friendly than pre-construction conditions.
4.0 Strategies
Big Move # 4: Complete walking and cycling networks with bike sharing programs. Strategy #2: Enhance and Expand Active Transportation
Priority Action 2.1: Plan and implement complete, integrated walking and cycling networks for the GTHA, including Toronto’s PATH system, that address key barriers such as bridges over 400-series highways, rail corridors and major rivers, and missing sidewalks on major roads. The cycling networks will bring every GTHA urban resident to within a maximum of one kilometre of a dedicated bicycling facility. This will be supported by a provincial funding commitment increased over time to at least $20 million per year for municipalities to complete the walking and cycling networks.
The design intention of sharrows will not contribute to the implementation of a complete street and integrating a cycling network, as set out in the priority actions for major roads. The opportunity for the City of Toronto to promote active transportation to connect this major transit station area with the rest of the downtown core has been missed in the Technically Preferred Design.
Big Move # 7: A system of connected mobility hubs Strategy # 7: Build communities that are pedestrian, cycling and transit-supportive
Supporting Policy. 7.8: The transportation system shall be planned, designed, built and operated to create pedestrian-, cycling-, and transit-friendly communities, and to ensure connectivity between places and along corridors that support the
19 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
urban structure and intensification objectives of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
Supporting Policy 7.15: Give priority to transit, pedestrian and bicycle access over all other modes, and identify a zone around mobility hubs that provides priority measures for these modes on access roads;
Supporting Policy 7.18: For those transit corridors that are identified as intensification corridors in accordance with Policy 7.17, municipalities, in consultation with transit agencies, landowners, major stakeholders, and public agencies and institutions, shall set out policies in their Official Plans and Transportation Master Plans that:
discourage free parking, minimize street-facing surface parking lots, accommodate appropriate street side parking and minimize the impacts of parking on other forms of transportation such as walking and cycling; and
Supporting Policy 7.20: Stations on the regional rapid transit network shall be planned, located and designed to:
prioritize access by transit, walking and cycling;
The overall design of the Front Street Technically Preferred Design should be pedestrian and cycling supportive. Instead of being cycling supportive, it supports motor vehicles as the sharrows are designed to alert motorists to the presence of cyclists, not pedestrians, as defined by TAC. Having connectivity and a cycling friendly corridor cannot be supported by the proposed street design.
The Front Street transit corridor that is being intensified within the limits of the Union Station Revitalization Plan is contrary the aims of the supporting Metrolinx policies, as they encourage free parking and idling in the lay-bys, while not minimizing the impacts of parking on cycling and walking. The priority is also given to vehicles as the sharrows only warn those private automobile users of the presence of bikes.
STRATEGY #10: Commit to continuous improvement
Supporting Policy 10.7: In collaboration with the province, the Transportation Association of Canada, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, municipalities and other relevant stakeholders, expand and recalibrate road design standards and practices for more compact and fuel-efficient vehicles. Over time, replace demand-driven standards with those that recognize pedestrian, cycling and transit priority, as needed, to shift dependency away from single occupancy vehicles.
The proposed Front Street Technically Preferred Design had the opportunity to include recalibrated road design standards and practices for demand driven standards that recognize cycling priority, to shift dependency away from single occupancy vehicles. The inclusion of sharrows instead of dedicated bike lanes properly demarcated for pedestrians and motorists makes much more conflict than is necessary for the Union Station Plaza.
20 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
METROLINX MOBILITY HUB GUIDELINES
Objective 1: Seamless integration of modes at the rapid transit station
Theme 2: Balanced access to and from transit stations
Guideline 1.3: Create safe and direct pedestrian and cycling routes to rapid transit stations from major destinations and regional cycling and pedestrian networks
Approach 1.3.2: Develop direct routes from regional and municipal cycling and walking facilities to transit stations.
Where possible, locate routes along main access roadways to encourage pedestrian activity along station area streets and integrate pedestrian/cycling into the right-of-way.
Union Station is at the centre of many major destinations in the City of Toronto. It is also at the centre of a regional transit, cycling, and pedestrian network, with the TTC, GO Trains, VIA Rail, and the PATH network, as well as access to Front Street, in extremely close proximity. The sharrows proposed for Front Street are neither more safe for cyclists and pedestrians, nor are they a direct route to Union Station.
There are no proposed distinct lane markings that direct cyclists where they should travel on Front Street, further jeopardizing pedestrians who cannot predict where the cyclists will be travelling on Front Street very near to the proposed Union Station Plaza. It is possible, in our planning opinion, to locate the cycling route along Front Street, though this is not provided for in the Technically Preferred Design. There is no encouragement of cycling activity in the right-of- way with sharrows, as sharrows are meant to alert drivers to the fact that cyclists may be in their path.
Guideline 1.6: Provide clearly marked and protected access for pedestrians and cyclists at station areas to minimize conflicts, particularly at passenger pick-up and drop-offs (PPUDO), bus facilities, and parking access points
This guideline has been not been addressed in the Technically Preferred Design of Front Street. Sharrows do not represent a clearly marked and protected area for cyclists near this station, and do not minimize conflicts because cyclists, motorists, and ultimately pedestrians will have no bearing on the travel paths of each other. This area is clearly intended to be a passenger drop off and pick up area, and the conflicts are not mitigated by sharrows.
Objective: Safe and efficient movement of people with high levels of pedestrian priority.
Theme 2: Complete and Safe Streets
Guideline 2.3: Build or retrofit a network of complete streets to create a balance between the movement of pedestrians, cyclists, transit, and vehicles. Adopt road design standards that ensure safe movement of all road users.
21 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
Approach 2.3.1: Create a network of complete streets which are designed to accommodate the most people, rather than vehicles.
Ensure all road users are accommodated on major corridors in mobility hub areas. Where possible, provide segregation and protection for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit.
Approach 2.3.2: Retrofit existing roadways to improve the accommodation of pedestrians, transit, and cycling.
Approach 2.3.5: Provide priority measures and segregation for cyclists.
Sharrows: where road width cannot accommodate bike lanes, sharrows should be used in wide curb lanes to remind drivers to share the road.
The redesign of Front Street does not attain the goal of a “complete street” with a balance between the movement of pedestrians and cyclists. The road standards adopted in the Technically Preferred Design do not ensure the safe movement of all road users, including motorists. A focus on providing clearly marked bike lanes on Front Street would forward a design that accommodates more people, not more vehicles. The approaches also consider the provision, where possible, to provide segregation of bicycles and pedestrians as well as transit.
The Technically Preferred Design shows that there is enough space for cyclists to have this provision, yet this is not addressed in this roadway design. Union Station’s revitalization also presents an opportunity to retrofit the existing roadway to improve the accommodation of cyclists in their own lane. This is not evident in the Technically Preferred Design: while sharrows are provided, the Mobility Hub Guidelines state that sharrows are to be used where the road widths cannot accommodate bike lanes. Again, the streetscape diagrams show that there is ample space for the implementation of bike lanes.
22 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
LACK OF BICYCLE PARKING AND THE INADEQUACY OF BIKE STATION PARKING
Although the Front Street redesign Project only encompasses the Front Street right-of-way, it should be considered in conjunction with the concurrent Union Station Revitalization project, since the City of Toronto is the proponent for both projects. Collectively, these projects will eliminate 113 well-used bicycle post and ring parking spaces directly in front of Union Station, and 16 additional spaces on the north side of Front Street. We understand that the City envisions the reconfigured area to have a total of 28 bicycle parking spaces located on the ends of the Front Street plaza near the roadway, and 32 spaces on the north side of Front Street.
While not analyzed in detail in this evaluation report, it is clear that this elimination of bicycle parking is not in conformity or consistent with many of the provincial and municipal policies cited above.
The City has asserted that the bicycle parking station at the York Street Teamway (the “Bike Station”) will provide additional bicycle parking once the Project is complete. This report limits its analysis with respect to bicycle parking to an evaluation of the Bike Station as a substitute for conventional post-and-ring bicycle parking.
The Bike Station is not accessible on a ridden bicycle and is located on a pedestrian walkway. A cyclist therefore cannot legally ride a bicycle to the Bike Station. To access it from the adjacent road network requires a cyclist to walk their bicycle approximately 100 metres from the intersection of Front Street and York Street, or approximately 150 metres from Bremner Boulevard and York Street - a considerable distance. The City has failed to provide way finding signage for cyclists on the adjacent sidewalks or roadway network, even though the Bike Station was opened in May 2009.
Under my direction, a land use planner on a bike used the Bike Station on several occasions during the week of June 18, 2012.
Our field analysis involved a southbound cyclist travelling on University Avenue or a cyclist travelling from west of University Avenue to access the York Street Teamway. This cyclist has to dismount their bicycle at the southwest corner of York Street and Front Street west and walk their bicycle through a heavily used pedestrian crosswalk on the south side of the intersection. After this, the cyclist must then walk southbound on the east side of York Street, south of Front Street West, downhill on a heavily used pedestrian sidewalk. The sidewalk is only 6 feet in width in its narrowest location and has many obstructions (such as light standards).
The total walking time for the land use planner as a cyclist walking their bicycle originating from west of University Avenue and north of Front Street West to access the York Street Teamway Station was 3-4 minutes. In order to pay and deposit or retrieve your bicycle within the Bike Station takes a further 2-4 minutes, for a total of at least 5 to 8 minutes to travel to the station and deposit of retrieve a bicycle.
The entire distance to and from the Bike Station involves conflicts between the land use planner - cyclist walking his bicycle and pedestrians. On the occasions the Cycle Toronto representative used the Bike Station, the pedals of his bicycle hit the shins of pedestrians on more than one occasion. York Street is an extremely dangerous high-speed street for cyclists to travel on. York Street and its northerly extension of University Avenue do not have any existing or planned bicycle lanes that could be utilised to travel to and from the Bike Station.
23 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
Unlike the taxi stations and loading spaces for private vehicles for which there is no charge to use the Front Street road allowance, there is a charge to use bicycle parking in this inconvenient location: $2 per bicycle per day, and the need to pay a $25 one time key charge. Finally the Bike Station only has an attendant during the hours of 8 am to 12 noon (the Bike Station had a station attendant on duty from 7 am to 7 pm when it first opened in 2009), making its use for short term bicycle parking and casual parking for bicycles impractical .
From a planning perspective, it is clear that the Bike Station is not a viable alternative to convenient, accessible and free post-and-ring bicycle parking, nor can it be expected to significantly facilitate intermodal trips involving cycling and transit at Canada’s busiest public transportation and passenger railway terminal. It is surprising that the City of Toronto would present this facility as an answer to bicycle parking deficiencies in its Front Street and Union Station projects.
CONCLUSION
As indicated in this document, we feel that the redesign of Front Street has not adequately addressed the needs of cyclists. Furthermore, it is contrary to a number of municipal and provincial planning documents, including the Provincial Policy Statement, The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Transit-Supportive Guidelines Toronto Official Plan, The Railway Lands East Secondary Plan, of the City of Toronto Official Plan, Metrolinx, The Big Move, and the Metrolinx, Mobility Hub Guidelines, and creates an environment which is in fact more dangerous for all road users, cyclists, pedestrians and cars alike.
24 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com
REFERENCES
City of Toronto, City Planning Division (N.D.). Union Station District Plan. Toronto, ON: City of Toronto.
City of Toronto City Planning Division (2010). City of Toronto Official Plan. Toronto, ON: City of Toronto.
City of Toronto City Planning Division (2010). City of Toronto Railway Lands East Secondary Plan, as part of the Toronto Official Plan. Toronto, ON: City of Toronto.
City of Toronto and LEA Consultants (2012). Front Street Reconfiguration (York Street to Bay Street), Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Final Report. Toronto, ON: City of Toronto.
City of Toronto, Transportation Services Division (2012). “Bikeway Design and Way finding Signage.” City of Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/network/bikeway-design.htm#sharrows
City of Toronto, Transportation Services Division (2012). “Shared Lane Pavement Markings (“Sharrows”).” City of Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/network/sharrow_faq.htm
City of Toronto, Works and Emergency Services/Transportation Services Division, Transportation Infrastructure Management Section (2003). City of Toronto Bicycle/Motor-Vehicle Collision Study.Toronto, ON: City of Toronto.
Greater Toronto Transportation Authority/Metrolinx (2011). Mobility Hub Guidlines. Toronto, ON: Greater Toronto Transportation Authority/Metrolinx
Greater Toronto Transportation Authority/Metrolinx (2008). The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Toronto, ON: Greater Toronto Transportation Authority/Metrolinx
Jacobson, M., Skene, M., Davidson, G. and Rawsthorne, D. (2009) An Overview of Shared Use Lane Pavement Markings for Cyclists. Ottawa: Transportation Association of Canada
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Infrastructure (2012). Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Toronto ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2005). Provincial Policy Statement. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Province of Ontario, Ministry of Transportation (2012). Transit Supportive Guidelines. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
United States of America, Department of Transportation (2010). Evaluation of Shared Lane Markings. McLean, VA: United States of America, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
25 | P a g e C2 U R B A N P L A N N I N G www.c2planning.com