Hi there,

I will soon send a report about my meeting with TTC on December 6.
In the meantime, one of the discussions from the meeting concerned how people would board the streetcar from the sidewalk bumpouts. I have attached a PDF, prepared by the TTC, showing three options.

Option One (first page) shows a scenario where people would be able to board directly from the sidewalk, literally stepping off the curb onto the streetcar. As the drawing shows, this scenario would make no provision for cyclists, who would be pinched between the bumpout and the streetcar. Even when there is no streetcar, the space between the bumpout and the tracks is very narrow and precarious (about 60 cm). The City also points out that there could be a big problem if snow cannot be cleared from the edge of the curb.

Option Two (second page) shows the City's preferred option, a shared lane. Here, instead of boarding directly from the curb, the rider would step off the curb, across a 1 metre lane, before boarding. This space would allow cyclists to travel safely, in a continuous straight path, without worrying about getting caught in a streetcar rail. However, this option makes the streetcar less accessible for people with disabilities, who would have to step down then up (it is likely that the streetcar will require a slight step up even if boarding is directly from the curb). The TTC also feels that such a small distance between streetcar and curb may lead to more stumbles than a larger, more obvious distance. I probably should have asked whether the bumpout could have a depressed edge facing the streetcar.

Option Three is the TTC's preferred option. Page three shows a bumpout with a smoothed depression within, which would serve as a bicycle lane through the bumpout itself. Such configurations have apparently been used in Europe and elsewhere (the TTC said it would forward me some examples). I'm not sure how the snow problem would be resolved, either for the streetcar or for cyclists depending on
the trough, which presumably would have to be cleared separately.

While I would love to see people boarding directly from the curb, my concern with option three (aside from the snow issue) is that by seeming to cut off part of the bumpout, it makes it less available for many public uses except that of a transit platform. I would expect that pedestrians will feel  uncomfortable crossing the bicycle trough, and the purpose of having the bumpout in the first place
will be lost. I don't know if cyclists would even use the trough. On the other hand, the streetcar-side area could feature trees and street furniture, opening up the main pedestrian throughway. Lacking
a crystal ball, we need to predict whether this configuration will lead to some interesting Amsterdam-style road sharing, or whether it will create "dead-zones" on the sidewalk. Also, a lot of this may depend on whether the utility poles are going to be moved, or if they will remain in what will become basically the middle of a widened sidewalk.

Any comments on these ideas? Obviously, none of these options will be perfect for everybody. A compromise will be needed. You folks are more experienced and knowledgeable about such things than I am, so I am dependent on your wisdom.

Cheers
John Bowker
Parking and Beautification Chair
Roncesvalles Village BIA
www.roncesvallesvillage.ca

Hello All,

John, thanks for sending the information out to everybody.

David, I agree that the future conditions for healthy trees are a primary element what will be a successful completion of the streetscaping. The one issue I see with option 1 is the "pinching" of the cyclists. That would be detrimental to another key element, facilitating biking. As with you I am
not sure how option 3 would work and that leaves me with option 2 as long it also incorporates enahanced tree cover and us of the public space on the bumpouts (benches, cafés etc.)

That's my $0.02 worth for now.

Clarence Seunarine
Chair, Roncesvalles-Macdonell Residents' Association

Concerned Street Folks,

Although I would like to see no bump-outs at all, from the perspective that they ruin the long view down to the lake that makes Roncesvalles so special, if I have to choose one option, it would definitely be
Option 2.

I do like that Option 2 offers potential for healthy street trees (if the soil conditions are dealt with properly), and it's great that it helps the elderly get a little closer to the streetcar while also
accommodating the cyclist. The issue with Option 1 is not that the cyclist has to wait behind the street car (they should be doing this anyway), but that when the cyclist needs to bike past the bump-out and
a car comes speeding by, the cyclist and the car are suddenly sharing very close quarters. Being side swiped by cars and trucks is the most stressful aspect of biking in the city. Also, for anyone who has had a bike crash due to streetcar tracks (many biking Torontonians), the space for movement with this option is very limited. Option 3 negates the potential for healthy trees and ample side walk space, presents difficulty with snow removal, leaves an island of concrete in the middle of the road, and seems to be a cycling typology not familiar to Canadian culture, which could prove confusing and ultimately unsafe.

Hope that helps add to the productive discussion.

Sincerely,
Alissa North
Assistant Professor, Landscape Architecture University of Toronto
www.ald.utoronto.ca
Partner, NORTHDESIGNOFFICE www.northdesignoffice.ca