Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
29°/18°
It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of Rain
31°/18°
It is forcast to be Overcast at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Overcast
26°/15°

40 Comments

news

Parkdale’s Rogue Two-Way Bike Sharrows Get Buried

20101027SHARR01.jpg
Macdonell Avenue, in Parkdale, is a bit of a strange street. When it starts, at Queen, traffic goes in both directions on a road wide enough to suit TTC buses, which stop on the east side of the street on their slow way towards Yorkdale Station or St. Clair Avenue West. When Macdonell hits Seaforth, though, it instantly narrows to a one-way street where only southbound traffic is allowed. When it rubs up against the railroad tracks a few blocks north, Macdonell doesn’t stop so much as it vanishes, turning into Wabash Avenue on a curve, becoming a two-way street again with grassy medians splitting the east- and westbound traffic.
It’s on the stretch of Macdonell that’s one-way-only that the Urban Repair Squad started painting two-way bike sharrows earlier in October. Now, two weeks and ten sharrows later, they’re all gone—each and every one has been meticulously painted over by the City with black road paint.


J. Eric Brown, who owns Not My Dog, a bar on Queen just west of Macdonell, says he drives his car south on Macdonell a few times every day.
“What did I think of the sharrows? I really liked the[m], and Macdonell was a great pick for them. It’s mostly one-way, only has parking on one side, and is plenty wide enough to accommodate a bike and car traveling side-by-side. That being said, the two-way chevrons were a tad less umm… I dunno, Cool?”
Brown, who noticed last weekend that the two-way sharrows had gone missing, says that he’s not sure that Macdonell is wide enough to squeeze two-way bike traffic beside one-way car traffic. He drives a Honda Fit, a “pretty small car,” and has had at least one “scary situation” since the sharrows popped up, where he was driving south as two cyclists headed in the opposite direction of one-another on the street. “We all met at the same point in travel in a shiver-inducing moment,” he says. “Macdonell is wide but not that wide.”
It’s easy to see what Brown means if you bike up or down Macdonell. One cyclist and one regular-sized car fit okay, but it gets uncomfortable fast if there’s anything more or anything bigger than that.
20101027SHARR02.jpg
Martin Reis, the Urban Repair Squad’s go-to spokesperson, told Torontoist earlier this month that the sharrows were “just a warning signal” that “force people to look at each other—you know, cyclists and motorists have to make eye contact if they’re going this way, and it slows down traffic. And I think that’s a good thing for everybody.”
For the City, though, the Urban Repair Squad’s latest project is just a nuisance. Daniel Egan, the manager of Cycling Infrastructure & Programs, says that “as soon as they get painted, we get complaints.” If the City doesn’t respond to those complaints quickly, Egan explains, they might open themselves up to legal action should something bad happen.
The Urban Repair Squad doesn’t seem too concerned that anything would. Their stated reason for doing the sharrows in the first place was to make the road safer, since (the argument goes) cyclists are going to bike up one-way streets like Macdonell anyway; cyclists should be able to bike up one-way streets like Macdonell; and, whether they’re legal or not, the sharrows would benefit everyone using the road.
“Paint is cheap,” shrugs off Reis, when we told him that the ten sharrows have all been buffed by the City.
Egan’s less flippant. “What they’re doing is not achieving anything,” he says, annoyed. “It’s not a productive thing. It’s unfortunate they’ve got so much energy.”
Photos by Michael Chrisman/Torontoist.

Filed under: , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • http://undefined Astin

    Why should cyclists be allowed to bike the wrong way on one-way streets exactly?
    Is it because they should be exempt from the laws they’re supposed to follow? Or is it so they can get creamed when they’re coming from the wrong direction?

  • CanadianSkeezix

    It’s unfortunate they’ve got so much energy.
    What a silly thing for a City manager to say. It gives the impression that municipal staff prefer citizens to be complacent, uncaring and lazy. Whether you agree with Urban Repair Squad’s actions or not, citizens as a whole should be energized and engaged in local issues. While Egan may prefer that they not expend their energy painting unauthorized sharrows on roads, he shouldn’t be miffed that they want to contribute their efforts to their community.
    It’s unfortunate that the manager of the City’s Cycling Infrastructure & Programs has such a dim view of citizen involvement.

  • CanadianSkeezix

    I wish more cyclists understood that road signs apply to them too.

  • http://undefined linnyqat

    As a downtowner whose primary mode of transportation is her feet, I get a little pissy at cyclists riding the wrong way on one-ways, because I’m not necessarily looking for traffic coming from the wrong direction before crossing, and it’s not like you can hear them coming. These days I tend to look both ways before crossing, even on one-ways.
    Of course, the one-ways I cross every day on my commute to work are pretty busy thoroughfares for traffic – Gloucester, Isabella, Charles (south of Bloor, east of Yonge). I find it less of an issue on quieter streets in, say, the Annex, where there is much less traffic.
    As a cyclist, I have occasionally ridden the wrong way on some streets, but I don’t feel safe doing it and also think it’s the sort of thing that just causes further resentment between motorists and cyclists, so I try to refrain.
    The original article about the sharrows on Macdonnell has a good discussion of the issue, especially with respect to cyclists seeking direct routes on quieter streets. They do have a point.

  • http://piorkowski.ca/ qviri

    I wasn’t a supporter of the two-way sharrows — on a technicality (wrong side of the street).
    Ask yourself: why is the street one way? For most one-way residential streets in Toronto, it’s because they’re not wide enough to safely allow two automobiles to pass. Now, why inconvenience cyclists (who, as I’m sure you realize, free up street space and health care expenses) and endanger their safety by forcing them to make a couple of left turns detouring? Just because a law, which has been put in place for and because of someone else, is there, never to be questioned?

  • http://bikingtoronto.com/duncan DuncansCityRide

    You’re complaining about having to look both ways before crossing the street? Seriously?

  • http://undefined linnyqat

    On a one-way street? Uh, yeah.

  • http://bikingtoronto.com/duncan DuncansCityRide

    I find it quite remarkable that City staff is able to quickly reply to this issue and yet the majority of West End bicycle activated signals do not work.
    And there’s no room on Macdonell? There’s not enough room on Harbord between Bathurst and Spadina for a parked car/bicycle/vehicle yet the city goes and slaps down sharrows as if they will magically make more space.

  • http://undefined Andrew

    A lot of us do, but we’re forced to take these one-way side streets because we’re literally forced into the curb or sidewalk if we attempt a main road. Motorists get furious if I take up a lane and can’t quite keep up with the BMW in front of me, but frankly, it’s better than getting doored or my wheel caught from being pushed too far to the curb.
    For an extreme example, try biking up and down Dovercourt between Dundas and Queen, or just sit and watch as pedestrians on the sidewalk almost get hit by rearview mirrors. You’ll very quickly see what I mean.
    Anyway, end story is that cyclists are forced to create their own rules because we do not have a firm or remotely safe infrastructure in place for us, and the city is probably just going to try and marginalize us further. We need groups like the Urban Repair Squad, if only to raise awareness. But I think they’re doing a lot more than that, and I’m very thankful for the work they’ve set out to do.

  • http://undefined linnyqat

    Furthermore, I took some time to compose my thoughts on the issue, give a balanced perspective, not attacking anyone, identifying myself as both a pedestrian and cyclist and your one-liner response reads as snotty and dismissive, which is kinda irritating.

  • http://bikingtoronto.com/duncan DuncansCityRide

    Ugh, my second comment wasn’t supposed to be a reply to linnygat.

  • http://bikingtoronto.com/duncan DuncansCityRide

    I’m not getting into a flame war with you.

  • http://undefined linnyqat

    I have no interest in one! I’m just saying, no need to be snotty. Cheers.

  • http://undefined the_yellow_dart
  • http://undefined Emily

    I think there’s a big problem with referring to “cyclists” as “they” or “them” – it suggests that everyone who rides a bike is part of a collective mass, sharing the same habits, intentions, whatever. It’s hard finding similarities between drivers and pedestrians, let alone those people that choose to get on a bike every day, once and a while, every so often, never.
    As someone who rides a bike, I don’t want to be grouped with the “they” or the “them” people continuously refer to. I don’t want people to treat me a certain way because they’ve dealt with or seen cyclists doing stupid things, and therefore assume I am part of that collective, cycling mass who probably don’t know the rules of the road.
    You don’t see people getting *this* upset at pedestrians who walk slowly or take up the side walk. You also don’t see people writing in forums to this extent about drivers that speed recklessly, etc. Most people, I’ll assume, see a driver doing something dumb and think, “what a jerk, but I’m certainly not one of “them” (those bad drivers)” and it is probably assumed that the driver obeying the rules is not one of “them.” So why group cyclists into a mass and refer to those people as “they” and “them,” and by doing so assume they share common habits, intentions, whatever?

  • http://undefined _n

    I’m not sure a two way sharrow would work on a one way street scenario, but a contra-flow bike lane would probably be fine. Lots of cities have bike lanes that travel in an opposite direction of traffic. Its probably safer than trying to squish bike lanes, cars, and streetcars, and parking on to a single main street.
    Has there ever been a long term study of bike flow and car traffic in this town? Because most placed routes would suggest there hasn’t.

  • http://piorkowski.ca/ qviri

    (Or they could be wide enough but the residents prefer to have on-street parking and/or calmer traffic provided by one-waying cars.)

  • http://undefined Adam

    I ride the “wrong” way down residential one-way streets all the time, and I think the law should be amended to allow the practice, as long as the road is actually wide enough to accommodate both a car and a cyclist, which it almost always is.
    This would make it much easier for cyclists to get around the city legally, and in my opinion reduce the need for bike lanes on arterial roads. If you don’t feel safe riding against automobile traffic, don’t do it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t actually safe.
    As for crossing the street, I think that’s a non-issue. If the law were different, pedestrians would know to look both ways even on ostensibly one-way streets. Personally, I look both way when crossing any street, because I simply don’t trust vehicles of any sort. Once in Montréal, I watched a driver reverse at least three blocks down a one-way street, even across a major street (without traffic lights)!

  • http://undefined linnyqat

    You speak the truth re: never trust a vehicle of any kind.

  • mark.

    But if there aren’t clear markings and signs, how will I ever know what to do!?

  • http://undefined Astin

    Funny thing about the city’s grid pattern. One-way streets tend to alternate. So, like cars, cyclists can go one block further to be going in the legal direction.

  • rek

    Bikes are to cars what baby strollers or wheelchairs are to cars. That is to say, they aren’t cars.

  • http://piorkowski.ca/ qviri

    Funny thing about MacDonell in particular. It doesn’t do that. It’s been mentioned here as well, but please read the discussion in the original article about why wrong way up MacDonell is the best option in the area right now: http://torontoist.com/2010/10/macdonnell_gets_two-way_sharrows_on_the_sly.php
    I also invite you to see Huron St. It alternates, not the way you think. If you are heading northbound between destinations close to Huron, your legal options are Spadina (not recommended) or Beverley (requires two left turns).
    I’m not here to advocate perfect disregard for rules. If you break them, know why, and how to do it safely. If you see someone else breaking them, think about why they might be doing it.
    Or would you prefer all cyclists to trot out drivers doing rolling stops on calm, empty residential streets every time this discussion comes up?

  • http://flickr.com/aged_accozzaglia accozzaglia

    Last year, after being struck by a red-light running car in Montréal, which was travelling down one of the many one-way arterials outside its CBD (rue Prince-Arthur) as I was travelling south on another one-way bike-lane (rue Saint-Urbain) — compare with one-way side streets here like Montrose or Macdonell — I no longer am willing to ride a bike anywhere in Montréal*. The reasons are somewhat related to street morphology, being the nightmares they are, but more because the way people behave with motorized vehicles in Montréal is nothing less than absolute, unpredictable lunacy. The car stills holds a special place in a post-QR Montréal as a kind of socio-economic status symbol absent elsewhere in North America — an implication of new wealth and new liberation (perceived or otherwise). But I digress.
    To wit, I feel safer riding next to and across snow-covered streetcar tracks on Death Trap Road (College Street) in Little Italy while a snowstorm is on than I do in a bike-demarcated lane in Montréal on a clear, sunny day (and even more so on those two-way bike lanes to the side of some major streets, due to the wobbliness of inexperienced riders veering around in what is two-way bike traffic crammed into the width of a single car lane). And I say this having worked as a bike courier in Toronto.
    This is another reason I was in such a great mood about being home last weekend: I could ride a bike again, and ride I did — everywhere, and at all hours, whether rain, fog, or spotty sunshine. It felt liberating.

  • http://undefined linnyqat

    Hunh. My non-cycling American boyfriend, enamoured of all-things-Québec, recently blogged about the protected bike lane on Maisonneuve. I’ve never cycled in Montreal, but I remember the first time I saw those lanes, I actually wondered if the restricted width created by barriers would be more trouble than they were worth, in terms of limiting one’s ability to veer around other cyclists.
    Also, I am a spazz, even after 15 years of cycling in Toronto and elsewhere, and I would undoubtedly eff it up and ride right into the barrier (or another cyclist) I’m sure. So, I’m not sure protective barriers are the way to go either.
    Having said all of this, Little Italy in the winter??!! Good lord, woman.

  • thelemur

    This is the most sensible thing I’ve read on this subject in a long time. It bothers me as a cyclist to see other cyclists blow stop signs/red lights because it reflects poorly on the ones who don’t, and for some reasons pedestrians and drivers tend to remember cyclists better when they’ve ridden like idiots. I’ve seen plenty of bad pedestrian behaviour while biking but I know it’s not reflective of pedestrians in general. But in each group there is a segment that is willing to believe the worst, and only the worst, about the other group.

  • http://undefined thomas.owain

    I have no useful intellectual material to add on this topic, but still want to throw in a positive comment on the general side of people who ride bikes, and in general disapproval of those who are mean to them or who obstruct changes that would make biking safer and easier.
    Thanks. That feels better.

  • http://undefined cancsis

    I absolutely applaud Egan’s position on this. He should have a dim view of this ‘citizen involvement’ which amounts to an illegal activity that exposes the city to a legal liability.
    I’m all for my taxes being spent on cylcing infrastructure. I’m not as eager to have it spend removing what amounts to vandalism, and certainly less eager to be paying court settlements as a result of the foolishness of this group.
    I would certainly prefer that citizens expend their energy in legal ways to improve communities. While Egan has left you with the impression he would prefer citizens do nothing, all I read in his comments is citizens should do something productive.

  • http://undefined skube

    Montrose Ave between Bloor and Harbour has a bike lane going in the opposite direction of a one-way: http://bit.ly/cAsFeu

  • http://undefined Tony

    I am an avid cyclist, and I rode on one way street before (by going really slow), and I understand it’s sometime the best option when there’s none. However, I don’t agree painting sharrow or other signage without city approval. It’s going to create confusion upon drivers and cyclist alike. And in this case, the city has to use taxpayer money to undo the markings. I would love to see more cycling infrastructure, too, but I think the best way to see that happen is we ride more, follow the rules on the road, and with courtesy to drivers and pedestrians.

  • http://www.michaeljeremybrown.ca/ Michael Brown

    Watch for cop cars going wrong way on one-way streets…they can come out of nowhere, without sirens blaring, esp if trying to arrive quickly and unannounced at a location.

  • http://www.michaeljeremybrown.ca/ Michael Brown

    I see sharrows as kind of an after thought…oh yeah…sometimes there are some bikes that pass by here…whereas a bike lane has the potential to ruffle the feathers of those victims of “the war on the car”…it is a lane, even though not always respected, it is a solid white line that demarcates space for bikes.
    Slapping down of sharrows…I think that word sums up the practice nicely…

  • http://undefined Joel

    Let’s face it, the reason why these one way streets exist is to control vehicular traffic, and prevent cars from cutting through quiet neighbourhoods.
    Cyclists do not add to congestion, so they should be able to use them both ways, its idiotic to have cyclists waste time doing a huge detour solely designed to keep cars out.
    As its been mentioned before, there are a few one way streets that allow bikes to go both ways. They are called contra-flow bike lanes and are listed in the Toronto City Bike Guide. Sadly there are not nearly enough of them and they need to be accellerated, especially in areas like The Annex where legally biking through a neighbourhood involves massive detours and U Turns.
    With Ford saying he wants cyclists off major streets, hopefully he’ll allow us to use side streets and this includes adding contra flow lanes that allow us to go from point a to point b in a reasonable time.

  • http://bikingtoronto.com/duncan DuncansCityRide

    “Slapping” is a good word for Toronto sharrow use.

  • http://bikingtoronto.com/duncan DuncansCityRide

    If I could “like” this comment, I would!

  • http://bikingtoronto.com/duncan DuncansCityRide

    While not as common as other bike lanes in Toronto, not surprised to see Google catch someone parked in the Montrose contra-flow lane.

  • http://bikingtoronto.com/duncan DuncansCityRide

    Each time I try to take a non-arterial route through Toronto’s west end I always end up going the wrong way on at least one one-way street. I keep trying to prove that there is a secondary route that makes sense, but unfortunately the distribution of one-way streets in the west end is not consistent, you’ll get two one-way streets, going the same direction, where you assume they would alternate.

  • http://undefined Tammy

    Cyclists should be allowed to go the wrong way on one-way streets in urban areas OF COURSE, but with the help of infrastructure so we don’t make poor motorists suffer shiver-inducing moments! One-way streets, notably in urban grids like this, are designed that way specifically to slow traffic in residential areas. Bikes are also well-known and regarded as traffic calming devices. The goal of this kind of design is to ensure safer streets for children and, well, everyone and NOT provide a speedy thoroughfare for cars.
    In this very particularly case of Macdonnel – the small one-way bit of the street at the south end would do well to connect a proposed route via Seaforth ( with some contra-flow on Seaforth from Brock – a current signed bike route) up Macdonnell for a block or two and over and up Sourauren (and Roncey, High Park) for bikes that was part of the West End Bikeways community engagement planning project the City itself engaged citizens with two years ago now!
    What OURS does is not only a very valuable service for cyclists, it is one of the very best educational tools the City gets FOR FREE from some of it’s most engaged citizens.
    The City does an incredibly poor job – pretty much fails completely – at educated the public about cycling and new cycling infrastructure.
    It’s truly appalling to me that they would spend so much time and effort on a ‘citizen engagement’ project (there were no less than three planners/staff with us at each of the three events for the West End Bikeways project plus multiple more ‘communications and/or administrative’ staffers) and then complain that they have to use resources to clean up something they essentially promised 100 people they would do! HILARIOUSLY LAME!
    I have personally followed up many times with staff and our councillor regarding this project and have now – very uncharacteristically — GIVEN UP COMPLETELY on the hope that anything will ever come of the project. That is, I do not believe the City will install any infrastructure in Parkdale that will make the streets safer for cyclists here in the near future.
    And this is another reason why the work of the Urban Repair Squad is so important: Their work gives me a little hope when I’ve lost faith. It also makes people think and engage in discussions like this.
    In this case, the on-street parking in that small section of the street that would act as a connector for cyclists could be REMOVED to obtain a safe width on the street to allow for a contra-flow bike lane (one that is clearly marked and signed, of course.)

  • thelemur

    Subsequently reported on mybikelane.com, not-quite-obscured rear plate and all.

  • thelemur

    Knox Ave in the east end also has a contraflow bike lane between Eastern and Queen: http://bit.ly/csHGKz