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°

24 Comments

news

Parkdale Gets Two-Way Sharrows On the Sly

By David Topping

20101012parkdale-sharrows.jpg

20101012parkdale-sharrows-2.jpg
Photos by Martin Reis. More shots are here.


In what must be a Toronto first, two-way sharrows have plopped down onto Macdonell Avenue, a one-way street that runs parallel to Lansdowne for several blocks in Parkdale. Unlike the other new pieces of bike infrastructure that have arrived recently though, these aren’t the work of the City—they’re by the Urban Repair Squad. (You know, these guys.)


Longtime Urban Repair Squad documentarian Martin Reis says he first spotted the symbols over the weekend. “Toronto has so few real good north-south connections, especially in the west end,” Reis explained to Torontoist. “I mean, the west end is a giant black hole of no bike infrastructure.” Add that to the experience of biking north on a street, facing-down cars travelling south, and “it’s a bit nerve-wracking,” Reis says.
The two-way sharrows, then, are “just a warning signal…I think it can work, in terms of both cyclists and drivers passing safely.” What they do, Reis explains, is “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.”
The sharrows are also, of course, illegal, and cyclists who follow them are breaking the law too, since they aren’t permitted to go against traffic on a one-way street. Reis doesn’t see a problem with that, though. “The one-way design—that’s built for cars. It has nothing to do with bikes. They’re not making the streets one-way because of bicycle traffic.” Especially on small streets, he argues, bikes should be allowed.
While two-way sharrows haven’t appeared here before, authorized or unauthorized, the City is working on installing what are called “contra-flow bike lanes”—essentially bike lanes that go in the opposite direction of car traffic. One is already on a stretch of Montrose, another’s on Logan, and more than a dozen more short lanes are planned.
Reis, for one, is impatient, and wants more biking infrastructure, faster. “People are using the roads the way they should be used, rather than the way the City intends,” he says. And what about the Urban Repair Squad’s renegade sharrows? “I can see this being extended, because there’s a lot of one-ways in that neighbourhood. So there’s probably more coming. I can fully imagine that this is just the beginning of what’s going to happen.” And then a quick pause, and a careful addition from the man who is the only public voice of the Urban Repair Squad: “But it’s hard for me to say.”

CORRECTION: OCTOBER 12, 2010 This article originally mistakenly said that Harbord has a contra-flow bike lane; in fact, it’s Montrose that does.

Filed under: , , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • http://undefined mark.

    I know that one guy will be on here saying this will cause accidents and kill people but I think this is great. I’ve been wondering lately if there aren’t a bunch of one-way streets that could have a sign that says “bicycles excepted” beside the one-way sign. I’m thinking streets like Brunswick or Howland – streets that already see many, many cyclists going the “wrong” way without incident.

  • http://piorkowski.ca/ qviri

    I’m unconvinced. I totally support riding the wrong way on those small residential streets, but do it smart: without risking collisions with other cyclists and without surprising drivers too much. It’s very fundamental for drivers to expect oncoming traffic — of all kinds — to come on their left. And what happens as you’re riding counterflow and both a cyclist and a car are coming the right way down?

  • http://undefined mattalexto

    There are no contra-flow lanes on Harbord. You`re referring to the contra-flow lane on Montrose. Take a look at your city-provided cycling map, it shows all the contra-flow lanes that currently exist. http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/map/index.htm
    I don`t mind renegade pavement graffiti that promotes legal activity and raises awareness of cycling issues, but this is a bit wrong-headed. Bikes are vehicles and we should be piloting them as such. The rules of the road apply to all vehicles and if they really were designed just with cars in mind, then bikes WOULD be exempt. But they`re not because it is dangerous for two vehicles to travel in opposite directions within the same lane of traffic. Yes, even when it`s really inconvenient for you to use the next street over to go north.
    A lot of cyclists think they`re better off riding on the sidewalk too, so maybe we should paint sharrows on the sidewalks.
    Afterall if you`re heading west and your destination is on the south side of the street it`s really inconvenient to stay on the north side of the street. It just makes sense that cyclists should be allowed to ride on the sidewalk for short stretches.
    Talk to your councillor, get a petition going in the neighbourhood and lobby to have contra-flow lanes installed. It will be legal, permanent, and it won`t confuse people. It will also demonstrate that the general public supports bike infrastructure, not just a group of bike activists.
    The system is yours to use.

  • http://undefined Gregory

    Going the wrong way down a residential street is just dangerous. It confuses drivers, and it puts the residents of the street in danger. On a one way street (like the one I live on) kids are used to looking in only one direction to see if it safe to cross. A silent bicycle zooming along usually is very surprising to the person walking out onto the street. Bikes should follow rules for safety and good manners. Usually there will be an equivalent one way street one street away. Dont be so lazy! Douchbags!

  • Stells Bells

    Yes yes yes to every point you made (except the spelling of douchebags). On a one way street, go the right way. It is the only way we can all coexist in this city, cars, bikes, people, and miscellaneous other things in motion.
    Don’t like it? There is very like ANOTHER one way street 1/2 a block away going in the direction you want. Suck it up, hipster, and stop being as asshat.

  • http://undefined lyndelz

    i think they are the opposite of lazy! what are you doing for the city of toronto and making it safer for cyclist?
    and really the name calling??

  • rek

    “A lot of cyclists think they`re better off riding on the sidewalk too, so maybe we should paint sharrows on the sidewalks.”
    I see no reason why bikelanes can’t be incorporated into sidewalks, as they are in parts of Osaka.
    I’m pro-bike, however despite their status as “vehicles” they aren’t cars, don’t operate like cars, don’t carry the same risks as cars, and so shouldn’t be treated like cars in every situation.

  • http://undefined lyndelz

    yeah we all do have to co-exist (All of Us) share the road, all of them, one ways / two ways…. one thing people this day and age lack, is RESPECT! Respect All! on roads and off… like really, everyone wants it… so dish it. you get what you give;-) make sense

  • http://undefined Ben

    I really liked the OURS installation on Harbord, but this one is wrong, as it encourages dangerous behaviour.

    1. Generally, cyclists should follow the rules. But…
    2. If you are going to ride contraflow on a one way street, you should really take as much care to be as considerate as possible to other road users. This means staying out of the way of cars and bikes that are using the road legally. Since these markings put bikes both on the same side of the road, they fail the contra-flow rider in this regard.

    This is the worst OURS job yet because it doesn’t make as much of a political point as usual, and endangers cyclists more than usual. Harbord was spot-on because it made a strong political point (the neighbouring RAs in the south Annex and the Harbord Village BIA are overriding the safety of the cycling community) and they empowered cyclists to take the lane.
    Supposedly there is a decent chance of getting real sharrows through Harbord Village. This is a great compromise between the needs of the two communities.

  • http://undefined mattalexto

    hey, I’ve been to Osaka too. Didn’t get to ride a bike around though. Sidewalks paired with bike lanes sounds great. let’s pitch it to the city.

  • http://piorkowski.ca/ qviri

    1) In some neighbourhoods, one way streets alternate directions between cross streets. That’ll be half a block three times over, with the corresponding amount of left turns.
    2) Please quit with the hipster stuff. It’s tired, unfunny, and unhelpful. Hipsters might be overrepresented as cyclists compared to general population (and I don’t doubt they’re overrepresented in URS) but are far from the only people cycling.
    I’d like to see you tell a 40-year-old-ish non-white woman riding the wrong way up Huron to “suck it up, hipster”.

  • http://undefined ao

    In general I agree with you, cyclists should obey one way laws unless there is a specific exception (a bicycles excepted sign, or a contraflow bike lane), and yes, generally there is another one way street going the other direction a block away (not half a block though, streets don’t tend to come every half block). In this particular case, though, that is not the situation.
    The next street to the east is Lansdowne, a busy two way street from which there are few opportunities to turn westward over to MacDonnell and the residential area beyond. The next street west of MacDonnell is Sorauren Ave, which is also two ways, but narrow, riddled with potholes, full of parked cars, more stop signs, and currently absorbing a fair bit of traffic, also mostly southbound, from Roncesvalles, which is the next street to the west and has been under construction for over a year (closed in portions, dug up, unevenly patched, and full of impatient motorists and buses all forced into one lane of traffic).
    Illegal or not, MacDonnell currently provides the safest route in the neighbourhood for bikes traveling in both directions, and the one that cyclists are most likely to use. Given that it’s happening all the time anyway, it seems that a little more visibility might not be the worst thing.

  • http://undefined mark.

    1. Cycling the ‘wrong’ way on a one-way is not dangerous. You might think it’s dangerous, but there is no evidence to prove that it is.
    2. Not all one-way streets in Toronto are the same width. Some were built with the intention of being two-way, but residents on the street lobbied to have them one-way to limit non-local traffic. Brunswick from Wells south to College is good example of this. It’s as wide as other two-way streets and alternates one-way north to one-way south fives times (at nearly every intersection).
    3. Bicycles are only “vehicles” because of an ancient clause in the Highway Traffic Act – the clause also includes horses and buggies… Just because something is law doesn’t mean it’s right.
    4. Many of laws ruling bicycles put cyclists in danger. For example, stop signs: a cyclist is supposed to come to a complete stop and rest his/her foot on the ground. Because of the physical laws of momentum, this is the equivalent of a driver having to get out of his/her car, walk around the car and get back in. And it’s not just annoying. When a cyclist (speaking from experience, here) actually comes to a complete stop at a 4-way stop with other cars, drivers get concerned and confused. They don’t understand why you didn’t just clear the intersection. Moreover, an aware cyclist knows when he or she can just slow down, yield to any traffic and clear the intersection quicker (it takes much longer to clear the intersection from a complete stop). For a full explanation, watch this video: http://vimeo.com/4140910
    Another law that puts cyclists in danger is the rule for left turns. A cyclist is supposed to “act like a car” when turning left. This places a cyclist in the middle of the intersection, who doesn’t have the same metal shell that a driver does. Again, it takes longer for a cyclist to go from a complete stop (waiting for oncoming traffic to clear) to clear the intersection. In many cases, a cyclist cannot see far enough to know if he or she can ‘make it’ through without being hit. The obvious thing to do, and what the majority of cyclists do, is to make an “indirect left turn.” This is the proscribed rule at Bloor and Sherbourne. It means that you cross one street with the light, then wait and cross the other street with the light. If you find yourself broaching the crosswalk (usually necessary to stay out of traffic lanes), you’re breaking the law.
    5. Riding on the sidewalk does not have to be dangerous. If a cyclist rides on the sidewalk, all they have to do is ensure that they don’t interfere with any pedestrians and go walking speed.

  • http://undefined TOgal

    I agree “ao”. I cycle north up MacDonnell (the wrong way) for one block every day… there really is no safe alternative. As you say, Lansdowne and Sorauren are really not great options. With regards to some people’s comments on safety, I am always very cautious in these situations to watch for oncoming cars, bikes and pedestrians who are crossing the road and not expecting a bike coming north. Until this city takes the safety of cyclists seriously, we have to do what we can to choose safe routes and it is our responsibility, once we make those choices, to ride with care.

  • http://www.torontoist.com David Topping

    There are no contra-flow lanes on Harbord. You`re referring to the contra-flow lane on Montrose.
    And you are correct in correcting me. Thanks.

  • Mark Ostler

    I used to do the same, TOgal, when I was commuting between Ronces/Garden and Queen/Spadina. Sometimes I’d take Sorauren, but it is often extremely busy, especially during rush hour. I would typically take a second to gauge the traffic levels on Macdonell and if it was pretty busy, I’d get off my bike and walk the couple of blocks north. Otherwise I’d ride slow, steady and cautious.
    It’s a situation where personal judgement comes into play. It is not always a dangerous thing to do, even though it is technically against the law (I’ve seen cops ignore it so many times, even bike cops). Similar to the pedestrian countdowns at intersections. By law, once the countdown begins you cannot begin crossing, yet I’m sure everyone’s done that before. If there are 15 seconds left and you can pick up the pace enough to make it across, fine. If there are two seconds left and you’ll be impeding traffic before you hit the sidewalk, just wait. In both cases, as long as the regular flow of traffic can proceed unimpeded, where’s the harm?
    Personally, I think that two-way cycling on one-way streets should be the rule rather than the exception. Most one-way streets have enough room to accommodate two-way bike traffic in addition to one-way car traffic In the cases of some downtown streets, where the one-way direction alternates every couple blocks to ensure that cars don’t clog it up trying to find the next quick route downtown, allowing two-way bike traffic could offer a safer route for cyclists and take them off main streets, reducing the possibility of auto-cycle incidents. (mark. makes a similar point in his post below; Huron south of College is another example).

  • thelemur

    There’s nothing dangerous about bikes travelling in the opposite direction to cars or even pedestrians, as long as it’s clear who belongs where. Ideally, if there were enough space alongside the road, we could have a configuration like this but that seems more possible in (sigh) the suburbs.

  • http://undefined thomas.owain

    I think bikes were accidentally caught up in the one-way street laws, when the intention was actually to stop motorists from zooming through residential streets.
    It’s just an oversight. They’re already adding “bikes excepted” to many routes. But for the time being, it’s confusing and another challenge to bike safety.

  • http://undefined mattalexto

    Mark,
    If there’s no evidence to prove it’s unsafe to go the wrong way on a one way street, then I have to assume there is also no evidence that it IS safe. Also, why would it be any different than going the wrong way on a two way street? For that matter, if you were driving a car the wrong way on any street it would probably be very safe because everyone would slow down right away wouldn’t they? Perfectly safe.
    Brunswick is annoying. they should have a series of contra-flow lanes, or even separated bike lanes in each direction like you find in Montreal. That’s why I avoid Brunswick altogether. Hey, maybe those residents who don’t want cars zooming through their neighbourhood also don’t want cyclists zooming through their neighbourhood.
    I think the highway traffic act doesn’t differentiate between modern transportation, like cars, and olde thyme transportation, like horse and buggies and bicycles, because they are all required to use roads to get around and therefore must abide by the same rules so that everyone knows what to expect from everyone else.
    Stop signs. In MY experience if you come to a complete stop and put your foot down, make eye contact with the driver, who has already come to a complete stop, they know to move through the intersection. If you both arrive at the same time, the person to the right goes first. If the cyclist gets there first, the cyclist goes first. It’s not confusing if people remember and actually follow the rules. It’s only confusing when so many people don’t follow the rules. Which is why we can’t have cyclists yelling at cars for breaking the rules, then picking and choosing which ones they follow.
    I’ve been a cyclist in Toronto for nearly ten years and I’ve never been hit by a car. Even when making a left-hand turn “like a car”. By turning “like a car” you are more visible to other left-turning vehicles, and more visible to on-coming vehicles.
    Driving a car on the sidewalk does not have to be dangerous either. You drive at a walking pace and intermittently beep your horn so people know to get out of the way. Bikes are more difficult to balance when going slowly, and if your recommendation is to go at a walking pace, why wouldn’t you just dismount and WALK YOUR BIKE?!
    Numbering your points does not make your arguments more valid.

  • http://undefined tapesonthefloor

    Salmoning cyclists risk their lives with every foot they travel against the acknowledged flow of traffic. This is so obvious to anyone who has seen a close call that I can only assume mark.’s verbose response above is satire.
    The Urban Repair Squad’s paint-job is an implicit admission that motorists & pedestrians require warning about the possibility of oncoming bicycle traffic, and my only issue with their work is the same issue I take with sharrows in general: speaking as an occasional driver and an avid cyclist, I’m not convinced of their effectiveness in the slightest. I’d prefer to see proper lane lines in all cases, and, where against-the-grain bike traffic is desired, I’d like to see more of what we are using on Montrose (minus the green Camry, which, I assume, is a temporary fixture).
    Of all the myriad injustices saddled on cyclists in this city, being able to careen dangerously up one-way streets with impunity is one of the strangest battles to pick.

  • mark.

    Thanks for the reply. First, I numbered my points to help me organize my thoughts and also in the hope that if people replied they could just refer to point 4 or whatever.
    Anyway, there’s ample evidence that cycling the ‘wrong’ way on a one-way is absolutely safe: hundreds (thousands?) do it on streets like Brunswick everyday, from young guys on fixies to middle aged women on beaters to the fashion conscious on Dutch-style bikes. When I suggested earlier (the first comment in this thread) that we might want to consider putting a sign beside the one-way area that reads “bicycles excepted,” it was because that is common and safe practice (I’ve never heard a report of a collision) and it ought to be legalized.
    I’d say the HTA doesn’t differentiate between cars and bikes because it was written years ago (not sure when) when cycling wasn’t as popular as it is now. Consider that when Sewell was mayor (1978-80) it was totally novel to almost everyone that he rode a bike. There’s no reason some of the rules in the HTA couldn’t be revised and everyone informed, just as other rules have changed (such as regarding impaired driving).
    We’ve had different experiences at stop signs. Again, I’d ask you to have a look at the video regarding the “Idaho stop”: http://vimeo.com/4140910 It’s not an excuse to “blow through” stop signs, but to be reasonable about them.
    I’m not sure why you would suggest riding a bike at walking speed on a sidewalk is similar to driving a car on a sidewalk. I’m tempted to point out that a car is a lot wider and bigger than a bike, but I assume you know that and I don’t want to get all snarky here. Anyway, I’m not advocating riding on the sidewalk here in the city (unless some kind of infrastructure is in place, such as what rek tells us exists in Osaka). I walk more than I cycle and I’m amazed when people ride their bikes quickly on the sidewalk, especially on ‘my’ street, Bloor. Sometimes they even ring their bell to tell pedestrians to move! But there are times when I sneak onto the sidewalk and ride for short distance. For example, coming south on Bedford, I hit Bloor, cross Bloor and ride the sidewalk to Devonshire and then continue south. I don’t have the courage to try to turn left off Bloor onto Devonshire! But when I do ride on this sidewalk, I do not pass people walking and I ensure I don’t interfere with pedestrians coming towards me… sort of like woonerf rules.
    Finally, since you said that numbering my points doesn’t help my arguments, I’ll say that exaggerating the issue doesn’t help yours (eg. suggesting that if riding on the sidewalk or going the wrong way is ok on a bike then it’s ok for cars). More than you, though, is tapesonthefloor, who’s words like “salmoning” and “careen” are exaggerating the situation. This depiction does not agree with the majority of instances here in Toronto. Most cyclists are just people who ride bikes and don’t usually go faster than 15km/h. And most drivers are just people who are driving a car, and know what it’s like to ride a bike and I’ve never had an altercation with anyone in a car.

  • http://undefined rek

    “Salmoning cyclists risk their lives with every foot they travel against the acknowledged flow of traffic.”
    Only when there is traffic. These one-way residential streets are typically light on traffic even during rush hour, and it costs the cyclist nothing to stop and pull over if clearance is an issue.

  • http://undefined Pop

    Uh, this might be a stupid question but if the sharrows are illegal then why are they there?

  • http://undefined stelladog

    Update: The self appointed sharrows on Mac (Pop-see URS), have once again been quickly painted over (Nov23rd). I only hope the city moves as quickly on our crumbling utility poles.
    I can’t speak for other streets and situations, but on this street contra-flow lanes ‘exist’ because there is a lack of safe alternatives. As a result, contra flow bike traffic won’t be going anywhere, so why not make the best of it. I live on this street and I ride and I drive. I also love the fact that there are so many cyclists and pedestrians on our street. It makes the street more alive and friendly.
    I have heard many shouting matches as cyclist come whipping around the corner at Seaforth coming North up Macdonell the wrong way. There is a stop sign at this corner, however some cyclists don’t seem to slow down when they are moving North against traffic. Unfortunately I have even witnessed a cyclist go flying right across the hood of a car because the cyclist came around the corner way too fast. Both parties were quite shaken, however it was the cyclist yelling at the motorist.
    It seems that if common sense played out more successfully that things would run fairly smoothly:
    -cyclists moving the wrong way: give everyone else priority,
    -cyclists: wear lights or at least reflective clothing at night instead of all black,
    -cyclists: don’t blow through stop signs even if the sign faces the other way,
    -cyclists: be aware that people are not looking in your direction if you are coming the wrong way, shout, ring your bell etc…,
    -cyclists, pick one side or the other, don’t ride up the street at the same time on both sides of the road – this stresses drivers out since there is very little room in the middle,
    -drivers: drive the limit or slower and cut cyclists some slack – they are making your roads easier to drive,
    -drivers: realize that these people are trying to avoid Queen/Jameson as any sane person on a bike may want to do,
    This street is a 30km street, not a fast alternate to Lansdowne (ahem cabbies). Drivers should be respecting the speed for everyone. At 30kms and some vigilance it really isn’t so hard to safely co-exist with cyclists.
    Unfortunately the 5% of the population that is angry on both sides of this argument probably won’t be reading an article like this. However everyone that lives in this neighbourhood understands (or should understand) why this street, as many around the city deserve an exception. I would think that what probably angers people is not the idea of contra flow biking routes. It is the real practice of it. it is when cyclists choose to break the law for a good reason, but then use very poor judgement. Like anything they make it bad for the rest of us.