Some influential Toronto planners and politicians have been dabbling in "shared space" and "cultural corridors" for the last few years. They like to talk about "destinations" rather than "through-traffic". These are innocuous terms but the results are far from harmless and might end up infecting our approach to "Complete Streets".
Toronto unique in having an urban vision of "destinations" and narrow roads that marginalizes cycling
Toronto is "unique", not just for its "war on the car" mayor (who may be losing his job this morning), but also because it seems to be obsessed with it's own version of "complete streets" and creating "destinations" that seems to have excluded cycling from a number of important routes, including John Street, Bloor Street (at Yorkville
On first view cycle tracks (separated bike lanes) seem to be just about cyclists, but in New York and elsewhere it's been found to provide great benefits to pedestrians and to street life. They help create islands of refuge for pedestrians crossing wide roads; they provide a barrier between pedestrians and car traffic and they get all ages, young and old onto bikes and other mobility devices (like wheelchairs).
My idea of what a Toronto street should look like. Nice and slow. Everyone still gets to where they want but with no stress. We've got everyone sharing the same space and keeping an eye out for each other: pedestrians, streetcars, horse and buggy, cars, cyclists. See folks it's not that hard to have complete streets (or this is more like "shared space"). (Thanks to Tino for link).