New Bike Lanes on University, Bay, Spadina, and Other Roads

[waterloowarrior]

Converting a car commuter to a bike commuter is a significant net financial gain for the city. In addition, administration costs for a bicycle licensing service would be huge.

I'm not sure what the numbers are in Toronto, but Ottawa did a study looking at the costs for its transportation master plan
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/trc/2010/04-07/02-ACS2010-CCS-TRC-0006.htm

The total public (government and societal) cost per passenger trip, including construction, maintenance, land value, enforcement, unaccounted accidents, air, noise and water pollution are:

Car driver: $2.50
Transit user: $1.76
Cyclist: $0.24
Pedestrian: $0.10

 

[dob467]

The amount of attention bike lanes have received is way out of proportion. So many other cities including those in North America like New York, Vancouver, Montreal (it's not just in Amsterdam) are moving forward while Toronto is debating whether cyclists should even be allowed on arterial or secondary streets. If we're unable to look to those cities to see how we can build bike infrastructure and instead debate how to make cyclists pay their way, then yeah, I think it's fair to say that Toronto is falling behind. Not each and every debate is justified. Certain debates are a sign of a city's maturity.

 

[TOareaFan]

Converting a car commuter to a bike commuter is a significant net financial gain for the city. In addition, administration costs for a bicycle licensing service would be huge.

We probably disagree but I think, for the most part, bike lanes convert very few car commuters to bike commuters.....they are more likely to convert transit users to bike users and pedestrians to bike users. It is more likely that the car commuters are travelling farther distances (those dreaded 905ers that dare to work in the city) and no matter how many bike lanes you build they will drive. That is not an indictment of bike lanes it is just an observation on travel patterns between people I know/observe/talk to. You will convert some car drivers but not significant amounts of them.

As for the cost of setting up a licensing system....not really that difficult. We already have a group (they are called MTO) who have a fairly sophisticated licensing system/infrastructure and they issue all sorts of different licenses for different sorts of vehicles at different costs. Just a new grade of plate/sticker at a new price point for bicycles is all you need. Since there is no need for things like proving insurance or semi-regular drive clean check ups, the whole thing could be done by MTO online or at Service Ontario kiosks.......if you required cyclists that were using the new network of bike lanes to have a sticker that they paid, say, $10 a year for you would be contributing to a fund that would more quickly develop a fuller network of bike lanes...wouldn't cover the entire cost but would contribute!

 

[TOareaFan]

The amount of attention bike lanes have received is way out of proportion. So many other cities including those in North America like New York, Vancouver, Montreal (it's not just in Amsterdam) are moving forward while Toronto is debating whether cyclists should even be allowed on arterial or secondary streets. If we're unable to look to those cities to see how we can build bike infrastructure and instead debate how to make cyclists pay their way, then yeah, I think it's fair to say that Toronto is falling behind. Not each and every debate is justified. Certain debates are a sign of a city's maturity.

I just used Amsterdam as an example...every city has its own indivudial dynamics and I think debate is healthy. I think having the right to debate is really a sign of a city's maturity.

Let's be clear here, the debate really only happens online and in the media. The expansion of bike lanes and other bike infrastructure is a forgone conclusion. Pilot projects (and their "outcome") are the cooking shows of public policy debate. You know, on cooking shows they take 25 minutes of the half hour telling you how to create the dish...then they announce "we really don't have time for this so we prepared one in advance"....in public policy debate you spend time studying things and consulting and doing pilots....then, at the end, introduce what you wanted all along.......like bike racks on the front of buses that staff recommended "no"....the pilot showed were under/not used....yet it is what some folks in power wanted (rightly or wrongly) so, voila, into the oven for the pre-prepared final product....racks on every bus!

 

[dob467]

I guess if we're comparing Toronto to Harare, then sure having the right to debate is a sign of a city's maturity. But I prefer to look to cities like Paris, Melbourne, Berlin and Montreal.

 

[TOareaFan]

I guess if we're comparing Toronto to Harare, then sure having the right to debate is a sign of a city's maturity. But I prefer to look to cities like Paris, Melbourne, Berlin and Montreal.

Maybe the debate should be which cities we want to compare ourselves to Everyone has their own lists it seems!

I was, for example, debating with someone in the office about the one way streets (Richmond and Adelaide)...the conversation was sparked by the thread on UT. Anyway he was of the mind that there would never be foot traffic on those streets until we converted them to two-way traffic. His premise, I guess, is that one way traffic is not conducive to an urban setting with people/life on the street. I pointed out that one of my favourite streets to walk on isSt. Catherines in Montreal which is one way. His response...."you can't compare Montreal to Toronto...they are different places".

He is right...you can look to other cities...see how they do things and then decide which of those would or would not work in Toronto...but that decision process needs discussion/debate.....IMO

 

[MisterF]

Here's a question that I don't think has been asked: on streets that have had bike lanes installed in recent years (Dundas, College, etc.), has there been an increase in congestion? There were predictions of gridlock from bike lane opponents but are those streets actually worse to drive on now?

As oppsed to what?

As opposed to making cyclists fend for themselves in mixed traffic. Bike lanes are a compromise in that they allow both cyclists and drivers to feel secure when they travel.

 

[kettal]

We probably disagree but I think, for the most part, bike lanes convert very few car commuters to bike commuters.....they are more likely to convert transit users to bike users and pedestrians to bike users. It is more likely that the car commuters are travelling farther distances (those dreaded 905ers that dare to work in the city) and no matter how many bike lanes you build they will drive. That is not an indictment of bike lanes it is just an observation on travel patterns between people I know/observe/talk to. You will convert some car drivers but not significant amounts of them.

I don't know how accurate this thought is, and I guess none of us do. For one example: I'm thinking the average Beaches resident who works downtown drives, because transit in Beaches sucks. That commute can quite easily be made on bike.

Then there is the commuter who lives 4 km from the subway station (or go station) and usually parks & rides. This is a great example of how safe bike lanes can reduce congestion.

And as the U of T study has shown, the median car trip length is under 6 km. That means plenty of the cars in front of you creating traffic aren't doing long distances.

 

[TOareaFan]

Then there is the commuter who lives 4 km from the subway station (or go station) and usually parks & rides. This is a great example of how safe bike lanes can reduce congestion.

I have said a few times during this discussion that I am not dogmatically opposed to bike lanes...but I do think the ones on University Avenue are a bad idea. This quote is an example of bike lanes I can get behind. A combination of better service on GO lines combined with bike lanes might make a huge difference in the traffic out in the burbs (which is often worse than downtown anyway)....but (you knew there was a but) the key element to that (IMO) is the more frequent and better GO service.

If you assume X% of commuters from 905 drive and 100-X% commute by GO and that Z% of those GO riders will bike (lot of assumptions but you can follow)......it is more important to change X than it is to change Z.

 

[kettal]

I have said a few times during this discussion that I am not dogmatically opposed to bike lanes...but I do think the ones on University Avenue are a bad idea.

I agree. I said early on that the University avenue lanes are redundant and a distraction. My beef is with the folks who make blanket statements such as 'no bike lane on arterial roads' which is should be obviously stupid to anybody who has seen a map of Toronto.

A combination of better service on GO lines combined with bike lanes might make a huge difference in the traffic out in the burbs (which is often worse than downtown anyway)....but (you knew there was a but) the key element to that (IMO) is the more frequent and better GO service.

If you assume X% of commuters from 905 drive and 100-X% commute by GO and that Z% of those GO riders will bike (lot of assumptions but you can follow)......it is more important to change X than it is to change Z.

You'll never see me rally against improved go service. I am just as frustrated as you at the lack of good regional rail in the GTA. But we know there is major track work being done on the Georgetown line for this very reason. And today, for the first time, we can say that there is indeed enough trackage on Lakeshore to finally increase service. We are moving forward, however slowly.

 

[TOareaFan]

I agree. I said early on that the University avenue lanes are redundant and a distraction. My beef is with the folks who make blanket statements such as 'no bike lane on arterial roads' which is should be obviously stupid to anybody who has seen a map of Toronto.


You'll never see me rally against improved go service. I am just as frustrated as you at the lack of good regional rail in the GTA. But we know there is major track work being done on the Georgetown line for this very reason. And today, for the first time, we can say that there is indeed enough trackage on Lakeshore to finally increase service. We are moving forward, however slowly.

See...after weeks of thinking we disagree on everything we find a lot of common ground...that is why we debate things!!!

That said, one of the biggest mistakes we have ever made in this region in transportation planning was the un-even approach to GO expansion.....so I am not really that thrilled that we can now offer Lakeshore riders "finally" increased service.....I strongly believe that if all of the GO lines had been brought along evenly:

1. We would have less service today on Lakeshore....but it would still be good
2. We would have more service on all other lines ..... and they too would be good
3. We would have less cars on the roads...and that too would be good.

Instead we have one line that runs 7 days a week in both directions, with off-peak service of 60 minutes and (given human nature) that is not good enough for the riders so they have been calling for expenditure on infrastructure to increase that to 30 minutes......while no other line has any significant off peak service.

oooops.....now we are disagreeing again and I am taking it off topic....sorry.

 

[kettal]

Somebody's jealous.

It's not as easy as just putting more trains on the tracks, because the tracks belong to CN/CP, and often are single track only; GO expansion also fell back many many years due to Mike Harris' almost successful attempt to destroy GO completely.

 

[TOareaFan]

Somebody's jealous.

Not jealous....angry....and have been for the over 25 years that I have been following the topic.....with letters from various ministers of transportation and GO folks and MPPs saying, for that entire time, "all day - everyday- two way service will come soon".

Angry also, because there really is no need for 30 minute headways on Lakeshore......sure it would be nice....but to be spending money on it when there are such other more pressing needs just seems silly to me.

How many more riders will additional trains running along the lakeshore produce? Given the already pretty decent level of service on that line I would suggest they are pretty much at the margins already...sure it will produce some growth but would that come anywhere close to the growth you would achieve if you could somehow give, say, the Milton line a level of service equal to the current Lakeshore service? Not even close.

Jealous would imply that I am personally affected......my commute by car is +/- exactly the same length of time door to door as it is by train.....the car offers me the flexibility that GO does not so it wins most days.......sure I would like to be a better citizen of the world and take the train more often but since I can't then I don't....cost wise (since my company provides me a nice cozy underground parking spot) I pretty much break even financially too. So I am not jealous just mad (on behalf of everyone who has to listen to their co-workers on the Lakeshore line complain daily that there just aren't enough trains - honest that happens!).

Now this is way way way off topic.....so let's get back to talking about which lanes on the Gardiner should be converted for bike use

 

[PinkLucy]

Don't forget the DVP.

 

[waterloowarrior]

I saw a guy biking on the Gardiner once... passed him somewhere near Jameson/Dufferin but traffic was so bad he passed me while I was stuck on the Spadina offramp... lol