General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

[ADRM]

I agree. I'm just pissed off at andrewpmk because he's used the "It's never going to be safe to bike in Toronto" argument many times before.

Ah, gotcha—yeah, that one's perhaps the most important one to stay away from. Every bike-friendly city in the world was, at one point, bike-unfriendly.

We'll only get the city we want if we continually challenge ourselves and our occasionally pig-headed councillors to be better.

 

[44 North]

Just saw something on the news about rail safety along the Midtown Corridor, and with Bloor bike lanes also being in the news, it crossed my mind about how awesome it'd be if we had a bike trail alongside this freight line. It seems more than wide enough at all points within Old Toronto and East York. And best of all? It's almost entirely grade-separated. If it could be worked into CP's access road (as a combined paved access road/bike trail) - with a few new structures alongside the current bridges at Moore Park, Mt Pleasant, and Wilket Creek; as well as access points at major streets - this would be quite a commuter-friendly bike path. It'd be used by thousands daily, and really would be faster than the car for many commuters across the city.

 

[W. K. Lis]

To those who insist that Toronto's streets are for cars, and cars only. It should be remembered that they were first actually built for people and horses first. Then came the bicycles and streetcars. Cars were the last, and who are forcing everyone one else off.

Danforth and Dawes in around 1900.

 

[ADRM]

To those who insist that Toronto's streets are for cars, and cars only. It should be remembered that they were first actually built for people and horses first. Then came the bicycles and streetcars. Cars were the last, and who are forcing everyone one else off.

Great point (and photo). Reminds me of yesterday's committee meeting, when Perruzza repeatedly attempted to conflate bicycles with horse drawn carriages. Good times.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I find the news piece using the New York example as a questionable comparison. Manhattan has a completely different and non-comparable street network to Toronto. Bloor isn't like Broadway. Bloor is an East-West corridor with a 1 km strip of North to South catchment area. It is also the only East-West surface transportation corridor that runs continuously from the West to the East of the central city. We are proposing to build 20+ storey buildings on this corridor in the future (Bloor and Bathurst as an example) and yet we are saying that we only need one lane of traffic both ways. Manhattan has a complete and tight grid of arterials with as many as 4 lanes in a given direction. Manhattan is also completely not bike friendly. I have biked there as late as fall of 2014 and I'm sorry but Toronto is so much more bike friendly as to be non-comparable.

If bike lanes are the decision I can live with it because I already live downtown and therefore traffic is effectively irrelevant for me and by slowing down traffic it will make my neighbourhood safer for my family; however, pity those people who don't live downtown but have to get here. Pity those who can't afford to live downtown but want to because these traffic choke points will act to enhance the exclusivity of downtown living and make everything from housing to retail goods even that much more expensive in the core. I can afford that but I'm not blind to the indirect effect of these kinds of investment.

 

[ADRM]

I find the news piece using the New York example as a questionable comparison. Manhattan has a completely different and non-comparable street network to Toronto. Bloor isn't like Broadway. Bloor is an East-West corridor with a 1 km strip of North to South catchment area. It is also the only East-West surface transportation corridor that runs continuously from the West to the East of the central city. We are proposing to build 20+ storey buildings on this corridor in the future (Bloor and Bathurst as an example) and yet we are saying that we only need one lane of traffic both ways. Manhattan has a complete and tight grid of arterials with as many as 4 lanes in a given direction. Manhattan is also completely not bike friendly. I have biked there as late as fall of 2014 and I'm sorry but Toronto is so much more bike friendly as to be non-comparable.

If bike lanes are the decision I can live with it because I already live downtown and therefore traffic is effectively irrelevant for me and by slowing down traffic it will make my neighbourhood safer for my family; however, pity those people who don't live downtown but have to get here. Pity those who can't afford to live downtown but want to because these traffic choke points will act to enhance the exclusivity of downtown living and make everything from housing to retail goods even that much more expensive in the core. I can afford that but I'm not blind to the indirect effect of these kinds of investment.

That's sheer craziness. I just moved back to Toronto after living in NYC for 3.5 years and to say our cycle infrastructure pales in comparison to theirs is a laughable understatement. It's simple fact that there are more protected bike lanes in NYC than in Toronto.

And it's also incorrect to suggest at the outset that bike lanes on Bloor will slow down traffic; it may very well have a negligible or opposite effect. That's why we conduct pilot studies.

Moreover, the fact that density is set to increase on Bloor in the future is an even better reason to favour cycling over autos as a mode of transport given that they carry more people per area than do cars.

The assertions that bike lanes will somehow enhance inequality or exclusiveness (when they do the opposite by more easily connecting more people, especially those who can't fork out tens of thousands of dollars for a car, insurance, gas, etc.) or that they'll make retail goods more expensive are baseless and, frankly, patently ridiculous.

 

[ADRM]

These changes to NYC streets brought a drop in traffic fatalities:

Pedestrian deaths in New York City fell to a historic low last year after a push by the city to make streets less dangerous.

In 2014, 132 pedestrians died in traffic accidents, the lowest total for a year since the city began keeping records a century ago, officials said. There were 180 pedestrian deaths in 2013, the highest number in a decade.

Overall traffic fatalities fell last year to 248, from 293 the previous year, according to preliminary data from the city. There were 20 bicyclist fatalities in 2014, an increase from 12 deaths in 2013, and 37 motorcyclist fatalities last year, down from 42 deaths in 2013. Motor vehicle fatalities remained the same, with 59 deaths in each year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/02/nyregion/new-york-pedestrian-deaths-are-lowest-on-record.html?_r=0

Couldn't have said it better myself. The simple fact is that Toronto's cycle infrastructure is in embarrassingly poor shape, and that needs to change. That change is as of today mostly unfunded, and it's astonishing what a tough slog the Bloor bike lanes debate has been. That said, if that pilot is approved by council, we'll be one small step closer to bringing our city out of the 20th century.

 

[andrewpmk]

The argument that biking may currently be more dangerous than walking or taking public transit is, or at least should be, wonderful proof of the need for better infrastructure.

> In this NYC Columbus Ave. report, the construction of protected bike lanes: decreased crashes by 36%; increased cycling by 56% on weekdays
> Protected bike lanes reduce bike-related intersection injuries by about 75 percent compared to comparable crossings without infrastructure.
Harris et al, 2013 - "Comparing the effects of infrastructure on bicycling injury at intersections and non-intersections using a case–crossover design." Injury Prevention
> Study: Protected Bike Lanes Reduce Injury Risk Up to 90 percent
> Protected Bike Lanes 7 Times More Effective Than Painted Ones, Survey Says

Most of NYC's bike lanes are just painted white lines, not the "separated" kind. Most of the "separated" bike lanes are on one way streets in Manhattan. Also the number of people riding bikes in NYC, even if it has increased, is a tiny fraction of the number of people using the New York Subway.

And I think that the reason the number of pedestrian accidents is higher than the number of bike accidents is because the number of pedestrians is many orders of magnitude than the number of bikes pretty much everywhere in Toronto. If you adjust for the number of people riding bikes vs walking, riding a bike is far more dangerous.

Even if these separated bike lanes are marginally less dangerous, I think they are still dangerous and I certainly am not brave enough to try using them. I will continue using the TTC like most people. Also I can't imagine many people want to ride a bike when it is winter/raining/snowing.

 

[LNahid2000]

Most of the "separated" bike lanes are on one way streets in Manhattan. Also the number of people riding bikes in NYC, even if it has increased, is a tiny fraction of the number of people using the New York Subway.

Most of the streets in NYC are one-way streets...

Also, like I said before, if you think it's dangerous to ride a bike, don't ride a bike.

 

[the lemur]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-paths-in-plateau-mont-royal/article27980527/

If Montreal is any indicator, local businesses will suffer due to lack of parking. Undoubtedly businesses that are more dependent on drivers (like the music store) will suffer most. Even if you think that only a small percentage of customers drive, losing 10% of customers would kill a lot of small businesses that are operating on razor-thin margins.

There are no real concrete indications in that Montreal article that business actually is suffering: it's all words like 'struggling' (to what extent?) and 'think the experiment is ruining the place'. Feelings are not evidence.

The sole metrics mentioned in the article are business permits and shopping trips, again without numbers. Where's the data?

If the guy from the music store has no awareness of customers arriving by bike, how does he know how many drive? Does he ask? Does he look out the window? Who parks right out front when a large parking facility exists nearby? How do most customers get pianos, harps, double basses home?

 

[the lemur]

Most of NYC's bike lanes are just painted white lines, not the "separated" kind. Most of the "separated" bike lanes are on one way streets in Manhattan. Also the number of people riding bikes in NYC, even if it has increased, is a tiny fraction of the number of people using the New York Subway.

And I think that the reason the number of pedestrian accidents is higher than the number of bike accidents is because the number of pedestrians is many orders of magnitude than the number of bikes pretty much everywhere in Toronto. If you adjust for the number of people riding bikes vs walking, riding a bike is far more dangerous.

Even if these separated bike lanes are marginally less dangerous, I think they are still dangerous and I certainly am not brave enough to try using them. I will continue using the TTC like most people. Also I can't imagine many people want to ride a bike when it is winter/raining/snowing.

Even though there are more pedestrians than cyclists, there are more pedestrian/car collisions than ped/bike ones.

Separated bike lanes, if properly separated, are more than 'marginally' safer than non-separated. That's the point of separating them from car traffic.

Riding in the cold/rain/snow is not a big deal if you dress appropriately. Same as walking, including the issue of cleared vs uncleared snow.

 

[the lemur]

Most of NYC's bike lanes are just painted white lines, not the "separated" kind. Most of the "separated" bike lanes are on one way streets in Manhattan. Also the number of people riding bikes in NYC, even if it has increased, is a tiny fraction of the number of people using the New York Subway.

And I think that the reason the number of pedestrian accidents is higher than the number of bike accidents is because the number of pedestrians is many orders of magnitude than the number of bikes pretty much everywhere in Toronto. If you adjust for the number of people riding bikes vs walking, riding a bike is far more dangerous.

Even if these separated bike lanes are marginally less dangerous, I think they are still dangerous and I certainly am not brave enough to try using them. I will continue using the TTC like most people. Also I can't imagine many people want to ride a bike when it is winter/raining/snowing.

I think NYC has a lot more separated lanes/greenways than you realize. Also, people in NYC use the subway for longer distances, including in combination with biking.

http://www.nycbikemaps.com/maps/nyc-bike-map/

 

[salsa]

Aha, because this road without bike infrastructure doesn't have many cyclists, then of course, if we put infrastructure on it, it also won't have cyclists. You know, simple logic

Campbell can do his anecdotal BS all he wants, but the facts show that Bloor is one of the most (if not the most) heavily cycled streets without any cycling infrastructure. I wouldn't be surprised if he's simply lying that he didn't see any cyclists, but regardless, ideologues like him are not interested in facts.

 

[salsa]

Manhattan has a completely different and non-comparable street network to Toronto. Bloor isn't like Broadway. Bloor is an East-West corridor with a 1 km strip of North to South catchment area. It is also the only East-West surface transportation corridor that runs continuously from the West to the East of the central city.

The Gardiner Expressway doesn't count as an E-W corridor?

It doesn't matter that Bloor happens to run continuously from Scarborough to Etobicoke if almost nobody drives even half of it's full length. Eglinton also goes across the whole city, should we scuttle the proposed bike lanes there too?

We are proposing to build 20+ storey buildings on this corridor in the future (Bloor and Bathurst as an example) and yet we are saying that we only need one lane of traffic both ways. Manhattan has a complete and tight grid of arterials with as many as 4 lanes in a given direction.

The number one argument used against bike lanes is that they will make traffic worse. If that line of thinking prevailed, then NYC sure as hell wouldn't have built any bike lanes. Because if you think driving in Toronto is difficult, that's nothing compared to the hellish traffic in NYC despite their "non-comparable street network".

Also, Bloor is already one lane of traffic in each direction, since both curb lanes are occupied by parked cars most of the time. The plan is simply to get rid of one of those parking lanes to create room for bike lanes. At intersections, a 3rd centre lane will be maintained for left-turning vehicles.

 

[West End Boy]

Even if these separated bike lanes are marginally less dangerous, I think they are still dangerous and I certainly am not brave enough to try using them. I will continue using the TTC like most people. Also I can't imagine many people want to ride a bike when it is winter/raining/snowing.

This is what it boils down to. Too many people thinking "well, I don't think it's much safer, and I think it's dangerous to ride a bike, and I'm not brave enough to ride, and I would never ride in the winter/rain/snow....therefore screw the bike lanes". This is incredibly self-centred and selfish. Me, me, me.

Well guess what, it's not all about you. There are tonnes of people cycling, and to say it's dangerous, therefore just don't do it is ridiculous. There are also many more people cycling year round every year. You can dislike that or try to deny it, but it is fact.