General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

[W. K. Lis]

American Bike Commuting Up Nine Percent in 2012

See this link.

Congratulations, America. We’re biking to work more than ever before.

We’ve known for a while that Americans are driving less than they used to, even as the economy grows. And just about every quarter, the American Public Transportation Association delivers more stats about increasing transit ridership. Now the Census brings another measure of Americans’ shifting transportation habits: Bicycle commuting grew 9 percent last year, bringing it to a historic high.

Now, compared to countries with better bike infrastructure, America’s rate of bike commuting is still puny. But the Census shows it’s heading in the right direction: Almost 865,000 people, or 0.61 percent of the commuting public, reported biking as their primary method of getting to work in the 2012 American Community Survey. That’s not much mode-share, but it’s still a 9 percent jump over 2011, when 0.56 percent of commuters reported biking to work. While the three years before that didn’t show much growth at all, bike commuting has grown 61 percent since 2000. (A few caveats about the Census as a measurement of overall cycling: It only counts commuting, not other trips, and people who bike to work less than half the time don’t get counted either.)

The bicycling gender gap seems to be narrowing as well. Ken McLeod of the League of American Bicyclists took a look at women bike commuters, noting that their numbers have risen almost 59 percent since 2006:

What’s more, the ACS data shows that the growth in bike commuting by women is outpacing that of men. Between 2011 and 2012, the growth in bike commuting by women was 10.9 percent, compared to 8.4 percent for men.

The growth in bicycling isn’t happening in a vacuum. Safe infrastructure for bicycling is becoming a priority in cities across the country. Cities like New York, Chicago, and Washington, DC, are competing to add the most bike lanes. Smaller cities like Indianapolis and Memphis are also building bike routes at an impressive rate. Last year alone, the number of protected bike lanes in the United States rose from 62 to 102. Meanwhile, the rapid growth of bike-share is reducing barriers to cycling in several cities. Any wagers on how much bike commuting will increase in next year’s Census?

While bike commuting is on the rise, the simple walk to work is losing ground. Almost four million people walked to work last year — 2.8 percent of all commuters. That’s a 28 percent drop in mode share since 1990, when nearly 4.5 million people commuted on foot. The percentage of people walking continues to drop — about 1.5 percent even since 2009. Nearly half the people who walk to work report that the trip takes less than 10 minutes. A hardy 163,000 people walk more than 35 minutes to get to work.

Transit commuting has yet to climb back to 1990 levels, when 5.12 percent of workers rode public transportation. After years in the 4 percent range, transit mode share cracked 5 percent in 2008 and has teetered around that number ever since — a little bit up one year, a little bit down the next. Battered by the economic downturn, many transit agencies have had to cut service or raise fares at a time when more people are looking to save on transportation costs.

Solo driving still accounts for a monstrous 76 percent share of the commuting public. And while the percentage of people driving alone is down ever so slightly from the past two years, it’s been on a long-term climb, up 4 percent since 1990. Those rising numbers have taken the biggest bite out of carpooling, which has gone from a 13.4 percent mode share in 1990 to a 9.7 percent share last year.

But a closer look reveals that young people are leaning in a different direction. Tony Dutzik of the Frontier Group, which has co-written with U.S. PIRG the groundbreaking reports on changing transportation preferences, notes that the share of 20- to 24-year-old workers who car-commute has declined by 2.2 percent over the last six years.

“Those young adults have significantly increased their use of public transportation and ‘other means’ of getting to work (which includes bicycling, walking, taxis and motorcycles),†Dutzik writes. “Car commuting is less important for everyone under 55 years of age, public transportation is more important for everyone under 45 years of age (with only small, likely insignificant declines among older Americans), and everyone except folks in the oldest age goup is working more from home… Generational shift, anyone?â€

 

[junctionist]

Actually, paving of Toronto's streets began simply because they were brutal for any use in the winter when they became muddy, and in the summer when they became dusty. Yonge and King streets got crushed stone by the mid 19th century. Crushed stone doesn't make for good cycling. However, cyclists likely did catalyze efforts to pave the city's streets because paving got into full swing around the time that bikes were popularized in the late 19th century.

Up to the turn of the 20th century, paving streets meant using cedar and granite blocks, as well as bricks. These surfaces aren't that good for cycling, though they're better than mud. Frankly, I'm surprised it took at least 40 years for the city to start paving its streets (from its founding in 1793 up to the late 1830s when crushed stone started to be used). When looking at the relative lack of streets paved with anything but generic asphalt today, I think the city has always been slow to realize the importance of paving. (In present times with universally paved streets, it's still an important consideration for placemaking and urban design reasons.) Looking at Waterfront Toronto's work, I realize we're getting better, though.

 

[Forgotten]

So the retired one isn't so observant after all.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Actually, paving of Toronto's streets began simply because they were brutal for any use in the winter when they became muddy, and in the summer when they became dusty. Yonge and King streets got crushed stone by the mid 19th century. Crushed stone doesn't make for good cycling. However, cyclists likely did catalyze efforts to pave the city's streets because paving got into full swing around the time that bikes were popularized in the late 19th century.

Up to the turn of the 20th century, paving streets meant using cedar and granite blocks, as well as bricks. These surfaces aren't that good for cycling, though they're better than mud. Frankly, I'm surprised it took at least 40 years for the city to start paving its streets (from its founding in 1793 up to the late 1830s when crushed stone started to be used). When looking at the relative lack of streets paved with anything but generic asphalt today, I think the city has always been slow to realize the importance of paving. (In present times with universally paved streets, it's still an important consideration for placemaking and urban design reasons.) Looking at Waterfront Toronto's work, I realize we're getting better, though.

Way into the 20th century, Toronto still had dirt roads.

Oakwood south of Eglinton, 1924.

Bloor Street West at High Park, 1914.

When streets got a street railway, the tracks were paved so that the dirt would not dug up by the horse hoofs. This continued when they were electrified, and autos would then use the tracks to avoid the mud and dirt on the sides of the tracks.

 

[calimehtar]

I stumbled on this thread at stevemunro.ca where a few brave souls defend bike lanes as a transit alternative and Steve puts them in their place. His argument seems to be that cycling is great and all but will never be a substitute for a decent transit system.
http://stevemunro.ca/?p=8572

In all seriousness, why should cycling not be seen as a transit alternative? It seems likely that it serves more as a transit alternative than as an automobile alternative, and if cycling isn't a means of transportation then what the hell is it?

I'm not saying that we don't also need a better transit system, just that there actually is a ton of value in a decent bike network. Given that a DRL is at least 20 years away, it may be the only option the city has for managing congestion in the near future (I'd make the same argument about improving the streetcar and bus system).

Anecdotally I and at least one friend of mine cycles occasionally for transportation, neither of us own cars, and both of us travel routes that are about equally convenient by bike or TTC, ie going from one area well served by transit to another. We still use transit fairly often but regardless we use bikes as an alternative, and in my case I have begun biking more and more often, so that taking TTC has become quite rare.

Furthermore, the geography of Toronto is particularly well-suited to cycling - the old city of Toronto is compact and relatively flat.

Rotterdam comes up as a place that is ideal for cycling and I find it interesting that the scale of Rotterdam, judged by physical size and density of streets in google maps, is actually very similar to the old city of Toronto.

The striking difference is that viewing the downtown zoomed in far enough you can see that all of the main roads downtown include space tramways and separated bike lanes. Given these streets also have room for cars they must be wider than King, Queen, Bloor etc.

https://www.google.ca/maps?ll=51.9227,4.478216&spn=0.021385,0.054674&t=m&z=15&layer=t&lci=bike
https://www.google.ca/maps?ll=43.6589,-79.385619&spn=0.025086,0.054674&t=m&z=15&layer=t&lci=bike

 

[ShonTron]

Steve Munro was upset that a few pro-cyclist advocates were pushing for bike lanes (though Hamish 'Caronto' Wilson can easily get on anyone's nerves) and angered about a few idiot cyclists on the sidewalks. He then painted all cyclists with the same brush on twitter, with that "I'll respect cyclists only if everyone rode properly" garbage. It's true that most cycling infrastructure would only put a very small dent into transit use, but it still should be done for other benefits as well.

 

[rbt]

Steve Munro was upset that a few pro-cyclist advocates were pushing for bike lanes (though Hamish 'Caronto' Wilson can easily get on anyone's nerves) and angered about a few idiot cyclists on the sidewalks.

To be fair, Hamish frequently proposes we take money out of the TTC expansion budget and put it instead into bike lanes.

Steve is right, while bike lanes are important they do nothing to reduce TTCs peak load (rainy/cold/snowy mornings).

While Hamish didn't say those words in his comment, those who know Hamish knew what he meant by bringing up his Danforth bikeway in a thread about the SRT while mentioning the money sunk on the LRT option.

 

[the lemur]

Steve Munro was upset that a few pro-cyclist advocates were pushing for bike lanes (though Hamish 'Caronto' Wilson can easily get on anyone's nerves) and angered about a few idiot cyclists on the sidewalks. He then painted all cyclists with the same brush on twitter, with that "I'll respect cyclists only if everyone rode properly" garbage. It's true that most cycling infrastructure would only put a very small dent into transit use, but it still should be done for other benefits as well.

I found it really disappointing that he took that attitude as well. I know transit advocacy is his thing above all and I recognize as a cyclist that a lot of cyclists are jackasses with regard to pedestrians, but he's not much different from bike-hating pro-car cranks in using a selective sample of cyclist behaviour as an excuse to do nothing for cycling. Cycling is already a pretty good way of getting around Toronto, often better than transit and despite very deficient bike infrastructure.

 

[RC8]

It's very obvious that people who don't have any experience riding in the city have a very poor understanding of the immense potential of urban cycling.

Up until 4 years ago I would have never commuted by bike, and it was completely beyond me why anyone else would. Since I'm keen to try new things I (very reluctantly) gave it a shot and the rest is history. Now I commute by bike year-round and use a bicycle for ~70% of all the trips I make. I'm in better shape than ever, and I get everywhere south of Bloor much faster than by using transit/walking/driving.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

They were handing out this flier to people living in midtown: http://www.toronto.ca/eglinton//pdf/egconnects_flyer_oct13.pdf

Scroll to the second page. Do you see that? Dedicated and protected bike lane on the SIDEWALK rather than the street! Just like in Amsterdam and in Warsaw! On MY street!

 

[reaperexpress]

They were handing out this flier to people living in midtown: http://www.toronto.ca/eglinton//pdf/egconnects_flyer_oct13.pdf

Scroll to the second page. Do you see that? Dedicated and protected bike lane on the SIDEWALK rather than the street! Just like in Amsterdam and in Warsaw! On MY street!

WOW!!!

Though I would refrain from saying "on the sidewalk", instead saying off-street or on the boulevard, in order to distinguish from the crap facilities which are little more than a sidewalk themselves.

But this is certainly an extremely good first step. The next thing is to make sure they design the intersections in a way so as to eliminate or at least mitigate conflict with turning vehicles. Given the good precedent already in place at Eglinton and Allen Road, I am quietly optimistic.

 

[Hipster Duck]

That's pretty bold.

I find it ironic that the section of the Crosstown that's going underground will allow planners to justify a lane closure and the reduction of a 4-lane arterial into a 2 lane commercial strip (which I welcome), while the at-grade LRT portion of Eglinton will retain the same road lane configuration as before.

 

[ShonTron]

I find it ironic that the section of the Crosstown that's going underground will allow planners to justify a lane closure and the reduction of a 4-lane arterial into a 2 lane commercial strip (which I welcome), while the at-grade LRT portion of Eglinton will retain the same road lane configuration as before.

The irony isn't lost on me either. Wasn't at-surface LRT supposed to turn suburban arterials into new urban utopias?

 

[W. K. Lis]

The irony isn't lost on me either. Wasn't at-surface LRT supposed to turn suburban arterials into new urban utopias?

With bike lanes.

The suburban arterials are very wide, compared to the inner city. This results in excess speeds. By reduced the lane widths, it will slow down the speeders hopefully, and at the same time allow for bike lanes.

Until the first snow plows pile the snow windrows on top of the bike lanes, of course.

 

[RC8]

It's neat to see this being made public, and I'm happy to see so many positive reactions!

This was the result of a very well carried out public consultation process and, although I cannot speak officially for them, BIAs and councillors along the central portion of Eglinton are supportive of the protected lanes. Grade-separated bike lanes are also planned for the suburban areas where the LRT will be at grade.

This is a sign that businesses are beginning to understand that bicycle lanes and traffic calming are actually good for them. As things stand, the schools are supportive, planners are supportive, business owners are supportive, and local residents are supportive. Let's hope the issue is not hijacked by those who fear and oppose any type of change if/when it comes to council.