News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 791     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.5K     0 

General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

toaster29 said:
These are also 2 of the longest in the city? This is not a per capita or per km number. Yes, I expect these long corridors would account for most rides.
Click to expand...
But it's also where a lot of the destinations are. They are both major shopping streets. People are biking to places along those streets. Which is why the side streets thing is stupid. People aren't going to places on the side streets. People still need to get to the destinations on the main streets, so now instead of letting them get there safely, the province has decided that it's okay if they die on that last little part of the journey.

I think the problem is our highway-obsessed government thinks of bike lanes only as highways for bikes, and not as a thing people can use to access local businesses along those bike routes.
 
toaster29 said:
These are also 2 of the longest in the city? This is not a per capita or per km number. Yes, I expect these long corridors would account for most rides.
Click to expand...
I'm struggling to find your point here. Yeah, they are longer than most continuous lanes in Toronto, – though Yonge is just 3 km, so that's more an indictment of the typical length of bike lanes here. But they are still heavily used for cycle commuting, TTC-connectivity etc. Their length does not discount their vital importance to Torontonians who bike, and these bike share numbers just give weight to that.
 
MisterF said:
You're implying that a growing city should have an increasing number of vehicle lanes. This is completely wrong. Cars are an extremely inefficient use of space and car dependence is a net drain on a city's finances. A growing city needs an increasing about of mass transit, cycling infrastructure, and pedestrian space. Not more car lanes.
Click to expand...

I'm not implying that at all.

It makes no sense to remove road capacity from a network that has been static for decades.
Adding bike lanes on top of the existing network to start would've been a better strategy - one that would not polarize and cause a negative reaction from many which then in turn results in micro managing legislation from the Province.
 
Frankietls said:
I live in Bloor West area and started bike -commuting since the bike lanes were installed. From what I see the choke point is mostly in the morning at Bloor and South Kingsway where the majority of drivers want to turn right into South Kingsway from the West but the dedicated right turn lane isn't long enough so traffic backs up all the way to Old Mill.
Is it feasible to turn the North side bike lane into bi-directional (it's wide enough IMO) from South Kingsway to Royal York and convert the South side bike lane back to a regular vehicle lane ?
I also read that mayor Chow has met with the opponents of the bike lane in the area and they are considering remove the median on this stretch. If these could be done to keep the bike lanes it would be the compromise I'm happy to take.
Click to expand...

Assuming the city already had traffic volume information for this location, why wouldn't they have known during the design stage that a more suitable alternative would need to be implemented here?

That compromise approach seems sensible, if done from the start would've possibly avoided such negative pushback.
 
J Bacon said:
I'm not implying that at all.

It makes no sense to remove road capacity from a network that has been static for decades.
Adding bike lanes on top of the existing network to start would've been a better strategy - one that would not polarize and cause a negative reaction from many which then in turn results in micro managing legislation from the Province.
Click to expand...
It's rarely removing road capacity. It may be removing car capacity in certain cases, but that's not the same as removing road capacity. And removing car capacity (and on-street parking) can be justified in a growing city, especially if the space can be reallocated to more productive uses like cycling infrastructure, wider sidewalks, or vegetation.

Moving cars is just one thing that an urban street should do, and often not the primary one.
 
J Bacon said:
I'm not implying that at all.

It makes no sense to remove road capacity from a network that has been static for decades.
Adding bike lanes on top of the existing network to start would've been a better strategy - one that would not polarize and cause a negative reaction from many which then in turn results in micro managing legislation from the Province.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately there is no easy or reasonable way to do that. Bike lanes in a city like Toronto with narrow sidewalks need to come out of traffic lanes. Besides part of the whole rationale for the complete streets approach with bike lanes, bumpouts etc., is to slow traffic down to more humane, survivable speeds. The idea that cars should be speeding along unimpeded, with bike lanes stuffed somewhere off to the side is not what anyone should be designing.
 
Midtown Urbanist said:
As a side-note, one thing that I noticed a lot in Europe is that the bike lanes tend to be at the same grade as the sidewalk, not the vehicular lane. I think this would help a lot with reorienting peoples minds that the bike lane is not taking space away from vehicular traffic. I second the post above suggesting the City replace the bike lanes with sidewalk extensions lol.
Click to expand...
Natika33 said:
It's my understanding that the road-level bike lanes are a quick and cheap way to build out the network and that they'll raise them to sidewalk height at some point in the future likely at the same time other roadwork is planned so that it can be done efficiently all at the same time.
Click to expand...
Not a bad idea in theory, however one concern that comes to mind is that it would encourage pedestrians to barge into the bike lane without paying attention even more than they already do. Adding a thick layer of concrete along an entire stretch also sounds expensive and time-consuming, so it's hard to say if it'd be worth it solely for the purpose of psychological perception of bike lanes "taking away from the road" vs. "an extension of the sidewalk", and being only somewhat effective at physically stopping cars from mounting the curb to intrude into the bike lane, accidentally or otherwise.
 
UntitledCyclist said:
I'm struggling to find your point here. Yeah, they are longer than most continuous lanes in Toronto, – though Yonge is just 3 km, so that's more an indictment of the typical length of bike lanes here. But they are still heavily used for cycle commuting, TTC-connectivity etc. Their length does not discount their vital importance to Torontonians who bike, and these bike share numbers just give weight to that.
Click to expand...
I was confused as to why it was a headline, or warranted a graphic. I was also making the point that it isn't a uniform comparison, some lanes are under 1km, others are 3km, others are longer. Why would we compare raw data for this kind of thing, we never would for anything else.

J Bacon said:
Assuming the city already had traffic volume information for this location, why wouldn't they have known during the design stage that a more suitable alternative would need to be implemented here?

That compromise approach seems sensible, if done from the start would've possibly avoided such negative pushback.
Click to expand...
Not sure, but it is a good compromise. Not sure why it wasn't an idea from the start. That week the subway was down in Etobicoke in the summer was brutal, I was on a shuttle bus for an hour an 15 minutes to get from Royal York to Old Mill (1 stop), and that really made me question these lanes (as an Etobicoke cyclist - the person these are meant for!).
 
toaster29 said:
I was confused as to why it was a headline, or warranted a graphic. I was also making the point that it isn't a uniform comparison, some lanes are under 1km, others are 3km, others are longer. Why would we compare raw data for this kind of thing, we never would for anything else.


Not sure, but it is a good compromise. Not sure why it wasn't an idea from the start. That week the subway was down in Etobicoke in the summer was brutal, I was on a shuttle bus for an hour an 15 minutes to get from Royal York to Old Mill (1 stop), and that really made me question these lanes (as an Etobicoke cyclist - the person these are meant for!).
Click to expand...
They should make the bike lanes wide enough for buses then so that shuttle buses can use them in case of subway closure, ambulance and firetrucks can then use them as well as needed!

Obviously I am mostly joking.
 
81-717 said:
Not a bad idea in theory, however one concern that comes to mind is that it would encourage pedestrians to barge into the bike lane without paying attention even more than they already do. Adding a thick layer of concrete along an entire stretch also sounds expensive and time-consuming, so it's hard to say if it'd be worth it solely for the purpose of psychological perception of bike lanes "taking away from the road" vs. "an extension of the sidewalk", and being only somewhat effective at physically stopping cars from mounting the curb to intrude into the bike lane, accidentally or otherwise.
Click to expand...
It's not solely for the psychological purpose of making bike lanes seem like they aren't taking away from the road - it's also to make it safer as the curb is a better barrier than a bumper with flimsy bollards. Yes, pedestrians will walk into the lane sometimes (like they do along Harbourfront), but locals will eventually come to understand it's for bikes & the surface colour/texture will aid in making that separation clear too. But a major reason is accessibility. The bike lanes have faced significant opposition from some in the mobility-impaired community because the Wheel-Trans ramps can't extend from the car-bike separation barrier to the sidewalk so people are often discharged into the bike lane where they then have to "step up" onto the sidewalk. This is a huge challenge for many and those in wheelchairs can't do that at all. They have to be dropped off further away at a side street since they can't mount the curb.
 
Natika33 said:
It's not solely for the psychological purpose of making bike lanes seem like they aren't taking away from the road - it's also to make it safer as the curb is a better barrier than a bumper with flimsy bollards. Yes, pedestrians will walk into the lane sometimes (like they do along Harbourfront), but locals will eventually come to understand it's for bikes & the surface colour/texture will aid in making that separation clear too. But a major reason is accessibility. The bike lanes have faced significant opposition from some in the mobility-impaired community because the Wheel-Trans ramps can't extend from the car-bike separation barrier to the sidewalk so people are often discharged into the bike lane where they then have to "step up" onto the sidewalk. This is a huge challenge for many and those in wheelchairs can't do that at all. They have to be dropped off further away at a side street since they can't mount the curb.
Click to expand...
Isn't that why the city has been putting in all those raised plastic platforms that basically bridge the bike lane and create a mixed passenger/cyclist zone? They also provide a level exit for a wheelchair or other mobility assisted user to access the sidewalk. I guess they don't exist everywhere, but they seem pretty frequent especially along the new protected lanes on Bloor West.
 
81-717 said:
Not a bad idea in theory, however one concern that comes to mind is that it would encourage pedestrians to barge into the bike lane without paying attention even more than they already do. Adding a thick layer of concrete along an entire stretch also sounds expensive and time-consuming, so it's hard to say if it'd be worth it solely for the purpose of psychological perception of bike lanes "taking away from the road" vs. "an extension of the sidewalk", and being only somewhat effective at physically stopping cars from mounting the curb to intrude into the bike lane, accidentally or otherwise.
Click to expand...
I think what you are describing may be an issue for the initial implementation, but eventually pedestrians learn that this is a cycling lane and learn to get out of the way. I didn't see any issue with this set-up in Europe. The odd time, a cyclist may have to ring their bell to alert pedestrians that they are encroaching.

If there is enough ROW then I would even like to put in landscaping like trees and street furniture and utilities in between the pedestrian and cycling areas on some of the wider streetscapes.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top