TKTKTK
Senior Member
It's not the band I hate, it's their fans.
|
|
|
The Star: Jarvis St. must change with evolving environs
- Thread starter khris
- Start date
It's not the band I hate, it's their fans.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
The whole point of building more infrastructure is to broaden the range of people who use their bikes, not to cater to spandex-wearing cyclists with $2000 bikes.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,462
- Reaction score
- 9,248
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Last edited:
Tewder
Senior Member
I agree Hipster, and it is those very groups of people who are pulling the strings in Toronto, resulting in a complete skewing of perspective that makes for illogical funding/spending decisions. This is why the city is constantly 'broke' and hiking taxes. It's not just bike lanes and plowing (hey what's a million here or a million there?), it's the myriad other myopic special-interest funding choices that when added together bog down the system, take up precious resources and muddy the waters with respect to the 'big' choices that should be made but aren't. Bottom line: I find it hard to justify these luxuries for the few when the necessities of the masses are neglected. This logic is upside down to me.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Tewder:
You will have to tell us what is the net impact of these myraid of "special interest groups" that skews funding in a "myopic and illogical" (to you) direction, and how the absence of such will result in "big choices" being feasible? Give us a dollar figure instead of rhetoric? You kept on suggesting bike lanes are plowed specially - but really, it's not like the routes they are on somehow won't be plowed in their absence. Ditto the creation of bike lanes - just how many cases of bike lanes are painted by itself - and not combined with other road works?
Now let me tell you what is a "special interest group" - people who are given a ticket but will go to their utmost to tie up police and court resources just so that they can argue their way out of having erred. How much does that group cost, relative to cyclists - with the latter actually doing something useful with their efforts?
AoD
You will have to tell us what is the net impact of these myraid of "special interest groups" that skews funding in a "myopic and illogical" (to you) direction, and how the absence of such will result in "big choices" being feasible? Give us a dollar figure instead of rhetoric? You kept on suggesting bike lanes are plowed specially - but really, it's not like the routes they are on somehow won't be plowed in their absence. Ditto the creation of bike lanes - just how many cases of bike lanes are painted by itself - and not combined with other road works?
Now let me tell you what is a "special interest group" - people who are given a ticket but will go to their utmost to tie up police and court resources just so that they can argue their way out of having erred. How much does that group cost, relative to cyclists - with the latter actually doing something useful with their efforts?
AoD
Last edited:
Archivist
Senior Member
Heavily amusing to see the fulminations against bike lanes here, which in the 2009 capital budget consist of 7.9 M of direct spending in a budget of 1.637 B, or .48% of the budget. Let's just concentrate on that incredibly small spend pages and pages ranting about it in the absence of any broader picture.
One wonders if these are the kinds of guys who yell at their housemates for buying the expensive jam two days after buying a bitchin new laptop so they have better graphics for their games. Get a grip.
One wonders if these are the kinds of guys who yell at their housemates for buying the expensive jam two days after buying a bitchin new laptop so they have better graphics for their games. Get a grip.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Toronto spends about $2.25 per person on cycling (2008)... almost half of Torontonians use bikes ("special interest"?)
^^ I guess they broke the $3 barrier this year
^^ I guess they broke the $3 barrier this year
Last edited:
Whoaccio
Senior Member
Half of Torontonians use bikes? Do you mean as a recreational activity or as an actual mode of transit? I use my bike to get around every now and then during the summer, but I don't think I would consider myself a cyclist.
Given my recreational attachment to the bicycle, I am not opposed to better bike infrastructure per se. I just don't think putting bike lanes along most major arterials is really superb idea, though. Given my mediocre cycling abilities, I simply don't like biking along streets with lots of traffic. I don't think I am alone here, either. I rarely see traffic along most bike lanes above a few riders a minute (with a few notable exceptions). Further, as a pedestrian I would rather the bike lane space be dedicated to sidewalk improvements. Unlike bikes, there are more than a few streets downtown where I have been forced off of the sidewalk because of crowding (and that is with PATH).
I dunno, maybe its just me but I can never shake the feeling that municipal funding for bike infrastructure has more to do with securing the Critical Mass vote than designing bicycle infrastructure I, the casual rider and ostensible target of this infrastructure, would use. Having some jerk off in spandex lecture me about how the bicycle with a baby carriage and a pannier is superior to motorized transport absolutely grinds my gears. For my money, I would rather better bike parking facilities be developed that don't force you to leave your bike exposed to the elements (and under some modicum of security) as well as bike sharing program. For actual routes, as both a pedestrian and a recreational cyclist, I would prefer better development of side streets and lane ways (which could function as superb bike paths).
Archivist
Senior Member
The critical mass vote is negligible, and I could as easily assert that the virulent opposition to bike paths that has slowed progress of their development has to do with the garnering of car-driver votes. What of it? That's how democracies work, and there's a lot more car-drivers than there are critical massers.
I would support the use of sideroad as bike paths, but their use can be limited, for instance, no small roads cross the larger ravines of the city, so paths (which already exist) on the Bloor viaduct, for instance, are necessary.
In the suburbs we have designed a city where only the major roads follow direct routes, and travelling through a secondary road is in general, not very direct. Secondary roads also tend to dump you onto a larger road, without connecting to other secondary roads. I would support the expansion of sidewalks in the suburbs to include segregated bike routes, as the sidewalks along major arteries in the burbs are, well, underused.
The trouble with laneways as bike paths is that a great many of them end in dead ends. Those that do not, as one just south of Carlton, would make ideal pathways, I agree.
I would support the use of sideroad as bike paths, but their use can be limited, for instance, no small roads cross the larger ravines of the city, so paths (which already exist) on the Bloor viaduct, for instance, are necessary.
In the suburbs we have designed a city where only the major roads follow direct routes, and travelling through a secondary road is in general, not very direct. Secondary roads also tend to dump you onto a larger road, without connecting to other secondary roads. I would support the expansion of sidewalks in the suburbs to include segregated bike routes, as the sidewalks along major arteries in the burbs are, well, underused.
The trouble with laneways as bike paths is that a great many of them end in dead ends. Those that do not, as one just south of Carlton, would make ideal pathways, I agree.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
I think the number of people using it for errands, school, etc is 20% of the population
I don't really like the idea of 'cyclists' as an identity. We don't really have 'pedestrian' identities. Cycling is something that almost anyone can do - kids to seniors (if they keep it up when they are older), and having all this Critical Mass, specialized equipment, and things like that just creates an us vs them mentality. The focus should be on giving the average person more options and helping them feel safer.
The big thing to help recreational bikers and encourage them to use bikes for errands and other trips would be to have segregated lanes on those major arterial and high volume roads. Road - Parking - Bike lanes - Sidewalks..... Road-Curb-Bikelanes/Sidewalk on same level but different colours....Wide, different coloured bike lanes with priority at intersections also help. There are loads of different configurations besides the standards we seem to use here.
I went to Europe with my family last summer and had a good experience with that. My friend, brothers, and parents don't really bike too much at home except on separate paths, secondary country roads, and suburban back streets. Yet in Holland and Germany were all biking with confidence along major streets (urban and rural) with much more traffic than where we are from. The perception of safety really helps.... being separated from traffic makes you much more confident and safe, and the more people using these things the safer you feel. Plus there is a different attitude, where cyclists and drivers seem to understand each other better (from what my Dutch roommate tells me).
It's not unprecedented in Canada (this is in Montreal).
ps. Just in case you think I am some sort of bike crusader... I don't wear a helmet, I have a hand-me-down bike, never worn Spandex, don't go to Critical Mass etc... I have a drivers license and like using a car to get groceries, go far distances, and get places in a hurry. I just think that a lot more people would be using their bikes if we design our transportation system to make them safer... evidence already posted in this thread shows that this is the case, and that auto-oriented areas can be retrofitted to be more balanced.
I don't really like the idea of 'cyclists' as an identity. We don't really have 'pedestrian' identities. Cycling is something that almost anyone can do - kids to seniors (if they keep it up when they are older), and having all this Critical Mass, specialized equipment, and things like that just creates an us vs them mentality. The focus should be on giving the average person more options and helping them feel safer.
The big thing to help recreational bikers and encourage them to use bikes for errands and other trips would be to have segregated lanes on those major arterial and high volume roads. Road - Parking - Bike lanes - Sidewalks..... Road-Curb-Bikelanes/Sidewalk on same level but different colours....Wide, different coloured bike lanes with priority at intersections also help. There are loads of different configurations besides the standards we seem to use here.
I went to Europe with my family last summer and had a good experience with that. My friend, brothers, and parents don't really bike too much at home except on separate paths, secondary country roads, and suburban back streets. Yet in Holland and Germany were all biking with confidence along major streets (urban and rural) with much more traffic than where we are from. The perception of safety really helps.... being separated from traffic makes you much more confident and safe, and the more people using these things the safer you feel. Plus there is a different attitude, where cyclists and drivers seem to understand each other better (from what my Dutch roommate tells me).
It's not unprecedented in Canada (this is in Montreal).
ps. Just in case you think I am some sort of bike crusader... I don't wear a helmet, I have a hand-me-down bike, never worn Spandex, don't go to Critical Mass etc... I have a drivers license and like using a car to get groceries, go far distances, and get places in a hurry. I just think that a lot more people would be using their bikes if we design our transportation system to make them safer... evidence already posted in this thread shows that this is the case, and that auto-oriented areas can be retrofitted to be more balanced.
Last edited:
TKTKTK
Senior Member
Really!
No one has framed an unyielding argument about bike lanes never being on major arterials, only that when possible they are probably a much better fit for nearby sidestreets. I think cyclists hate this idea because it offends their sense of superiority; bicycles > cars and all that.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
TKTKTK:
I don't think most cyclists think of cycling in terms of superiority over cars, rather than actual usage of a roadway for transportation purposes, and I am sure they are better judges of what's a better fit for them.
AoD
I don't think most cyclists think of cycling in terms of superiority over cars, rather than actual usage of a roadway for transportation purposes, and I am sure they are better judges of what's a better fit for them.
AoD
TKTKTK
Senior Member
You really think so? So then why the opposition to bike lanes on side-streets as opposed to major arterials? Is it that cycling in faster, denser car and truck traffic is the safest and best solution for them?
I don't hold a lot of faith in any group being able to accurately judge their needs. Isn't that usually the point trotted out to lambaste drivers? Good for the goose, but not the gander?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
TKTKTK:
Why don't you ask them? I believe some of them have already answered the question for you though in this thread.
Quite frankly though, this debate requires more than just your faith.
AoD
Why don't you ask them? I believe some of them have already answered the question for you though in this thread.
Quite frankly though, this debate requires more than just your faith.
AoD
Last edited:
confusion
Active Member
I like to cycle, and I cycle around the city a lot.
But as I read your post you make me realize how incredibly shortsighted and backwards this city really is. I cry for bike infrastructure, meanwhile the most important infrastructure in the city doesn't even exist (I'm talking about pedestrian infrastructure).
Consistently we are controlled by the car culture. Why are the sidewalks on Bay Street so skinny that people are overflowing onto the road, just so the taxi can have some extra space for a pickup of a mere few.
Many of the roads downtown should be reduced in size and enhanced for sidewalks. Screw the people who say the traffic will get worse, because it is already bad. Most of the people downtown, walk. They walk. Why is there better infrastructure for cars downtown then?
My new priorities, wide sidewalks everywhere there is pedestrians. This means Bay, Yonge, Queen, etc. Cars should have no priority here whatsoever.