News   May 01, 2024
 1.4K     1 
News   May 01, 2024
 375     0 
News   May 01, 2024
 369     0 

Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

City staff recommends that Bloor lanes stay: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/10/11/bloor-st-bike-lanes-should-stay-city-report-finds.html
A highly anticipated report released Wednesday morning determined that installing the lanes had increased cycling use in the project area by 56 per cent, with an average of 5,220 cyclists on weekdays. That makes the lanes the second busiest cycling facility in the city.

Preliminary road safety data determined that collisions have been reduced as a result of the lanes, and that the project has “significantly increased levels of comfort and safety for both motorists and cyclists.”

Although the lanes initially caused significant delays to drivers’ travel times, modifications to signal timing have since cut the increased travel times in half, the report found.

Full report: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-107582.pdf

During the pilot, the City heard from some businesses concerned about impact to their business as a result of the pilot. In order to provide additional insight into the potential effects on local businesses, the City obtained customer spending analysis from Moneris Solutions Corporation, the company with the largest market share of point-of-sale payment processers in Canada. The Moneris data demonstrated that while average per-transaction size has marginally decreased in the pilot area, it is on-trend with other parts of the City. Total customer spending in the Bloor Street pilot area increased more than in the area surrounding the pilot and more than in the Danforth Avenue control area.
 
Last edited:
Public works committee meeting is underway right now on the Bloor Street bike lanes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/public-works-bike-votes-1.4359652

Toronto's public works committee voted in favour of making the Bloor Street bike lanes permanent Wednesday night, after hours of public deputations and debate. City transportation staff recommended the move following a long-awaited report that shows the bike lanes deliver a series of benefits and few drawbacks.

The vote was 4-2, with Coun. Giorgio Mammoliti and Coun. Stephen Holyday opposed. The matter will now go before council on Nov. 7 for the final decision.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/public-works-bike-votes-1.4359652
...
The vote was 4-2, with Coun. Giorgio Mammoliti and Coun. Stephen Holyday opposed. The matter will now go before council on Nov. 7 for the final decision.

I'll bet Mammoliti and Holyday consider bicycles to be recreational only. They would only want bicycle paths in the river ravines, even though streets were originally made for people to use. The automobile came later and expropriated the streets.
 
They would only want bicycle paths in the river ravines, even though streets were originally made for people to use.

If we're getting into these sort of comments, streets were originally made for carriages and streetcars, not bikes or "people" (whatever "people" means, cause apparently that term doesn't include drivers or their passengers, nor does it include people who ride bikes). That's why, for example, we had to mark these drain covers with yellow paint. Modern bikes came into use around the same time as ICE cars.
 
If we're getting into these sort of comments, streets were originally made for carriages and streetcars, not bikes or "people" (whatever "people" means, cause apparently that term doesn't include drivers or their passengers). That's why, for example, we had to mark these drain covers with yellow paint. Modern bikes came into use around the same time as ICE cars.
Actually not, although I don't want this line of argument to go on to pointlessness.

Bikes preceded cars by a wide degree. Turn of last century was a high point for bicycle use. It was only later that motorized vehicles became popular.

But let's refer to the definition of "street":
A street is a public thoroughfare (usually paved) in a built environment. It is a public parcel of land adjoining buildings in an urban context, on which people may freely assemble, interact, and move about. A street can be as simple as a level patch of dirt, but is more often paved with a hard, durable surface such as concrete, cobblestone or brick. Portions may also be smoothed with asphalt, embedded with rails, or otherwise prepared to accommodate non-pedestrian traffic.

Originally the word "street" simply meant a paved road (Latin: "via strata"). The word "street" is still sometimes used colloquially as a synonym for "road", for example in connection with the ancient Watling Street, but city residents and urban planners draw a crucial modern distinction: a road's main function is transportation, while streets facilitate public interaction.[1] Examples of streets include pedestrian streets, alleys, and city-centre streets too crowded for road vehicles to pass. Conversely, highways and motorways are types of roads, but few would refer to them as streets.[2][3]

The word street has its origins in the Latin strata (meaning "paved road" - abbreviation from via strata[4]); it is thus related to stratum and stratification. Ancient Greek stratos means army: Greeks originally built roads to move their armies. Old English applied the word to Roman roads in Britain such as Ermine Street, Watling Street, etc. Later it acquired a dialectical meaning of "straggling village", which were often laid out on the verges of Roman roads and these settlements often became named Stretton. In the Middle Ages, a road was a way people travelled, with street applied specifically to paved ways.[5]
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street

I don't think many Romans were killed by cars...
 
19th century cyclists paved the way for modern motorists' roads
Carlton Reid, UK Guardian

Monday 15 August 2011 07.00 BST

Car drivers assume the roads were built for them, but it was cyclists who first lobbied for flat roads more than 100 years ago

Wooden hobbyhorses evolved into velocipedes; velocipedes evolved into safety bicycles; safety bicycles evolved into automobiles.

It's well known that the automotive industry grew from seeds planted in the fertile soil that was the late 19th century bicycle market. And to many motorists it's back in the 19th century that bicycles belong. Cars are deemed to be modern; bicycles are Victorian.

Many motorists also assume that roads were built for them. In fact, cars are the johnny-come-latelies of highways.

The hard, flat road surfaces we take for granted are relatively new. Asphalt surfaces weren't widespread until the 1930s. So, are motorists to thank for this smoothness?

No. The improvement of roads was first lobbied for – and paid for – by cycling organisations.

In the UK and the US, cyclists lobbied for better road surfaces for a full 30 years before motoring organisations did the same. Cyclists were ahead of their time.

When railways took off from the 1840s, the coaching trade died, leaving roads almost unused and in poor condition. Cyclists were the first vehicle operators in a generation to go on long journeys, town to town. Cyclists helped save many roads from being grubbed up.

Roads in towns were sometimes well surfaced. Poor areas were cobbled; upmarket areas were covered in granite setts (what many localities call cobbles). Pretty much every other road was left unsurfaced and would be the colour of the local stone. Many 19th century authors waxed lyrical about the varied and beautiful colours of British roads.

Cyclists' organisations, such as Cyclists' Touring Club in the UK and League of American Wheelmen (LAW) in the US, lobbied county surveyors and politicians to build better roads. The US Good Roads movement, set up by LAW, was highly influential. LAW once had the then US president turn up at its annual general meeting.

The CTC individual in charge of the UK version of the Good Roads movement, William Rees Jeffreys, organised asphalt trials before cars became common. He took the reins of the Roads Improvement Association (RIA) in 1890, while working for the CTC.

He later became an arch motorist and the RIA morphed into a motoring organisation. Rees Jeffreys called for motorways in Britain 50 years prior to their introduction. But he never forgot his roots. In a 1949 book, Rees Jeffreys – described by former prime minister David Lloyd George as "the greatest authority on roads in the United Kingdom and one of the greatest in the whole world" – wrote that cyclists paved the way, as it were, for motorists. Without the efforts of cyclists, he said, motorists would not have had as many roads to drive on. Lots of other authors in the early days of motoring said the same but this debt owed to cyclists by motorists is long forgotten.

The CTC created the RIA in 1885 and, in 1886, organised the first ever Roads Conference in Britain. With patronage – and cash – from aristocrats and royals, the CTC published influential pamphlets on road design and how to create better road surfaces. In some areas, county surveyors took this on board (some were CTC members) and started to improve their local roads.

Even though it was started and paid for by cyclists, the RIA stressed from its foundation that it was lobbying for better roads to be used by all, not just cyclists.

However, in 1896 everything changed. Motoring big-wigs lobbied for the Locomotives Amendment Act to be repealed. This act made a driver of a road locomotive drive very, very slowly and the vehicle had to be preceded by a man waving a red flag. When the act was jettisoned, speeds increased, automobilists demanded better road surfaces to go even faster on, and "scorchers" and "road hogs", terms first used against cyclists, took over the roads.

By the early 1900s most British motorists had forgotten about the debt they owed to prehistoric track builders, the Romans, turnpike trusts, John McAdam, Thomas Telford and bicyclists. Before even one road had been built with motorcars in mind (this wasn't to happen until the 1930s), motorists assumed the mantle of overlords of the road.

A satirical verse in Punch magazine of 1907 summed up this attitude from some drivers:

"The roads were made for me; years ago they were made. Wise rulers saw me coming and made roads. Now that I am come they go on making roads – making them up. For I break things. Roads I break and Rules of the Road. Statutory limits were made for me. I break them. I break the dull silence of the country. Sometimes I break down, and thousands flock round me, so that I dislocate the traffic. But I am the Traffic."
At the time, the CTC had little inkling cyclists would soon be usurped. An editorial in the CTC Gazette of July 1896 admitted the "horseless carriage movement will make an irresistible advance" and asked members whether motorists should be admitted to membership. Such a move was declined by members but cyclists were later instrumental in the foundation of the Automobile Association, an organisation created to foil police speed traps.

Motoring and cycling soon developed in very different directions and by the 1950s it was clear the future was to be one of mass ownership of cars. Car mileage increased, roads were now always designed with motors in mind, and, rider by rider, cyclists – once dominant on Britain's roads – started to disappear. In the evolutionary timeline of hobbyhorse-to-velocipide-to-bicycle-to-automobile, the riding of bicycles should have been all but extinguished by the 1970s. Town planners certainly thought that way, and declined to design for anything other than motorcars.

But there's a problem with mass car ownership: there's not enough space to put them all. Gridlock is the unforeseen outcome of planning solely for cars. When a city grinds to a halt, that's money down the drain. Cities are waking up to the fact that unrestrained car use is bad for people, and bad for the local economy. Unrestrained car use leads to ugly cities.

Now, the cities that first woke up to this are the bicycle-friendly cities beloved by cycle campaigners.

Towns and cities that design for people, not machines, will be the most progressive of the next 150 years, the towns and cities where people will most want to live, work and play. Far from being a 19th century anachronism, the bicycle is fast becoming a symbol of urban modernity, and cyclists are again at the vanguard of making cities better places. Cyclists have always been ahead of their time.

• Carlton Reid is executive editor of cycling trade magazine BikeBiz and is writing a book on cyclists' contribution to better roads. He has received writing grants from the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund and the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads
 
Likely by carts and horses though. And chariots. Don't forget the chariots.
I blame the damn charioteers, and those blades sticking out of the wheel hubs have to go! (It was only later in the Roman Realms that the one ox passing distance rule was legislated. Too many slaves were getting hobbled...) And why did they need the six and eight horse teams anyway? Two is enough for cruising speed, and less pollution.
 
Getting back to the Adelaide/Bathurst bike lane construction. Many in this string took me to task for pointing out how *as promoted and shown* on the City renderings, I thought aspects, notably the the southbound collecting queue lane, lent itself to chaotic crossing unless a number of conditions were met. One is a traffic signalling sequence, one for bikes only (I'll discuss that again later when more details are available), and a smooth, controlled *streaming* of cyclists to use that short signal sequence window (Toronto Roads and Traffic are always frugal with cyclist RoWs), and how without a barrier to 'stack' cyclists into a queue, chaos would ensue into the intersection.

After writing letters to the City and a cycling org, it seems (for whatever reason) sanity has ensued. Not shown on the drawings or renderings is this:

upload_2017-10-19_12-23-15.png

upload_2017-10-19_12-24-45.png


Shots were taken a few weeks back, last visit the first layer of asphalt was down, and I'm headed that way again shortly, I'll update the shots if there's further improvement. There's some kind of hold-up on the project, I suspect other utilities have to relocate a lamp post and other items. I briefly spoke with some of the workmen, I couldn't see a engineer or foreman on site to ask, and that was about the only reason I could foresee for the 'plinth': To mount a railing to define that bike 'channel' to both motorists and cyclists alike, and to *control the flow* of cyclists through where the marked cyclist crossing is to be.The workmen all agreed that was the intention.

To get that flow optimal, it will take a few other features, and I cannot see how this can be done safely, let alone logistically, without a 'cyclist phase' light, and those lights specifically for cyclists. Pedestrian flow might/must be dealt with separately, but the numbers will be small compared to cyclists. This is a major cycling artery. More separation of cyclists and pedestrians will be necessary. The pic that ADRM posted a few weeks back shows cyclists lined up on the sidewalk, contrary to the posted signs at that time for them to dismount, and there will continue to be conflict at that intersection unless properly engineered. What ADRM's pic illustrated clearly is that when forced to queue (due to the construction barriers) a more rational flow ensues.

Example? I was hit by a *pedestrian* (a surly jogger who just ran off after being confronted) as I walked my bike along the admittedly constrained walking area at the time. I push my bike in front of me though by the saddle, it casters in such a way in front that I take the same width as a slim pedestrian. He knocked a few others too, there's no excuse not to apologize.
(Shades of: http://www.smh.com.au/world/cctv-sh...ogger-on-a-london-bridge-20170808-gxs19s.html )

Btw: The City renderings are well out of proportion to the finished infrastructure. I do have to question some of the sharp curves designed into this, not friendly to pedestrians or cyclists alike, and not usable. ??? I foresee problems during peak congestion of the two flows of cyclists One north facing, the other south) merging and turning sharply east to cross Bathurst. It might call for separately phased lights for each queue. Whether most cyclists would abide by that is a good question...

Another question arises: Renderings and drawings show the 'channel' (lay-by) in green. There's a real problem with using *too much green*. It desensitizes the impression to motorists to *beware*. And that may be the case here. The green is to delineate cycling 'safe zones' on shared pavement. Once in a 'channel', motorists can't enter, so the green becomes moot or worse, overkill. Not to mention that the green paint often used in Canada (and some of the US, but rarely in Europe, which often uses red ashphalt with a traction grit added) is very slippery in spots. Richmond westbound to Yonge is an example of a number of very slippery spots. *Age* of that paint makes a huge difference as to how slippery or not that it can be.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-10-19_12-23-15.png
    upload_2017-10-19_12-23-15.png
    1,007 KB · Views: 338
  • upload_2017-10-19_12-24-45.png
    upload_2017-10-19_12-24-45.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 333
Last edited:
Honestly, have you even met some cycling advocates? Some don't even believe an environmental assessment should be required for biking facilities. The very process that would ensure the designs for these facilities are properly constructed for everyone's safety. You're wasting your breath here.
 
Honestly, have you even met some cycling advocates? Some don't even believe an environmental assessment should be required for biking facilities. The very process that would ensure the designs for these facilities are properly constructed for everyone's safety. You're wasting your breath here.

I regularly attend Cycle Toronto meetings and have literally never heard a single solitary soul make anything remotely close to that point, and Cycle Toronto and other advocacy groups were consulted extensively and spent a large amount of time, energy, and resources on this project in particular, but, sure, enjoy your grudges.

Oh, and how's the Gardiner East coming along?
 

Back
Top