|
|
|
New Bike Lanes on University, Bay, Spadina, and Other Roads
- Thread starter barrytron3030
- Start date
js97
Senior Member
It's such a hopeless battle.
I own a car, never drive it downtown, I actually bike to work in the fairer months, and take the TTC in the winter months.
But the idea is to look at the COST vs The Benefits.
Montreal is not the financial captial of our country, it's half our size in population, with an even smaller suburb that commutes to the core for work. AND they don't cut back a Lane on their widest blvd to pu in a bike lane
I've lived in Manhattan, and I can tell you that it is much more mild than Toronto. A whopping 4 degrees is the difference between frozen and not. You should try January in Toronto and compare it to Manhattan... it's warmer than 4 Degrees.
how many of you actually bike to work everyday? I do.
How many of you do you truly believe that a bike lane will get the drivers from Rosedale/Forest hill and those accessing the gardiner to Missauga & DVP out of their cars and into their bikes?
University ave moves about 30,000 cars out of the city a day ... how many more bikes do you think we will get onto univeristy.
And how will Univeristy Avenue service those destinations? where are they getting off? Nurses and Neuro surgeons are all of a sudden bikers?
You are not going to get a DR or nurse that just worked on a 14+ hour shift to go on a bike.
I'm not saying not build bike lanes, College is great because it doesn't impede traffic, harbord etc.
It's about thinking how the city works as an entire entity!
I don't want to cause more pollution, more traffic jams, so I'm willing to go down mcaul, church etc. Because there are no destinations off univeristy that services a bike community tremendosly.
I own a car, never drive it downtown, I actually bike to work in the fairer months, and take the TTC in the winter months.
But the idea is to look at the COST vs The Benefits.
Montreal is not the financial captial of our country, it's half our size in population, with an even smaller suburb that commutes to the core for work. AND they don't cut back a Lane on their widest blvd to pu in a bike lane
I've lived in Manhattan, and I can tell you that it is much more mild than Toronto. A whopping 4 degrees is the difference between frozen and not. You should try January in Toronto and compare it to Manhattan... it's warmer than 4 Degrees.
how many of you actually bike to work everyday? I do.
How many of you do you truly believe that a bike lane will get the drivers from Rosedale/Forest hill and those accessing the gardiner to Missauga & DVP out of their cars and into their bikes?
University ave moves about 30,000 cars out of the city a day ... how many more bikes do you think we will get onto univeristy.
And how will Univeristy Avenue service those destinations? where are they getting off? Nurses and Neuro surgeons are all of a sudden bikers?
You are not going to get a DR or nurse that just worked on a 14+ hour shift to go on a bike.
I'm not saying not build bike lanes, College is great because it doesn't impede traffic, harbord etc.
It's about thinking how the city works as an entire entity!
I don't want to cause more pollution, more traffic jams, so I'm willing to go down mcaul, church etc. Because there are no destinations off univeristy that services a bike community tremendosly.
TOareaFan
Superstar
^ I think I said this at the start...I am not against bike lanes (I am unconvinced they deliver great benefit) per se......but everything has their place and I do not think University Avenue is the place for bike lanes. I am not ashamed to say it...I am opposed to THESE bike lanes.
kettal
Banned
Ever looked at the staff bike cage at Sick Kids? It's full to capacity.
McCaul? Honestly? It's near impossible to bike on that street without getting caught in the streetcar tracks.
Last edited:
Tewder
Senior Member
Gridlock doesn't start and end in the one ward you are discussing. Bike lanes are a myopic solution to the problem of gridlock into and within the city of Toronto, and this the problem we're talking about.
That's a strawman really: sidewalks already exist...
Come on now, lets take out more lanes of traffic and build in-land waterways so 1% of olympic-trained swimmers can strap their brief cases to their backs and swim to work...
Or perhaps we should follow Ottawa's solution to gridlock:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The Hoggs Hallow bridge was built in 1929 as a bypass for Yonge Street, to avoid the flooding that occurred in the valley. Pedestrians could have walked and bicyclists could have cycled from Yonge Street and Franklin Avenue (south of Sheppard Avenue) to Avenue Road and Wilson Avenue, without hitting the big valleys along the way. In the name of progress, the roadway turned over as the eastbound express lanes for the 401. Pedestrians were a minority interest group in the 1950's and 1960's
Tewder
Senior Member
... and hopefully will no longer be if we get more people out of cars. Support initiatives for better mass transit!
kettal
Banned
And for traffic into ward 20, cycling is a measurable quantity in relation to drivers. Why is giving a small fraction of downtown streets to cyclists so crazy? This won't affect anybody who is driving in the suburbs in the least.
Sidewalks still take away traffic lanes from "the vast majority" all the same... In July, once the bike lanes are installed on University, will you suddenly be in favour of them because they will exist?
Last edited:
Parkdalian
Senior Member
The reason why you won't convince people with this argument is that for you, it always comes back to gridlock. For you, gridlock is the primary problem, and I suspect this is because you are a commuter. For people who live in Toronto, gridlock is not the primary problem. Livable streets that aren't just commuter highways is what many people in Toronto want. Bicyclists also want to be able to drive on streets without being hit by cars.
As well, the 401 - one of the largest expressways in North America - is always packed with cars, so even if gridlock is the primary problem, it's clear the current number of commuters using cars is too many. If we want to avoid gridlock, we can't add more streets, so we have to get rid of some of the cars. I think you argued that this could be done through increased transit. This shouldn't be a zero sum game: we should increase transit, increase alternate forms of transportation (such as bicycles) and give drivers disincentive to use their cars - all at the same time. "Making things worse" by reducing the number of lanes for cars could, actually, make things better.
West End Boy
Active Member
Well put. I think the difference between making traffic/people move as quickly as possible through the city and making the city as livable/enjoyable as possible might be the crux of the conflicting viewpoints.
That and the fact that as the power dynamic shifts in favour of something different, people tend to freak out, especially if it's something that they are not personally familiar with and it threatens an existing order that has served them well. I've seen this happen in a number of arenas, and am still caught off guard by the vehemence of the reactions.
I firmly believe that we can provide cycling infrastructure, improve our public transit, and retain the option of personal automobiles when necessary. But to do this requires a shift in thinking, and yes, since cars take up the bulk of our transportation surface area, they are usually going to be the ones to have to give something up. That does not make it a war.
MisterF
Senior Member
Nope, the difference is only 4. But New York's climate is irrelevant - the average January high in Montreal and Ottawa is -6, and both cities have more people biking to work than Toronto (as a percentage). Climate isn't the issue.
Tewder
Senior Member
I use the term 'gridlock' to stand for the all the problems caused by chronic traffic congestion, including the effects on the environment, the economy and the well-being of people.
To be fair, I have not once said that I am opposed to bike lanes. My point has always been that we need to address mass transit first as the only true viable way to get the bulk of people off of the road. When this is done you can easily justify reducing lanes of traffic for bike lanes and wider avenues, lined by trees etc. Perfect. This will achieve the sort of liveable streets you envisage. Right now, however, as we roll into a city election it is time to make transit the number one issue, which given the resistance of all levels of government will require a strong and loud, united front. The bike lane issue distracts from this by tacitly sending the message to politicians that if they address bike lanes then they are addressing 'gridlock' and need not push to make the real tough financial commitments to long term public infrastructure needed to bring the transit system in Toronto to the level it needs to be at for future growth and sustainability
Fresh Start
Banned
I support creating a city-wide plan for bike lanes that keeps them off the arterial roads, connects them with existing paths in our park system and allows safe travel across the city without tying up arterial lanes. I would vote in favour of removing the bike lanes from Jarvis, University and Pharmacy. Why cyclists would want to endanger their own lives let alone create problems for other road users along a major thoroughfare route like University or a consistently 4-laned arterial like Jarvis is beyond me.
sixrings
Senior Member
OK I made a drawing of a typical toronto street. It shows the road then some grass then the sidewalk then again more grass. This is typical of toronto. My proposition is that they simply remove the virst piece of grass replacing it with seperated BIKE LANES. This could work on MANY of Toronto streets.
Attachments
W. K. Lis
Superstar
For the past 50 years, Toronto had been catering to the automobile. Tearing down South Parkdale homes for an expressway, widening Jarvis Street from 2 lanes to 5 lanes, widening Avenue Road from 4 lanes to 6 lanes. The sprawling housing developments gave us wide single-family bungalows out in the middle of nowhere where we need a car to get a carton of milk.
Now that we have seen the mistakes of the past 50 years, we are trying to rectify them. Except that we had gotten so used to the automobile, we have forgotten the time before we had them and think we cannot do without the automobile.
University Avenue with the Ontario Legislative Building at top.
Jarvis Street.
Lake Shore Blvd. and Dunn Avenue (South Parkdale).
Avenue Road and Bloor Street.
Avenue Road north of Davenport Road.
It is time that we have to stop bowing and paying homage to the automobile. We may still need them, but we should begin to look at other ways to get around that are better for your health and in turn help you save money. It is time return the road back to the bicycle and pedestrians.
Now that we have seen the mistakes of the past 50 years, we are trying to rectify them. Except that we had gotten so used to the automobile, we have forgotten the time before we had them and think we cannot do without the automobile.
University Avenue with the Ontario Legislative Building at top.
Jarvis Street.
Lake Shore Blvd. and Dunn Avenue (South Parkdale).
Avenue Road and Bloor Street.
Avenue Road north of Davenport Road.
It is time that we have to stop bowing and paying homage to the automobile. We may still need them, but we should begin to look at other ways to get around that are better for your health and in turn help you save money. It is time return the road back to the bicycle and pedestrians.