Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

[Avenue]

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.

Bringing out the straw man eh.

 

[BMO]

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?

Recent headline such as "Enough with the data, we already know bike lanes work: Elliott"

Source: http://www.metronews.ca/views/toron...-we-already-know-bike-lanes-work-elliott.html

In which the author, I'm sure anybody in the cycling advocacy sphere, as myself, knows this author is one of the most outspoken proponents of cycling in Toronto. Yet it's disturbing that he seems to suggest that due process which is done around the city in the form of traffic impact studies when applied to cycling facilities is an excessive amount of studying and a slap to the face of transportation planning professionals when he suggests that not nearly enough data has gone into transit projects in the city. Granted, Bloor bike lanes are more political, and thus it would seem as if more scrutiny was placed on this project, the reality is that there are MANY traffic studies done around the city that go through a much greater degree of due diligence and data to support their study including the very transit projects he criticizes where a great deal of effort has been placed to determine future travel demand forecasts and modelling. To suggest this is less scrutiny or data-driven than the Bloor bike lanes is factually incorrect. The Bloor bike lane was a really well done transportation study, I know the firm that did the study and they know what they're doing.

It's a detriment to cyclists to assume that these decisions don't need thorough data-driven scrutiny simply because as he says "we know people use bloor bike lanes"... Guess what? We know people use highways yet we still study them and often find alternatives that end up working better for areas, and often don't require a highway or roadway extension. Maybe through this study we'll end up with even better bike lanes that address a bunch of regularly mentioned design issues and operational issues like mid-block conflicts with pedestrians, drivers opening their doors, conflicts at lights with right-turn movements, things that Steveintoronto often mentions but is often, wrongly IMO, criticized for on here. It's fun to get bike lanes put in, it's even better getting the right type of bike lanes put in. Just this morning they put bright green paint at Richmond/Bay (https://i.redd.it/7h001lgz2tsz.jpg) to address conflicts with cyclists and drivers. Guess what? This was done as a result of data being obtained through the ongoing pilot project. Lessons learned on Bloor and Richmond/Adelaide will lead to many of these design implementations being incorporated in the future from the start.

As a transportation planner I personally embrace getting more cycling data, it makes my life easier when I want to recommend cycling facilities. I see so many comments from people that don't understand how the added scrutiny of the bike lanes actually empowers politicians and advocacy groups for future cycling facility improvements.

 

[BMO]

Bringing out the straw man eh.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

 

[BMO]

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?

I mean, sure, last time I checked Cycle Toronto wasn't every cycling advocate, and last time I checked I didn't mention Cycle Toronto anywhere in my post. Steveintoronto gets a bunch of flack on here for bringing up some real concerns. Concerns that are actually based on peer-reviewed standards and guidelines. I don't know what he does in his full-time profession but it's clear he has a grasp on this stuff based on my own knowledge and application of these same standards. I appreciate that you want to defend cycling advocacy, and maybe how I phrased my original post could have been done with more tact, my post was made in jest and forgot how the nuances of sarcasm can be lost on this forum... I appreciate the work they do. I feel like you just proved my point though, we can make things better for cyclists if we open up a bit consider that maybe there are lessons we can learn.

Edit: changed my post to be a bit more positive

 

[steveintoronto]

Well, rather than getting involved in the difference between 'cycling advocates' and 'your average oblivious cyclist' (which is not demeaning, just that infrastructure has to take that into consideration. Take the number of bikes without lights, for instance...), I did some research a few weeks back, and talked to a number of police officers, I'm not going to give names and divisions, as they would rightly prefer that any public statement come through their official spokesman, who I haven't talked with yet.

There's a very serious gap in enforcing bike infrastructure: painted lanes on roads come under the HTA, anything else is not the domain of the police short of criminal offences (and there are a few I believe applicable).

How serious an issue are items like "Green Boxes"? One of the concerned desk-sergeants I first spoke to was a cycle cop last year. He had "*No idea!*" of what a "Green Box" was/is, let alone as to how the law stands on them.

I had to show him a picture on my phone, and explain the conundrum. I'll be posting those pics and the relevant legal reference some time soon, suffice to say the bottom line is this:

*Technically*, as it now stands, a cyclist can be charged with obstructing traffic by sitting in a green box like this one:

That is on the south-east corner of Lansdowne and Dundas.

Here's a sign eastbound on Dundas directing cyclists to that corner to continue going east on College instead of going through the suicide turn by the bridge:

The Cdn, Ontario, and City of Toronto guidelines on boxes is that the traffic lane that they obstruct, "may" have a "no right turn on red" sign posted. *MAY*????

The US guidelines (which is where the model Canada copies originates) are emphatic (and the US is fortunate in having a powerful national mandate and gov org for cycling and traffic safety) that turns *should* be banned from right turns on red when a box is used in an intersection.

Lansdowne *does not* ban a right on red turn, I have the pics to prove it, just can't be bothered to post them. And neither are a lot of intersections with boxes in them.

Not only that, there's *no law* that Ontario (Metro et al) police can invoke to protect the rights of cyclists in such infrastructure. It's *Not in the HTA!*

There's huge concern on the part of the police I've spoken with. There's an awkward silence when asked about this...and one sergeant in a traffic division revealed her personal feelings on the matter, I'm not going to reveal them, save for her stating: "It's really good for someone to invoke and understand the HTA, and why our hands are tied on this, and all we can say in these situations is "we have to share the road". I was given a contact at HQ which I haven't pursued yet. It might even put HQ in an awkward position, since it may not be the place of the cops to point this out to politicians asleep at the wheel.

Which brings us back to that intersection at Adelaide and Bathurst: Let me flip this over, since I've got reams of reference here but I'm too scattered to edit and post it at this time, and I especially ask the "Cycling Advocates".

What laws will be used to enforce safety on the 'boxes' and "unique" lay-by at Ad and Bath? As far as I can tell, it's a mish-mash of law and by-law. so it would take a by-law officer and police officer at the same time to regulate it. If even that. I see all sorts of legal technicalities that would get charges dropped.

Let me be more blunt: Who at City Hall and Queen's Park has thought through the legalities of this? The Ont Cycling Handbook gives suggestions, but there's no legal back-up under the HTA.

Any answers most welcome.

Btw: Just checked Ad-Bath an hour ago. No change in a week, and cyclists zooming up onto the sidewalk oblivious of pedestrians, kids in strollers and the infirm. Not all cyclists, but many. Some cyclists shake their heads in disbelief, as do I when 'the metrosexual cyclist' claims: "I see no wrong".

 

[ADRM]

I mean, sure, last time I checked Cycle Toronto wasn't every cycling advocate, and last time I checked I didn't mention Cycle Toronto anywhere in my post. Steveintoronto gets a bunch of flack on here for bringing up some real concerns. Concerns that are actually based on peer-reviewed standards and guidelines. I don't know what he does in his full-time profession but it's clear he has a grasp on this stuff based on my own knowledge and application of these same standards. I appreciate that you want to defend cycling advocacy, and maybe how I phrased my original post could have been done with more tact, my post was made in jest and forgot how the nuances of sarcasm can be lost on this forum... I appreciate the work they do. I feel like you just proved my point though, we can make things better for cyclists if we open up a bit consider that maybe there are lessons we can learn.

Edit: changed my post to be a bit more positive

You had me at pretty much peak appreciation with this post (and I don't mean that with an ounce of sarcasm) right up until until the last sentence, which comes out of nowhere and relates to nothing I included in my post.

Somehow, the debate in this city (as in many others) has become so poisoned that nearly every time someone defends cycling/cyclists, it's perceived as a narrow, ideologically-driven attack on everyone and everything that doesn't love and adore cycling.

And, in my extensive experience with cycling advocates in this city -- both related to Cycle TO and not -- many if not most are extremely open to trying literally anything that makes it less likely they die on their commute, which somehow inexplicably remains controversial. And, for what it's worth, a surprisingly large number of cycling advocates I've met in this city are traffic, transportation, or transit engineers/planners who are very often frustrated with the car-centric standards and rigidity of the city's Transportation and Cycling departments (along with those of other orders of government, to say nothing of course of this Mayor or this Council).

 

[BMO]

You had me at pretty much peak appreciation with this post (and I don't mean that with an ounce of sarcasm) right up until until the last sentence, which comes out of nowhere and relates to nothing I included in my post.

Somehow, the debate in this city (as in many others) has become so poisoned that nearly every time someone defends cycling/cyclists, it's perceived as a narrow, ideologically-driven attack on everyone and everything that doesn't love and adore cycling.

And, in my extensive experience with cycling advocates in this city -- both related to Cycle TO and not -- many if not most are extremely open to trying literally anything that makes it less likely they die on their commute, which somehow inexplicably remains controversial. And, for what it's worth, a surprisingly large number of cycling advocates I've met in this city are traffic, transportation, or transit engineers/planners who are very often frustrated with the car-centric standards and rigidity of the city's Transportation and Cycling departments (along with those of other orders of government, to say nothing of course of this Mayor or this Council).

With all due respect, I understand where you're coming from, I'm truly sorry if you felt like I was implying that cycling advocacy in this city isn't willing to come to the table and figure out how to reduce cyclist deaths or improve the facilities we all use. I'm more concerned with the ongoing notion, maybe not you or any organization you represent or know, that requiring data to support building cycling facilities is somehow inherently discriminatory to bike infrastructure. Which as I mentioned earlier , is factually incorrect when time after time the results of these studies more often than not lead the BETTER biking infrastructure and address issues like the ones Steveintoronto often points out in here to less than enthusiastic response and is often painted as anti cycling when it's anything but.

 

[ADRM]

With all due respect, I understand where you're coming from, I'm truly sorry if you felt like I was implying that cycling advocacy in this city isn't willing to come to the table and figure out how to reduce cyclist deaths or improve the facilities we all use. I'm more concerned with the ongoing notion, maybe not you or any organization you represent or know, that requiring data to support building cycling facilities is somehow inherently discriminatory to bike infrastructure. Which as I mentioned earlier , is factually incorrect when time after time the results of these studies more often than not lead the BETTER biking infrastructure and address issues like the ones Steveintoronto often points out in here to less than enthusiastic response and is often painted as anti cycling when it's anything but.

I mean, fair enough that that's your take on it, but I just don't think reality bares that out. I also think (though perhaps this is a tad unfair because I may be reading more into some of your comments than you intended) that you're conflating a combination of environmental assessments, design consultations, and holistic studies like the one just completed on Bloor -- those are three very different entities. Nowhere have I argued for putting in a piece of infrastructure without considering the best way to design it -- that's dumb! I'm talking about the duality we're stuck with in this city mostly because Council is so car-obsessed.

Take the Bloor bike lanes vs. the Gardiner East -- it's an extreme but perfect example of this: bike lanes have been studied all over the world, including in Toronto, and time after time they produce many of the same positive results without many of the negative ones that their opponents continually claim. Yet, still, to put in place a short and underwhelming bike lane on Bloor, the city had to conduct what is, in the words of the city's own head of transportation, "the most thorough study of a bike lane in North American history."

I, and Matt Elliott, think that's dumb, unfair, unhelpful, and unfortunate. But that position in no way necessitates the conclusion that either of us are ruling out either or both of design consultations or environmental assessments. If Council acted with an ounce of that rigour with respect to their decision on the multi-billion dollar Gardiner East (as opposed to the $500K Bloor bike lanes), we'd be getting a boulevard there and the city's coffers would be many hundreds of millions of dollars more full (or less bankrupt, I suppose).

(And, for what it's worth, I quite enjoy many of our friend Steve's posts (they've certainly led me down some interesting rabbit holes).

 

[BMO]

I mean, fair enough that that's your take on it, but I just don't think reality bares that out. I also think (though perhaps this is a tad unfair because I may be reading more into some of your comments than you intended) that you're conflating a combination of environmental assessments, design consultations, and holistic studies like the one just completed on Bloor -- those are three very different entities. Nowhere have I argued for putting in a piece of infrastructure without considering the best way to design it -- that's dumb! I'm talking about the duality we're stuck with in this city mostly because Council is so car-obsessed.

Take the Bloor bike lanes vs. the Gardiner East -- it's an extreme but perfect example of this: bike lanes have been studied all over the world, including in Toronto, and time after time they produce many of the same positive results without many of the negative ones that their opponents continually claim. Yet, still, to put in place a short and underwhelming bike lane on Bloor, the city had to conduct what is, in the words of the city's own head of transportation, "the most thorough study of a bike lane in North American history."

I, and Matt Elliott, think that's dumb, unfair, unhelpful, and unfortunate. But that position in no way necessitates the conclusion that either of us are ruling out either or both of design consultations or environmental assessments. If Council acted with an ounce of that rigour with respect to their decision on the multi-billion dollar Gardiner East (as opposed to the $500K Bloor bike lanes), we'd be getting a boulevard there and the city's coffers would be many hundreds of millions of dollars more full (or less bankrupt, I suppose).

(And, for what it's worth, I quite enjoy many of our friend Steve's posts (they've certainly led me down some interesting rabbit holes).

I mean fair enough, that's the beauty of how this all works, differing views and opinions being shared on here. I appreciate you furthering the discussion.

I guess at the end of the day we get the government we deserve. Anything to do with transit and cycling is going to be political and I guess this is where I agree to disagree in the sense that yes bloor was a thorough study, maybe in relevance to north america, but I personally wouldn't consider it to be any more arduous than what any EA or TPAP process requires which is why I have my stance. As for the gardiner, etc that's just how it is, studies get cancelled all the time (look at Allen Rd EA), but maybe I do see where you're coming from, if I'm reading correctly, is that just getting politicians to do cycling studies is a challenge and that maybe council, who decides what gets studied, doesn't dedicate the resources, that you believe are required, toward bike infrastructure.

Anyway I think Toronto has a great future for cycling thanks to these discussions that go on in the community.

 

[steveintoronto]

Here's an example of where calmer waters lie in the "Cycling Advocate" debate ensuing here. I've been amassing a large amount of information on the Toronto cycling situation, probably too much, as I can't keep track of it, but dug this one out last night. It makes a point on both sides of the debate, and I certainly can't be accused of being "condescending" and getting banned for it like last time.

Half of Toronto cyclists aren't visible after dark
Approximately 200 cyclists are stopped for not using lights during the launch of Cycle Toronto’s Get Lit! campaign Tuesday night

by Michelle da Silva, NOW Toronto

October 8, 2015
12:59 PM

[...]
As the number of daylight hours dwindles, Toronto cyclists are being reminded to use extra caution on the road. Installing bike lights and wearing reflective gear helps cyclists stay visible before dawn and after dusk. Many Toronto cyclists, however, continue to risk their lives.

On October 6, members of cycling advocacy group Cycle Toronto waited at the corner of Beverley and Dundas West, part of a popular bike route downtown. Within the first two hours, roughly 200 cyclists were stopped for not using lights.

“What we found is that about 50 per cent of cyclists ride without lights. That’s too high,” says Cycle Toronto’s executive director Jared Kolb. “We want to ensure that going forth, more cyclists – and eventually all cyclists – will ride with lights and reflective gear on their bikes at night.”

To promote cycle safety after dark, Cycle Toronto has partnered with Toronto Police and McLeish Orlando, a critical injury law firm, to launch the Get Lit! campaign this month. Once a week for the rest of the month, Kolb and his team will set up along one of the city’s major bike routes to stop unlit cyclists.

“In exchange for listening to us talk about the importance of staying visible, we’re giving them a free set of bike lights and installing them right there,” Kolb says. “Some people have a working front light but not a back light. Some have a back but not a front. We’re trying to help support the cycling community and do a bit of education in a positive way.”

In addition to safety risks, cycling without lights can result in a hefty fine. Recently, the Ministry of Transportation increased the fine from $20 to $110. Cyclists must have a front white light and rear red light when on the road in the dark. [...]

https://nowtoronto.com/news/half-of-toronto-cyclists-aren-t-visible-after-dark/

From some informal surveys I and other older cyclists have done, even 50% is optimistic. Ditto for running red-lights and stop signs, let alone looking before turning, not signalling, and listening on headphones while in control of a vehicle (impaired driving under the HTA).

But it can't be said that *off the record at least* Cycling Toronto doesn't realize the large safety issues of errant and ill-considered cyclist behaviour, and is trying to do something about it.

Will Cycling Toronto change cyclists' behaviour for the better? Doubtful, the majority, like drivers, don't realize their shortcomings. But I do applaud Cycle Toronto for trying. As to what conclusions they're reaching on the matter is an interesting question...

Addendum: "Many Toronto cyclists, however, continue to risk their lives." And the lives of other cyclists!

I can't count the times I've turned onto a bike lane only to find an idiot with no lights a metre away from me and on-coming at speed. Fortunately I have the acceleration in most instances to assert distance from the oncoming errant. But that works two ways, I've also run into cyclists ahead who are nothing more than a dark shadow apparent only when collision is imminent, stopped for no apparent reason in the middle of a bike lane. It's just lucky that impacts have been controlled and no damage has occurred to me or my machine.

That's another example of where the City is going to have to engineer (street lighting in this instance) to take into account that many cyclists don't use common-sense, let alone follow the law.

It's far more than uncompliant cyclists being a danger to themselves. They put others at risk too. Many sections of Adelaide and Richmond lanes are very poorly lit, as is the Waterfront path.

 

[UserNameToronto]

We should remember there are all kinds of cyclists...from the homeless guy on a stolen bike, to the public servant commuting to work, to the kamizake bike courier. Just because one type of cyclist breaks the rules does not mean they're all nuts...

 

[steveintoronto]

We should remember there are all kinds of cyclists...from the homeless guy on a stolen bike, to the public servant commuting to work, to the kamizake bike courier. Just because one type of cyclist breaks the rules does not mean they're all nuts...

Which is exactly why I quoted Cycle Toronto's real-life survey. It takes the "people who wear Argyle socks and cycle..." factor out of the debate. 50% covers them all.

My impression is that over 50% don't have lights, but for the sake of the discussion, I'll accept 50%.

Full disclosure: When I was younger, I never had lights either. I was an idiot, albeit in partial defense of myself at the time, I was broke and destitute at times, and lights were expensive and ineffective in many cases back then. There's no excuse now, they're relatively cheap for minimum necessary, and for the best, about $50 a crack for a *very bright* front white LED. I often wonder how visible it makes me to oncoming traffic, and still have to stop others oncoming with highly visible ones to ask: "I saw you blocks away, how visible am I?" And I'm reassured by the answer being same.

I used to think the altered cadence modes were gimmicky, just the regular flashing one was sufficient, until realizing when motorists and other cyclists glimpse in a mirror or directly, you *have to get their attention* and the broken cadence ones do that the best.

Bike lights have come a long, long way, weigh next to nothing, easily stashed when not needed.

There's no excuse for not having good lights if you value your life. And that of others...

 

[W. K. Lis]

Which is exactly why I quoted Cycle Toronto's real-life survey. It takes the "people who wear Argyle socks and cycle..." factor out of the debate. 50% covers them all.

My impression is that over 50% don't have lights, but for the sake of the discussion, I'll accept 50%.

Full disclosure: When I was younger, I never had lights either. I was an idiot, albeit in partial defense of myself at the time, I was broke and destitute at times, and lights were expensive and ineffective in many cases back then. There's no excuse now, they're relatively cheap for minimum necessary, and for the best, about $50 a crack for a *very bright* front white LED. I often wonder how visible it makes me to oncoming traffic, and still have to stop others oncoming with highly visible ones to ask: "I saw you blocks away, how visible am I?" And I'm reassured by the answer being same.

I used to think the altered cadence modes were gimmicky, just the regular flashing one was sufficient, until realizing when motorists and other cyclists glimpse in a mirror or directly, you *have to get their attention* and the broken cadence ones do that the best.

Bike lights have come a long, long way, weigh next to nothing, easily stashed when not needed.

There's no excuse for not having good lights if you value your life. And that of others...

The problem is that bicycles do not come with lights already on them, like motor vehicles. Maybe the city, province, or feds should require that all new and used bicycles must have lights and either a horn or bell already on them.

 

[Fred.S]

The problem is that bicycles do not come with lights already on them, like motor vehicles. Maybe the city, province, or feds should require that all new and used bicycles must have lights and either a horn or bell already on them.

I don't know if it was mandated, but when I was shopping for a bike in Amsterdam, they seemed to all come with integrated lights, bells, rear wheel lock, and even an attached hand pump. The only accessory I needed to buy was a bike lock. Was nice...

 

[salsa]

Another thing for cyclists to look forward to.