News   Mar 28, 2024
 1.3K     3 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 644     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 921     0 

Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

^Looks like this happened before they added bollards.

The issue with Queens Quay is more with drivers making left or right turns when they're not supposed to, and potentially hitting cyclists who have right of way.

Agreed, that section, though very brief and post-bollard installation, is the best stretch in the city. It's maybe 200 metres total, though, so sigh.

Stretches of Richmond and Simcoe are also much better now that the local BIAs have added the planters between the bollards, though the city deserves no credit for that.
 
And if you think "complaining" about poorly designed safety infrastructure is a bad thing, then you just need to get out.

If you think there's any type of bike infrastructure that won't draw endless complaints from a vocal handful of cyclists because it isn't flawless, you're just wrong. The city could straight-up ban cars on certain streets and there would still be complaints about all these new bike riders getting in the way.
 
If you think there's any type of bike infrastructure that a vocal handful of cyclists won't endlessly complain about because it isn't flawless, you're just wrong. The city could straight-up ban cars on certain streets and there would still be complaints about all these new bike riders getting in the way.

Even if that were true, you're saying that's an argument not to construct adequate safety infrastructure? If so, then you're just a jerk.
 
Give me a quote where I said that...

Well what's the conclusion to your repeated points on this thread about people complaining about the Gerrard and Bloor bike lane pilot designs? I've been reading your commentary that it is "people will complain regardless of design, so it doesn't matter how we design them" -- if that's incorrect, feel free to correct me.
 
Well what's the conclusion to your repeated points on this thread about people complaining about the Gerrard and Bloor bike lane pilot designs? I've been reading your commentary that it is "people will complain regardless of design, so it doesn't matter how we design them" -- if that's incorrect, feel free to correct me.

What I'm saying is that the vocal handful ignore all the benefits of what the city does and all the drawbacks of the alternative. They just focus on the drawbacks of what's been done and the benefits of the alternative. The current design of Gerrard has the drawback that parked cars don't work as a buffer for the bike lane. The design of Bloor has the drawback that there's not much room between parked cars and the bike lane. The drawback of a wider buffer would be a narrower bike lane. No matter what the city does, people who are looking to complain will find something to complain about.

Is what the city did on Gerrard perfect? No, but nothing is perfect. It's fine, it's very safe, and it's not significantly less safe than any feasible alternative. So let's not complain.
 
What I'm saying is that the vocal handful ignore all the benefits of what the city does and all the drawbacks of the alternative. They just focus on the drawbacks of what's been done and the benefits of the alternative. The current design of Gerrard has the drawback that parked cars don't work as a buffer for the bike lane. The design of Bloor has the drawback that there's not much room between parked cars and the bike lane. The drawback of a wider buffer would be a narrower bike lane. No matter what the city does, people who are looking to complain will find something to complain about.

Is what the city did on Gerrard perfect? No, but nothing is perfect. It's fine, it's very safe, and it's not significantly less safe than any feasible alternative. So let's not complain.

I see where you're coming from, but two things:

First, with respect to Gerrard, it's plainly untrue that the current design is any of "fine", "very safe", or "not significantly less safe than any feasible alternative." It's plainly much more dangerous to have parked cars not serve as a buffer not only because they're obviously not serving as a buffer, but because they're pulling into and out of the bike lane every time they park or exit their space and because they present an omnipresent dooring risk.

It's so simple to just move the parking out from the curb and it's significantly safer, and I just don't agree with the assertion that most cyclists wouldn't trade the resulting curve in the bike lane for the added protection.

Second, I disagree that the city deserves credit for what it has done - and, frankly, what is has planned to do over the next decade - with regard to cycle infrastructure. The reality is that Toronto has a tiny, disjointed patchwork of protected bike lanes (and other infrastructure) in the city, and it lags sorely behind global leaders (and even global laggards) in that regard. That's plainly true.

If you believe that granting credit for what little they've done is a good way to encourage them to do much more, then of course I respect your right to express that opinion, but I think that's a dangerous approach given that most of our councillors flat-out hate bikes, and many say things like "look how much we've done for cyclists in this city."

What's worse is that there's not much light at the end of the tunnel: the 10-year cycling plan, even if fully constructed as planned (which is a huge "if") does little for improving downtown cycle network connectivity. What's more, every single project tentatively approved under that plan still has to go to a vote at council, and it's probably all dead if the Bloor bike lanes are voted out after the pilot.
 
Routing lanes to the passenger side of parked cars, if street parking is to be retained at all, is always preferred. That's what a real protected bike lane is, rather than most of the crap we have in the city.

If the bike lane is on the passenger side and if the passenger opens the door, then the cyclist is trapped by the curb. I prefer the arrangement that the city did, where the bike lane is straight and I have the option of giving the car a wider berth if I think someone is going to jump out. It's not black and white.

And if you think "complaining" about poorly designed safety infrastructure is a bad thing, then you just need to get out.
No, you are wrong. Cyclists generally don't complain about design safety measures that reduce the likelihood of them dying.

We're all urbanists here. No need for all the snark.
 
If the bike lane is on the passenger side and if the passenger opens the door, then the cyclist is trapped by the curb. I prefer the arrangement that the city did, where the bike lane is straight and I have the option of giving the car a wider berth if I think someone is going to jump out. It's not black and white..

Well, firstly, in well designed parking-protected bike lanes there's a buffer zone wide enough for passengers to open their doors without hitting cyclists.

However, if there isn't, I'd sure as hell rather have to ride/fall/crash onto the sidewalk than into a lane of live traffic if I got doored.
 
There is room on the suburban arterial roads (two traffic lanes in each direction, turn lanes, boulevard, sidewalk) to put in bicycle lanes.

bfc61f40686dc634b6_7rm6bxgg5.jpg


Yet only the downtown arterial roads are getting them, with protests. Time to start putting them on the suburban arterial roads now, not later.

See link for examples.
 
Well, firstly, in well designed parking-protected bike lanes there's a buffer zone wide enough for passengers to open their doors without hitting cyclists.

That extra buffer is likely coming out of the bike lane (since the car lanes can only get so narrow), which means less room for bikes to pass other bikes, avoid pedestrians, etc.
 
If the bike lane is on the passenger side and if the passenger opens the door, then the cyclist is trapped by the curb. I prefer the arrangement that the city did, where the bike lane is straight and I have the option of giving the car a wider berth if I think someone is going to jump out. It's not black and white.




We're all urbanists here. No need for all the snark.

If you think "we're all urbanists here", frankly, you're ignoring many of the threads on this forum.
 
That extra buffer is likely coming out of the bike lane (since the car lanes can only get so narrow), which means less room for bikes to pass other bikes, avoid pedestrians, etc.

That's right, though my personal opinion is that the reduced width there is a decent tradeoff to make for proper physical separation from cars. I acknowledge that not all agree with that, although I know many do.
 
That extra buffer is likely coming out of the bike lane (since the car lanes can only get so narrow), which means less room for bikes to pass other bikes, avoid pedestrians, etc.
I said "well-designed," so I'm not sure where having restricted rights of way came from. :)

It's just a matter of priorities. Cyclists lives are pretty far down the list in this town's current political climate.
 

Back
Top