As does College St. right here in Toronto
|
|
|
Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
the lemur
Senior Member
The NY Times' analysis of LA's mobility plan is also more than a little flawed:
http://bikinginla.com/2015/09/08/mo...road-diet-petition-and-a-ciclavia-sneak-peek/
http://bikinginla.com/2015/09/08/mo...road-diet-petition-and-a-ciclavia-sneak-peek/
mdrejhon
Senior Member
(Sorry, "the lemur", reposted with correct quoting -- this was directed at andrewpmk)
This distorts the number somewhat. In a city, anywhere within 100 meter of a protected cycle track, you see bike usage go up dramatically -- e.g. 1 bike for every 3-4 cars. Or 1 bike for every 1 car (in some really progressive European city)
But if only 1/6th of the road surface is allocated to bikes, it's fair for 1 bike for every 6 cars.
By this metric, 1 bike for every 4 cars is spetacularly successful in moving more people through a city, because less than 1/4th of the road is allocated to the bikes, because the road is now moving more grand total people as a result, thanks to the introduction of cycle infrastructure -- even if there is only 1 bike for every 4 cars (in a 1/6th surface allocation scenario).
On certain streets like College during a really, really good day -- you begin to approach bike parity (1:1 bikes:cars) yet only have a tiny fraction of the road allocated to the bikes. You realize how successful bike infrastructure is, as part of a city solution. Even as a car driver.
Toronto has extremely poor cycle infrastructure and distances are vast, so studying data based on the 416 rather than 905 makes a lot more sense, and then breaking the data further into areas closer to protected cycle infrastructure -- you start to realize it is not so hare-brained after all (like you're trying to say it is).
Again, I am a car owner, and am frustrated at driving through Toronto, so stop dismissing me as a bike zealot. I am NOT. Please understand the data. You are being patently silly. I can appreciate the data, even if I have mixed feelings with it.
Stop staring at that empty suburban bike lane (and hating it as a driver) and TURN YOUR HEAD to look at the proper infrastructure. Duh!
Further shooting down your logic, let's confine ourselves to area with bike infrastructure.
This distorts the number somewhat. In a city, anywhere within 100 meter of a protected cycle track, you see bike usage go up dramatically -- e.g. 1 bike for every 3-4 cars. Or 1 bike for every 1 car (in some really progressive European city)
But if only 1/6th of the road surface is allocated to bikes, it's fair for 1 bike for every 6 cars.
By this metric, 1 bike for every 4 cars is spetacularly successful in moving more people through a city, because less than 1/4th of the road is allocated to the bikes, because the road is now moving more grand total people as a result, thanks to the introduction of cycle infrastructure -- even if there is only 1 bike for every 4 cars (in a 1/6th surface allocation scenario).
On certain streets like College during a really, really good day -- you begin to approach bike parity (1:1 bikes:cars) yet only have a tiny fraction of the road allocated to the bikes. You realize how successful bike infrastructure is, as part of a city solution. Even as a car driver.
Toronto has extremely poor cycle infrastructure and distances are vast, so studying data based on the 416 rather than 905 makes a lot more sense, and then breaking the data further into areas closer to protected cycle infrastructure -- you start to realize it is not so hare-brained after all (like you're trying to say it is).
Again, I am a car owner, and am frustrated at driving through Toronto, so stop dismissing me as a bike zealot. I am NOT. Please understand the data. You are being patently silly. I can appreciate the data, even if I have mixed feelings with it.
Stop staring at that empty suburban bike lane (and hating it as a driver) and TURN YOUR HEAD to look at the proper infrastructure. Duh!
Last edited:
muller877
Senior Member
What really frustrates me is the cities obsession with on-street parking. Removing it could create bike lanes, make streetcars faster and speed up vehicles. Win for everyone other than the city who loses revenue.
Of course they would have to find alternative parking for shops and residents alike. But when residents try to solve it themselves (i.e. renting out their spot) the city says it may be illegal. I think the issue of parking can be solved by allowing residents to rent out their spot (including a small tax paid to the city), reducing parking requirements on already built condos (as long as they covert spots to pay per use) and in limited circumstances having the city add parking to some condo's as a requirement to get the permits.
Napoleon
Active Member
It really does baffle me that major streets in the downtown core have so much parking. The costs to gridlock almost surely exceed what is gained in revenue. Off-street parking is simply the way to go in a major city.
DarnDirtyApe
Active Member
So, anyway... if I were to try to ride on Richmond tomorrow morning what would the situation be like?
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Really no loss in revenue, because cars will reach municipal parking garages faster, filling it sooner, with more revenue.
Even without that at all, the mere indirect economic benefits of moving more people on the same road (on bikes, on cars, on streetcars) massively outweighs loss of streetside parking in the core.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
I interpret what you describe as the "bike priority" routes as being de-facto Complete Streets (at least many of them).
Your suggested "bike priority" streets don't completely ban cars, but they could prioritize people overall (pedestrians, bikes, transit, etc). So you're still already advocating a Complete Streets approach, just from a different angle / POV -- i.e. Complete Streeting a partial grid.
Last edited:
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Speaking of the topic of Complete Streets, this street has become far more walkable, bikeable, and people-friendly.
A bigger grand total of people now travel the street total (combined) than when it was cars-only:
(From Brent Toderian's tweet - a well known Complete Streets advocate)
Even without painted bike infrastructure, it's quite obvious it's preferable to bike the road on the right.
This one even has more streetside parking, as a calculated trade-off in a balanced way, although in other cases it is best to remove the parking depending on the circumstances. Lots more impressive before/afters at http://www.techinsider.io/urbi-before-after-gallery-2015-8
A bigger grand total of people now travel the street total (combined) than when it was cars-only:
(From Brent Toderian's tweet - a well known Complete Streets advocate)
Even without painted bike infrastructure, it's quite obvious it's preferable to bike the road on the right.
This one even has more streetside parking, as a calculated trade-off in a balanced way, although in other cases it is best to remove the parking depending on the circumstances. Lots more impressive before/afters at http://www.techinsider.io/urbi-before-after-gallery-2015-8
Attachments
Last edited:
reaperexpress
Senior Member
And therefore this is an example of complete streets - a network of streets that accommodates every mode well. It's just a matter of microscopic vs macroscopic.
Instead of having every street do an adequate job for every mode, we would instead have most major streets do an excellent job for one or two modes. Which is better for everyone. Have you seen drivers trying to make turns off Richmond/Adelaide through the stream of bike traffic? It's hair-raising for drivers and cyclists alike.
Take in contrast the scenario where through car traffic is removed from King Street (i.e. diverted onto Richmond/Adelaide/Wellington/Front). Conflicts between bicycles and motor vehicles would mainly happen at right angles where the routes cross. Bikes/streetcars heading east-west, cars/etc heading north south. No bikes blocking your ability to turn right off our signal co-ordinated traffic sewer, and no cars making you cringe while riding along the bicycle route (is this driver going to yield before turning?).
Then there's the question of signal co-ordination. Who do we co-ordinate for on a street that caters to all modes evenly? Green wave for bikes? or for cars? Probably a compromise that's just okay for both. With an unravelled network, the answer is obvious - green wave for bikes on the bicycle-priority street, green wave for cars on the car-priority street. (And effective transit priority overriding both of them on the transit priority street).
How about a transit mall?
Yep, that's what I had in mind for King Street.
Love the map. The only issue I have is that what you call orange, other people call yellow
How about amber?
mdrejhon
Senior Member
By North American standards, that's still pretty Complete Streets, relatively speaking. Not the European style, but...
Also, it can be generational (e.g. 20 years). Take College 20 years from now -- what if pressure occurs to put a fully protected cycle track through it. The existence of DRL in 20+ years from now, can dramatically shift priorities, as well, even if it goes nowhere near College, due to commute flow pattern changes.
Once you've optimized a healthy bikes/cars balance (Toronto-wise, like College), for now, it is only minor tweaks (like sidewalk trees, good benches) to also make it attractive to pedestrians, so you've added a third mode, although in some sections the pedestrian area is not very wide because of current road width allotment to cars and bikes. There is no cycle track (fully curb-protected cycle path) on College, though the debate of putting a cycle track through the cycle motherlode within 20 years (one generation) certainly makes sense. How it will evolve, I have no idea. But it's almost hitting critical pressure point nowadays during summer season and when College is up for full refurbishment in one generation from now, pressure might occur to put a cycle track on it. Sometimes Complete Streets is an incremental approach, since we have some very massive bike congestion on College Street, that may put extreme pressure to putting a fully protected cycle track someday through there, especially once it's time to refurbish the route. , especially consider
For Toronto specifically, perhaps. It's so structurally designed in a way that it is hard to Complete Streets downtown Toronto. The density, the zoning, the challenging point A-to-B opportunities -- the contrast between areas such as Sherbourne (better bike infrastructure but less destinations) versus College (less bike infrastructure but more destinations). Car owners would be frustrated if we tried to Complete Streets College or Sherbourne in a way similiarly to what European cities did.
That's certainly true.
But don't forget generational changes, too.
In 20 years from now, with demographics catching up, transit changes (GO RER, LRTs, eventually DRL, etc), less car ownerships. Even today, less than 50% of people now get their driving license by age 20; kids prefer smartphones as their first expensive "teenage freedom" gift nowadays. Now, look forward 40 years from now (I'm being conservative), we can hail self-driving Zipcars/Ubers/BeckTaxis which'd be great public transit connectors too. In 60 years from now....well, who knows? We might be Complete Streets through the half or whole downtown by the end of the century, because of these changes, with only minor tweaks in priority (for transit flow efficiency, bike flow efficiency, etc) but would otherwise altogether be far more people-friendly on average than today (each and every one of them).
Last edited:
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Richmond bike lane installation update September 10, 2015:
The lane was painted today between roughly Sherbourne and Church street. So it now stretches from Church to Parliament.
West of Church is chalked out, they'll probably do it tomorrow.
Bird's eye view of the conflict between bicycles and turning cars. I'd call it poorly designed except that it doesn't look like it was designed at all.
The number of people cycling along Richmond today is way higher than normal, which doesn't make sense to me. How do people even know that there's a bike lane on Richmond now? It's only a few hours old!
Yes, I was talking about specifically Toronto. Furthermore, I was talking about the small area in downtown Toronto in and around the financial district where we have a ridiculously dense grid of arterial roads. My suggestions do not apply in other contexts, even within Toronto. For example, there are few direct routes in the suburbs other than the major arterials for cars, and those arterials have wide rights of way. As a result in the suburbs it's likely more practical and effective to accommodate everyone on the same arterial roads than with overlaid grid like I suggested for the financial district.
The lane was painted today between roughly Sherbourne and Church street. So it now stretches from Church to Parliament.
West of Church is chalked out, they'll probably do it tomorrow.
Bird's eye view of the conflict between bicycles and turning cars. I'd call it poorly designed except that it doesn't look like it was designed at all.
The number of people cycling along Richmond today is way higher than normal, which doesn't make sense to me. How do people even know that there's a bike lane on Richmond now? It's only a few hours old!
Yes, I was talking about specifically Toronto. Furthermore, I was talking about the small area in downtown Toronto in and around the financial district where we have a ridiculously dense grid of arterial roads. My suggestions do not apply in other contexts, even within Toronto. For example, there are few direct routes in the suburbs other than the major arterials for cars, and those arterials have wide rights of way. As a result in the suburbs it's likely more practical and effective to accommodate everyone on the same arterial roads than with overlaid grid like I suggested for the financial district.
andrewpmk
Senior Member
The city's bike accident map shows a rather large number of bike accidents on College Street in spite of it having "bike lanes". Bike lanes do not make bicycling safer.
The number of people who ride bikes in NYC is a rounding error compared to the millions of people who take the New York Subway.
Riding bikes and bike lanes are dangerous and I think that the whole bike thing is a fad. It is a craze that started growing rapidly during the recession around 2009 or so. Bicycling wasn't very popular even 10 years ago, when there were few bike sharing systems in existence. The number of people who ride bikes in Toronto is extremely small and I think you will find that the vast majority of the population agrees with me on this (just like the vast majority of the population is against tearing down the Gardiner, thinks Toronto needs a larger subway system, etc.) If you find that the odd road in NYC has more bikes than cars it is because few people drive in NYC (and you will probably find that the number of pedestrians or people taking the subway is several orders of magnitude larger).
wopchop
Building Toronto
Large number of bike accidents is not the same as the area being dangerous. It could simply mean that bicycle accidents are occurring there because that is where the bikes are.
Areas with large volumes of vehicles are also likely to have a large numbers of accidents than areas with no cars.
Areas with large volumes of vehicles are also likely to have a large numbers of accidents than areas with no cars.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
On top of misinterpreting statistics as Wopchop mentioned, you are also ignoring the fact that not all bicycle infrastructure is created equal, which I have already pointed out to you. Remember the "bike lanes" on Spadina that were less than a metre wide? Clearly those were not going to make cycling any safer. On the other extreme, try looking at Queen's Quay today and tell us with a straight face that installing the bike lanes has not made cycling safer there.
I fail to see any point here. Is any of us suggesting that cycling is the predominant mode of transport in NYC? Because all I saw is people pointing out that installing bike lanes in NYC has massively increased the number of people cycling and reduced per-mile crash rates.
The City of Toronto always reviews the operation of streets before and after bike lanes were installed, and if you actually looked at those reviews like you claim you did, you would consistently see a 100-300% increase in cycling when bike lanes are installed as well as a substantial increase when existing lanes are upgraded.
If your argument is about road safety, surely you should be comparing us the safest developed countries in the world - the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark etc. Places where you'll have absolutely no difficulty finding streets where bicycles outnumber cars. Keep in mind that if cyclists are more likely to be injured than drivers, it does not necessarily mean that getting people off bikes and into cars would make the roads safer. Because while cycling might make your own per-km injury rate slightly higher, it would reduce the chance of injuring someone else from a high rate basically to zero. So if you're interested in overall road safety (or for that matter your own road safety as a non-cyclist), you really should be advocating for other people to ride bikes rather than driving even if you would never do so yourself.