MisterF
Senior Member
Great posts guys! I had no idea about the bike network in Minneapolis. Yet another example to disprove the "bike lanes are a waste because winter" argument.
|
|
|
Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
bennessb
editor at large
This morning I was waiting for the light at Sherbourne and Richmond and watched at least 3 cars pull into the new bike lane to get out of the otherwise jammed traffic. So frustrating to watch.
I read an article a while ago comparing the car to the landline, and it was an interesting way to think about the whole car fad thing.
I read an article a while ago comparing the car to the landline, and it was an interesting way to think about the whole car fad thing.
Napoleon
Active Member
Have they actually painted any of the permanent infrastructure yet on Richmond? When I was out that way on Friday, it was just lightly sketched, so one couldn't really blame the cars for ignoring it.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Thanks for the compliment!
Even if there were few bikes on College in the winter -- the efficiency of the College bike lanes of the rest of the three seasons, more than make up for the fewer bikes in the winter. i.e. College vehicles-transitted-per-square-meter-per-year now still favours bikes even if there were no bikes for a few winter months.
For road-surface allocation, we only need 100 bikes on College for every 400 cars -- only 19% of the road is allocated to bikes.
Thusly, anything more than 100 bikes for every 500 cars, is a spetacular success (on a vehicles-transitted-per-square-meter basis).
Now there's over 500 bikes for every 500 cars during a good peak period, that's not subject to dispute.
It builds up a comfortable margin that can be used up during the winter, whether the lanes are lightly used (or shut down for other purposes, such as temporary emergency windrow storage, as long as things are dusted/mopped up right after snowmelt).
Obviously, Sherbourne isn't there yet, but if the Richmond/Adelaide crosstown bike lanes fully connects to them, and now we've got the Queens Quay, and perhaps other bike routes coming in the next 2-3 years, the equation may very well shift to fully favour bikes even on a "vehicles-transitted-per-square-meter-per-year" basis, with the summer peaks and winter valleys. It took time for Minneapolis bikeways (1990s) and Amsterdam treeless/bikeless roads (1970s) too.
As a car driver, I certainly thought the "at-first-empty" Sherbourne bike lanes were expensively too ahead of their time, but apparently now usage is catching up (at least during AM peak) especially this year after the Queens Quay fully opened. This will continue to become more popular, when more protected connections occur and the current painted rough-ins get full protection installed (Richmond/Adelaide protected cycle tracks). As we get more complete protected cycle net work, it will finally really show its worth in moving more grand total people through downtown, like they apparently are starting to.
Last edited:
UserNameToronto
Active Member
I rode the Richmond lane into work today. Bollards are not yet in place. Paint markings go from Parliament to Church at the moment (they are being extended a block or so every few days). It was nice, but there was only 1 other cyclist with me. I suspect that once they're fully built and publicized these will be well used. A welcome addition for Financial District cycle commuters like me.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
They need excellent markings going all the way through the intersection like those used in other cities and other countries -- e.g. for left/right turning cars going through intersections. These HELP safety quite a LOT, as you can't install full protection inside the intersection. Whatever is done, the paint planning through an intersection now need to include bikes when connecting protected cycleways on both sides. Ideally, a full green-painted path painted all the way through the intersection, would be ideal.
-- that makes it very clear for cyclists (and very clear to me as a driver too!)
Safer for drivers, safer for bikes. Like in other cities/countries.
wild goose chase
Active Member
It seems like in fact, there's hardly much of a correlation between how good the typical climate and weather is and bike-friendliness, at least in North America.
Minneapolis and Chicago are snowy and bike-friendly, while places in Southern California or the Sunbelt more broadly that have more pleasing climates still favour automobile over cycling infrastructure.
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/04/...t-exert-much-influence-on-biking-and-walking/
If snow made a bigger difference as a deterrent, wouldn't you expect the less snow and the nicer the climate, the more people would bike and walk instead of driving?
andrewpmk
Senior Member
College St also has one of the highest bike accident rates in the city. Riding a bike around streetcar tracks is dangerous. Also the number of people riding 506 streetcars vastly exceeds the number of people driving and riding bikes combined.
Outside of a handful of isolated areas around downtown, the number of people who ride bikes in the GTA is practically zero. Virtually no one rides bikes in Scarborough. It is extremely dangerous. People get killed while riding bikes regularly in the GTA even though very few people ride bikes. Riding a bike is the most dangerous method of transportation except motorcycling (which is even more dangerous).
Outside of a handful of isolated areas around downtown, the number of people who ride bikes in the GTA is practically zero. Virtually no one rides bikes in Scarborough. It is extremely dangerous. People get killed while riding bikes regularly in the GTA even though very few people ride bikes. Riding a bike is the most dangerous method of transportation except motorcycling (which is even more dangerous).
LNahid2000
Senior Member
Some citations please? You just keep repeating the same thing over and over without any proof.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Assessment of danger aside, cycling in Toronto is still safer than driving in some of America's most dangerous cities. Danger statistics vary quite a bit.
Doesn't mean that downtown 416 cycle infrastructure shouldn't be further upgraded, including eventually a protected College cycle track.
The condo-dense parts of downtown 416 are being interconnected, and anything nearby (e.g. east bayfront, etc) the existing cycle infrastructure, must be connected up for improved safety.
Doesn't mean that downtown 416 cycle infrastructure shouldn't be further upgraded, including eventually a protected College cycle track.
The condo-dense parts of downtown 416 are being interconnected, and anything nearby (e.g. east bayfront, etc) the existing cycle infrastructure, must be connected up for improved safety.
UserNameToronto
Active Member
Update: markings are now painted on Richmond westbound from Parliament to Bay. For me this is great as my morning commute is now entirely in bike paths (Sherbourne & Richmond). Presumably they're going to install bollards too, and I would like it if the pavement was painted green (not sure if that's in the plan or not, since this is still a pilot project).
I would guess that the Richmond lane will keep being extended eastbound until it connects with the existing lane at Simcoe, then the Adelaide lane work would begin thereafter.
Last edited:
aquateam
Active Member
So I'm going to give my 2 cents:
1) Days with the temperature below zero is an ok metric, but that doesn't account for the amount of snow or precipitation.
2) SoCal and the Sunbelt both experienced most of their growth post-war, whereas the established north-east has more of its building stock from back when urban form was more compact, so that could be a compounding factor. I.e. colder areas were settled first so they have a more bike-friendly urban form.
That being said, I agree that the effects of snow may be overstated (I only bike to work in the summer, and only occasionally, but I know people who somehow do it year round).
If anything, I think it's a bit of a tragedy that SoCal isn't more bike friendly given how conducive the climate is to outdoor activity. I've taken highway 101, and the scenery there is so beautiful.
It is true. Different sources give different estimates but generally, per minute spent travelling by bike it's the second most dangerous after motorcycling.
The focus should be on how to get the rate down, in the same way that the aviation industry has steadily improved their safety record year over year.
Portland has managed to have a number of years with no cycling fatalities, despite a high rate of biking. Amsterdam and Copenhagen rarely have cycling fatalities despite (or because of) the dominant biking mode share.
It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Bicycling is dangerous per person hour kilometer because there are very few dedicated facilities for it and drivers aren't used to their presence. But without cyclists, there isn't justification for dedicated facilities and drivers won't become habituated to checking for cyclists.
It's a similar situation with Smart cars. People perceive them as dangerous because if they get into an accident, they will be the smaller car and are more likely to be injured/damaged. But if everyone else drove small vehicles too then they wouldn't be at a relative disadvantage, and everyone would be safer (especially pedestrians).
mdrejhon
Senior Member
There are multiple ways to measure death rates, but obviously, the question is how to improve these statistics. Protected cycle infrastructure is definitely one of them, and is very worthwhile in very condo-dense areas of Toronto, being an area of permanent new bike ridership.
Even simple things improve safety. Green bike paint on the road (or other very clear markings) would really be very welcome through the intersections of protected bike lanes, so cars know where the bike routings are. Less stressful for both cars and bikes alike.
the lemur
Senior Member
Napoleon
Active Member
They do plan to install bollards. We might get lucky and they might install some of the planters as well. I don't think green paint is planned at this time, and it should all be wrapped up by the end of the month.
Thanks for attempting to bring a bit of data to this debate. The data in that link is from a survey that's over 15 years old…helmet usage and bike infrastructure have changed dramatically. It's also averaged over all ages and areas. Some more recent data from UBC can be found here:
http://cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/injuries/
This shows that in Canada its safer than being a pedestrian and only a bit more dangerous than driving.
One can also look at historical data that demonstrate exactly what you say that shows that infrastructure makes a difference:
http://www.sharetheroad.ca/what-are-the-dangers-in-terms-of-cycling-safety--p128277
This is older data, but it clearly shows that as rates of cycling increase, the risk of a fatality decreases. Likely improvements in infrastructure that are concomitant with increased bicycle mode share also influences that trend.
So now we have some facts in this thread.
Andrewpmk: Would you like to go for a cycle ride sometime? Maybe if you got to experience some of the examples of good infrastructure that have been built you might experience a change of perspective. Happy to give a mini tour.