Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

[ADRM]

Very simply, the success such as it be of the test such as it be, will be whether the good citizens of the city are not in open war with each other over sharing the inadequate street geography for all the modern uses. And whether there is sufficient consensus in the masses for the politicians to push this along. And whether we all got where we are going on time or whether some people (commuters) never found a new routine which leads to permanent unrest.

The designers of Toronto 100 years back did not leave a lot of space for all the stuff that seems to be a part of modern life. Pedestrians, mail boxes, paper boxes, transit shelters, hydrants, garbage and recycling bins, bike storage, and trees and planters on the sidewalks. (Aside, Man those new bike share stations take up a lot of space!) Add parking, bike lanes, bus and streetcar ROW and the whole thing is very tight.

The "war" here is over space. The city could do a great deal to mitigate the war by putting a significant part of the infrastructure underground. Oh wait, those are called subways. (Another thread...discussion...)

And whether it's cars or the honkin' bike storage picture from Holland that we keep seeing, parking space is a real need. I suppose we could task Green P with ensuring adequate bike storage in some quarters where every vertical post and them some is already occupied.

In the end, my own view is that bad governance and shocking lack of vision from city hall, home of the fourth largest municipal government on the continent created this. Had the proper underground heavy rail subway infrastructure been built over the past thirty years, the need to reclaim space on arterial roads would not be the competition it us now.

Some threads here debate how we can afford subways. Personally I can't see how we can't. There is not enough space left on the surface to accomplish the transit and "public realm improvements" which are high on Toronto's want list.

Next battleground. Yonge. But it's really intimately connected to the Relief Line. Ok. Brick it up. I like pretty walkways and cafes as much as the next bloke. I enjoy them. Some are great places to bike and poke around. But having removed that as a transit option, what remains? Problem solved. There is a fabulous subways already built right underneath. Great. Oh wait. The thing is bursting at the seams. If the Relief Line and other improvements were in place, then the commuters and travellers displaced by cycling infrastructure, would have options. It is not displacing them that creates the "war", but rather displacing them to inadequate (or frankly zero) alternatives that match their health and lifestyle. Those are in short supply today.

There are numerous Green P lots along the stretch of Bloor included in the pilot. Most of them are routinely under capacity. Inadequate space for parking along Bloor is a myth.

 

[steveintoronto]

Note the passenger door opening, ironically with a cop adjacent. But notice also why there isn't a problem: The model copied by the Bloor Experiment uses *inadequate spacing*! Far too little. Part of the reason the present Bloor Experiment is going to end in grief. Watch the entire video to see more examples of how this model is successfully implemented. One of the problems for Bloor is that it is two-way traffic, one of the reasons that the cycle lane appears to best to be two-way, due to limited space.

If the scenario above is repeated (and it will be, to great grief) on the Bloor example, that horse would be severely injured, and/or cyclists. Note also in the full video how passing is easily catered to by the ample space marked off, but available to pass in.

LOL! I just noticed that the cyclist left front centre of the screen is taking a pic...of the parked vehicle passenger opening their door on the cop. It's obvious that they *really* weren't looking.

 

[steveintoronto]

There are numerous Green P lots along the stretch of Bloor included in the pilot. Most of them are routinely under capacity. Inadequate space for parking along Bloor is a myth.

I can confirm that! Even on-street side street parking was available when I toured there an hour ago, and drivers *still* insisted on blocking other drivers and cyclists by trying to jam into the end of the allocated white line demarcated parking bays. I suggest the City have cops and by-law enforcement on hand Monday to start getting the message through.

 

[steveintoronto]

Note the 'slip lane'..."turn lane"..."segue" to turn above, and the bold instructions on the through lane with arrows indicating 'straight ahead only'. That vehicle segue to approach the turn is enough to slow, look, and proceed when clear, completely missing from the Bloor example.

I think I'm now understanding the thinking behind the present Bloor mess. They thought they could adapt a tried model from elsewhere, tossing out the safety features of the proven model to make it fit for the highly limited Bloor one. Even the example displayed above has limitations, but it can and does work. On Bloor, there is no opportunity for vehicles to *attain the lane* before turning at an intersection. Accidents are inevitable. Note also the sharrows for bikes across the intersection. Does it do anything? Minimally, but it makes clear that bikes cross at that point, and for motorists to proceed with caution.

I highly recommend watching this video to see how the Bloor model can work, just not on Bloor! A model can and will work, it's just not this one for Bloor.

 

[steveintoronto]

Notice the car turning, he has just slowed to a stop, indicating, excellent approach and driving 'English' (cyclists know his/her intention from it: You can tell that by their body-English) and lots of room to safely complete the turn when the cyclists present a clear a gap, which is imminent judging by the oncoming stream.

This is street dancing! Great rhythm, excellent harmony and melody, and no-one gets their toes hurt.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I'm beginning to believe that Ontario (and by extension North America) traffic signs and laws have never taken bicyclists into consideration. For comparison, here are signs and regulations in The Netherlands.

 

[TransitBart]

There are numerous Green P lots along the stretch of Bloor included in the pilot. Most of them are routinely under capacity. Inadequate space for parking along Bloor is a myth.

Let us not be simplistic or disingenuous here. First and foremost the street is an arterial road. The introduction of bike lanes will change its capacity (even modestly). While parking is a factor, it is not the highest order casualty of the change.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Went to the ROM on Friday and saw several cars parked across the new bike lanes. I've never understood this obviously failing, since the fix, that being flexible bollards is so easy.

 

[W. K. Lis]

There are numerous Green P lots along the stretch of Bloor included in the pilot. Most of them are routinely under capacity. Inadequate space for parking along Bloor is a myth.

I'll bet that several of those drivers on Bloor Street itself are trying to park without paying, since they are "only going in for a few seconds". Parking at the Green P means they will have to pay, unless they are "only going in for a couple of minutes".

 

[steveintoronto]

I'll bet that several of those drivers on Bloor Street itself are trying to park without paying, since they are "only going in for a few seconds". Parking at the Green P means they will have to pay, unless they are "only going in for a couple of minutes".

Indeed, but when I passed yesterday, there were spots on the side streets to park...no charge. It's not the cost of paying that stops them, it's the sense of entitlement and egocentricity that they count more than cyclists, more than the law. You see it all the time with drivers who double park with an empty spot a car length behind or in front of them, or those that pull up onto the sidewalk to park on residential streets with open spots and driveways right next to the house they're in.

Ticket time.

 

[ADRM]

I'll bet that several of those drivers on Bloor Street itself are trying to park without paying, since they are "only going in for a few seconds". Parking at the Green P means they will have to pay, unless they are "only going in for a couple of minutes".

That may be true, but that's not a user behaviour we should design infrastructure or legislate policy around.

 

[ADRM]

Let us not be simplistic or disingenuous here. First and foremost the street is an arterial road. The introduction of bike lanes will change its capacity (even modestly). While parking is a factor, it is not the highest order casualty of the change.

Are you aware of the data that indicates that traffic flow improves when replacing parking with bike lanes? People suck at parking, so that makes perfectly logical sense.

 

[steveintoronto]

Are you aware of the data that indicates that traffic flow improves when replacing parking with bike lanes? People suck at parking, so that makes perfectly logical sense.

I'll Google the source(s) later, but agreed, studies have shown if not improve, virtually match the rate of throughput but in a much more orderly fashion conducive to neighbourhoods and other users of the thoroughfare.

Every time I take a look again at the Bloor experiment, mentally and actually, the better solution is the double bi-directional lane one side, concrete curb (min a foot wide) and parking the other side. Drivers aren't going to stop or park in the moving lane, and passenger egress on the parking side will be as it was before bike lanes.

There is another solution, but I can't see the city doing this, nor should it: Bloor become one-way. That's why the NYC Amsterdam St works. Same width as Bloor, but one-way vehicular and cycle lane direction. Hamilton is trying to undo her one-way noose, but it is one of the reasons that the bike lanes on Richmond and Adelaide are so effective and relatively (note *relatively*) safe and fast flowing. The psychology of cycling on Adelaide and Richmond lanes is much more conducive to predictability and speed. There isn't a good amount of space to overtake, but ample, especially if following protocol of a minimal 'ting' from the bell while doing it.

As to Bloor being an experiment to judge further examples, the City had best take another look, and immediately. Bloor as is cannot be the example to use, it's compromised in so many ways, almost all of that down to very poor implementation and available space. There are far better examples to judge by in Toronto that are already extant.

 

[P23]

There are numerous Green P lots along the stretch of Bloor included in the pilot. Most of them are routinely under capacity. Inadequate space for parking along Bloor is a myth.

That's true, Bloor has an abundance of parking due to the cut & cover construction of the subway which left plenty of open lots behind the North side buildings. As I said before, I think they were too generous with the on-street parking in this pilot. It's not necessary in most sections. In fact, the only place I can think of where it's required is in front of Lee's Palace for the tour buses.

 

[amnesiajune]

I really don't get why Hamilton is trying to undo one-way streets. Toronto is virtually alone as a city with a road grid but without predominantly using one-way streets. It improves traffic flow, and it makes more room for things like bike lanes. Imagine how much faster traffic would move if you flipped Church and Bay (for example) to three-lane, one way roads with a separated two-way bikeway. Or imagine if Queen and King were turned into one-way streets with two traffic lanes and a two-way streetcar, or two traffic-lanes, one-way streetcar service and a separated bikeway