News   Nov 28, 2024
News Roundup for November 28, 2024
 208     0 
News   Nov 28, 2024
Sunlight Shining Towards Us
 373     1 
News   Nov 27, 2024
Towers to be Introduced to Longo's Site at 7 and Woodbine in Markham
 1.2K     4 

Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

ADRM said:
Only in Toronto would we spend money on bike infrastructure for a specific intersection while completely ignoring any semblance of network surrounding it.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is a bit of a network here already; this intersection was the problem.

There's the Adelaide Street cycletrack, which starts at Bathurst. Adelaide isn't great further east (due to construction, courier and delivery trucks) but it's an important bicycle route. West of Bathurst, Richmond and Adelaide are quiet streets suited to cycling; Richmond got a contraflow lane to allow cyclists to continue west at Bathurst. (The Richmond/Bathurst intersection isn't great either, but that's another story). But getting to the Adelaide cycletrack is extremely difficult from southbound Bathurst or eastbound Richmond and Adelaide; this reconfiguration fixes it.

So you have it wrong, fixing this specific intersection is about improving access to the emerging network around it.
 
steveintoronto said:
he design, as is, is a perfect recipe for a cyclist (who also have responsibilities not being met by many) getting hit as they are not visible to vehicles by the classic design fault addressed by the Dutch and Danes of being in a motorists' blind spot, and that's due to the angle of incidence being so low.
Click to expand...

Is there any record of this actually happening at Richmond and Bathurst? I get why it doesn't look great but it would take a lot of stupid actions (even by Toronto standards) from both the driver and bike rider to get into an accident over there.
 
After seeing the Dutch system, any ideas why we didn't do the same for our new cycling lanes? I'm still not fond of the raised lane on Sherbourne, and Richmond/Jarvis is very confusing with some right-turning (northbound Jarvis) drivers not going to the right of cyclists.
 
innsertnamehere said:
render of the bathurst-adelaide improvements:

Cs5UOryWYAArkwi.jpg:large
Click to expand...

Is it just me, but I see dead people! (Not to mention the dead cyclist going through a red light). But in all seriousness, I see at least two major issues:

What's to keep unobservant cyclists from not cycling south in the new dedicated north slipway? And that cyclist in the pic, going through the red...note that the drawing shows the new cyclist RoW to cross as being between two pedestrian crossways. Do cyclists then have to accumulate in the new slip channels to wait for a green to cross? Pardon my cynicism, I've just cycled across Richmond during rush hour again, and the designers of this have made far too many assumptions on the predilections of cycles and their need to follow protocol. I can immediately see what's going to happen. *Some* legal cyclists are going to wait like good plebes at the accumulating spot for their light to proceed. And jerk dead man cycling in the rendering above is going to T-bone them.
 
amnesiajune said:
Is there any record of this actually happening at Richmond and Bathurst?
Click to expand...
lol...I just saw one an hour ago! It's freakin' mayhem there, and no shortage of idiot cyclists, a number I yelled at. Motorists are bad, cyclists are a magnitude worse.

The one that got whacked had it coming to him. He went through every stop sign and cheated every red light from John St west, where I picked up the lane. I could describe more, but I won't. Typical jerk with no sense of protocol, law, courtesy or common sense. He's the kind that pulls in front of you every time you stop for a red, so he can go right through. And then when you pass him without even trying, his manhood gets affronted. So he does anything to try and win the race in his own mind. And gets whacked.

I call that Carma (Car in lieu of Kar).
 
ShonTron said:
Actually, there is a bit of a network here already; this intersection was the problem.

There's the Adelaide Street cycletrack, which starts at Bathurst. Adelaide isn't great further east (due to construction, courier and delivery trucks) but it's an important bicycle route. West of Bathurst, Richmond and Adelaide are quiet streets suited to cycling; Richmond got a contraflow lane to allow cyclists to continue west at Bathurst. (The Richmond/Bathurst intersection isn't great either, but that's another story). But getting to the Adelaide cycletrack is extremely difficult from southbound Bathurst or eastbound Richmond and Adelaide; this reconfiguration fixes it.

So you have it wrong, fixing this specific intersection is about improving access to the emerging network around it.
Click to expand...

Two parallel cycle tracks certainly does not a connected cycle network make. So, no, I don't believe I am wrong.
 
how does this ignore the network however? Its a key connection to fix a "missing link" in the network, to connect a busy cycle friendly residential street to a key east west bike corridor. It is the very definition of network building.
 
innsertnamehere said:
how does this ignore the network however? Its a key connection to fix a "missing link" in the network, to connect a busy cycle friendly residential street to a key east west bike corridor. It is the very definition of network building.
Click to expand...

Perhaps my initial comment was unclear; I meant "surrounding network" in the broader, city-wide sense, as opposed to the area immediately surrounding this particular intersection. Don't get me wrong, I believe the construction here is an obvious improvement.
 
I agree with you. We need to stop building these things one intersection at a time, five blocks at a time, etc.. and start building a large, coherent network. This intersection should have been fixed when the lanes were put in. We need bike lanes all the way across Bloor. With proper intersections. Not a bs pilot project. All the way across.
 
I think Shon nailed this:
"fixing this specific intersection is about improving access to the emerging network around it."

I have quibbles and doubts about the exact way it is being implemented, but the need to do it, and other intersections, is beyond critical. For cyclists who can follow an agreed protocol, this could be wonderful. What worries me are the ones doing the dance in dancing shoes, v the ones with boots on. Nothing ruins the cycle lanes working as much as bad cycling. And I'm not giving motorists a pass by any means, but rush hour shows the absolute worst of many cyclists. I've never felt so sorry for motorists, it's bizarre, but I've seen a number of them actually bullied and intimidated by absolute jerks on bikes. Today I saw one of them whacked. And he deserved it for cutting in front of moving car as if the car had the onus to stop for Almighty Him. These are the same ones cutting in and out of bike lanes dangerously, never looking, for other bikes or cars.

I went and looked at the Adelaide and Bathurst intersection today, and watched at Bathurst and Richmond, which is terribly laid out. Counting cyclists looking before crossing the sharrowed section where bikes move to the centre, and cars are mandated to turn either right or left onto Bathurst, less than half the cyclists even looked over their shoulders before changing lanes.

It's a good thing that many of those cyclists aren't driving. And I don't mean for the health of the planet. I mean for the safety of themselves and others on the road.
 
nrb said:
I agree with you. We need to stop building these things one intersection at a time, five blocks at a time, etc.. and start building a large, coherent network. This intersection should have been fixed when the lanes were put in. We need bike lanes all the way across Bloor. With proper intersections. Not a bs pilot project. All the way across.
Click to expand...
I agree, but in reply to another poster earlier lamenting as to why (gist) "Can't we do it like the Dutch and Danes?" there's a very simple answer: Because this is Toronto, and you can't change stupid by stomping up and down.

It's bitter irony, but the best hope for moving things forward is the merchants' sentiment on Bloor Street, and hopefully the ludicrous absurdity of the "test model" strikes them such that a clear majority state: "No more parking"! Remember, they were majority in favour of the lanes, and estimates are that only 10% of their trade is parked vehicle traffic. And even there, the 'better' stores will have even less than that. And their 'weight' at City Hall is much more pronounced. Take a look at Bloor between Avenue and Sherbourne. You can bet your cycling booties that those merchants, by an overwhelming majority, don't want parking out front of their businesses. They want pedestrian friendly sidewalks and atmosphere. And traffic flows through there in good order and predictability. I find it very bike friendly as a result.

Ditto the Long and McQuades and bike shops etc along Bloor. That's what we've got to work on! The merchants make or break this.
 
Last edited:
salsa said:
This Chicago news article has a positive impression of Toronto's cycling infrastructure.


http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/toronto-cycling-infrastructure-lessons/Content?oid=23850609
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, a lot of the claims are highly misleading. Won't list them all, but it starts with this:
[Canada's largest city recently overtook Chicago to become the fourth-most populous city in North America, with 2.83 million residents as of 2015, slightly more than our 2.72 million inhabitants.]
lol...Chicagoland (Greater Chicago plus) is more than the population of Canada.

Chicago is notorious for poor cycling infrastructure, which is why many other US cities are used for cycling comparison, not Chicago. Still, nice they like us! Toronto certainly doesn't rate well compared to other progressive cities when it comes to cycling infrastructure.

Edit to Add, Greater Chicago, let alone Chicagoland, is larger than the GTA:
If you live in Toronto, you likely heard yesterday’s inspiring news: Canada’s biggest city is now the fourth largest in North America, having overtaken Chicago in population, according to new data from Statistics Canada. But hold off on the confetti for one moment. Because while that’s true, it’s only half the story.

Now, bear with me while I get technical. Yes, the City of Toronto has overtaken the City of Chicago in terms of people living within its borders. As of July 1 of last year, Toronto had 2,791,140 people compared to Chicago’s 2,707,120—an 84,000 lead. But many would argue that those numbers don’t matter.

Why, you ask? Well, it’s because where a city draws its lines is somewhat arbitrary. Indeed, if Toronto hadn’t amalgamated in 1998, it wouldn’t be nearly as big as Chicago, at least not technically.

It’s also why a city like Vancouver is actually, believe it or not, the eighth largest in Canada. Wait, what? Yes, you heard me. Eighth, just behind Winnipeg and Mississauga.

You see, the City of Vancouver is unusually small. For example, North Vancouver and West Vancouver are separate cities—the latter even has its own police department. Of course, Greater Vancouver, which is what most people really measure, has close to 2.4 million people, making it the third largest metropolitan area in Canada.

Many people—on Twitter, naturally—have pointed this out, claiming that Toronto still has a long way to go to catch up with Chicago. This is because the Greater Toronto Area is about 6 million people, according to the latest StatsCan data, while Chicagoland, the colloquial term for Chicago’s metro region, is closer to 9.5 million.

So, then, is Toronto actually 3.5 million people behind Chicago? Eh, not quite. I told you this would get technical. [...]
Click to expand...
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blo...o-really-bigger-than-chicago-its-complicated/
 
ADRM said:
Despite his claims, I'm definitely questioning if the author of that article has ever actually been to Toronto.
Click to expand...
I'm reticent to criticize someone's positive impression of their visit, but you're right, there's an awful lot to improve, Toronto is hardly an example to follow for a progressive city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top