Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

[GraphicMatt]

The point is you're not comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing what you want to compare only because it makes your argument sound better. Too bad it's not the whole truth. An honest comparison is an apples to apples comparison ie. with bike lane vs. without bike lane. If you want to remove that turn, then the valid comparison is with bike lane without that turn vs. without bike lane, without that turn.

Without that turn (or those turns as the case may be), and 5 lanes, the Jarvis trip by car would likely be even faster than it was before.

Yes, and if you removed all the traffic lights it would be even MORE faster!

Transportation Services will make modifications to the Jarvis & Gerrard intersection sometime this summer which will improve traffic flow. With this done, car trips on Jarvis are expected to take only one-to-two minutes longer than they did prior to the change.

Now that the lanes are there, you need a damn good reason to remove them. An easily-solvable design problem does not qualify as a damn good reason.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I don't have the means to record video, so here are some shots today of Jarvis Street looking south at Wellesley taken at 3:00pm, 5:20pm & 5:50pm, respectively. Unless there is a lane blocked by police, paramedics, fire department etc. traffic flows pretty smooth. Paws OFF Ford(s).

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.

 

[Eug]

I don't have the means to record video, so here are some shots today of Jarvis Street looking south at Wellesley taken at 3:00pm, 5:20pm & 5:50pm, respectively. Unless there is a lane blocked by police, paramedics, fire department etc. traffic flows pretty smooth. Paws OFF Ford(s).

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.

I no longer take that route, but I used to actually ride that route or drive that route, albeit against traffic. (I lived downtown but worked midtown.) It has always been quite slow (going the opposite direction of the way I was going). A further delay of four minutes would make it just painful. Some may use the misleading argument that changing the turn options would partially compensate, but others would just say they should have made those changes earlier, bike lanes or not.

While I agree it's unfortunate people want to spend money again to change it, I think the city's measurements of traffic flow suggest to us that the original decision to install bike lanes there may not have been the best choice in the first place.

Good or bad though, I think Ford will push this. It's a low hanging fruit in terms of votes vs. cost. A good compromise would be to implement something like what is described in the thread in terms of separated bike lanes (not on Jarvis) at the same time, but unfortunately I don't see him doing that any time soon. Too bad though, since that would be a win-win situation for bikers and drivers alike, and would be relatively cheap.

 

[reaperexpress]

Truthfully, I'd rather the city had stuck with a more holistic approach to the beautification of Jarvis Street. The reversible lane always needed to be removed, but I might have preferred wider sidewalks to bike lanes. Or a landscaped median. As it happened, discussion of further improvements to Jarvis seemed to grind to a halt after the bike lanes were installed.

The difference between widening sidewalks and adding bike lanes is that one actually helps people to get around the city. As far as I'm aware, Jarvis' sidewalks are not crammed to capacity, so we're better off allocating the space to cyclists because, they're more likely to alleviate the city's transportation issues. Bicycles are a more viable alternative to cars than walking because they have much higher speed and range. Very few people live within walking distance of their work, yet huge numbers live within cycling distance.

The point is you're not comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing what you want to compare only because it makes your argument sound better. Too bad it's not the whole truth. An honest comparison is an apples to apples comparison ie. with bike lane vs. without bike lane. If you want to remove that turn, then the valid comparison is with bike lane without that turn vs. without bike lane, without that turn.

I think he's talking about the bike lane because we're talking about bike lanes, not because he wants to be unfair. A truly fair comparison would wait for them to fix the signal timing. You can basically regard the current delay as a temporary "construction-type" delay in the sense that they haven't finished the transition to the new road layout. The reprogrammed signal would not have sped up traffic much with the old layout because the middle lane served as a left turn lane anyway.

What good is it to compare just one single piece of infrastructure to another without looking at the big picture? That's like saying that a transit tunnel would be pointless because alone it doesn't accomplish anything. Well, yeah... You have to build stations and/or portals too.

While I agree it's unfortunate people want to spend money again to change it, I think the city's measurements of traffic flow suggest to us that the original decision to install bike lanes there may not have been the best choice in the first place.

How do you come to that conclusion? One extra minute for car drivers is the only thing that counts? The measurements are consistent with what was predicted, so I don't see how they would change anything. The bike lanes have been successful for their purpose: to make cycling safer, more enjoyable and more popular. They also have the added benefit of making the sidewalk a bit more pleasant by moving the cars further away.

 

[Eug]

The measurements are consistent with what was predicted, so I don't see how they would change anything.

Actually no. It seems that previous misleading post has accomplished its task. Again, here is the actual text from the very article he posted... but neglected to quote appropriately.

""But the northbound afternoon rush is taking longer with some car trips taking up to 14 minutes — four minutes longer than the eight to 10 minutes forecast by the city.""

 

[GraphicMatt]

Seriously, I am okay with the debate but continuing to insinuate that I was leaving out information or otherwise being deceitful to support my argument is ridiculous. I did indeed refer to the signal timing issue in my original post. If you disagree with my assessment, that's fine, but please stop with the insulting rhetoric. It's beneath you.

 

[grey]

Here's a video that explains how they've implemented separated lanes in New York City:

http://publictransitadventures.tumb...eetfilms-video-that-tries-to-de-emphasize-the

Rob Ford's position is that painted bike lanes are inadequate and unsafe, but they've worked extremely well in Manhattan and Brooklyn, where they're separated from traffic by a row of parked cars.

 

[Eug]

Here's a video that explains how they've implemented separated lanes in New York City:

http://publictransitadventures.tumb...eetfilms-video-that-tries-to-de-emphasize-the

Rob Ford's position is that painted bike lanes are inadequate and unsafe, but they've worked extremely well in Manhattan and Brooklyn, where they're separated from traffic by a row of parked cars.

Well, parked cars are physical barriers. That's a reasonable idea, but only on roads where they would have road parking in the first place.

In essense though, they're just a different form of separated bike lanes. Also, in that same video they have roads with bike lanes separated by physical barriers and no parked cars as well.

 

[iceman2g]

Here's a video that explains how they've implemented separated lanes in New York City:

http://publictransitadventures.tumb...eetfilms-video-that-tries-to-de-emphasize-the

Very nice video, it'd be nice if we seen some of those measures implemented here.

 

[grey]

Well, parked cars are physical barriers. That's a reasonable idea, but only on roads where they would have road parking in the first place.

In essense though, they're just a different form of separated bike lanes. Also, in that same video they have roads with bike lanes separated by physical barriers and no parked cars as well.

I've experienced those first-hand in Chelsea and they were effective. I think our painted lanes are clearly not ideal, but they do separate cyclists from cars at a substantially lower cost. They aren't the safest method, but calling them unsafe is nonsense.

 

[reaperexpress]

The only thing unsafe about Toronto's bike lanes is that some of them put cyclists in the door zone. The fact that they aren't physically separated doesn't make them unsafe. Bike-car injuries generally happen at intersections, often with cars sideswiping bikes while turning. How often do cars just randomly crash into bikes while both are driving in a straight line?

Separated lanes aren't necessarily bad, but they have to be designed right, otherwise they create more accidents at intersections because bikes are less visible to drivers. This risk can be dealt with using lights, as is done in New York and the Netherlands, but that reduces efficiency by forcing both cars and bikes to wait for the correct cycle regardless of traffic conditions. Overall I think that downtown, where cars tend to be moving slowly anyway, that segregated lanes are over-hyped.

I fear that if we try building segregated lanes, they will end up being done improperly because the city is not willing to sacrifice auto capacity and we will end up with the worst of both worlds: taking up more space and costing more, without being any safer.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Actually no. It seems that previous misleading post has accomplished its task. Again, here is the actual text from the very article he posted... but neglected to quote appropriately.

""But the northbound afternoon rush is taking longer with some car trips taking up to 14 minutes — four minutes longer than the eight to 10 minutes forecast by the city.""

I'll quote Doug Ford from Thursday's news, "I would like to eliminate 'em, we've had more complaints about the bike lanes on Jarvis than any other road in Toronto, hundreds and hundreds of people." When questioned with Ford's allegation City Councillor for this Ward, Kristyn Wong-Tam, countered with a smile, "Hundreds and hundreds? no, definitely we haven't received hundreds no. I don't think we've even had one hundred." The report goes on to state that "despite a staff report that shows traffic is only slowed by a couple of minutes with the reduced lane", Doug Ford continues, "It's driving motorists crazy. You'll see thousands of cars and one biker and the cars are backed up for an hour".
So to briefly analyze Ford's statements: "thousands of cars and one biker"? It would take at least 30 minutes for Jarvis Street to carry a thousand cars from top to bottom and you'll see plenty of cyclists along the way. Ford: "cars are backed up for an hour", this never happens. Ever. I live here and can view Jarvis Street down to around Dundas/Shuter streets and I never see that.
On Friday around 3:45pm I walked from Wellesley down to Carlton (a seven or ten minute walk) to catch the streetcar west. I counted 32 cyclists using the bike lanes in the time it took to walk there.
If they want to speed up travel on Jarvis Street they could look at the signals where bottlenecks occur, but then it would turn Jarvis Street back into the speedway that it used to be.

 

[Eug]

I'll quote Doug Ford from Thursday's news, "I would like to eliminate 'em, we've had more complaints about the bike lanes on Jarvis than any other road in Toronto, hundreds and hundreds of people." When questioned with Ford's allegation City Councillor for this Ward, Kristyn Wong-Tam, countered with a smile, "Hundreds and hundreds? no, definitely we haven't received hundreds no. I don't think we've even had one hundred." The report goes on to state that "despite a staff report that shows traffic is only slowed by a couple of minutes with the reduced lane", Doug Ford continues, "It's driving motorists crazy. You'll see thousands of cars and one biker and the cars are backed up for an hour".
So to briefly analyze Ford's statements: "thousands of cars and one biker"? It would take at least 30 minutes for Jarvis Street to carry a thousand cars from top to bottom and you'll see plenty of cyclists along the way. Ford: "cars are backed up for an hour", this never happens. Ever. I live here and can view Jarvis Street down to around Dundas/Shuter streets and I never see that.

On Friday around 3:45pm I walked from Wellesley down to Carlton (a seven or ten minute walk) to catch the streetcar west. I counted 32 cyclists using the bike lanes in the time it took to walk there.

That's fine, but I made none of those claims in my post. In fact, I didn't even know Ford had said something like that. So, nice strawman. All I said was that 4 minute delay would be quite painful, on top of its already slow speeds.

If they want to speed up travel on Jarvis Street they could look at the signals where bottlenecks occur, but then it would turn Jarvis Street back into the speedway that it used to be.

Jarvis has never been a "speedway" in recent times. It was just not as slow as it is now, but that didn't make it a speedway. In fact, before the bike lanes people complained about how slow it was. They complained more when the bike lanes went in.

In contrast, I don't think I've EVER heard anyone complain about driving speeds on Sherbourne… and there are bike lanes there. This makes sense of course, since Sherbourne isn't a small arterial road for the City of Toronto.

 

[rbt]

Jarvis has never been a "speedway" in recent times. It was just not as slow as it is now, but that didn't make it a speedway. In fact, before the bike lanes people complained about how slow it was. They complained more when the bike lanes went in.

I can assure you that pedestrians were not complaining about Jarvis being slow. Still not a great street for pedestrians but it has improved since the bike lanes went in as it feels less like Lake Shore and more like a street you can live on.

My own personal wish for Jarvis is wider sidewalks and curbside parking.

 

[Chuck]

5 lane roads? Everyone run for the hills!!! And by hills I really mean any number of the word's great cities.

Jarvis needs retail, and it needs to shed its bad reputation. The width of pavement has nothing to do with either, and certainly hasn't made people any less likely to avoid the street. Decreasing the absurd density of crack addicts, shelters, and prostitutes will accomplish far more for corridor than painting on bike lanes.