Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

[LNahid2000]

Yep, the HOV lanes on Bay are useless, because many drivers don't obey them, and cabs (who are the worst drivers) are allowed in them. I often see drivers who see the empty right lanes dangerously enter them to speed past all the cars in the left lane.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

It did not! https://www.bikesharetoronto.com/presto

DAMN! Now I have to tell all my friends that I lied to.

 

[steveintoronto]

As for Yonge Street, there are a lot of forces pushing for a fully pedestrianized Yonge, which would not include bike lanes. I'm leaning towards this idea, and hoping for bike lanes along Bay instead.

Don't know if that has serious inertia in City Council yet, but note the difference of Yonge Businesses to some of those on Bloor:

DYBIA executive director Mark Garner says "42 million people walk on Yonge Street, north and south, and that number is only on the increase."

His association is considering a proposal to reduce the number of lanes from four to two.

"One lane north, one lane south and then the extra lane that's currently there now would be pedestrian space," Garner said. "It'd be sidewalks and patio space to open up the street."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/yonge-street-pedestrians-1.3325551

I suspect that businesses, with that informed an outlook, would want to keep bikes on Yonge.

 

[LNahid2000]

Because that's the way it's set-up.

Please elaborate. I used Bike Share for a long time without even having mobile data. Mobile data was really expensive when I got my Bixi membership in 2011.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Please elaborate. I used Bike Share for a long time without even having mobile data. Mobile data was really expensive when I got my Bixi membership in 2011.

I don't get this claim either. You can order your membership from a desktop, and have a key card (a physical wallet-sized card) sent to you by regular mail. You can get unlock codes from a smart phone mobile app, but that's an option, not a requirement.

 

[UserNameToronto]

There have been some small changes lately to help make the bike lane network more useable. One I can think of is making Temperance Street in the Financial District 2-ways. This helps incoming morning commuters as they can now take a right and access the Bay-Adelaide towers, plus Scotia Plaza and related tower bike parking, without a walk westbound on Adelaide or an awkward turn-around on Richmond / Bay / Adelaide. Another upshot is easier access to the Bike Share station on Temperance. It's a small change, not connected to the network, but it makes the network function more smoothly.

There has been very little snow in Toronto this winter (but a lot of rain). Also, none of the real deep freezing cold. So far so good!

I did see a salting buggy in the bike lane today as it's wet and nearly freezing...sidewalks are treacherously slippery but the Sherbourne and Richmond bike lanes were totally fine.

 

[steveintoronto]

I don't get this claim either. You can order your membership from a desktop, and have a key card (a physical wallet-sized card) sent to you by regular mail. You can get unlock codes from a smart phone mobile app, but that's an option, not a requirement.

I could always stop and check my phone, but that's a hassle, and what about people who don't have smart phones, or data plans, etc.

 

[ADRM]

Just in case you thought for a moment that your city council cares at all about Vision Zero commitments or that cycling will become any safer in the next decade in this city, this:

I encourage you all to write to or visit in-person the offices of Holyday, Mammoliti, and Robinson to explain how disgusted you are at the commentary from the new Vice Chair and newest member of the committee charged with protecting vulnerable road users in the city.

 

[amnesiajune]

Just in case you thought for a moment that your city council cares at all about Vision Zero commitments or that cycling will become any safer in the next decade in this city, this:

4 of the 6 PWIC members and everyone else on council voted in favour. So the fact that it wasn't unanimous means that nobody cares?

 

[ADRM]

4 of the 6 PWIC members and everyone else on council voted in favour. So the fact that it wasn't unanimous means that nobody cares?

That's an oversimplification; all of these things are true, and this is the broader frame of the debate:
- The Vice Chair said, today, that it's time someone in this city stands up for drivers
- The newest member is the loudest "war on cars" voice on council (and one of the loudest in the city)
- The Chair originally set a "vision zero" goal that was something other than zero, only to cave under immense public and internal pressure to change the goal, and is fond of reminding us all "how much the city has done for bikes" recently

If the powers-that-be were serious about reducing vulnerable road user deaths, they wouldn't have stacked the committee charged with implementing the plan ostensibly created to achieve that goal with the most vocal opponents of it.

 

[amnesiajune]

That's an oversimplification; all of these things are true, and this is the broader frame of the debate:
- The Vice Chair said, today, that it's time someone in this city stands up for drivers
- The newest member is the loudest "war on cars" voice on council (and one of the loudest in the city)
- The Chair originally set a "vision zero" goal that was something other than zero, only to cave under immense public and internal pressure to change the goal, and is fond of reminding us all "how much the city has done for bikes" recently

Do either of those members have special power to make up for the fact that 67% of the committee disagrees with them?

 

[ADRM]

Do either of those members have special power to make up for the fact that 67% of the committee disagrees with them?

1. Yes, one is the Chair and the other is the Vice Chair, positions which carry additional power that directly affects the workings of the entire committee.
2. You're still trying to extrapolate the voting behaviour of the members on one single vote on a single pilot project to their broader attitudes towards bike infrastructure, which is obviously obtuse. If you know anything about the general leanings of members of council, you know that Peruzza is the only member who comes close to siding with safety advocates.
3. The original point stands: If there was a serious commitment to the road safety plan, you wouldn't have seen the two most staunch "war on car" loudmouths anywhere near this committee.

 

[salsa]

4 of the 6 PWIC members and everyone else on council voted in favour. So the fact that it wasn't unanimous means that nobody cares?

Sure, lets ignore some of the other votes that have not benefited cyclists or pedestrians. Lets ignore the basic problem that these decisions are being made almost entirely by suburban councillors with different interests. Lets pretend that Jaye Robinson is our ally even though she is often on the wrong side. Like like when she voted against the Bloor bike lanes, like when she supported the bike plan only after stripping out a key part of it which was the corridor studies (that trojan horse motion was approved 4-1). Like the fact that the committee opposes a modest increase in the cycling budget and vision zero, but when it comes to the Gardiner no cost is too high. There are lots of other examples I could cite, but I'm not gonna waste my time.

Do either of those members have special power to make up for the fact that 67% of the committee disagrees with them?

That Bloor bike lanes vote was tied 3-3. If just one member was absent in that meeting, the result would have been a lot different. You have two members that absolutely should not be on this committee, and a couple of other members that will often side with these two lunatics. But go ahead, keep defending them and pretending that the 67% will save us from every dumb motion, which they haven't. Considering that you have defended many (if not most) anti-bike stuff on this forum, I am not surprised.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Council can bring back items that were denied at committee level if they have to - its not like a large issue that fails at committee is done for good.

 

[salsa]

Council can bring back items that were denied at committee level if they have to - its not like a large issue that fails at committee is done for good.

Don't they need 2/3 majority vote to do that?