Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

[W. K. Lis]

They don't want to show the number of trips per car. But we can do the math. This per day.

New bike trips on Bloor = 1200
Fewer bike trips on Harbord/Dupont = 900
Net new bike trips = 300

net decrease in car trips = 2500 (calculated estimate)
(not this is not traffic volume but mode share...number of users vs number of cars)

Total decrease in throughput = 2200

So there are 2200 fewer trips on Bloor. Unless the bike trips pick up significantly it is a hard business case for the trial to become permanent. The actual use of the road vs the warm and fuzzy stuff....numbers are easier to sell.

Forgot the Line 2 Bloor-Danforth transit riders numbers. If one wants speed, use the subway.

 

[amnesiajune]

Seriously, dump this idea that fewer cars is always better. The reality is that no city the size of Toronto can be a bike-only or transit-only city. There's a need to accommodate pedestrians, bikes and public transit, but there's also a need to accommodate private cars and car-share programs (and the city needs to do way more to accommodate programs like Zipcar and Car2Go). Nothing gets accomplished by talking about Jarvis like a drunk Texan talks about the Alamo.

 

[ADRM]

Seriously, dump this idea that fewer cars is always better. The reality is that no city the size of Toronto can be a bike-only or transit-only city. There's a need to accommodate pedestrians, bikes and public transit, but there's also a need to accommodate private cars and car-share programs (and the city needs to do way more to accommodate programs like Zipcar and Car2Go). Nothing gets accomplished by talking about Jarvis like a drunk Texan talks about the Alamo.

No reasonable person is arguing for a city with zero cars. That's not remotely what the Bloor bike lanes pilot is about.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I'm glad to see the data coming out. It largely validates my own anecdote experience with respect to more cyclists, greater traffic congestion. I would also be interested in acident data. Ironically, even given the greater feeling of safety polled I wouldn't be surprised to see a slight increase in conflicts and accidents.

The economic impact should also be interesting. I would expect to see a slight negative impact; however, the devil is in the details. If you are a bar you probably don't care or even welcome the lanes. If you are a furniture store you might as well close your business. As a commercial landlord in the area I am financially agnostic (although logistically annoyed). As a resident I am slightly in favour. However I do see this raising costs in the area and trending the commercial tenants towards a monoculture. My own business decisions regarding rents and tenants will be reflected over time with the changing landscape.

 

[TransitBart]

Not people - cars. For all we know they're carpooling and the street is transporting more people in cars.

You must be kidding.

 

[W. K. Lis]

No reasonable person is arguing for a city with zero cars. That's not remotely what the Bloor bike lanes pilot is about.

But more and more cities are charging for automobiles to enter the downtown. See link. May not be zero, but they have to pay to do so.

Electronic Road Pricing gantry in Singapore, the first city in the world to implement an urban cordon area congestion pricing scheme.

The result will be more people walking, biking, and using public transit. Which is what we want. It would also make deliveries better without the congestion caused by single-occupant automobiles.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Unfortunately, we still have people, including councillors, who do not want to design Toronto streets for everyone, not just drivers.

See PDF on Complete Streets Guidelines for Toronto, at this link.

 

[steveintoronto]

Unfortunately, we still have people, including councillors, who do not want to design Toronto streets for everyone, not just drivers. See PDF on Complete Streets Guidelines for Toronto, at this link.

That was excellent! I feared having to watch a politicized presentation, I'm growing allergic to politicos playing up contentious issues. All that appeared in this vid were staff and associated professionals, and they had excellent points, and made in a very positive way.

I actually feel a lot more optimistic on things in this city after having watched that. We do still have to push this in the political realm, but it's encouraging not have to take a shower to wash off the filth after doing so...

 

[W. K. Lis]

WARNING! This film would be rated RESTRICTED by some anti-cycling councillors! Not recommended for the real "silent majority" in the city of Toronto who want better cycling infrastructures.

 

[steveintoronto]

WARNING!...

Two way bike lanes make a lot of sense as opposed to separate ones each side unless there's lots of space for both sides. Psychologically, it's far easier navigating in a dual two way due to the capacity to overtake, and that extra room that is still bike lane, even if it is oncoming. It's *not car lanes*!

 

[W. K. Lis]

Used to be that the city built infrastructure around the city to water the horses.

Then the city started spending much, much more to take care of the automobile.

Now it's time for the bicycles' turn.

 

[steveintoronto]

For all the compromises of this displayed model, compared to all the compromises of the present Bloor Lanes, this comes out way on top, but shares one massive shortcoming common to both: The lack of a concrete barrier in lieu of just bollards. Bollards can be put on top of a a concrete curb/barrier. (with breaks for emergency vehicles).

Why does the vista above seem so open and spacious, even beyond the oncoming cycling lane? Because the whole very ill-thought out "safety behind parked cars" doesn't exist, and so you have *open sight lines* to see, and be seen. I read of some cyclists proclaiming the safety of being behind parked cars. Those cyclists scare the hell out of me, they haven't a clue of the danger they're in, and the danger they put other cyclists in by being so unaware. Drivers opening doors on you are preferable to passengers doing it! At least you can often suss a motorist about to open the driver's door, or hedge your bets on it. Passengers? It can be and often is just totally random. But that problem disappears completely with above. Pedestrians a danger? Absolutely, but you can see them, still a lot more acceptable than door prizes. And impact will a lot more forgiving. I'm sorry if a pedestrian gets hurt from not looking, but far better the offending party get injured than the innocent, as cyclists are usually with door prizes.

I see from the render link that it is of Bloor St, and from the Council! If they're going to do this right, that would be the way to do it, or closer to the way. That actually looks inviting!

http://www.blogto.com/upload/2013/12/20131218-Council-BloorRender.jpg

And the City has to forget this idea of staggering parking from block to block. Two-way bike lanes one side of the street, parking the other. Note how those cycle lanes are actually no wider than the thinnest ones now on Bloor, and yet there's a real spacious sense. One huge faux pas though. The centre line on the bike lanes should be dashed in all but a few danger spots (approaching signaled intersections, for instance).

I feel the road center yellow line should also be dashed to allow overtaking, with caveats, one being a lower speed limit, and the other only where safe. My preference would be solid, but pragmatism to be able to sell this to motorists has to rule, and that's to allow overtaking where safe, so if some muddling moron is dithering away stopped, or waiting for a parking spot the other side of the street (it will happen, a lot), then it doesn't block traffic.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Dramatic increase in 'dooring' incidents affecting Toronto cyclists
Advocacy group Cycle Toronto asks for infrastructure improvements to address issues.

From link.

The dreaded cyclist door prize is on the rise.

From 2014 to 2016 there was a 58 per cent increase in reports where car drivers or passengers opened their door and hit an unsuspecting cyclist. U.S. reports have estimated that these collisions account for 10 to 20 per cent of vehicle to bike collisions.

Jared Kolb of Cycle Toronto, the advocacy group that analyzed and publicized the information, hypothesized that the increase could partially be due to better reporting, more cyclists, and the growing popularity of ride-sharing services.

Regardless, he says more needs to be done to safeguard the city’s cyclists.

“These numbers we have are likely minimums,” he said, explaining that many collisions between bikes and cars go unreported.

“More people are riding, and doing so without the improved infrastructure they need.” Kolb added that an extended Bloor bike lane, removing on-street parking on streetcar routes, promoting the “Dutch Reach” and building out more bike lanes would help address the issue.

Kolb highlighted specific problem areas for doorings, including along downtown streetcar routes and at busy intersections like Yonge and Bloor. He added that routes with bike lanes had fewer incidents.

“Infrastructure is the number one way to prevent these collisions.”

The province increased the fine for dooring cyclists from $60 to $365 in August 2015, along with introducing three demerit points. But so-called “doorings” still increased 19 per cent in 2016, to a total of 209 incidents.

Public works chair Jaye Robinson said the City and Toronto Police are well aware of the issue, and addressing it as part of their ongoing Road Safety Plan.

“Dooring is clearly a serious problem,” she told Metro, adding that the steep increase is a concern.

But Robinson said that after council passed the Road Safety Plan last summer, and funding was included in the budget last month, the City is ready to make progress on the issue. “We’ve got more resources to tackle this and we’re going to push ahead.”

She added that the City has sufficient resources and data to address the issue, and is looking at international best practices in places like Washington D.C., New York City and Sweden.

Metro Explains: The “Dutch Reach”

The Dutch Reach means using the far hand to open the car door, which forces an over-the-shoulder look to see what’s behind you. It’s considered a common sense technique in the bicycle-friendly Netherlands, and in 2016 a retired doctor tried to introduce the idea to Massachusetts. So far no public education campaigns have focused exclusively on the Dutch Reach, but it’s been mentioned as part of campaigns in Montréal, Toronto and San Francisco.

Why is the Toronto "standard" for bicycle lanes, the single one-way bicycle lane?

Wouldn't a two-way bicycle lane be safer? Then the bicyclist can actually see the person opening the door?

 

[amnesiajune]

Wouldn't a two-way bicycle lane be safer? Then the bicyclist can actually see the person opening the door?

There's a tendency across Toronto politics (including from cycling advocacy groups) to want bikes to be treated "like cars", rather than something that isn't a car. So the logical deduction of the "like cars" philosophy is that, like any car that travels slower than normal traffic, they should be on the right side of the road. Creating a separate road for bikes makes a lot more sense, but violates the "like cars" principle.

 

[UserNameToronto]

Spring update - much more (cycle) traffic in the lanes this week. Yesterday I was in a bunch of 10+ on Richmond around 8:00am. Strength in numbers; it feels good.

The redesigned Yonge/ARichmond junction is much better for pedestrians, however this is where I turn left to head south each day and it seems a though there's always some sort of conflict here. A left turn box through the intersection would be a welcome addition.