News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 601     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 2.8K     8 

General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

Admiral Beez said:
Then the city shouldn't lift a finger to do the work.
Click to expand...
I really don't know how they can push the city to do this. Even for priority projects, these kind of things can take years, for areas that have had new curbs, etc., installed.

If the province won't even fund the city properly to do the work - and is only absolving itself for liability, and not the city nor it's engineers - then why should the city not take it's usual 20-30 years to complete the work; presumably as part of the next scheduled street rebuild.
 
I think the amendments are saying that the Province has the authority to do the work to remove the Yonge, Avenue and Bloor bike lanes. So slow-walking by the City isn't really a factor.
 
far9521 said:

Here is the text of the amendment.

I would be so thoroughly disappointed if this passes.
Click to expand...
Okay Read it. The reimbursement part isnt that bad, ONLY IF the city isnt doing the construction.
If the province is doing it then it doesnt matter. The city can ask for costs related to providing utility and signage drawings.
The city cant ask for the costs of installation originally which was theorized.
 
There was also an amendment to change when the removal of bike lanes portion of 212 comes into effect, switching out "come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor." and replacing it with once it receives Royal Assent, which could be as soon as next week.
 
If I am reading the amendment right - the province is no longer mentioning University bike lanes but now Avenue Rd instead? Or have they simply added the Avenue bike lanes to be removed as well?

Perhaps the permanent infrastructure and contracts being signed on University scared them off?
 
goodcitywhenfinished said:
If I am reading the amendment right - the province is no longer mentioning University bike lanes but now Avenue Rd instead? Or have they simply added the Avenue bike lanes to be removed as well?

Perhaps the permanent infrastructure and contracts being signed on University scared them off?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not, but I can't find a mention of Avenue Road. Below is what I see:
Existing lanes in the City of Toronto, direction to remove
195.6 Subject to any prescribed exemptions or modifications, the Minister shall remove the bicycle lanes located on Bloor Street, University Avenue and Yonge Street, in the City of Toronto, and any related features, and restore the lanes for use by motor vehicle traffic.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • amendment.pdf
    3.1 MB · Views: 7
innsertnamehere said:
you say this as an absolute truth - but we know it's not. it's a gradient.

For example - say we took a lane off of rural Highway 10 between Brampton and Orangeville and replaced it with bike lanes. Do you think it's impact would be negligible and would overall improve economic output?

Obviously not. Nobody will be cycling from Orangeville to Brampton.

The example is a bit facetious, obviously - but there are degrees in between. On one end you have projects like Richmond-Adelaide and the waterfront trail extension across downtown - clear, unambiguous net positive lanes with heavy cyclist use and minimal impact on traffic. and the other, you have theoretical projects like the one I describe which would be laughably ridiculous and clearly not beneficial - but there are a million degrees in between. Bike lanes are not always absolutely beneficial. How many people on the road are making trips under 5km? how many destinations are available in cycling distance? employment opportunities? Is a lot of the traffic commercial vehicles or personal vehicles?

If you can add bike lanes without taking out existing capacity - it's always a win. But when you don't have that space, it needs a closer look of benefits vs. impacts.

For example - Bloor through central Toronto, while technically 4 lanes before the lanes, was mostly operating as a 2-lane street anyway given the huge number of parked cars and illegal stopping occuring. Converting it to a 2-lane road with bike lanes had a very minimal capacity impact for vehicles but provided a safe cyclist space in an area where it's easy to make trips by cycling with shopping, employment, and everything else within 5km for most residents. A win-win.

Further west though, into Bloor West Village - employment is more dispersed. Car volumes are much higher, and the road actually operates with 4 lanes of capacity at all times. It's harder to cycle places as more destinations are simply outside of cycling distance. The lanes effectively cut throughput capacity by 50% by removing a lane, but don't offer a viable alternative for many types of trips that locals make. Maybe it doesn't work out as well.

It's a weighted decision that has to be made - and is far from a universal one.
Click to expand...
One of my examples was to look at the people in the suburbs and where they are driving most of the time that isn’t work? Groceries, theatres, the mall?

I don’t see a single person at Costco switching to a bike trip even if there was a lane from their house to the store!
 
I've taken bikes to big stores before (not Costco specifically, but like Home Depot/Lowe's) and The biggest barrier I actually found was finding a place to park at the store. There were zero options the building and I ended up having to tie up to a chain link fence at the edge of the lot and walk about 100 m back to the store. If the stores provided basic bicycle infrastructure and if the parking lot layouts, especially entering and leaving, weren't actively hostile to anyone not in a car, more people might actually bike there.

The other thing is that if your mode of transport changes, your patterns of use change too. Bikes aren't well suited for picking up groceries for a family for the next two weeks. But they are very well suited for trips of convenience and making farther detours to pick up things. If suburbs build better infrastructure, people will use it.
 
turbanplanner said:
One of my examples was to look at the people in the suburbs and where they are driving most of the time that isn’t work? Groceries, theatres, the mall?

I don’t see a single person at Costco switching to a bike trip even if there was a lane from their house to the store!
Click to expand...
Yes most people won't cycle to Costco, it's probably one of the few places that I drive to instead of cycling, what's your point? Having bicycle infrastructure allows me to cycle pretty much everywhere else, and not contribute to traffic other than the twice a month trip to Costco and a few other car trips a month.

My choice most of the time choosing between driving and cycling is what's faster, so to be honest if there was a Costco that was a faster (faster including the time spent looking for parking, which at Costco can be up to 10 minutes) bike ride than drive or at the least not a 40 minute bike ride each way, I would probably bike there and just go more frequently. Unfortunately there is not a Costco downtown.
 
Last edited:
txlseries4 said:
I listened to part of the Minister of Transportation reading out the amendment at the committee (link). They're on a 20 minute recess right now. It sounds really bad. It's like they heard the outrage and said hold my beer.
Click to expand...
The outrage is the point. Keep eyes off 413.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top