General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

[the lemur]

Saturday - Wellesley path to Sherbourne path, north to Milkman's Lane to Brickworks then along Lower Don Valley trail to Bayview, return to Timmies Queen and River, then up again Wascanna and home.

I like taking Highland/Scholfield/MacLennan all the way up to Moore and then the trail down to the Brickworks.

 

[the lemur]

Bolding mine. [Filtered permeability] would be one of the easiest things to implement here in Toronto, and would be especially helpful on streets like Shaw which has heavy bicycle traffic in both directions with a contra-flow lane. Cars that are not local traffic could easily be forced to make turns so that it's not used as a through street. Instead, Ossington (200 meters west) can easily absorb any extra traffic. Just yesterday biking along it, I had a car honking at me and other cyclists to get out of the way in a part where there is no getting out of the way so that he could drive all the way from College to King on it. It would be safer for both bikes and cars.

It's so easy to implement, and hard to dismiss as yet another 'foreign idea that won't work here', that it in fact already exists here in one form or another:

Intersection of Heath St E and Inglewood Dr, fully open to pedestrians and bikes, but not to cars. I believe this type of configuration is more common in Vancouver:

https://goo.gl/maps/1oRDE

Likewise, the intersection of Earl Place, Earl St and Huntley St.

https://goo.gl/maps/T2QZv

 

[ShonTron]

Vancouver is great. Instead of the maze of one-way streets (the one-way restrictions apply to bikes, but really shouldn't), there's forced turns and cul-de-sacs for motorists; instead of constant 4-way stops on cycling routes, there are traffic circles. It's as if the local streets were designed to make it as easy as possible to cycle.

 

[Tuscani01]

I saw something funny this morning. Two cyclists blew through stop signs, nearly taking each other out in the process. One was able to swerve at the last minute and luckily managed to regain balance to stay upright.

This happened just North of the intersection the lemur posted above, at Isabella and Earl.

 

[CDL.TO]

I saw something funny this morning. Two cyclists blew through stop signs, nearly taking each other out in the process. One was able to swerve at the last minute and luckily managed to regain balance to stay upright.

This happened just North of the intersection the lemur posted above, at Isabella and Earl.

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

 

[Tuscani01]

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Huh?

 

[the lemur]

I saw something funny this morning. Two cyclists blew through stop signs, nearly taking each other out in the process. One was able to swerve at the last minute and luckily managed to regain balance to stay upright.

This happened just North of the intersection the lemur posted above, at Isabella and Earl.

Isabella and Earl don't intersect ... Isabella and Huntley?

Any time anyone blows through a stop sign there's a risk of a collision. What does work for slower vehicles like bikes is slowing down, being prepared to stop and above all, looking.

 

[Tuscani01]

Isabella and Earl don't intersect ... Isabella and Huntley?

My bad, yes!

And yes, everyone needs to pay a little more attention. Im assuming both cyclists were looking out for vehicles, but neither bothered to double check for cyclists also. (Something I admit I fail to do sometimes as well as a cyclist)

 

[CDL.TO]

Huh?

The ability for two cyclists, moving at relatively high speed, to both run stop signs and still avoid any type of collision or injury is a "feature" of cycling. Part of why we see cyclists riding with such disregard for stop signs is they are more able to respond to such situations without incident. I liked your story because it's a good visualization of what can happen when cyclists interact on the street.

Of course, that doesn't mean they should do it. What if they had to yield to a car or, even worse, if there had been a car which didn't stop?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Would like to see Bay Street use the retractable bollards like Cambridge, which would keep private automobiles out. Vehicles, including delivery trucks and taxis, using transponders are allowed in. Guess Uber would also need transponders to get in, which means they have to get permission from city hall, AKA license.

 

[calimehtar]

I have a confession - I was a bit dubious about the Richmond Adelaide bike paths before they were implemented. I thought they would be politically unpopular because of the importance of those streets to cars, and I thought they wouldn't be really popular, if implemented, with cyclists because there's nothing to do on Richmond and Adelaide and cycling tends to be very local. They have been a resounding success and I'm trying to figure out why, especially when you contrast with what happened on Jarvis.

One thing is that there is less resistance on the right because separated lanes are seen as beneficial to car drivers.

Anther thing I noticed recently is that a condo just completed construction and has a pub on the ground floor with a patio that faces Adelaide. Sorry I can't remember where it is, but I'm sure it's in the entertainment district somewhere. I think the bike lane has had the effect of calming traffic on Adelaide and is making more attractive as a destination.

Finally (this is speculation on my part) is that the way they were introduced, as a pilot, meant that we didn't dwell too much on how much car travel time would be affected, as happened on Jarvis. I don't remember anyone discussing the potential negative effect on automobile traffic, they were simply implemented. Instead of fear mongering hypotheticals, we only had to look at the actual bike lanes as implemented.

I still dream of some reduction of car traffic on King or Queen in favour of pedestrians a bikes, I find myself taking Queen about half the time when I am biking between Yonge and Bathurst, either because I am making a stop on Queen or because I just enjoy the ambience more. Maybe the city can learn something from the Richmond/Adelaide experience about how to implement this with minimal political friction.

 

[salsa]

I have a confession - I was a bit dubious about the Richmond Adelaide bike paths before they were implemented. I thought they would be politically unpopular because of the importance of those streets to cars, and I thought they wouldn't be really popular, if implemented, with cyclists because there's nothing to do on Richmond and Adelaide and cycling tends to be very local. They have been a resounding success and I'm trying to figure out why, especially when you contrast with what happened on Jarvis.

The popularity of the lanes has more to do with the lack of other safe alternative routes in the area than the amount of things to do on Richmond/Adelaide. Without the lanes, the only other East-West options are College St or Queens Quay, both of which are too far away from the Entertainment Dist to be useful. When the lanes get extended to Parliament later this year, they will have filled a huge gaping hole in the downtown bike network.

But as far as "things to do", Richmond/Adelaide are just one block away from King and Queen streets, and pass through densely populated neighbourhoods. It's probably true that a lot of the cycling is local, however the Entertainment Dist is not just a neighbourhood but also a major destination, so many cyclists including myself come from other neighbourhoods city-wide or are simply passing through here on their way to somewhere else. For the most part, transportation infrastructure in general is not used only by people who live in the area.

As for political support, no increase in travel times for motorists have been reported due to the lanes, which seems to be the only thing that matters to our narrow-minded mayor and suburban councillors. On Jarvis, the amount of cyclists tripled when those lanes were installed, but because Ford was mayor and motorists were slowed down by a minute (boohoho cry me a river), council voted to kill it.

Finally (this is speculation on my part) is that the way they were introduced, as a pilot, meant that we didn't dwell too much on how much car travel time would be affected, as happened on Jarvis. I don't remember anyone discussing the potential negative effect on automobile traffic, they were simply implemented. Instead of fear mongering hypotheticals, we only had to look at the actual bike lanes as implemented.

It was done as a pilot project to test different designs, evaluate the impact on traffic, and gather feedback. Eventually council will have to make a decision on whether the lanes should be made permanent (with possible improvements). This is not a done deal just yet, but so far things are looking good.

 

[WislaHD]

Finally (this is speculation on my part) is that the way they were introduced, as a pilot, meant that we didn't dwell too much on how much car travel time would be affected, as happened on Jarvis. I don't remember anyone discussing the potential negative effect on automobile traffic, they were simply implemented. Instead of fear mongering hypotheticals, we only had to look at the actual bike lanes as implemented.

Hmm, maybe that is the approach we should've taken with the Gardiner!

I have to agree overall. I was on Adelaide and Richmond a few times over the past week and was pleasantly surprised at the sheer number of cyclists on the roads. This was midday too, before rush hour. Walking on those streets were also much more pleasant than I remember, maybe due to the traffic calming?

 

[calimehtar]

The popularity of the lanes has more to do with the lack of other safe alternative routes in the area than the amount of things to do on Richmond/Adelaide. Without the lanes, the only other East-West options are College St or Queens Quay, both of which are too far away from the Entertainment Dist to be useful. When the lanes get extended to Parliament later this year, they will have filled a huge gaping hole in the downtown bike network.

View attachment 52250

But as far as "things to do", Richmond/Adelaide are just one block away from King and Queen streets, and pass through densely populated neighbourhoods. It's probably true that a lot of the cycling is local, however the Entertainment Dist is not just a neighbourhood but also a major destination, so many cyclists including myself come from other neighbourhoods city-wide or are simply passing through here on their way to somewhere else. For the most part, transportation infrastructure in general is not used only by people who live in the area.

As for political support, no increase in travel times for motorists have been reported due to the lanes, which seems to be the only thing that matters to our narrow-minded mayor and suburban councillors. On Jarvis, the amount of cyclists tripled when those lanes were installed, but because Ford was mayor and motorists were slowed down by a minute (boohoho cry me a river), council voted to kill it.




It was done as a pilot project to test different designs, evaluate the impact on traffic, and gather feedback. Eventually council will have to make a decision on whether the lanes should be made permanent (with possible improvements). This is not a done deal just yet, but so far things are looking good.

I remember that they *predicted* travel times on Jarvis would increase. I doubt they kept the lanes around long enough to really measure the impact. That's what I'm suggesting running it as a pilot allowed them to do. I strongly suspect that the total count of traffic on Richmond and Adelaide has gone down, and that's why travel times haven't been affected. Also the bike lanes are pulling cyclists out of mixed traffic which would have happened on Jarvis as well.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Maybe with the talk about the Scarborough LRT rising from the dead, maybe the Jarvis bicycle lanes will also rise from the dead?