General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

[Northern Light]

The fact that the city is barely even trying to put cycling infrastructure along suburban arterials where much of the lower income population lives is a big part of the problem. Regressive councillors from those parts of the city aren't helping, and neither is the perception that cycling is for liberal downtown elites. And when cycling infrastructure is built in the suburbs it's usually badly designed. Nobody wants to ride in a painted bike lane on a huge street with cars roaring by at 80 km/h. Or on a multi use trail that treats cyclists as pedestrians at intersections.

Yes.

While pedestrian oriented areas lend themselves to cycling better than car oriented suburbs, cycling can still be made relevant in the latter. What those parts of the city need is a network of multi use trails and/or protected bike lanes with proper protected intersections.

Yes.

The boulevards on suburban roads have more than enough room. Cycling is obviously a lot more affordable than buying a car, so there's zero reason that it should be associated with any income group or ethnicity.

This, however, is often not the case.

This is Victoria Park, north of Eglinton:

As you can see, there is no boulevard on one side; while the other is just over 3M; but it contains trees, roughly on centre within that space.

That essentially leaves no room, unless you remove the trees. Which are one of the few things that help make that stretch of road walkable.

That's not an issue unique to that section of street, I would suggest you will find relatively few boulevards that are wide enough to support a bike path, and trees.

Typically they exist on some E-W roads in the east end, the roads where it would be feasible are typically the E-W arterials, north of the 401. (where boulevards range from 6-7.5M wide)

York Mills Bayview - Leslie also sports similarly wide boulevards. Though I'd rather pinch the centre turning lane, eating boulevard space only at the intersections.

 

[nfitz]

As you can see, there is no boulevard on one side; while the other is just over 3M; but it contains trees, roughly on centre within that space.

The property line isn't at the edge of the sidewalk - lots of space.

Doesn't look like the lane widths are minimum either.

 

[toaster29]

Yeah, "cycling skews white and high income" is way off the mark. I've been cycling in this city for leisure and commute for years. This is not cottaging, golfing or French immersion.

Lol, French Immersion skews very much racialized now. The Rich White parents abandoned French Immersion for MonAvenir, the French Catholic board with their two barriers to entry to keep the poor out.

 

[Northern Light]

The property line isn't at the edge of the sidewalk - lots of space.

Doesn't look like the lane widths are minimum either.

Respectfully, that doesn't matter much.

The issue is cost and how much opposition you provoke.

Take a look at this section of VP (roughly the same area) with property lines showing.

On the East side you'll notice you're going to have to pinch a parking spot; but also cut down all those trees if you want either place the path to the inside of the sidewalk or relocate the sidewalk to place the boulevard to the outside.

Not going to happen.

Further, you currently have poles both in the boulevard and in the interior space:

Notice on the west side, that you have street lights on hydro wires on the space you're eager to repurpose. At the minimum, these would have to be relocated at great cost, alternatively, they'd have to be buried (the wires); but the street lights would still have to be moved.

It simply isn't practical in this location.

I'm in favour of bike lanes and cycle tracks and wouldn't, ultimately, mind seeing VP and a host of other roads 'dieted' to make room for same.

But there's no sense in backing a solution that won't ever pass in the near to medium term.

 

[nfitz]

Respectfully, that doesn't matter much. The issue is cost and how much opposition you provoke.

I'm just saying there's plenty of space, if there was will-power. In reality, it probably only comes an issue at a few intersections, where there's unlikely to be trees.

More likely though that they narrow or reduce lanes.

 

[MisterF]

Respectfully, that doesn't matter much.

The issue is cost and how much opposition you provoke.

Take a look at this section of VP (roughly the same area) with property lines showing.

View attachment 307491


On the East side you'll notice you're going to have to pinch a parking spot; but also cut down all those trees if you want either place the path to the inside of the sidewalk or relocate the sidewalk to place the boulevard to the outside.

Not going to happen.

Further, you currently have poles both in the boulevard and in the interior space:

View attachment 307492

Notice on the west side, that you have street lights on hydro wires on the space you're eager to repurpose. At the minimum, these would have to be relocated at great cost, alternatively, they'd have to be buried (the wires); but the street lights would still have to be moved.

It simply isn't practical in this location.

I'm in favour of bike lanes and cycle tracks and wouldn't, ultimately, mind seeing VP and a host of other roads 'dieted' to make room for same.

But there's no sense in backing a solution that won't ever pass in the near to medium term.

Where there's no room for a bike path separate from the sidewalk there's often plenty of room to replace the sidewalk with a multi use path. This is done pretty often actually, and it's a perfectly acceptable compromise in areas with lower pedestrian volumes. A multi use trail can be as little as 3 m wide (although 4 is preferable) and you can fit them in spaces not much wider than the current sidewalk. That parking spot is on the road right of way, so as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant. I see nothing in the pictures you show that makes replacing the sidewalk with a multi use trail impractical. The gradual narrowing of lanes through Vision Zero frees up space too.

Obviously what I'm proposing is more than just laying down some asphalt. Intersections are the achilles heal of suburban boulevard bike paths, and redesigning them to be proper protected intersections isn't going to happen overnight but it's needed for novice cyclists to feel safe. Moving some hydro poles, taking out trees (with compensation of course), and taking back the boulevard from encroaching property owners would all be necessary in certain areas, but these aren't exactly showstoppers. If these things can't be overcome then this city is truly doomed.

 

[Northern Light]

More likely though that they narrow or reduce lanes.

The narrowing bit is great, if accompanied by other changes.

But look at what happened on Birchmount north of Eglinton:

A too narrow painted curb lane appeared, post-resurfacing.

Just a bit to the north................where'd it go?

Unfortunately the satellite shots aren't up to date, they illustrate the problem better.

The new curb lanes continuously weaves into and out of existence, because they didn't widen the ROW at intersections at all.

I swear that's more dangerous than before!


***

They did a better job on Danforth Road's recent re-do.

But the (bike) lanes are still super narrow:

I should add, these aren't officially bike lanes, because they aren't deemed wide enough.

 

[Northern Light]

Where there's no room for a bike path separate from the sidewalk there's often plenty of room to replace the sidewalk with a multi use path. This is done pretty often actually, and it's a perfectly acceptable compromise in areas with lower pedestrian volumes. A multi use trail can be as little as 3 m wide (although 4 is preferable) and you can fit them in spaces not much wider than the current sidewalk. That parking spot is on the road right of way, so as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant. I see nothing in the pictures you show that makes replacing the sidewalk with a multi use trail impractical. The gradual narrowing of lanes through Vision Zero frees up space too.

Obviously what I'm proposing is more than just laying down some asphalt. Intersections are the achilles heal of suburban boulevard bike paths, and redesigning them to be proper protected intersections isn't going to happen overnight but it's needed for novice cyclists to feel safe. Moving some hydro poles, taking out trees (with compensation of course), and taking back the boulevard from encroaching property owners would all be necessary in certain areas, but these aren't exactly showstoppers. If these things can't be overcome then this city is truly doomed.

They can be.

But pole relocation is hugely expensive on a scale of lane-km.

At any rate, we're supportive of the same things; I'm simply suggesting I don't think that is a likely answer in some inner-suburban areas, for practical reasons, and politics, in the near-term.

There are lots of other investments which can be made which will set the stage for more later.

The off-road trails, obviously, and expansion of bike share; along with pursuing those cycle tracks and boulevard paths that won't attract negative attention.

There's more than enough of all that to go around to keep the City busy for 4-5 years, if not more, before we worry about the more problematic bits.

 

[afransen]

Is there any plan to implement 4 to 3 lane road diets in Toronto? We seem to have a lot of 4 lane streets and they often don't have turn lanes at intersections anyway.

I wonder how we should expand bike share in Ontario. Maybe it makes sense for Metrolinx to take over responsibility and make the system region-wide. Also some opportunity to integrate into transit fares (maybe with Presto or just make it free with monthly passes). I think the bike share system in Toronto makes sense for certain use cases like urban mobility. In NL, they have a bike share system operated by the national rail service (OV fiets) that is by the day so less tied to docks (EUR 3.85/day). You have to return that bike to the same station you rented it from or pay an additional EUR10, which makes it great for last mile from train stations on the destination end and significantly reduces the challenge with repositioning. So, maybe a mixture of the two models could work well in Toronto, but might end up being too confusing for users.

 

[robmausser]

There are definitely areas that are too tight for cycle tracks, but there are also areas that are perfectly suited for it.

The city should do an audit report of all the suburban main roads and come to a conclusion where cycle tracks can be put in, and do it.

 

[Northern Light]

Is there any plan to implement 4 to 3 lane road diets in Toronto? We seem to have a lot of 4 lane streets and they often don't have turn lanes at intersections anyway.

Can't think of any offhand.

John will be dieted from 4 to 2 in spots.

Yonge will drop from 4 to 2 downtown, and periodically zero in select blocks.

Yonge in North York will go 6 to 4.

In the core, on lesser used roads, the City tends to repurpose 4 lanes with rush hour parking restrictions, to 2 lanes, bike lanes and 1 permanent parking lane.

Donlands, if it can be pushed through, will likely be mostly 2 lanes (that are 1.5 lanes wide) to 2 lanes + bike lanes)

I wonder how we should expand bike share in Ontario. Maybe it makes sense for Metrolinx to take over responsibility and make the system region-wide. Also some opportunity to integrate into transit fares (maybe with Presto or just make it free with monthly passes). I think the bike share system in Toronto makes sense for certain use cases like urban mobility. In NL, they have a bike share system operated by the national rail service (OV fiets) that is by the day so less tied to docks (EUR 3.85/day). You have to return that bike to the same station you rented it from or pay an additional EUR10, which makes it great for last mile from train stations on the destination end and significantly reduces the challenge with repositioning. So, maybe a mixture of the two models could work well in Toronto, but might end up being too confusing for users.

Bikeshare should adopt Presto (assuming Presto stays in place with the move to open payment) that would certainly make sense.

To the best of my understanding none of the burbs currently have bikesharing until you get to Hamilton which uses a different model than Bikeshare Toronto.

 

[afransen]

To the best of my understanding none of the burbs currently have bikesharing until you get to Hamilton which uses a different model than Bikeshare Toronto.

IIRC, there have been mentions of investigating bike share schemes at GO stations. I think we should try to avoid balkanized systems in each municipality, especially with docks, as it just creates friction crossing boundaries. And Metrolinx might be more inclined to stump up funding than municipalities are inclined to, particularly if it can reduce the need for parking at congested stations.

 

[Northern Light]

Since ActiveTO is 'infrastructure' strictly speaking...........thought I'd put this here:

‘Incredibly successful’ Lake Shore closure for ActiveTO could be back this year after all

Councillors have approved a motion to find ways to to include “partial or full closures” of Lake Shore West “on select weekends.” Last week, city staff said the popular closure likely couldn’t be repeated.

www.thestar.com

On a motion from Councillor McKelvie, Infrastructure and Environment Ctte voted to ask staff to find ways to close Lakeshore West in whole or in part, on at least some weekends in the coming year.

As McKelvie tends to vote w/the Mayor, and staff seemed supportive I would read that this is likely to pass at Council.

Also, in the course of the discussion on the issue, staff mused about extending the program to Black Creek Drive and/or Allen Road subject to support from local Councillors.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Reading the discussion, the solution for some of these arterial streets with narrow ROW is pretty obvious to me. Just have a cycling lane at grade with the sidewalk.

Utility poles might serve some sort of obstacle, but I think it should be doable. Cycling lanes don't necessarily need to be at grade with the street, especially without a barrier to cars going 60 km/h next to them.

 

[max]

Reading the discussion, the solution for some of these arterial streets with narrow ROW is pretty obvious to me. Just have a cycling lane at grade with the sidewalk.

Utility poles might serve some sort of obstacle, but I think it should be doable. Cycling lanes don't necessarily need to be at grade with the street, especially without a barrier to cars going 60 km/h next to them.

Drainage becomes an issue if you want to elevate the bike lanes to sidewalk level. Modifications needed aren't trivial which is why they tend to occur with when we undertake major road reconstructions where below grade services are impacted.