New Bike Lanes on University, Bay, Spadina, and Other Roads

[spider]

It is time return the road back to the bicycle and pedestrians.

I see one bicycle in your photos, it is being ridden on the sidewalk.

 

[TOareaFan]

I see one bicycle in your photos, it is being ridden on the sidewalk.

All of the other bikes are strapped to the front of buses.....it used to be more popular

 

[kettal]

I support creating a city-wide plan for bike lanes that keeps them off the arterial roads, connects them with existing paths in our park system and allows safe travel across the city without tying up arterial lanes. I would vote in favour of removing the bike lanes from Jarvis, University and Pharmacy. Why cyclists would want to endanger their own lives let alone create problems for other road users along a major thoroughfare route like University or a consistently 4-laned arterial like Jarvis is beyond me.

Exactly! You'll never see bike lanes on the busiest, widest urban streets in the world, like... Broadway Avenue... oops.

 

[waterloowarrior]

In most places the idea is to place segregated facilities on higher speed and/or high traffic roads, bike lanes on collector/lower speed roads, and leave low speed residential streets the way that they are..... but for some reason some Torontonians like Rocco Rossi want to take the bike lanes off the places where they'd actually be warranted and build them on the residential streets where no bike lanes are needed. It's like only building subways in low density areas and making busy urban corridors where subways are needed rely on streetcars and buses (oh wait, we do that too!)

 

[Parkdalian]

To be fair, I have not once said that I am opposed to bike lanes. My point has always been that we need to address mass transit first as the only true viable way to get the bulk of people off of the road. When this is done you can easily justify reducing lanes of traffic for bike lanes and wider avenues, lined by trees etc. Perfect. This will achieve the sort of liveable streets you envisage. Right now, however, as we roll into a city election it is time to make transit the number one issue, which given the resistance of all levels of government will require a strong and loud, united front. The bike lane issue distracts from this by tacitly sending the message to politicians that if they address bike lanes then they are addressing 'gridlock' and need not push to make the real tough financial commitments to long term public infrastructure needed to bring the transit system in Toronto to the level it needs to be at for future growth and sustainability

I don't know if you use transit or not to commute, but you know how people can make transit a bigger issue? By using transit. The more demand there is for it, the more money the government will spend on it. This is what bicyclists are doing, by riding to work every day and getting occasionally mowed down by cars. They are creating demand for bicycle lanes with their bodies instead of talking about how they support future bicycle lane development.

But I think a lot of drivers - once again, perhaps not you - think that they will wait until transit reaches some level of perfection before using it. When will that happen? Planning and constructing new lines takes a long time - maybe 2020? So I guess until then, we shouldn't even talk about bicycle lanes. And what will the planners base transit demand upon? The people who say they support transit but aren't actually using it? And what if we add more lines and drivers still don't want to use transit? Well, I guess bicyclists are just screwed.

As I said, transportation is not a zero-sum game. We need space for bicycles, pedestrians, cars and everything in between (like those demented scooters) because the more different uses our streets support, the more sustainable they are. But currently our streets are skewed very heavily toward car traffic. Creating a little bit of a negative incentive for car drivers by making it harder to drive downtown might actually help support demand for other uses, like transit. As economists will tell you, you aren't going to push people to sustainable energy uses if you don't a) invest in other energy uses but also b) provide more disincentives for using oil. If there's no pain, people do not feel a need to change their behaviour, and increased transit and sustainable energy will remain pipe dreams we are always hoping for while we continue our (cheaper and easier) unsustainable behaviours.

 

[Parkdalian]

I support creating a city-wide plan for bike lanes that keeps them off the arterial roads, connects them with existing paths in our park system and allows safe travel across the city without tying up arterial lanes. I would vote in favour of removing the bike lanes from Jarvis, University and Pharmacy. Why cyclists would want to endanger their own lives let alone create problems for other road users along a major thoroughfare route like University or a consistently 4-laned arterial like Jarvis is beyond me.

You know that what you are suggesting is impossible, right? Most bicyclists already avoid major thoroughfares as much as they can.

Ex: I live off Queen in Parkdale. Please provide me a route to Queen and Spadina that does not involve me spending most of my time on Queen or King, and that doesn't involve me driving kilometers out of my way. Some car drivers seem to think that bicyclists are just riding their bikes for the fun of it and can take any old route to get somewhere.

And as for your argument that "cyclists ... create problems for other road users" - bicylists aren't creating problems for pedestrians and transit. They are creating problems for cars because some drivers don't want to share the road with anyone, really. Arguing that someone shouldn't have the right to safety because another group of people can't be bothered to take them into consideration is a pretty terrible argument.

 

[W. K. Lis]

A lot of automobile drivers think of bicycles as recreational and not a mode of transportation. They see them, not as a way for the employed to get to work, but as out-of-work leisure riders. To them, they belong along riverbanks, in parks, and on side-streets only. They tend to be the ones who prefer their bikes to be the stationary ones in gyms, which they drive their cars to. They wouldn't dare ride their bicycles or walk to their gym.

For me, if I was not in a hurry, yes, I would take the riverbanks, parks, or side-streets. But, if I need to get from point A to point B quickly, sometimes I have to take the main roads to get there.

 

[kettal]

I use the term 'gridlock' to stand for the all the problems caused by chronic traffic congestion, including the effects on the environment, the economy and the well-being of people.

The gridlock problem isn't really a big deal downtown. Some streets such as Adelaide and Spadina get backed up during rush hour, but the growing traffic problems are all along Hwy 401, and in Peel and York. If you ever venture south of Bloor once in a while, you will see that thousands of businessmen, doctors, nurses, and others already bike to work every day.

 

[spider]

If you ever venture south of Bloor once in a while, you will see that thousands of businessmen, doctors, nurses, and others already bike to work every day.

The vast majority of your bikes are ridden by "others", deceive yourself if it feels good but please don't try to elevate your wishes to facts for consumption by the rest of us.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Others? What, like, Ben Linus and his ragtag band of shit disturbers?

There really are thousands of businesspeople, doctors, nurses, and other professionals who use the bicycle as a means of transportation. It's seriously not uncommon to see suit-and-tie types on bikes during rush hour.

 

[kettal]

The vast majority of your bikes are ridden by "others", deceive yourself if it feels good but please don't try to elevate your wishes to facts for consumption by the rest of us.

I suppose an expert such as yourself came to the conclusion that anybody not dressed in hospital scrub while commuting is certainly not a nurse. And you can spot all the doctors, because they always have a stethoscope around their neck.. Good work.

I guess the thousands of bikes parked at hospital staff lots, Scotia Tower, TD Centre, Atrium on Bay all belong to the cleaning staff. That's the only logical explanation.

 

[Chuck]

Exactly! You'll never see bike lanes on the busiest, widest urban streets in the world, like... Broadway Avenue... oops.

The street grid in Toronto is so fundamentally different than in New York that it is useless comparing the two.

A bike lane would reduce a New York avenue from 6 lanes in a single direction to 5, which is a 17% drop in capacity. The Jarvis bike lanes will reduce car capacity from 3 to 2 lanes, which is a 33% reduction. The Jarvis lane reduction is fully twice as hard to absorb, especially considering that there isn't a pairing of 6 lane alternatives on either side.

 

[Tewder]

It is time that we have to stop bowing and paying homage to the automobile. We may still need them, but we should begin to look at other ways to get around that are better for your health and in turn help you save money. It is time return the road back to the bicycle and pedestrians.

This isn't really about the 'automobile' per se, it is about the basic need for people to get around efficiently which for the vast majority of people is by car. Until there are better options that will accommodate the majority it is simply pointless and unreasonable to 'target' the use of the car.

I don't know if you use transit or not to commute, but you know how people can make transit a bigger issue? By using transit. The more demand there is for it, the more money the government will spend on it. This is what bicyclists are doing, by riding to work every day and getting occasionally mowed down by cars. They are creating demand for bicycle lanes with their bodies instead of talking about how they support future bicycle lane development.

It is human nature to take the path of least resistance. Nobody is going to voluntarily spend more time commuting using an inadequate system of transit when they can do so more efficiently in a car... and this is not what bicyclists are doing either, by the way. They are choosing the option that makes the most sense to them, but which only makes sense to about 11% of the total commuting population of the city of Toronto, per the stats posted by Kettal.

As for me, I live in downtown Burlington and am walking distance to my office. Some days I walk and some days I drive if I know I will have appointments or errands at various different locations. I am planning to buy a bike in the next month or so because we do have bike lanes throughout my neighbourhood. When I come into the city I always drive because the train schedule is too infrequent and it connects to a transit system that cannot get me efficiently to the various places I may need to go, whether for business or pleasure.

But I think a lot of drivers - once again, perhaps not you - think that they will wait until transit reaches some level of perfection before using it. When will that happen? Planning and constructing new lines takes a long time - maybe 2020? So I guess until then, we shouldn't even talk about bicycle lanes. And what will the planners base transit demand upon? The people who say they support transit but aren't actually using it? And what if we add more lines and drivers still don't want to use transit? Well, I guess bicyclists are just screwed.

No, once there is a commitment to transit let the replanning of Toronto streets begin! Why not plan them comprehensively in a way that will actually make sense to bicyclists as well?

... But currently our streets are skewed very heavily toward car traffic. Creating a little bit of a negative incentive for car drivers by making it harder to drive downtown might actually help support demand for other uses, like transit. As economists will tell you, you aren't going to push people to sustainable energy uses if you don't a) invest in other energy uses but also b) provide more disincentives for using oil. If there's no pain, people do not feel a need to change their behaviour, and increased transit and sustainable energy will remain pipe dreams we are always hoping for while we continue our (cheaper and easier) unsustainable behaviours.

I don't entirely disagree with this point, exept that in most major cities with good public transit I always find it more inconvenient to have a car. I have family in the suburbs of London England and nobody would dream of driving into the city where a) it has been made inconvenient to do so but b) it is also actually easier to get around without a car. In other words there are inconveniences to getting around in any city and we do have to accept this, but that transit should always be the least inconvenient of options.

The gridlock problem isn't really a big deal downtown. Some streets such as Adelaide and Spadina get backed up during rush hour, but the growing traffic problems are all along Hwy 401, and in Peel and York. If you ever venture south of Bloor once in a while, you will see that thousands of businessmen, doctors, nurses, and others already bike to work every day.

... and 90% of people DON'T. What's your point? Gridlock happens everywhere downtown except possibly on Sundays, and though some neighbourhoods are definitely calmer these are not the ones handling the massive influx of people travelling into and out of them daily, so to portray gridlock as a non-issue within the city is patently wrong as anybody who has sat for hours in bumper to bumper traffic on city streets would agree.

 

[ladyscraper]

I guess the thousands of bikes parked at hospital staff lots, Scotia Tower, TD Centre, Atrium on Bay all belong to the cleaning staff. That's the only logical explanation.

Even if it was just the cleaning staff (which it isn't), they work just as hard as everyone else and have every right to bike to work and have an efficient and safe way to do it. So I'm not sure why spider felt like he needed to say "others" like it's something negative to work in some other line of work.

 

[kettal]

... and 90% of people DON'T. What's your point?

And 80% of downtown workers DON'T drive to work... What's your point?

Gridlock happens everywhere downtown except possibly on Sundays, and though some neighbourhoods are definitely calmer these are not the ones handling the massive influx of people travelling into and out of them daily, so to portray gridlock as a non-issue within the city is patently wrong as anybody who has sat for hours in bumper to bumper traffic on city streets would agree.

As Glen has pointed out so many times on this forum, downtown traffic is 10% lighter today than in the past.