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

[DarnDirtyApe]

The obvious solution to a lack of bike lanes on major streets is to take up a whole lane while cycling somewhere without a bike lane. Both modes of transport have equal rights to use the road, but it is beneficial for both car drivers and cyclists if there are more bike lanes.

Incidentally, there are no quiet side streets in the downtown core where most people work. How exactly am I to get to work at King & University on a bike without driving on major streets?

 

[kettal]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that cyclists not use arterial roads, they have a perfect right to do so, but they do not have the right to deny the use of any portion of those roads to automobile traffic.

On that same note, pedestrians have no right to deny the sidewalks from automobile traffic... right?

Keep these ideas coming, spider, I'm truly enjoying it.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Bicycles are vehicles. As vehicles, they have the right to use the roads. As vehicles, they can use the whole traffic lane to travel on (especially to avoid potholes, sewer grates, crevasses, and debris). If there are no bicycle lanes, then bicycles can use the whole traffic lane. To avoid that from happening, bicycle lanes should be put in.

So what is the solution:

1. bicycle lanes
2. use the whole lane

Choose wisely.

 

[nfitz]

GO transit will be doubling the service frequency on Lakeshore lines soon. Nobody knows exactly when, but as of now, the necessary track installations are almost complete.

Given the frequency that the McGuinty government backtracks on transit promises, I wouldn't hold my breath.

The Ontario government has been promising that the 60-minute frequency on the Lakeshore lines would be increased for almost 40 years. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[TOareaFan]

On that same note, pedestrians have no right to deny the sidewalks from automobile traffic... right?

Keep these ideas coming, spider, I'm truly enjoying it.

Well, obviously, the highway traffic act defines, both, cars and bicycles as vehicles....as such they are both forbidden from being on the sidewalks as they are not considered part of the roadway......I seldom see cars on the sidewalks.

 

[TOareaFan]

Given the frequency that the McGuinty government backtracks on transit promises, I wouldn't hold my breath.

The Ontario government has been promising that the 60-minute frequency on the Lakeshore lines would be increased for almost 40 years. I'll believe it when I see it.

roughly the same length of time they have been promising the other GO lines the same level of service as the Lakeshore line....there is a lot more ridership to gain (and therefore car traffic to be lost) by increasing the other lines to Lakeshore levels of service than there is by further increasing the service levels on the Lakeshore line. (IMO)

 

[nfitz]

roughly the same length of time they have been promising the other GO lines the same level of service as the Lakeshore line....there is a lot more ridership to gain (and therefore car traffic to be lost) by increasing the other lines to Lakeshore levels of service than there is by further increasing the service levels on the Lakeshore line. (IMO)

So that's an excuse to break promises? If the government wants credibility it shouldn't make promises that they don't intend to keep.

 

[PinkLucy]

Unfortunately, governments break promises all the time. That's not news.

 

[spider]

Cyclists may want to be carefull about what they wish for.

If traffic lanes are to be dedicated to bike use only for safety reasons should the corollary of bike free lanes for motorists not logically follow?

Just askin'.

 

[TOareaFan]

So that's an excuse to break promises? If the government wants credibility it shouldn't make promises that they don't intend to keep.

Not at all...it was just an opportunity for me to voice a long standing pet peeve that Lakeshore line users are always talkin' about the lack of more frequent (ie 30 minute) off peak service when there are more riders to be gained (and cars to be removed) by offering off peak service on all of the other GO lines...it was a cheap shot but it was there!

 

[dob467]

The mere fact that building bike lanes in Toronto is controversial both among the general public and here on UT is evidence that this city has a long way to go in growing up. Cities all over the world - from North America, Europe, Asia and Australia are realising that it just makes sense for so many reasons to build bike infrastructure. Yet we constantly debate whether cyclists should even be allowed to be on our roads and look to whether they properly pay their way, whether they need to be licensed, whether they're a special interest group. Torontonians like to think we live in a progressive city, but we really seem to be clinging to outdated suburban models of growth. It's a shame we're falling so far behind.

 

[TOareaFan]

The mere fact that building bike lanes in Toronto is controversial both among the general public and here on UT is evidence that this city has a long way to go in growing up. Cities all over the world - from North America, Europe, Asia and Australia are realising that it just makes sense for so many reasons to build bike infrastructure. Yet we constantly debate whether cyclists should even be allowed to be on our roads and look to whether they properly pay their way, whether they need to be licensed, whether they're a special interest group. Torontonians like to think we live in a progressive city, but we really seem to be clinging to outdated suburban models of growth. It's a shame we're falling so far behind.

Firstly, I have never seen the bolded part debated.

Secondly, the underlined part....this is actually a topic I am interested in. All of the other commuting/mobility options that people partake of involve some cost to cover the costs (in differening portions) of the choice they make......transit riders pay a fare, car drivers pay a series of taxes.....in each case, I think, they cover part of the cost of the choice they make and general tax revenue picks up the balance. Perhaps licensing bicycles is a way to have users of that mode pay some of the cost of the new bike lanes?

Thirdly, I don't think it indicates what you are saying....I think it indicates that every city is different and should seek their own unique solutions to mobility (and other) issues. What works in Amsterdam may work here but, just as possible, it may not. Debate is what flushes out concerns and ideas and it is healthy...as long as its balanced.

By slagging Toronto because things get debated (here and elsewhwere) are you suggesting that people should just shut up and take what is given to them? Is that exclusive to the bike issue or should we take the same approach whenever any idea is put out there by any level of government?

 

[js97]

Bike lanes are a compromise.

As oppsed to what?

This is the problem with politics... when you draw a line in the sand to make it black and white, it just polarizes people and they don't listen... The reality of the situation is that it's more shades of grey.

People are willing to put down bike lanes, at all cost? - I don't think so.

You have to forget that soo much of the economic development does come from middle of the city and they are not bikeable on a regular basis (10 kliks each way a day is not a regular occurence by your average joe. And that's only east york, yonge and eg, and west st. clair) ...

Bike lanes are already in arterial roads.. college... and to some extent, harbord... davenport, dupont? excellent ideas...


It's about building a city that is accessible by everyone, not just those that live within a 10 km radius.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Cyclists may want to be carefull about what they wish for.

If traffic lanes are to be dedicated to bike use only for safety reasons should the corollary of bike free lanes for motorists not logically follow?

Just askin'.

IIRC in Holland generally if there is a cycle lane or separated path you are required to use it... over here this might be difficult due to the lack of infrastructure for turning and some of our laws like being forced to dismount on multi-use paths (and also potentially the width and speed limits of some of the more heavily used multi-use paths)

 

[GraphicMatt]

Firstly, I have never seen the bolded part debated.

Secondly, the underlined part....this is actually a topic I am interested in. All of the other commuting/mobility options that people partake of involve some cost to cover the costs (in differening portions) of the choice they make......transit riders pay a fare, car drivers pay a series of taxes.....in each case, I think, they cover part of the cost of the choice they make and general tax revenue picks up the balance. Perhaps licensing bicycles is a way to have users of that mode pay some of the cost of the new bike lanes?

Thirdly, I don't think it indicates what you are saying....I think it indicates that every city is different and should seek their own unique solutions to mobility (and other) issues. What works in Amsterdam may work here but, just as possible, it may not. Debate is what flushes out concerns and ideas and it is healthy...as long as its balanced.

By slagging Toronto because things get debated (here and elsewhwere) are you suggesting that people should just shut up and take what is given to them? Is that exclusive to the bike issue or should we take the same approach whenever any idea is put out there by any level of government?

Converting a car commuter to a bike commuter is a significant net financial gain for the city. In addition, administration costs for a bicycle licensing service would be huge.