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

[kettal]

Global news video today about this topic

http://www.globaltoronto.com/video/index.html?releasePID=LPCx6sDWpROwqs12_txM8K4ZLf6gx40L

 

[Tewder]

Angry also, because there really is no need for 30 minute headways on Lakeshore......sure it would be nice....but to be spending money on it when there are such other more pressing needs just seems silly to me.

How many more riders will additional trains running along the lakeshore produce? Given the already pretty decent level of service on that line I would suggest they are pretty much at the margins already...sure it will produce some growth but would that come anywhere close to the growth you would achieve if you could somehow give, say, the Milton line a level of service equal to the current Lakeshore service? Not even close.

Not to imply I'm against the intensification of other lines, I'm not!... but in some ways increasing service levels along Lakeshore might actually make more sense in the long term. Consider that the line between Hamilton and Toronto goes through a far more dense and urban area than do other lines that essentially connect to newer and more sprawling suburb-type communities, where although increased service to these newer areas will definitely reduce gridlock (which is essential) it would likely do little to reduce urban sprawl. In fact it may actually encourage further sprawl by attracting more people to more new low-density housing estates that compromise more rural farm land etc? On the other hand increasing the Lakeshore service would have the opposite effect and would be far more likely to increase urban density through what is already a fairly dense corridor of communities to begin with like Burlington, Oakville, Clarkson, Port Credit etc, and on to the western inner suburbs of Toronto. This would also have the potential to relieve sprawl on other outlaying regions by offering an alternative to suburbia and luring people away from a car-based lifestyle.... and so from this perspective may make for a better region overall with less sprawl and even less gridlock? Just a thought. There are other already semi-urban corridors or corridors with urban potential, so to speak, that make similar sense such as Hurontario which has the added advantage of connecting well with the Lakeshore corridor and with the city.

 

[TOareaFan]

Not to imply I'm against the intensification of other lines, I'm not!... but in some ways increasing service levels along Lakeshore might actually make more sense in the long term. Consider that the line between Hamilton and Toronto goes through a far more dense and urban area than do other lines that essentially connect to newer and more sprawling suburb-type communities, where although increased service to these newer areas will definitely reduce gridlock (which is essential) it would likely do little to reduce urban sprawl. In fact it may actually encourage further sprawl by attracting more people to more new low-density housing estates that compromise more rural farm land etc? On the other hand increasing the Lakeshore service would have the opposite effect and would be far more likely to increase urban density through what is already a fairly dense corridor of communities to begin with like Burlington, Oakville, Clarkson, Port Credit etc, and on to the western inner suburbs of Toronto. This would also have the potential to relieve sprawl on other outlaying regions by offering an alternative to suburbia and luring people away from a car-based lifestyle.... and so from this perspective may make for a better region overall with less sprawl and even less gridlock? Just a thought. There are other already semi-urban corridors or corridors with urban potential, so to speak, that make similar sense such as Hurontario which has the added advantage of connecting well with the Lakeshore corridor and with the city.

I seem to recall that the Metrolinx report (the big move thing) identified the Georgetown line as being amongst the most dense of all GTA transit lines (including subways). My originally though is that the Lakeshore line already has fairly frequent all day, every day, two way service....the low hanging fruit of transit users on that line has already been picked and any ridership growth on that line by increasing off peak frequnecies to 30 minutes will be marginal.....there are bigger catches of potential riders on the other lines.

 

[kettal]

A major obstacle to increased riders on both lines is lack of parking. If only there were some more space-efficient two wheeled device which could bring users to the stations. Oh well.

 

[rightwingSUVdriver]

"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."

At present the car is seen by many as the path of least resistance . They live in suburbs and drive to work, trading hours of life each week (travel times) for cheap privacy (suburban homes). This has been ingrained into a lot of minds as an ideal for a long time. As fuel prices rise, traffic worsens, and suburbs get more and more distant, that way of life will seem increasingly absurd. It's the path of least resistance in terms of physical effort, but auto-commuting is a stressful, expensive, unhealthy, and time-consuming activity. Transit implementation may not be there yet, but it works, as does living closer. The city core is dense, and its roads have a finite flow; if you think traffic is bad now, realize that it will only get worse. And it won't be because of bicycles. In fact, the bicycle is the most futuristic device on the road right now. It has no emissions, it's quiet, simple, cheap... it's strong in every way that the car is weak.

There will come a time (if it hasn't come yet) when many drivers will bow out of the auto-commuting game and either move to the city where walking, biking, and transit can get them to their destination, or find work closer to their suburban homes. Some have painted semi-apocalyptic pictures of suburban collapse (http://www.endofsuburbia.com/) but no hyperbole is needed to make the point that if you live way outside the city, bikes sharing the road with you will be the least of your problems. Even if we seem to be far from a crisis, I say we should be futuristic in thought. Sacrifice car space for bike space today in the form of bike lanes, but also make serious improvements to transit. Above all, the goal should be to get cars containing single commuters off the road, leaving the space instead for vehicles with some degree of inherent efficiency (buses, large automobiles that transport goods and materials in bulk, bikes, and pedestrians). I guess what I'm talking about is a war on cars. But wouldn't it be better to change voluntarily than to be decapitated by a future everyone can see coming?

As for the specific projects under discussion in this thread, I think they're well-intentioned but unlikely to be proven useful. As someone posted here somewhere, what's needed is a grid that establishes long, continuous routes both east/west and north/south at convenient intervals. Comprehensiveness is key to adoption by casual riders.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Here's a question that I don't think has been asked: on streets that have had bike lanes installed in recent years (Dundas, College, etc.), has there been an increase in congestion? There were predictions of gridlock from bike lane opponents but are those streets actually worse to drive on now?

I frequently ride College Street since the mid 90's and there's been a huge increase of cycling along there. What's more dramatic is the overall increase in cycling around downtown in the past 15 or so years. I suspect as more people move into the downtown area some find that owning a car - or using it exclusively to get around is not always as practical as walking, cycling and/or using the TTC to get around - bike lanes or no bike lanes.

 

[W. K. Lis]

A major obstacle to increased riders on both lines is lack of parking. If only there were some more space-efficient two wheeled device which could bring users to the stations. Oh well.

If there were real bicycle parking and not just solitary poles for just a couple of bicycles at a destination (ie. supermarket, downtown, sports venues, Exhibition Place, etc.), then there will be more bicycles.

Imagine the parking lot needed if all these riders came by car, at 1.3 people per car.

 

[spider]

Long time no post from the bicycle crowd.

It can't be the weather because we know that cyclists ride year round, that's why we are being exhorted to surrender road space permanently to them isn't it?

 

[GraphicMatt]

The last post from "the bike crowd" was literally less than 24 hours before your post. Also why would a relatively cold weekend in May stop cyclists from posting in a forum thread on the internet? They don't browse the internet while biking, you know. Are you in a special school?

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Long time no post from the bicycle crowd.

It can't be the weather because we know that cyclists ride year round, that's why we are being exhorted to surrender road space permanently to them isn't it?

Exhorted?
I pay taxes too plus I have a heart like a bear, two healthy lungs and great legs by early to mid-late May.

 

[Design Wallah]

This cyclist is too busy plotting ways to further the war on cars. Our cells are deep undercover in Milton and Pickering planning something big.

 

[kettal]

Long time no post from the bicycle crowd.

It can't be the weather because we know that cyclists ride year round, that's why we are being exhorted to surrender road space permanently to them isn't it?

I biked 12 km today, if that's what you're asking. So did my mother.

How was your mother's day, Spider?

 

[js97]

I biked 12 km today, if that's what you're asking. So did my mother.

How was your mother's day, Spider?

Just cause you and your mom can bike 12 k's every day, doesn't mean everyone else can, or want to for that matter.

Again, most people in cars on Univeristy AVE don't live within a 6 K radius, so it's not like you will be reducing cars dramatically.

Bikes have increased dramatically in the past 10-15 years in downtown Toronto, it's great, but so have cars that come from the burbs.

Taking away a car lane for a bike lane is myopic in planing, especially considering you're only building what, 1.5 klicks of road patth?? If you're going to do it, do it all the way up Avenue rd to UCC... otehrwise, what's the point? all- you're doing is you're creating a bottleneck effect....

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

js97:

Bikes have increased dramatically in the past 10-15 years in downtown Toronto, it's great, but so have cars that come from the burbs.

Has it? Where did you get this observation from?

If you're going to do it, do it all the way up Avenue rd to UCC... otehrwise, what's the point? all- you're doing is you're creating a bottleneck effect....

Great idea - I suppose the proponents can count on your support when the time for that comes, no?

AoD

 

[js97]

Actually, car traffic downtown has decreased buy 10% in recent years. Nice try, though.

Wow, is that the same source that's been quoted to ensure property taxes has been in 'line' with inflation?, during a period where interest rates has been non-exisitent?

Are you guys all seconded members working on Pantalone's campaign team??