News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.2K     6 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 895     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.8K     0 

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

I've never understood the arterial vs side st debate with bike lanes. Has anyone actually looked at a map to see how it simply doesn't make sense to relegate bikes to side streets? That they'd never have a continuous path? Of course this is a bit tongue in cheek, but the point remains - http://www.ibiketo.ca/blog/2010/03/06/bike-lanes-imagined-rocco-rossi

What other city in the world relegates bikes to side streets and bans them from arterials? Anyone?
 
From today's Star, opinion piece titled "Why the Bike Lanes Won't Work" http://thestar.blogs.com/yourcitymycity/2010/04/bike-lane-plan-spinning-it-wheels.html

Nice thought to have protected bikeways in Toronto, physically separating cyclists from pedestrians and from cars, making it safe for all.

Unfortunately the plan to do them on University Ave., from Richmond St. to Wellesley St. will not work. It does not connect anything to anything. It will just provide politicians like Rocco Rossi a wonderful excuse to say that “we are not a bicycle city,” as it will not increase the number cyclists significantly.

In fact, the purpose of having protected bikeways is to increase the current number of cyclists. It would allow people that are not currently cycling because of fear of cars an opportunity to try it in a safe way. This is especially attractive for children, older adults, as well as inexperienced adults.

Nevertheless in addition of having physical separation on arterials, when roads have speeds for cars of 40 km/h or higher and/or over 5,000 cars per day, you need to connect places of origin to places of destination. You need a minimum grid. Toronto is approximately 20 by 40 kilometres; it would be ideal to have a protected bikeway every 2-3 kilometres so that you would have 8 going East – West and 16 North South.

An initial trial should have at least one route North - South from Eglinton Ave. to Lakeshore Blvd. (along University or Yonge) and another East – West on streets like Richmond St. and Adelaide St. all across the city. Ideally the trial should have three in each direction -- a mini grid which then could expand.

People who are not currently cycling in Toronto will not begin to do so just because you have 1,300 metres of protected facility that does not connect places. The existing cyclists will be the only users, maybe adding a few that are using other roads and will move over to try this one, but they are not additional riders.

It will not show any significant increase and it will not serve to make the case for protected bikeways in Toronto. Actually it will have the opposite effect.

The only positive aspect is that it will educate people on what a “protected bikeway can look like”, even if it is on the wrong side of the street. It should always be uni-directional, on the left, from slow to fast: sidewalks for pedestrians, protected bikeways, then slow car lanes, then fast cars.

Why is it that Toronto is so timid, so scared of thinking big and acting big?

We have one innovative pedestrian crosswalk at Yonge and Dundas, the “scramble” that allows a time for pedestrians to walk in all directions, and three years later we have two. In similar cities like Christchurch, New Zealand, they try one, it works, and within six months they have all the crossings along that main street as a scramble.

Toronto announces it is bringing public bikes and then the director of transportation announces on CBC that “the system is not proven” and the decision is postponed. He does not realize the places like Copenhagen have had it for 20 years; Paris has 20,400 public bikes for the last two years and Montreal now has its very successful Bixi program.

Finally we were going to get the first protected bikeway. We know that in addition to the bikeway itself, we need connectivity, a grid. We get 1.3 kilometres! Can you imagine cars or transit if they just had 1,300 metres of streets or rails at a time? Where could they go to?

Thinking small, acting smaller.

Let’s keep this in mind as we choose our candidates for Mayor and Council across Ontario. Toronto is already good; let’s elect the right people to make it truly great. Who has the vision, political will and managerial capacity to get things done? Who is not afraid to think big and hopefully to act big? There are some good municipal staff all over the GTA, and they deserve to have the best politicians providing the necessary leadership and support. The community has the obligation to think carefully who to elect and to participate in the process.
 
O_castitatis_Lilium said:
They city of Toronto is planing on putting in bike lanes for the cyclists in the city. I personally feel that it shouldn't' be done. Granted, the cyclists should be just as safe as pedestrians but I feel they don't have to be on the major roads. The city plans to put in European style bike lanes on their major roads such as Spadina and University. I have sat in traffic on both lanes, not in the drivers seat but as a passenger, and I know that is' back up as far as the eye can see. University even has four lanes and even then it's hell on earth.( not really but you get the idea lol ) To take away two lanes from there would cause traffic to be at a standstill and the rest of the motorists would be late for work or would have to get up at ridiculous hours. now I'm not here to talk about motorists, that's a totally different topic, but I am here to discuss what I think on the cyclist lanes. Now, I don't' know about anyone else, unless it's just my misfortune, but i have been elbowed and hit by cyclists that are whizzing by me on the road. I know that not all of them are jerks on bikes but, again, I think it might be just my luck. Anyways, I feel if they think that they are unsafe on the road then they should be allowed on the sidewalk. The only thing with that is that they would have to slow down and watch for pedestrians just like the people in the cars do. If they either don't like that or are not allowed, then they should either take public transit like the rest of the people that don't drive, or they can take the side streets to get to the intersections that they need to get to. Toronto is an ever expanding and ever populating city, means that more and more cars are going to be on the roads. To take away lanes when the population, both in cars and in people, is growing is just, again in my opinion,stupid. Cyclists have been asking for bike lanes, as far as I can tell, for a while now. Now that there is a chance to get one, they are complaining on what side of the road they go on. I think now they are just being ungrateful. Don't' look a gift horse in the mouth, I don't' understand what they have to complain about, the ones that are complaining anyways. They get whole lanes taken away from major roads and holding up traffic even more than it's already held up on it's own right now. Personally, I feel that the cyclists aren't doing enough on their own to keep themselves safe. again this is just my opinion lol
Click to expand...

Did you even read my post? I proved explicitly that it wouldn't impact traffic congestion at all. Taking away a lane on University will not make it any slower for you to get to the Gardiner during rush hour.
 
Carrots and sticks

I'm assuming the wider goal is to get people out of cars to a) reduce pollution incl C02 b) reduce vehicle-related costs like accidents, potholes, signage.

One can wield a stick or proffer a carrot.

The stick in this case would be higher gas taxes, inconvenient parking, longer commutes, road tolls. Even not doing anything, these things will all increase (save for the tolls). So people are getting beaten pretty good with the stick.

However, in my view one has to also extend the carrot. The carrot includes things like safe cycling facilities and efficient public transportation. I can't say that Toronto has truly bought into the incentive approach. There are some pilot projects, the laughable 'sharrows', which basically save the police from having to chalk out your corpse, and an underfunded public transit system.

To my mind none of this will improve until the GTA gets behind a coordinated transit authority like Translink in BC. There is no point, as someone highlighted, of a 1500 metre bike lane if you are from North York. But if Metrolinx could get a bike route established through the Don, or down Bathurst, then maybe these people would take the bait. Until we can make it as fast to get from Don Mills to downtown by transit as by car, for less money, I don't see behavior changing much.
 
Aren't most Left Turns on University signalized, anyway? Cyclists will need to follow those signals, too.

In fact, I hope Traffic Cops make a point of stepping up enforcement on cyclists through this pilot project. Ticket any cyclist who runs a light, etc. The last thing the cycling lobby needs is the perception that they're above the law.

Also, nfitz, my Germany 1942 comment was a sarcastic response to the poster who used the term 'bike nazi.'
 
gweed123 said:
Did you even read my post? I proved explicitly that it wouldn't impact traffic congestion at all. Taking away a lane on University will not make it any slower for you to get to the Gardiner during rush hour.
Click to expand...

I followed your logic (about 4 lanes funneling into 3)....I guess what you are saying is that for the people who are going to the Gardiner (using the SB direction as an example) the speed that you can proceed through the pipe is limited by the narrow opening at the end.

I still think, however, it is wrong to say it will have no effect (the effect may not be as great as I and some others think but it will have some). I think by your own (gu)estimate you had 80% going through to the Gardiner....the other 20% then are turning off of University....presumably they will stay on University longer now because the optimimum use of the "extra" lane would be for them to bypass the stuck/stalled traffic in the 3 "through" lanes......taking away their ability to move forward to, say, Richmond and turn off means they will now be waiting in the same line of through traffic and it will push the wait times up for all.

Not sure if that is clear (it is in my mind ;) ).......we may disagree on how much of an impact this has but I really can't swallow that it will have no impact (unless the loss of lane is also offset with a loss of people trying to use Universtiy).

I also share some safety concerns with others about puting the bike lanes in the middle (it will make for some hairy right turns for bikes and dangerous left turns for cars)...but I don't feel qualified to talk about that.
 
I live by Queen's Park so I regularly take University as my primary route when driving up from the QEW. I am going to have to agree that the removal of one lane on University is barely even going to be noticable. On University you usually get stuck behind ever other light. Even in rush hour it's not backed up all the way to the previous light and I don't think it ever will be. So by removing one lane you are really just changing it from a hypothetical | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | configuration to a | 7 | 7 | 6 | configuration (where # is the number of cars in line). University can easily handle this.
 
waterloowarrior said:
Here's a photoshop/mockup of the protected lane http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-28858.pdf

and here's the main staff report
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-28856.pdf
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but those look quite unfortunate. I mean, if they're doing the real deal and actually making sizable bike lanes, couldn't they make it more of a separate roadway? Something to the tune of a pic I saw in another biking thread around here, a lanewith it's own median. If you ask me, that'd just tone up the visual appeal a lot. Add in those super-cool foot rest platforms at traffic lights, and I'd be thoroughly pleased. Otherwise, I'm just happy that they're building bike infrastructure.
 
I am a cyclist and I drive less than once per month.

I hate this University Avenue bike lane.

1. It starts and ends in seemingly random spots.
2. it is an accident waiting to happen. How is a cyclist supposed to access something on the right side of the street? turn right?
3. every left turning car will block the bike lane or knock a cyclist
4. University Avenue is a wind tunnel
5. Improved bike facilities on St. George - Beverley - John Street corridor would be far superior and safer to this proposal.
 
^^ Agree totally. And a kind of Bike arterial on the St. George-John road-thing would be much more fitting and useful, since it's not only of negligible distance to University, but it could also be used by University students.
 
This is a pilot project - it's designed to require minimal set up/construction costs. If it's a bad idea, we can look at other options in September.

It's great that they're trying it.
 
GraphicMatt said:
This is a pilot project - it's designed to require minimal set up/construction costs. If it's a bad idea, we can look at other options in September.

It's great that they're trying it.
Click to expand...

What I'm afraid of is it will become ammunition for the anti-bike crowd. "remember when we installed bike lanes on University, and the accident rate went up, and cyclists didn't even stay in the bike lane? proof that they're a waste of money!"
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top