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

[Chuck]

Even I don't think that this project will have much of an impact on traffic. Unlike Jarvis, which has great traffic light sequencing and no bottleneck on either end for most users, University is choked by the ridiculous 2 lane portion at Bloor, and traffic merging onto the Gardiner. Furthermore, the infinitely brilliant Simcoe underpass is now removing hundreds of cars from University per hour.

Having said that, the city is acting without thinking just for the sake of doing something. I have always maintained that bike lanes and wider sidewalks should be implemented where people are most likely to use them. Rather than installing unconnected bike lanes in a car oriented corridor, we should instead be seeing the St. George street lane configuration installed on Yonge right up to St. Clair. The bike lanes could then head east on St. Clair and north on Mt. Pleasant all the way up to Lawrence. In the other direction, they could veer west at Heath and hook up with Avenue Road and Oriole Parkway and terminate at Eglinton.

 

[Hipster Duck]

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.

You're right, I (and everyone else here) completely overlooked the fact that the bike lanes are in the centre of the road, in the left-most lanes. Now that you mention it, it's completely useless for bicyclists and a safety hazard just waiting to happen.

 

[Tewder]

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.

I don't see it as innocuous as that. This issue is all smoke and mirrors, distracting us (and public/electoral discourse) away from the real issue of public transit. I mean, why are we even talking about this right now when the rug has been pulled out beneath transit funding? The fact that we are in such a lather over a freakin' bike lane plays right into the hands of politicians and we prove ourselves, yet again, to be nothing but a collective of self-centred and self-interested whiners who have a complete inability to forego immediate gratification of personal needs/preferences for a greater cause.

The people of Toronto should be insulted by this proposal. You're asking for subways and sustainable public transit but are being patted on the head with a bike lane trial? ... and this has nothing to do with the relative merits of promoting biking in Toronto which can only be a good thing in the long run and something that should grow... BUT, not at the expense of the transit agenda which is being upstaged right now with the introduction of this ridiculous wedge issue.

 

[GraphicMatt]

That's a false dichotomy. Bike lanes are very low cost - I read that this pilot project would cost $40,000. That's not even a drop in the bucket when it comes to transit costs.

We can do more than one thing at a time.

And City Hall has definitely not forgotten about the transit funding cuts. If you spend any time in the TTC this week, you'll hear David Miller's voice over the loudspeaker telling everyone to write a letter to McGuinty telling him to Save Transit City.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The center lane bike path is probably there to protect riders from dooring. Should it become permanent, it could be on the right, but with a barrier boulevard separating the bike lane from car traffic or parked vehicle doors.

 

[gweed123]

You're right, I (and everyone else here) completely overlooked the fact that the bike lanes are in the centre of the road, in the left-most lanes. Now that you mention it, it's completely useless for bicyclists and a safety hazard just waiting to happen.

The thing with University Ave though is that every portion of the street where the bike lanes are being implemented has 2 stage crossings. The crossings are placed relatively close together (there's one crossing between Dundas and Queen, the same amount as on Yonge St I might add). So even if the biker had to back-track slightly, so would any pedestrian. Also, putting it in the middle of the street eliminates some of the biggest dangers for bikers: people making right or left turns off a side street and not looking, people opening up car doors and not looking, and people randomly stepping out into the street. All of these would still occur with right-side lanes. Centre lanes practically eliminates that.

And kettal, I will try to rebuttle some of your points:

1) It's not really as 'random' as you might think. Once it hits Queen's Park, there are plenty of bike paths through the U of T campus that it can connect to. Granted, ending at Richmond is kind of a random place to end it, I would agree with you there. However, that's where the median ends. And seeing how it is a pilot project, you go with generally the cheapest option. Anything south of Richmond would require many more infrastructure modifications.

2) Already addressed that in my section above. And how is a cyclist supposed to access something on the left side of the street if they're on the far right? Your argument works both ways. At least with a centre lane you're only 1 crossing away from the proper side of the street, not 2 if you were using right-side lanes.

3) Many of the major intersections block left-hand turns. Many more allow right-hand turns.

4) So is almost every downtown street. In fact, I would argue that because University Ave is wider, it's LESS of a wind tunnel than a narrower street would be (thinking specifically of streets like Bay, Yonge, Richmond, Adelaide, etc).

5) This initial proposal is meant to target commuters. Specifically those who work in the CBD. Building a bike lane along the St. George-Beverly-John corridor may work well for a lot of people, but it's a pretty far jaunt sideways to come back into the CBD. I'd imagine this is mainly targeted at the condo crowd who live in the condo strip between the subways, as well as in Yorkville. I don't disagree with you that that corridor would be an important investment too though, specifically for U of T students.

 

[kettal]

gweed, please explain how one on a bike would make a right turn in this scenario? I'm honestly having trouble imagining how it could be done safely.

4) So is almost every downtown street. In fact, I would argue that because University Ave is wider, it's LESS of a wind tunnel than a narrower street would be (thinking specifically of streets like Bay, Yonge, Richmond, Adelaide, etc).

Do you ever try biking in the winter? Wider streets are definitely more windy. Streets like Richmond have enough turns in it to somewhat negate the wind. Yonge is for some reason a very low-wind street, I'm not sure what causes that, though.

5) This initial proposal is meant to target commuters. Specifically those who work in the CBD. Building a bike lane along the St. George-Beverly-John corridor may work well for a lot of people, but it's a pretty far jaunt sideways to come back into the CBD. I'd imagine this is mainly targeted at the condo crowd who live in the condo strip between the subways, as well as in Yorkville. I don't disagree with you that that corridor would be an important investment too though, specifically for U of T students.

St. George is the obvious choice for U of T students. Also being proposed is a continuous bike corridor across the ENTIRE length of Bay Street, which is far superior for CBD cyclists than this stub on University.

 

[kettal]

The center lane bike path is probably there to protect riders from dooring. Should it become permanent, it could be on the right, but with a barrier boulevard separating the bike lane from car traffic or parked vehicle doors.

THIS is how you make a lane protected from doorings and parked cars...

 

[dob467]

I don't understand the problem with making a right turn. I cycle everyday on College, University and Wellesley. If the bike lane is in the middle, you'd simply turn right when opposing traffic has the green. Where's the problem here? If you think about it this configuration is actually better than having bike lanes on the right side. Trying to turn left in that situation is brutal, I usually end up using cross walks which isn't ideal - and problematic with pedestrians.

 

[GraphicMatt]

THIS is how you make a lane protected from doorings and parked cars...

Yeah, but a lane like that isn't going to work as a pilot project.

If we see from the summer that there's a demand for lanes on University, then they can look at options for permanent lanes.

The lanes are in the middle because reserved lanes on the outside would require removal of parking.

 

[gweed123]

gweed, please explain how one on a bike would make a right turn in this scenario? I'm honestly having trouble imagining how it could be done safely.

Same as a pedestrian would. You go to the nearest light, you cross at the cross-walk. Same as if you wanted to make a left turn. This way, it makes no difference if your destination is on the right of left hand side, you still need to cross once. If you had curbside lanes, and your destination was on the left side, you would need to cross twice.

Do you ever try biking in the winter? Wider streets are definitely more windy. Streets like Richmond have enough turns in it to somewhat negate the wind. Yonge is for some reason a very low-wind street, I'm not sure what causes that, though.

I can't say that I bike a lot during the winter, but i definitely do walk a lot. But there's a difference between it being windy and being a wind tunnel. Open areas are more prone to it being windy (it feels more windy in a field than in a forest), but there is certainly less of a wind tunnel effect on University.

St. George is the obvious choice for U of T students. Also being proposed is a continuous bike corridor across the ENTIRE length of Bay Street, which is far superior for CBD cyclists than this stub on University.

I don't disagree with you. I think their main reasoning for University is because it'll be a "showcase". Much more than Bay St would. The grand boulevard with bike lanes, very Paris-esque.

 

[Tewder]

That's a false dichotomy. Bike lanes are very low cost - I read that this pilot project would cost $40,000. That's not even a drop in the bucket when it comes to transit costs.

We can do more than one thing at a time.

And City Hall has definitely not forgotten about the transit funding cuts. If you spend any time in the TTC this week, you'll hear David Miller's voice over the loudspeaker telling everyone to write a letter to McGuinty telling him to Save Transit City.

I feel it is a legitimate dichotomy, GraphicMatt, in so much as the public discourse has been hijacked towards a wedge issue rather than being kept focused on the central issue of mass transit... AND all the more so legitimate considering there is an election coming up and that now is the time, if any, we should be focused on such an important central issue as transit.

Look, I'm totally not opposed to bike lanes and believe that they should be part of the bigger picture of how we design our city and how people are able to live their lives here but there is a time and a place for every issue and I find it irresponsibly untimely that so much ire is being raised over this when it should be soaring over the issue of mass transit, the lack of planning for responsible sustainable growth and the cuts to funding that this type of commitment to planning requires. Focus, people, focus!!

 

[GraphicMatt]

I feel it is a legitimate dichotomy, GraphicMatt, in so much as the public discourse has been hijacked towards a wedge issue rather than being kept focused on the central issue of mass transit... AND all the more so legitimate considering there is an election coming up and that now is the time, if any, we should be focused on such an important central issue as transit.

Look, I'm totally not opposed to bike lanes and believe that they should be part of the bigger picture of how we design our city and how people are able to live their lives here but there is a time and a place for every issue and I find it irresponsibly untimely that so much ire is being raised over this when it should be soaring over the issue of mass transit, the lack of planning for responsible sustainable growth and the cuts to funding that this type of commitment to planning requires. Focus, people, focus!!

I agree that people generally should have noted this announcement with a "Hey, cool" or a "Okay, but I don't think that'll work very well!" and returned to focusing on the more important issue of Transit.

That instead some chose to freak the hell out about the horrors of bikes and the war on car is a failing of the public discourse, not of planning.

 

[Torontovibe]

I agree that people generally should have noted this announcement with a "Hey, cool" or a "Okay, but I don't think that'll work very well!" and returned to focusing on the more important issue of Transit.

That instead some chose to freak the hell out about the horrors of bikes and the war on car is a failing of the public discourse, not of planning.

That's just playing politics. All the right-wingers are trying to use this for political points. Public transit is really the big issue but bike lanes get more press because it gets the Rosedale/Forest Hills crowd, so worked up. The rich and blameless always get their petty issues, front and centre.

 

[Tewder]

I don't think it is just the whining 'rich'. I think all interest groups are doing their fair share of whining over this given the level of rhetoric we've been hearing! I agree though that there seems to be a rather insideous brand of politicking taking place here. This is not the time to talk about bike lanes no matter what your stand on them may be. Mass transit is a far more pressing need in terms of public dialogue and in terms of what we need to be hearing at the election stump.