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

[TOareaFan]

The question that was posed was have you ever seen snow in November, and the poster said that they never had. GenerationW was merely answering the question. You can't then use that against him.

With respect Niftz, Generation W pointed out one November where the weather was nice enough to play flag football...he certainly did not answer the poster's question which was "When have you seen snow in November or April? "

I am sure it has snowed in November and April......I would not suggest that it snows regularly or frequently or in huge amounts but it has snowed.

All that aside, the issue really is not if the weather in our late fall/winter/early spring months is ok for cycling....we can probably all agree that you can cycle in those months....just that people don't. To quote councillor glenn de baeremaeker (who I do not believe is a ranting anti-bike-pro-car guy) "ninety per cent of the cyclists disappear in the winter".

EDIT: in fact the city of toronto's own web page says we average 7.5 cm of snow in April and .5 cm in October ( I am gonna presume if October averages measurable snow that November does too). http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_overview/climate.htm

according to this page we average 5 snow days a year in April and 8 in November http://www.myforecast.com/bin/climate.m?city=54356&metric=false

 

[GraphicMatt]

The toronto star: Nutty bike lane idea

Do you have a link for this? It's bizarre.

 

[TOareaFan]

Do you have a link for this? It's bizarre.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/796691--bikes-on-university

 

[kettal]

With respect Niftz, Generation W pointed out one November where the weather was nice enough to play flag football...he certainly did not answer the poster's question which was "When have you seen snow in November or April? "

I am sure it has snowed in November and April......I would not suggest that it snows regularly or frequently or in huge amounts but it has snowed.

All that aside, the issue really is not if the weather in our late fall/winter/early spring months is ok for cycling....we can probably all agree that you can cycle in those months....just that people don't. To quote councillor glenn de baeremaeker (who I do not believe is a ranting anti-bike-pro-car guy) "ninety per cent of the cyclists disappear in the winter".

EDIT: in fact the city of toronto's own web page says we average 7.5 cm of snow in April and .5 cm in October ( I am gonna presume if October averages measurable snow that November does too). http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_overview/climate.htm

according to this page we average 5 snow days a year in April and 8 in November http://www.myforecast.com/bin/climate.m?city=54356&metric=false

So in conclusion, it is normal for snow to fall in November and April.

 

[TOareaFan]

So in conclusion, it is normal for snow to fall in November and April.

If you like....I prefer to think that the answer to the question "has it snowed in April and November" (ie the question that was posed).....is Yes! And, apparantly, measurably so.

But, again, it only matters because, apparantly, it matters to cyclists. By all accounts, a significant number of them hang up their wheels when the weather turns.....wether they are right in doing so or wether they really have to is, largely, irrelevant.

 

[kettal]

It was a stupid question which you've wasted way too much emotion and effort on already.

Now, your "most people refuse to bike in winter today, therefore they will always be like this in the future" theory, I have to contend. Trends change over time, sometimes in bursts.

For example, if the bixi system ever gets going in Toronto year-round, you can expect there to be a sudden increase in year round cyclist.

 

[Tewder]

We shouldn't be taking away lanes of traffic for bikes until there are better options/alternatives to driving available to 'all', and this means mass transit... pure and simple. Sorry bikers, I feel your pain and would like to see bike lanes all over the city at some point but lets not derail the real issue. Once we have better mass transit it will make so much more sense to create a wide and fully-integrated system of bike lanes without 'adding' to traffic gridlock which presumably would only be more dangerous to bikers to begin with: focus on mass transit, get more people less reliant on their vehicles, then create the bike lane network. Done.

 

[CDL.TO]

There is an urgent need to improve the bicycle facilities we already have. With every passing year I see more and more people getting around downtown by cycling and existing facilities are either substandard or even dangerous.

The city's off-road trails offer great potential and are quite well-used, not just on weekends but also by commuters. But the trails are full of blind corners, sharp turns, sudden drops and bumps, narrow paths (where it can be hard for two bikes to pass each other), and poorly-designed interfaces with roads.

The Don Valley/Taylor Creek/Don Mills/Thorncliffe Park interface is impossible to navigate (I've gotten lost there more than once) featuring roundabout routes with little to no signage. The Lake Shore Blvd trail is fantastic from Coxwell to the Don River. But then it becomes a twisting-and-turning mess with blind 90 degree turns and no lighting (that light you have on your bike to make you visible to drivers is a far cry from the level of lighting you need to see a pitch-black trail). If you can figure out how to legally get to the Queens Quay E bike lanes (there's no signage telling you which way to go), it involves waiting for three non-consecutive crosswalk signals at either Lake Shore and Parliament or at the south intersection of Lake Shore and Cherry. The most direct place to cross would be at the north intersection of Lake Shore and Cherry, but you can't legally cross Lake Shore Blvd there.

They improved the Martin Goodman trail through Ontario Place last year, which was a huge improvement. The same level of thought needs to be put into all the city's off-road trails.

A controversial proposal: Off-road trails should become the responsibility of the Roads Department rather than Recreation. If we want to see cycling become a serious mode of transportation rather than simply a form of recreation, facilities need to be up to a standard and I have more faith in the Roads department to develop and enforce those standards.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

We shouldn't be taking away lanes of traffic for bikes until there are better options/alternatives to driving available to 'all', and this means mass transit... pure and simple. Sorry bikers, I feel your pain and would like to see bike lanes all over the city at some point but lets not derail the real issue. Once we have better mass transit it will make so much more sense to create a wide and fully-integrated system of bike lanes without 'adding' to traffic gridlock which presumably would only be more dangerous to bikers to begin with: focus on mass transit, get more people less reliant on their vehicles, then create the bike lane network. Done.

In downtown, people are already less reliant on their cars exactly because of the availablity of alternatives, including infrastructure that encourages cycling. And need I point out University Avenue is already served by a subway line? For those who argue that cyclists can make due with limited lanes on selected arterials - what do you think the effect a similiar restriction on say pedestrians or vehicular traffic would be?

AoD

 

[kettal]

There is an urgent need to improve the bicycle facilities we already have. With every passing year I see more and more people getting around downtown by cycling and existing facilities are either substandard or even dangerous.

The city's off-road trails offer great potential and are quite well-used, not just on weekends but also by commuters. But the trails are full of blind corners, sharp turns, sudden drops and bumps, narrow paths (where it can be hard for two bikes to pass each other), and poorly-designed interfaces with roads.

The Don Valley/Taylor Creek/Don Mills/Thorncliffe Park interface is impossible to navigate (I've gotten lost there more than once) featuring roundabout routes with little to no signage. The Lake Shore Blvd trail is fantastic from Coxwell to the Don River. But then it becomes a twisting-and-turning mess with blind 90 degree turns and no lighting (that light you have on your bike to make you visible to drivers is a far cry from the level of lighting you need to see a pitch-black trail). If you can figure out how to legally get to the Queens Quay E bike lanes (there's no signage telling you which way to go), it involves waiting for three non-consecutive crosswalk signals at either Lake Shore and Parliament or at the south intersection of Lake Shore and Cherry. The most direct place to cross would be at the north intersection of Lake Shore and Cherry, but you can't legally cross Lake Shore Blvd there.

They improved the Martin Goodman trail through Ontario Place last year, which was a huge improvement. The same level of thought needs to be put into all the city's off-road trails.

A controversial proposal: Off-road trails should become the responsibility of the Roads Department rather than Recreation. If we want to see cycling become a serious mode of transportation rather than simply a form of recreation, facilities need to be up to a standard and I have more faith in the Roads department to develop and enforce those standards.

The riverside trails won't become bike highways because they are built on mud, are prone to flooding, and tree roots will keep pushing up the surface. It's nice if you are going on a slow bike with your kids, but if you plan on surpassing 20 km/h, get yourself on to the roads.

 

[CDL.TO]

The riverside trails won't become bike highways because they are built on mud, are prone to flooding, and tree roots will keep pushing up the surface. It's nice if you are going on a slow bike with your kids, but if you plan on surpassing 20 km/h, get yourself on to the roads.

True, but firstly, the Lake Shore Blvd trail and Martin Goodman aren't riverside at all. It's clearly built as a valuable commuter route.

Secondly, we shouldn't improve them because they are currently poorly built? Huh? Improvements could solve those issues you identify. Build up the base as you you'll reduce the issues with mud, tree roots, and flooding.

These bike trails are being used as commuter routes today. I personally disagree with your idea that we should be discouraging their use by not fixing the issues associated with them.

 

[Rob Banks]

YES... I can't wait to be stuck in morning rush hour traffic along University all Summer long baby!!!!! WOOOOOO! On a side note, what about the cars turning left? How will this work without dedicated bike lane traffic signals? We will see.

 

[kettal]

We shouldn't be taking away lanes of traffic for bikes until there are better options/alternatives to driving available to 'all', and this means mass transit... pure and simple. Sorry bikers, I feel your pain and would like to see bike lanes all over the city at some point but lets not derail the real issue. Once we have better mass transit it will make so much more sense to create a wide and fully-integrated system of bike lanes without 'adding' to traffic gridlock which presumably would only be more dangerous to bikers to begin with: focus on mass transit, get more people less reliant on their vehicles, then create the bike lane network. Done.

Do you understand this concept: even if transit development remains stagnant, an increase in car drivers switching to bikes will create better traffic conditions for those who have to continue driving.

 

[kettal]

True, but firstly, the Lake Shore Blvd trail and Martin Goodman aren't riverside at all. It's clearly built as a valuable commuter route.

Secondly, we shouldn't improve them because they are currently poorly built? Huh? Improvements could solve those issues you identify. Build up the base as you you'll reduce the issues with mud, tree roots, and flooding.

These bike trails are being used as commuter routes today. I personally disagree with your idea that we should be discouraging their use by not fixing the issues associated with them.

The new Martin Goodman Trail is indeed fantastic, but it doesn't face the same environmental problems as river bank trails do. In this battle between nature and man, nature will ultimately win.

There's a reason why developing any kind of buildings in these floodplains is illegal: because they will be destroyed by nature very quickly.

Building something that will last would involve removing most of the trees, flattening the land, and building something akin to a mini DVP.

 

[CDL.TO]

The new Martin Goodman Trail is indeed fantastic, but it doesn't face the same environmental problems as river bank trails do. In this battle between nature and man, nature will ultimately win.

There's a reason why developing any kind of buildings in these floodplains is illegal: because they will be destroyed by nature very quickly.

Building something that will last would involve removing most of the trees, flattening the land, and building something akin to a mini DVP.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Thanks for the great laugh. That was a stunning use of hyperbole.

I'm confident that we can fill potholes, smooth bumps, erect better signs for navigation and to warn of sudden drops ahead, smooth out some turns (where the grass is dead anyway because people have trouble staying on the path), and improve crosswalks (crossbikes?) with intersecting streets without requiring "removing most of the trees, flattening the land, and building something akin to a mini DVP".

Ha ha ha ha ha.