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

[kettal]

None of that will stop the thousands of mature trees from growing roots into the trail; and flooding will continue to erode the ground.

You won't get it anywhere close to the quality of Martin Goodman Trail, for any length of time, unless you were to remove the trees or elevate the trail above the flood level.

 

[Parkdalian]

None of that will stop the thousands of mature trees from growing roots into the trail; and flooding will continue to erode the ground.

You won't get it anywhere close to the quality of Martin Goodman Trail, for any length of time, unless you were to remove the trees or elevate the trail above the flood level.

I haven't driven my bike along the Don, but the bicycling trail along the Humber is nice and very functional. I don't see why they couldn't do the same along the Don. The flooding concern comes from Hurricane Hazel - it's not a regular issue - they have railway tracks that run along the Don that seem to do quite well.

 

[confusion]

Even if it only floods once a year, that's a good portion of the year it is still available to cycle on.

You guys exert an awful lot of energy debating trivial things.

 

[PinkLucy]

From today's Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/798482--university-ave-bike-lanes-roll-closer-to-reality

The controversial test of median-hugging bike lanes on busy University Ave. is a step closer to reality after the city works committee voted in favour of it Tuesday.

The committee is recommending that city council, at its May 11-12 meeting, approve installing the lanes from July to September while two car lanes — one northbound, one southbound — are removed.

The bike lanes, protected by a temporary barrier, would run from Wellesley St. W./Hoskin Ave. south to Queen St. The committee is recommending not stretching it south to Richmond Ave.

Critics of bike lanes on arterial streets have decried the plan. Mayoral candidate Rocco Rossi called it “sheer madness.”

The committee also voted in favour of dozens of other new bike lanes across the city and a partnership that, if approved by council, could see 1,000 public-use bikes kept at 80 sites around the city starting in May 2011.

An offshoot of Montreal’s successful BIXI bike-share program would fund the $4.8 million start-up costs, through a loan guaranteed by the city, and pay the estimated $1.3 million in annual operating costs.

The bikes are intended for station-to-station trips. Riders’ fees haven’t been set but Montreal users pay $28 a month, or $78 for the spring-to-fall season. One-time users can rent bikes for $5 a day. There would be no charge for members’ station-to-station trips lasting less than 30 minutes.

 

[West End Boy]

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.

This doesn't make sense to me. At what point will public transit be enough to build the bike lanes? Someone could easily argue that alternatives to driving already exist, but people are not taking advantage of them fully, so maybe reducing capacity on roads by building bike lanes will actually encourage those drivers who have a lesser need to drive, to switch to public transit.

If we followed your suggestion and built a better network of subways and buses first, do you actually think that the resistance to bike lanes would then be greatly reduced? And until then, should all of the people currently cycling to work just cross their fingers and pray that they don't meet serious injury because of a lack of safe cycling infrastructure?

This is the kind of opinion that seems so obviously lopsided to me, and I am guessing from how you are speaking "to" bikers that you do not cycle regularly in the city. So your suggested plan wouldn't affect you negatively at all. How nice for you.

As has already been pointed out, more people on bikes (and subways and buses) equals less people using personal vehicles. And bikes take up a lot less room than cars. So if we pushed forward and built better transit and better cycling infrastructure, wouldn't everyone end up winning?

And while I'm ranting, the whole "war on the car" thing reminded me of a great saying, that when translated to this situation would go something like, "You only call it a WAR when we push back". The age of car-focused urban planning in Toronto is dead. We are too big and dense now, and the sooner that a majority of people accept that our future prosperity lies in other forms of transportation and development, the quicker we can move forward to what I believe is great potential.

 

[Chuck]

The age of car-focused urban planning in Toronto is dead..

Actions speak louder than words. Highways are still being extended, sprawl continues, and by far most importantly, each passing year sees the gap widened between the type of transit system that we have, and the type of transit system that we need. I believe that any sort of urban planning is dead in Toronto - though we are certainly not catering to cars anymore, the future of Toronto as currently planned also lacks any form of subway expansion, which is a real shame.

Point being:

Someone could easily argue that alternatives to driving already exist, but people are not taking advantage of them fully, so maybe reducing capacity on roads by building bike lanes will actually encourage those drivers who have a lesser need to drive, to switch to public transit.

This statement is incorrect. Traffic is already so ridiculous that based on the existing transit system, anyone willing to switch to transit to save them time would have already done so. Given that all modes of transportation are operating at or above capacity, it is wrong to improve one mode by sacrificing travel time on another, until real alternatives are provided. Toronto is now in such a dire transportation state, that any further delays imposed on any mode will simply cause people to work elsewhere.

So no, in instances where bike lanes reduce arterial road capacity (which ironically is not the case on University), we should generally not proceed with bike lanes.

 

[Tewder]

This doesn't make sense to me. At what point will public transit be enough to build the bike lanes?

Creating better transit will have far greater impact at getting people off the roads. This will make the roads safer for a truly integrated system of lanes. I don't disagree with bike lanes, just the way that they should be achieved.

Someone could easily argue that alternatives to driving already exist, but people are not taking advantage of them fully, so maybe reducing capacity on roads by building bike lanes will actually encourage those drivers who have a lesser need to drive, to switch to public transit.

A better system of bike lanes will definitely get 'some' people off the road, though far be it for me to speculate just how many. At the end of the day, however, biking is simply just not a viable option as a main mode of transportation for the vast majority, and this has been discussed ad nauseum around here.

If we followed your suggestion and built a better network of subways and buses first, do you actually think that the resistance to bike lanes would then be greatly reduced?

Yes. People feel frustration because the real solution to traffic gridlock, including the economic costs and environmental un-sustainability of it is mass transit. Talking about bike lanes in this context, as a priority in terms of funding and political discourse, is just another obstacle to this solution. I admire the ardour of bikers though, and only wish that advocates of public transit were as passionate.

And, there is also a concern that adding bike lanes at the cost of traffic lanes, and in the absence of an adequate system of transit, will only increase gridlock. Though more will turn to biking the net effect of the increase will most certainly not compensate for the lost lanes.

This is the kind of opinion that seems so obviously lopsided to me, and I am guessing from how you are speaking "to" bikers that you do not cycle regularly in the city. So your suggested plan wouldn't affect you negatively at all. How nice for you.

As inconceivable as this must be for you, your logic actually seems fairly ass-backwards to me too.... and the fact that I am not a cyclist and do not live in the city only means that I haven't been drinking the Koolaid.

The age of car-focused urban planning in Toronto is dead. We are too big and dense now, and the sooner that a majority of people accept that our future prosperity lies in other forms of transportation and development, the quicker we can move forward to what I believe is great potential.

On this point I would heartily agree.

 

[kettal]

At the end of the day, however, biking is simply just not a viable option as a main mode of transportation for the vast majority, and this has been discussed ad nauseum around here.

And the #1 reason for this is lack of safe infrastructure.

I would never suggest that bikes will overtake cars or transit as the main mode for the whole city, but if we were to give 10% of downtown roadspace to bikes, we would only have to achieve 10% bike-to-car usage ratio in downtown to create a net benefit for all traffic. No 'vast majority' required. Totally achievable.

 

[West End Boy]

Talking about bike lanes in this context, as a priority in terms of funding and political discourse, is just another obstacle to this solution. I admire the ardour of bikers though, and only wish that advocates of public transit were as passionate.

Are you saying that we can't advocate for both at the same time? I think we need to look at the entirety of our transportation system, which includes all of the modes, and move forward while looking at the big picture. I don't advocate for cycling infrastructure instead of transit improvements, so I'm not sure who you are referring to.

As inconceivable as this must be for you, your logic actually seems fairly ass-backwards to me too.... and the fact that I am not a cyclist and do not live in the city only means that I haven't been drinking the Koolaid.

I always know the rational arguments have dried up when the cheap shots start flying. I will resist responding with my own cheap shot about the fact that you don't live in the city under discussion.

 

[Tewder]

Are you saying that we can't advocate for both at the same time?

Ideally, we can. It's not the sincerity of those advocating for bike lanes that I question. It is the sincerity of politicans who will use the bike lane issue to a: distract from the discourse/debate on mass transit (bikers up in arms will grab the media spotlight while quiet pleas for transit fall on deaf ears), b: commit funds to bike lanes in preference to mass transit simply for the optics of it all, making it seem like they're working on the gridlock 'solution' when really the impact will be minimal to none. This is an election year and the bike lane issue has been handed to them on a silver platter as the perfect wedge non-issue that will allow them to dodge and defer, yet again, the real commitments to public infrastructure that responsible stewardship of the city requires... and I don't even really care about the funding for bike lanes that has been ear-marked, it's not like it would pay for a subway line or something.

 

[himysyed]

Good evening Urban Toronto,

Being a Toronto City Council Candidate, Tewder's thread post above is ideally speaking to me. Hence, I am here to listen.

You've made me read this entire thread and I am indeed listening to your informed debate. For the moment, I'll add something new to the discussion rather than speak to the pros or cons of the decision test bike lanes on University Avenue.

In a couple of weeks you will be able to see the mobility part of my campaign platform entitled 'Transit Citizen'.

It will incorporate a very different direction that what's been marketed thus far even by any of the Mayoral Candidates.

It's based upon what I learned first hand in Rio de Janeiro attending the World Urban Forum last month and the sum total of what I can bring to the table during this election.

Until then, I have one campaign platform plank which speaks directly to this thread:

The University Avenue Bike Lanes should be ' Named ' after Mary Pickford who was a cyclist and lived on University Avenue.

http://ward19.ca/thepickford

The above link to my campaign webpage includes a short video about " The Pickford " (if you care).

You have my ear, but I also want your take on naming Bike Lanes.

The Tooker, the hoped-for-by-cyclists east-west bike corridor is named for the late Tooker Gomberg.

We already name Expressways in our city and elsewhere.

Why not Bike Lanes.

Between now and my 'Transit Citizen' launch, I hope to earn my 25 posts and will be able to start my first UT thread.


HiMY SYeD

 

[TOareaFan]

^ We are picking a name for these bike lanes? Has the decision already been made on how successful this trial run is? Are they already being made permanent?

 

[GraphicMatt]

Let's call it "The Polar Express" due to Toronto's eight (maybe eleven?) months of winter wherein nobody bikes ever.

 

[W. K. Lis]

New York City saw a 28% increase in cycling, due to more than 200 miles (321 km) of lanes installed over the past three years, including 5 miles (8 km) of physically-separated lanes, over the entire city. See this link for the article from Infrastructurist.

 

[Chuck]

New York City saw a 28% increase in cycling, due to more than 200 miles (321 km) of lanes installed over the past three years, including 5 miles (8 km) of physically-separated lanes, over the entire city.

But unlike Toronto, New York is served by so many gargantuan avenues that it can lose a lane here or there without really impacting traffic patterns. Imagine if Toronto had 16 University Avenues between Parliament and Queen, and was served by 5 parallel quad track subway lines carrying 17 subway routes which traverse the entire city. In that case, sure, install as many bike lanes as you wish.