Bike lane plan spinning it wheels

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.

About Gil Penelosa

Comments

[Tanya]

"I barely have time as it is to make it to work either by car or by TTC"

If you have 10 km's or less to travel to work...you can get there quicker than car or TTC (once you get into shape) on a bike.. I travel 12 kms to and from work, because its 20 minutes faster than taking transit or a car during rush hour. With this said, the lane to nowhere is a stupid idea..we need a grid. BTW the dupont lane is actually an extension...the bike lane does go all the way to JANE st.

[Tanya]

BTL..

1. the city did a study that determined that gridlock would not be impacted greatly
2. thats just a stupid comment. Bikes have just as much right to be on ANY road, not just a bike lane.
3. Bikes do not impact the road NEARLY as much as cars.. and cyclists DO pay taxes (NO KIDDING!)... I have a drivers license and pay taxes like the next person!

[Bren]

What the city needs to do is get a globe and ask themselves if we live in San Francisco. No. Oh good, having that answered let's realize where we do live.
Oh that's right, Canada. It is cold, it snows, pretty much around 6 months out of the year. We do not have the possibilty to be riding our bikes year round, even if we wanted to. That being said it is not logical to be such a pedestrian and cyclist centric minded. As nice as it is to ride your bike and not use a car, it is just not plausible in such an environment.
Stop looking for excuses to make yourself look good when campaiging, stop punishing drivers, start making some god damned sense.

[Logan]

@Bob Walker

Funny, yesterday in another section of the Toronto Star comments, you mentioned that this was motorists thinking up ideas for everyone {meaning motorists on the road, cyclists somewhere else} and cyclists being 'arrogant jerks' and only thinking for themselves when they support an idea put forth by city council, and subsequently the motorists objecting to it.

I'd suggest you not run for office, because your ideas of including plans that favor everyone, seem to only favor a few of us, and it's not cyclists.

[Rhonda]

And Gil, I trust if the majority does not elect a mayor and council that corresponds with your view, you will respect that too? Right?

[Ken]

Some good points here, but just a little tip for Mr. Penelosa - use realistic comparisons to back up your arguments. Christchurch, NZ is NOT a "similar city" to Toronto. It's similar in size to London, ON - a respectable urban area but nowhere near the size and scope of Canada's largest city. This example made you come off sounding like a fool.

[Logan]

@John La Fontaine

And people wonder why there's a negative reaction to cyclists on the streets of Toronto.

Stopping at a stop sign isn't impractical, it's the law, not only is it the law, it's also a safety hazzard to NOT stop at a stop sign.

[Harold Smith]

As a taxpayer an business owner, I support bike lanes throughout Toronto and am thankful for whatever we get. I ride a short distance to work except in winter when I take the bus. While bike lanes might not encourage many more drivers to cycle, they should save lives. The best would be having separated lanes like in Amsterdam but that is wishful thinking unless Toronto is willing to rethink overall street design.

[Brent Sienna]

"....but expecting a cyclist to come to a complete stop at an empty residential intersection just because of a stop sign is simply impractical"

Impractical or not it's the Law. You may not like it but you need to obey it. I may hate having to creep behind the slow moving cyclist who wants to take the lane and doesn't feel that he should move to the side to allow me to pass as I am the faster traffic. I feel it is impractical but I obey the Law and don't ram my bumper through his spine. You are playing roulette by blowing through STOP signs. You are assuming that the moron in the car approaching the STOP sign is going to see you, know your intention and is even going to stop for it himself. Your choice but I think the level of exertion required versus the risk of death is worth it.

[Jesse]

Personally, if there was more bike lanes that don't force us to ride over sewer grates I for one would completely go carless to bike to work. I'm actually moving from etobicoke down to the lakeshore so I can bike to work along the lakeshore bike path. It might not be practical for people with kids, but that's why you do have a car, you can take your kids to school, then bike. No one is saying its gonna change the entire city into cyclists, but every time someone chooses to bike instead of take the car, were all that much better off. Seriously I don't think anyone can argue that aside from the fact you might smell a little funky taking the bike over a car is a win all around.

Not only do bikes not pollute, but the money you save biking to work over either taking TTC, driving or the GO. Can go into buying say a couple solar panels, or maybe even a nice trip to disney land for the kids. Think about it, every month not using the TTC will net you around $100 or more.

[Lee]

Well, I took University frequently by bike, to get to the museums, U of T, and other destinations, whether or not I was part of the grid that is still too disconnected to count on to get you everywhere you need to go!

And it was a very scary ride, with cars zipping by at highway speeds! (why is that necessary here, one might ask as well.

A protected bike land here is a terrific idea!

[Steve]

I'm not a big fan of dedicated bicycle lanes even though I ride my bicycle to work downtown 7-8 months of the year. The population of Toronto continues to grow, and even if we shift more of the population to public transit and bicycles, it is sheer lunacy to reduce road capacity.

What we should be encouraging is the shared use of the roads. Rather than knock out a lane, make certain arterial routes (east-west and north-south) a little wider so they can accommdate cyclists. At the same time, we need to educate both motorists and cyclists to obey the traffic rules and respect each other's presence. (To that panel van that passed me on the inside lane after I changed lanes to turn left this morning on Dundas off Beverley, wtf were you thinking?)

It's not a contest. We all need to learn how to coexist -- vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians.

[John]

I, like "thousands" of others who work in the downtown core, wear a suit to work. I don't have a change room, a shower or a locker room. Biking in a suit doesn't work for me, as I'm sure it doesn't work for the FREAKIN MAJORITY of people that actually work downtown. I am so sick of activists bending the ears of Council to their whims. This is a pretty idea that has absolutely no basis in reality.

As for bikers... are you traffic or are you pedestrians? You can't be both, which means at least one set of traffic lights applies to you.

[Just not practical.]

It's not fiscally ($$$) practical to have the kind of bike lanes proposed for University Ave. There will not be enough volume (Traffic) to justify the money that needs to be spent on creating AND maintaining the lanes. Congestion from motor vehicles will increase and cause MORE POLLUTION as a result. Commuters will not use the bicycle to get to work when it is TOO HOT, TOO COLD, Raining or other inclimate weather. THERE ARE VERY FEW ALL WEATHER RIDERS. Even if the weather was nice, riders will be reluctant to ride as MANY companies DO NOT have the facilities for workers, clients to change or shower. Bicyclists will sweat, unless one is cruising along at speeds less than 10kmh. Proper secure storage facilities for bicycles ARE NOT available at many businesses. Toronto cyclists already have an existing infrastructure to traverse the city. EVERYBODY, cyclists AND motor vehicle operators need to FOLLOW THE SAME RULES and SHARE the roads. Cyclists have got to realize Cars & Trucks CAN NOT stop in the SHORT distance that a bicylce can stop. The $$$ can be better spent on fixing roads so cyclists (and cars) can use the road without the bone jarring ride.

[Badge]

The scramble crosswalks are being used wrong also. The point is to releave BOTH pedestrian and auto traffic. Pedestrians scramble in all directions, and should NOT be allowed to cross when the lights are green, allowing cars to turn Left and Right unimpeded by pedestirans. Convenient that you can not turn off of Yongue at Dundas, but it defeats the point of this type of crossing, partially anyway.

[JH]

The University Lane is also duplicating the perfectly acceptable bike lane that runs parrell to University a few blocks over on St. George from Dupont to Queen...

[SP]

While I agree that the initiative should have been more ambitious to really show people what's possible, disappointing inaccuracies in this article play into the hands of the anti-cyclists and discourage would-be cyclists. For instance, the University lane won't be totally unconnected: for example, people living east of Jarvis, along or north of Bloor, can cycle on bike lanes along Bloor, south on Sherbourne, west on Gerrard, and then south on University. That connects a lot of students and downtown workers. Further, there are actually three downtown "scramble" intersections that I'm aware of, not just one. Very important to get one's facts straight to avoid torpedoing a real chance at addressing the terminal gridlock the city faces.

[Ryan]

"However, we do have a plethora of back end streets and smaller roads that go unused. "

Know why those streets go unused? Because they generally won't get you where you want to go. Side streets often don't go very far before coming to an end, usually at a much busier street - for example, Beverly, a very nice biking street, comes to an end at Queen Street, which is probably one of the worst roads for biking downtown.

Cyclists like to take straight and direct routes, just like drivers do.

[Dutch Engstrom]

Placing bike lanes on arterial roads will not work, unless you can move back the sidewalks and buildings by 10 feet - a proposal I'm surprised City Hall has not yet created an investigative committee for. This city does need more bike lanes, but place them on quieter streets parallel to the arterial roads. And I don't think it's fair to put words in a mayoral candidate's mouth: It will just provide politicians like Rocco Rossi a wonderful excuse to say that “we are not a bicycle city.” From what I have read, Rossi wants more bike lanes and wants to complete Toronto's bike lane network, just not on the main streets like Jarvis and University. He is right to think they will only cause greater gridlock and won't necessarily inspire a greater proportion of the population to jump on their bikes and head to work.

[Warren]

There should be a lane on Bloor as well.
Connectivity is a major issue but that will come with time as more lanes are added.
With the forest of condos that have sprouted around the city I would think it would be obvious that we can not use cars the way we did twenty years ago. The roads were already full. I hope people start to understand that this kind of thing is necessary.

[Ryan]

When was the last time Toronto had snow for 6 months? In a BAD winter, you get about 4 months, and this year you could bike almost all winter, aside from a couple weeks.

[Allsgood]

Justin, the fact that you live in the Beach and work in Hamilton suggests you have no concept of city living, and as such, should not be commenting on issues such as this. Your lifestyle (which may have worked well 30 years ago, but not anymore) is a clear example of what is wrong with many so called city dwellers. You have defeated the purpose of city living. Riding a bike makes a lot of sense when you live, work, and play in the same area, and don't we live in the city for convenience of ammenities? The concept of driving everywhere in our city, with little or no traffic, is ridiculous. The real issue is that there are too many cars, not that there are too many bike lanes.

[lins]

Please explain to me how i can take my bike to work or even the bus.
1. Live - birchmount and danforth (locked into a 5 year fixed no port mortgage)
2. 2 kids in school - Leslie & Yorkmills - (1 has to go there learning diabiliites and only school that has required space and program, to make it easier both go to the same school to reduce driving) - cant be dropped off before 8:30am
3. Work Erin Mills and 401 - have to be there for 9:15am

And i know i am not the exception - I am the norm.
I am never going to bike to work - it makes no sense.

We bike on the weekend for exercise and fun.

And to the lady who says cars are what made us all fat - really??

[Samir D]

As many people have mentioned on this board, all one needs to do (including all the mayoral and councillor candidates)is to look no further than Montreal to see how they manage traffic. Montreal is a true four season city whose infrastructure is reflective of that (as with all cities, they are wrestling with maintenance of aging infrastructure). They have a constantly expanding metro that is integrated into the city, a separate bicycle grid, road space and parking for cars and relatively wide pedestrian sidewalks. The sidewalks and bike paths connect to large and small parks all over the downtown with benches set back from the street. They even have made certain streets pedestrian only where businesses have flourished (Kennsington Market merchants take note).

The lesson here is that our civic leaders need to think TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT which means pedestian paths, public transit, cars users and bicycle users in a single comprehensive plan that is implemented (and has been implemented successfully in cities all over like Montreal) and not treating different modes separately and pitting them against each other for the sake of votes.

[Ken MacDonald]

"You cant tell me of the million + people that live in the city - that any significant portion are going to give up their cars and ride a bike - even with protective bike lanes, just the same that no one with a car is goign to give it up to take a bus. "

I, like many others in the city, have kids, own a home, pay property taxes, own a car, pay my licensing fee, use transit (subway mostly), AND ride my bike to work. This comment is a good idea of ideological domination at work. "Things can't change, that's just the way it is." And that seems to me to be just Gil's point. We need to elect politicians who ca recognize and see beyond ideological domination to enact some form of vision and turn Toronto into a clean, healthy, vibrant city, not some urban wasteland built around outdated hunks of metal (yes, including mine).