It's not just about finding room for bikes

It’s wonderful that our mayoral candidates and the electorate have a position on bike lanes, whether pro or con, considering not that many years ago the topic didn’t really register with voters and politicians alike. Today there’s general support for bicycles - they don’t pollute, they save us money, they’re fun to ride and they help keep us fit.

Some of the candidates like bikes but not on arterial roads, and the latest plan for University Avenue is generating lots of debate. The reality is that many arterial roads are already used as main thoroughfares by commuter cyclists, and generally speaking bike lanes installed along strategic stretches of roadway could improve safety and comfort for cyclists and lead to more people cycling.

As a form of transportation the bicycle is ultra efficient, a model of appropriate technology that eclipses the automobile in its ability to transform energy into forward motion. For a machine that is seemingly so perfect it’s sad that it causes so much angst and consternation. Militarizing the debate is hostile and counter productive and I wonder if the vitriol that some people use to explain their distain for all things bicycle is really as pervasive as they would have us believe.

Others suggest that a licensing fee for bicycles, to pay for their use of the road and new bike lanes, would be in order. Like bike lanes that go against the traffic – this suggestion is "contra-flow" to prevailing thinking. If someone chooses to ride a bicycle, their travel behaviour should be rewarded and in many countries (unfortunately not ours) governments are paying their citizens to ride their bikes to work.

The Canadian Automobile Association, a seemingly unlikely cycling advocate, promotes the virtues of the bicycle in their spring 2010 issue of CAA Magazine. A series of articles under the "Pedal Power – helping the planet two wheels at a time" banner, reports on the benefits of cycle tourism and bike sharing schemes that have been in place for years in cities like Paris, Barcelona and Stockholm and that may be coming to our city around this time next year.

There appears to be lots of common ground on the debate and if we tease apart the rhetoric we’ll discover that it’s about real estate – and the amount of space to be shared by those on bicycle, on foot, wheeling and in motor vehicles. The dilemma then is where bicycles should go in the right of way (ROW) – that area of land municipalities take from developers and planners and engineers carve up to accommodate the numerous and competing interests and needs.

If this space isn’t adequately shared – transit slows, cars speed, cyclists don’t feel comfortable or safe and pedestrians are put at risk. When we get it wrong the consequences can be disastrous and tragic. As a first consideration we must apportion space more equitably for all road users and then employ road designs that don’t place the needs of motorists ahead of other road users.

A forum happening in the city April 23, 2010 and hosted by the Toronto Coalition for Active Transportation or TCAT, will examine these challenges under the lens of something called "complete streets." Just as a relationship requires a sense of completeness between partners to make it work, our road network must be designed so that streets work for all road users not just those using a car.

About Lorenzo Mele

Comments

[nancy]

As my husband and I read the ongoing debate about bike lanes, it would seem a simple solution might be to open the bike lanes on University from May to October. This may improve our reputation as a bike friendly city during the tourist season and also let us evaluate the ramifications of the bike lane through some simple observations including volume of traffic (bike and car) and accidents. Bike riding is a transportation and physical well being issue. As a progressive city lets try the options before putting bike lanes always on less traveled streets that often allow road parking and do not provide direct routes.

[Don't hate]

Although I'm sure it's obvious to everyone, I'm calling out Giorgio Mammoliti for his idea about a fee for cyclists. Those who drive motorcycles and motorized scooters park for free in Toronto. And they should. Their vehicles take up much less space than a car and are more efficient on fuel. If the city lets these drivers park for free to encourage their practice, why on earth would it punish cyclists, who take up even less space and pollute less? Will Mammoliti remove free parking for motorcycles and motorized scooters? The man is embarrassing himself.

[Sonny Yeung]

I support bike lanes and would see no problem with trying the pilot project and when it works there will be nothing the right wingers can do about it. The inside lanes on University are mainly used for turning left so the amount of time lost might be a couple of minutes so the driver will have to get up earlier.(smile)

[Transity Cyclist]

Excellent article with very coherent points! You've pretty much summed up most of my arguments.

[Mia Brown]

Maybe this has already been discussed, but WHY do cyclist not have to be licensed?
I remember when we had to learn the rules of the road, take a test and pay for a license. Bikes are a vehicle. There are universal rules, hand signals and laws, for the safety of all. The rider/driver should be accountable. The only way for this to be enforced is by licensing the user.
In addition, the revenue that the GTA requires every other consumer group (even the child that uses a City operated pool, soccer field... sports program) would justify the expense the City is enduring for road renovations and the off-road trails, built within the ravine system.
I don't understand how a Biker/cyclist is 'excused' from all the fees and regulations!?!?!?

[Adrien Blais]

The reason bicycles should not be licensed is very simple. They cannot destroy property and kill people in the same way autos can. They should be viewed as a cross between a pedestrian and an auto. Pedestrians use the streets as well. No one is calling for pedestrians to be licensed and to pay fees for sidewalks, pathways and cross walks. It is this polarized thinking that streets are only for autos that is so misguided. It is public space to be used equally be all.

This ridiculous nonsense I hear Mammoliti spouting "the downtown core and the downtown agenda, and the suburbs don't want to continue to subsidize these pet projects"
"If those that want to ride bikes want to continue to change infrastructure and cost the taxpayer $4 million a year, then they should pay for it."

You have to be kidding me. How long have inner city tax payers been hosed on developing new suburban areas? Also lets think about the wear and tear a bike would do to a paved road in comparison to a car. For arguments sake, let assume an average bike and ride weighs 200lb and the average car is 2000lbs. If an average residential street with medium vehicle traffic flow lasts 50yr before needing resurfacing. If we assume that all vehicle traffic was replaced by bike traffic then roadway would have a life of 500 yrs. Lets not even start on the health care savings a healthier population create.

Either way you cut it, cycling is more cost effective for a society, healthier for a society and will lead to a happier, smarter society.

[mmph19]

Bikes are vehicles. Training should be required in order to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable commuters - pedestrians. Licensing of bike and riders should be done to ensure that riders are informed and their vehicles are properly equipped with lights and safety gear. The fees do not have to be punitive and they do not have to represent any 'wear and tear' on the roadways, but funds could be used to build better bike lanes, bike storage facilities at subways, bike paths etc.. Without licensing, bikes are not regarded as serious transportation alternatives because their drivers lack consistency of skills that make them a nuisance to pedestrians and drivers alike. Get a license. Get respect.

[EF]

We don't live in Holland or Europe, for that matter. What happens to the bike lanes in the winter. Will the police ticket drivers for driving in the bike lanes when nobody is using them? This bike crap is just what it is... crap! If you want to ride a bike downtown, pay for the privilege. I figure, $100 per year should cover it.... for now and as gas goes up, so do the bike fees. How's that for FAIR! There obviously is NO FREE RIDE. Take it or leave it! Ride on the sidewalk if you can't learn or don't know the rules of the road. I think it's about time the police started laying down the law to these bicyclists if they think they should be treated like EQUALS..... DON"T YOU!!!!!

[lukev]

Is Montreal in Holland or Europe?

Last I checked, they had colder and snowier winters in Montreal, but they still have large, separated bike lanes through the city which are salted, plowed and well used year-round.

Almost every North American city is building bike lanes faster than us: New York, Ottawa, Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland, Vancouver to name a few.