[A big welcome to Hamish, a long time cycling advocate and our new guest blogger.]
One big and valid criticism of Toronto bike lanes is that we have a patchwork, and not a network. This is especially true in the western end of the older city, where a set of situations have kept cycling less safe and robust than it needs to be.
These conditions are: an irregular grid; streetcar tracks on the main streets; a set of restrictions from the Weston rail corridor that slices through the entire area on the diagonal; and political will.
What has resulted is a very large swath of older Toronto that remains extra dangerous, with resulting tragedies and harm to many cyclists, even though it's all inherently bikeable and lots of people still do.
This gap in safety problem has been 'fessed up to in the Bike Plan, though the City has known that there's heavier east-west bike travel demand from the west end for nearly 15 years. Finally, we're getting some trace of movement in slight improvements to this travel - the recent extension to the Harbord St. lane has been great, as was the small 1km of bike lane over the Dundas St. W. bridge.
But issues remain, including the "What next?" after crossing over the railtracks at Dundas/College.
In late October, city staff gave a presentation at the Toronto Cycling Advisory Committee (TCAC) on new measures with sharrows that will soon be done on the wider portions of College St. between Lansdowne and Brock St. as College has extra width there. (This was part of the effort to improve the west end biking, much of which was simply doing the Bike Plan while ignoring what cyclists wanted, for example, safety on the main streets).
The trouble is - that stretch of College is in the Bike Plan as getting bike lanes, and we don't have the political will, it seems, from local Councillor Giambrone, to push the car parking off the street to have bike lanes. As is, though, this stretch of College feels comparatively safe to bike on compared with other parts of College because of that width.
The current TCAC, still stretched thinly from the 2/3 reduction in members imposed by Miller and company, also lacks robust sub-committees to provide a more thoughtful response. Often these presentations seem to pop up on the evening of the meeting, and it's hard to think fast -- and to push back -- where there can be real time constraints, or some occasional negativity from the Chair.
But why are we eroding the Bike Plan without pushing for another four blocks somewhere else - like the missing four blocks of Harbord St. just west of UofT?
Harbord St. is becoming a major biking conduit for many cyclists in all types of weather, but it has a less-safe four block portion from Borden St. to Spadina, (uh, gee, might it have something to do with around 19 parking spots?). But given the hazards, the push for biking, and how even a small portion of discontinuity affects safety, we should not allow the Bike Plan to be casually negated in one area just because it's a bit inconvenient , without getting something back.
The exact mechanism for ensuring balance is a challenge. A downgrading in the west end needs to be balanced with an upgrade in a clearly missing link, but TCAC is unable to function well enough to provide this balance. Quorum was lost at the tail end of the October meeting, and there have been some internal frustrations with how it seems that member opinions and desires aren't really heeded (not that this is a new problem).
But with the setting back of the amount of bike lane being installed this year, members should guard their turf. If the past trimming of the committee due to lack of progress was an indication, the next round of the Committee could be even sparser, with only one member for each district!
Relying on the Toronto Cyclists Union to champion a cause also seems unrealistic and ill-advised. The push to install bike lanes on Jarvis St., a short distance away from rough-riding Sherbourne St. still seems curious given the overall east-west travel demand and the lack of safe east-west routes.
Perhaps the key may be to work locally, and we are lucky that the new head of that Harbord area Residents' Association along with his wife are cyclists. He has noted the caramped conditions of the cyclists using Harbord St.
It would be nice to have some upgrade for cyclists in this looming election year somewhere!!
To reclaim a line, the glaciers are melting faster than we're providing for bike safety.
Comments
herb
Jarvis
Thu, 12/17/2009 - 11:03I'm not sure if you can conclude from Jarvis that the bike union is not the group to rely on to get a complete bike lane on Harbord. My take on Jarvis was that it was an opportunity given to the cycling community, an opportunity to push for better cycling infrastructure on that street. It's true that there is a greater need for east-west connections, but this last year has provided few concrete opportunities.
You have a good point about Harbord: a bit of push there with the local merchants and council to complete the bike route, may be a good way to test the seriousness of city council. Given the limited power of local advocacy or individual advocacy it's always good to have a broad-based group on your side. Witness the turn-around on Annette St. where the decision was reversed and bike lanes were installed in the end in opposition to the local councillor's position. The bike union played a big part of this, by helping to motivate the local citizens to fight for the lanes.
hamish (not verified)
Jarvis + Harbord & E/W vs. N/S
Thu, 12/17/2009 - 12:38It's possible that I'm wrong, and Jarvis is an opportunity that was seized vs. leftover space, we need some "green" cred after the Boor St. neglect,/EAvasion, and enter the CU to champion a duplicate bike lane while maybe missing some other things like Lawrence, or Bloor, or repaving Sherbourne etc... And it's dangerous to ride on now, but somehow, I sense it may not be an entirely done deal.
With Harbord, I've drawn this to the attention of the local RA, and have had some positive email back, and presumably there are folks who are keen on working on this in the New Year, as getting to approvals requires far far more than one individual bringing forth a reasonable idea, Or revisiting a reasonable idea in this case.
And yes, it could be a test for both Council and the Councillor - even though connecting Harbord isn't in the blessed Bike Plan. The west end really! needs better connectivity and facilities, and there should be a quality assessment, not merely x kms.
geoffrey
Local Councillor didn't get mad ..
Thu, 12/17/2009 - 13:31Saundercook got even:
http://sockpuppet.ca/blogsplat/?q=node/336
Bollards screwed bicyclists on MGT. Now they are doing that on the Humber Trail.
David Juliusson (not verified)
The Bike union is the group most likely to get a lane on Harbord
Thu, 12/17/2009 - 15:01I believe the Bike union is the group most likely to get a lane on Harbord. What other avenues are open to individual advocates? The Bike union works with ARC and is able to work with groups on projects of mutual benefit (Eg World 19 and Annette St). It provides the most consistent reliable voice.
I also agree with its focusing on the Official Bike Plan. The Bike Plan is a good comprehensive document. The problem is its not being followed. Less than 13 km. this year is pathetic. At this rate the 495 km. envisioned will be completed by 2042.
It has also been able to react when an opportunity presents itself.Jarvis St. was a good example. It is not on the Bike Plan but was an opportunity that I am glad wasn't missed. There will be other opportunities in the future (eg. Mimico Waterfront Trail), the group working on trails around Downsview. The Bike union is the most logial conduit of information available. Maybe something better will come along, but I don't se it right now.
hamish (not verified)
if more letters like this were done...I'd tend to agree
Thu, 12/17/2009 - 19:35I was unaware that the Bike Union had sent out this letter to the City linked here:
http://bikeunion.to/news/2009/12/04/cycling-infrastructure-maintenance-s... -
and it's that sort of thing that will make a difference.
As will working with others - tackling any effort for change in the public realm is most likely done by a group, or small group. Res Assocs are good places to start too, but sometimes a specific focus is required, and the ward based BikeUserGroups proposed years ago, didn't fly too far, perhaps due to some politicians not wanting to support bike organizing.
And even if we're organized in one area of this amanglemated motoropolis, we'll still have the issue of being quite outvoted by suburbanites, or the rest of the City, so we also can't ignore them, nor the province that helped make this mess.
As for the swipe from Grate, at least I have the courage to be honest with my name, and if you happen to think about Harbord becoming continuous, it tends to undercut the current push for bike lanes on Bloor. Harbord however, ends at Ossington - and then what? Bloor becomes logical, very logical, and yes, I'm path o'logic in this street having bike lanes from Ossington out to Dundas St. W, and wouldn't it make a difference?
Seymore Bikes
The Bike People
Thu, 12/17/2009 - 19:58David,
Your point is valid in so far as the Bike Union is able to facilitate the will of its membership and other like minded individuals. Annette St. worked because a community got organized and City Council received over 200 e-mails/letters from people that supported bike lanes there
The Bike Union's Ward Advocacy program is the thing that will affect real change, so encourage people to get involved and make a difference, but it is detrimental to suggest that the Bike Union has the power to make stuff happen without the fervent support of its members.
The Bike Union is you.
.
great (not verified)
Great
Thu, 12/17/2009 - 14:38Great... add Hamish as a writer... because we all need a bunch of whining crap about Bloor Street over and over and over.
Good addition.
A.R. (not verified)
Interesting addition
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 17:04I remember Hamish Wilson from the days when he spoke against the West Toronto Railpath for some reason. However, now that it's built, we can enjoy his other opinions and distinctive derogatory "car" related puns.
hamish (not verified)
yup, highest best use ahead of bikes
Tue, 12/29/2009 - 16:43I was and still am less enthused about the Rail Trail as the highest best use of this corridor is for more transit, and while it's getting intensified with the Blue22/GO, what is really needed is better sub-regional transit - and there was something approved by ratepayers c. 1948 that followed this diagonal routing - details in Unbuilt Toronto book, perhaps on stevemunro.ca too.
As for bike facilities - sure let's try for both, but for me the really strong need for bike facilities is not for something like the truncated Rail Trail, but on-road - on Bloor - which might be c. $50,000 to get bike lanes from Dundas St. W. over to Ossington, which is a glaring need.
So c. $4m for the Rail Trail for something more of neighbourhood benefit, vs. $50,000ish for bike lanes on street that might make a huge difference for commuting cyclists parallel to the subway - but it does get some good "green" cred for bold politicians and yes, it is nice to ride on, once one gets there.
The nature of blogging is anonymous comment it seems - but if one wants to get a bit beyond the blahblahging, it helps to sign one's name - like I did on this letter printed today, and without mentioning Bloor.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/743429
.
geoffrey
http://www.harmsen.net/projec
Tue, 12/29/2009 - 19:00http://www.harmsen.net/projects_ttc.html
that is the last recent plan I'm aware of using that corridor as you propose. a plan ~1948 attached it to the proposed queen subway plan.
by the time a corridor gets built, the cost attached will excede the cost of paint. bloor does not cease west of high park and the need for a corridor east of bloor/danforths junction with kingston rd does not go away.
increasing the visibility of bicyclists by coaxing them onto thoroughfares from the sidewalks and sidestreets they hide on is part of the issue. certainly bloor is key to this but acceding to saundercook and his etobicokean likes will not make this work.
the railpath has potential. as built it is of little value. considering the lobbying effort to get it this far it seems inconceivable to get it to a useful configuration. North to St Clair and south to Wellington would be a start.
Imagine a hwy 400 that went from steeles to 1/2 way to 7 and stopped. that is the railpath. that that configuration exists suggests the bike path is but a temporary claim on the property.
toronto will let it fall into neglect if it can't find another excuse to abuse bicyclists from it.
geoffrey
the west toronto railpath will go away
Tue, 12/29/2009 - 14:56Hamish spoke against the West Toronto Railpath as he saw the space better utilised as a transit corridor. I believe Hamish' fears unfounded as the City of Toronto has a history of neglecting/forgetting/repurposing bicycling infrastructure at a whim. The South Kingsway bikelanes? More recently the Queens Quay grade separated bike path? What about the grade separated paths that once lined Scarlett and Weston Rds? Or the Royal York bikelanes that were lost to road widening? What of the system of off road trails that joined Neilson Pk with Centennial Pk?
Hamish has nothing to fear. When the city sees fit the railpath will be no more.
A.R. (not verified)
Railpath has been successful
Wed, 12/30/2009 - 13:43The Railpath been very successful and Metrolinx has shown strong interest in extending it as part of their plan to expand train services in the corridor. I saw many commuter cyclists on it even when it was raining all day even in its truncated form. It has proven a safe route to get from the Junction area to College, which is fairly safe street for cyclists. Area residents are also very satisfied with having a good place to walk the dog and a meeting place. Personally, I think that cyclists are not some inferior group to people who choose to live far outside the city and need to take trains. The corridor is very wide and not utilized to its full potential by a long shot.
Metrolinx will most likely extend it to the crucial cycling corridor that is Queen Street making it even better.
But the thing which I never understood is why the Railpath issue was always twinned with the Bloor bike lanes. It wasn't a matter of money. Many (not all) merchants and residents on Bloor have no interest in seeing them painted.
hamish (not verified)
It's the need for better east-west biking in the old core...
Wed, 12/30/2009 - 14:17From the stats of 15 years ago on biking numbers to the crash/harm stats of the current day, it's all about improving the east-west biking connectivity in a network, not a patchwork, that has spurred me to vex and prod and persist - and not just on Bloor, but in many other areas of the west end especially.
While I'm glad that the Rail Trail is being better used etc. and by many, the logic of using Bloor ahead of College, Queen, and the RailTrail should have had more sway in my view as Bloor is flat, long, direct and without streetcar tracks that impair and even prevent the repainting of most other main direct roads in the older west end core. And as with other big projects, they eat a LOT of $ and staff time so simple things are neglected, though these simple things can be more complex on the political side.
There is a real demand for improved transit - even ahead of bike lanes/paths, and this corridor to the NW has real value as a transit corridor, and if this means erasing the Rail Trail to provide fab transit, I'll stick my neck out for that, though in an ideal world, we'd have both great semi-local transit and a bike facility.
The Star has a story today about using cablecar transit - maybe that's the fix.
And as for the original posting, what about demanding four blocks for four blocks? Too simple?