Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam is calling for a "review" of the recently installed—and extensively consulted—cycle tracks of Wards 27 and 28. She is asking Transportation Services to investigate two contradictory concerns: "the improper parking of delivery and passenger vehicles in bike lanes; and access concerns raised by persons with medical issues, disabilities and the elderly who can no longer directly access their homes or medical services and facilities". (Photo by Ian Flett)
I'm suspicious of Councillor Wong-Tam's intentions given her previous interactions with cycling infrastructure. So what'll it be? Shall we make holes in the cycle tracks for legitimate concern X? And how shall we prevent everyone else from also stopping there?
It's telling that Wong-Tam is the only signatory on this letter. A constituent has told me that office of Ward 28 Councillor Pam McConnell provided feedback on the letter but for some unknown (to us) reason, she didn't sign it. This is interesting given that at least half of the cycle tracks are in McConnell's ward.
This isn't the first time Wong-Tam has written Transportation staff asking them to review cycle tracks. She wrote staff asking them to make the Sherbourne cycle tracks a "pilot" rather than permanent. McConnell didn't sign the letter that time either.
The timing of the letter is odd. Her letter is dated February, 2015 and requested a report back from staff for May. But she won't get a report for September of this year, which will likely be after the road work is completed on the lower half of Sherbourne. Too late to make any changes there.
The community, including the disabled, was extensively consulted prior to the installation. I recall staff telling me how they went building by building alerting residents, businesses and requested their feedback. They met extensively with BIAs and RAs. So why now?
Coincidence?
I heard something interesting from a city planner soon after I was alerted to Wong-Tam's letter. I don't have any proof that this is related to her letter but it might be a clue.
The planner mentioned that 24 Wellesley, a condo tower, has requested curb cuts into the cycle track curbs so that their residents can be dropped off at the front door. Planner said they wanted it for Wheel-Trans, but really, there's no way of stopping anyone from using it.
The funny thing is is that 24 Wellesley has minor streets on all three sides with plenty of places to stop! So it seems a bit greedy that they also want holes in the cycle track as well. And you'll notice that there are a number of businesses also in that building that presumably aren't happy with losing the stopping space in front of their stores.
And this isn't the only condo tower. Apparently there are others who also want to poke holes into the cycle track. Is Wong-Tam helping to push these requests?
Here's what Wong-Tam wants reviewed:
- Locations of frequent parking in bike lanes and separation conditions (bollards and their spacing or curb type)
- Locations where Wheel-Trans and accessibility taxis cannot serve persons living with disabilities and where the City may not be meeting the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act
- Locations where parking obstructions force cyclists to merge unsafely with automotive traffic
- Locations where residents feel they are forced to park or be dropped off that are unsafe, due to traffic conditions or poor visibility
- Solutions and recommendations to remedy the conflicts to ensure safer street conditions for all bike lane and road users.
I hope Wong-Tam realizes that nothing is ever going to satisfy everyone. Her concerns contradict each other: if she identifies a problem with car drivers parking in the bike lanes, that is, there isn't enough physical separation, then why also call for a solution to residents and Wheel-Trans? If we increase the physical separation (which is what most cyclists want) then it's going to inevitably put some noses out of joint. That can't be fixed. And if they instead allow for gaps in the separation, we can't pretend that only Wheel-Trans or residents will use them. That gap is available to everyone.
So before we know it, the entire cycle track will be riddled with gaps where people can stop to pick up their coffee or wait with their engines idling because "it'll just be a minute". A route that is so easily blocked is no longer a safe or effective cycling route.
In whose interests is Councillor Wong-Tam fighting for? She also fought for off-hours on-street parking on Yonge and Bay, which increases the chances of injuries due to dooring for cyclists (and cancels out the benefit of bike lanes!) and makes public transit less efficient (by removing the priority lane for buses).
It makes me wary that Wong-Tam really has the best interests of cyclists at heart. If nothing else, we need to hear from her that she actually does support physically separated bike lanes. And that she will push for improvements to accessibility for the disabled that won't create gaps in the cycle tracks that will be used to make cycling more dangerous. That's the least she could do.
Comments
Lukas Fernier (not verified)
What was her office's
Mon, 04/20/2015 - 15:14What was her office's response to your queries about this?
herb
I haven't heard anything
Tue, 04/21/2015 - 11:40I haven't heard anything since I published this post. Just before where she said she consulted McConnell's office.
Robert (not verified)
How about using curbs, and at
Sun, 05/03/2015 - 04:55How about using curbs, and at locations where it is marked as reserved disabled access, use a sloping curb and add a crosswalk for the disabled users. Killing two birds with one stone.
herb
Or raise the cycle track to
Sun, 05/03/2015 - 07:45Or raise the cycle track to make a platform in some spots for Wheel-Trans like there is for the bus on Sherbourne.
hamish (not verified)
Well, the fix was in for a
Mon, 04/20/2015 - 15:33Well, the fix was in for a re-fix of Sherbourne and Wellesley etc. rather than a likely more-needed EXPANSION of the network, including mere painted lanes on Bloor St. E. between Sherbourne and Church, for $20,000. Paint is a great place to start vs. doing nothing, or only tiny bits for a great cost, though yes, in some places and times, absolutely the spatial separations are great.
I can see why the local Councillor might want to have a review, and it needs a review from all points including - why not push for having Wellesley connect up to Parliament as the major focus vs. rebuilding it? Why no bollards on the right curve of the eastbound bike lane going east just east of Jarvis? Why is there still not the connection to Hoskin? Why is Hoskin left undone? Will it be open or shut for the Pan Am Games closure of two months? If the bike lane is to be closed, why two months? Will it be completed ahead of the Games or afterwards? What about some alternatives for safe cycling like say, Bloor.
With Sherbourne, I didn't have the energy to go chase the Open House but it might have been a situation for a bi-directional lane on one side as it is a long blocked street, and maybe it might have been OK. There are needs to keep any bi-directional lane as long as possible to trim conflict points. The City Bike Map lies in suggesting that the good conditions extend north of Bloor btw.
There are reasons though to strongly challenge what Ms. Wong Tam thinks is OK for safe biking, with two examples in Ward 27, one of which was clearly raised as an increase in hazard to cyclists. The Davenport lane, once through a substandard section east of Ave. Rd. as it curves to the south, had a pretty straight run to Bay St., With the reworking of the corner, allegedly to urbanize it etc., there was wasted space for a high design speed design that could have made the bike lane continuous around the new "corner" as well as the new link to go along Davenport some decade to Bloor St. But nope, the once smooth and easy-curving lane now has a pinch point at a corner, and is unsafe at least for cyclists, as we are used as friction vs. having a slip-through aligned with what we had. Objections were raised at PWIC etc., but the bad design won, and nobody says nothing about it it seems.
A further example of new bad design is going eastbound on Bloor across Sherbourne, where green paint is now becoming a point at the west side of Sherbourne, almost pointing to the sidewalk. This does NOT reflect the path that cyclists wishing to keep going westbound, and as it is a pinchpoint with a different width to Bloor, this is unsafe/weird.
There may be a bit of motion in adjusting Bloor St. E. for a token bit of bike safety with removing one side of parking to get consistent lane width and the sharrows installed. Maybe a tiny step forward, but considering that it's $20,000 only to repaint for actual painted bike lanes, and almost all of the Clowncil was OK with spending MILLIONS to light up the Viaduct, and using borrowed $, and we can't find the $ for a Bloor EA, and why do we need an EA for a line of paint?, even the progressives are really uh, challenging.
Ian Flett (not verified)
Many people with mixed
Mon, 04/20/2015 - 23:04Many people with mixed abilities are using the safety and quality of physically separated cycle tracks to get around this city.
Safe and physically separated cycle tracks foster independence and accessibility for all Ontarians whether they use bicycles, wheelchairs or personal mobility scooters.
Suggesting safe and physically separated cycle tracks undermine the universal accessibility they create is absurd, and perhaps in this context, even cynical.
This "review" is just another #madeinward27 attempt at subordinating people to cars.
Mellonhead
"Suggesting safe and
Thu, 04/23/2015 - 13:08"Suggesting safe and physically separated cycle tracks undermine the universal accessibility they create is absurd..."
I would suggest that some at council advocate elaborate and expensive infrastructure precisely because it will be debated to death and never built, and so the councillors look progressive at no cost or actual committment.
Ian in Toronto (not verified)
It appears that they are
Mon, 05/04/2015 - 10:14It appears that they are indeed tearing out part of the cycle track this morning. I posted a photo to the Cycle Toronto Facebook page. I don't know if there's some temporary construction or if the building just went rogue and decided to tear it out.
Ian Flett (not verified)
Are you referring to 24
Mon, 05/04/2015 - 13:50Are you referring to 24 Wellesley? Can you tweet that?
Shaun Polle (not verified)
The improper parking is a big
Thu, 05/07/2015 - 03:11The improper parking is a big reason for the dissatisfaction among the individuals. Wong is going right way.