Path of least resistance: bike lane strategy

Respectively Herb, putting bike lanes where the least "resistance" exists has been the norm from day one. You need only to look at a bike lane map to see it. The only thing Heaps did differently was to be blunt about it.

Does this nonsense encourage more people to cycle? Quite questionable. Yes, the majority of potential cyclists want bike lanes. I am willing to bet that there is a caveat to it. They want bike lanes/routes that make sense and for the most part continuous.

Anyone know what happened to the proposed contra-flow bikelane on Shaw? Wasn't that announced in the spring? Not sure how it would be implemented, though, the street seems too narrow for it and a simple "bicycles excepted" under the one way sign would really be enough. It's already being used in that way by many cyclists who prefer going against the grain over the busy and parking clogged alternatives on Ossington or Christie.

I wonder that implementing the Toronto Bike Plan where's it's most politically palatable and a 'take what you can get' approach may work against us: we could end up defending little used, inferior routes though we recognize their prime qualification for inclusion in the Plan is expediency.

Witnessing the velophobe, Councillor Holyday, in action (at the PWIC meeting) made me uneasy precisely because at times I found myself agreeing with him. He complained he never sees existing cycling lanes (in or around his ward) used. I can't speak to the veracity of his specific claim, but who among us can dispute the fact that a suburban cyclist is often little more than an oxymoron.

The path of least resistance is that for a reason: it offers the least. Velophobes cede it because they don't consider it worth fighting for and often it's with good reason.

Whether it's part of the 'Plan' or not we should start pushing for space on major arteries where cyclists already proliferate, in the core. Maybe the lane on Brimorton will be used may be it won't, I can't say. But I do know that if we slap some paint on the downtown stretches of Bloor, Queen, Yonge, Dundas, or St. Clair right now it will be instantly inundated with thousands of cyclists. And that would be a statement that Holyday et al could not deny; it would strip them of their ammunition.

But there are exceptions. Councillor Baeremaeker recently announced he intends to push for lanes on Lawrence Ave (from Vic Park to the Rouge River and on to Pickering via the waterfront trail) -- almost 17 KM of bikeway on a major commercial thoroughfare! This is part of the official Bike Plan, it's also the type of bold initiative we need.

At any rate let's stop clapping like trained seals whenever a little paint is spilled onto asphalt; let's be more discerning.

We need a priority list of routes - maybe a classification that tells us which lanes we need now, which ones can wait and which ones are a nice to have. The city would then no longer have the broad selection of "any" of the routes in the plan and thus be on the nut to build first the lanes that will help the cause.

"Is it it part of Toronto"?!!! Are you making fun of us underpriviliged Scarberians, again?

I know the area reasonable well:

• Brimorton Drive from Brimley Road to Scarborough Golf Club Road;

Useful because it's away from major traffic (pleasant to ride, no pushy traffic) and and goes east-west a fair distance (about MArkham Avto Midland). It would used by folks that need an east west connection in the Lawrence and Ellesmere area. But not as important to commuting as a bike artery like a Lawrence path would be.

* Conlins Road from Ellesmere Road to Sheppard Avenue East;


It's useful since it connects north of the 401 with the south side. But there are options: Meadowvale and Morningside that could serve the same purpose. Conlins could be of value since there are no ramps onto the 401 that make a mess of the Morningside cycling. I am surprised that Meadowvale is not on the Bikeplan since it would be a logical connection for weekend Zoo visitors or the many folks that will head towards the Rouge Park area.

The most important point is the least well stated in this post

It helps to encourage more people to bike

Isn't this the real purpose of bike advocacy? We should all know here that increased cycling usage is the best way to improve cycling safety, and that bike lanes are the best way to increase local cycling. So why shouldn't we be targeting areas that have the most car use? Especially if those are the areas are the easiest to get bike lanes. It should be a snowballing effect - every time we take a bum out of a car seat and onto saddle it is a victory and makes it easier to get more bike lanes.

Tonight is an important meeting for the Annette Street bike lanes. We need as amany cyclists as possible to fill the space up as possible, and we need to shout for our bike lanes!

Next week the battle will be somewhere else. Perhaps in your ward, veronica .

As long as cyclists continue to not show up at these meetings we cannot expect things to change anywhere.

It shouldn't matter where you come from, you need to show up for these things. I'm from Etobicoke, but I still make time to show up for PWIC/TCAC & community meetings. It's too bad that not enough others do.

...And that is why our bike lanes have dissapeared into parking spaces.

It's not enought to cheer, you gotta show up to the meetings.

Hanging out on the sidelines ain't going to change anything.

To be invloved, to be active, means showing up for these things at the time when it matters, like tonight. You want your, help us fight for ours, too. And we'll be these for you when that time comes.

Can anyone name any part of the Toronto transportation system that is put together on a ward basis? Imagine if each ward wanted a say in exactly what route it takes in its ward. Cycling is the only one that is warped by ward boundaries. It is not even done to pedestrians.

It is even more absurd that we approach cycling infrastructure in such a fashion. The bottom up approach needs to stop. We need to approach this from the top. Need an effective example of this, try the CAA. You think they would bother with some insignificant committee if they wanted something?

Every single major street should have a bike lane, if we get more by doing the easiest ones that's fine by me. I'm encouraged that more are being done this year, it will mean we get more cyclists in every section of the city. The easiest ones are often the widest streets with traffic that is too fast and with no street parking - bike lanes will reduce speeds to a civilized pace and they won't be blamed for taking away parking.
The number of kilometres put in each year isn't limited by money, the amount budgeted isn't spent. Why make this a suburb vs downtown needs argument?

...- bike lanes will reduce speeds to a civilized pace and they won't be blamed for taking away parking.

I do not like using cyclists as speed bumps. When bike lanes were installed on Dundas, 3 of the 4 rush hour directions of travel saw a reduction in travel times for cars. Yes it became more civilized but it did not reduce speeds.

A cyclist should be able to hop onto the bike way network anywhere in Toronto and travel a continuous route not on something that jumps all over the place. I am arguing for total inclusion, not pitting one area against the other.

If "potential" cyclists see that there is no bike lane along the more risky parts they will be no more inclined to ride their bikes.

I've ridden on Horner, Renforth and the Queensway, and have to say that all can be scary carterials that could definitely use bike lanes. These are not about just putting bike lanes where they are easy and useless - I can site quite a few urban locations for that (Greenwood - where the lanes make things subtly worse, and Logan )

It would be helpful to put in this post the distances to really evaluate the lanes, if they can get cyclists long distances they are useful, if they are short stubs, then they are a start but definitely need to make connections.

I am sick and tired of the argument that more resources should go downtown because more cyclists are there. First of all, its a chicken and an egg problem. Many cyclists don't cycle in the suburbs because there are no routes that feel comfortable. Downtown already feels comfortable without bike lanes due to congestion and slower speeds - or you would not see the vast numbers that you do.

As well, the suburbs have been ignored for far too long in infrastructure projects. What's the point of continuing to put bike lanes a couple hundred metres from the last one in the urban core - such as Logan, Jones, Greenwood - when you can be several kms from a bike lane in Scarborough.

The suburbs deserve the attention - get your mind out of the box of narrow thinking. This is I Bike T.O. - not I Bike Bathurst-to-Parliament. Toronto is a big megacity. Deal with it.

The current limit of 50 km/h is excessive on most roads. The upside is that it probably wouldn't cost too much to reduce the speed limit to 30 km/h in the core. The cost of a few hundred thousand dollars worth of signs is easily offset by the increased safety for all road users (i.e. everyone).

The down side is that a lot of cyclists would be getting speeding tickets. :o)

One idea I had was to legalize sidewalk cycling (I've talked about this before). Not all sidewalks are made the same. I rode on Dundas in Mississauga today and think long, long stretches of it would work just fine as a bike path. Now we just need to train all the cyclists to watch out for driveways and intersections.

Herb, you knew I'd bite!

Instinctively, I don't like the idea. But I am open to explore, maybe you are onto something. Let's talk about these long stretches of sidewalks that flank the major arteries like Finch and Steeles.

Here in Scarberia, quite a number of folks cycle to work - typically immigrants that cycled back home and do it here to save a dollar. They ride on the sidewalks.

As a driver, I have witnessed and even experienced myself hair-raising situations at intersections: drivers that want to proceed at a stop sign or a right-turn on red think all is clear by checking the traffic on the road, and they check whether someone wants to cross from the sidewalk. That latter check fails because the sidewalk cyclist is faster than the driver expects, and thus the driver proceeds and endangers the cyclist. The saving grace is that these folks on bikes are usually -but not always - slow and cautious. But the situation is darn dangerous, and I think the Toronto accident report backs me up with the stats.

Maybe these things would work if the sidewalk is labelled as "shared (bike and walk)" and a solution is found for the places where side streets enter, typically every 300m or so. A light that separates bikes from all cars (i.e. the right turning cars get a red light if cyclists are allowed to proceed).

Side streets would be dealt with in this fashion, but there is the problem with commercial malls along the road. I don't see an easy solution. The malls are often strung out with multiple driveways entering the road, cars enter frequently and the drivers are often distracted because of complexity: pedestrians, other cars moving in the parking lot, and those driveways are near intersections of side roads, which usually carry significant traffic.
Along such plazas and gas stations, maybe it would be best to direct the cycle traffic onto the road for a short stretch, and a painted bike path would give them there the right-of-way and make them more visible to the motorized traffic.

LAst not least, interference between cyclist and pedestrian is normally rare because few people walk there (this is different in the subdivisions with houses and driveways left and right) - so there might only be an issue when the school kids are on the way - i.e. between 8 and 9am and then again in the afternoon.

Any comments?