Yesterday car drivers were calling into talk radio to complain about the increased funding for cycling infrastructure in the proposed budget. As much as I like fixed potholes as much as the next driver, why not give cyclists a break for once? Martin Koob explains the good news about the City's proposed budget items for cycling and the public hearings on November 5th.
I have to say this budget marks a significant turning point in the implementation of the Bike Plan.
On October 30th Mayor David Miller and Budget Committee Chair Shelly Carrol introduced the City of Toronto's Capital Budget. Press Release: Toronto’s 2009 Capital Budget supports growth and liveability. The Bike Plan figures prominently in this budget with an increase in funding for 2009 to $8 million and a commitment of $70 million to fund the building of the Bikeway Network in the 2009-2013 capital plan in order to complete the Bikeway Network by 2012 as promised by Mayor Miller. These funds will allow the building of 410 KM of bicycle lanes, 122 KM of shared roadways and 83 KM of off road paths. The budget also contains measures to provide more bicycle parking including funding for the first Bicycle Station - secure parking facility.
Comments
jamesmallon (not verified)
wake me when its built
Tue, 11/04/2008 - 12:02There's been more hot air than asphalt put into lanes and paths. Wake me up when it's safe enough to take my wife cycling with me, much less our child; until then they don't ride, and I ride with my signal finger up.
dash (not verified)
I'd like the roads fixed too
Tue, 11/04/2008 - 14:35Cyclists would love to see the pot holes and disintegrating gutter lanes fixed too. There are some roads I have to outright avoid because I spent too much time staring at the ground, trying not to get thrown by a hole, never mind watching for drivers and pedestrians.
hamish (not verified)
if they can't do a better job...
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 00:58The new lane on Wellesley is very disappointing in my view. So if it's only $25,000 a km to do a repainting of a street for bike lanes, and they can't get that right, then pardon me, why more millions? though sometimes we need to spend big, and not every good thing for bikes is in the bike budget eg. the Simcoe St. tunnel.
Steph (not verified)
What's so bad about Wellesley?
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 13:11I was off my bike for a couple of weeks and was surprised to see the new lane on Wellesley. The road wasn't completely resurfaced, but the potholes are gone (there were some dangerous ones and made one go into traffic) and the lane is keeping cars from hugging the curb and getting in my way :) .
I don't quite get why the lane stops several meters from the intersection as Jarvis and Yonge only to start again several meters later though.
And drivers need to realize that getting people onto bikes and transit means the roads better for drivers, for deliveries and other forms of commerce. Oh, but that would mean they would have to share and think of their car as more than a private extension of their home.
geoffrey (not verified)
blame street shuffle
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 14:36transportation takes over responsibility for parks paths and gets the budget for the same. its a shell game. an increase with added cost is not an increase.
if the road network worked the same way as the cycling network motorists would be expected to push their cars across bridges and crosswalks. pedestrians would be armed and if motorists were shot they would be at fault for getting in the way of pedestrians or doing so in dull colours when they had green lights to do so. highways would haphazardly stop, occasionally becoming sidewalks where they were forbidden to drive and otherwise becoming mud pits where they would require tow trucks to proceed.
sections of the roadway would cross shooting galleries.
the network is broken. driver education is broken. driver licencing is broken.
herb
incorrect
Thu, 11/06/2008 - 12:21Parks and Recreation is not in the business of providing bikeway transportation corridors. Simple as that. They don't have the staff or experience. Even with the same amount of money it's better off in Transportation Services. And now they also get a bigger budget to implement the changes.
Your cynicism is baseless.
The EnigManiac
I Can Save The City Money and Be A Millionaire At The Same Time
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 17:08Since it is clear that motorists still drive too fast and aggressively all too often (a recent Canadian study found that 90% of drivers admitted they speed every day, frequently multiple times), since it is clear we cyclists are rarely satisfied with the design, placement and location of bike lanes and refuse to stop at stop signs and since pedestrians insist upon crossing the street where-ever they want, there is a simple solution: naked streets.
We remove ALL traffic controls: stop lights, stop signs, everything. The streets will, once again, be free and unfettered for all. No-one will have entitlement or right-of-way. Everyone will negotiate the streets equally. Pedestrians can cross mid-block or at an intersection, whatever they want, cyclists can ride two abreast in the right or left lane and go as fast as they feel is safe. Motorists too are free to travel at whatever speed they feel is appropriate. Directional signals for turning will still be necessary, but there will be no more one-way streets.
There will be a cost in removing the equipment, of course, but we can sell the old equipment to backward cities that still only want to achieve, at best, a 20% reduction in car speed, because that is the most any conventional traffic control system has ever achieved. We won't have any maintenance or upkeep charges because there won't be anything to maintain and we will see a 50% reduction in speed instantly, a smoother, faster, more rational and logical flow of traffic (after all, if there is no cross traffic at 2 in the morning, why stop at a red light or stop sign? It's bad for the environment) and we will have a marked decrease in collisions.
Why? Because it's dangerous. We'll all know it and we'll all be alot more cautious.
Don't think so? That's what folks in Denmark and Holland thought too, same as Oxford University. But they're doing it and the results are astounding.
We (and when I say 'we,' I mean all road users) won't fly through intersections when there is the probability that we will encounter cross traffic. We won't race down roads at 100km/h when a pedestrian could step off the curb at any time or a cyclist could cross into any lane to make a turn. Snowing and the right lane is clogged with ice, snow and maybe parked cars? Cyclists can move into the middle of the street without fear that they are not where they are not supposed to be. Better still, we'll remove all street parking.
Laugh. Go ahead. It's worked elsewhere....granted nowhere as large and complex as Toronto, but if we start with one neighbourhood and gradually expand naked streets until the entire city is one big district where we no longer rely on government imposed decision-making and, instead, rely upon our eyes, our instinct for survival and common sense, we'll be the envy of the world.
I'll only charge half of the budget set aside for the Bike Plan to arrange the whole thing. The city can save the other 35 million and only a fraction of the transporation budget will be spent in gradually removing all controls. Every other year, the city will realize a 100% savings. I'll be a hero to the city, a saviour to commuters and a living legend. They'll name a park or a sign-less street after me.
The applause sign is lit.
:)
hamish wilson (not verified)
No way to naked streets here
Thu, 11/06/2008 - 00:07There are very significant broad legal restraints upon motor traffic in EUrope that we don't have here - and duh! it won't work unless you read the Toronto Car. We only really have the cost of paint jobs and maybe insurance to constrain the cartillery here.
The EnigManiac
It doesn't matter...
Thu, 11/06/2008 - 00:55...what legal restraints there are or aren't in Europe or here. That's the point. There are no restraints. It's not about control being imposed, but about self-control. It's human nature not to run things down. Most of our collisions occur as a result of the perception that one or more of the involved felt they had the right of way. Granted, speed often plays a significant role, but studies of naked streets have already shown a 50% reduction in speed where it is being implemented.
The common reaction to the idea of naked streets is horror and visions of mayhem. That's because we think people will drive the way they do now, seeing green lights ahead of them, but data confirms that folks adapted to the change relatively quickly and that most collisions occured between cyclists and pedestrians. Naked streets puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the road user. They have no-one to blame but themselves and since speeds are lower, the risk of serious injury is reduced as well in the event there is a collision.
brian
It works in China
Thu, 11/06/2008 - 20:20As arcane and seemingly ridiculous Enigmaniac's idea may seem, one need look no further than the Peoples Republic of China, where naked streets are very common, and there are exponentially more bicycles on the roads. It works people, it really works.
Having lived in Mainland China on two stints, I was immediately, continually, and utterly impressed by traffic flow and human behavior. The fine ballet of cars, bicycles, and people worked gracefully, almost seamlessly, because they behave exactly as Enigmaniac describes : road users take responsibility for their own vehicles and behavior, pedestrians walk wary of the implications of an injury with no health care system to respond if they're hurt; and no one wants to damage their vehicle in a collision; cars, bikes, buses, or trucks. An obvious truth is clearly evident : private automobiles in China, and anywhere, are a luxury, a privilege for those with money and other resources; read "exclusive minority".
I have rode in Mainland China, and also Hong Kong. I felt way safer on my bicycle in China, much less so in Hong Kong where signage, signals, and automobiles are top notch. Enigmaniac is entirely right : it's the mindset of entitlement, and righteousness that inevitably roars up threatening, encapuslated in a 7-series Beemer, C-series Benz, Volvo, Jag, take your pick. I was always threatened with near misses from these luxury car drivers who thought their GPS, ABS, and Air bags would solve the problem. Remove the controls and the automatic features; and drivers, automobiles, and roads too, become more equal, more fair for everyone in general.
Naked streets are a great idea.
Brian
Kevin Love (not verified)
Two things that are bad about Wellesley
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 20:29One serious problem with the Wellesley bike lanes is that there is no widening of the lane when there is adjacent car parking. The door zone seriously reduces the bicycle lane.
Another serious problem is the lack of physical separation from car traffic. By "physical seperation" I mean 12 cm granite curbs to protect bicycles.
All we got was lines on the street at a significant cost.
Tammy Thorne (not verified)
Parks trails very costly and WAY behind sched
Thu, 11/06/2008 - 15:58I believe that Geoffrey is correct - it IS a shell game. I am happy to see an 'increase' in the cycling portion of the transportation budget, of course. I am also happy to see park trails and pathways will now be the purview of Transportation. Two Very Good things!!!
But, if you think that it is just a happy coincidence that the Parks trails projects have been moved into Transportation at the same time an 'increase' in funding is noted ... well, naivite and cynism really don't make smart companions... so i shant say much more...
...except that there is a 20 mill backlog in parks trails/paths which does not appear to be addressed with this 'increase'...
We are also still clearly WAY behind in bike lanes -19.1 installed with 37 approved is FAR short of the 50 km promised to be installed this year. Stating the obvious: MORE STAFF IS NEEDED. Do you think we'll see an increase in the operating budget for new staff? THIS would TRULY show a change in the way the City is thinking about cycling.
We are coming to a crucial tipping point. The City has to come to terms with this.
hamish wilson (not verified)
TO's coming to terms is to squelch processes and people
Thu, 11/06/2008 - 21:07Having survived most of the TCAC mtg on Monday night, thanks for enduring it further tammy et al, it is clearer that the streamlined rules of procedure that were brought in last cycling cttee are really the grease to the skids, to shunt criticism and concerns about how "green" the city is, and what specifically is being done with multi-millions aside.
We are behind, horribly behind, and the City has lots of blah blah to say they're doing good for bikes etc., but it's not really delivering in the areas that are most needed - which I will be a stuck record and say east-west and direct routes to facilitate commuting safety eg. University Ave. Or Bloor beside the subway.
Old stats from previous TCC's show that over half the big city's cyclists are in the older core. And is that money being spent proportionately to both ridership and dangers? I don't think so, but we used to have a network subcommittee that some of this info and talk could get aired, and where designs of facilities could be critiqued ahead of installation and some flaws fixed up a bit, and I think the fresh installation of Wellesley has some real problems for instance.
While it's true that big useful projects like the Simcoe St. tunnel aren't in the bike budget, we should be wary of paving the park pathways for a few reasons -
- how green is it?
- will it serve commuters
- is it disproportionately costly eg. the railtrail at 1.3m/km vs. repainting nearby Bloor St. for bike lanes at $25,000 a km and pardon me, but I don't think the railtrail will save a life and may encourage cyclists onto a set of road hazards because one leg is good/quick.
- would there be personal safety issues for both sexes, but especially women if we let the politicians push bike paths in parks to show their commitment to biking/green.
The excessive pruning of the cycling committee because the volunteers weren't making the lanes happen fast enough remains as an error, and the Pedestrian committee, which is about of a similar size to the former, wasn't chopped away at and yet the pedestrians tend to have sidewalks on maybe 98% of the streets already.
The progressives have gone along with this, and unfortunately the CU is so far not so willing to be firm with those progressive "allies" - and they're getting away with the travesties on Bloor for instance. Though there's good press on Annette, some of which is deserved.
I'm a bit worried that the streamlining and stretched nature of the committed and committeed (though it doesn't seem to meet again until January) combined with the brusque and autocratic nature of Mr Heaps means they may be able to promote less-wise spending and actions.
It's tiresome to keep on keeping on and trying to be atop the details, and reading through this sorta blah, but there are real equity issues around, both within the bike budget and still within the larger budgets eg. the local Front St. project, maybe the Strachan Ave. railway crossing issues - but at least we know that bikes are relatively cheap to provide for, especially if it's just repainting a road and they're cheaper to operate which may be excellent for eekonomic downturns.
David Juliusson (not verified)
Once again, we outside the old City of Toronto count.
Fri, 11/07/2008 - 14:32Here we go again. We should focus all our time and energy into the old city core where there are more cyclists. Rubbish.
The days of Toronto you are thinking of finished in the 1990's Hamish. Whether the megacity was a good or bad idea is a moot point. We are all one big city. Councillors from the areas outside your target area were key on both sides of the Annette bike lane initiatives. Councillor Grimes brought up the idea of sharrows and voted against bike lanes at the PWIC meeting. He is from Etobicoke. Councillor Heaps took it to the full Council and got the votes. He is from Scarborough. The reality is Councillors hold power within their ward, but also deal with issues throughout the city. Councillor Saundercook, to his chagrin was reminded of this fact.
Like it or not, we are all in this together. I wrote in supporting the Annette St. bike lane. I was also able to write my own councillor personally expressing my support of the lane even though he voted against it on the PWIC. I have been active in trying to get proper parking at the CNE during the Ex. My suburban Councillor is on their board. Do you think he will have no influence on any final decision?
I agree there are things that could be done in the old core. There are also some exciting initiatives happening outside the core. The federal government is initerested in the Mimico Waterfront Park. Phase 1 is in place and has a bike path as part of it. Phase 2 will connect Mimico to the Martin Goodman at the Humber. The representatives of all three levels of government have stated their support for it. There is a proposal for a bike lane on the Lakeshore from First Ave to Norris. This connects the Waterfront Trail to the Mimico Park and would close the gap from all the way into Mississauga. Isn't this a worthy east west route Hamish? Similarly in Scarborough there is real progress to close the Scarborough gap. In North York, Anthony Humphreys wrote about an interesting rail bike proposal at Downsview. Why shouldn't these projects be encouraged by the cycling community? I will probably never use the Downsview trail. Does that mean I don't think it's a good idea?
I get tired of the myopic old core view. We went through all of this earlier this year. Here is the reality. Our councillors vote on issues that affect your old core world. We in "suburbia" support your issues. We also work hard in our areas and see tremendous opportunities for change. The numbers of people riding is growing. I see it daily. With proper routes, we ride into town instead of driving. We fight our representatives who disproportionately vote against any cycling progress. Just look at the against list for the Annette bike lane to see what I mean. We deserve some respect for it. We are one city. Get used to it. Like it or not, we are in this together.
anthony
Where should be the priority - on people or places?
Thu, 11/06/2008 - 22:56Hamish,
As you are pointing out, we live in a big city. There is lots going on, and a large amount of geography to cover. With this come a lot of documents, and lots of meetings.
There are a few of us, including yourself, who are working very hard to keep on top of as many of these things as we can. But there is so much that it is very hard to be able to find the time (with work, family, sleep) to do everything.
So we have to prioritize what we're doing to those areas where
a) it will make a difference for the people who will use it, and
b) our own efforts can make a difference in getting these quality facilities.
We cannot all afford to tilt at windsheilds all day long; we would like to know that our efforts will constructive. Nor do we want to put bike lanes on roads, or paths in parks, where we know nobody will actually use them.
Ultimately we need more people to be involved, and we need to raise the profiles of the people who are trying to do good work. Like Sam, in Ward 9 (North York), who is fighting with city planners to get a decent cycling path through Downsview Park. City planners want to put in a road for cars (we don't need more roads, we need more bike paths!) in spite of a report from the early nineties indicating that a bike path would be an excellent option here.
So Hamish, my challenge to you is how can we mobilize people, and get them the tools they need to be able to do what World19 did in ward 13 for the Annette Street bike lanes -- and do that ALL OVER the city for all of these issues?
The Bike Union is doing its best to help, but even the union does not yet have enough people or experience to be able to tackle the entire city.
And Hamish, just focussing on the downtown core is NOT an option. The whole city is either in or out. More votes come from outside the core on City Council, so we need to build suport from all over.
BTW, this challenge is not only for Hamish; it is for everybody. Please share your ideas with us all.
Andrew Thomson
Annette went through cause of all the publicity around it
Fri, 11/07/2008 - 13:37The support is out there for the bike lanes to be installed just half the problem is a lot of us don't know whats going on in other wards or areas of toronto so we don't get involved in it what we need is a way to communicate to each other where and what we need to do yes the cyclist union was made for or thats what i see is the big benifit of it and i'm sure in time it will work out that way but tell then maybe we should start letting each other know whats going on around the city on here and when and where someone needs the support of other cyclists.
P.S. now that we got the lanes on annette its are responsibility not to forget there there and to start using the stores in the area even if its just to stop for a coffee or go in a grocery store for a drink the businesses have lost parking which to them means they've lost customers so the more people they see wearing bike helmets and stopping to shop the more they'll realize the benefits of these bike lanes and that goes for all the streets that have recently gotten bike lanes i hear a lot of complaining about the ones that were installed on rogers because the businesses feel they've lost business because of the loss of parking so lets not forget are civil duties and get out and shopping in those stores with bike lanes on there streets.
Luke Siragusa
Re: Annette went through....
Sat, 11/08/2008 - 11:57Let's reconsider that notion. To my thinking there is no "responsibility" to patronize any businesses in the many neighborhoods I wheel through. That I'm I inclined to do so is because of amenity, economy, and, ultimately, need (all apart, from the resultant enjoyment). I'm better off for having dropped in, it benefits me, and, apart from the benefits to the merchant, it's a selfish exercise. That's as it should be.
When a new housing development or mall engenders a new highway ramp, is it the responsibility of concerned motorists to justify all that asphalt and investment by buying a McMansion or a home theater at the big box store? I don't think so. You wouldn't expect them to patronize a bicycle shop though the velo-hawker is situated in a nice neighbourhood, has legitimate concerns, and is an all round nice guy, would you?
Hoisting a pint at the local pub shouldn't be a moral or civic imperative (OK, maybe it should ;-). If it were the custom would rest on shaky ground: necessity and inclination is a more sound basis for commerce than responsibility or duty. If a customer neither needs nor wants to be there, he has no business there; and perhaps the business has no business being there as well.
Streetscapes reflect this: businesses come and go and neighborhoods, if they're vital, are in perpetual renewal as demographics and trends express themselves in thriving or declining fortunes.
Cyclists inevitably foster local economies because of their limited range -- that's a fact. As long as that remains a fundamental characteristic of the culture, a perverse appeal to ethical shopping or somesuch serves no purpose. Get more cyclists into the neighbourhood and you'll get more local business.
As for Rogers. Rd., the Maple Leafs will most likely be a Stanley Cup contender before I darken the door of one of the numerous auto shops fronting the strip. The grocers and restaurants are another matter though.
Svend
Luke sez, "Get more cyclists
Sat, 11/08/2008 - 15:47Luke sez, "Get more cyclists into the neighbourhood and you'll get more local business."
That's very simple yet true and not understood by some businesses. I think it's a good idea to show them the benefits by patronizing them in a visible way.
It's also true they will lose customers who drive if parking is taken away. Cyclists shouldn't minimize this concern but still continue to set an example and show their neighbours that living car free is possible.
Andrew Thomson
I never ask for you to come
Sat, 11/08/2008 - 18:31I never ask for you to come shopping on rogers or to darken an automotive shop on it but so you know the majority of those have gone out of business and cafe's and small grocers have taken over to supply meeting spots for the locals and for the people that have moved away. Obviously you didn't grow up in an italian neighbourhood where the young move away and the old stay we all come back on the weekend and meet up in cafe's or grocers to shoot the crap its just the way it is i guess were all creatures of habit hell i know people that commute over an hour just to get a haircut from the barber that cut there hair when they were kids me being one of em. It was a long commute from west virginia but i made it once a month to see my family and friends who are my extended family as for not patronizing these area's with new bike lanes i'm not going to tell anyone what to do except to look at it from the businesses point of view if they don't see cyclists using there stores then all there going to do is continue to fight having bike lanes put on there streets instead of working together and it will always be as complicated as annette was and not nearly as easy as rogers road was. Don't think that once a bike lane is in its all over cause these business owners do talk to each other or they'll just close up shop and leave and the storefronts will be turned into apartments these aren't roads like bloor or eglington where no matter what business will survive these are smaller streets with less traffic foot and car wise where we have gotten these bike lanes on and personally i would like to see these shops stay open and more reopen there doors personally i hate shopping at big grocery stores like dominion or price chopper i like the small town attitude you get at these smaller stores so you may say its not your problem once you got the bike lane is in the fights over but no thats just the beginning now that we've fought for em lets prove that we want em.
Were all entitled to are opinions and thats mine. I'm not saying to go out of your way to ride on that street or to buy something there just that if your on a street with a bike lane and need something then why not stop on that street to get it. Show the businesses that were there using the streets and the stores tell they get it there not going to support em
Luke Siragusa
Re: I never asked you to...
Sat, 11/08/2008 - 19:49As I related up thread, this is what I do. And this is what the majority of cyclists do as well for the reasons previously stated -- it's the nature of the beast. This afternoon I visited a friend on Roncesvalles; I hit three small outfits enroute; typical, it's how the cycling multitudes, including you and I, engage our communities and take care of business.
I don't know how else to show merchants that I'm a patron other than to actually be one. If they can't discern that a cyclist, riding down their street, locking up in front of their shops, and handing them money for their goods demonstrates that fact then I'm at a loss as to what would.
Sven had a good point: there are some businesses that will absolutely suffer by losing parking amenities. Conflicting agendas create winners and losers -- there's no way to sugar coat this fact. His recommendation is spot on.
Darren_S
Fresh - support.
Sun, 11/09/2008 - 06:53I like Luke's viewpoint. It is fresh and gives us some things to think about.
While I agree with his ideas/assertions I think we still need to support business that have bike lanes to help make the transition of other neighbourhoods without lanes more receptive. That said, most bike lanes are so ghettotized there are few businesses to patronize.
It will be interesting to see if bike lane goes in on Lawrence if the great Middle Eastern shops on it experience a rise in new clientele.
Erhard
Arterial roads don't have that issue
Sun, 11/09/2008 - 07:29The mid-eastern shops on Lawrence in the Warden area have their own parking lots. There's no parking on the road, and thus no parking spots will be removed if a bike lane goes in. I would expect the same for all other major arteries across TO, and that makes a strong case for designating those roads as the cities major bike arteries.
Darren_S
No parking
Sun, 11/09/2008 - 09:17Yes you are right about there being no parking issues. The issue will be the interaction between bikes and cars as they cross paths. ie car turning off of Lawrence into one of those parking lots. It can be pretty hairy as it is in a car during certain times of the day. Remember, the average speed is a lot higher on Lawrence than they more downtown routes. One of the reasons for the bike lane is to reduce speed.
What be most interesting to see if they experience an increase in business from people riding their bikes to the shops. Will it make any difference? I suspect it may not as most of the clientele drive in from farther distances and the surrounding densities are on the low side.
mothman (not verified)
I think these lanes would be
Sun, 11/09/2008 - 11:05I think these lanes would be well used. This part of the city is very poorly served by public transit, and biking, right now, really isn't a very attractive tranportation option from a safety perspective. The result is that alot of people who can't really afford them are driving cars. I would guess that many of these people would love to ditch the expense. Who knows - this might not just increase the safety of existing cyclists, but actually encourage more people to get on their bikes.
I don't know how it'd affect shopping patterns though...
Erhard
Safety of bike lanes in suburbia
Sun, 11/09/2008 - 13:47You're onto a real issue: traffic in and out of mall areas. I do live in Agincourt and most of my cycling is within a 10 to 15km radius - with exactly these situations. I find the road safest if they have wide right lanes ("Bus-sized"). CArs have plenty of room to pass, and the really big vehicles have more experienced drivers behind the wheel and they typically either slow down to wait or move into the other lane. I once used to cycle in a city that has bike lanes separated by a curb from the road surface - and that created dicey situations because these bike paths are like adding another lane to the road and drivers can't handle the information overload. They'll overlook your presence if enough traffic is muddling the situation and they'll cut you off unintentionally.
This brings me back to roads like Lawrence: the bike path is safest if on the same surface as the right-most lane, and separated from cars by a paint marking. And you'll have to keep they eyes open whenever you pass a mall, ready to react in case....
As to slowing down traffic: downtown - yes. But in the burbs: I just can't see it.....
The EnigManiac
Profits or People Priorities
Sat, 11/08/2008 - 21:58The merits of parking and the importance of supporting local business can be bounced back and forth until the cows come home, but I ask what is the value of parking compared to a human life? Does the convenience of one or two motorists have priority over the very life of a person? The few pennies of profit a shop-keeper might realize is more valuable than a husband, wife, mother, father, uncle, aunt or child?
The fact is, if parking or traffic poses a safety risk to cyclists (and street parking invariably does pose a risk across the city) then the selfish concerns of store-owners and motorists are secondary to the safety of the cycling commuter. The cycling commuter, after all, is a contributing member of society, a consumer and a producer, a valuable member of the community with no options but the road to get to work and return home. His or her efforts to reduce congestion and noxious pollutants should both be respected and recognized by the city. If any street enjoys a quantity of cyclists---they are benefitting that street and that community and the cyclists deserve as much protection as the city can provide. All other issues are unimportant in comparison.
Politics has no place in the discussion. Pennies of profit has no place either. Folks can park nearby to visit their favourite shops and if they choose not to shop their because they can't park three feet from the door, then they have a lot of nerve calling themselves loyal patrons. If even one cyclist is injured or killed on a street where a bike lane was rejected, the business owners who influenced their local councillor to oppose the lane and the councillor as well should be held legally accountable, in my opinion. The councillor's bear the responsibility to provide relatively safe means of travel for all and if they fail to do that, for whatever reason, then they need to take ownership of their failure.
It's very simple: people are more valuable than parking.
Luke Siragusa
Re: Profits or People Priorities
Sun, 11/09/2008 - 09:50I wish it was. Then there'd be peace in the valley and a new day would dawn for all. (Cue the choir as a glorious sunrise radiates the gleaming glass towers of the city.)
Such an absolutist reduction limits the scope of the discussion -- if indeed it can remain such under those terms -- to stridency. Say it ain't so, but the reality remains: politics, profit and parking all play significant roles in the debate. We should strive to understand and undermine adversaries' arguments, not summarily dismiss them.
To my thinking, the peripheral issues are of one impulse, -- the same one that drives, er, impels us: self interest. Advocates of bike lanes expect to benefit from their agenda; so do proponents of parking or the status quo. Unfortunately, an appeal to higher purpose or conscience doesn't seem to make for a compelling argument in the real world.
I believe the best approach to breaching the divide is already in play: present (our) individual interests as aligned with the common interest and be flexible. That leaves enough room for both zealot and diplomat alike.
The EnigManiac
One response
Sun, 11/09/2008 - 12:16I think, where it can be shown that there is enough cycling volume on any particular street (though I would think even one cyclist a day is enough, yet understand that may be perceived as unrealistic), there must be cycling infrastructure. If the city rejects the bike lane, due to pressure from special interest groups, they should be sued for purposefully and maliciously putting cycling commuters at risk, for needlessly and irrationally endangering cyclists and for openly and recklessly disregarding the value of human life. If one is hurt or killed, the city---and the special interest groups---must be made to pay, financially at the very least. After all, it can be legally shown that bike lanes do, indeed, provide a reasonable measure of safety and to deny them is a blatant and conscious undermining of safety for one segment of society. Open and shut case, if you ask me. I understand that sounds extremist. But is valuing human life over convenience for a few (often lazy) motorists extreme? Sorry, I'll take a person over a car any day, extreme or not.
AnnieD
What are the priorities?
Fri, 11/07/2008 - 10:51A survey of cycling union members and others to identify, say, their top three sites for bike lanes or paths could help establish priorities and set goals where there is the biggest chance of getting grassroots support. It could also help connect people together with similar goals - someone nominating a site for needed bike lanes or paths might be willing to take the lead on advocacy efforts once they know that there's a group behind them supporting their goals and a way of connecting with them.
Kevin Love (not verified)
Higher order transportation routes are costly
Fri, 11/07/2008 - 21:32Hamish wrote:
"is it disproportionately costly eg. the railtrail at 1.3m/km vs. repainting nearby Bloor St. for bike lanes at $25,000 a km"
Kevin's comment:
The railtrail is a higher order bicycle route. It is intended to have mixed traffic feeder bicycle routes go into it. Just like the TTC's bus network acts as feeder routes for the subway. The railtrail is a direct, diagonal route into downtown that is completely segregated from cars. It is graded to railway grade standards so there are no hills.
Higher order transportation routes cost money. Expanding the Yonge and Spadina subway lines is going to cost a lot more than $1.3 million per km. But we get tremendous benefits. Complete segregation is the safest way to go. Making cycling irresistible saves lives. $1.3 million is chump change compared to the benefits received.
Andrew Thomson
forgot one plus kevin
Thu, 11/13/2008 - 16:35For us that live in the hilly area's there also a great place to teach our kids how to ride and to take them on longer rides then around a track at the park that what a lot of the locals in the eglington area use the beltway for which is just north of eglington
hamish (not verified)
the joys of fostering debate
Sat, 11/08/2008 - 11:22So if half the cyclists are in the old City, yes, we should and must share - sorta like those fed level equalization payments, except I think there's negotiation there.
Is the older core getting say one-third of the resources? A quarter? What's fair - and is anyone looking at it at all. (The older core does include Annette by the way)
Yes, building big durable infrastructure costs bigger money. So why, forty years after the Bloor subway opened can't we leverage that big cost to repaint the parallel street for bikes? Both the parking and access issues are solved by the subway, so for a whopping $200,000 (using City figures) we could get an 8km route from High Park to Sherbourne St. and still have a ton of $ left over from a km of the RailTrail project, which I don't think will save a life.
When there was a Network Subcommittee, prior to the chopback at the TCC, yes, I would vex about this, but also there's a larger question of how fair/correct it is to set up at least an expectation of a big bikeway only to dump people onto the meaner carterials and streetcar routes of the core without any improvement to them.
As with transit, there's a distinct siphoning of resources from the compact urban form to the more costly to service lower density suburbs, and the amanglemation only reinforced that.
Yes, I'm rooted in local democracy, and yes, we also need to somehow fix up the burbs for bikes, including bigger projects, but not at the complete expense of the older core. And this
includes challenging the City on how they are putting in the simpler easier bike lanes in the lower density areas ahead of more core facilities.
Safe rides, including on suburban sidewalks.
(One interesting thing about resources usages - the old Metro had the Metro Marker program of putting in rose-coloured concrete on the splash zones adjacent to their big roads northern Bathurst being one example. Yet on the Metro Cycling Cttee we were told that using coloured concrete was too expensive, though these Markers really could only be well seen from the traffic helicoptors...)
Andrew Thomson
I think the majority of
Thu, 11/13/2008 - 16:46I think the majority of people inside the old core and on the outside would love to see bloor get bike lanes but why start at highpark and not over by humber which would then connect it to a major north south trail and make it that much more popular the one thing i have noticed about these bike lanes there putting in toronto is that they start and end in the middle of nowhere its like rogers for example if they'd just thought a bit more long term taken it right to weston rd. gone south on weston about 4 blocks to guns road it could of been connected to a bike path that goes right to scarlet road making it much more popular then it now is where it starts at old weston rd. out of the blue one of the biggest problems with this network there building is that they don't connect up and seem to start and end at ward boundaries making them pretty well useless i know there supposed to end up all working together in the long run but wouldn't it make more sense to continue working on the ones that are supposed to connect together then making one in old york one in etobicoke and another in scarboro right now there helter skelter and don't make a sense to a lot of people
jamesmallon (not verified)
punctuation
Thu, 11/13/2008 - 18:11How self-centred would you have to be to imagine someone would read fifteen lines of your thoughts without using the most elemental punctuation?
anthony
We'll need the funding to pay for
Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:51We'll need the funding to pay for the back log of bike parking (Post & Rngs)
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/541654