Province - fast track bike lanes: Albert Koehl

What he said...
Tks Bradley.
locC

... the trees.

Unfortunately(or not?), the province, has to come along and put these bickering children back in order by giving them some leadership, guidelines and goals. Mr. Miller can cat-herd all he wants... we've seen how far that goes when you've got calls to license cyclists and others decrying the "War on cars." The fact is, unless somebody steps in a forces a "big picture" negotiation these imbeciles will keep throwing mud at each other over every stupid little thing and we'll get nothing really accomplished.

As for Mr Wentsroth's comment, I'd also like to see bike-lanes separated by a reservation. However, in a way we're still rubbing sticks together to get a little fire.. those truly planned bike lanes are like lighters compared to our makeshift sticks. Having said that, I'll take a fire started with sticks over nothing. We can always go from there.

Interesting that the article claims that half of the car:bike collisions are caused by inattention, yet only provide the top reasons why cyclists cause collisions.

Someone who declined to provide his name wrote:

"The physically separated infrastructure is already here - in the Don Valley..."

Kevin's comment:

In Toronto and the surrounding area, recreational trails are generally unsuitable for utility use. I was one of the many cyclists present at the meeting of City Council that passed the Jarvis bike lanes, and even David Miller had trouble explaining exactly why the Don Valley trail was not a suitable parallel route to Jarvis. If even the mayor has trouble explaining it, then we definitely have an education issue here.

So here goes: Three reasons why the Don Valley trail is unsuitable for utility use.

Reason #1 - Inadequate connectivity with intersecting roads.

There is no connection at all between the Don Valley trail (DVT) and Bloor Street, Gerrard Street and Dundas Street. Needless to say, these are major streets that would be feeder routes for a proper utility bicycle route - which the DVT is not.

Almost as bad are the places where there are connections - by stairs. Queen Street - 57 steps. Riverdale, 54 steps. There is no place whatsoever that has level access between the lakeshore and Pottery Road, well north of Bloor. Steps are not so bad for a recreational cyclist who is young and fit. But going up and down steps can be an impossible challenge for a utility cyclist carrying a full load of groceries, or going to work with laptop, briefcase and other work supplies.

Reason #2 - Too slow

Utility cyclists have places to go. Employers like to see their employees arrive at work on time. Wives want to see their husbands back from the grocery store with supper supplies. Utility cyclists want to be travelling at 25-35 km/hr. This is impossible on the DVT. There is a legal speed limit of 20 km/hr, and the route is winding and indirect, going up and down vast numbers of small hills. On Jarvis street, these hills have been all graded out, leaving Jarvis street with a gentle slope down to the lake. But on the DVT, cyclists have to go up and down each small hill and wind around each obstacle and bend in the river. Sometimes the DVT goes around an individual tree!

This is good for a recreational cyclist. A recreational cyclist wants to go along the riverbank and see the water. A recreational cyclist wants to go around trees and along a winding route. A recreational cyclist wants to go slow and smell the wildflowers. But not a utility cyclist.

My estimation is that it takes over three times as long to cycle on the DVT as on parallel roads.

***** Got to go. Post to be continued. *****

Sorry to have to leave, but reality intervened with my on-line life. :)

The final reason why the Don Valley trail (DVT) is unsuitable for utility use is the failure to segregate it from pedestrians. A cyclist occupies approximately 1M of road space, and requires 1/2M to both right and left as "swerve room" to avoid obstacles, potholes, etc. This is why Toronto recommends a 2M width of bicycle lane. Unfortunately, far too often the 1.5M "minimum" is being allowed by the City, but that is another rant.

At the utility cycling speed of 25-35 km/hr, the safe passing distance for an adult pedestrian is 1M. Increase that to 2M for passing a child or dog, both of which can engage in sudden and unpredictable moves.

Add it up. The minimum safe width for sharing a roadway with children or dogs is 4M if and only if the children and dogs are being adequately supervised by adults who ensure that they stay on the right-hand side of the road.

None of these conditions prevail on the DVT. The DVT is rarely more than 2M wide and pedestrians, children and dogs wander all over it, only rarely being constrained to stay right. It is therefore unsafe to pass pedestrians at much faster than pedestrian speed, and pedestrians get seriously annoyed at cyclists who try to do so.

Here and in my previous post, I explained the three reasons why the DVT is unsuitable for utility cyclists. Contrast this with riding on Jarvis Street.

On Jarvis Street, I can ride at 25-35 km/hr on a smooth and straight road that has been graded to gently slope down to the Lakeshore. I can exercise lane control by riding in the primary position in the centre of the right lane, giving myself adequate "swerve room" for safety, and requiring cars to change lanes if they wish to pass me safely. In addition to the destinations on Jarvis, I can turn at every intersecting street in order to get to wherever I am going. In short, even without bike lanes, Jarvis is far superior as a utility route to the DVT.

Two more reasons why the DVT is unsuitable for utility use are:

1) The crappy condition of the DVT, full of potholes and heaved by tree roots.

2) The lack of winter snow and ice clearing.

However, these final two reasons are fixable. The City could repave the DVT and clear it in winter.

The cost would be enormous of fixing the three primary reasons of

1) Lack of connectivity with intersecting roads
2) Too slow, and
3) Lack of pedestrian segregation

This would involve building an entirely separate utility bicycle route with on and off-ramps at all major roads, grading to make it straight and gently sloping to the lake, and adequate law enforcement to keep pedestrians off of it.

Although, I must add, the cost of building and maintaining the fully-segregated car route, the Don Valley Parkway, was and is well over 50 times as expensive. One could build a fully-segregated utility bicycle road in the Don Valley for well under 1/50th the cost of building the Don Valley Parkway car expressway. Which would still be in the millions of dollars. Or one could just spend 50-100 thousand dollars installing bike lanes on Jarvis Street.

The benefits to cycling are incredible. There are many who are taking this up now days instead of the vehicle and it couldn't happen at a better time. online casino