Separated bike lanes proposed for center of University Ave

I like the idea of having bike lanes in a more prominent position on the road. The conventional bike lane design (side of the road) sometimes puts me in the blindspot of motorists.

Also would like to add that as transit vehicles have the option to use their dedicated lane or regular traffic lanes, so should bikes have that option to use a dedicated facility or the regular lanes too. I hope that can be conveyed clearly to the users of University Avenue.

I assume none of this comes to pass if it is shot down at PWIC on the 20th?

Also, the Star article mentions the modification of the Annette St. Bike Lanes to restore parking. Further examination of the agenda reveals that parking will be restored for two blocks around the intersection with Runnymede. This was done with the support of the local councillor.

I've asked City Staff for clarification.

There's also an article in the Star yesterday talking about bike boxes in Toronto. I hope that they can be incorporated in the University Avenue Pilot project to facilitate right turns.

Also, I hope that cyclists are not expected to use the bike lane exclusively. If my destination is on University Avenue, I would like the option to ride in regular traffic, so that I can exit with ease. The main function of the University bike lane should be to provide a safe refuge for cyclists who are uncomfortable riding in car traffic.

I think this is a great idea. Finally, Toronto is thinking outside of the box. This design will leap Toronto into the future, and set a benchmark for more creative/quality bike lanes later on.

While there are some logistical issues to get around, such as a cyclist making a right or left turn, I think it is nothing compared to the issues that would have to be faced if it was on the right. Taxis would block the lanes for sure, and right hooks would be inevitable. Sure, bike lanes in the median would be more work for cyclists, but hey, I'd rather have a worry free bicycle highway than constantly have to look out for right turning motorists.

Most likely, I'd have to believe all left turns would be made on a advance green, which is pretty much the way University is now.

Oh, and as this being my idea, if you refer a while's back when bike lanes on University was first proposed (the first post here on IbikeTO), I suggested it should be like this. Just like Windows 7 - haha. Maybe the city or TCAT is spying on us here in these forums??

That's why cars will have to wait to make left turns, hopefully there will be space for that. And if they can turn without a light, at least it's easier to see a cyclist from the drivers side in my opinion.

What's this about restoring parking on the Annette bike lanes at Runnymede? This is where Toronto's finest got in trouble for parking in the bike lanes a while back. Coincidence? I need more info. And Bill Saundercook, who fought these bike lanes and is the "local councillor" who is pushing for the restoration of parking wants to head up the TTC?

I work at Sick Kids and will use this bikelane to get to College (although I see no reason why the lane has to stop at College - it could easily continue to Bloor and would probably get used more if it did).

I prefer having the lane in the middle - if it was on the outside, then it wouldn't be possible to put up any barriers to keep cars out. Cars would move in and out of the lane to park or let passengers off and taxis would stop in it. It would be completely useless on the outside, like so many other lanes in Toronto.

Cars are not allowed to turn left at most of the intersections on University. Because of the wide island, bikes turning left can continue across the intersection and position themselves to go left with the cross traffic when the lights change. There's plenty of room for many cyclists to wait by the island for the change in light (there could even be a bikebox here), allowing them to do something that most cars would not be allowed to do at the same intersection (make a left turn).

I don't understand why there's so much dead space in protected bikelanes. Half the lane is used up for the posts or dead space, when the posts could sit at the extreme edge of the lane, making an ultra-wide lane that gives plenty of room for cyclists to pass each other. At intersections, the lane could be split in two, with the left side for cyclists going straight or turning into the "left turn box" and the right side for cyclists waiting for the change in lights so that they can make their right turn with the cross traffic. Having a right turn signal for bikes that appears slightly ahead of the green light for the cross traffic would give right turning bikes even more of a headstart which should make things even safer. Not sure how clear that is without a picture...

Hey Annie, good news: the lanes (if approved at PWIC and city council, ha ha) would go up to Wellesey/Harbord-ish.

I just realized what the (competent, informed) city staff are doing... University avenue is already a three lane road! From Richmond south, and from Queen's Park north, it's three lanes on each side.

This proposal is just smoothing out two merging points (well, one at least) by keeping University Ave. the same width throughout downtown.

...but the exact use of these trial lanes will depend on how the signal lights will control the flow. Does anyone have details on that?

Hi all,

I've been reserving opinion on this one just to see what all the fallout looks like, and which sides people take. It's a very interesting situation.

What tipped the scales for me just today was the statement from Dr. Loud -

"...general lack of understanding for the benefits and effects of cycling..."...public in the dark on cycling - and it's the most significant obstacle to advancing cycling in Toronto"

That series of statements underlines it all. Well done, Dr Loud.
This whole issue is about perception, understanding, and behavior. Infrastructure, or lack thereof, is just a catalyst, or symptom of the underlying perception and understanding.

Soooo many people fail to realise and understand that bicycles are vehicles, and are allowed to be part of vehicular traffic, and expected to be operated like vehicles. That means any lane on a road, not just a special-consideration bike lane, can be used by cyclists. The white, yellow, and dashed lines used to demarcate lanes on a road are nothing but suggestions to drivers to mind their behavior. A road user can still choose to cross those lines, and that's where it becomes a behavior problem, not an infrastructure problem. Will bike lanes on University serve to mitigate or exacerbate behavior? Interesting to see.

Again, I say, until the perception of cycling and bikes as vehicles changes, until people educate themselves about what a cyclist is entitled to and responsible for, Toronto will not move very far forward. And cyclists who are not informed or don't percieve themselves as vehicles on these University Ave. Bike Lanes will be the ones who get the worst of it. And definitely the uninformed motorists and public voters will be victims of their own ignorance.

Respectfully submitted,
Brian

Contrary to what Brian and Dr. Loud thinks, I think that the media attention that has been given to cyclists over the past four years (which barely existed before) has been very beneficial in aiding the understanding of the public. On the other hand, I think that some of the media is out of touch with its viewers and readers, and has helped to formulate bad policy ideas we see coming from some of the (prospective and current) politicos.

(Mind you, all of the major new media gets much of its funding via the auto industry, i.e. car makers, car dealers, car insurance, and banks. Therefore it is not too surprising to see a pro-motorist viewpoint being offered when you realize which side the news media's bread is buttered on.)

More people than ever are telling me that cycling infrastructure and the promotion of cycling is a really great idea; even if they admit that they themselves are not likely to ever ride a bike. These same people were the ones that were either adamantly against cycling infrastructure just a few years ago, or were completely apathetic. This attitude has changed, A LOT! My own mother falls into this camp. And the media has actually played a role in this.

I think that most people are starting to "get it" with the idea that we cannot keep putting more cars on our streets and still get around reasonably. Also, more people realize that the presence of fast moving cars creates an environment that is not comfortable to live/shop in. People want to live and be able to shop on streets with slow and/or low volumes of traffic; they want the choice to not have to drive everywhere/all the time. And they want a better quality of life for themselves and for their communities. Cycling (like transit) seems to be one the tangible/palpable aspect that people can point to and say "that's what I mean" when they are referring to these qualities. On that front, we've done an amazing job!

I have found that the only people I've encountered who don't (want to) "get it" are the ones that live in a community that was built after the 1960's "...And like it very much, thank you!" These folks are usually found outside of the three highways that bound Toronto, And I have noticed that these same people don't use GO transit; ever. I don't know yet if there even is a way to reach these people. These people expect everyone wants (or has) a 60km (or more) one-way commute; usually these people also have a long commute.

What is missing from the masses is the more detailed knowledge that we have when we use terms like "Livable Communities" or "Complete Streets," and all of the detailed aspects that go into these ideas; even just these terms. But I don't expect everyone to be able to (or even want to) know all of this jargon and lexicon. They just want communities that "feel right" somehow. I'm just grateful that cycling has become one of the things that these folks can point to and say "and that too!"

Sure, some people are married to their cars, and may well always be. But something we've done these past few years has started to work in a noticeable way in the interactions that I have had with many people. There's been a change in their attitudes; they've become more aware of these things. The feeling that is growing is that cycling needs to "fit in" to our communities somehow.

The push-back against cycling infrastructure is rarely because of the fear of the unknown anymore, which is what much of the prior push-back had largely been. The push-back we are getting has become much more focused now, and aims to limit or mitigate specific impacts. This kind of push-back is both easier, and harder, to counter.

Where we usually get the strongest and most vocal push-back is when cycling infrastructure threatens on-street parking (Annette was a great example of this). In Toronto, parking is still sacrosanct, and until we address this at the root, I don't think that we'll be able to make too much more headway with cycling infrastructure in many (popular) areas because there isn't enough street width to be able to accommodate both bike lanes and retain on-street parking (either at present demand levels, or even at all). The Netherlands created much of their cycling successes by systemically removing on-street parking. Meanwhile Toronto only continues to add more and more parking.

The next strongest opposition comes when "road/traffic operations" are expected to have a significant impact (either real or perceived) and where staff cannot definitively say that operations won't have any (negative) impact. The proposed Lawrence Ave bike lanes between Yonge and Bayview essentially died because of this; and this is the largest source of criticism of the Jarvis reconfiguration. (The TTC also get this push-back when building dedicated transit on the street.)

University Ave went through committee (mostly) unopposed because:
a) parking/curbside operations will not be affected.
b) it's only a pilot / limited time.
c) staff were able to show that traffic operations would be minimally impacted.
d) the locals were consulted beforehand.

Journalists, in order to "appear" unbiased often (mis)quote the other side of the argument they are trying to present, or else the media is offering a straight opinion piece which is often followed by another (contrary) opinion piece or (angry and contrary) follow-up letters to the editor.

In this public debate both side offer some of their arguments.

Through this the public can see a bit of the benefits of what each side is advocating for.

The reality is that, in Toronto, the people that want to live here are looking for urbanity including the inclusiveness that living in an urban area implies. We want to live in neighbourhoods that are as welcoming to all as we can practically and possibly make them. Otherwise we'd look for other communities. This includes people who take transit, who drive, who walk, and who ride bikes (Rollerblade, skateboard, etc.)

Generally speaking.

We are also a cynical society, and we can often sniff out invalid arguments. That is to say we can read between the lines of the two sides and figure out who is offering the more valid argument. In addition, we have many means of finding good and true information, should we decide to go after it. The problem is often we don't have specific enough information from good sources.

For instance, Portland (WA) claims to save two dollars in annual public health care spending for every dollar of cycling infrastructure they invest. Toronto's own Public health (nor transportation services) cannot (currently) claim any firm dollar value saved in public health costs for active transportation/public transportation investment; nor any cost benefit for every km reduction in automobile driving except as it relates to smog related hospital admissions and deaths. Obviously further analysis is required; but is not necessarily forthcoming.

if we had numbers like these at our disposal, the arguments for further investments in cycling and other active (and perhaps even public) transportations initiative would be a much easier sell.

steophen

Like it or not, University Ave bicycle lanes will increase awareness of bicyclists among the motoronic. Bicyclists need thoroughfares. Destinations are on thoroughfares. Thoroughfares are the only things that go through. Putting bicycle lanes on side streets makes no sense. It would also add to the lack of connectivity of bike plan routes.
Motorists don't see bicyclists because they don't believe they need to. Putting bicyclists where they can't avoid seeing them solves that dilemma. This move is both educational and functional from many perspectives. The Ontario HTA is clear in communicating bicyclists are entitled to safe passage on our roadways including arterials. That motorons believe they are entitled to intimidate bicyclists from using arterials and threaten bicyclists safety speaks clearly of a need to educate motorons. The University Ave separated lanes do that. The city is beginning to fulfill its responsibility to road users aside from the motorons. This needs to be applauded and encouraged. As for the functionality of placing the lanes adjacent to the median, time will tell. This could prove to be brilliant.

steophen,

I take University from Union Station north.

I generally find University the easiest part of my ride. Lots of lanes, good traffic flow and relatively few drivers in the curb lane. So I agree that the need for such a lane on University is relatively low. However the need for such lanes in the city generally is (in my opinion) very high. And I for one, would like to see if it works. If it works on University, then it can work someplace more critical for cyclists.

You need to remember that this is supposed to be a TEST.

The reason the city decided on University is that experts agree the car traffic flow would be minimally disrupted. I think you VASTLY overstate the case as to the amount of disruption that would be caused by cars losing one lane on University. It smacks a bit of chicken little...."the sky is falling..."

I'd also like to point out that they scheduled the test when cycling traffic would be relatively high (summer) and when (I would guess) car traffic would be lower. Which looks an awful lot to me like they set up the test in pretty favourable conditions for the bike lane.

The whole POINT of this exercise is that we don't know how well it will work. We should try it and see. There is a set end point. It probably won't even end in disaster.

And its worth a try.

steophen,

I take University from Union Station north.

I generally find University the easiest part of my ride. Lots of lanes, good traffic flow and relatively few drivers in the curb lane. So I agree that the need for such a lane on University is relatively low. However the need for such lanes in the city generally is (in my opinion) very high. And I for one, would like to see if it works. If it works on University, then it can work someplace more critical for cyclists.

You need to remember that this is supposed to be a TEST.

The reason the city decided on University is that experts agree the car traffic flow would be minimally disrupted. I think you VASTLY overstate the case as to the amount of disruption that would be caused by cars losing one lane on University. It smacks a bit of chicken little...."the sky is falling..."

I'd also like to point out that they scheduled the test when cycling traffic would be relatively high (summer) and when (I would guess) car traffic would be lower. Which looks an awful lot to me like they set up the test in pretty favourable conditions for the bike lane.

The whole POINT of this exercise is that we don't know how well it will work. We should try it and see. There is a set end point. It probably won't even end in disaster.

And its worth a try.

Experts agree that reducing an 8 lane arterial to 6 during summer months will have minimal effect on traffic, and there has been consultation with the stakeholders along University Ave., and it's temporary, etc... but, I think the key objective is that this project will be featured as a show piece for cycling in Toronto.