Most cyclists - and even non-cyclists - in Toronto want to see bicycle lanes separated from traffic. Most of them think that it should be the top priority for improving conditions for cyclists, even more important than adding more bike lanes. Councillor Vaughan, however, seems to disagree. At least, Vaughan has done little for cyclists in his ward and has been negative about the first real ambitious plan for separated bike lanes in his ward. Yet Vaughan considers himself to be a bike-friendly councillor. If that's true, I put it to Vaughan to explain: if not this plan, which one? If not now, when? We'd like to know.
The 2009 City survey of cyclists and non-cyclists, ten years after the first survey of the state of cycling in Toronto, added a new option to the question on the top priorities for cyclists and non-cyclists in improving conditions for cyclists. Regular ("utilitarian") cyclists stated that their top priority is to separate bike lanes from traffic (77% said it would improve matters a great deal), even more important than adding more bike lanes (59%). Even among non-cyclists 2/3 found separating bike lanes as the top priority for improving conditions for cyclists.
Adam Vaughan says he's bike-friendly, and it's true that he has supported some great initiatives for cyclists such as on-street bike parking, BIXI Toronto, bike boxes on Harbord, separated bike lanes on University and sharrows. All good things, but only the voted-down University bike lanes taxed his political capital.
It's unfortunate that the separated bike lanes on University failed. With a Ford-led Council they're even less likely to get approval since many suburban councillors simple equate wide roads with smooth automobile and give barely a thought to reducing congestion by shifting drivers to cycling or transit.
Aside from the failed University bike lanes, I've yet to hear of any proposals from Vaughan that will provide dramatic, material improvements to cycling safety downtown.
Harbord has the longest existing bike lane (aside from Poplar Plains) and one of the busiest (after College). It has become a key part of the bikeway network. It is one of the few east-west routes without a streetcar and reasonably continuous across Central Toronto. One would think that completing the bike lane on Harbord would be quite important. It is important for all the thousands of cyclists that use it daily. Yet when the opportunity came up to fill in the missing bike lane, Vaughan didn't press the issue. He choose to spend no political capital. He dared not upset the Harbord Bakery, which claims that the parking is important to their business - the parking on both sides of the street. A proper bike lane would only require taking parking off one side the street, but even that modest solution is too much. If we can't have a complete bike lane on Harbord, then where? And when?
I hope things end up better for Richmond and Adelaide. It looked as if Vaughan was going to preclude separated bike lanes on Richmond or Adelaide. It looked like Vaughan's proposal for turning Richmond and Adelaide into two-way streets would prevent separated bike lanes from being installed. This would be a disaster: Richmond and Adelaide are great candidates for separated bike lanes - no streetcars, and they cover a long distance from Bathurst to Parliament. This is why they were included in the official Bike Plan for the last ten years.
Vaughan now claims that he does not want to preclude separated bike lanes on Richmond and Adelaide, but that he wants to expand the debate to include two-way streets. Vaughan is one of the councillors who best understand the needs to create livable, dense urban neighbourhoods. I'm sure a lot of good ideas will come of it.
The reason I frame the debate with the phrase two-way is so that the idea gets attention, The assumption is one way streets work. I'm not sure they do. Hoopefully the phrase sparks a rethinking of the way streets can work and it then draws interest to the project. My job is to facilitate a process. Richmond and Adelaide form part of a transportation study that still is not underway.
It wouldn't be all that bike-friendly, however, if the chosen option for Richmond and Adelaide results in no separated bike lanes. I'd be more convinced if Vaughan at least took a strong position that no matter how the streetscape of Adelaide and Richmond that he supported separated bike lanes as a minimum. Otherwise, the needs of cyclists could very easily be negotiated away for some other mythical benefit.
I would also be more convinced if Vaughan hadn't already tried to keep bike lanes off of John Street during the environmental assessment process for that streetscape. Vaughan, and many businesses along it, want it to be "pedestrianized", but that also means no special consideration for cyclists. If we can't have University bike lanes (now a long shot) then the St. George / Beverly / John route is the best we've got. But Vaughan refuses to consider bike lanes on John that would help connect cyclists to Richmond. Just three short blocks of bike lanes, which could easily coexist with a better pedestrian realm. Urbane Cyclist, the large, popular bike shop on John St, supports the bike lane on John. "John Street has been heavily used by cyclists traveling southbound on Beverley St - St. George Street who wish to go south of Queen Street towards the downtown core and the lakefront for over 20 years."
Vaughan seems to be suggesting that cyclists should just make do with leftovers; that we shouldn't make any strong demands for his ward even though it has one of the highest density of cyclists in the country. Strong cycling infrastructure in his ward would provide smooth connections to the high employment and residential density from Lake Ontario up to the railway mainline north of Dupont. His ward is also the core starting area for BIXI Toronto. With millions of yearly trips likely resulting from the 1000 bikes bikehsaring system, there is even more critical need to ensure the infrastructure is present to provide a safe cycling experience.
Cyclists are important to him, except when we get in the way of car parking or upscale pedestrian malls. Sometimes it's hard to see just how cycling-friendly he actually is. Could it be that as a fit man in his prime he just doesn't understand the fears and concerns of the young and old cyclists out there? I've heard from a friend that he told them that he doesn't understand the problem with the door zone - a likely response from someone who either seldom cycles or handily rides quickly far away from the door zone but is going fast enough not to incur the "wrath" of the blocked motorist.
If not the separated bike lanes in Vaughan's ward, what? If not now, when? If not on these key streets, where? I am hopeful that Councillor Vaughan will see that the separated bike lane network proposed by Councillor Minnan-Wong and the Toronto Cyclists Union can be central to his city building agenda.
Comments
Martino (not verified)
As much as Adam Vaughan
Tue, 03/01/2011 - 14:12As much as Adam Vaughan paints himself as a cycling advocate he messed up bad on Harbord. He is the only who does not know it.
Ed
Regular ("utilitarian")
Tue, 03/01/2011 - 17:22Mind you, this is similar to Rob Ford's claim that "People want subways instead of LRT". There's no costing in the question. If it's simply a question of 120 km of subway vs. 120 km of LRT, with no price-tag attached, hey, tunnel, baby, tunnel!
In the somewhat grab-back list of possible cycling improvements, separated bike lanes sound way kewl. However, they're easily the most expensive per kilometre of the possible improvements, so inevitably they'll take up the entire bicycling-improvement budget to produce pretty short sections of separated paths.
I'll note that 68% of utilitarian cyclists think that repairing potholes and bad pavement will improve matters a great deal. Of course, we know that for the same money, you can put in separated bicycle lanes for a short section of street, or fix pavement to make it better for bicycling over a much larger area of the city.
As far as the grab-bag nature of the improvements goes, there's inexplicably no choice for "keeping bicycle routes clear of snow and ice". I would have gone for that one this morning, navigating the ice patches along the (separated) Martin Goodman.
No streetcars--except of course for the parts that do have streetcars (Adelaide at Spadina, Richmond at Church) and more generally streetcar tracks (Adelaide from Spadina to Church, Richmond from Church to York; lots of curves at Church, Richmond, and York). Rebuild of the Adelaide tracks Charlotte-Victoria to allow for diversions is somewhere in the TTC's longer-range plans.
Given the expense of putting in properly-engineered separated bicycle lanes, at best we'll get a small network of lanes downtown. Sure, the fearful young and old will feel reassured riding in the separated lanes, but how will they get to the lanes? Where will they go? That's why we have to worry about the extent of the network. Minnan-Wong's proposed network of separated bicycle lanes don't connect with a whole lot of bicycle-friendly streets or off-road paths, other than perhaps Sherbourne. Bathurst around Richmond and Adelaide is no place for young, old, or fearful! Yet that's where the separated bicycle lanes will end. Good luck riding on from there!
I do agree that it would be nice to have southward connections from the Beverly bike lane. A contraflow lane on Stephanie would be the easiest way to do this. In fact, contra-flow bicycle lanes would be nice in the general south-of-U-of-T area, since the streets are one-way mazes to discourage car traffic. Bicyclists can be scofflaws, or they can walk their bicycles on the sidewalks, or make big looping detours.
herb
Ed's claim: Separated bike
Wed, 03/02/2011 - 09:51Ed's claim: Separated bike lanes cost way more than patching pavement
Let's leave patching pavement out of this comparison. There is no reason that fixing potholes should be paid for out of the cycling budget. It comes out of general budget as it should.
You and I don't know the price tag for any separated bike lanes here since we haven't seen any plans. If the City wants to do it on the cheap they can put up Jersey barriers or glue some plastic bollards onto the road. That's what NYC did. Cheap! "Properly-engineered separated bike lanes" don't need to be expensive.
The point about streetcars is that there are no streetcars running along the length of Adelaide and Richmond, making them much better candidates for putting in separated bike lanes (just as one could switch them between one-way and two-way traffic without too much hassle for the TTC).
It will always be the question of how the "young and old" get to any bike lanes. That, however, is no reason for not building any bike lanes or any other infrastructure. At least they will serve a great number of people who do get to them, just like the Harbord and College bike lanes serve many cyclists along that route.
As they've found with separated bike lanes in Prospect Park Brooklyn, Montreal, Vancouver and elsewhere, you put them in and bike traffic will increase dramatically along those routes.
Gabe (not verified)
Herb, I understand your
Wed, 03/02/2011 - 14:15Herb, I understand your frustration over the lack of separated lanes in the city, but despite my strong support for bike infrastructure (and the work of the Cyclists Union, for that matter), I do see value in Councillor Vaughan's approach to Richmond, Adelaide, and even John St.
I am a pedestrian as much as (if not more than) I am a cyclist. You must agree, Richmond and Adelaide are horrible streets in terms of walkability. When the lights all turn green, I feel like I'm walking on the shoulder of a highway. Completely antithetical to the type of liveable city I and other residents in the area hope to enjoy.
Again, I am a year-round cyclist; my bike is (thankfully) my primary mode of travel to/from work. But if it comes down to a hypothetical choice between one-way Richmond/Adelaide with separated bike lanes vs. two-way (slower) traffic streets with improved pedestrian infrastructure, I'd have to choose the latter. It truly believe it would benefit everyone in the area.
Of course, I realize this may be a false dichotomy (why do I have to choose between only those two options?), but that's what's on the table today. And if we really want to explore all the options, then the transportation study initiated by Councillor Vaughan seems a good thing.
herb
If you look at the Prospect
Wed, 03/02/2011 - 17:21If you look at the Prospect Park report that I mentioned above you'll see that NYC found that a separated bike lane reduced speeding and improved the conditions for pedestrians as well. After the bike lane was installed the number of cars going 10 miles over the speed limit was reduced by 75%. That's a pretty substantial result!
The Prospect Park bike lane also reduced the number of sidewalk riders from almost 50% to only 3%. This improves the experience and safety for pedestrians. Hey, I use my legs for walking too, I know what it's like.
The pedestrian realm is also improves if there is a separated bike lane providing a buffer between pedestrians and car traffic.
If Vaughan's plan is to increase the sidewalk width in any section, I don't believe that a separated bike lane would preclude the sidewalks from being widened. The only difference is that one parking lane is removed for the bike lane - it's not being taken from the sidewalk. We won't know until we see more substantial proposed plans.
Ed
Herb, I agree that we haven't
Thu, 03/03/2011 - 15:52Herb, I agree that we haven't seen any plans yet. In addition--and just as important I think--I haven't heard any discussion of budget implications. Will there be extra money found for the separation, or will it be taken from other bicycle projects? (I know what my suspicion is.) This is why I'm very carefully inspecting the mouth of this gift horse for Achaians, to mix some metaphors.
Never mind the cost of patching pavement: I can't see any way separated bicycle lanes can possibly be cheaper than a paint-and-sign bicycle lane. I would guess twice as expensive per km, minimum. The current budget crunch means that we may well see fewer kilometres of separated bike lanes developed than the already-glacial progress of painted bike lanes.
(Potholes per se are not the real problem, it's the crap job done to patch utility cuts and potholes, where a pit is replaced by an uneven, cracked hump within a sharp-edged depression There are plenty of rim-bending utility cut patches either right in a bike lane [northbound Beverly was terrible for a long time], or in a curb lane which is used by cars generally for parking, while bicyclists generally ride there. Westbound Queen through Parkdale is almost unrideable due to dozens of rough utility cut patches. Both Richmond and Adelaide want repaving.)
Building a separated bike lane on the cheap sounds real problematic. You won't get the nice bicycle signals and other intersection features on the cheap. Jersey barriers are right out, because they take up a lot of space and they block driveways, trash collection, and pedestrian access, just off the top of my head. I bet a survey of any of the proposed routes will show many driveway accesses which are not likely to be closed. (A jersey barrier would be ideal on major bridges, especially the Prince Edward viaduct. )
In fact, until I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume that Minnan-Wong has no idea what all the challenges of constructing even a minimally-safe and useful separated bicycle lane anywhere in his proposed network. I don't know how much detailed research and planning City staff have worked up on this. (As for "following the best standards", Dan Egan defended the Boulevard Club offset bollards on the Martin Goodman Trail on those grounds, despite two deputations against the bollards, and much other work by groups such as ARC to get the bollards removed.)
The proper response to Minnan-Wong's proposal, in my opinion, is to say "That's very interesting. Let's explore the details!" The devil, as they say, is in the details. This is a new thing for Toronto bicycling infrastructure. Forget nice paths in Holland, there are plenty of local conditions and constraints. Some of these are almost impossible to deal with without considerable expense and also a reduction in car lanes and parking. We know that Toronto is short of money and the mayor is saying "the war on the car is over". There are many more ways this can end badly than it can end well. Unfortunately.
Alan Heisey (not verified)
Ed What is your suggestion
Thu, 03/03/2011 - 19:11Ed
What is your suggestion for the route and location of a separated continuous network of east west north south bicycle lanes servicing downtown connecting the lake and Bloor Street that might be approved by this City Council.
It is my belief that however difficult you think it might be to establish this route and implement it, that all of the other possible routes downtown involve more parking loss , more stores etc and/or more important transit routes ie street cars that make them more difficult to achieve technically and politically.
This is the best the Union and I could come up with.
If you dont like the Dutch example of something to aspire to, how is it that separated bicycle lanes have been achieved throughout Montreal , New York and Vancouver.
What is so different about those North American cities that would leave you to believe we cant work this network out in Toronto.
Herb titled his blog " if not here, where".
So where would you suggest it should go that would be better and politically achievable?
Alan Heisey
Seymore Bikes
The decision on what to do
Thu, 03/03/2011 - 20:03The decision on what to do with these roads needs to based on the best value. Separated Bike Lanes deliver plenty, but the biggest benefit is that a network of separated lanes holds the potential to impact a modal shift towards urban cycling like nothing else, and that makes all the difference in my opinion.
hamish (not verified)
I'm pleased that Herb has
Fri, 03/04/2011 - 09:53I'm pleased that Herb has taken a public swipe at Adam Vaughan, and there's excellent thought and comment about where we may go with better bike facilites, and how eg. details please.
It's been at times on the lonely side criticizing Councillor Vaughan's bike record, and he does push back, at times abusively, though I also have respect for him for coping with the sheer vast volume of core councillor pressures, and he does ride a bike and has been doored.
Harbord is better, though disappointing, and this includes the CU's help in supporting this feebler compromise vs. bike lanes where we need them.
A gross travesty is on Bloor St. by the Conservatory, where the sidewalk was narrowed, and the opportunity for bike safety curtailed, present and future, with dropping in c. 8 indented parking spaces, where there are two subway lines intersecting, massive off-street parking facilities at both the RCM and the Green P lots, and real pressure for Bloor St. bike lanes. That parking went in in the summer.
There has also been ongoing friction about Bloor St. bike lanes in the Annex, and Vaughan has been talking out of both sides of his mouth.
The Heisey proposal does have some thought and merit, but the devil's in the details. The clearest thing to be supported is the east-west Richmond, or Adelaide proposal, but here too, Mr. Vaughan's impaired options, as outside 401, when Finally!! a sidewalk went in adjacent to 401 Richmond on the south side of the street, the City also planted trees in pits, so the three remaining lanes are tight widths, and it remains a carterial. It would have been far better for bikes and the future, to not plant the trees (which will likely die soon), and give us a wide curb lane on the north side. But with the dysfunction of the City, TCAC and the mywardopic visions at City Wall, they couldn't see bike safety here as an issue, and once again, cyclists will be put in to being bad guys/gals by pushing for basic safety against motorists. Apparently, at one public meeting, even Mr. Egan downplayed putting bike lanes in here - so it's frustrating. (The info came from a good source - citizens pushed for bike lanes; the City pbbted them!)
We absolutely need to see details ahead of support. While Mr. Heisey's work and Minnan-Wong's support are encouraging, and there's a basic connectivity to the network that is truly lacking everywhere else, there are too many questions and issues to just support things since it is for bikes.
Will that be all that we get? How do we get to them? We desperately need safe smooth roads in the dominant east-west bike travel direction from Parkdale/west end to the core. (Queen is disgusting and dangerous shit all the way in from Parkdale, it's not just Parkdale btw). When will basic repairs be made? What about basic repairs to Lansdowne under the railtracks at Wright I think it is - where we're supposed to get bike lanes, it's nearly rubble, and the City's been told of this problem for perhaps a year.
Can they plow out these separated bike lanes? Snow clearance was maybe a bit better this year, but it was still very problematic and uneven, bike lanes being shrunk to bike lines.
There are two possible places to get a trial for separated bike lanes in Mr. Vaughan's turf that should be done for this summer. They're small, and they would serve existing cyclists.
1) eastbound College, east of Spadina, for one block from Spadina to Huron St.
2) on Harbord St., the westbound curve directly south of Robarts Library, where motorists ALWAYS!! encroach into the bike lane.
As for north/south, simply repainting University Ave. with cheap paint, and narrowing the lanes would provide us with bike lanes, and 24-hour parking for the City. We should try this with both coloured paint, and with door marking zones. Failing that, John St. is the next best option, and it is necessary to make sure we have safe travel to Richmond/Adelaide, and also resist the closure of John St. by the City TV operations, Vuaghan's former employer, as they have a large parking lot on the east side of the building to use for their own parties/events.
Lots of devils in details; lots of politricks! Thanks all.
Random cyclist (not verified)
Vaughn may not like the
Fri, 03/04/2011 - 10:29Vaughn may not like the source of the latest proposal from minnan-wong but the proposal itself is nothing new and we all know it comes from cyclists, distilled from the many different ways it could be done into a plan that would serve anyone cycling in the downtown area.
So he would sell out cyclists for his political agenda where it suits him, perhaps a progressive candidate is need around there.
Is it correct that the recommendation is lanes on Adelaide and Richmond? I heard that there was a better alternative in putting a larger, 2way lane on richmond alone, essentially (by virtue of being physically separate) removing the southernmost lane altogether as most of it is not used for through traffic but rather illegally parked vehicles in a through/turning traffic lane. When I first heard of the recommendation that was how it was laid. Adelaide was not considered due to the 10 years of super high congestion levels between Yonge and University and the promise of future construction continuing that trend.
Good that Vaughn is getting called onto the carpet, he has had the support of cyclists based on mere promises and the fact that he is left-of-center (in public) for far too long.
Cyclists should support the current plan, which, if imperfect, would be far easier to adjust after being put in place than it is to wait for perfection before building. Currently the only examples of perfection in existence are in the realm of ideas and the minds of mathematicians, any of whom will tell you that the ideas of perfection are flawed and the wait for perfection is a proper representation of infinity.
Act now.
Ed
Hi Alan; I suppose that the
Fri, 03/04/2011 - 10:47Hi Alan;
I suppose that the map in Herb's post is the current state of affairs.
I also hope that the rebuilding of Queen's Quay goes ahead this year, giving a separated bicycle route on the south side of the tracks, something that I fully support and which actually has the potential to work as well as those Dutch paths we keep hearing about.
I'd prefer to see the SE connection to the waterfront to be down Parliament, allowing much better access to the Distillery District and the south end of the Don River off-road route. With the proposed rebuild of Cherry Street, I think the bicycle routes should push east, and that Sherbourne south of King is not going to be a particularly key link.
In the NE corner, the network should connect to the Bloor Viaduct lanes, as well as the comparatively easy riding in Rosedale, i.e. the separated Sherbourne lanes should go up to Bloor at the minimum.
There need to be good connections across the Don River. Gerrard and particularly the Bloor Viaduct are the best links in my opinion. If you want to open up downtown to less-hardcore riders, well I bet there are a lot of them stranded on the east bank of the Don.
Ending the separated lanes on the west side at Simcoe/Beverly/St. George is not nearly far enough west. If you're doing Richmond, not only should it go east to Parliament (for Distillery/Don/Portlands access), but it should to west to Bathurst.
Now, in my fantasy world, there would be connections to the SW waterfront along Bathurst. Right now, Bathurst is wide above Front, but a challenge to experienced cyclists due to turning traffic at King. And then there's the Bathurst bridge, which I hate (but ride anyway).
To the north, the network should connect with Bloor. Lots of bikes ride there, and Bloor is much more of a destination street than Wellesley/Harbord.
In my opinion, separated bike lanes on Bloor-Danforth, as far to the east and west as we could get them (and ideally Jane to Victoria Park) would be a much greater boon to cyclists, both experienced and inexperienced, than the rather self-contained downtown grid as in the diagram. (I agree with Hamish on this one....and I don't ride on Bloor/Danforth and am unlikely to do much riding up there any time soon.)
Finally, I have no problems with aspiring to Dutch practice, as long as it doesn't mean slowing way down when I'm riding. Like I wrote above, with the Queen's Quay reconfiguration, we can actually achieve something nice along the waterfront. But I do wonder what kind of compromised facilities will actually be delivered, once the plans are laid out and the usual protests are raised. We can't get a proper painted bicycle lane on Annette; separated bicycle lanes have much greater impacts on access to driveways and trash pickup and pedestrians and the number of lanes available for cars. I wish we were doing here what's being done in New York. Perhaps I am too pessimistic when I think that such doings are highly improbable in Rob Ford's Toronto?
Kevin (not verified)
Again folks, let's get
Fri, 03/04/2011 - 11:17Again folks, let's get pragmatic, PLEASE.
All this utopian stuff is lovely, but It NEVER gets built.
We need to get cycling infrastructure in place ASAP where supportable, that means in low-conflict with other users for the most part.
Yes we should get more in the longer term, but if we keep shooting for the stars, we get nothing.
Let's get the basic, everyday bike lanes in place on Peter/BlueJays way, as a first connector between St. George/Beverly and the waterfront. Its already in the Bike Plan, its a low-traffic street, no retail/parking considerations, no big BIA dreams, but it does provide a safe, effective bike route, and it will get more people cycling downtown, more cyclists, more voters who care about cycling....etc. etc.
Let's get get Sherbourne separated; as its reconstructed. We have a great proposal on the table; we already have the bike lanes, the road is being reconstructed anyway, its in an area where the councillor should be friendly. Win/Win
Let's get the Queen's Quay separated path built. Its a huge addition to the bike network.
And let's get a few new connections peripheral to downtown done, to create more safe cycling routes and gain a critical mass of voters for whom this is an issue. I'm thinking Donlands and the north end of Broadview (now the Case Ootes is not the councillor there).
Let's finish Lansdowne, and the various west-end 'bikeways'.
THEN we move on to pick the fights that require political capital.
When cyclists represent at most 10% of voters, even downtown, and drivers are a much larger constituency, even downtown......we're not there yet.
Never mind in suburban areas where cyclists make up 2% of the populace.
Let's build the links that we can, and get to 15 or 20% cyclists in the core, and 10% in the surrounding areas.
Then we pick 1 or 2 strategic projects and push like hell for'em.
But let's not fight for what we won't get; and in the process lose what we could have had.
Danforth Bike Lanes are a great idea; but there time (politically) has not come.
So let's build the ridership, get more people out, making more and more safe and attractive routes; supporting pedestrian-improvements at the same time, and transit as well; as these create the conditions under which cycling will grow in this city.
Lobbying Priorities:
Get those, then
Get those, Then
Get those, then
In that order, so that we don't twiddle our thumbs! Perfection can be the enemy of the good.
David Juliusson (not verified)
A bike lane to support is the
Fri, 03/04/2011 - 11:58A bike lane to support is the Mimico 20/20 initiative. Phase 2 is to begin this spring and be completed by the summer of 2012. When completed, it will provide an off road link between Mimico and the Martin Goodman Trail.
On the bike plan is a bike lane between Norris Crescent where the MImico 20/20 trail ends and First St. where the Waterfront Trail ends. Once completed there will be a continous link from Queen's Quay to Mississauga. Toronto's western gap along the waterfront will be closed.
We should support the Mimico 20/20 initiative. All three levels of government are behind it. The money is there. It is something where there is the will to complete. Lets keep it on the radar.
Antony (not verified)
Fully on side with Kevin.
Fri, 03/04/2011 - 11:54Fully on side with Kevin. Steady progress. Focus on integrating with BIXI and getting those in condo towers out of their cars in the summer.
Ed
Let's get the basic, everyday
Fri, 03/04/2011 - 16:20Peter and Queen is an awkward intersection. Making a vehicular left turn is nasty because there are streetcar tracks, and while you're waiting for a gap in opposing traffic there's always the possibility you'll get run over by a Queen car or a texting driver. Making a left turn by staying to the right to the far side of the intersection and then crossing on the green for Peter is tricky because there's no space to wait out of the way of through traffic because it's a T-intersection.
Trying to ride northbound through Peter and Beverly is maybe worse because there's no traffic light at Queen and Beverly, plus of course streetcar tracks.
I've made the Queen-to-Peter turn lots of times, but I was coming out to Queen from Soho and usually could time my right-left. I wouldn't say that any of the turns were what I'd call 'safe'! The few times I've tried making a vehicular left from Queen to Beverly were even worse.
John would make a much more bike-friendly crossing of Queen; all it would take is a contraflow bike lane on Stephanie and no one would need to ride on Queen at all.
hamish (not verified)
This is looong detail from a
Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:29This is looong detail from a letter from Adam Vaughan to a RA about this proposal - but given the devil's in the details, why not push to have the Cycling Committee re-established with a Network Committee ahead of bolder new projects, that may not be so wise, and could drain what limited budget the Fordkers might give to us? Let's look at the crash data for instance....
Oh, and I don't believe all of Mr. Vaughan's claims about his record and "listening". etc....
Rebecca Hewitt for Councillor Vaughan
March 3, 2011
Dear Resident Associations and Local BIAs,
Many of you have been recently contacted by the Bike Union about a proposal to re-configure roads and the bike network in the ward. The proposal is the same one that was first floated by Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong last year.
Its goal is to establish barricaded bike lanes on Richmond, Adelaide, John Street, Beverley, St. George (College to Prince Arthur), and along Hoskin Avenue and Harbord Street.
The bike lane on Beverley and St. George would see both north and south cycling lanes relocated to the east side of the street.
Neighbourhoods and business districts in the three corridors are only now being consulted. The item is apparently going to council for approval as soon as April, following March's Public Works Committee meeting.
This same proposal was shelved last summer because it has several serious design flaws. If approved as currently configured, it would require several community and city initiatives be cancelled and/or totally redesigned.
Some of the problems:
HARBORD - If approved, the proposed lanes would require half the commercial parking to be eliminated. Since the morning rush hour has the most intense traffic flow, it is likely that the parking on the south side of the street would be lost.
JOHN ST – The Entertainment District BIA's plan to create a pedestrian street with capabilities to stage major cultural events would be cancelled. Councillor Minnan-Wong has told me to tell the BIA that the project is cancelled until further notice. The proposal would lock in the deficient sidewalks permanently and eliminate curbside drop-off and pick-up for local businesses. Money (approximately $11m) raised and partially spent on the project would have to be returned to developers under the Section 37 guidelines under which it was secured.
At the top end of John, the plan would require two new bike lanes on Stephanie and the elimination of on-street parking. One lane would be a contra-flow lane flowing in the opposite direction of traffic. The proposal also suggests that a bike lane be carved through Grange Park and that this infrastructure drive the design process of the park by making the cycling route a priority over other park uses.
BEVERLEY – The double north-south lanes on Beverley Street in this bike network proposal would impact the design and access to Grange Park. It would also require residents of the TCHC properties north of Dundas to redesign and move garbage pick-up to adjoining streets, while permanently blocking passenger pick up and drop off for the Hydro Block community.
ST. GEORGE – The University would be required to rebuild St. George to remove the speed bumps and reconfigure the custom tiling and unique lane markings on this street. The pedestrian scramble being considered for the intersection of Harbord and St. George would have to be abandoned and the reconfiguration of the intersection to provide for better pedestrian flow recalibrated to accommodate a 'cycling first' approach to road design.
RICHMOND/ADELAIDE – it appears from submitted drawings that the bike lane would be separated from traffic by a row of parked cars and run along the north side of Richmond. It would extend from Sherbourne in the east to Bathurst in the west. Adelaide would see similar lanes on the south side of the street. No studies have been done on how driveways and deliveries would be handled. Proponents of the bike lanes objected to the sidewalk installation along 401 Richmond Street because it made the street too narrow for their plan. They have asked for all streetscape improvements including the construction of two new parks at Peter and Richmond be suspended until their bike plan is approved and built.
No rationale has ever been provided for why the dedicated twin lanes would run north of Bloor or how they would interface with established lanes that continue north, but that is the extent of the proposal.
All of the projects potentially affected by this bike plan have been evolved with extensive community planning. Grange Park, the John Street corridor project and the re-design of St. George would all have to be reset and in some cases rebuilt to facilitate the bike plan. None of the money already investment in the planning and development of these projects would be recovered. No new funding or budgets are available to implement the bike plan as proposed.
Approving the bike plan would freeze the affected neighbourhoods' planning process, override the community process and leave neighbourhoods throughout the ward with the status quo, despite having the resources in hand now to deliver long desired change to the community.
I am a cyclist; I have been all my life. I support bike lanes. Working with the neighbourhoods and community groups and cyclists of Ward 20 we have improved cycling resources and infrastructure in the ward over the last four years. Together we have created a bike plan for the affected neighbourhoods.
Last term we moved forward with the support of the Bike Union on a plan to move bikes through the ward. Portland Street, Spadina, Peter Street, Simcoe, Bremner and Blue Jays Way were all identified as the community- and BIA- supported options. Council approved design work on these streets. Harbord Street is not perfect, but it was made better with re-paving and re-striping of the lanes. Harbord was the first street to get bike bikes, and continuous lines and markings through intersections. Sharrows were added where full lanes could not be accommodated. All of this was done with full consultation with the community and affected businesses. All of this work is about to be dismissed if the proposed option by the Bike Union is adopted.
The Bike Union has sent letters to community groups across the downtown soliciting support for their plan. The full explanation of its impact is not included in their package.
So far none of the affected neighbourhoods have written letters of support for the proposal. Many are on the record as being opposed.
I ran for council on a platform of community-based planning. Adopting this top-down and locally insensitive plan, without consultation or even proper design work flies in the face of what residents and businesses and Ward 20 have fought so hard for.
There is a community process underway around the University's Secondary Plan and a liaison group that manages how the city, the community and the school resolve issues, The Annex and Grange Residents' Associations have community-based planning processes, as does Harbord Village and the King-Spadina neighbourhoods. Grange Park has a community board that effectively manages design proposals for the community green space. The Entertainment District BIA is running a consultation process and concluding an Environmental Assessment on the street.
The Bike Union is aware of all this but instead is riding off in its own direction and is refusing to engage the community on the neighbourhoods' terms or work with the local councillor. Instead they are proposing one-off meetings in isolation where only part of the story is told and only some of the implications are explored. They have chosen to work with Denzil Minnan-Wong and the new Ford administration first, and the community only as needed as a strategy.
I urge you all not to abandon the community planning process that we are all proud of. Please do not support the Bike Union plan at this time and let's continue to work together to make ALL forms of getting around Ward 20 as safe and as beautiful as possible.
Sincerely,
Adam Vaughan
City Councillor
Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina
Councillor Adam Vaughan
Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina
416-392-4044
Toronto City Hall
100 Queen Street West
2nd Floor, Suite C50
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
visit us online at www.ward20.ca
herb
Thanks for posting this
Sun, 03/06/2011 - 23:12Thanks for posting this Hamish - it's no longer than some of your posts :). I'll look out for the Bike Union's response, as it looks like Vaughan has glossed over some details and exaggerated / mis-led on others. This is what I can find:
HARBORD - So the decision to NOT allow the bike lane to continue just west of Spadina was a "community initiative"? Sounds to me it was just the Harbord Bakery being consulted and unofficially at that.
JOHN ST - I don't recall anyone saying a bike path had to be put through Grange Park. Maybe this is coming from Minnan-Wong, who knows. Bike lanes on Stephanie would help a great deal with getting to and off of Beverly. Contra-flow lanes are effective in helping cyclists go against the flow on streets restricted for one way car traffic.
I don't see how bike lanes on John would preclude its "pedestrianization". NYC has done a good job of this in Manhattan where public pedestrian space has been paired with separated bike lanes safely. It appears that Vaughan never really considered this as a serious option for the Environmental Assessment.
ST. GEORGE - So many students are cyclists and pedestrians. Taking both into account is in the best interests of the University. There are already bike lanes on St. George so I don't see how we can't have a pedestrian scramble and a separated bike lane. Again, other cities don't seem to have a problem with mixing the two.
RICHMOND/ADELAIDE - I wonder who's "submitted drawings" he is referencing? I'd like to see it. I can only think of Mez's photoshopped image of what it would look like. I know that Transportation staff have a few years ago made preliminary plans to put a two-way separated bike lane on either Richmond or Adelaide, which would not have been the same as what Vaughan describes. I'm not sure which is considered the preferred option by all those proposing this.
Vaughan keeps mentioning the lack of community consultation. While important, I don't see how a transportation network for cyclists can be built if every little piece has be considered separately. Such an approach was never done with the original road network and I don't know why a bigger proposal can't be considered that puts forward something more comprehensive for cyclists needs. I don't believe it will derail all of Vaughan's plans for creating better neighbourhoods: most of the plan is for improving streets that already have bike lanes!
Tom Flaherty
Adam Vaughan should know that
Sun, 03/06/2011 - 23:16Adam Vaughan should know that the design and planning phase of this work would be an intensive process, and that things like on street parking and garbage pick-up will be given due consideration.
Being a cyclist is one thing, but acting in the interests of cycling infrastructure is quite another.
It would be a shame if a large scale cycling infrastructure project was nixed because of a row of parking spaces, or a garbage collection spot. Local planning is important, but it often lacks objectivity in the bigger picture. This isn't a garbage dump, or a half-way house, or an overbearing commercial development, it's bike lanes!
I seriously hope he approached the Bike Union prior to writing the letter above; that would at least demonstrate some balanced perspective on his part, lest he be regarded as riding off in his own direction.
herb
In the first reading I missed
Sun, 03/06/2011 - 23:48In the first reading I missed that Vaughan mentions Spadina as one of the routes to "get bikes moving through the ward". Right, are we talking about the same Spadina that's supposed to get some sharrows squeezed in between the parked cars and the moving cars? Gee, thanks.
I also missed the first time that he's taken to calling them "barricaded bike lanes". Nice. I subtle shift to get us to feel more negative about them - who wants to be barricaded? Not me!
NYC's Department of Transportation installed 250 miles of bike lanes in the last four years - a lot of them separated. That period also saw a 109 percent increase in cycling (taken from p.38 of the March/April 2011 Momentum issue, interview of Caroline Samponaro, director of bicycle advocacy at Transportation Alternatives).
Build it and they will come. People are not going to get excited about sharrows on Spadina, Vaughan.
hamish (not verified)
The PWIC meeting is on March
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 20:23The PWIC meeting is on March 23; 6 councillors on it. There's this tendency to have far less time for consideration/reaction to items on the agendas - so those with good time/net access might wish to monitor the pwic /city site, and share info.
I really like to see detail ahead of supporting anything - though the prospects of Finally!! getting some good east-west links in the core are exciting, and could be supported in principle now. And this proposal does at least have some desire for network continuity - this is another need.
As for north-south links, it would be exceptionally easy to simply repaint University Ave. for bike lanes - by narrowing the fast travel lanes somewhat, and putting in a coloured bike lane beside 24-hour parking. That's a good link to Richmond/Adelaide and Simcoe St. too, for cheap, and the City gets parking meter revenue all the time plus some traffic calming.
Yes, NYC has been moving ahead very quickly, but there's a bikelash there too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/nyregion/06sadik-khan.html?pagewanted=...
I'd suggest trying to knock this proposal back into further PWIC meetings, and insisting that there be a Cycling Advisory Committee to feedback and ask questions like: if we do this, is that all that we're going to get for the next Ford years? I don't trust these Fordkers....
Martinho (not verified)
The questions on Harbord
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 08:20The questions on Harbord linger: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinreis/5511810873/in/set-72157626231120...
hamish (not verified)
Nothing on the March 23 PWIC
Wed, 03/16/2011 - 09:35Nothing on the March 23 PWIC meeting agenda thus far...