It's taken a bit of community pressure from the Bike Union, business and residents associations as well as pressure from above with Chair of Public Works and Infrastructure (PWIC), Councillor Minnan-Wong as a born-again cyclist. Things are looking up for the separated bike lanes aka cycle tracks when they go to PWIC in June. The proposal has support from the left as well as the right. Even though PWIC is packed with some suburban councillors, I'm guessing they are unlikely to try to oppose the Chair's pet project. PWIC member and environmentalist Councillor Perks has mostly sided with Vaughan and opposed this particular plan. PWIC member Councillor Layton has made some noises of supporting it in some form.
In City Council as a whole, more councillors are lining up to support the separated bike lanes. Some are more reticent than others in going against the strong-willed Adam Vaughan, in whose ward some of the proposed bike lanes will be placed. Councillors on the left and middle, McConnell, Mihevc, Lee and deBaeremaker are now supportive of the proposal. Councillors Wong-Tam supports it in principle. Even right-leaning Palacio supports the proposal. It looks more likely that it will pass the Public Works committee and hopefully City Council.
It's understandable that the left-leaning councillors are hesitant to ally with Minnan-Wong over Vaughan (who has more or less opposed most the separated bike lane proposal particularly since it would not work with his current ideas of what should happen with John Street and Richmond). Minnan-Wong has only in the last year presented some positive plans for cycling. Mr. Ford, it seems, has still not come out to express his full support for the separated bike lane proposal, instead claiming he'll support it if it doesn't "impede traffic" (just like crosswalks and traffic lights impede traffic?). All the same, it behooves the progressive councillors to fully get behind this community-supported proposal and start thinking ahead, finding more connections for separated bike lanes.
Progressive councillors should support it because it is the most ambitious proposal that can likely happen in this political climate and because it will provide some real benefits to the many people who would like to bike but are afraid of riding right in traffic.
The progressive, pro-cycling councillors that could step forward to form a coalition supporting forward-thinking proposals like Minnan-Wong's. A good first step is Councillor Layton's announcement that he will create his own cycling advisory committee if the official one is closed down by Rob Ford.
If the separated bike lane proposal is approved, there are a number of practical, politically-palatable improvements that this coalition could support (the list was forwarded to me by a reader):
- The extension of Jarvis Street lanes south to the new bicycle lanes on Richmond. (Councillors McConnell and Wong Tam)
- The extension of the Richmond lanes east to the Eastern Avenue lanes and the separation of the Eastern Avenue lanes in ward 30. (Councillor Fletcher)
- Installation of separated lanes on Bay Street from Front Street West to Queens Quay. (Bike lanes on Bay to Union Station have been approved but have been held up by one ice cream truck vendor.) (Councillor McConnell)
- Installation of separated bicycle lanes from the Queens Quay and Bay to the Toronto Island Ferry Terminal. (The ferry terminal is 200 feet south of Queens Quay and is only accessible by pedestrian sidewalk or by a driveway for motor vehicles east of the Westin) (Councillor McConnell)
- The following Railpath resolutions:
i. City Staff report how and when to extend the Railpath south as far as is practically possible with a strategy for completion of the southerly extension of the Railpath to Union Station or Front Street in this term of Council .
ii. Metrolinx and the Province of Ontario be requested by City Council to include as part of the Rail link project, the acquisition of the necessary additional lands to extend the Railpath north from its current terminus to Weston and Pearson airport so there is a separated bicycle road connecting Pearson Airport in Mississauga with the City of Toronto. (Councillors Perks, Bailao, Vaughan and other councillors on the rail corridor all the way to Pearson)- Installation of separated bike lanes on:
a. Blue Jays Way/Peter Street from Queen Street West to Bremner Boulevard, including adding Soho Street and a contra flow lane on Phoebe Street;
b. Bremner Boulevard from Simcoe Street to Bathurst Street; and
c. Dan Leckie Way/Portland Street from Queens Quay to Queen Street West, including the pedestrian/bike bridge over the Union Station Rail corridor. (Councillor Vaughan)
Additionally, there are lots of other small useful proposals bubbling up from the Bike Union's local ward groups so this list is certainly not comprehensive. An example is Strachan Avenue in my ward, 19, where a number of simple, feasible improvements can be made to make cycling safer. (And, of course, there is also the continuing struggle to get bike lanes on Bloor which activists will inevitably keep pushing, but unluckily, councillors on the left and right are unlikely to touch the hot potato of Bloor right now. Hope springs eternal.)
And speaking of hope, in this video of 1960s and 1970s Netherlands you can see that cycling wasn't always so favoured. Cycling rates were at their lowest point as the automobile was catered too. Many politicians figured that cyclists would lay down their bikes and buy cars. Even in the Netherlands people had to struggle to get respected:
Comments
David Juliusson (not verified)
In response to Herb's
Mon, 05/30/2011 - 11:26In response to Herb's question of what next, I say we support the separated bike lanes. Council is all for it. They can accomplish things quickly when they want it.
So what if there are suburban councillors on the PWIC. Many are also for separated bike lanes. In my ward, Councillor Grimes is championing a bike lane on the Mimico Creek. Other suburban councillors want bike lanes.Even if it is just to get bicyclists out of the way of cars, lets support it, as long as good cycling infrastructure is the result.
We can also use some other events to our advantage if we do this. For example, there will be a need for cycling infrastructure for the Pan Am games. We can make it happen in a way that is useful to us afterwards. But only if we are seen as supportive and helpful.
Where we can help is making sure the lanes are wide enough, set up properly and maintained. I would also like to see standardized signs on separated bike lanes and paths. Right now there is a bewildering hodgepodge of signs from both public and private groups. Many of them are of no use. We can help make sure standardized signs are part of the infrastructure.
Support and a focus on separated lanes is a shift and will mean that some deeply held desires of the cycling community will have to be put on hold. The most significant is Bloor St. will not get lanes in the foreseeable future. As Councillor Heaps used to say lets get the winnable victories now and worry about the hard battles later. We need some wins.
Pedal Pusher (not verified)
That's a pretty good
Mon, 05/30/2011 - 12:58That's a pretty good approach. Like doing the easy questions on the exam first.
Also I hope that bixi with it's heavy use will encourage separated lane development.
W. K. Lis
One question I have is are
Mon, 05/30/2011 - 17:01One question I have is are the separated bike lanes to be designed for recreational use, commuter use, or for shopping?
lukev (not verified)
yes.
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 01:19yes.
simplicius2wheels
I understand where W.K.Lis is
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 08:01I understand where W.K.Lis is coming from: a commuter will want a fast and direct route even though it's among busy other traffic. On the other hand, someone cycling for recreation typically cares more about enjoyable surroundings and a circuitous course is a bonus. When planning the routes you have to be clear what type of cyclist you are trying to serve.
Which type - it depends:
For downtown, typically it would be the commuters, folks going to work or shop or whatever. They have a purpose of getting there fast with the least effort. Even if they are out for fun, a commuter lane can take them efficiently towards a nicer setting like the lakeshore or the local park.
In the burbs, commuter lanes must be on or parallel to the major roads - we typically have to haul longer distances than the downtown folks and the cost of a detour is higher for us. In addition, connecting routes need to be built that allow you safe access from your home or from the efficient commuter routes to crucial destinations:
* the schools like YorkU or Seneca College or any of the many high schools,
* the shopping hubs of the burbs, and to
* special attractions like the Zoo or Black Creek Village
Maybe I left some potential user type out in this consideration, but you see that planning has to take into account these types of users when the routes are designed: where they will be located, how wide they need to be, whether they should share the pavement with cars etc, and whether they should be mixed-use paths or not...
David Juliusson (not verified)
By being supportive we can
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 08:30By being supportive we can have influence on these sort of decisions. We can make sure they are in places that are beneficial to us. To have influence we need to be seen as supportive and part of the process rather than hostile and reactionary.
hamish (not verified)
Only the Richmond/maybe
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 12:51Only the Richmond/maybe Adelaide proposal truly makes sense.
We need far more connectivity within our patchwork ahead of rebuilding existing lanes in ways that might not work too well and could cost lots of money.
We also need far smoother roads everywhere.
Parts of this are long overdue, but where's the Queen's Quay lane to truly show us how the City is going to build and maintain this.
Between the politics and general civic non-chalance to incompetence, doing the entirety of this proposal is beyond unwise.
Why not some separated bike lanes on College from Spadina to Bay? Isn't that smarter? Why does the CU pick one complicated/costly street over another simple/cheap one? Are we going to get another nice plan, lots of green press/cred for the Fordists, and then, gee, no money for any of it, except for suburban paths inherently inequitable to women and commuters? The Ford Bike Plan is also on this PWIC meeting and other bike issues like where's Bloor St. and other bike issues, but only five minutes each person for all of the above.
hamish (not verified)
For the appropriate
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 16:00For the appropriate perspective on where bikes and bike planning may well be really heading vs. the hype, please take eyeballs over to http://stevemunro.ca/ and look at some of the recent posts about transit/subways/Transit City. Maybe it's just that we bikes are relatively small fry compared to doing in transit, and just wait....our destination is essentially the same, just a bit longer and more like a circuit...
Ed
I know there were all kinds
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 14:05I know there were all kinds of consultations in the reroute of the Martin Goodman through Ontario Place. Did the intersection design get carefully developed with our input, or were those glossed over in consultations and then implemented as City Staff felt like?
The Star's Fixer tackled the issue of the P-gates, which is something that I brought up here a while back.
The response from the City is about what I would have predicted (which is why I didn't bother contacting them):
There you have it folks: P-gates are a Good Idea because they keep cyclists safe by slowing them down (due to the risk of getting hurt). And they keep cars off the trail (which might only happen after major events at Ontario Place)
Of course, now in addition to watching out for the various traffic-light poles in the middle of the trail, and watching out for cars, we can also worry about clipping the P-gates. This doubtless adds to our safety.
Also, let's close off the gates at the start of April to make sure that no Ontario-Place-event-attending cars get a head start on driving down the trail. Also if the snow isn't cleared from the trail this winter, you can look forward to the gates being permanently closed. Just in case, you know.
Finally, I'll note that the intersection design has a number of bad/cheap elements (such as traffic light poles smack dab in the trail, poor sight lines, and sharp curves on approach/departure), even before the P-gatres.
Maybe the proposed separate bike lanes will be implemented 100% well. But I am willing to bet anyone $50 that any features we subsequently find unsafe will get fobbed off by City staff as being for our safety. (The Boulevard Club bollards were my introduction to that phenomenon.)
hamish (not verified)
I guess it is a bit negative
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 10:34I guess it is a bit negative and jeerleading to be looking at the actual performance of the City in reality vs. theory. But it's useful to seeing an(other) instance where gee, the CIty's doing of things has not been really exemplary.
In my observations, the City has difficulty measuring the roads properly, or getting the dimensions correct, eg. Wellesley E of Jarvis and apparently now with Spadina. I've been awaiting the City to adjust that dangerous pinch point in the eastbound Wellesley bike lane for a couple of years I guess but nothing yet.
And there are sometimes the issues with winter maintenance, and our roads are pretty bad too.
While the CU is rightly trying to brand itself and make a difference - and both are happening, and in positive ways too - I keep returning to the east-west potential of Bloor, and it's being the most logical place in Southern Ontario for a bike lane perhaps, and if we get into a gold-plated network in a small part of the core, while Bloor remains dangerous, that's going to be frustrating at best. I'd be reasonably happy just to repaint Bloor for $200,000 between Sherbourne and High Park and perhaps save a life, so let's hope that we don't go overboard on three existing bike lanes for less wide agendas, though yes, we have to start somewhere. sad.
John (not verified)
Could you provide more
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 15:14Could you provide more information on this progressive coalition of cyclist-friendly councillors, and the proposed modifications to DMW's plan? Where did this list come from? Is this a formal counter-proposal?
And is it really possible that an ice cream truck vendor could hold up the Bay Street bike lane? This seems like an extreme example of the type of local obstruction that prevents the City from building a proper city-wide network of safe, connected and continuous bike lanes. Someone tell Peter Kuitenbrouwer!
MAD (not verified)
How about a path along the no
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 13:19How about a path along the no longer used rail line just North of Dupont? It comes with its own bridges and everything...
1weasel (not verified)
The North Toronto Sub is no
Fri, 06/03/2011 - 02:32The North Toronto Sub is no longer used? Might want to check that again, MAD, since it is a busy CP crosstown line.
John (not verified)
It would be easier for main
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 14:41It would be easier for main street businesses to accept bike lanes if
1) the lanes were part of a connected network to be used by all Torontonians, and not some unconnected lane segment that is beneficial only to cycle warriors who ride that road anyway, and
2) if the bike lanes were designed to be part of an overall enhancement of the streetscape, along with trees, landscaping and wider sidewalks, and not just as a thoroughfare
If DMW can do the first phase of the network properly, without skimping on the design aspect (perhaps unlikely, given his treatment of the Fort York bridge), it is possible that Bloor Street businesses might actually start asking to become part of an expanded network, just as small towns once begged for the railroad to stop in their town.
But if the new bike network mangles and carves up roads into ugly thoroughfares (as Adam Vaughan seems to fear), then businesses will fight harder than ever to keep the bike lanes away.
For that reason, I wish I was hearing more about high-quality design, and less about concrete and curbs.
Ed
Hamish asks, Parts of this
Sat, 06/04/2011 - 16:36Hamish asks,
Now it looks like the TTC may be kiboshing the Queen's Quay restructuring.
This would be awful news on two points:
Queen's Quay is an absolute gridlocked circuis in the evenings--trying to head westbound from Yonge after 5 PM means riding between cars, in the gutter, or (as some cyclists do) up on the sidewalk; running signals (all those parking-lot traffic lights, with the transit phase); dodging cars (right turn-only lanes); and being squeezed into narrow lanes where bicycles can't pass cars and vice-versa (Spadina and Queen's Quay).
Oh, did I mention that the pavement is the usual awful Toronto patch-pothole-crack-halfburied tracks?
hamish (not verified)
It's very helpful to have Ed
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:22It's very helpful to have Ed note that the physically separated Queen's Quay experiment/template may in fact be ebbing away for a variety of reasons. And could this happen to the brave new set of lanes all in the news etc.? A great new set of plans surges ahead, which help cover the mauling of the Bike Plan and perhaps the trashing of the Bloor St. EA, and then due to financial crises - in the news already - gee, no money to do any of it.
That's worst case cynicism - but it really behooves those with the time/energy/resource that are getting behind a particular initiative to really look at what is and isn't being done. Having a good example of a physically separated bike lane, and having it well designed/done is important, and we have a broad notwork that needs linkages, and then there's basic road repairs too, let alone doing things in the wider city vs. small core area where 3 of 4 streets already have bike lanes.