Harbord cycle tracks will not be for the hardcore but for the rest of us

They should just close down Hoskin / Harbord / Wellesley to cars entirely and make a bicycle superhighway.

I too want more bike infrastructure. I ride year round and still feel more comfortable where I am on a bike lane. I know I wouldn't ride all winter if ther Martin Goodman Trail wasn't cleared.

I am involved in the TDSB bicycling committee. The TDSB wants children to ride to school for a number of reasons. For it to happen in a big way there needs to be proper infrastructure. Our committee is already looking at the bike rack issue and how to get cycling to score for Ecoschools. We will be looking at Safe Routes to Schools. Our major questions will be where are the bike lanes? Why are there gaps between them and how can they be filled.

We see it every year. Traffic increases dramatically when students go back to school. If we want them to ride, they need infrastructure.

Finally, seniors not riding in the suburbs is false. I live in Etobicoke and see seniors riding all the time. They ride within the community to do their chores. In Agincourt there is a very interesting trail proposal happening. Councillor Lee supports it. One of the main expected user groups will be Chinese seniors

I'm opposed to redoing Harbord at this time for a couple of reasons.
1) We really desperately need a complete network ahead of rebuilding an okay, not-perfect facility that was just upgraded a few years ago, though two bad spots eg. the connection to Wellesley and the end of Harbord at Ossington need work.
2) Because of the numerous intersecting streets all along Harbord St., the odds are high that it will be unsafe due to an increase in conflict points in varied turns all along it.

Not that facts matter, but the VeloQuebec folks based in Montreal where there are many bi-directional bike lanes indicate that there are a set of conditions that should occur before this type of route is installed eg. c. 300m between turns but the blocks all along Harbord are c. 75M eg. 25% of the standard.

So do injured cyclists and their familes get to sue Herb? How's the CycleToronto liability insurance?

And because of the whiff of bad politics about the separated lanes, this Harbord idea should be backburnered till after the next election, assigning the priority for urban work to catching up on already approved but undone projects from c. 2009 and 2010, and oh, Bloor is being rebuilt/paved and the part west of Ossington to Dundas St. W. is really important to fill in.

Hamish,

I like you, it was fun working with you on the Ward 20 Committee, but you are not being helpful here.

Killing the Harbord lanes will do nothing for Bloor. On the other hand, one of the best ways of getting Bloor lanes is getting proper protected lanes on Harbord.

Why? Because the more people that cycle the greater the demand for proper, safe cycling infra everywhere. Getting a lot more people using Harbord to cycle to where they live, work, shop, etc. means that those people will be wanting to use Bloor.

I find the Portland study to be very important. I cheerfully admit to being part of the "Strong & Fearless" top 1%. But the roads have to be for everyone, not just me.

One of the things that I found most interesting while in cities in The Netherlands was to encounter a large number of people who here would be in the category of the “30% who would never consider cycling.” But in The Netherlands they are getting around on bicycles.

After talking with about the fifth or sixth person who shattered the Dutch stereotype of "people who love cycling" by telling me how much they hated cycling even although they went everywhere by bicycle, I asked why. Not surprisingly, the answer was all about infrastructure. A typical response went something like this:

To drive a car to work, I would first have to walk from my home to the car parking garage. That would take about 10 minutes to walk, and renting a car parking spot would cost 75 euros a month.

The direct road to where I work is a through road for cyclists, but only a local access road for car drivers. To drive a car to work I would first have to drive out of the city, then drive around the city on the surrounding ring road until my car was adjacent to the sector where I work. Then I would have to drive my car back in to the city again and park it in a car parking garage that was a 10 minute walk from my workplace. The cost of this car parking garage is 85 euros a month.

Time to drive to work: 10 minutes walk from home to car parking garage, 25 minutes drive time and 10 minutes to walk from car parking garage to workplace. Total drive to work time: 45 minutes.

Time to cycle to work: 15 minutes. So I cycle to work every day, even although I hate cycling and love driving.

We can do the exact same thing in Toronto. Cycling is already much faster than driving a car. If it were only safer with cycling infra to Dutch engineering standards, we would have Dutch levels of cycle mode share.

Here is a brilliant cartoon that shows exactly what I mean:

http://bikeyface.com/2013/07/12/amsterdam/

Kevin Love

The reasons I'm opposed to reworking Harbord are not because separations are not a nicer, safer thing as they are.

But even though Harbord isn't perfect now, the rest of the City needs far more work than rebuilding an existing lane entails, and that's what the Fordists do NOT want to do, and they are worth being suspicious of because they don't truly care if they screw up a street in the core or harm cyclists if they can foster division in a core community and within core councillors.

We need connections far more than rebuilds, extensions of east-west far more than rebuilds, as we go well beyond a smaller route in the core.

There are also some real drawbacks, including safety, to what's proposed.

There are too many conflict points with these bi-directional lanes unless there's a move to close off some of the side streets - traffic mazes are hot items for a councillor.

Also, there are some real issues with turning points eg. from Harbord to St. George southbound, and also going along QPC southbound where the lanes narrow to proposed 2.4M on a sharp right-angled turn. Guaranteed crash time! and more space won't be available because the cars need all their space right?

People really need to be smarter politically and functionally in what they seek and promote.

Just to show I'm not averse to bi-directional in the right circumstances, I'd put out a thought of a living legacy for Layton lanes on the Danforth, but there's one complication with this: there are a lot of short blocks interfering with any bi-directional lanes on the north side between Broadview and Pape especially. But apart from that complexity, which would be trouble for Ms. Fragedakis and planners, it would be a good enough solution to Danforth biking from Sherbourne out to say Victoria Park for maybe 7kms?

My issue with a separated cycle track is that it will become a space that is used by joggers, skateboarders and rollerbladers as well as cyclists. Add in a bunch of inexperienced cyclists, and it'll be just as bad as riding on the Goodman Trail. (In over 20 years of cycling, I have only ever had 1 accident in traffic, when I was deliberately hit. On the other hand, I have had 2 accidents - one serious - and several near-misses on the MGT.)

Thanks for this post Herb, it addresses a lot of the concerns I heard from veteran cyclists at the public consultations on Harbord/Hoskin.

The most common complaint I heard was "It will be too slow, how will I pass?". Even if this fear comes true, it is as they say a "Rich man's problem". As Yogi Berra might have said "nobody uses the paths because they're too crowded".

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/no-you-are-not-held-...

Just a note - debate and discussion online is great, and in person is even better.

But when speaking to local residents, politicians, BIAs, and media in a public consultation, please consider the impression you're giving. If the message is "The cycling community can't agree on what they want", then what we'll get is precisely zero.

The separated cycle paths in Vancouver are really good. I have rarely been slowed down by anyone on them. I've learned to ding my bell before I get close to them. Also I've learned to figure out who is experienced and who is a tourist on a rental bike and be able to predict what they might do. I keep to the right myself so faster people can pass me.
Anyway, separated lanes are not a problem for the confident people who are currently cycling and they make all the difference for others. I know grown men who only cycle on the separated paths and the seawall. They won't go anywhere else. They are the type of people who are the future cyclists and will be part of the change of politics about it all.
Cars are not what they were even a few decades ago. They're taller and more powerful and when you drive them you're more insulated from the outside and the effect you have on others. I'm capable of running with the elephants but I just don't want to. I'd rather have nothing to do with them. Having a separated cycle path is not giving in to car culture. Car culture will be up and down depending on gas prices and whatever other factors are happening. Taking a fraction of the street to dedicate to a certain mode of travel isn't going to effect it at all.

My advice for people in Toronto, work toward making sure the next wave of councillors and the next mayor are pro-cycling. Start cultivating potential politicians now. If anyone is making waves about throwing their hat in the ring, start talking to them and informing them of a large currently unserved electorate. It took many years in Vancouver but now nobody can hope to get in power if they are anti-cycling. It's still tough and there are still people out of touch and plugged into car-culture spouting off the same lies and misconceptions but things are much better than even a couple years ago.

It's not that separations aren't going to be good, it's really simply that the Harbord context and existing block configurations do NOT fit the criteria for good safe bi-directional lanes because there are too many intersections and the road is too tight, and it's two-way traffic vs. much of that bi-directional on one-ways in both Vancouver and Montreal.

The illlustrations in this post show greater width elsewhere, and downplay the pinch points that are proposed for Harbord, eg. at Queen's Park southbound and turning left southbound on St. George.

I'm sorry I no longer have enough respect for City staff to do things right, but for those who do, staff weren't recommending this be changed, but it's the politics of ensuring a square peg gets hammered in,

There were almost 350 emails of support for doing Richmond/Adelaide at the Nov. 3, 2011 PWIC meeting - and how is that coming along? Only two years ago? Hmmm. no bike lanes yet, though R/A has been within the Bike Plan for a good 12 years and there's a clear set of dangers in that area and we need that east-west lower core safety just as we do further north, just that Harbord ends at Ossington and then what?

Harbord already has a pretty good bike lane, yes, it's imperfect in spots, but the dangers did decrease a mere three years ago with the deal that the Bike Toronto folks brought in, though I did push the fuller bike lane connection but Yvonne was also working for Mr. Vaughan's re-election I believe. And he's on the whole pretty good, just with bike issues, like John St. and R/A, he's more on the wrongheaded side.

The proposed bi-directional on Harbord will be a detriment to the route being such a good facility, it'll be more dangerous I think, and the push should be for more/new bike lanes elsewhere, including by not overloading staff. The unified stance should be, "Low priority; knock this back by a couple of years; clear up the backlog from approvals in 2009/2010 that aren't done yet; R/A. and what about Bloor?"

Again, I'm not opposed to bi-directional eg. maybe it could work for much of the Danforth, starting even at Sherbourne with the one Big Problem area being Broadview to Pape with all the short blocks; and there's another segment east too that has some of that problem.

Hamish,

I like you and respect you, but you are being very counter-productive here.

If there is something that we might actually get and we ever start to communicate a message "Low priority; knock this back by a couple of years..."

Then guess what? We get NOTHING.

Harbord could look like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61407862@N05/9131220124/

But only, of course, if we stop whining and undermining the leadership of Cycle Toronto and start pulling together.

Kevin Love

I've just found some Danish opinion on the two-way option from **Collection of Cycling Concepts 2012 ** on p. 85 as we mostly like Europe I think.
"Two-way cycle paths along the road should not be placed where there are many side roads or driveway entrances and exits crossing the path, eg. through cities."

It continues: "Safety issues arise when the two-way path crosses a side road because motorists often don't realize that there may be cyclists coming from the "wrong" side. The solution here is to establish a one-way cycle track on each side of the road instead."

I'm not really for or against separating lanes on Harbord, though it seems to me that Hamish has raised some realistic problems (and a couple of suggested solutions) that do not merit the vitriol spewed in these comments.

The real issue, IMO, is that there's no pressing need for or advantage in all the fuss, energy and money being thrown at this street. It works not badly as it is, though probably not at full potential.

What there is a real need for is bike lanes on Bloor, the longest and easiest potential to greatly improve cycling south of Eglinton. This is not a pipe dream as it is relatively inexpensive to implement in most sections, particularly as (unlike St. Clair, College, Dundas, Queen and King) it has no streetcar tracks. In fact, it would complement the subway underneath.

Thus, IMO, the Harbord lane separation amounts to a diversion of time, energy and money from the real cycling need: just two blocks away, and much, much longer BIKE LANES ON BLOOR.

Great dialogue, gang. Intriguing points on all sides. Sorry I'm a little late to the party.

My thoughts:

tl;dr...
1. The Harbord cycle track is a priority for DMW, PWIC, Cycle Toronto and much of the cycling community, and will be built.
2. We should move beyond the "should we/shouldn't we" debate.
3. We should focus on making sure it is built to the highest standard possible, with specific solutions to specific problems.

Unabridged version:

The cycling community may not be 100% united in favour of the cycle track, but we will never be united against it. With the support of Denzil Minnan-Wong, PWIC, Cycle Toronto, and many cyclists, this project will be built. In the end, cyclists will mostly support it, but be better informed about its limitations (and the limitations of the city) thanks to dissenting voices. Therefore, I believe the smart approach at this point is to move beyond "should we/shouldn't we", and focus our efforts on safe design.

Now, Toronto's off-road trails are different from the proposed bi-directional Harbord cycle track for much of their lengths, but at intersections they are very similar: 2-way bike traffic crossing in proximity to a ped crosswalk and arterial roads. A few thoughts from a cyclist who commuted the length of Eglinton through Etobicoke for a couple years:

1. No right turn on red: this is the single most dangerous part of the bi-directional cycle track intersection. Right-turning cars simply do not expect bikes to be coming from their right side. If right turns on red are allowed (as they are on Eglinton), southbound cars pulling up to make a right on Harbord are going to glue their eyes to the left as they blindly roll through the crosswalk and bike path. Cyclists coming from the right will be invisible, and, unless they have Joey Schwartz-calibre shouting skills, they will have a difficult time getting noticed. No right turn on red should be implemented on southbound streets at Harbord, westbound Harbord, northbound streets at Eglinton, eastbound Eglinton, as well as other locations.
2. Turning/proceeding at stop signs: the same "blind roll" issue exists at southbound stop-sign intersections (in this case, Jersey Ave, Markham St, Robert St, and Devonshire Pl). The stop sign, stop line and STOP HERE: CHECK FOR BIKES <--> on-road paint should all be placed before the crosswalk, not at the intersection with Harbord St. Southbound cars will (theoretically) come to a complete stop, then proceed with caution across the crosswalk, bike path, and Harbord. This will require police enforcement, as Toronto drivers (and cyclists!) tend to roll through crosswalks 1B% of the time. But how to prevent SB cars from blocking the path as they wait to turn onto Harbord? One solution would be to simply make the four southbound stopsign controlled sidestreets on the north side of Harbord into one-ways heading north, so all southbound traffic would be stoplight-controlled (already the norm by far). Even with this, though, we'll still have lots of southbound vehicles coming from driveways and laneways, so that CHECK FOR BIKES <--> paint and police ticketing may still come in handy.
3. Clear bike path markings through the intersections: the key is to make an unexpected piece of bike infra OBVIOUS to an unskilled, first-time Harbord driver. Sherbourne's green lanes are a good start, but I'd love to see some white chevrons in there, too, so drivers know to expect bikes coming from both directions. Eglinton's "dusty red stone" is hilariously useless considering the context; they are slightly prettier than a sidewalk, but absolutely nothing about them suggests "bikes here", even to cyclists.
4. Put the bike path in the right place: the layout should be Car-Bike-Ped, not Car-Ped-Bike, meaning the bike path should always be between the street and the sidewalk. This is not an issue on Harbord, but it should be changed on the Martin Goodman Trail near ON Place, Eglinton Trail everywhere, Windermere crossing Lake Shore Blvd, and others. Bad form, Toronto!
5. Why not put it on a "bump": when the bike path crosses minor side streets, it could be placed on top of a trapezoidal speed bump (like the crosswalks on Glen Cedar), forcing drivers to slow down and confront the infra in a direct, focused way. It would also provide a little physical separation WITHIN the intersections. The crosswalk should be included on the bump.
6. Why not give bikes and peds a "jump": advanced greens for bikes and peds would force stopped drivers to notice the cycle tracks, and allow bikes/peds to establish ourselves in the intersection (rather than the typical "ready-set-go", cars vs. bikes vs. peds, battle royale...BTW I believe we could eliminate 90% of "scofflaw cyclists always running reds" if advanced greens were more common at heavily-used intersections). This will require bike specific signals.

I don't personally know whether uni- or bi-directional lanes/cycle track make more sense on Harbord. I do know that whichever is there at any given time, it should be high quality and well-designed. The current layout is not that; one of Mr Wilson's concerns is that the cycle track will not be that. But instead of scrapping the whole project (which is unlikely to happen), I propose we iron out as many "Harbord kinks" as possible.

Given this cycle track is going to be built, we, as leaders in the fast-growing Toronto cycling community, should demand the city build a high quality, safe, intuitive, idiot-proof, physically separated cycle track, and we should tell them exactly what we expect that to look like.

Now, who wants a bagel?

I strongly agree with the idea of forbidding right turns on red when traffic would cross a bike path - this is the single largest source of danger to cyclists at the (generally badly designed) Ontario Place/MGT crossings. That, and somehow explaining to drivers what a "stop line" is, and what it means.

My preferred way to achieve this would be to install those "severe tire damage" spikes to pop up on the red phase of the signal. Presto, no more bike path incursions! :)

I don't know why no right turn on red isn't an automatic policy; except for saving a very few drivers (those few who don't get stuck sitting in the bike lane until the green signal because they can't make their turn for all the traffic) a few seconds that it would take the light to cycle, allowing right turns on red only makes the intersection more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of a special bike lane signal phase; it effectively serves to reduce the capacity of the intersection by 1/3, and I'm not sure anyone would go for that. (I've seen some vids - posted on an entirely different kind of board - of the delay that adding transit-only phases can cause for an intersection, and that was only happening on demand, not on every cycle. The point there was that it wasn't even good for a smoothly-running transit system.) I've ridden a couple of places with a 2-second head-start for bike/pedestrian signals, and I thought that worked well (coupled, of course, with no-right-turn-on-red).