rbt
Senior Member
Ridiculous. That's like blaming too much water for a flood instead of the ducks that we all know are the problem.
|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
Ridiculous. That's like blaming too much water for a flood instead of the ducks that we all know are the problem.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
evandyk
Senior Member
Funny enough, those things are the cause of congestion too.
Not bike lanes.
Not bike lanes.
sche
Active Member
Why do we think it's correct to "blame drivers for congestion"? Should we blame transit riders for overcrowding?
Frankly, I find this attitude (which I also had in the past) quite disrespectful and counterproductive. At the end of the day, drivers, just like everyone else on the road, are just regular people trying to get from A to B, and making their own choices based on travel times, cost, safety, etc. about how they want to do that. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the City to manage our roads and enable fast and reliable transportation, and not the fault of individual road users for choosing what is for them the fastest, safest, or most convenient option. And I think it should be obvious that the City's management of our roads leaves a lot to be desired - from chaotic, poorly executed, and uncoordinated construction projects, causing the streetcar network to become a practically unusable mess and creating numerous large disruptions to vehicle traffic for long periods, to their ham-fisted implementation of LPIs (
) causing unnecessary delay to everybody, etc...
And back to bike lanes - while I am broadly in favour of cycling, we can't just deny that vehicle capacity decreases and vehicle travel times (i.e., congestion) increase when vehicle lanes are replaced with bike lanes, or that cycling volumes, especially on the outer parts of the cycling network (Bloor West into Etobicoke, Danforth) are generally still low compared to vehicle traffic volumes. There are real trade-offs to be made here and how you weigh each of the pros and cons is really a matter of opinion. For example, Bloor West from Shaw to Avenue saw bike lanes mostly replace parking, while at intersections (which are the most important limiting factor for vehicle capacity), the road went from 2 lanes per direction to one lane+ left turn lane; i.e. there was not much change in actual road capacity. Considering these things, as well has the fact that these bike lanes are relatively well used, I fully support them. Meanwhile, Bloor west of Jane typically saw bike lanes replace an entire traffic lane in each direction, causing a significant loss in actual road capacity. Combined with the very low bicycle traffic relative to vehicle traffic, and a relatively empty sidewalk that cautious cyclists could and would use, and the case for these bike lanes is obviously much weaker.
Frankly, I find this attitude (which I also had in the past) quite disrespectful and counterproductive. At the end of the day, drivers, just like everyone else on the road, are just regular people trying to get from A to B, and making their own choices based on travel times, cost, safety, etc. about how they want to do that. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the City to manage our roads and enable fast and reliable transportation, and not the fault of individual road users for choosing what is for them the fastest, safest, or most convenient option. And I think it should be obvious that the City's management of our roads leaves a lot to be desired - from chaotic, poorly executed, and uncoordinated construction projects, causing the streetcar network to become a practically unusable mess and creating numerous large disruptions to vehicle traffic for long periods, to their ham-fisted implementation of LPIs (
And back to bike lanes - while I am broadly in favour of cycling, we can't just deny that vehicle capacity decreases and vehicle travel times (i.e., congestion) increase when vehicle lanes are replaced with bike lanes, or that cycling volumes, especially on the outer parts of the cycling network (Bloor West into Etobicoke, Danforth) are generally still low compared to vehicle traffic volumes. There are real trade-offs to be made here and how you weigh each of the pros and cons is really a matter of opinion. For example, Bloor West from Shaw to Avenue saw bike lanes mostly replace parking, while at intersections (which are the most important limiting factor for vehicle capacity), the road went from 2 lanes per direction to one lane+ left turn lane; i.e. there was not much change in actual road capacity. Considering these things, as well has the fact that these bike lanes are relatively well used, I fully support them. Meanwhile, Bloor west of Jane typically saw bike lanes replace an entire traffic lane in each direction, causing a significant loss in actual road capacity. Combined with the very low bicycle traffic relative to vehicle traffic, and a relatively empty sidewalk that cautious cyclists could and would use, and the case for these bike lanes is obviously much weaker.
Northern Light
Superstar
May I suggest that I think you're misreading the post to which you are replying.
I don't think it was assigning blame-worthiness to drivers per se; but rather to the City for not taking actions which would reduce the number of people choosing to drive.
Even if one only sought to hold the modal share constant, where population in both the City proper and the region are rising significantly, and there is no way in which to accommodate the proportionate number of new drivers/cars on existing roads.........
You (the general) are facilitating increased congestion by not seeking to reduce the modal share of driving/private automobile use in the City.
I say this, as a car owner, and driver for over 30 years, by the way.
If you actually want to achieve less 'congestion', there are some things you can do, by way of reduced parking on main streets (parallel parkers slow traffic), fewer traffic lights, better timed lights, more turning restrictions etc.
But in saying as much, the biggest single contributor to less congestion is replacing 30-40 private cars with one bus.
To do that, you need an integrated strategy that makes parking more expensive, driving a bit less convenient (see turning restrictions and less conveniently located parking); while also making other options more attractive (more frequent buses, 40-ride monthly fare caps, lower-cost GO Train trips, more frequent and faster moving buses/streetcars, more reliable service, and more amenities such as washrooms, retail etc. that make a trip more pleasant by transit.
Again, I think the consensus position here is that many things the City does could be done better, and should be done better.
But part of that is reducing or eliminating parking from surface transit corridors, raising the cost of street parking, and permit parking to fair market value, and
yes, by all means, fewer traffic lights and better timing of same; in part, associated with fewer transit stops, further apart, to a reasonable limit.
I am happy enough to agree that the cycle tracks from Jane St, westward were somewhat higher impact than those to the east.
I might go so far as to say, its not the section I would have prioritized at that time.
However, i do think its important to consider that there is no other place for cyclists to cross the Humber, unless dropping all the way into the valley and coming back up again, nearby.
Once you get to the other side, you run into the problem of where else you would provide a cycling option. There is no continuous, parallel E-W road within 2 blocks north or south of Bloor West here.
There isn't really an alternative option. Its still fair to say there may have been better places to use precious political capital advancing cycle tracks in the near term. But if you came back to this spot in 5 years or 15 years, you would still face the same trade-offs.
I've had a quick look at the road configuration here. If you removed any landscaped medians, any parking or loading zones and any left-hand turn lanes, you can generate 2 continuous car lanes per direction of travel + cycle tracks, though some trimming of wider bits of sidewalk would also be required.*
But I would hesitate to assume the net impact on traffic, given the removal of said turn lanes the likelihood of illegal parking/loading blocking the curb lanes.
I should add, the alterations in question would be quite substantial in cost, as in many millions of dollars. So that too is a trade-off to be weighed.
* lest I get myself in trouble here, I measured a couple of specific locations where I could clearly identify curb to curb distances and applied that uniformly, the actual ROW almost certainly varies, and I didn't attempt an analysis of that level of detail.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Not to stray off topic, but to answer this query. Planting was finished today. Been underway for about 10 days.
- Basil (4 plants)
- Rosemary (4 plants)
- Parsley (4 plants).
- Dill (6 clumps)
- Red Leaf Lettuce (4 plants)
- Mesculun Mix ( 8 plants, including spinach, mustard green, chicory, lolla rossa, and more)
- Thai Chilies (4 plants)
- Jalapeno Peppers (4 plants)
- Early Girl Tomatoes (2 plants)
- Sweet 100 Cherry Tomatoes (2 plants).
- Chives (perennial, fill an entire planter)
- Flowers (Sunburst Gerbera and Cosmic Purple Petunias)
Plants are currently under netting so the birds don't poach for their nests, photos to show everything off will be post-netting, hopefully in 7 to 10 days.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I wonder how vehicular congestion would look if we removed all the bike lanes, all on-street non-residential parking and banned all construction lane blockages.
ThenWhat
Active Member
I like this, but how busy is Aldburn Road really? Does it matter if it is open for cars or not? The first obstacle is that the bridge is not connected to the rest of the Beltline. So if we go with this, let's connect the bridge to the trail on both sides, and leave the restrictions on cars for later -- it may turn out that those restrictions are not needed.
Sauga89
Active Member
I suppose if you could somehow find a path between Jane and Prince Edward Drive, you could maybe have run a path along the Royal York subway parking lot, Birchview Blvd, and Tom Riley park, and then followed the subway and hydro corridor from Tom Riley park to Kipling. But why does Bloor really need a second lane with the subway?
Northern Light
Superstar
A bit cumbersome, to use the existing crossing of the creek at Tom Riley you would have to go ~600m out of your way (and back).
A new crossing necessitates an EA and a new path on the east side to access it. Which will need winter maintenance, minimum capital cost will be 2.5M, more if land acquisition is required.
Altering the existing parking lots is more a political challenge than anything..........but would still cost 2-4M, given the need to reconfigure and re-line the lots.
The road segment on a side street is its own issue and as likely to generate a fuss as anything on Bloor.
Ultimately, I would argue, that it does not.
But based on existing traffic volumes, one could argue it may, currently.
The lack of alternate crossings of the Humber for quite a distance does concentrate traffic here. ( Dundas to the north is 1.2-1.9km away, While Queenway is just over 2km to the south.
For comparison with the Don Valley in the east the distances to Pottery Rd (north are around 1.45km, and Gerrard 1.3km).
I'm not suggesting a new crossing of the Humber here...........but its background as to why there is inordinate demand here.
Its also that as you reach the subway's termination point, modal share for transit declines, lack of E-W transit from Queensway to Bloor, indirect N-S transit at the east end of the area; and lack of supporting cycling routes (N-S).
Last edited:
bearcat
Active Member
Current state of progress of this: https://www.toronto.ca/services-pay...rian-projects/knox-avenue-bikeway-connection/
Sauga89
Active Member
I was thinking about adding pedestrian bridges next to the tracks over Bloor and Islington respectively (also not cheap I recognize, but they are already grade separated), and then following Montgomery, which would be 1.3 km, or only 300 metres farther than the bird flies.
With the time saved avoiding the light at Islington, it might actually be a bit faster. It would also have the benefit of linking the Islington TTC parking lots (which I believe are being re-developed) in a more pedestrian friendly way.
Alternatively, I thought maybe the TTC would decide after last winter to roof over its Mimico creek bridge one day, and then a bike path could go on top if the structure would support it. Then cyclists could use the existing crosswalk at Bloor and Islington.
I kind of like the Bloor bike lanes too to be clear, but if those bike lanes are being torn out, it might be time to consider alternatives, even if those alternatives are a bit expensive or kick up a fuss. The funny thing is that the province and city are probably racking up big legal bills fighting each other, which leaves them with less money to spend on alternatives if the province wins in court.
dullturtle06
Active Member
see i completely agree. I think the abysmal traffic signal implementation in toronto is the number one reason for congestion. Most of them are programmed to stop traffic and not for logical traffic flow. This flow includes cyclists and transit. For example the lead pedestrian signals where streetcars operate. They are on tracks, why cant a streetcar procced with the pedestrians. A dedicated transit signal could improve flow.
If Doug ford actually wanted traffic moving he would had the city get its act together with signal management, but he's focused on the anti bike culture war.
PL1
Senior Member
I for one will continue to ride in a lane, as is my right under the HTA. Yes, I will stay to the right side and allow cars to pass, but I will occupy the lane.
People want to take the most direct route. That does not usually mean a meandering route with stop signs, some distance from my desired route. (Exception: My ride to work is 8.5 km on surface streets v 10 km mostly through the West Don Valley; Bayview North of Eglinton is hell for cyclists).
There is room for cars and bikes. I agree the roadside parking is a large driver of capacity loss as cars wait to park or reverse into the spots. And the lanes lost to construction is no help
Admiral Beez
Superstar
That’s what I’ve always done since I moved to Toronto as a teen in the 1980s. There were no bike lanes, we just stayed to the right and got on with it. No one ran me over - I respected stop signs, street cars and red lights. It seems that cycling in the city was somehow safer, perhaps Torontonians in the 1980s were not such asses to one another. One time while riding home at night from my job at Ontario Place to home in the Beach(es) someone threw a beer bottle in my direction, but that was just some drunk having fun, and no harm done.