[kali]

^not sure citizen vigilante-ism is the way to go

 

[Admiral Beez]

^not sure citizen vigilante-ism is the way to go

We’re not going full-on Paul Kersey here, just photographing bike lane blockers and sending the pics to the city for enforcment.

 

[kali]

As long as it's the city enforcing and not individual residents, sure

 

[Admiral Beez]

As long as it's the city enforcing and not individual residents, sure

The difference is the city would consider citizen camera pics as evidence for issuing the fines.

 

[Northern Light]

Physical separation comes to another bike lane, this time on Wellesley.

Image courtesy: David Lussier's Twitter.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1278462148335808512

 

[Towered]

Physical separation comes to another bike lane, this time on Wellesley.


View attachment 255182

Image courtesy: David Lussier's Twitter.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1278462148335808512

Is this the plan going forward for all bike lanes?

 

[Northern Light]

Is this the plan going forward for all bike lanes?

That has not been approved as yet; however, I think it would be fair to say that proposal is on its way to Council next year.

For now these are 'pilot' and 'temporary' separations in most cases.

 

[ADRM]

That has not been approved as yet; however, I think it would be fair to say that proposal is on its way to Council next year.

For now these are 'pilot' and 'temporary' separations in most cases.

The City also still hasn't got past their hang-up about bike lane width vis-a-vis physical separation; in the past, they have vociferously maintained the position that there is only room to add physical separation on routes where there is already a painted buffer of the City's standard width (i.e. yes to Harbord but no to College). I think this is dumb for a few reasons, not least of which is the fact that the City has vacillated in its reasoning on routes that have exactly the same conditions: from Transportation and/or Cycling in the past, I've heard:
1. The City's snow clearing equipment is too wide (this is dumb because the majority of paint-only routes aren't cleared, anyway, and also because the actual solution to this problem is to find narrower clearing equipment);
2. The City's guidelines state that protection is only necessary on roads with speed limits of greater than 40km/h (this is dumb for very obvious reasons that need not be explained);
3. The TTC needs a minimum clearance width for the sideview mirrors on its buses (this is dumb both because the TTC itself has admitted this is no longer a thing and because the obvious solution even if it were still true would be to use just the curbs without bollards); and
4. The City cannot bolt bollards to routes over bridges (like Strachan) because of uncertainty around how it would affect the underlying engineering of the bridge (which is dumb both because the City employs engineers who can definitively answer this question and because the City has already violated this principle on the Bloor Viaduct and now the Dundas E bridge).

To @Northern Light's mention of Becky Katz, I think it's clear by now that she is monumentally more capable than Shawn Dillon was (the City should maintain a policy never to let someone go from the Transportation department to the Cycling department), which is a very welcome development.

That being the case, I'll be interested to see if the City can get there on narrower paint-only routes, now that it has begun to make exceptions to its previously-held axioms, such as on Dundas E and River. I'd love to see them protect highly trafficked paint-only, no-buffer lanes that are routinely blocked by ride-share and delivery vehicles, such as College, St. George/Beverley, and the north side of Bloor West.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The City also still hasn't got past their hang-up about bike lane width vis-a-vis physical separation; in the past, they have vociferously maintained the position that there is only room to add physical separation on routes where there is already a painted buffer of the City's standard width (i.e. yes to Harbord but no to College). I think this is dumb for a few reasons, not least of which is the fact that the City has vacillated in its reasoning on routes that have exactly the same conditions: from Transportation and/or Cycling in the past, I've heard:
1. The City's snow clearing equipment is too wide (this is dumb because the majority of paint-only routes aren't cleared, anyway, and also because the actual solution to this problem is to find narrower clearing equipment);
2. The City's guidelines state that protection is only necessary on roads with speed limits of greater than 40km/h (this is dumb for very obvious reasons that need not be explained);
3. The TTC needs a minimum clearance width for the sideview mirrors on its buses (this is dumb both because the TTC itself has admitted this is no longer a thing and because the obvious solution even if it were still true would be to use just the curbs without bollards); and
4. The City cannot bolt bollards to routes over bridges (like Strachan) because of uncertainty around how it would affect the underlying engineering of the bridge (which is dumb both because the City employs engineers who can definitively answer this question and because the City has already violated this principle on the Bloor Viaduct and now the Dundas E bridge).

To @Northern Light's mention of Becky Katz, I think it's clear by now that she is monumentally more capable than Shawn Dillon was (the City should maintain a policy never to let someone go from the Transportation department to the Cycling department), which is a very welcome development.

That being the case, I'll be interested to see if the City can get there on narrower paint-only routes, now that it has begun to make exceptions to its previously-held axioms, such as on Dundas E and River. I'd love to see them protect highly trafficked paint-only, no-buffer lanes that are routinely blocked by ride-share and delivery vehicles, such as College, St. George/Beverley, and the north side of Bloor West.

In North America, we have a problem with the "bigger is better" mentality.

From link.

Sam Itani, vice president of international and government sales for E-ONE, says that in Europe fire apparatus are more compact than comparable vehicles in North America. “The European apparatus is shorter, narrower, and tighter in design than what we see here,” Itani says. “In the United States, we usually have larger, wider roads and highways, so we don’t need the tighter designs in most cases.”

The structures and types of buildings in Europe also have an influence on fire apparatus, Itani points out. “European lifestyle revolves around major cities, while their suburbia is an extension of the city,” he says. “There are a lot of narrow streets in their cities, many of them one way. And with the different building construction, they have to design vehicles to go into narrow, congested areas, yet still allow firefighters access to the tools and hoses on their trucks.”

Lisa Barwick, director of business development and product management for Pierce Manufacturing Inc., agrees that because of the infrastructure of European cities, their fire apparatus have to be smaller and more agile. “The roads and streets are much narrower over there,” Barwick says, “so their apparatus, especially their engines, are much smaller than those over here. They also tend to use more commercial chassis, like MAN and Mercedes, rather than custom chassis.”

She adds, “While some Northeastern cities in the U.S. have low overall height and length restrictions and tight streets that might require smaller, more maneuverable apparatus, usually in North America everything seems to be on a grander scale because we have the room, as well as the types of our buildings, and much wider streets.”

 

[Admiral Beez]

The installation of Dundas bike lanes is now complete, only 8 days since council approval. Let’s keep up this speed going forward!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1268974407361404928

https://twitter.com/x/status/1269010285685325825

Dundas between Broadview and River is a mess.

1) Eastbound on Dundas. The bollards between Munro and Broadview have for the most part been removed. This allows impatient car drivers to swing into the (in-name only) separated bicycle lane to get around the streetcars. If those bollards are not returned or hard curbs installed a cyclist is going to get killed here.

2) Westbound on Dundas. There is zero separation at the NE corner of River and Dundas. Bikes waiting to proceed across River are at huge risk to right turning vehicles as there are no road markings on where/how to safely turn right. This is especially dangerous given all the dump and cement trucks working the Regent Park development.

Why does this city do everything half way? Is there someone at central planning at city hall who says, "well I got some bikes lanes partially installed, let's call it a day." There is zero reason that Dundas between River and Broadview can't have University Ave's hard separation.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Dundas between Broadview and River is a mess.

1) Eastbound on Dundas. The bollards between Munro and Broadview have for the most part been removed. This allows impatient car drivers to swing into the (in-name only) separated bicycle lane to get around the streetcars. If those bollards are not returned or hard curbs installed a cyclist is going to get killed here.

2) Westbound on Dundas. There is zero separation at the NE corner of River and Dundas. Bikes waiting to proceed across River are at huge risk to right turning vehicles as there are no road markings on where/how to safely turn right. This is especially dangerous given all the dump and cement trucks working the Regent Park development.

Why does this city do everything half way? Is there someone at central planning at city hall who says, "well I got some bikes lanes partially installed, let's call it a day." There is zero reason that Dundas between River and Broadview can't have University Ave's hard separation.

Genuflect before the automobile gods you heathens...

From link.

 

[TrickyRicky]

For all the talk of cycling being progressive from a social perspective you could argue that cycling is a more exclusionary transport mode than cars. It is predominately the domain of a select group of able-bodied young-to-middle age demographic with primarily point-to-point commuting needs.

The real change I see is a virtuous cycle of improved cycling infrastructure along with the greater availability of different kinds of bike designs and vehicles. Maybe hated by some cycle purists but options like cargo bikes and electric assist and scooters allow for a greater range of users and uses.

For example we recently got our cargo bike. Kind of expensive so not currently a very universally financially accessible solution but it allows for daycare drop offs and pickups and cargo. You can even take an adult passenger, say an elderly person.

 

[ADRM]

For all the talk of cycling being progressive from a social perspective you could argue that cycling is a more exclusionary transport mode than cars

Totally with you on the rest of the post, but this part is insane. You can get a working bike on Kijiji for $50 and figure out how to do the maintenance yourself across the entire lifecycle of a bike, whereas even the cheapest used car costs thousands of dollars upfront, brings with it tens of thousands of dollars in maintenance across its useful life (which is generally shorter than that of a bike), thousands of dollars per year, on average, for gas, thousands of dollars per year on insurance, and incidentals for parking, along with the additional barrier of licensing.

Because of that reality, the rest of your post makes a lot of sense -- we should absolutely be thinking broadly about how to make cycling more accessible. And, to be sure: any cyclist who decries e-assist bikes, cargo bikes, or anything of the sort isn't so much a purist as they are an a**hole.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I don't think TrickyRicky was getting at the cost of cycling, but rather that cycling in Toronto is largely in domain of the young, able-bodied and fit, who have enough risk tolerance to attempt cycling on our dangerous streets.

We need to enhance our cycling infrastructure so that a 5-year old and an 85-year old can feel equally safe cycling in Toronto as the 25- or 35-year old.

Right now our streets cater to 8% of potential cyclists, when it should be 68%.

What does catering for 68% and 8% look like? Compare these streets in Rotterdam and the Danforth that I conveniently have saved on my laptop from years ago:

 

[Divas S.]

I think what they mean by how cycling can be exclusionary is that neighbourhoods that are richer, often have more bike infrastructure, people who work and live downtown benefit the most from the current set up as they have the option of cheaper and faster transportation options than people who live further out don't have access to the same bike infra.