What I'm saying is that the vocal handful ignore all the benefits of what the city does and all the drawbacks of the alternative. They just focus on the drawbacks of what's been done and the benefits of the alternative. The current design of Gerrard has the drawback that parked cars don't work as a buffer for the bike lane. The design of Bloor has the drawback that there's not much room between parked cars and the bike lane. The drawback of a wider buffer would be a narrower bike lane. No matter what the city does, people who are looking to complain will find something to complain about.
Is what the city did on Gerrard perfect? No, but nothing is perfect. It's fine, it's very safe, and it's not significantly less safe than any feasible alternative. So let's not complain.
I see where you're coming from, but two things:
First, with respect to Gerrard, it's plainly untrue that the current design is any of "fine", "very safe", or "not significantly less safe than any feasible alternative." It's plainly much more dangerous to have parked cars not serve as a buffer not only because they're obviously not serving as a buffer, but because they're pulling into and out of the bike lane every time they park or exit their space and because they present an omnipresent dooring risk.
It's so simple to just move the parking out from the curb and it's significantly safer, and I just don't agree with the assertion that most cyclists wouldn't trade the resulting curve in the bike lane for the added protection.
Second, I disagree that the city deserves credit for what it has done - and, frankly, what is has planned to do over the next decade - with regard to cycle infrastructure. The reality is that Toronto has a
tiny, disjointed patchwork of protected bike lanes (and other infrastructure) in the city, and it lags sorely behind global leaders (and even global laggards) in that regard. That's plainly true.
If you believe that granting credit for what little they've done is a good way to encourage them to do much more, then of course I respect your right to express that opinion, but I think that's a dangerous approach given that most of our councillors flat-out
hate bikes, and many say things like "look how much we've done for cyclists in this city."
What's worse is that there's not much light at the end of the tunnel: the 10-year cycling plan, even if fully constructed as planned (which is a huge "if") does little for improving downtown cycle network connectivity. What's more, every single project tentatively approved under that plan still has to go to a vote at council, and it's probably
all dead if the Bloor bike lanes are voted out after the pilot.
