News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.7K     0 
kotsy said:
www.thestar.com

‘Put them on secondary roads:’ Doug Ford shoots down criticism of controversial plan to limit bike lanes

Ford is defending his government's push to limit bike lanes, saying cars and trucks should have full priority on major streets.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

paywall by pass: https://archive.is/ZIhyl
Click to expand...

Honestly, this makes my blood boil.

How about "drivers can just park on secondary roads".

It's the other drivers that slow down drivers.

We should get rid of all on street parking on major roads, this would make a much bigger difference.

I live right on Adelaide and don't understand why the hell there is street parking there, it's ridiculous. There is a public pay multistory parking garage under my condo and right next to it. There are always spaces.
 
bearcat said:
Honestly, this makes my blood boil.

How about "drivers can just park on secondary roads".

It's the other drivers that slow down drivers.

We should get rid of all on street parking on major roads, this would make a much bigger difference.

I live right on Adelaide and don't understand why the hell there is street parking there, it's ridiculous. There is a public pay multistory parking garage under my condo and right next to it. There are always spaces.
Click to expand...

I agree on the parking...........and the City has stalled on moves to make that very shift........

Good time to raise the issue again, and while we're at it, you should raise that point with the Premier's office and see if he feels like legislating an end to parking on main roads.

We'll see how all this unfolds, its an odd thing for him to pick at headed into a potential election.
 
But doesn't the rumoured legislation ban bike lanes, even on secondary roads, if they take away lanes from cars?

This policy is the kind of thing that needlessly alienates people and will erode support from people who might otherwise be open to your broader proposition.
 
bearcat said:
Honestly, this makes my blood boil.

How about "drivers can just park on secondary roads".

It's the other drivers that slow down drivers.

We should get rid of all on street parking on major roads, this would make a much bigger difference.

I live right on Adelaide and don't understand why the hell there is street parking there, it's ridiculous. There is a public pay multistory parking garage under my condo and right next to it. There are always spaces.
Click to expand...
A cyclist friend was purposefully swerved at by a road-raging driver who was attempting to hit or seriously threaten them, on Pharmacy today. The driver then pulled over and tried to attack my friend. This all happened in the rain in busy traffic on a road with no bike lanes. The cyclist's offense was simply riding on the road, which pissed off the road raging motorist. He's submitted a police report with evidence, but given the lack of injury or even a collision I suspect the worst the driver will receive is a letter of warning. My friend doesn't want to bike for the foreseeable future.

This is the situation Doug wants to foment, by banning (new) bike lanes on arterial roads: cyclists in the roadway actually impeding cars, enraging drivers and then getting intimidated or hurt or worse.

As much as I want to agree with those who say "well, we'll see how drivers like it when we are in their lanes," the reality is not many cyclists are prepared to deal with that threat level on a daily basis. IF this law comes to pass and has the intended impact, cyclist mode share will certainly slow or stagnate.
 
Basically what Doug Ford is saying, without actually saying it, is;

"You have to widen the road if you want bike lanes on it."

Therefore the cost of cycle infrastructure just went up.
 
afransen said:
But doesn't the rumoured legislation ban bike lanes, even on secondary roads, if they take away lanes from cars?

This policy is the kind of thing that needlessly alienates people and will erode support from people who might otherwise be open to your broader proposition.
Click to expand...
We haven't seen the actual final policy so don't know the details. We'll have to see.
 
UntitledCyclist said:
As much as I want to agree with those who say "well, we'll see how drivers like it when we are in their lanes," the reality is not many cyclists are prepared to deal with that threat level on a daily basis. IF this law comes to pass and has the intended impact, cyclist mode share will certainly slow or stagnate.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the spread of bike lanes has allowed me to do stuff by bike with my kid. Biking alone, I'm happy to take a lane with traffic (and yes, this rhetoric does increase the risk that doing that induces road rage among drivers, even if what you're doing is the safest option and perfectly legal). But with my son on the bike seat, I'm not doing that. If there aren't bike lanes for most of the way, I'm driving if there's no good transit option.

The bike lanes that have been installed have hugely increased the number of people biking, the demographics of people biking, and the safety of everyone. All without having any material impact on driving times. Anyone who wants to reduce congestion can probably focus on dozens of things that would be more productive than stopping the designation of new bike lanes.
 
evandyk said:
Yeah, the spread of bike lanes has allowed me to do stuff by bike with my kid. Biking alone, I'm happy to take a lane with traffic (and yes, this rhetoric does increase the risk that doing that induces road rage among drivers, even if what you're doing is the safest option and perfectly legal). But with my son on the bike seat, I'm not doing that. If there aren't bike lanes for most of the way, I'm driving if there's no good transit option.

The bike lanes that have been installed have hugely increased the number of people biking, the demographics of people biking, and the safety of everyone. All without having any material impact on driving times. Anyone who wants to reduce congestion can probably focus on dozens of things that would be more productive than stopping the designation of new bike lanes.
Click to expand...
That is factually wrong. How can you take a city that has grown tremendously in recent years and reduce traffic capacity by 50% on roads where lanes have been removed in order to create bike lanes and not expect increased congestion and travel times. Toronto streets were not originally designed to accommodate bike lanes and lanes for cars)

Toronto traffic planners are either the worst in the world at what they do (if their intentions are to expedite as much traffic as safely and efficiently as possible) or the best in the world at what they do (if their intentions are to impede traffic flow through every possible means...bike lanes, cafe TO, street cars, dedicated LRT lanes).

There are some simple changes that could make a difference but the politicians and bureaucrats do not have the courage to do it.
 
droyces said:
That is factually wrong. How can you take a city that has grown tremendously in recent years and reduce traffic capacity by 50% on roads where lanes have been removed in order to create bike lanes and not expect increased congestion and travel times. Toronto streets were not originally designed to accommodate bike lanes and lanes for cars)

Toronto traffic planners are either the worst in the world at what they do (if their intentions are to expedite as much traffic as safely and efficiently as possible) or the best in the world at what they do (if their intentions are to impede traffic flow through every possible means...bike lanes, cafe TO, street cars, dedicated LRT lanes).

There are some simple changes that could make a difference but the politicians and bureaucrats do not have the courage to do it.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on my proposal of permanently removing on street parking for major streets?
 
droyces said:
That is factually wrong.
Click to expand...

I'll bite...........but if you're not trolling, I would like you to identify the streets in question, and show before and current travel times on route.

A discussion like this needs to be evidence based. You're dismissing someone else's anecdote, seemingly for lack of evidence, while not providing any of your own.

I'll be happy to engage in constructive dialogue (this is not a thread for anti-bike lane rhetoric); but constructive means bring the proof, bring the ideas and concepts you'd prefer, and I'll be happy to have a polite and thoughtful exchange of views.

droyces said:
How can you take a city that has grown tremendously in recent years and reduce traffic capacity by 50% on roads where lanes have been removed in order to create bike lanes and not expect increased congestion and travel times.
Click to expand...

There is a straight-forward answer to this, believe it or not, which is three-fold.

1) You need to consider all the times at which the road is not and was not congested, not just 2am, but 2pm, and Sunday morning. In other words, there may (or may not) be more congestion or longer travel times at select periods (say rush hours), but that doesn't necessarily apply at most or all times.

2) You need to consider than most 4-lane roads that were reconfigured with cycle tracks actually operated as 2-lane roads 22 hours per day M-F and 24/7 on the weekend with parking on both sides of the street, and even in rush hour in one direction.
So the cut in capacity is not 50% in that scenario, its 50% for 10 hours per week.

3) To the extent that congestion has increased, or might increase because a road was close to capacity already at rush hour, the assumption is that at least some drivers will switch modes of travel (bike, walk, transit), and that others will switch routes. This then lessens the impact in question.

Now that does not mean it eliminates the impact. But here's where we need evidence, how much slower is 'road 'x'' and is that because of the bike lane, or something else like the construction on the Gardiner in the west end?

Only once we know this, can we discuss what mitigation may be appropriate.

droyces said:
Toronto streets were not originally designed to accommodate bike lanes and lanes for cars)
Click to expand...

True, Also true, most Toronto streets that were 4 lanes in the year 2000, were only 2 lanes in 1950. The City ripped out tree-lined boulevards and expropriated pieces of people's front lawns to widen the roads to make more room.

Change is a constant in life. Not all of it is good; and regardless most is difficult to accept at first. Sometimes, change is regrettable. If you asked all those homeowners if they'd prefer a larger lawn and a tree-lined boulevard, I'm betting many would go for that.

Of course some things are lost to history, and I'd be careful about dreaming of a different age, as that's not the one we're in now.

droyces said:
Toronto traffic planners are either the worst in the world at what they do (if their intentions are to expedite as much traffic as safely and efficiently as possible) or the best in the world at what they do (if their intentions are to impede traffic flow through every possible means...bike lanes, cafe TO, street cars, dedicated LRT lanes).
Click to expand...

What if their object is to move people, rather than cars?

Its possible that the goal is to move people as quickly as possible, but not necessarily the same way we are used to.

droyces said:
There are some simple changes that could make a difference but the politicians and bureaucrats do not have the courage to do it.
Click to expand...

Which ones?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top