[Dan416]

Bike lanes are objectively superior for both cyclists (helps them to not get killed or maimed) and drivers (don’t have to worry about killing someone). All just part of the Fords’ supposed “war on the car”.

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

It's a wedge issue. I imagine that getting (some) people angry is the idea.

Who is going to be angrier: the driving commuters who might save a minute on their commute, or the people on bikes whose lives are being endangered? This policy is actively endangering the lives of my teenage children. I cannot think of many things that would make me angrier

 

[Midtown Hank]

Sorry supporters of bike lanes, but they are a scourge for the disabled. They also are an issue for seniors. My daughter is disabled and my mom requires a wheelchair (blind/elderly). The whole Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines appear to be optional when it comes to bike lanes.

From the city's website: "The Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines (TADG) is a reference document available to all sectors to conduct accessibility audits and to plan developments, as the City works towards making Toronto a “barrier free” community.”

 

[evandyk]

EPIC Drone Shot, I loved that people were kind of keeping personal space boundaries

They're keeping personal space between them because they're all standing with their bikes.

 

[Carpe Diem]

Who is going to be angrier: the driving commuters who might save a minute on their commute, or the people on bikes whose lives are being endangered? This policy is actively endangering the lives of my teenage children. I cannot think of many things that would make me angrier

I have a similar belief that my kids should have safe options for getting around the city on their own when they are able to.

For reference at our school grade 5 students (ages 10/11) can leave the property on their own for lunch. Mine are not there yet, but I hope they can use their bikes to get to and from school as well as leave school for lunch if required safely when they are at that age.

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

Sorry supporters of bike lanes, but they are a scourge for the disabled. They also are an issue for seniors. My daughter is disabled and my mom requires a wheelchair (blind/elderly). The whole Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines appear to be optional when it comes to bike lanes.

From the city's website: "The Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines (TADG) is a reference document available to all sectors to conduct accessibility audits and to plan developments, as the City works towards making Toronto a “barrier free” community.”

Sorry, supporters of car lanes, but arterial roads are a scourge for pedestrians, especially children and the elderly.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Sorry supporters of bike lanes, but they are a scourge for the disabled. They also are an issue for seniors. My daughter is disabled and my mom requires a wheelchair (blind/elderly). The whole Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines appear to be optional when it comes to bike lanes.

From the city's website: "The Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines (TADG) is a reference document available to all sectors to conduct accessibility audits and to plan developments, as the City works towards making Toronto a “barrier free” community.”

Er...exactly how?

 

[evandyk]

@robmausser - you are going into the totally wrong direction with this. No cycle track is here too wide. Most are too narrow to accommodate cycling traffic at rush hour. For example College St.

I don't think any of them are too narrow to accommodate cycling traffic at rush hour. Some of them are too narrow to accommodate one cyclist passing another cyclist so they can go faster, but that's not what they're designed for, any more than car lanes are designed double wide so that every driver can go as fast as they want.

 

[F__]

I bike on Bloor from Spadina to Lansdowne frequently and it seems like there would be more creative ways to speed up car traffic without affecting the bike lanes -- perhaps doubly so in more suburban areas.
- Prohibit turns except where there's space for a turn lane. (This is hard because so many of the adjacent streets are one-way, though.)
- If more street parking is removed, then there's more space for a turn lane or general purpose middle lane.
In my experience, a lot of the congestion is caused by drivers trying to turn or doing some crazy maneuver like a u-turn.

 

[evandyk]

In my experience, a lot of the congestion is caused by drivers trying to turn or doing some crazy maneuver like a u-turn.

And Uber drivers stopping in the lane to pick up their fare. Normally they'd pull into the bike lane to risk people's safety and slow down cyclists, rather than slow down other cars, but now they can't do that because of the separation.

 

[rdaner]

Sorry supporters of bike lanes, but they are a scourge for the disabled. They also are an issue for seniors. My daughter is disabled and my mom requires a wheelchair (blind/elderly). The whole Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines appear to be optional when it comes to bike lanes.

From the city's website: "The Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines (TADG) is a reference document available to all sectors to conduct accessibility audits and to plan developments, as the City works towards making Toronto a “barrier free” community.”

Maybe accommodating both groups? Why is everyone so black or white?!

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Maybe accommodating both groups? Why is everyone so black or white?!

...sorry, couldn't resist! <3

 

[bearcat]

I don't think any of them are too narrow to accommodate cycling traffic at rush hour. Some of them are too narrow to accommodate one cyclist passing another cyclist so they can go faster, but that's not what they're designed for, any more than car lanes are designed double wide so that every driver can go as fast as they want.

I disagree, some are definitely too narrow. I think the goal should be for any bike lane that is separated from car lanes by more than just paint (where it's easy to enter the car lane to pass) to be wide enough to pass another cyclist. Obviously any bike lane is better than no bike lane, but a bike lane that's physically separated from car lanes being too narrow to pass safely is a compromise, and a potential safety issue imho, as there will always be people trying to pass slower cyclists. On some bike lanes with the precast concrete curbs you're essentially stuck between two curbs and if people are passing eachother too closely, as there is nowhere to swerve to avoid collision, you would just hit one of the two curbs with your wheel.

 

[PL1]

I disagree, some are definitely too narrow. I think the goal should be for any bike lane that is separated from car lanes by more than just paint (where it's easy to enter the car lane to pass) to be wide enough to pass another cyclist. Obviously any bike lane is better than no bike lane, but a bike lane that's physically separated from car lanes being too narrow to pass safety is a compromise, and a potential safety issue imho, as there will always be people.trying to pass slower cyclists.

Agreed. The Danforth lanes are theoretically wide enough to pass another bike, but I find it is very difficult to do so as the rightmost part of the lane is often unusable due to road conditions. This will change as bike lanes are permanently integrated. (The Danforth lanes were done quickly)

 

[Northern Light]

I don't think any of them are too narrow to accommodate cycling traffic at rush hour. Some of them are too narrow to accommodate one cyclist passing another cyclist so they can go faster, but that's not what they're designed for, any more than car lanes are designed double wide so that every driver can go as fast as they want.

@bearcat, above, is on point.

Many older bike lanes are only 1.5M wide, which is extremely narrow, and would not be implemented today on an arterial road.

Many more are ~1.8M wide.

But if you want any kind of barrier between the bike lane / cycle track and cars, so much as flexiposts and a rolled curb, you're looking at a ~2.1M width requirement.

If you want jersey barriers, or streetscaped boulevards of some description, you really need more.....you might squeeze something like that in to 2.3M, but I'll argue 2.5M is a better starting point.

The other thing to consider is that today, many of those narrower bike lanes fade away at intersections where left-hand turn lanes are provided. They either become an ultra-narrow, painted lane, or sometimes just sharrows.

Understanding that, in general, space will be at a greater premium at intersections, you want a wider lane in-between those intersections so you can handle a modest narrowing without losing protection entirely.