News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

turbanplanner said:
This isn’t a question of what is deserved, that line of thinking is what brought us the Scarborough subway instead a more useful LRT
Click to expand...
This is definitely a bit of a different comparison than the Scarborough Subway debate. People are talking about physical safety here, and risk of injury and fatality. That's a completely different "deserve" than deciding on two modes of transit that would offer near equal physical safety benefits...
 
adys123 said:
This is definitely a bit of a different comparison than the Scarborough Subway debate. People are talking about physical safety here, and risk of injury and fatality. That's a completely different "deserve" than deciding on two modes of transit that would offer near equal physical safety benefits...
Click to expand...
See my earlier points, I think without a plan you end up designing a system for nobody. (Yes I'm aware a few dozen people are willing to bike 30km a day)
 
I'm going to say this once only, we collectively agreed UT, and were given clear instructions from Mods, that this thread is to discuss new infrastructure and not to debate the merits of said infrastructure in a general sense or the value of cycling.

Please, collectively exercise some self-discipline, do not feed the trolling behavior of one poster who is solely present at UT to rile up cyclists and transit users, and for no other reason.

The correct response to off-topic, anti-cycling posts is to hit the report button.
 
Northern Light said:
I'm going to say this once only, we collectively agreed UT, and were given clear instructions from Mods, that this thread is to discuss new infrastructure and not to debate the merits of said infrastructure in a general sense or the value of cycling.

Please, collectively exercise some self-discipline, do not feed the trolling behavior of one poster who is solely present at UT to rile up cyclists and transit users, and for no other reason.

The correct response to off-topic, anti-cycling posts is to hit the report button.
Click to expand...
And there is a general cycling thread where pros and cons and other general topics related to cycling can be discussed: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...onto-bike-friendly.4842/page-245#post-2143843
 
Midtown Hank said:
Buzz off, yourself. This "advocate" doesn't think they should be able to drive everywhere, but for some, driving isn't an option - it's a necessity. As opposed to dismissing their interests, I think they should be considered. For the record, as my post seems to have created a bit of a sh*tstorm, I am not suggesting the elimination of bike lanes. I am simply pointing out that they are the scourge of the disabled. You can argue all you want, but it is a fact of life. When not driving my daughter or mom, I am a regular user of the TTC and yes - a bike.

Some have enquired as to why bike lanes are not welcome by disabled? Bike lanes prohibit one from getting close to the sidewalk to get the passenger out and into a wheelchair. The alternative is finding parking elsewhere and pushing the wheelchair back to the location one needs to get to. Of course it doable - as that is exactly what I do, but it's not the same for people who do not have disabilities.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with your sentiments here, thank you for least clarifying what it is that you where having issues with.

Northern Light said:
I'm going to say this once only, we collectively agreed UT, and were given clear instructions from Mods, that this thread is to discuss new infrastructure and not to debate the merits of said infrastructure in a general sense or the value of cycling.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine.)

...does that include government interests in wanting to rip up cycling infrastructure? Or should that be for another thread? Kinda asking this because it's the elephant in the room currently. >.<
 
FC_ said:
It would be interesting to see if there's an opportunity to give both sides what they want. If the city can provide plans that maintains both the protected bike lanes, and restores the traffic lanes, would the province pay for it? For example, removing the parking lane on University would add a traffic lane back. On Bloor, could both the lane widths of cars and bikes be reduced to restore the 4 traffic lanes and keep the bike lanes?
Click to expand...
On university you could easily have 6 lanes, a bidirectional cycle track, and a linear park, with enough $$$$.

Bloor west of Dundas has a 26-27m ROW. This is about the same as St Clair, so with enough money you could have 4 lanes and bike lanes with a full reconstruction. This is also true for Yonge north of St Clair and all of Eglinton, as well as Bloor between Spadina and the Danforth.

Between Dundas and Spadina the ROW on Bloor narrows and you wouldn’t be able to fit both.
 
In one of the last good news for a long time we have the Dan Leckie Bike Lane signals almost ready to be installed
 

Attachments

  • 20241028_163512.jpg
    20241028_163512.jpg
    154.4 KB · Views: 18
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top