[TrickyRicky]

I was about to post the exact same thing Admiral. It's almost laughable to compare Toronto to Copenhagen as though they bare any resemblance to each other as urban entities.

If you isolated the Old City of Toronto you could make a more reasonable comparison; however, you can't because the Old City of Toronto is not an isolated entity and it's function within the greater city region make it fundamentally different. Better and more comprehensive Cycling infrastructure is appropriate within the Old City of Toronto; however, as this zone is not an entity in itself this infrastructure is fundamentally exclusionary and inflationary within the greater context that the old city is used as a place of work and destination of necessity and leisure for the greater City region. Therefore cycling infrastructure in the old city is not universally desirable even if has local benefit. Even worse is using planning theory appropriate to central city living and applying it to the whole city region in areas where the benefit is almost negligible. This is theoretical planning orthodox over real world observation the equal in absurdity to radiant city planning.

Getting back to the Copenhagen comparison, my family will be investing in a cargo bike in the spring because it is starting to make sense to do so given the expansion of biking infrastructure, greater need for local trip generation with a young family, and the fact that my wife doesn't even have a drivers license. There is absolutely nothing socially or environmentally progressive about this decisions. We can do so because of our privilege nothing more.

 

[Northern Light]

Can we please stop comparing ourselves to small densely populated European cities. Find me a Toronto-like city of about 3 million residents (excluding suburbs) with a density of about 4,500 people per km2. I’d bet Toronto compares ok.

While that comparison may be extreme..................

How about comparing us to Montreal? Density 3,800 per sq km; which is ranked as 20th most bike-friendly destination in the world, and typically number one in North America.

Urban Vancouver is 5,400 per km2; but metro Vancouver is less than 1/2 that. It has the busiest bike lane on the continent.

Both of those cities have built more and better cycling infrastructure than Toronto.

They have higher cycling modal shares to show for it. (4-8% City wide)

Toronto sees better numbers than this in the downtown and adjacent areas; not surprisingly these also feature some of the best cycling infrastructure, and bike share.

****

That said, I'm not opposed to the European comparison. The suggestion that this is wrong, is at least partially predicated that it was somehow always so much more bike friendly, cause that's how it is there.

In point of fact, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Paris etc. were all once far less friendly to cyclists and much more accommodating to motorists.

Its perfectly reasonable to point out that something changed in the public and political zeitgeist and moves were made to remove parking, by the thousands of spaces, diet roads, close some highways, and build large amounts of new
cycling infrastructure.

If one were to point out that Scarborough is not Copenhagen, I would thank them kindly for reporting that.

But it is not immune to change.

The new Golden Mile coming to a Scarborough near you will have a density closer to 15,000 per km2. It features an LRT within 200m of every front door, it will feature local shopping up and down Eglinton lining the street, lots of local parks, and it too can (and will) feature lots of high quality bike lanes.

Asking our politicians and planners to have a bit more ambition and foresight isn't wrong or naive.

Clearly, some areas are more ready, or even needy for such investments than others, and I take no issue w/prioritizing accordingly.

Cycle tracks should come to Bloor/Danforth and Yonge before we worry about Midland.

But people in the burbs do deserve options for safer cycling, at the very least, and as their areas evolve, priority should be given to evolve them with cycling and pedestrians in mind.

 

[W. K. Lis]

While that comparison may be extreme..................

How about comparing us to Montreal? Density 3,800 per sq km; which is ranked as 20th most bike-friendly destination in the world, and typically number one in North America.

Urban Vancouver is 5,400 per km2; but metro Vancouver is less than 1/2 that. It has the busiest bike lane on the continent.

Both of those cities have built more and better cycling infrastructure than Toronto.

They have higher cycling modal shares to show for it. (4-8% City wide)

Toronto sees better numbers than this in the downtown and adjacent areas; not surprisingly these also feature some of the best cycling infrastructure, and bike share.

****

That said, I'm not opposed to the European comparison. The suggestion that this is wrong, is at least partially predicated that it was somehow always so much more bike friendly, cause that's how it is there.

In point of fact, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Paris etc. were all once far less friendly to cyclists and much more accommodating to motorists.

Its perfectly reasonable to point out that something changed in the public and political zeitgeist and moves were made to remove parking, by the thousands of spaces, diet roads, close some highways, and build large amounts of new
cycling infrastructure.

If one were to point out that Scarborough is not Copenhagen, I would thank them kindly for reporting that.

But it is not immune to change.

The new Golden Mile coming to a Scarborough near you will have a density closer to 15,000 per km2. It features an LRT within 200m of every front door, it will feature local shopping up and down Eglinton lining the street, lots of local parks, and it too can (and will) feature lots of high quality bike lanes.

Asking our politicians and planners to have a bit more ambition and foresight isn't wrong or naive.

Clearly, some areas are more ready, or even needy for such investments than others, and I take no issue w/prioritizing accordingly.

Cycle tracks should be come to Bloor/Danforth and Yonge before we worry about Midland.

But people in the burbs do deserve options for safer cycling, at the very least, and as their areas evolve, priority should be given to evolve them with cycling and pedestrians in mind.

All those parking lots in the suburban areas of Toronto are ripe to be replaced by fill-in mid-rise and high-rise developments, both offices, commercial, and residential. And by narrowing the traffic lanes to reflect the actual speed limits (and not for speeders doing 100 km/h), they can put in bicycle lanes and more wider sidewalks for the pedestrians.

 

[amnesiajune]

Can we please stop comparing ourselves to small densely populated European cities. Find me a Toronto-like city of about 3 million residents (excluding suburbs) with a density of about 4,500 people per km2. I’d bet Toronto compares ok.

Madrid. Similar area, slightly larger population (3.3 million vs. 2.7 million), and their bike infrastructure is pretty comparable to what we have here in Toronto.

 

[MisterF]

Minneapolis is another good example. It's larger than Copenhagen, farther north with a colder climate than Toronto, and they've been aggressively building cycling infrastructure all over the city. Toronto has no excuse.

Cities like Copenhagen provide a great example of what's possible. Dismissing them does us a disservice.

 

[Admiral Beez]

When I saw that the new Regent Park didn’t include separated bike paths or even bike lines when the entire neighbourhood was being torn down I gave up hope for greater cycle infrastructure. If we can’t do it when given a clean sheet rebuild of an entire neighbourhood, what hope is there.

 

[amnesiajune]

When I saw that the new Regent Park didn’t include separated bike paths or even bike lines when the entire neighbourhood was being torn down I gave up hope for greater cycle infrastructure. If we can’t do it when given a clean sheet rebuild of an entire neighbourhood, what hope is there.

There's some TTC policy that requires two traffic/parking lanes when streetcars run in mixed traffic. It makes bike lanes impossible on Dundas, Gerrard and Parliament. They were added on Shuter and River.

 

[Admiral Beez]

There's some TTC policy that requires two traffic/parking lanes when streetcars run in mixed traffic. It makes bike lanes impossible on Dundas, Gerrard and Parliament. They were added on Shuter and River.

Yes, but Regent Park tore down the area from the roadside back, all new sidewalks, etc. They could have put the bike lanes along Dundas between the existing road edge and the building faces. Gerrard from River to Parliament is in desperate need of a separated bike lane, as I see cyclists jumping onto to sidewalk in order to avoid the two lanes of closely packed vehicles. I can’t blame them. Anyway, soon Regent Park facing Gerrard will begin construction, including new sidewalks, but again they won’t put bike lanes in.

 

[amnesiajune]

The city isn't rebuilding the main roads as part of the Regent Park project.

 

[Avenue]

The opportunity was 100% there to widen Dundas E accordingly from Parliament to DVP and add proper bike lanes. The city simply chose not to the take it. It's shitty public service.

 

[Admiral Beez]

There's some TTC policy that requires two traffic/parking lanes when streetcars run in mixed traffic. It makes bike lanes impossible on Dundas, Gerrard and Parliament. They were added on Shuter and River.

But why does the TTC get to dictate to the rest of us. Why can’t the streetcar and cars share a single lane all the time, same as they do during times of permitted curb parking? My reco is to eliminate parking on Gerrard entirely from Coxwell to Queens Park and take the outside lanes as separated bike lanes. The separation needs to be hard, to keep the police and others from parking their cars on top of it. Sure, those businesses on Gerrard will bitch that their customers can’t park, but too bad, we can’t continue having commuters getting killed. Build some more Green Ps along Gerrard if required.

 

[W. K. Lis]

But why does the TTC get to dictate to the rest of us. Why can’t the streetcar and cars share a single lane all the time, same as they do during times of permitted curb parking? My reco is to eliminate parking on Gerrard entirely from Coxwell to Queens Park and take the outside lanes as separated bike lanes. The separation needs to be hard, to keep the police and others from parking their cars on top of it. Sure, those businesses on Gerrard will bitch that their customers can’t park, but too bad, we can’t continue having commuters getting killed. Build some more Green Ps along Gerrard if required.

You're forgetting that there are on average only 1.3 people in an automobile (almost the same capacity for a bicycle), but there are 70 seats (total capacity of 251) on a streetcar.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You're forgetting that there are on average only 1.3 people in an automobile (almost the same capacity for a bicycle), but there are 70 seats (total capacity of 251) on a streetcar.

I may be omitting it, but why do you think I'm forgetting it? Do you think bike lanes will cause problems for the streetcars? Perhaps yes, if the cars have no where to go, but if we also ban left turns the streetcars should move okay.

 

[torontocolin]

There's some TTC policy that requires two traffic/parking lanes when streetcars run in mixed traffic. It makes bike lanes impossible on Dundas, Gerrard and Parliament. They were added on Shuter and River.

That didn't stop them on King.

 

[Avenue]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1164926119054852096

This is some Jaye Robinson type of bullshit.