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 

But Toronto is not a small city. It's a huge city. So we can't compare ourselves with these small European cities.
 
If size and population were always relevant, there would only be a handful of cities Toronto could be compared to exactly. Besides, in terms of the approach to cycling, the sizes of two cities are not as important as the approach to cycling and the type of infrastructure.

Toronto may take up a bigger space than Amsterdam, but cyclists in Amsterdam tend to make longer trips than those in Toronto; it doesn't necessarily follow that cyclists in Toronto routinely cover greater distances just because the city itself is bigger.
 
the lemur said:
If size and population were always relevant, there would only be a handful of cities Toronto could be compared to exactly. Besides, in terms of the approach to cycling, the sizes of two cities are not as important as the approach to cycling and the type of infrastructure.

Toronto may take up a bigger space than Amsterdam, but cyclists in Amsterdam tend to make longer trips than those in Toronto; it doesn't necessarily follow that cyclists in Toronto routinely cover greater distances just because the city itself is bigger.
Click to expand...

But distance is an important determinant for being able to walk, bike, take transit. If a place is 20km away, you probably aren't going to walk and bike to it. In bigger cities, the distances are going to be higher. Why is important for cities to have higher density? To reduce the distances. Why have grid instead of cul-de-sacs? To reduce the distances. Distance is probably the single most important factor for the mode of transportation people use. Higher distances means more car dependence.
 
According to this story, there may be hope for the Jarvis Street bike lanes after all. Kristyn Wong-Tam has attended demonstrations put on by the bicycle union to save the Jarvis Street bike lanes so I'm confident that if she re-introduces this I think it's a good chance this could pass. Council is a considerably different animal today than it was when the three lanes were given the death sentence. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1258713--jarvis-cycling-lanes-run-out-of-road
 
doady said:
But distance is an important determinant for being able to walk, bike, take transit. If a place is 20km away, you probably aren't going to walk and bike to it. In bigger cities, the distances are going to be higher. Why is important for cities to have higher density? To reduce the distances. Why have grid instead of cul-de-sacs? To reduce the distances. Distance is probably the single most important factor for the mode of transportation people use. Higher distances means more car dependence.
Click to expand...

Sure, but how long are most trips? Long enough to justify car dependence?
 
As lemur pointed out the amazing thing about cycling infrastructure in Amsterdam / the Netherlands is regional connectivity. Any central city is going to be chaotic and aggressive.

For instance I rented a bike in central Amsterdam and just biked out of the city to the ocean via the small city of Haarlem. By contrast Toronto has an excellent biking culture and it is easy to bike in the central city, but the suburbs represent a somewhat impenetrable obstacle owing to their vast geographic area and disinterest in non-vehicular transportation.
 
I honestly hope she saves them. As a driver I found that third lane confusing. Probably because we don't have them in Mississauga.
 
The statistics show fewer accidents among drivers and cyclists on Jarvis with the bike lanes (even car accidents not involving cyclists), more cyclists, and a marginal effect on travel times for motorized vehicles. Removing the bike lanes, even if we could do it for free, does not make sense. It will make the street less safe for everyone and cost the city money. Finally, the neighbourhoods along Jarvis were never blessed by its car-oriented design after WWII; this refocus away from making as much room for cars as possible was the start of something positive for the street.
 
Last edited:
Voltz said:
And why anyone would think that putting bicycles back in the way of vehicles would help drivers is beyond me.
Click to expand...

How are bicycle lanes in the way of vehicles? No bike lanes = more and more cyclists taking a lane and as that increases, watch traffic move even slower downtown.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
How are bicycle lanes in the way of vehicles? No bike lanes = more and more cyclists taking a lane and as that increases, watch traffic move even slower downtown.
Click to expand...

I know, that's what I meant, removing the bike lanes will put bicycles back in the way of vehicles.
 
TrickyRicky said:
For instance I rented a bike in central Amsterdam and just biked out of the city to the ocean via the small city of Haarlem. By contrast Toronto has an excellent biking culture and it is easy to bike in the central city, but the suburbs represent a somewhat impenetrable obstacle owing to their vast geographic area and disinterest in non-vehicular transportation.
Click to expand...

It's funny you should mention Haarlem - I know it much better than I know Amsterdam and I often use examples of its bike infrastructure to illustrate how things could be done here, to counter the misguided focus on central Amsterdam, which is dense and crowded like no part of Toronto. Central Haarlem has a reasonable system of on-street bike lanes, some lanes built into sidewalks and a pedestrian precinct. On the outskirts of the city, there are separate bike roads alongside major arterials and they link to the bike trails that go from one town to another - a system that has been in place for decades. I'm guessing you rode out to Zandvoort?

The problem with biking in Toronto's (outer) suburbs is that aside from the main arterials, the roads are generally not in a grid system and there is very little continuity: once you get into a housing development full of cul-de-sacs and winding crescents, you are expected to ride/drive out again using more or less the same route, not keep going to the next subdivision on the other side of the highway.
 
the lemur said:
The problem with biking in Toronto's (outer) suburbs is that aside from the main arterials, the roads are generally not in a grid system and there is very little continuity: once you get into a housing development full of cul-de-sacs and winding crescents, you are expected to ride/drive out again using more or less the same route, not keep going to the next subdivision on the other side of the highway.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that's a problem in inner city neighbourhoods. The roads, aside from the main arterials, are not in perfect grids (being developed at different times as the Park Lots were individually parcelled). How many east-west side streets are through? The ones that are usually alternate as one-ways in different directions with the intent of keeping out through traffic, the same as cul-de-sacs and crescents of the suburbs. Cyclists either have to follow the same meandering paths as cars, or (as most do) go the wrong way on that one-way street for often a single block.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top