It is really hard for me to believe that these so-called separated bike lanes are significantly safer than regular bike lanes. According to Toronto Public Health the latter are more or less as dangerous as no bike lane at all, i.e. very dangerous. The Toronto Public Health had "no data" on separated bike lanes. It is really hard for me to believe that these are safe, given that there constantly cars and trucks parked in them, there are streetcar tracks on Richmond/Adelaide, and there are various construction sites blocking them.
There have been three bike accidents today according to the Toronto Police Twitter account: Bay and Richmond, Passmore and Midland, Yonge and Jackes. The first one is at an intersection of a road that has separated bike lanes.
The Bloor bike lane is just a bad idea of Joe Cressy and Mike Layton. There is a perfectly good subway line along Bloor Street and taking it is far far safer than riding a bike along Bloor Street, with or without bike lanes. Also I can't believe that local businesses are going to be very happy about removing car parking.
Okay, one by one, quite easily:
> There are mountains of data from cities around the world to refute the assertion that protected bike lanes are safer than so-called "regular" bike lanes, which is unsurprising because the latter is literally just paint on a road. The argument, raised at committee today, that data from cities other than Toronto need not apply is narrow-minded and provincial at best. I think you have to try pretty hard to (randomly, and confusingly) hate on bike lanes to actually accept that physical separation from cars that may hit cyclists provides more safety than the lack thereof; employing even the simplest form of logic would demand one conclude otherwise.
> It's not surprising that there isn't extensive data from Toronto surrounding the safety of protected bike lanes because there are very few of them in the city and those that are haven't been around for very long and/or are poorly designed, and because cycling safety in general is ludicrously under-funded in Toronto, compared against other cities.
> The fact that there are "constantly cars and trucks parked in them" is further justification for better designed bike lanes that
offer more protection, not the opposite.
> Same goes for the similarly odd assertion that the existence of three accidents today is evidence against the need for protected bike lanes. And, of course, there are no intersections in Toronto (with the exception of Queen's Quay) that have protected bike infrastructure.
> There are numerous studies from other cities that concluded that inserting protected bike lanes
increased the revenue of businesses along the stretch of implementation. That shouldn't be surprising, of course, because one cyclist takes up far less space (and moves in and out far more easily) than a parked car does. Furthermore, only 10% of trips to businesses along the stretch of Bloor covered are currently taken by car). And, even more, there are numerous Green P parking lots along this stretch that are perpetually under capacity.
> Finally, are the Bloor lanes just a bad idea from Councillors Cressy and Layton? Of course not. Wrong again. First, Bloor bike lanes have been on the docket in one form or another for literally three decades, and the record will show that Joe Cressy was a 1-year-old boy thirty years ago. That's awfully young to start a campaign for protected bike lanes. This pilot project has support from literally every single business improvement association along this stretch of Bloor, a litany of advocacy groups, numerous business owners, and of course thousands of citizens who drive, bike, and walk along this stretch of Bloor, including this one.
Well, that was easy, if blood boiling to rehash after struggling through today's committee hearing.
Anyone other members of the Flat Earth Society want to take a shot?