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 

Joe is right.

I'm very pro-bike lane and lobbied for the full lanes on Simcoe and Peter.

This area is now well served by N-S lanes except on the largest roads (Spadina and Uni)

It's not as if bikes will be banned from John either.

The new configuration results in a narrower footprint for cars, lighter/slower traffic and improved aesthetics.

It simply isn't being configured as a bike highway (or one for cars) but rather as almost Woonerf life space that prioritizes pedestrians to great degree while not excluding other traffic.

I think it's a real shame that people in the cycling community are wasting time giving Joe and this project a hard time, really a not seeing the forest for the trees kinda situation.

Their resources would be better spent on enhancing other east-west options, including Bloor east of Avenue; and then possibly reviving the notion of a protected bike lane for Uni (from Adelaide north, and extending up Avenue to Oriole Parkway) .
 
The Peter/Soho intersection at Queen could use further improvements, and the Richmond/Simcoe intersection really needs a traffic light (synchronized with the Richmond/University signals). The cyclists need to focus on that, as well as keeping the taxis and trucks out of the existing lanes.

The bike lobby can be really dunderheaded sometimes, despite their mostly good intentions.
 
Northern Light said:
Joe is right.

I'm very pro-bike lane and lobbied for the full lanes on Simcoe and Peter.

This area is now well served by N-S lanes except on the largest roads (Spadina and Uni)

It's not as if bikes will be banned from John either.

The new configuration results in a narrower footprint for cars, lighter/slower traffic and improved aesthetics.

It simply isn't being configured as a bike highway (or one for cars) but rather as almost Woonerf life space that prioritizes pedestrians to great degree while not excluding other traffic.

I think it's a real shame that people in the cycling community are wasting time giving Joe and this project a hard time, really a not seeing the forest for the trees kinda situation.

Their resources would be better spent on enhancing other east-west options, including Bloor east of Avenue; and then possibly reviving the notion of a protected bike lane for Uni (from Adelaide north, and extending up Avenue to Oriole Parkway) .
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, however I still find the logic infuriating. That the street will be closed for events sometimes, therefore we shouldn't have bike lanes for the 95% of the time when it's not closed. Should we also give up on bike lanes on Yonge Street under that same thinking?

Joe Cressy: "As a critical component of the design on John focuses on regular closures for events and public occupation, installing a cycling facility that would be regularly closed would reduce cyclists' safety and convenience - not a preferred solution."
 
salsa said:
I don't disagree, however I still find the logic infuriating. That the street will be closed for events sometimes, therefore we shouldn't have bike lanes for the 95% of the time when it's not closed. Should we also give up on bike lanes on Yonge Street under that same thinking?
Click to expand...

I don't find that to be the primary logic behind it. The primary logic is that the right-of-way is being maximized for pedestrians, with one vehicular traffic lane becoming the leftover space for vehicles and other active transportation (cycling). Giving space (2-3m) to cyclists would take that away from the focus of the redesign: space for people that are not using the street as a thoroughfare, but as a destination.

Again, like @Northern Light said, forest for the trees. But the city and Cressy are letting the cycling community peg them on this and lose the message.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
I don't find that to be the primary logic behind it. The primary logic is that the right-of-way is being maximized for pedestrians, with one vehicular traffic lane becoming the leftover space for vehicles and other active transportation (cycling). Giving space (2-3m) to cyclists would take that away from the focus of the redesign: space for people that are not using the street as a thoroughfare, but as a destination.

Again, like @Northern Light said, forest for the trees. But the city and Cressy are letting the cycling community peg them on this and lose the message.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think Joe's doing a pretty good job of handling it, all things considered. He's, at least to this point, definitely sticking to his guns in both clearly explaining why he doesn't think John is right for cyclists's priority and in how strongly he's pushed for Simcoe and Peter cycle infrastructure upgrades (plus the Queen-Soho situation, though I think that design leaves much to be desired).
 
Tuscani01 said:
Yes, as that is the current thinking of the BIA and city, at least for the portion of Yonge between Gerrard and Queen.
Click to expand...

Oh god no. Yonge is one of the last missing links in the cycling network downtown. It needs proper facilities. This isn't the case on John.

They need to cut two lanes, then add a bidirectional facility on one side and take the other lane and add half a lanes worth of sidewalk width on both sides of the street.

https://streetmix.net/-/513279
 
innsertnamehere said:
Oh god no. Yonge is one of the last missing links in the cycling network downtown. It needs proper facilities. This isn't the case on John.

They need to cut two lanes, then add a bidirectional facility on one side and take the other lane and add half a lanes worth of sidewalk width on both sides of the street.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd rather see Bay or Church get dedicated cycle tracks over Yonge. I think Yonge is the one street where a pedestrian mall makes sense in this city - and I can see the space being programmed much more frequently than John or any other pedestrian focused street in the city.
 
Yonge is the only one to really have potential to add cycle lanes in the near future. Yonge also has better connections to the waterfront. Church has no rail corridor underpass and has limited potential due to streetcar tracks, Bay is a vehicle highway and would be difficult to properly adapt.

Yonge can be reduced to a local vehicle access if you really want, sort of like what they are planning on King. But I really believe a high quality cycling corridor is key on the street.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Yonge is the only one to really have potential to add cycle lanes in the near future. Yonge also has better connections to the waterfront. Church has no rail corridor underpass and has limited potential due to streetcar tracks, Bay is a vehicle highway and would be difficult to properly adapt.

Yonge can be reduced to a local vehicle access if you really want, sort of like what they are planning on King. But I really believe a high quality cycling corridor is key on the street.
Click to expand...

I'll take any of the above, tbh, because it's patently nuts that Sherbourne is the only N-S cycling connection in the core (and there are precisely zero options for commuters north of Bloor, but that's a whole other kettle of fish).

I do think you'd perhaps see less fevered discussion around the John proposal if there were better/any N-S connections nearby.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top