Improved public transit is critical for the transit-captive poor who are car-deprived.
However, I would wager even they would prefer to get around in their own vehicles — unless they live and work near a subway line.
Public transit is critical for the health and prosperity of the city. If everyone could afford a fancy car, our traffic problems would be even worse. People want to do lots of things that we decide collectively to restrict if it's for the greater good. Promoting alternative forms of transportation is an example of this.
Maybe cars should be radically downsized, as well as less expensive and more environmentally friendly.
Yes and yes.
Short of that fantasy or building subways everywhere, what else can be done?
Define everywhere. Why is it a fantasy to build a more complete network of subways? More a fantasy than building a network of expressways was way back when?
Hard-core cyclists and some of their snide supporters must fantasize about their own network of bicycle paths that would rival the road network — not a bad goal if approached in a sensible fashion.
I would (sadly) settle for a network of bicycle paths that is a small fraction of the road network (for now). In case he hasn't noticed, the road network is pretty darn complete.
I’ve even seen cyclists at 6 a.m. flying down sidewalks while decked out in helmets!
I'm getting tired of the "there are some crazy cyclists so they are all bad" arguments. Drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, TTC drivers, yes there are really bad examples of each. I HATE when cyclists ride on sidewalks, but can totally understand that they do not feel safe on the roads.
No matter how grandiose their fantasies, it doesn’t justify bike lanes on major arterials. It also doesn’t excuse the dismissive arrogance toward taxpayers with opposing views at public venues.
This article promotes subways to make room for cars and cyclists, but then argues against bike lanes on major arterials. Am I misunderstanding the term "major arterial"? Would Jarvis qualify? Or University? Where else would subways be built, under St. George or Harbord?
As for the University Ave. pilot: Mothball it!
We don’t need another pilot. We have dozens of them every spring, summer and fall. They’re known as lane closures for road repairs.
Competent professionals can measure the delays and extrapolate them to lane removals for potential bike lanes. Then they’ll have the required metrics for an informed debate.
This is car-centric. I don't think the point is just to measure the impact on drivers, but also how much uptake the actual bike lanes have by cyclists. Then we need to weigh the two against each other.
Toronto is not, and not likely to be, a bicycle town.
What does this even mean? Fact: people do cycle in this city, and reports are that the number of cyclists is growing. Yes, fewer people ride in the winter, and yes, people living in the outer reaches of the city are less likely to cycle to downtown jobs, but I see lots of people riding, so people constantly saying that this isn't a biking town is pointless. People do ride and deserve safe infrastructure to do so.
And, removing just 10% of the cars from the roads will have a measurable visible impact.
Yes indeed, and promoting cycling will contribute to (no, not deliver completely) this reduction. Expanding public transit as well. Let's do it!
