[BMO]

The reason that the "before" scenario has a decline is that all the bars to the left are from data in 2000, the bars to the right are taken in 2010. They could have labelled it better but I don't think it's that confusing.

The lanes without any bike infrastructure saw the accident rate drop because overall cycling levels increased from 2000 to 2010.

Actually, I didn't notice that the right axis coincided with the small dot on the charts.

It's also strange, since it looks like streets that had Sharrows installed were already streets that had higher bike ridership and already had lower injury levels compared to streets that had no improvements. We also don't have a sense of scale. For instance it shows that bike injuries declined the most for bike lanes, but those new levels are still higher than the Before scenario for sharrows, which would personally lead me to believing that in general you are less likely to get injured on a sharrow roadway based on this data. We don't know what type of roadways the bike lanes were put on or sharrows put on. For all we know sharrows in the study were only placed on local roadways and bike lanes were placed on high volume busy roadways. We also have no clue of what type of injuries are correlated with sharrows before and after. Are we seeing more pedestrian/Cyclist injuries on Sharrows that are leading to lower reductions in overall injuries? Or are they really still predominantly Cyclist/Auto conflict injuries.

That's not to say the data doesn't tell us something. Yes it seams like Bike Lanes have a substantial impact on reducing injuries, but I feel as if their effectiveness probably depends on WHERE they are placed, same with sharrows. For instance, I personally don't agree with putting sharrows on Spadina, I feel like as a cyclist you're just asking for trouble riding on that street, this is where a Bike Lane should be placed. On the flipside, a bike lane on Welling St W just west of Bathurst seems redundant considering the volume of vehicles and the amount of space and you're likely not seeing any benefit of it over a Sharrow in this location.

It's all kind of a long answer, but I don't think the type of facility on its own dictates how useful they are at reducing injuries, I think it's a combination of type and location. Having said that I prefer Bike Lanes, especially with some form of barrier, however I acknowledge that bike lanes probably aren't necessary everywhere.

 

[aquateam]

Actually, I didn't notice that the right axis coincided with the small dot on the charts.

It's also strange, since it looks like streets that had Sharrows installed were already streets that had higher bike ridership and already had lower injury levels compared to streets that had no improvements. We also don't have a sense of scale. For instance it shows that bike injuries declined the most for bike lanes, but those new levels are still higher than the Before scenario for sharrows, which would personally lead me to believing that in general you are less likely to get injured on a sharrow roadway based on this data. We don't know what type of roadways the bike lanes were put on or sharrows put on. For all we know sharrows in the study were only placed on local roadways and bike lanes were placed on high volume busy roadways. We also have no clue of what type of injuries are correlated with sharrows before and after. Are we seeing more pedestrian/Cyclist injuries on Sharrows that are leading to lower reductions in overall injuries? Or are they really still predominantly Cyclist/Auto conflict injuries.

I mean sure, you can do a fine-grained analysis and second-guess their results. But generally pedestrian/cyclist injuries are almost never reported and I don't see the character of the streets fundamentally changing such that streets with sharrows turn from traffic sewers into market plazas.

Sharrows are fundamentally a cop-out: you are not re-allocating any road space away from cars. All you are doing is saying that "bikes are allowed here too," which they were allowed to be in the first place.

They are generally useful as a way-finding tool (guiding cyclists to low-traffic streets or to higher-order bike facilities) but I wouldn't see them as greatly enhancing comfort or safety since they don't impose any kind of separation between bikes and cars.

That's not to say the data doesn't tell us something. Yes it seams like Bike Lanes have a substantial impact on reducing injuries, but I feel as if their effectiveness probably depends on WHERE they are placed, same with sharrows. For instance, I personally don't agree with putting sharrows on Spadina, I feel like as a cyclist you're just asking for trouble riding on that street, this is where a Bike Lane should be placed. On the flipside, a bike lane on Welling St W just west of Bathurst seems redundant considering the volume of vehicles and the amount of space and you're likely not seeing any benefit of it over a Sharrow in this location.

It's all kind of a long answer, but I don't think the type of facility on its own dictates how useful they are at reducing injuries, I think it's a combination of type and location. Having said that I prefer Bike Lanes, especially with some form of barrier, however I acknowledge that bike lanes probably aren't necessary everywhere.

You're absolutely right about not putting bike lanes everywhere. I'd like to see the city focus on quality over quantity, and that's where my gripe with sharrows comes from.

The most useful facilities are the safest ones (e.g. Martin Goodman trail, West Toronto railpath) but those are also the most difficult/expensive to produce. More than just reducing injury, the type of facility dictates how useful they are in inducing ridership

Ideally cycling should be like driving or transit, where you have a hierarchy of facilities to get you from A to B. For long-distance trips, grade separated facilities that cut across the city (e.g. hydro corridors, Rails-to-trails, Martin Goodman trail) would be analogous to highways, quality bike lanes with bollards (Richmond/Adelaid cycle tracks, Bloor/Eglinton bike lanes, etc.) would be like the arterial roads, and shared facilities would be for the last bit of the trip. I'd like to see the city especially focus on developing its multiuse trails along the ravine system, like completing the PanAm Path.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Anyone else noticing that the timing of the Final Report and consequent council decision will be timed for roughly summer 2018?

Sounds like excellent election platform for John Tory.

 

[kotsy]

Aren't platforms based on things they will do if (re-)elected? This decision is a bit early for that.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Aren't platforms based on things they will do if (re-)elected? This decision is a bit early for that.

You mean like Transit City?

I'm assuming the scenario where Dougy is running. The urbanist left will be faced with the decision of voting for Tory and getting a Rail Deck Park, and not voting for Tory and risk Ford cancelling the Rail Deck Park.

 

[jaybe]

Scotiabank recently paid $800M to acquire naming rights at the ACC for 20 years. I wonder if there is value to be realized by selling name rights and offering an great deal of promotion on the proposed Rail Deck Park? There must be a company willing to pay to get exclusive naming rights for 20+ years for this park. Selling rights would quickly reduce the cost to taxpayers, potentially in a very significant way. I imagine most people wouldn't mind advertising in this park, if it really made a significant contribution to getting the park built. Further, once the naming rights agreement expires the name can be changed to something more appropriate.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You mean like Transit City?

I'm assuming the scenario where Dougy is running. The urbanist left will be faced with the decision of voting for Tory and getting a Rail Deck Park, and not voting for Tory and risk Ford cancelling the Rail Deck Park.

I highly doubt the "urban left" will consider this the make or break issue. I can see it being one that suck up all the oxygen on behalf of JT in Trinity-Spadina though.

As to the left, forget about displacing JT, they should be trying to work council instead.

AoD

 

[mdrejhon]

Aren't platforms based on things they will do if (re-)elected? This decision is a bit early for that.

More train platforms is good! /s
Oh. Party platforms. Nevermind.

 

[rbt]

Scotiabank recently paid $800M to acquire naming rights at the ACC for 20 years.

This is effectively a television advertising deal. It's not for a sign on the roof; it's for getting mentioned in every sports column, news broadcast, etc. that gets written about a Leafs home game.

The park will have a fraction of the coverage and as a result be worth a fraction of the price. You'd be lucky to get $1Million.

 

[kotsy]

This is effectively a television advertising deal. It's not for a sign on the roof; it's for getting mentioned in every sports column, news broadcast, etc. that gets written about a Leafs home game.

Raptors, too!

 

[muller877]

I mean sure, you can do a fine-grained analysis and second-guess their results. But generally pedestrian/cyclist injuries are almost never reported and I don't see the character of the streets fundamentally changing such that streets with sharrows turn from traffic sewers into market plazas.

.....

They are generally useful as a way-finding tool (guiding cyclists to low-traffic streets or to higher-order bike facilities) but I wouldn't see them as greatly enhancing comfort or safety since they don't impose any kind of separation between bikes and cars.

As a suggestion you may want to post this in the cycling thread. It would be more appropriate there. Thanks

 

[marcus_a_j]

Scotiabank recently paid $800M to acquire naming rights at the ACC for 20 years. I wonder if there is value to be realized by selling name rights and offering an great deal of promotion on the proposed Rail Deck Park? There must be a company willing to pay to get exclusive naming rights for 20+ years for this park. Selling rights would quickly reduce the cost to taxpayers, potentially in a very significant way. I imagine most people wouldn't mind advertising in this park, if it really made a significant contribution to getting the park built. Further, once the naming rights agreement expires the name can be changed to something more appropriate.

BP donated $5 million towards the construction of the BP Pedestrian Bridge in Chicago. (Another $25 million was donated towards the construction of Millennium Park.) I don't think you could expect anything more than what BP paid for naming rights for Rail Deck Park.

 

[ADRM]

But it's a perfect opportunity for:

 

[TheTigerMaster]

BP donated $5 million towards the construction of the BP Pedestrian Bridge in Chicago. (Another $25 million was donated towards the construction of Millennium Park.) I don't think you could expect anything more than what BP paid for naming rights for Rail Deck Park.

Aren't there other private sponsors at Millennium park, or am I mistaken?

 

[marcus_a_j]

Aren't there other private sponsors at Millennium park, or am I mistaken?

Ya, turns out a lot more, including a few other areas that received naming rights as well. The BP bridge was always the one that came to mind for me.