News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     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
 5.4K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think their lack of use has a lot to do with their poor integration. They start nowhere, end nowhere, and have few connecting points. Still, they're a major part of the downtown cycling network and removing them would be ridiculous overkill. I'm not even saying they should fix this, just leave them the hell alone!

Denzil Minnan-Wong is proposing separated bike lanes on Sherbourne (currently riddled with potholes). If they show us they can build separated lanes on Sherbourne first and then remove the Jarvis lanes if it's absolutely necessary, then fine. But I still don't see how all this isn't a hypocritical waste of money.
 
Last edited:
Going by the anecdotal observations of some, no one uses any of the city's bike lanes. The city actually does studies on these things. Bike traffic on Jarvis in October 2010 was up 30% over May 2010, prior to the installation of the lanes. (And October is not the ideal time for a bike study.)

To those who would support their removal: is the idea to re-install the reversible centre lane?
 
Last edited:
Lanes

A handful of bikes using the lanes per day is a not a good use of these lanes or streets.

We need to face up to the reality that some bike lanes are just under used and a waste.
People aren't using them. Vaughan is certainly one of those routes. Every time I'm along that street, I never see anyone on a bike.

Jarvis sounds like another lane that doesn't get that much mileage out of.
 
I often see streets with no moving cars on them for as far as I can see. Sometimes I see this when I'm biking on those roads. All those four way stops probably, intentionally, contributes to this situation. But I'm sure cars do use them when I'm not looking.

I never saw a great need for bike lanes on Jarvis, with Sherbourne a couple blocks over, and the couple times I did ride it it was hard to find, being as it doesn't start at Bloor or continue to the waterfront. But people live and work and go to school on Jarvis, and it shouldn't be an expressway. The original revitalization plan focused on making the street more hospitable for people who are on the street on foot. The bike lanes were an afterthought. How many of the councillors who will vote to open the street as wide as possible for fast moving automobile through traffic live on streets or subdivisions that are built to discourage any traffic from outside moving through them? How many of those councillors support speed bumps and cul-de-sacs and four-way stops and one-way streets in their wards and neighbourhoods?
 
The bike lanes on Jarvis Street are not as well used as say, those on College St., but they do get used fairly well. With the exception of cars flying off Mount Pleasant and heading south on Jarvis St. the lane reduction has had somewhat of an effect on calming traffic, but not to the degree I was hoping for. I look directly down Jarvis Street and to my eyes the traffic is no worse than it was before during peak commuting hours, in fact traffic moves very reasonably.
 
I use Jarvis regularly as a motorist (never as a cyclist) and can confirm that the change improved that drive. The middle lane was confusing and didn't really help with congestion at all, in my experience. Anecdotal, I know, but some people seem to love that.
 
Overall, the lanes have made cycling safer and more convenient with minimal impact to vehicle traffic. Removing them benefits no one and is a waste of money.

In other news, council has deferred the decision to reconstitute Citizen Advisory Committees (free advice on such pinko concerns as pedestrian safety, cycling, long term health care, day care, etc.) to July. Also, Mammoliti was appointed analyze how much the City is spending on these committees (spoiler: nothing. They're free. They know this.)
 
As I only ride my bike, and never take a car anywhere, I have noticed that many roads are poorly used by cars. Therefore, these roads should be taken over from cars and redistributed to bikes and pedestrians. After all, my anecdotal evidence is infalliable, unbiased and not motivated by base thoughts of revenge.
 
Apparently, 'time' is a cost. So I think these committees will be scrapped as well. Who needs pedestrians anyway? Why don't we have an SUV committee!
 
Parkdalian said:
As I only ride my bike, and never take a car anywhere, I have noticed that many roads are poorly used by cars. Therefore, these roads should be taken over from cars and redistributed to bikes and pedestrians. After all, my anecdotal evidence is infalliable, unbiased and not motivated by base thoughts of revenge.
Click to expand...
I'm good with this. There needs to be more bike lanes, and separated ones are great. There are many roads that could accommodate this. As I said in the other thread, doing this at the same time as removing the bike lanes on Jarvis would be a good compromise, and a win for everyone. The only downside is the money wasted on changing Jarvis and then changing it back again.
 
GraphicMatt said:
Going by the anecdotal observations of some, no one uses any of the city's bike lanes. The city actually does studies on these things. Bike traffic on Jarvis in October 2010 was up 30% over May 2010, prior to the installation of the lanes. (And October is not the ideal time for a bike study.)
Click to expand...
Why is that?
 
Because they were comparing the October 2010 numbers with data from May 2010. That's not an entirely fair comparison. May is traditionally a better cycling month than October.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top