[Burnt creek]

Because elected officials are elected to serve the people (their constituents). And, while many people own bikes, there are many more motorists. To go to work, for example, 80 percent of canadians use their car. The next bigegst means is public transit. Bike are nice and fun. But not when when it's pouring or freezing cold. Or when you have to carry things. What is gained by making that stretch yonge more restrictive to motorist, or adding to congestion just to appease a very very tiny minority? There are other roads that can be used very adequately and efficiently by cyclists. I have used them and they get me there faster than yonge street.

 

[LNahid2000]

Because elected officials are elected to serve the people (their constituents). And, while many people own bikes, there are many more motorists. To go to work, for example, 80 percent of canadians use their car. The next bigegst means is public transit. Bike are nice and fun. But not when when it's pouring or freezing cold. Or when you have to carry things. What is gained by making that stretch yonge more restrictive to motorist, or adding to congestion just to appease a very very tiny minority? There are other roads that can be used very adequately and efficiently by cyclists. I have used them and they get me there faster than yonge street.

Why are you using statistics for Canada instead of statistics for this area? What road is going to get me from Sheppard/Yonge to Finch/Yonge faster than Yonge Street?

The reason you don't see many bikes in this area is because there is no bike infrastructure. It's like saying no one is crossing a river when there is no bridge, so no infrastructure is needed.

 

[Burnt creek]

Ok, you dont know the area well. Try Kenneth ave, try Beecrofth ave, or even willowdale road. They are perfect for cycling and they are not out of the way at all. yonge street in North york is not suited for cycling and should not be because it's vital artery to access the 401. Which is vital for getting people to their place of work.

 

[LNahid2000]

Ok, you dont know the area well. Try Kenneth ave, try Beecrofth ave, or even willowdale road. They are perfect for cycling and they are not out of the way at all. yonge street in North york is not suited for cycling and should not be because it's vital artery to access the 401. Which is vital for getting people to their place of work.

I do know the area well. I used to work up there and cycled from Bloor/Yonge to Finch/Yonge everyday. Detouring onto Beecroft is not faster than staying on Yonge Street.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

It would be great to have numbers from a traffic study so we could make this decision based on data rather than ideology.

I will say that if we treat this section of Yonge as nothing more than a way to get to the 401, we are missing the point of having a city in the first place.

 

[MisterF]

Basically, i respect ones decesion to use their bike for all their transportation requirements. But it's mostly a lifestyle decision. You just cant impose that on others. And most important you cant infringe or restrict on the vast majority of others.

Driving is mostly a lifestyle decision. By dedicating all the road space to cars, you're imposing that lifestyle decision on everyone else. It isn't difficult to dedicate 3 m or so of the width of the road to cycling, especially on such a massive road. Do that and the number of cyclists will rise significantly.

 

[salsa]

There are a lot of businesses (like major retailers) in that stretch and parking is already at a premium. Businesses are already suffering due to the shortage of parking space.

Businesses are suffering? Says who, you?

How can you keep, for example, a Best Buy viable in the area by restricting parking even further? Cyclist are not going buy TV's and carry them home on their bikes.

Then how do they stay in business downtown? The only Best Buy in the whole area is at Empress walk where there's also a large grocery store among other businesses, all of which are connected to a large underground parking garage. Losing a couple of on-street parking is not gonna do anything. You're like that piano store owner who completely dismissed the viability of bike lanes on Bloor just because cyclists can't carry a piano on their bikes, despite the fact that the street is dominated by restaurants and small businesses, not big box retail.

I can state with confidence that i don't know anyone who rather wait for delivery for a TV, micro wave ovens or any other appliance as opposed taking it home right away if they can.

Maybe you buy TVs and microwaves very often, but I can state with confidence that nobody else does. If you can't imagine life without being able to conveniently park right in front of every business you wish to visit, then living in a smaller city might be more suitable for you.

Basically, i respect ones decision to use their bike for all their transportation requirements. But its mostly a lifestyle decision. You just cant impose that on others. And most important you cant infringe or restrict on the vast majority of others.

You are not part of the "vast majority", and on behalf of all non-motorists we are sick and tired of hearing from drivers who, no matter what street we're talking about, feel like they are always the most important road users and that everything should be done to make it as convenient as possible for them at the expense of everybody else.

It's time that we adapt to the changing reality of how people actually get around.

 

[salsa]

I attended the open house today, and this was the most popular option of the preliminary preferred designs. The other options basically try to maintain the parking while still having a bike lane, but at the expense of new trees planned on the sidewalk.

Slides will be posted online later tonight or tomorrow.

 

[Forgotten]

Because, as LNahid2000 said, Yonge is where cyclists' destinations are.

Most of the destinations are on King Street but you had no problem dismissing it in the subway thread and saying those schmucks can use their feet and make the 375m slog across two "effective highways" to get to their destinations. No big deal eh. Here we're talking about 250m which is nothing because you're on wheels. Is this the entitlement culture of the big cycling lobby rearing its head again? I wonder what the destinations on Jarvis were.

 

[LNahid2000]

Most of the destinations are on King Street but you had no problem dismissing it in the subway thread and saying those schmucks can use their feet and make the 375m slog across two "effective highways" to get to their destinations. No big deal eh. Here we're talking about 250m which is nothing because you're on wheels. Is this the entitlement culture of the big cycling lobby rearing its head again? I wonder what the destinations on Jarvis were.

What does this have to do with Yonge St. In North York?

 

[taal]

I don't understand they already started replacing the sidewalk on the east side closer to Finch, why do that and have this meeting ?

 

[TransitBart]

I attended the open house today, and this was the most popular option of the preliminary preferred designs. The other options basically try to maintain the parking while still having a bike lane, but at the expense of new trees planned on the sidewalk.


View attachment 82062


Slides will be posted online later tonight or tomorrow.

Why can't bike lanes be on sidewalks like in some cities in Germany? Frequently there is a marked cycle path closest to the street. Pedestrians know well to keep clear.

 

[ADRM]

Why can't bike lanes be on sidewalks like in some cities in Germany? Frequently there is a marked cycle path closest to the street. Pedestrians know well to keep clear.

It's a different design option (and one that we have used in Toronto, a la Queen's Quay), but it doesn't address the car-centric argument that no lanes of traffic should ever be removed, ever, ever, ever. Removing sidewalk space isn't a viable option, which means you still kill a lane of traffic or vehicular parking even if you move the bike lanes up onto the sidewalk.

 

[ADRM]

Because elected officials are elected to serve the people (their constituents). And, while many people own bikes, there are many more motorists. To go to work, for example, 80 percent of canadians use their car. The next bigegst means is public transit. Bike are nice and fun. But not when when its pouring or freezing cold. Or when you have to carry things. What is gained by making that stretch yonge more restrictive to motorist, or adding to congestion just to appease a very very tiny minority? There are other roads that can be used very adequately and efficiently by cyclists. I have used them and they get me there faster than yonge street.

Typical and classic car-centric ignorance, starting with the assumptions that A) People bike just for leisure rather than for commuting or other general movement; and B) People don't ride in poor weather. Quite simply and objectively, neither are true. "Bikes are nice and fun"; ugh.

Also, to continue the theme, we have here the similarly incorrect assumptions that removing lanes of traffic or parking automatically increases congestion and that changing infrastructure typologies never leads to a change in mode share.

And, finally, for the trifecta, we're presented with the assertion that "there are other roads that can be used very adequately and efficiently by cyclists", which is plainly untrue, even setting aside the intimation that cyclists should be treated as second class citizens when compared against auto users.

This is why we can't have nice things in our city.

Although that preferred board looks great - hopefully they move forward with that or something similar. It's interesting to me to observe how protected cycle infrastructure in the city doesn't always track perfectly along the funding and construction plans set out in the city's broader cycling plan (i.e. the new, 10-year plan and its predecessor).

 

[MisterF]

What does this have to do with Yonge St. In North York?

The important thing is he had an onion tied to his belt, which was the style at the time.