[DSC]

We all know that the reason why there are fewer cyclists is bc the overall city infrastructure is trash, but that's a much bigger problem!

There are actually FAR more cyclists in recent years and the City's cycling infrastructure has greatly increased. Connected, maybe! (That's not to say we do not need more/better cycling infrastructure but you undermine your credibility by exaggeration and hyperbole.)

 

[SashaLemon]

There are actually FAR more cyclists in recent years and the City's cycling infrastructure has greatly increased. Connected, maybe! (That's not to say we do not need more/better cycling infrastructure but you undermine your credibility by exaggeration and hyperbole.)

Oh yes, know that our cycling infrastructure is a lot better then most places in North America, but that is a very low bar. The city still thinks it's adequate to install one-way tracks on each side of the street when space on many major arteries can easily support two-way on both sides. In a lot of cases the road wouldn't even need to be narrowed due to the amount of space on each side.

I know this road currently has nothing and not single direction bike paths, but this is a good example of a place where that could be done. And it should also not be a MUP. Dedicated paths for cycling and other users.

 

[Northern Light]

Oh yes, know that our cycling infrastructure is a lot better then most places in North America, but that is a very low bar. The city still thinks it's adequate to install one-way tracks on each side of the street when space on many major arteries can easily support two-way on both sides. In a lot of cases the road wouldn't even need to be narrowed due to the amount of space on each side.
View attachment 423936
I know this road currently has nothing and not single direction bike paths, but this is a good example of a place where that could be done. And it should also not be a MUP. Dedicated paths for cycling and other users.

You're wrong. You keep making assertions that any number of things are 'easy' as if there are no trade-offs, no political realities, and unlimited money, there is none of these.

You've also shown an example above, that is not only not Yonge Street, its not even in the City of Toronto, that's Mississauga!

If you want to make a serious argument; first, please stick to the subject at hand. If giving an example, pick one that's relevant. In the above, you don't even show the property lines. It matters who that empty land is owned by. You also need to identify what you're willing to trade. For example, do you want trees? One Row needs a minimum of 1M width, but would ideally get 2M.

You'll note, in the example above that there are no sidewalks currently, do you propose to add those as well or direct all pedestrian traffic to the MUPs?

 

[SashaLemon]

You're wrong. You keep making assertions that any number of things are 'easy' as if there are no trade-offs, no political realities, and unlimited money, there is none of these.

You've also shown an example above, that is not only not Yonge Street, its not even in the City of Toronto, that's Mississauga!

If you want to make a serious argument; first, please stick to the subject at hand. If giving an example, pick one that's relevant. In the above, you don't even show the property lines. It matters who that empty land is owned by. You also need to identify what you're willing to trade. For example, do you want trees? One Row needs a minimum of 1M width, but would ideally get 2M.

You'll note, in the example above that there are no sidewalks currently, do you propose to add those as well or direct all pedestrian traffic to the MUPs?

What would be a way to get more room in these cases? If the road is under capacity it could get a "road diet" treatment. But this is not always possible since many roads are busy. Instead of the city buying more of the land from the property owner to make room, I wonder if there could be an alternative deal worked out...

I think one thing that we do need to do is have better standards for cycle infrastructure, so that when full road rebuilds happen they will all happen appropriately. And I'm not sure who is in charge of that.

I will try to not post unless I have more information and can form a more structured argument.

 

[Northern Light]

View attachment 423946

What would be a way to get more room in these cases? If the road is under capacity it could get a "road diet" treatment. But this is not always possible since many roads are busy. Instead of the city buying more of the land from the property owner to make room, I wonder if there could be an alternative deal worked out...

Purchasing land to increase ROW width is plausbile, but doesn't happen very often, at scale (meaning for an extended stretch of road), its expensive and its a labourious process either negotiating or expropriating from dozens or hundreds of owners over a multi-block/multi-km stretch.

It is much more common to see some ROW expansion when redevelopment occurs; but only if the Transportation Master Plan/Official Plan have identified that need/target, and it tends to occur on an opportunistic, property by property basis.

In the particular stretch you're looking at above, there is a hydro corridor on one side of the road, Mississauga will not have any authority to expropriate from the utility. However, of note, that trail is already there, presumably under some sort of license agreement permitting it.

****

Road diets can take two forms, lane reductions and reductions in lane width. Measuring the width of the lanes should indicate what's possible here. In general lanes only need to be 3.0M wide, though curb lanes are usually wider at 3.3-3.5M

So, in the case above, you'll see that the EB curb lane is 3.75M; and the interior lane is 3.3M, meaning there is probably .55M available on that side of the road. You can do the rest, if you wish.

Something to note, road widths and property lines vary, major intersections with turning lanes are often 'pinch points', meaning narrower space available.

If you want to consider what can be done, you mean to measure at multiple points along the route, most especially the narrowest ones. They will give you an idea what's possible.

I think one thing that we do need to do is have better standards for cycle infrastructure, so that when full road rebuilds happen they will all happen appropriately. And I'm not sure who is in charge of that.

Where? LOL, Every City is different. But in Toronto, the head of the Cycling Unit is Becky Katz. She's a sweetie, if you phone her or email her, be nice.

Now she still has a boss, her direct report is Jacqueline Hayward - Director, Transportation Project Design & Management.

In turn, they answer to Barbary Gray, General Manager of Transportation.

****

All major roads for reconstruction in Toronto are now mandated to be looked at for 'Complete Streets'. That does not mean they will get that, but it is supposed to be considered.

Cycling infrastructure is to generally be delivered at the highest standard, where possible. Though this is not always the case.

 

[SashaLemon]

Purchasing land to increase ROW width is plausbile, but doesn't happen very often, at scale (meaning for an extended stretch of road), its expensive and its a labourious process either negotiating or expropriating from dozens or hundreds of owners over a multi-block/multi-km stretch.

It is much more common to see some ROW expansion when redevelopment occurs; but only if the Transportation Master Plan/Official Plan have identified that need/target, and it tends to occur on an opportunistic, property by property basis.

In the particular stretch you're looking at above, there is a hydro corridor on one side of the road, Mississauga will not have any authority to expropriate from the utility. However, of note, that trail is already there, presumably under some sort of license agreement permitting it.

****

Road diets can take two forms, lane reductions and reductions in lane width. Measuring the width of the lanes should indicate what's possible here. In general lanes only need to be 3.0M wide, though curb lanes are usually wider at 3.3-3.5M

So, in the case above, you'll see that the EB curb lane is 3.75M; and the interior lane is 3.3M, meaning there is probably .55M available on that side of the road. You can do the rest, if you wish.

Something to note, road widths and property lines vary, major intersections with turning lanes are often 'pinch points', meaning narrower space available.

If you want to consider what can be done, you mean to measure at multiple points along the route, most especially the narrowest ones. They will give you and idea what's possible.



Where? LOL, Every City is different. But in Toronto, the head of the Cycling Unit is Becky Katz. She's a sweetie, if you phone her or email her, be nice.

Now she still has a boss, her direct report is Jacqueline Hayward - Director, Transportation Project Design & Management.

In turn, they answer to Barbary Gray, General Manager of Transportation.

****

All major roads for reconstruction in Toronto are now mandated to be looked at for 'Complete Streets'. That does not mean they will get that, but it is supposed to be considered.

Cycling infrastructure is to generally be delivered at the highest standard, where possible. Though this is not always the case.

Thank you for such a detailed response.

Yes this is what I mean, it should not be "looked at", it should be mandated. Of course I'm aware that will be easier said then done in places but if we want to evolve from "good for NA" (which I think we can agree is a good goal to aspire for...) it must be all over the city. I would also like to know what counts as "major road"?
In the Netherlands (A country that I am well aware is not Canada. But you don't have to reinvent the wheel all the time.) they have protected cycle tracks on every road with a 50 km/h speed limit. Then typically residential streets with 30 km/h posted speeds have mixed traffic with cars and bikes.

 

[Northern Light]

Thank you for such a detailed response.

You're welcome.

Yes this is what I mean, it should not be "looked at", it should be mandated. Of course I'm aware that will be easier said then done in places but if we want to evolve from "good for NA" (which I think we can agree is a good goal to aspire for...) it must be all over the city.

We come back to the same thing again though; you can't 'mandate' bike lanes on every road; you have to look at the road you want to put them on, and figure out what would have to happen to make them fit.

Are you going to cut down all the trees? Terrible for the environment and aesthetics and a political non-starter.

Are you going to cut car lanes? Generally, I favour this, but you have to realistically examine traffic volumes on a case by case basis and consider whether cutting travel lane in each direction is feasible.

If you move the curbs and gutters that costs a fair bit of money; if you remove parking, are you replacing any of it? Where? At how much cost?

Its mandatory to consider what is possible for each road, but the outcome of that examination is not predetermined.

I would also like to know what counts as "major road"?

A collector or arterial road as it pertains to bike lanes; lesser Vision Zero requirements will be examined on every street (bump outs, raised intersections, geometric changes to turning radii.)

In the Netherlands (A country that I am well aware is not Canada. But you don't have to reinvent the wheel all the time.) they have protected cycle tracks on every road with a 50 km/h speed limit. Then typically residential streets with 30 km/h posted speeds have mixed traffic with cars and bikes.

You just can't compare these. We can lift particular ideas from the Netherlands, sure. But the Cities are so different in form and scale in so many ways, its not something you can just transpose.

 

[SashaLemon]

You're welcome.



We come back to the same thing again though; you can't 'mandate' bike lanes on every road; you have to look at the road you want to put them on, and figure out what would have to happen to make them fit.

Are you going to cut down all the trees? Terrible for the environment and aesthetics and a political non-starter.

Are you going to cut car lanes? Generally, I favour this, but you have to realistically examine traffic volumes on a case by case basis and consider whether cutting travel lane in each direction is feasible.

If you move the curbs and gutters that costs a fair bit of money; if you remove parking, are you replacing any of it? Where? At how much cost?

Its mandatory to consider what is possible for each road, but the outcome of that examination is not predetermined.



A collector or arterial road as it pertains to bike lanes; lesser Vision Zero requirements will be examined on every street (bump outs, raised intersections, geometric changes to turning radii.)



You just can't compare these. We can lift particular ideas from the Netherlands, sure. But the Cities are so different in form and scale in so many ways, its not something you can just transpose.

I'm not saying mandating the exact same design in every possible location, I'm saying it should be mandated to build something. Anyway...

We can absolutely lift ideas from the Dutch. Like minimum widths. And actually having it on every road.
And sorry if I sound like a broken record but I don't see why we can't compare ourselves. Most Dutch road ROWs outside of old city centers are pretty wide. Only Amsterdam is more dense then Toronto. Cities like Rotterdam and Utrecht are comparable. They may get less snow... but is that an excuse to make paths too narrow?

The largest difference I see is that these cities lack massive sprawling suburbs around them. How much of Toronto's traffic is out-of-town drivers? If cycling paths were ubiquitous how many less trips would locals take?

 

[vatche]

Get this revitalization going already.

 

[Northern Light]

Get this revitalization going already.

Provided the City doesn't delay it (they just deferred 40M in road work)........

Its scheduled to start next year (first year of 3). Will be a tough slog for some businesses in this stretch. Though, since it doesn't displace parking and most customers arrived on foot, should be less of an issue that other projects in that regard.

 

[vatche]

But things don’t need to take this long. Except for bloor st most of the streets in Toronto are looking shabby and run down. Queen, king etc. The sidewalks are. narrow, cracked….roads are all broken up. I feel like they’ve neglected the city for a while and will take time to do the upgrades.

 

[evandyk]

Sure, our roads and sidewalks are never maintained, but on the other hand, we consistently have property tax increases below the rate of inflation. Trade-offs...

 

[Northern Light]

But things don’t need to take this long. Except for bloor st most of the streets in Toronto are looking shabby and run down. Queen, king etc. The sidewalks are. narrow, cracked….roads are all broken up. I feel like they’ve neglected the city for a while and will take time to do the upgrades.

Hold it. I'm the first to critique the City on public realm and poor condition of parks. But I always object to hyperbole.

St. George Street looks great, Queen's Quay West looks excellent, there are lots of small sections of stellar streetscape in or near downtown. Yes, there's also lots of sub-par dreck, but lets not go on suggesting everything is falling to bits.

@evandyk correctly points out the link between upkeep and property tax rates.........

That said, we do need to note that multiple streetscape projects are either underway or on the books for the near-term.

John Street, King Street, Adelaide Street in addition to Yonge are all in the near-term offing.

Meanwhile, albeit it belatedly and at a snail's pace, work is underway on Wellington near Yonge, and also behind The Well; and on the sidewalk adjacent the St. Lawrence Market.

Its not enough; and much could or should have been done a decade ago...........but lets make sure to have proper perspective.

 

[Mercenary]

Hopefully it wont take as long as the Queens Quay Renovation.

 

[Undead]

Yes, there's also lots of sub-park dreck, but lets not go on suggesting everything is falling to bits.

I believe there was a report to council a few years back; it detailed that both local and major roads across the entire city continue to deteriorate. I believe this was an overall average measure. So there's some truth to the claim that the entire thing looks/feel as if it's coming apart. I can't find the source at the moment, but I remember one of the big council/city reporters tweeting it.