Well, folks here it is. After publicly musing about a downtown separated bike lane network shortly after the 2010 municipal election, Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong (also Chair of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee) has released a 42-page report detailing the plans for the proposed network [PDF].
During a recent interview with CBC’s Matt Galloway, Minnan-Wong spoke about the need for a continuous bicycle network in the downtown core. He spoke about how his plan created a “square” of separated lanes, so that you could travel all around the downtown core without having to leave the separated network if you didn’t want to. Sounds nice, right?
So, what’s the plan? Torontoist has a nice summary, while the Toronto Cyclists Union released a statement detailing their concerns, but briefly here’s the gist: We can expect to see bike lanes on the Bloor Street Viaduct separated with bollards, then Sherbourne and Wellesley in 2012 with bi-directional lanes (cyclists share a two-way lane on one side of the street, like Vancouver’s Hornby Street). Separated lanes originally proposed for Harbord/Hoskin and St. George/Beverly are not recommended to go forward. Separated lanes on either Richmond or Adelaide are going to be looked into, with the feasibility of lanes on Peter and Simcoe included in that assessment.
Remember the “square”? Usually squares need four sides.
Don’t get me wrong. The construction of separated bike lanes on Sherbourne and Wellesley are a step in the right direction, but they do not create a new route in the downtown core, and therefore cannot be viewed as a new connection in an expanded network. Separated lanes on Richmond would provide a much needed east-west connection in an area of downtown that is vastly underserved by bicycle infrastructure—however, this connection has been mused about for years.
At the John St. Corridor Improvement Open House I recently attended at Metro Hall, Minnan-Wong mentioned the possibility of running a “trial” on Richmond, which could potentially speed up the implementation of lanes on Richmond.
The plan attempts, but comes up short in solving one of the greatest deficiencies in the cycling network in Toronto—that of poor connectivity and discontinuous routes. Many times bicycle lanes start and stop out of nowhere, sometimes reappearing a block later or just dumping cyclists out into busy traffic.
One example of a connection that needs to be strengthened that the report recognizes is between Hoskin and Wellesley, where the bike lane is interrupted by Queen’s Park. Or there’s the end of the bicycle lane at the west edge of Harbord where it hits Ossington, which could use a bike box to help with cyclists turning left. There dozens of other areas in the city with similar disconnects.
In order to ensure safe travel across heavily trafficked downtown areas, cyclists should be able to get from one end of the city to the other without leaving a bike lane, whether painted or separated.
Bloor/Danforth could have provided this. As noted by the Toronto Cyclists Union, a major blow in the report is the recommendation to stop the Environmental Assessment of a bikeway along Bloor/Danforth and rescind bike lanes for Bloor Street West in order to focus energy and resources into this new bike plan. A Bloor/Danforth bikeway would act as a crucial backbone in a cycling network that desperately needs a backbone, connecting one side of the city to the other and was also supported by the Annex Residents Association in their own cycling report [PDF].
What is definitely disappointing to read, however, is the musing of the removal of bicycle lanes in a report that is purportedly about the creation of a cycling network. The two lanes (which, I might add, city staff said have not negatively affected either traffic flow or parking) are located on Pharmacy Avenue and on Birchmount Road, and the removal will cost $120,000 and $90,000, respectively.
This leads to an obvious question: Why, in a so-called age of fiscal restraint and budget woes, are we contemplating spending $210,000 on the removal of bike lanes that have no adverse traffic effects? Perhaps because certain councillors have certain beefs. City staff will be asking for direction on this from City Council when the bike plan is debated in July. One can only hope that reason will prevail.
Recognizing the need for separated lanes is a step in the right direction. But let’s not make it one step forward, two steps back.
photo from Toronto History
31 comments
There is a world of difference between a plan that envisions cycling as a safe, practical transportation alternative to the car, and a plan that is merely seeking to get “pain in the ass” cyclists out of the way so motorists can drive more aggressively. This so-called bike plan is clearly the latter, and a Trojan horse for naive cycling advocates.
As worded, it is clear staff are prepared only to accommodate a minimum of new cycling infrastructure, while minimizing all conceivable impacts on traffic and parking. Indeed, the report actually recommends removing bike lanes, at a cost of over $200K, even while admitting these lanes have had little or no impacts on traffic or parking.
This plan would scrap the Bloor/Danforth bike lane EA in order to reallocate funds to pay for removing bike lanes that don’t even interfere with cars. That tells you everything you need to know about the anti-bike philosophy driving this crappy bike plan.
An ‘environmental assessment’ for bike lanes on Bloor? Here, I’ll do it for free: bike lanes would be good for the environment.
“He spoke about how his plan created a ‘square’ of separated lanes, so that you could travel all around the downtown core without having to leave the separated network if you didn’t want to. Sounds nice, right?”
Not really… I don’t want to travel AROUND the downtown core, I want to travel to my destination. This is freeway thinking applied to a method of travel that’s quite different from the private automobile, and a depressingly good example of the continued misunderstanding of the functions of streets vs. roads.
If I want to go to e.g. Yonge-Dundas Square, most of my trip is not going to be on this fancy square. Bike infrastructure needs to be in place where people want to go, not just on routes that bypass these places.
What Minnan-Wong & Ford are proposing is a misguided plan to reduce bike infrastructure and cycling in general.
The city’s PDF report is totally bush-league. Black and white, no mentions at all in the sloppy figures of how sidewalks or street trees are supposed to play into the street cross-section, the words “complete street” are completely missing, no intelligent analysis of how other cities build and design bike lanes… you call this a bike lane report?
THIS is a bike lane report, or THIS.
And if someone challenges a bike lane and requests its removal, you respond with THIS.
The whole thing is a whitewash, burying bold action and progress for yet another day. The problem is that time moves on, peer cities improve (Chicago installed its first protected bike lane this week), and Toronto…. stagnates.
PS – Hear that Dougie? Your beloved Chicago is building 100 miles of protected bike lanes. Take a look next time you are home for a Bears game…
Missing link from above — when a bike lane was challenged in New York – city report responds with figures, traffic counts, engineering analysis:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/20110120_ppw.pdf
Great post.
My guess is that the removal of bike lanes from Pharmacy and Birchmount was put there for Michelle Berardinetti. It almost looks like a final kick at that ward’s previous councillor, Adrian Heaps, whom Ford ally Berardinetti defeated.
The bike lanes on Pharmacy haven’t really made a big difference one way or another, but was one of many four-lane minor roads that were converted across the city as a traffic management measure more than a pro-bike initiative. This is common outside Toronto too, even suburbs like Brampton and Mississauga have been doing the same, adding bike lanes on minor four-lane streets.
Disappointing indeed. Well, I have kind of learned not to expect too much here in Toronto. Things were happening at snail pace even under Miller. What can you expect now?
I also read about “John street becoming the next Jarvis” for cyclist. I’d say don’t go there. Jarvis wasn’t worth it, another bitter fight (this time mostly against peds) would be a big mistake. You only have that much energy and political capital to spend, spend it on more worthy causes: keep pushing for Bloor lane, make Richmond happen. As John street, why not work with Vaughan to make it a mixed traffic street without curb (sorry that exotic term escaped me)? It will be an ideal solution for the “cultural corridor” goal, and for most cyclists it will be pleasant enough. Sure that would not allow you to speed down the street at 30km/h, but it should not be too much to ask for cyclists to share when everybody else does, right?
Yu: Thank you for bringing up Jarvis. Pedestrians lost on that one big time, so it pit cyclists against those who should have been allies. Again, John looks like it will be another case where if cyclists win, pedestrians lose.
The crime in the John Street story is that the data brought to the public was terribly flawed, but Vaughan’s right: Simcoe and Peter are better through bike routes. A contraflow bike lane on Simcoe up to Queen would provide the through north-south connection to the Harbourfront that is needed and make those new bike lanes on Lower Simcoe more useful. Peter/Blue Jays Way is another great route. But it needs a better, safer connection to Beverley. A contraflow lane on Phoebe between Beverley and Soho to link the two and minor intersection modifications to include Soho in the Peter/Queen signals would do the job.
I forgot to add that removing bike lanes on Pharmacy and Birchmount will mean no more left turn lanes at intersections, so it would back to speedng, weaving traffic all over again, and the loss of the buffer between auto traffic and pedestrians on the flush sidewalks that the bike lanes provide.
as a pedestrian, a cyclist (road and mountain, competitive), motorcyclist (competitive as well), not to mention car driver in the DT core for 13 years, .. how about we all try this… Pay attention to what you are doing. Rely on yourself to keep yourself safe! This goes for all forms of transportation. no matter who is at fault, think about who is in the hospital.
Stop looking for others to blame when you make a move without considering your surroundings. They hand out licenses like they give out parking tickets.. and we all know how easy those are to get.
The bike lanes approved for Lansdowne north of Bloor have also disappeared. The local councillor met with staff in February asking for them to be re-evaluated.
There’s also a recommendation to ‘modify’ the Dupont bike lanes, replacing them east of Lansdowne with car lanes. The shortened bike lanes would now begin 70 metres west of Lansdowne. The rationale is to improve traffic flow.
I have to admit I didn’t see the two-way lanes coming. I was already quite skeptical about whether passing in a standard 1.5 metre-wide one-way lane with a curb separation would be safe, but passing in a 3.0 metre-wide two-way lane sounds even sketchier. Instinct says it’s not going to work for me, more power to those who’ll be able to make it work for themselves.
At the risk of antagonizing some of the folks here, I will point out that changes can happen without substantial public support — but it is not likely to endure if significant numbers of people do not come on board with the change. The removal of the bike lanes on Pharmacy and Birchmount is no surprise to anyone who knows people who live in the area. The public support for these lanes was virtually ZIP. As Councillor, Heaps had the power to impose them on the community — but it was one of the things that cost him the election. Implementing change costs not just money but political capital. Political capital — like actual dollars — can be spent wisely or foolishly. I don’t want to comment about whether the political capital spent to install lanes on Pharmacy and Birchmount (and Jarvis) was worth it or not. Ramming a change through (as happened on Pharmacy and Birchmount) can work, if enough people come to accept the change either on their own or because of followup by the politicians. But certainly nobody should be surprised that an initial change that continues to be contentious with the locals ends up being reversed. Change doesn’t endure because “it’s better”, but because enough people come on board with it or at least accept it.
Putting cycling lanes on Richmond and Adelaide resembles bicycle lanes on Jarvis…and everyone thought that was a bad idea…
it mite seem a good idea initially to place cycle lanes on one way streets, but drivers go faster on one way streets, therefore it could be dangerous for cyclists…
as well, Bicycle lanes belong on neighbourhood streets, where theres lively pedestrian activity…rob ford said himself- cyclists dont belong on the street, they should be sharing sidewalks with pedestrians…just go to europe and youll see…
besides, as we all pointed out…a network of bicycle lanes is CRITICAL!!!!
As well, bicycle lanes outside the inner city, should not be on arterial roads, but on neighbourhood lanes and collector roads (where there is little motorized traffic, because we know ppl drive fast in the suburbs)
and FINALLY, it is CRUCIAL for bicycle lanes to lead to TTC subway stations and major transit stations!!!! well over 90% of ppl in toronto live within 3 km of a TTC subway or GO transit station (which is a perfectly suitable distance to bike)….and instead of using a bicycle, more than 75% rely on Buses to get them to subway stations
Toronto is a city when planning is done and it takes so long to plan something that there is a change in city government before the plans are put in place, the new batch then tosses out the old plans and creates new ones. Nothing ever gets built.
There is a bike plan, it was put in place in 2001 with construction to be completed by 2011, the problem is they made it so convoluted and difficult to put into place that in 2011 it was less then 50% completed.
Here is a bike plan that works:
Roads where the maximum traffic per hour is less then 60 vehicles do not get bicycle lanes, roads where there is 60-120 vehicles per hour, where less then 20 of those are bicycles, get a single bike lane, with a width of no less then 1.5m. If more then 20 of those vehicles are bicycles, then there are two bicycle lanes, with a width of no less then 1m for each lane. Roads where there are more then 120 vehicles per hour, but less then 180 vehicles per hour, get two non-separated lanes, regardless of the number of bicycles per hour. Roads where there are more then 180 vehicles per hour maximum, get segregated lanes.
Motor vehicle on-street parking gets defined as having lower priority then bicycle lanes, at the same time, parking in a bicycle lane, results in the vehicle being immediately towed.
You implement this, as roads are repainted if possible, and refurbished or rebuilt if not. We repaint streets in Ontario every couple of years, so it wouldn’t take long to get it implemented.
K, why? Passing in 1.5 meter one way separated lane is of course a non-starter, but in a 3 meter two-way lane it should be very easy. What is the problem here? Of course you cannot pass if there is another bike coming up from the opposite direction, but can’t you just wait it out and then pass? Of course that would not work if we have continuous stream of bike traffic both directions. But Toronto is so not there yet.
Roger – Do you have any more info about that area of the City? I live in the bloor/lansdowne/dupont ‘hood and would like to get behind some bike lane work in the area. Have you spoken with Councillor Bailao about this recently?
And what about bike lanes (separated or otherwise) along the suburban arterial roads. They have grass shoulders that could be converted into bike lanes if needed. Councilors should think about bikes as transportation, but just as recreational vehicles only.
And why is someone like Councillor Denzil Minnan-Won, who never rode a bicycle before he became a councillor, the head of the organization that will decide on bike lanes and paths? Why are the wrong people in charge? Because they agree with the Ford brothers, that’s why.
Urban Toronto has an excellent summary of the latest John Street plans. They look great:
– four traffic lanes to two, with parking removed
– sidewalks flush with brick-paved road, separated by trees instead of curbs
– silva cells installed to divert stormwater to tree roots, away from combined sewers
– other streetscape features intended to calm traffic and encourage pedestrian-friendliness; mid-block pedestrian crossings are evidently welcomed
This street will not be a thoroughfare for anyone, not cars and not cyclists. It will be a safe, slow street that encourages true Monderman-style road-sharing. No motorist will mistake this street for a commuter artery. Cyclists should be able to ride right down the middle of the road without worrying about being honked by impatient drivers. I expect the traffic speeds will naturally peak at about 20-30 kmh. There will certainly be no need for a physically-separated bike lane.
Cyclists still need a fast north-south route, and so we should look at Peter/Simcoe and leave John alone.
Here’s my suggestion, at least for Danforth. Push for the road east of Pape to be restriped to match the road west of Pape. There’s a narrow (2.75 m) centre left turn lane, inside lanes of about 3.1 m, and curb lanes of about 3.75 m. East of Pape, the centre lane disappears, and the curb lane widens to 5 metres. It’s night and day when you cross Pape… the road feels like it opens up, so drivers speed up… and drivers try to squeeze in the space between the travel lane and the parking lane.
This restriping may not be the perfect solution but it has benefits for bikes (slower, more regulated traffic), drivers (new left turn lanes, more regulated traffic), and pedestrians (more comfortable environment; easier midblock crossing) — and since it’s just paint, it can be done easily, cheaply (taxpayer-respectfully) and without an EA.
Would work on some sections of Bloor, too (e.g. west of Dundas West station).
2nd Brent’s idea on the Danforth. This would have the added benefit of increasing pedestrian traffic to local stores (try crossing Danforth between Pape & Jones vs Pape & Broadview, centre lane acts as a ‘safety’ island for j walking). The vibrancy of the street would increase and the sudden speed change of the road at Pape would end and maybe stop the blocking of that street when the lights change and cars on the Danforth can’t clear the intersection.
Brent, 2.75m is pretty much enough for a separate 2-way bike lane, sigh,
as a cyclist in the downtown core, i ask the other cyclists, who really is asking for a bike lane on john? i certainly dont think its necessary, john is already so easy. ill tell you whats necessary, a curb cut at the bottom of the grange, so i dont bust my wheels when i leave the park to go down john street! amiright?
Gerrard, you are right. John is already like a side street with short blocks and slow traffic. No real need for a bike lane. If they reduce the traffic to one lane that is reasonably wide, it is definitely good enough. But I still would like to see a real mixed traffic street without curb. If we are gonna try some new ideas here in Toronto, it is the ideal place for it.
@Gerrard: There already is a curb cut, but you have to share it with pedestrians and it’s not lined up with John, so yes, that would help. And one at the crosswalk on Beverley.
Via which got it from the I found out that the Annex Residents Association has published their calling for improved cycling infrastructure in their neighbourhood – bike lanes on Bloor from Avenue to Bathurst separation of bike lanes from car traffic contra-flow bike lanes on one-way streets bike boxes 30km h zones and and so on adopting many things from the ..Albert Koehl lawyer and Bells on Bloor founder says .. Our view in the policy is that if cyclists feel that they are being accepted and valued in their community than they will start to feel a part of the community and obey its rules ..The ARA policy complements the proposal by Minnan-Wong and the bike union for separated bike lanes though along Bloor or Harbord it isnt without political opposition .. The most significant of these which the ARA is careful to point out not all members support involves the addition of dedicated separated bike lanes in the area.
I’m a little worried about the idea of putting demarcation poles along the bike lane on Bloor between Castle Frank and Sherbourne. I bike that almost every day – it’s narrow, and you often have to pass (or be passed). Would it mean we’re trapped in a narrow bike lane unable to pass slow bikes? Or will passing be possible but more difficult because we have to dodge poles? I’m not clear on exactly how it will work, but separating a 1.5 meter bike lane seems like a recipe for trouble. I’d be happy if they just re-striped it so the bike lanes are more obvious.
As for Broadview to Castle Frank – the widening and double-striping they did recently made this a pretty comfortable ride. But is it wide enough for comfortable passing if they put in separation poles? There’s a ton of bike traffic already, and lots of passing, and that passing often overlaps the stripes slightly. I’m not sure if putting in poles there would make cycling safer, or actually more complicated.
Dylan, I suppose for the physical separation to work, you’d have to combine the bike lanes for both direction into one lane and put it on one side of the street. a combined lane of 3m should be plenty for comfortable passing. It does make entering and exiting the lane complicated though.
Yu – from my reading of the plan, for the bit I’m talking about, they plan to do it quickly this year, so I’m sure they will just be doing it along the existing bike lanes (the two-way ones need more engineering planning, which is why they’re doing Sherbourne and Wellesley next year). Hence my concern re. narrowness.
Mark-O. Sorry late response. The Junction triangle website is one place where this is discussed.
http://www.junctiontriangle.ca/node/851#comment-4362
Vic Gedris is one of the people interested in protecting the lanes and getting Lansdowne back on track. The good news is that before Dupont lanes can be modified a public meeting is required.
I’m glad they finally decided to make downtown lanes more connected, it looks like a joke when you have bicycle lane starting and ending out of nowhere. Also, creating separation will be great benefit – no more cars parked in a lane and more safety for cyclists. But as Dylan Reid said, if they won’t make lanes wider, they are asking for troubles.
But still, creating new bike lanes and cancelling old ones – this just looks like we are not moving anywhere.
[…] for the city as the new head of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee. In response to the Minnan-Wong plan which called for an increase in protected bike lanes in the downtown core at the expense of bike […]