City
Sarah Thomson reveals ambitious Bike City plan, but is it realistic?
Making "Toronto the greatest cycling city in North America" is mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson's new goal. Her proposed bike plan, dubbed Bike City, was revealed to a small but curious group at Nathan Philips Square Friday morning.
The plan calls for nine kilometers of physically separated bike lanes on Richmond, Adelaide, and University Avenue. It also includes a pledge to finish the downtown portion of the Bike Plan by 2012, add sharrows and bike boxes on all arterial roads, and cap the speed limit in Toronto at 50km/h (except on expressways). However, limiting suburban bike lanes where community support doesn't exist is also part of the plan.
Other initiatives include creating 1000 km of on-road bike routes, 40 km of off-road bike paths through utility corridors, and building underpasses, crossings, and bridges for cyclists at obstacles like major highways and rail lines. The plan also consists of a number of other proposals such as cracking down on cyclists illegally riding on sidewalks, which is welcome news to countless pedestrians who are put in danger by the practice.
Bike City would be financed by the existing $101 million earmarked by city council for the city's official Bike Plan. Thomson says that she would streamline its implementation by having a vote upfront for a four-year plan, with the hope of eliminating political interference thereafter.
The plan is by far the most comprehensive bike policy any mayoral candidate has offered to date. It includes a number of good ideas, especially bike boxes, which allow cyclists to make safe left turns without having to cut through traffic. And the promise to complete the Bike Plan's downtown network, proposed nearly 10 years ago, is in itself a step forward, considering the opposition to new bike lanes among the candidates.
However, questions remain over the feasibility -- and, perhaphs more importantly, the desirability -- of keeping city speed limits capped at 50km/h. The question of how physically separated bike lanes on Richmond and Adelaide would accommodate currently existing driveways is also unresolved.
Bike City is a great way for Thomson to endear herself with the progressive population of Toronto. And revealed on the last day to drop out of the mayoral race, the proposed plan is a sign that she'll stay in the election for now despite disappointing poll numbers.
Cyclists and bike advocates should be happy a comprehensive bike plan has entered the debate, but room for enthusiasm is limited by the fact that it's been proposed by a candidate who's unlikely to win and the fact that it's short on specifics. The natural question becomes, even if Thomson is elected, will it be possible to make good on these promises?
More likely for implementation is a Rob Ford or George Smitherman "bike plan," which involves no new bike lanes downtown. Both candidates are trying hard -- desperately, in Smitherman's case -- to win the votes of suburban drivers.
The biggest problem for cyclists is that most drivers ignore the fact that bikes are here to stay and that there's no choice but to share the road with them. In my case, I actually prefer to drive on a road with a bike lane because I know it's safer for me and the cyclist -- I don't understand why others don't appreciate this.
Tensions between bikers and drivers will likely stay around until we get serious about addressing the way we approach transportation. But despite the environmental and traffic concerns driving poses, more and more cars seem to be flooding Toronto's streets.
A full rundown of Bike City can be found here. And a larger map of Thomson's bike lane network (depicted above) can be viewed here.
Discussion
62 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
That's what you call rocket science right there.
I'm a cyclist and public transit user. And now I'm definitely going to vote Thomson.
If a mayoral candidate wants to make cycling safer, then start ticketing motorists that don't treat bicycles as vehicles. It would make cycling a revenue-generator for the City, instead of wasting $100 million on ineffective bike lanes.
I think I just won the worlds longest and most confusing sentence award. I blame weed.
"Over the past decade, however, the city spent 1.1 percent more... performing among the best provinces in Canada on this measure." (... under EXPENDITURES).
Your turn.
"Complete Streets", of which bike lanes are a part, is a recent discipline in urban and transportation planning. There's been a lot of research and success stories in this domain. Here's some more information from Transport Canada:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment-utsp-casestudy-cs72e-completestreets-812.htm
Everybody vote Sarah Thomson !!
http://www.sarahthomson.ca/platform
It's pretty impressive.
All of the candidates have pretty much stated there plans (if they had any).. so just wondering if people are still on the fence or have just don't want to waste a vote on a backrunner like Thomson?
Sarah Thomson: "The city needs improvement of livability. Lets get everybody out there moving around the city efficiently and in a safe/healthy manner. Here is my plan."
Rob Ford, dum dum dum dum dum.
Sarah Thomson, smart smart smart smart smart!
I just want to know where I can ride my gravy train?
Sarah Thomson said that the first priority subway line will be a Downtown Relief Line (DRL). A DRL line has seen many plans including a recent ongoing feasibility study ( http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/08/24/ttc-to-begin-drl-study-this-fall.aspx ) . Note here that a DRL line has been in consideration in Transit City (ie. we're not scrapping Transit City). Thomson would not be starting from scratch in terms of design & resources.
http://spacingtoronto.ca/2009/01/29/city-council-boards-the-drl-bandwagon
http://stevemunro.ca/?p=1589
http://www.fordonford.com/videos
http://www.fordonford.com/videos
There's no reason for any of the Rob Ford supporters in Etobicoke to be upset about it.
As for the Road Tolls - again, in theory they sound great. But I would argue no one is going to go near anyone that has the words 'road toll' in their platform - even if the fine print sounds okay.
And yes - if you do change most of Transit City into subways you are pretty much starting from scratch. Just because both lines go down the same road doesn't mean much in terms of design. To build a subway, you need to design subway stations, acquire land, relocate utilities, and uh - build a giant concrete tunnel. Compare that with the simplicities of building LRTs - ie, popping some tracks into asphalt with a few guard rails on either side. The design and approvals process is completely different, and it will take years to implement.
I support any plan that makes it better and safer for bicycles on the roads (I'm happily surprised that the combination of shitty drives and shitty bicyclists hasn't resulted in more accidents), and that also takes bicycles off of pedestrian routes. Nothing is more annoying than walking and having a bicyclist clip you, or walking through a busy street festival that says no bikes allowed, and having bicyclists bumping into people every (like at the recent festival in Little Italy).
But more importantly, the licensing/insurance issue is absurd. It's like pointing out that you need a license to own a shotgun, but not to own a butter knife. Cars kill people (usually cyclists and pedestrians), and cause property damage (usually other cars). It's possible to kill someone with your bike, but comparing the two is a lot like comparing shotguns and butter knives. In effect, you're saying that bicycles don't count as vehicles because they don't pose a large enough public hazard.
But really, if she cares about the environment and infrastructure, I don't care whether her motives are social or economic.
I definitely think that there should be more police who actually bother to ticket both people for the variety of stupid things that they do in the city.
No one seems to care that the pedestrian crossing phase of a crosswalk is for PEDESTRIANS. A cyclist had the nerve to scream, "GET OUT OF MY WAY!" as I was crossing the street in a perfectly legal manner. Of course I started frothing at the mouth and screaming at him because, you know, that helps...
The inconvenient truth is that bicycles are too slow for roads and too fast for sidewalks.
All I can say is that I am glad the cooler days are coming when the bicycles are put back in storage and sanity returns to the streets.
I'm puzzled when people suggest cyclists should "share the costs." It's not enough that they pay taxes that go toward maintaining roads largely due to the wear and tear that cars and trucks wreak - despite the fact that bicycles put barely any stress on roads? Cycling is a more eco-friendly, quieter, and safer (for pedestrians) form of transport, so, just as there are tax breaks for an energy-efficient appliance, it makes sense that cyclists don't have to invest as much as motorists. If bicycles do have to pay a fee to license their "vehicle," which isn't a totally crazy idea, it should be a minimal fee. And insurance would be ridiculous. How much damage can a bike actually cause that would make more sense to pay for insurance than to pay for the damage out of pocket? If you're thinking it would cover damage if a car has to swerve to avoid a bike, you might as well also require that pedestrians and stray cats be insured.
Agreed that cyclists should follow rules of the road. Of course, it would be a lot easier to do if the city had the proper infrastructure for bikes and if motorists treated bikes like vehicles (e.g. allowing them to turn left or merge, and acknowledging them at a 4-way stop). Also agreed that cyclists should be ticketed when they break the law. Oh wait, they already ARE. Ticketing of cyclists has increased dramatically in the past year especially.
Thompson's plans sound pie-in-the-sky, but at least she has the balls to suggest some forward-thinking changes. This city is crumbling, and those of us who live within its borders need to seriously think about how we can make it not only more livable, but more vibrant so we attract more tourism and business. Being bike-friendly, pedestrian-friendly, green, and progressive would be a great face for a city that at the moment has not many defining characteristics.
Without getting into a huge debate about the tax burdens and where each level of government spends their money, sufficeth to say that the $3,000 in combined taxes the average motorist would pay upon purchase of their vehicle, the $20+ per tank of fuel taxes, and the $60 million in PROFIT the city makes on parking revenue (after expenses!) plus the $65million freebie Miller gouged us for 2 years ago in license fees for doing absolutely nothing - well, that is just the tip of the iceberg.
The fact is most of the road damage is done by the trucks and buses, not cars. Witness any of the bus pull over lanes along Steeles, Sheppard, Pharmacy etc - the bus pull over lane is literally a ditch!
Anyway, the cycling season is almost over and the city can return to sanity at least for the winter months.
Now, bikes might be too fast for sidewalks, and too slow for roads, but that seems to me to be a good case for bike lanes. If we someone wants to organize a program of installing separated bike lanes along all of the roads in Toronto, Netherlands-style, I'll get behind it, but if that's too expensive I'll settle for painted bike lanes. In any case, the underlying assumption (that bikes are too slow for roads, as opposed to cars being too fast for roads) is still that cyclists should only be allowed to the extent that it doesn't negatively impact driving, which I don't think you seriously mean.
I don't mind paying my fair share, I just deeply resent that bicycles don't pay ANYTHING and the TTC is a sinkhole - or why else does it get nearly a 16% of the city's budget (1.458 BILLION - I need to spell that out for you, apparently!); whereas, the transportation budget gets a measly 3.1% (not even close to $300 MILLION).
Hmm, let's see - THAT MEANS THAT THE 70+% THAT DRIVE ARE SUBSIDIZING LIKE HELL THE LESS THAN 20% THAT TAKE THE TRANSIT.
Ford has realized that those of us paying taxes are fed up with the gouging. I am not saying the TTC should get less, but that the roads should get more.
Buddy, your numbers are crap by any measure. Our roads are choked with trucks and buses, yet it's so easy to blame those nasty 905 commuters for everything.
1) I was just on the Gardiner yesterday morning. At a bare minimum, 95% of vehicles I saw were single-occupant cars/SUVs. The roads were choked, alright, but busses and trucks were drops in the ocean.
2) The claim that cyclists don't pay "ANYTHING" for the roads is obviously a lie: about 5% of the property tax I pay on my house in Toronto goes to roads. If there's some sort of opt-out for cyclists, please let me know, but my chequebook tells me that we DO PAY for the roads (and the traffic cops, and the ambulance staff that pick up the injured, and...)
3) It's true that the 2010 TTC operating budget is $1.4 billion. What you failed to point out is that that includes about $1 billion in REVENUE that the TTC brings in (this doesn't apply to other Canadian cities, some of which are much more progressive than Toronto, but here transit is about 70% funded by fares, with additional revenue coming from advertising). The total operating subsidy of the TTC (from all sources) is more like $350 million. It's a bit misleading to say that the TTC "costs the city" $1.4 billion, when most of that money comes directly from riders, not from the city.
4) I haven't looked in to the provincial numbers, but I'm skeptical. First of all, the Star is counting the total income from the gas tax, but are they counting the total expense? Or are they just counting things explicitly stamped "highway maintenance"? There are a lot of other costs associated with highways (some of which get counted in other places, and some of which never get counted). Are they counting money transfered to cities, for THEIR road costs? And finally, even if it's all true, and the province is gouging drivers on the gas tax, it's a big jump from that to saying that they're putting that money into transit and bike lanes. Isn't it possible that they're just building a big tennis court at Queen's Park (or some other, less implausible, project)?
You've provided some specific examples, which sketchy accounting, but the more comprehensive studies I've seen all come to a very different conclusion.