Monday, September 22, 2014Mostly Cloudy 9°C
City

What would Bloor be like with separated bike lanes?

Posted by Derek Flack / March 16, 2011

Annex Bike LanesThe Annex Residents' Association (ARA), arguably one of the most powerful organizations of its kind in Toronto, is looking to make the neighbourhood it represents more friendly to cyclists. In a recently adopted Cycling Policy (PDF) (which I came across via the Annex Gleaner), the ARA put forward a number of recommendations that would profoundly alter the strip of Bloor Street West between Avenue Road and Bathurst Street.

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. That such infrastructure would likely necessitate the elimination of on-street parking isn't explicitly spelled out in the document, but given the size and nature of this stretch of road, it doesn't really have to be. If the notorious little section of Harbord just west of Spadina couldn't get regular bike lanes without jeopardizing street parking, it'd take some pretty creative engineering to add separated lanes without doing the same on Bloor.

Interestingly, back in 2009 the Clean Air Partnership completed a study of the Annex (PDF) in an effort to understand and estimate the importance of on‐street parking to business on Bloor Street. Some of the findings might come as a surprise (if you didn't see the report when it came out): only four per cent of the business owners surveyed believed that the majority of their customers arrived via cars, while almost three quarters believed that less than 25 per cent of their customers drove to the area to shop. The study also found that patrons arriving by foot and bicycle spent the most money per month.

A survey like this isn't, however, gospel. One need only recall the successful campaign of store owners on Dundas West to restore rush hour parking between Sterling and Dovercourt roads to understand how important some businesses believe parking is to their livelihood. And, in any case, just because the ARA recommends such infrastructure doesn't mean City Council will follow suit (particularly given its current make-up). Nevertheless, the idea is a provocative one. Could it be that the addition of dedicated bike lanes in the Annex might save the neighbourhood from its corporate turn of recent years? Or would it ultimately hurt the prospects of independent businesses in the area?

The ARA's Cycling Policy also calls for a reduction of the speed limit on Bloor Street to 30 km/h, the addition of contra-flow bike lanes on side streets, the implementation of bike boxes at major intersections (already happening around U of T), and to allow cyclists to roll through stop signs (legally). All of these would make for great additions to an area that attracts a high proportion of cyclists (and don't forget BIXI is on the way). Yet, it's undeniable that the real conversation starter is the prospect of separated bike lanes on Bloor. However remote it is that such infrastructure will be put in place, it's tantalizing to think about the degree to which the neighbourhood would be transformed by such a project.

As to whether this transformation would be for the better or the worse will likely be cause for some debate.

Photo by Ronnie Yip in the blogTO Flickr pool.

Discussion

64 Comments

Jeff Krenk / March 16, 2011 at 03:05 pm
user-pic
Not going to happen, but one can dream. I've lived in the Annex for 12 years and I've always thought this would be the perfect place to ditch street parking in favour of aggressive cycling and pedestrian infrastructure projects. Let's face it, this is a neighbourhood that's stagnated. It's no longer a destination nor are its best features allowed to shine. We need to change this or risk becoming the next Queen West.
Rich / March 16, 2011 at 03:15 pm
user-pic
What would Bloor be like with separated bike lanes?



"wonderful"
"safe"
"progressive"...
Rob / March 16, 2011 at 03:24 pm
user-pic
In Montreal, a lot of major streets are one-way and have dedicated and seperate bike lanes. It's pretty cool. I know Bloor can't be made into a one-way but maybe the focus should be on surrounding streets - make them one-way - and get rid of parking along Bloor and use that lane for cyclists.
Sam / March 16, 2011 at 03:26 pm
user-pic
Business would dry up. Removing parking is the best way to make a neighbourhood completely insular.
Blue Skies replying to a comment from Rich / March 16, 2011 at 03:29 pm
user-pic
"smelling like patchouli"
Your Next Boss / March 16, 2011 at 03:32 pm
user-pic
Your sarcasm is very facile and disrespectful to our elected officials.

This bike-lane proposal is unfeasible because the roads are required for daily commerce, including food and safety deliveries and inspections, emergency vehicle access, and arguably the most important factor, for east-west commuting by public transportation and private citizens.

Configuring a major thoroughfare to a bike-lane focus is a waste of resources. Perhaps cyclists can take alternative routes on Harbord St, Lowther, just to name a few.

Finally, the existence of cars on Bloor Street is mutually exclusive from pedestrians using the sidewalks. So this leaves the car vs cyclist debate, and this is a debate that cyclists will never ever win. They are too insignificant within any demographic to impose any immediate or significant change in any level of government.



Kelly replying to a comment from Your Next Boss / March 16, 2011 at 03:43 pm
user-pic
You are completely right...they must not have all those things in europe and the rest if the world where they are able to manage in car-free zones
Mike W replying to a comment from Kelly / March 16, 2011 at 03:46 pm
user-pic
Example?
Roger / March 16, 2011 at 03:53 pm
user-pic
if we got creative (which we won't under Ford), this could totally work. Keep a center lane for controlled delivery and emergency. Open up pedestrian/Bike options. AND (and this is the important part) have, not only good transit options (which bloor does via subway), but also have ample parking lots (under/above ground to minimize lot size) near by. might actually encourage more suburbanites (and even downtowners) to Drive, Park, Walk, Explore.... Vs. current Drive to Big Box, rinse, repeat.
el / March 16, 2011 at 04:03 pm
user-pic
why doesn't someone go to Amsterdam or Utrecht and study how it works perfectly well there!
ARSE replying to a comment from Mike W / March 16, 2011 at 04:19 pm
user-pic
Amsterdam.
BH replying to a comment from Sam / March 16, 2011 at 04:19 pm
user-pic
It's difficult to imagine how a stretch of road with three subway stations on it (including the second busiest one in the entire system) could ever be considered "insular".
Rob / March 16, 2011 at 04:31 pm
user-pic
A traffic nightmare. But who cares about that, right? It's not like we live in a country with unpleasant weather or anything...
Bonk / March 16, 2011 at 05:03 pm
user-pic
Take the thirty seconds to bike down to Harbord and use that street, as it has bike lanes.
Nick replying to a comment from Rob / March 16, 2011 at 05:11 pm
user-pic
@Rob: It's already a traffic "nightmare", and the average speed is most certainly under 30 km/hr as it is. Due to on street parking, Bloor is effectively one lane in both directions anyway. Which is good, as it would be impossible to be a pedestrian there with two lanes of traffic whizzing by at 50 klicks in your fantasy world, especially with our unpleasant wheather causing huge puddles of slush to be available to douse them. I think the issue is the removal of on street parking.

As an aside, legal and somehow regulated contra-flow of bikes on one way sidestreets and legal rolling stops would be great!
Mike W replying to a comment from ARSE / March 16, 2011 at 05:15 pm
user-pic
Well what part of Amsterdam is similar enough to Bloor St you think we could convert it into a car free zone?
pizza / March 16, 2011 at 05:42 pm
user-pic
you know whats going to be a real traffic nightmare? peak oil.
Mike W replying to a comment from pizza / March 16, 2011 at 06:11 pm
user-pic
Actually gasoline based traffic would decrease, including any public transit vehicles still using fossil fuels.
Night Mare / March 16, 2011 at 06:34 pm
user-pic
If you built a cumberland 4 storey parking garage over the parking lot at borden, then maybe. But nimby nimby nimby. so forget that idea.

The idea to put separated bike lanes on Bloor sucks. That's pretty much the end of that.
Mumford / March 16, 2011 at 06:45 pm
user-pic
forget the damn motor car and build cities for friends and lovers!
Danielle replying to a comment from Your Next Boss / March 16, 2011 at 06:47 pm
user-pic
Perhaps cyclists can be allowed to have more than ONE route through the city? The Harbord bike lane is one of the few safe(r) thoroughfares through the city and because of this, is the most crowded, making it less safe. College's congestion is even worse for commuting.

While we offset your carbon footprint (you're welcome) why not give us a few more inches buddy?
pizza / March 16, 2011 at 06:54 pm
user-pic
i hate it how people who dont bike are like "just go down to that other route, the one that is not at all direct for you, while i sit in this warm egg poisining the air and listening to am 640. ya ok like im going to do that.
Niloufar replying to a comment from Bonk / March 16, 2011 at 07:16 pm
user-pic
Instead of us- bikers- taking 30 seconds to go to some other street, you take 5 seconds and drive to some other road.

Tom / March 16, 2011 at 07:21 pm
user-pic
The have figured out how to have separated bikes and street parking in Montreal. Its really simple actually.

Here is a google street view pic, to give you the idea: http://img43.imageshack.us/i/mtlbikelanes.jpg/
DC replying to a comment from Tom / March 16, 2011 at 07:33 pm
user-pic
still gettin doored! just on from a different side.

But still bike infrastructure nonetheless...
maybe one lane of parking, 2 bike lanes, 2 road lanes?



Martin Reis / March 16, 2011 at 09:10 pm
user-pic
It’s “about private interests trumping the public interest, about allowing people to pursue their desires, regardless of the cost to society.” - George Monbiot
Martin Reis / March 16, 2011 at 09:22 pm
user-pic
Apologies, I forgot to add this to my last comment. Here is what Bloor might look like with bike lanes (although not separated): http://urbanrepairs.blogspot.com/2007/05/unofficial-bike-week-events-new-bike.html The Urban Repair Squad painted three sets of bike lanes on Bloor from 2006-2007.
hamish wilson / March 16, 2011 at 09:32 pm
user-pic
In an era of peak oil and climate change, one might think that it would be very simple and easy for a knowledgeable society to repaint a road for bike safety parallel to the massive subway, often with lots of parking for the mobile furnaces/cars atop it.

The wide portions of Bloor east of Spadina, were assigned the #1 best spot for an east-west bike lane back in 1992 by a reputable consultancy, and what we got in Yorkville was a law-breaking travesty.

And while it's true we do have Harbord St. pretty close, it is not a through route, and councillor Vaughan couldn't summon the courage to fill in the four-block gap with bike lanes, so I don't feel we should relax about Bloor.

There will be an EA, unless Ford tries to cancel it, about the redoing of ALL the length of Bloor/Danforth this summer. A key point to remember is that safe biking parallel to this subway could actually expand the subway for essentially free, as odds are good, many transit users in crush hour would bike instead if it were safe and smooth.

Removing private car parking from much of Bloor for bike safety and fighting climate change is a decade overdue.

m / March 16, 2011 at 10:42 pm
user-pic
i think it would make more sense to use the residential streets, like the barton-lowther corridor as the bike path.

as much as i'm not a fan of cars (i even don't know how to drive and use mainly my bike as transportation), i feel that the arteries are way too clogged these days, and we're saving the residential streets for, what? i am not sure. it's not like any of them permit ball hockey anyway...

if cars are discouraged from using the residential streets, the least we can do is make then available to bikes.

or were pollution and speed not really the problem, but more a classic case of NIMBYism (just like closing of the left turn into Belmont Ave, towards Rosedale Valley Road appears to be).

i for one don't feel like i need to bike along bloor to get places and to enjoy myself.
m replying to a comment from Kelly / March 16, 2011 at 10:45 pm
user-pic
in europe, they don't really have shorter winters, even in places like sweden and norway (it may be dark, but it's actually warmer and more rideable than here)
Ross / March 16, 2011 at 11:38 pm
user-pic
If you can take bikes on the subway, and a subway train runs under Bloor, would it not be faster to jet underground on a subway, Bike in tow?
michael s / March 16, 2011 at 11:43 pm
user-pic
montreal made seperated bike lanes happen... especially now with bixis. It seems like a given that toronto, which is way busier, would come to adopt them too.

here's to hoping.

vive le bixi!
M replying to a comment from Ross / March 17, 2011 at 12:22 am
user-pic
You can't take bikes in the subway during 'extended' rushing times (in am and pm)
M replying to a comment from Ross / March 17, 2011 at 12:23 am
user-pic
I meant rush hour
Judylicious replying to a comment from M / March 17, 2011 at 12:54 am
user-pic
I call it "rushing times".
GI Poo / March 17, 2011 at 07:59 am
user-pic
Woonerf!

Bloor St should take out on street parking, build a couple more GreenP lots and install regular bike lanes.

This way drivers have parking spaces (they just have to walk half a block), cyclists have a safeish place to go, AND if an emergy vehicle needs to get through drivers can still pull over into the bike lane.

I think separated bike lanes are a waste of money and don't contribute to an overall safer streetscape. The separation allows cars to drive faster, which jeopardizes the safety of j-walking pedestrians.

I suggest a distinctive paving treatment so that people know they're in a special place when they enter the annex, so driver's and cyclists slow down.

Bloor St is just a street that is used by fools to get across the city. Who in their right mind would think they could get from Bloor West Village to Castle Frank in a reasonable amount of time. I have a suggestion for anyone who considers Bloor a major thoroughfare: Use one of the roads that is actually meant to carry drivers ACROSS town. Bloor street is a local road, especially in the Annex. People live there, shop there, party there. On a major thoroughfare people only drive.
... replying to a comment from Ross / March 17, 2011 at 08:27 am
user-pic
Doesn't taking a bike on the subway kind of defeat the purpose of riding your bike?
John replying to a comment from m / March 17, 2011 at 08:36 am
user-pic
Which residential streets run straight for any distance at all? In the Annex, Lowther and Barton don't meet. The closest thing to a corridor from Dundas West to Avenue through the Annex and Christie would run along Wallace, Ward, Lappin, Hallam, Garnet Folis Wells Bernard. Making a safe bike lane on those streets would require some kind of extended intersection arrangements on Bathurst and Dufferin (good luck) as well as removing residential street parking and getting residents on multiple side streets to accept fast-moving bicycle traffic and the associated removal of traffic calming programs. I don't see any of that happening.

Keep in mind that an experienced cyclist can navigate urban streets at the same or greater overall speed as a car. Cars may reach a higher peak speed, but bicycles keep a steady, high rate of travel. It doesn't do to assume that bicycles will just fit onto residential streets with minimal adaptation.
Eric replying to a comment from Your Next Boss / March 17, 2011 at 08:56 am
user-pic
Pedestrians, motorists AND cyclists can and need to co-exist. And many cities are showing that it is possible to have the 3 sharing a busy commercial strip.

Think about it for two minutes: if there were more effective *safe* bike lanes, there would be more cyclists, hence less ignorant weirdos alone in their car, using fuel for only 2 blocks and creating more traffic. Downtown Torontonians NEED to rethink how they travel within the city.

The neighborhood would suffer? Please, it's the Annex we are talking about.
Leo replying to a comment from Your Next Boss / March 17, 2011 at 10:07 am
user-pic
"This bike-lane proposal is unfeasible because [Bloor is] required for ... arguably the most important factor, for east-west commuting by public transportation"

@YourNextBoss: Have you ever heard of the Bloor subway? Public transportation is underground and doesn't get in the way of bikes on Bloor. Or are we concern trolling about commuters travelling between 1 AM and 6 AM here?
skube / March 17, 2011 at 10:36 am
user-pic
My main problem right now is simply the horrible state of road repair. I bike Dundas and Dufferin often and they are so badly pot-holed and patch-work asphalted that I can hardly bike without bouncing into traffic.
willy / March 17, 2011 at 11:18 am
user-pic
as far as the traffic volume goes on bloor, i have noticed that the recently added scramble crossing at bay is causing major backups in eastbound traffic even in off-peak hours.

also - there is limited parking in the annex as it is, so not sure what the solution is. maybe a multi-level parking lot where the current green P lot is, then bike lanes?
lukev replying to a comment from Your Next Boss / March 17, 2011 at 11:51 am
user-pic
What a bunch of rubbish.

Montreal has already proved that bike lanes DON'T destroy daily commerce, or food delivery, or food inspection.

And Montreal doesn't exactly have mild winters wither.

Idiot.
lukev replying to a comment from Your Next Boss / March 17, 2011 at 11:52 am
user-pic
^ was in reply to "YOUR NEXT BOSS"
Randy / March 17, 2011 at 01:11 pm
user-pic
You know the weather is getting warm when idiot cyclists are once again illegally driving on the sidewalk. Douchebag Season is here again!
Mike W replying to a comment from Tom / March 17, 2011 at 01:35 pm
user-pic
Good luck making bloor a one way street.

One reason one-ways works is because there is adjacent streets of equal length which provide equal accessibility. That really doesn't apply to bloor.
Ross replying to a comment from ... / March 17, 2011 at 04:05 pm
user-pic
No, what if you use the subway to quickly East-West then need your bike if your final destination is on local roads or North/South of Bloor. I'm not an authority on the issue though, I don't cycle downtown.
... replying to a comment from Ross / March 17, 2011 at 05:21 pm
user-pic
Doing so would take away from one of the bigger advantages of using one's bicycle on a frequent basis: not having to spend money on fare.
Sam / March 17, 2011 at 07:33 pm
user-pic
Bloor is one of the scariest roads to bike on during rush hour in this city. It's stressful for drivers and cyclists. By getting rid of parking and creating bike lanes we would be saving ALL commuters alot of end-of-the-work day stress.

I bike this route everyday to get from spadina and bloor over past lansdowne. On an average trip I get brushed up against by a car at least twice and there is always a battle for room between fast and slow cyclists.

This is a great idea.
m replying to a comment from John / March 18, 2011 at 12:33 am
user-pic
ok, so extended arrangements for the dufferin intersection seems more sensible than making entire bloor street a bike corridor.

from yonge st > yorkville ave > prince arthur > lowther > barton > leeds > ossington and i take it daily. it's a lovely ride and that's enough of a corridor for a lot of people.

all i am trying to say is that our residential streets are pretty much useless for anything (there are just enough cars to make it unsafe to play on the street, and not enough cars to take away congestion from main arteries, so we may as well try to balance out the load).
gadfly / March 18, 2011 at 07:35 am
user-pic
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
... and yet another 'cars=bad/cyclists=good' article. LMAO. Amsterdam??? Did I see that above? Hilarious. Too bad Holland is flat like a pancake - and probably will be under water in a decade or so. Maybe those who love it so much should move there...?
Here's an idea: bulldoze Dupont or Davenport, make a 6 lane arterial road, then let's THINK about a bicycle lane along Bloor.
Clearly, hardly anyone on this board knows how to use Google Earth, because if they did, they would see that ALL of these cities (SF, Vancouver, London, etc.) that they LOVE to hold us as shining beacons of the future have either a) 4 lane one way streets criss-crossing their cores and/or b) 6/8 lane arterial roads.
Since Toronto has neither, and seems addicted to allowing cars to park where ever they feel like, this is a non-starter. Traffic will not just go away because a few dreamers wish it so, but business will.
the lemur replying to a comment from gadfly / March 18, 2011 at 09:43 am
user-pic
Too bad you don't realize Holland has been preparing for decades for rising sea levels, unlike, say, New Orleans.

Widening Dupont or Davenport isn't going to help and will never happen (although I'd like to see what happened if someone tried).

You're right about the parking, though: that stretch of Bloor needs to get rid of the spaces, which are occupied for long periods by cars driven by people who aren't there to shop or work. Take those out and it becomes easier for everyone to get around and through the area, bike lanes or no.
GI POO replying to a comment from gadfly / March 18, 2011 at 11:01 pm
user-pic
More lanes ALWAYS leads to more cars. Always. Always. Always. and then where will they go?

The ONLY way to reduce traffic congestion is to reduce the number of cars and the only way to do that is to make the alternatives more attractive.

You hate traffic jams? I'm not saying you have to get out of your car, but it seems like there sure are a lot of cars in front of you. Wouldn't it be nice if they had left their cars at home?

Cars aren't evil, but bicycles actually are good.

Regarding your crack about Holland being flat: Every time someone says "Let's be more like X" people like you point to one difference or another and say, "Yeah but guess what hotshot Toronto isn't like X. In Toronto it gets cold, or there are hills, or it's a car culture, or that won't fly in the suburbs, or whatever". All places are different from other places. San Francisco is the opposite of flat, so if they can do it in Holland AND San Francisco, I'd say Toronto is somewhere in between and perfectly capable of supporting an extensive network of bike lanes.

What are you AFRAID OF? Clearly there is something else going on here. Nobody is going to force you to ride a bike.
John replying to a comment from m / March 19, 2011 at 09:57 am
user-pic
A safe intersection to allow bicycle routes to "jog" would inevitably mean a choke point on several north-south streets, and would also require changing or eliminating many traffic "calming" measures. Since "traffic calming" in the Annex serves as a euphemism for measures that exclude outsiders, I think you'd find your proposal much more difficult to get through than you think. Add to that the changes to service and street design standards that traffic engineers would fight, as well as the reluctance of cycling organizations and cyclists to consider proposals that look like "relegating" us to side streets, and I don't see your proposal getting a lot of support.

From a purely selfish point of view as a cyclist I like riding on residential streets. I like the quiet, I like riding in pretty surroundings, and I like the absence of car and truck pollution. But from a point of political advocacy, I recognize an obligation to support measures that expand the benefits of cycling. We live in a society surrounded by a relentless barrage of propaganda for the car, that symbol and instrument of the inactive lifestyles, which lead to as great an array of life-shortening and debilitating conditions as smoking. I have a lot of sympathy for the argument that those of us who enjoy the health and other benefits of cycling have an obligation to show others the possibilities of cycling. And riding on residential streets will not accomplish that the way bicycle facilities on Toronto's premiere street will.
Ross replying to a comment from ... / March 19, 2011 at 07:53 pm
user-pic
"fare" enough haha
Andrew / March 20, 2011 at 04:57 am
user-pic
I've heard suggestions that separated bike lanes are actually less safe than non separated bike lanes because turning cars don't see bikes in the bike lane and hit them while turning (the same reason that you aren't supposed to bike on the sidewalk). Personally I don't think that biking really works very well in cities - too many problems (many people aren't fit enough to do it, biking on main roads is dangerous with or without a bike lane, bike theft). Better to invest in pedestrian infrastructure and better TTC service.
John replying to a comment from Andrew / March 20, 2011 at 06:10 pm
user-pic
While badly designed bicycle paths definitely present a hazard to users, well designed ones do not. In fact, to the extent problems with urban cycling exist, better law enforcement and better infrastructure will solve most of them. Citing the problem of a lack of fitness as a reason not to promote cycling gets the issue backwards, the same way that arguing at smokers cannot quit because they have a nicotine addiction would. You don't not quit smoking because of the addiction, you quit, among other reasons, to recover from the addiction. You don't not cycle because of a lack of physical fitness; you cycle, among other reasons, in order to get fit.

In fact, those most concerned with these matters, doctors and insurance companies, agree that the hazards of the kind of inactive lifestyle promoted by motorized transportation considerably outweigh any possible risks of cycling.
Amsterdam / March 21, 2011 at 11:48 am
user-pic
Interesting debate. Amsterdam has several 100,000 bicyles and Holland has a bicycle tradition for generations! Children need to pass a certificate in school ride; there are special traffic lights in bicycle lanes and they are part of the highway code so drivers know the rules. Doesn't mean than people always obey them. Riding a bicycle is in certain areas a necessity for young people to school and older people from the train station (where there are huge bike "garages" to get home in smaller villages.
Streets in the core of Amsterdam date from 1275 and are not comparable to Bloor Street. Cycling here started as a recreational vehicle and cyclists still behave as if they're just on their bike for fun: not waiting at traffic lights, but crossing on the cross walk ON their bike to get to the other side and continue. Drivers have to content with cyclists almost landing on their hood while waiting at a light! You don't see that in Holland.
And the discussion will continue. Let's begin by all behave according to the highway code: stop at traffic lights, drivers wait behind cyclists; traffic that travels straight has priority etc. etc.
HipsterFixieDouche / March 21, 2011 at 11:32 pm
user-pic
If there were separated bikes lanes on Bloor I wouldn't be able to ride my fixie in the middle of the road, pull off some sick skids and weave in and out of traffic like bike couriers. Which of course I will never be as cool as but I can try!

HFD
Feldwebel Wolfenstool / March 22, 2011 at 09:06 am
user-pic
Do something about the "Mad Mike" Bryants.
Mike W replying to a comment from Feldwebel Wolfenstool / March 22, 2011 at 11:08 am
user-pic
Start by not jumping into their cars?
George replying to a comment from skube / March 22, 2011 at 05:50 pm
user-pic
I agree with you Skube. The state of the roads in many parts of ths city are horrible and make bike riding downright dagnerous. I used to ride to work along Bloor from High Park to Jarvis and while I was always aware of my surroundings (parked cars, movig cars, turning cars, jaywalking pedestrians), it was the suprise potholes, uplifted sewer grates, road cracks and uneven dips that proved to be most dangerous. I live at Bloor and High Park I cannot beleive the state of Bloor Street was left in after the seweer system was updated last summer. Forget the bike path, fix the roads and make them safer for everyone.
John replying to a comment from George / March 23, 2011 at 07:13 am
user-pic
Maybe we can agree, as motorists and cyclists alike, that whatever proportion of the roads we reserve for bikes or cars respectively, we need better standards for road and sidewalk surfacing. I know that when I drive, I don't want to blow a tire and break an axle; when I ride, I don't want to go flying in traffic, and when I just buy something delivered by road, I don't want damage caused by a bad road surface added as an invisible markup.
Bojan Landekić / November 16, 2012 at 06:08 am
user-pic
I think adding bike lanes along bloor would be a great idea! I was born with cataracts so I don't have 3D vision and I can't judge distsances easily, so I can not ride a bike. I did as a kid, and I loved it. But now, I tried, I don't feel comfortable on them.

Bike's pollute the environment during their creation. It takes a lot of energy to produce the metal, the rubber, and all the other components. However, once it's made, it can last even a hundred years if well maintained!!! And Toronto isn't that large of a city, you could get anywhere with a reasonable amount of time on a bicycle.

Unfortunately the people in power and in executive positions around the city, are not concerned about the environment. It is not even a social concern of theirs. Their mission is profit, because society in general sees profit as a measure of success. Until we change that belief, we will not have a bike-friendly city.

Personally, I'd like a ban on vehicles that have more than one occupant, from entering downtown Toronto, unless they are delivery or emergency, or taxis. That would go a long way towards cleaning up congestion and moving the comfortable status quo well-off ignoramouses onto the public transportation system.

Add a Comment

Other Cities: Montreal