City
Is the Dupont bike lane next on the chopping block?
Here we go again. Well, maybe. As OpenFile first reported, a staff report on the Dupont bike lane due for consideration by the Public Works committee next week outlines the possibility of restoring the street to its configuration prior to the installation of cycling infrastructure. That's not the only option tabled in the report — in fact the possibility of extending them east from Lansdowne is also mentioned — but given the City's recent track record on bike lanes, you can bet that cycling advocates will fear the worst.
Critics of the lane tend to claim that it's redundant based on the proximity of cycling infrastructure on Davenport Road to the north. There are a whole number of flaws in this argument — like, why have a road at all if there's another one close by (!) — but one of the more significant ones involves the presence of the West Toronto Railpath. This is a key artery for commuting cyclists, and if we as a city take that seriously, removal of the lanes on Dupont would be negligent.
The other argument, and one that has somewhat more validity, is that vehicular traffic has been significantly impacted due to the lost traffic lanes here. Having driven this stretch regularly for the last five years, I'll admit that traffic does get snarled during morning and afternoon rush hour between Symington and Annette. Thing is, this lasts for a couple hours (total) each day.
So there's the question in its most basic formation. Is a speedier rush hour commute for motorists worth taking another step back for bike safety in Toronto? As urban centres around the globe take measures to become more cycling-friendly, do we really want to paint over existing infrastructure to save a paltry four or five minutes for motorists at the busiest times?
Photo by Xander @416cyclestyle in the blogTO Flickr pool
Discussion
34 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
the cyclists could use transit and keep bikes in parks and side streets where they belong.
I use to believe that cyclists were basically good people, but they're not. They truly do not respect the concept that a roadway is a highly regulated 'no-fun' zone where people commute and a high respect for order, law, and regulation - soul-crushing order - are paramount. And the entire attitude that when pedestrians are waiting and other forms of traffic (as if bikes deserve to be called traffic or vehicles for that matter) are slowed or stopped, they believe they can just weave through lanes like some kind of VIPs, utterly oblivious and uncaring that everyone else is queued up, and that they somehow deserve privilege or benefit above everyone else. Get in line with the rest of sheep, cyclo-peasants! It seemed ok if a small percentage of a few cyclists were a real danger out there, but since the vast majority of cyclists consider stop signs optional, one-way streets their playground, and sidewalks their side streets, then.. just like cell phone use in cars... enough is enough. There were no truer words spoken when Master Ford declared that bicycles could not be considered vehicles. If you want to enjoy your commute to work, telecommute!
Why don't drivers take transit and leave their cars at home. After all, its drivers who per person use more car space.
As for cyclists break the law, therefore, they don't deserve anything...
I was driving on 401 the other day and notice most people doign above 100 kph - by your logic, time to shut down 401 because drivers are dangerous, right?
@ Non-sentimental Guy, I ride my bike to work everyday. And most people on the main commute follow the rules, you kind of have to on bigger road. As for the side streets, rules need to be changed, there is plenty of room for one way vehicle traffic and a cyclist, this is how Vancouver does it. It keeps cyclist off main arteries, which is the main goal right? If ubran cycling was seriously addressed by the city, generous compromises could easily be made, but unfortunately we are all living in the hazy grey period of Toronto's late maturation into a viable city.
If we accepted the logic of your argument, doesn't that mean we should also convert all sidewalks outside the core into car lanes?
After all, barely any pedestrians use them - sure it may make it much more dangerous for pedestrians, but it would be much more convenient for cars
Most days I'm glad I bike commute west to get to work because the bike lane on Annette & Dundas West to Jane is pretty ideal.
To be honest, I've never understood how bike lanes "cost" time. It's not like you take out a bike lane on each side of the road and add an additional 'heavy traffic' lane - which I would then support. (A lane, for cars, that travels to the core from 6am - 12:00pm, closed from 12 − 2pm, and then out of the core from 2 − 8pm, or something like that). But as we currently don't have anything like that in Toronto, the first time they brought traffic lanes in, THOSE would be dangerous.
Roads are for bikes and cars- if we all respect each other and give each other an extra few inches, we'll all be fine.
Motorists could get their fat assess out of a car and get some exercise instead. It's healthy, good for the environment and more often then not saves time on your commute. There is no need for people to be using cars to commute in large cities such as Toronto.
Motorists constantly complain about cyclists breaking the law as if any drivers never break laws. That is a load of bullshit. Every time I have been car doored or hit by a car, which has happened a few times, the driver was at fault. There are bad drivers and there are bad cyclists. There are also good drivers and good cyclists. This mass generalization from both sides needs to stop and everyone needs to learn to share the road.
Motorists complain about cyclists breaking the law because...they are speaking of their experience with cyclists. Why do cyclists get offended when motorists Talk about that? Maybe they are guilty of breaking those laws.
There is nothing wrong when people in general, not just motorists, criticize cyclist who bike unsafely (remember, most cyclists are also motorists, I am).
However, when "motorists" complain, often it is a fair comment, but an outright smear attempting to delegimatize cycling so motorists can have the road to themselves.
It's not unfair when motorists complaining about some cyclists breaking the law; its funfair when they declare all cyclists break the law.
It's not unfair when motorists complain about cyclists regularly running reds: It's unfair when motorists suggest cyclists are the only offenders when lots of drivers speed, illegally park and even drink and drive.
It's not unfair when motorists argue that a new bike lane limits the car lanes: it is unfair when they argue that bike lanes slow down traffic, since cars are usually to blame (otherwise 401 would be a paradise)
Most of all, its really unfair for motorists to argue their convenience takes priority over cyclists safety and that cyclists alone (not pedestrians and motorists) should be collectively punished for misdeeds by denying them safe infrastructure.
Ah.... nice to get that of my chest
The bike lane under the bridge is a very important connection for cyclists coming from the junction to access the west toronto railpath (which the report states), as the path has no west side access. Which means no matter which way you slice it, cyclists coming from the Junction still have to get under the bridge to the east side of the tracks to use it. On top of it the dupont lane, provides a good connection to both Annette and Davenport via Osler.
The city should focus on option number 4.2, namely redesigning and re-doing the massive intersection of dundas west / annette / dupont all converge. Signalling improvements, and a reworking of this could help relieve congestion without compromising safety.
Personally I find that it takes longer to drive my car to work than it does to cycle. It is also interesting that the TPS are now favouring bicycle patrols now for the majority of the downtown,... seems to have something to do with being more effective, cheaper, quicker and these police officers can get into areas a patrol cars can't. Not to mention those police are also in way better shape than their car patrol counterparts.
Just wait until gas prices reach #2.00 per liter, people will be screaming for more public transportation and cycling infrastructure.
Oh, and one other thing: the Dupont rail bridge has a mural under it, dedicated, in part, to the memory of a cyclist who died there in 2004. That rail bridge does not have room for four proper, safe car lanes. If PWIC votes to remove the bike lanes and install four substandard width heavy vehicle lanes, they will be voting to kill a cyclist; even, possibly, a motorist. They will be voting to install infrastructure that is, to coin a phrase, unsafe at any speed.
1st off: Non-sentimental Guy I love your ruling over where things belong. This city was founded on roads made for 3 things before the automobile became so popular in the 1920s. 1st was was man on horse back & horse with carage, 2nd people with bicycles & 3rd and most importantly street cars. Look at the Vintage Toronto Facebook Page and you will see that the top priority before any paving for motorists was installing street car tracks. It wasn't until cars became popular that they decided to pave roads.
A road is a place for travel no matter what your vehicle or non-vehicle. Horses are still legal on our streets and can go as slow as they like. Traffic is a made up term by motorist for the frustration of how slow they are moving because of too many large volumetrically empty (mostly) objects stopped in front of them. So before your go trampling on the poor old cyclist think, if you and all your other car driving friends just sold your cars there could be an express light rail line speeding down Dupont with plenty of parking and bike lanes and a much more lively Dupont to boot.
OR we could all just agree to respect each other, Ask our city to install sharrows in the appropriate places, Share the road, watch our surroundings, make conscious lane changes (yes bikers I'm talking to you too,and leave a little earlier so we get there when we get there (before work starts obviously). My belief has always been in the sharrows. Just give the driver the constancet indication that there might be a bike coming up beside you. Leave room for bikers even if you haven't seen one in a while. Stay to the left if in a shloulder lane and check your mirrows before you make right turn. EASY! It was on the drivers test you a reason. The thing we can't have tolerance for is LAZY DRIVERS AND CYCLIST (lazy in terms of not checking their surroundings.
Lets face it we're the water in moving traffic, not the rock. If there is a parked truck making a deliver then mr or mrs cyclist please go around instead of waiting for the driver to come out and yell at him. And Drivers please be aware when cyclists are in a pinch please let them through on rough right side, don't speed around that stopped truck so hald into the adjasent lane almost killing the cyclist of forcing them to veer int ot sidewalk or worse the back of that truck. Now here is another thing if your on a street where ther is a lot of cars parked, why the hell are you the motorist waeving in and out of that lane trying to get only 3 cars ahead on the distance of 5km. Just stay in the clear lane and let the cyclist have the other half lane. As for cyclist going around stopped cars (at the light)...who cares! Your stopped, but not for long. Look at your surrounds before accelerating as you should be doing anyways.
That gets us to the cause of the congestion on Dupont. Since it takes place at rush hour, it probably comes largely from through traffic, and through traffic has a bottleneck the city cannot remove with any safety: the bridge under the CPR tracks at Dupont/Annette/Dundas. That underpass simply does not have the room to accommodate two standard width lanes, and attempting to keep large volumes to traffic moving through two lanes each way would endanger motorists as well as cyclists.
Removing the bike lanes from Lansdowne to Symington or even Edwin, where they (potentially) connect to the lanes on Davenport, would at least not egregiously compromise public safety, but it would also do little or nothing about the congestion: having two lanes leading to a one lane bottleneck doesn't actually relieve congestion. In fact, in many circumstances, it makes congestion worse.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-49647.pdf
The recommendation is to do a study about how to address issues along this route. If you read the numbers in the report you will see that the Dupont Bike lanes are considered a very important part of the cycle network and that changing the Annette intersection is the key to keeping traffic flowing (as it was before lanes were put in).
I live near Dupont and most people remember that before there were bike lanes traffic still got backed up in the same locations and one will also note that Anette, which has bike lanes, is generally never congested. The bottom line is congestion is caused here by long standing issues that have nothing to do with bike lanes are not going anywhere.
There needs to be a war on traffic.
Car drivers are not evil people, nor are bikers. Both deserve to get where they are going faster and safer.
The city needs to be designed in a way to get cars and bikes moving faster.
A well designed bike network with dedicated seperated lanes is a very good thing. There should be community discussions about which streets are best for the bike network ie. St. George and how to link those streets better. Maybe create bridges so that high traffic bike paths can cross main throughfares without having to stop for cars (think St. George crossing Bloor). The well designed system may take bikers longer in terms of actual distance peddled but if nicely designed should actually be faster.
The bike lane system seperate from high traffic streets. Those streets should also be designed to promote better traffic flow. Jarvis is the perfect example. That was a great designed street for automobiles with the third lane changing directions to improve traffic during rush hour and a nice connection to Mt. Pleasant right downtown. Cars should be encouraged on Jarvis. Bikes have no place on Jarvis.
We should promote more one way streets, better linking of street lights to promote traffic flow. Parking should be limited on streets with streetcars to allow for passing, actually street cars should be on seperate streets with cars, maybe share streetcar lanes with with bike lanes. Ie. Get rid of cars on King, make that street cars and bikes only. Get rid of street cars on Queen make that cars only. For a 50% faster streetcar ride it is worth walking two blocks.
Cars are not going anywhere if you don't find a way to move them smarter than it will adversly impact transat and bikes as well.
Because right now in this car versus bike, left wing right wing debate on over who can be more stupid or self-asorbed we all lose and traffic gets worse.
Riding on the Martin Goodman? 'It's okay, there's no emissions'.
Using the bike lane with the motor on? 'It's technically a bicycle'. (Only when you pedal it, so pedal or GTFO).
I saw a guy riding one on the sidewalk the other day but I didn't get a chance to ask him what the excuse for that was.
1) Most main thoroughfares on Toronto, including Jarvis, have residents and businesses who do not want the average speed of traffic on their streets increased. The bike lanes on Jarvis, the elimination of the centre lane, all formed parts of a program designed to calm, meaning slow down, the traffic on Jarvis.
2) Most streets without high traffic levels break at each major cross street. Several east-west streets in the west end, for example, could support cycling pretty well, if they did not jog at major north-south streets.
3) Cycling bridges might solve this problem. The Dutch have a fantastic design for elevated cycling roundabouts (traffic circles). Please get back to us when you have a feasible plan to get this or any Toronto city council to sign off on a budget.
4) Adam Giambrone had a plan to make a limited stretch of King car-free. According to the account I read, the central Toronto BIA tore the plan to shreds, and Adam Vaughn gently escorted him out of the meeting. FWIW, elimination the Queen streetcar line would get rid of the longest transit line in the city, and one of the most heavily used.
Shorter: we probably can't solve the problems of traffic in the city right here and now. Frankly, I doubt we can solve the problems at all if we start with the premise that the car simply exists like a fact of nature, and we have to pretend that incentives and restrictions don't affect car use. But right now, let's just find a rational solution to the Dupont Street bike lanes, preferably one that won't get any cyclists killed.