From: Martha Goodings
To: John Bowker
Cc: Mary Wiens
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:40 PM
Subject: Bike lanes
 
John
 
Tonight a woman approached me at an event at the school, and, knowing I was involved with RR, said she could not believe we were not planning to have dedicated bike lanes. Furthermore, she was sure if we really wanted them,  we could find a way to have them. ( I think her plan was to eliminate all parking on one side of the street, but I am not sure)
 
I explained about space, and that bikes were being accommodated as much as was possible etc, but she would have none of it.
 
I told her I was not on the design committee, but I knew that the issue of how to accommodate bikes had been well considered, and that city staff had looked at the issue too. She was doubtful
 
I was going to tell her to sign on to the web Discussion group, but I didn't feel she was in a discussing mood.
 
What is our short answer about why we can't have  bike lanes, AND how what is proposed will work for bicycles. I know you explained at the meeting, but I forget all the details
 
This too could go on the web, as I am sure it is a question others will have.
 
Cheers
 
Martha
 
 
Hi Martha,
 
The short answer is a lack of real estate. Planning guidelines state a minimum space for different uses, and there is no way to accommodate a separate 2m bike lane on Roncesvalles. The "sharrow" concept currently proposed for Roncesvalles (and in place on Landsdowne) represents the best compromise. I should point out that the City's cycling plan does not even include Roncesvalles due to the real estate issue (riders are told to take Sorauren instead). Check the BIA website, including my responses to comments, for some more info. Also, this is a nice article about the plan from a cyclist's perspective:

http://www.bikingtoronto.com/2008/01/balancing-streetcar-accessibility-with.html

Cheers
John

Best of luck with your project.  I'm not a local (Little Italy is more my thing), so I don't have a direct stake in this project, but I would urge you to take cycling very seriously, second only to TTC transportation.  Why?  Because the level of automobile use in Toronto is pretty much as high as it's going to get.  As oil gets increasingly expensive, and as global warming's effects actually start to influence policy, the cost of transportation fuel is going to skyrocket, and car drivers will switch to smaller vehicles or stop driving altogether.

What will increase is public transportation use, scooters and motorbikes, demand for higher density buildings, and most of all bicycles.  If you want to make Roncesvalles a neighborhood of tomorrow, design for a world with high energy prices.  You may drive everywhere today, but your children will not.

 Further to Jan Gehl's comment about seeing bikelanes as sidewalks, have a look at this video of Gehl talking about bike lanes. There's an example of the  bikelane/sidewalk at 2:30 on the counter.

Gil Penalosa is the cycling guru in Toronto, advocating for a system of bike lanes, between the parked cars and the curb.  He's the one who presented at the Roncesvalles library that very cold snowy night in January to brainstorm a cycling plan for Roncesvalles and was interviewed last week on Metro Morning. Gil replied:

"With regards to your question, I was at both of Jan’s presentations yesterday. He did not say to “incorporate cycling with the side-walk rather than the roadway”. I am senior consultant with Gehl Architects and have done much work with him. What he did say was that bicyclists have to be treated like pedestrians, and just as everyone assumes that all streets should have sidewalks that they should also accommodate cyclists. He also said that cyclists should be next to the side-walk, but not on the side-walk, and that the parked cars should be moved to the left of the cyclist providing a buffer s that the doors will not hit the cyclist sending them to the moving traffic. It would be side-walks for pedestrians, physically separated to cycle-tracks for bicyclists, then another physical separation, and then cars, including parked cars where needed. I will attach a photo of 9^th avenue in NYC to show you what he means, and which is what some are proposing for Adelaide and either Richmond or Wellington. I’ll also attach a couple of photos (shown below) from Copenhagen where the physical separation is that the sidewalk is at one level, about 8 centimetres lower is the cycle track, and another 8 centimetres lower are the cars; one of the photos is a construction and another a nice boulevard.

Jan said often in his 2.5 days in Toronto that we cannot build facilities for the people dressed up in tour de France gear or armour gear and that painting lines on arterials will not work."

   

 

Not that we have a wide street like these to work with! I can't see any of these examples applying to Ronces under its current status as a two-way street. Particularly one that aims to have a level surface from the sidewalk to the streetcar floor.

 

But, what Jan and Gil are saying is:

• to plan for bike ways as obviously as we plan sidewalks for pedestrians; 
• a bike lane between cars (or streetcars) and parked cars is not safe; 
• sidewalks, bike ways and car lanes need to be on different levels or physically separated by an island of some sort
• until safe bike ways are provided for people to get to their destination, we won't see a significant increase in bike usage across the population  

Most of the streets I've seen online that combine streetcars and bicycle lanes, either don't have parking, or they are one-way streets. Trying to combine 2-way traffic, parking on both sides, bikelanes and broad sidewalks, I realize, is quite a challenge.

 

So I started thinking more about future usage as the number of bicycles increase. We should consider the through traffic, where cyclists are trying to get from one end to the other as fast as possible, separately from the local traffic where cyclists are expecting to stop and shop. 

 

Here are drawings from the Portland Transport blog that combine bikelanes, sidewalk and streetcar lanes. http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2005/11/streetcarbike_c.html. Portland Transport is an Oregon Non-profit Corporation whose mission is to foster conversation and spread information about transportation policy and options. I looked up the "Lovejoy problem" referred to in the blog post related to the image. I found this two-part article "Where bikes and streetcars collide: Part One and Part Two". The Portland example seemed like a possiblity, but even that street is designed for one-way traffic, with a separate lane for the streetcar and the cars and 2 lanes of parking.

 

Gail Shillingford is a landscape architect and urban planner working with the Office of Urbanism, and she serves on the Roncesvalles Renewed Design Committee. In an email, Gail explained:

"I would say that the success of Jan Gehl's suggestion of shifting the bike lane next to the curb entails having a buffer/island of sorts between the parked car and the bike lane, which does make his suggestion space consumptive.  Without a buffer, you are not resolving the problem of doors opening onto the bike lane. It's just shifted the problem to the other side.  And yes, it is better to be knocked onto the sidewalk rather than into the stream of traffic but you now have light poles and other stationary obstacles that can be just as harmful.  I have accidently jogged into a light pole and at a joggers pace, almost knocked myself out.  Imagine if you are thrown into a light pole at cycling speeds. Without a buffer, it also presents a problem for the passengers of the parked cars such that there is now moving traffic on both sides as they are getting out of their cars.

 

... when we design sidewalks for example, it is planned such that we establish usually two or three clear zones: a furnishing zone, which is closest to the sidewalk and carries the street furnishing such as light standards, benches and garbage receptacles; a walking zone, which is where the pedestrian is expected to move freely and safely without obstruction; and in cases where the sidewalk is really wide, a retail spill out zone which accommodates cafes tables and chairs or market stalls etc..  In the same way, we should plan our bikeways, ideally to have buffers on either side - from cars on one side and from street furnishing on the other, and in such cases, different grade levels become unnecessary.

 

We unfortunately, do not have the luxury of creating that level of buffer space on Roncy, but we can mitigate traffic speeds, and we can introduce as many signals as necessary, such as the planting of trees, signage, raised paving, patterned paving, bollards etc., well designed in quality fashion, to get the message across that Roncy is not just a place for commuters, but a place for all, and all users have to consider and be cognizant of the safety of each other.  As with anything new, it will take a bit of educating and a bit of time to get used to a new regime."