[adam]

From the city's Assistant Environmental Planner. Be sure to click on the link in the quoted message and then find updated documents under Public Information Centre #2.



Shifting Gears - Hamilton's Cycling Master Plan (http://www.hamilton.ca/Shiftinggears)

The existing Cycling Master Plan for the City of Hamilton, Shifting Gears, was written in 1999. Thus it is time that this plan is updated. This update commenced in the fall of 2008, and the updated master plan is planned to be finalized by the spring of 2009. The Shifting Gears website (http://www.hamilton.ca/Shiftinggears) provides updates of the Cycling Master Plan study.


If you have any comment on this information - or even questions - please send an email as described on the webpage.

We look forward to any feedback you may have,

[adam]

If you cycle in or around Hamilton, take a couple minutes to do this quick survey
http://cyclingsurvey.mcmaster.ca/

I received it in my email and they'd like as many cyclists to fill it out as possible. An interesting study.

[SteelTown]

Cycling plan sees bike path every 2 kilometres

June 15, 2009
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/583607

Bike shops are reporting more people selling second cars and buying commuter bicycles.

And Hamilton is trying to meet that growing interest with a master cycling plan that would quadruple annual budgets for bike paths.

But even that $1.25 million wouldn't complete a recommended network in 20 years.

And the plan, to be presented to the city's public works committee today, offers a more aggressive alternative that would ramp up investment to $2.5 million each year.

That would complete the urban network in 10 years and the rural web of bike paths in 20 years.

The plan prepared by Hart Solomon notes Hamilton would have to match per capita spending in Burlington and Toronto, of $5.25 per person per year, to achieve that. A lower amount of $2.50 per capita "reflects the reality of our limited capital budget for road improvements."

The plan updates the Shifting Gears plan devised by the former region of Hamilton Wentworth.

It suggests a middle ground between no real cycling network and the ideal -- an upgrade of all city streets for cycling use.

It seeks the "satisfactory" concept of a cyclist travelling less than a kilometre to access a formal cycling route. That means a grid with two-kilometre spacing for urban areas.

The total cost to upgrade about 270 links to create that grid would cost $51.5 million over time, split $22.6 million urban and $28.9 million rural.

In asking the plan to be adopted, the report recommended that the position of project manager, alternative transportation, be made a permanent job.

The plan follows a series of six public meetings that left two people in the bike business optimistic.

"It's moving slowly," said Sam DiBussolo, of All The Right Gears cycle shop. "But it is moving forward and I think they'll get it done."

And Elaine Pierik, of Pieriks Cycle in Westdale, said she was hopeful, "as long as they keep moving forward. In the past it's been one step forward, two steps back."

She said customers in her store are increasingly giving up cars and using bikes for work.

"We have a number of people buying folding bikes, so they can cycle to the GO station, then collapse the bike and carry it on the train to work."

[SteelTown]

Should Hamilton spend $51.5M on cycling network?

June 15, 2009
Nicole MacIntyre
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/583765

If we build it, will they bike it?

It’s a question city councillors are pondering as they consider spending $51.5 million to create an integrated cycling network on Hamilton streets.

The investment, which would be staged over numerous years, would more than quadruple the city’s designated bike lanes to 566 kilometres.

But several councillors wondered today if the city can justify the expense, especially in the face of increasing budget pressures.

Councillor Tom Jackson frequently hears from residents who want more recreational trails. He’s not sure if those same people want to bike to work on city streets.

“I’m not detecting a huge clamouring for more commuter lanes.”

Flamborough's Margaret McCarthy is skeptical additional bike lanes would be well used given the escarpment, weather, transit improvements and heavy traffic.

“It seems to me an unsafe practice,” she said. “For my money, this wouldn’t go forward.”

But Councillor Bob Bratina thinks his colleagues just need a bit more education. He points across the ocean for proof that citizens will switch to two wheels when cities invest in integrated cycling networks.

“If you’ve been to Europe and seen it, you believe it,” he said. “We need to evolve a little more.”

[Jon Dalton]

“It seems to me an unsafe practice,” she said.


I wonder what she means?

Also, $50M for lines on the road?

[SteelTown]

Yea, for 272 roads, 49 rural roads.

[thistleclub]

Add the two stories up for the complete picture: $51.5M amortized over "numerous years" -- 20, to go by the Kernahan piece. Might have read "Should the city spend $2.5M a year on cycling network?"

[thistleclub]

Flamborough Councillor Margaret McCarthy: “For my money, this wouldn’t go forward.”

$28.9 million in rural cost rolled out across 20 years seems to make the routes in her constituency cheaper year-by-year, if not road-by-road.

Besides, we can pay for it with slots revenue. ;)

[emge]

I don't want the city to spend a cent more on bike lanes and transit than they have on expressways...

Oh wait... there's a little catching up to do.

Even when one is primarily or only a driver and not a cyclist, I can't see why understanding the value of doing projects like this, especially with a relatively small price tag, is so difficult.

[Millstone]

$51,500,000

[thistleclub]

Titled less sensationally in the morning light: What would get you to cycle to work? (http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/583866)

For transpo contrast, $20.3M was the amount earmarked for the six road repair projects (http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/556098) on the city's stimulus wish list, and $36M the chunk of the city's 2009 budget going to road work on Hamilton Mountain and funding for the East Mountain Loop Trail (http://www.mayorfred.ca/posts/view/133).

[SteelTown]

I believe majority of the road work will be for Stone Church from West 5th to Garth and building a roundabout at Omni and Stone Church.

[highwater]

$51,500,000

...and your point?

[BrianE]

I wish media articles would stop quoting the final costs for projects like it's all going to be spent in one year.

$51 mil over 10 or 20 years is probly the bare minimum that should be spent developing a bike network.

But as Millstone pointed out all most people will see is $51 Million!!!!!!!!! No way! I'm not paying that.

[adam]

The part of the article where Tom Jackson brings up funding for a path in a suburban park using cycling infrastructure money is silly. We are trying to build infrastructure for commuters and getting people out of their cars. A path in a park should be funded from parkland funding. The park path would only be used on weekends unlike urban cycling paths that would be used on a daily basis.

[oldcoote]

I frequently bike to work. York Street east is fine as far as Locke where the bike lane ends. For some reason York St west bike lane doesn't start until Dundurn.
King Street west is terrifying. Its like biking on a highway. Doesn't help that buses seem to relish the opportunity to constantly cut you off and city trucks are often parked in the bike lane. :koko:
This city needs to commit to dedicated bike lanes because someone is going to get killed. Two way conversion would also help bike travel immensely. As it is, drivers are conditioned to look for cars but not pedestrians or bikes.

[ryan_mcgreal]

I frequently bike to work.

The secret to cycling on our multi-lane one-way thoroughfares is to lane-block aggressively. Cars have plenty of lanes to pass you, and if you take the full lane, you force them to change lanes to pass.

Otherwise, they pass you at 60 km/h in your own lane with only inches of clearance, which is definitely not safe. The Highway Traffic Act specifies that cyclists should stay as far to the right as safety allows, which on a road like Main or York means you should take the full lane.

Another option, particularly on Main and King, is to take the leftmost lane, since motorists are uncomfortable to drive in that lane anyway - though this is not legally defensible unless you're getting ready to make a left turn.

[markbarbera]

IMO assigning dedicated cycling lanes is going to worsen the situation for cyclists rather than improve it. Having specific cycling lanes will strengthen the mindset that cyclists do not belong on 'regular' roads. I'd rather see two-way conversion and roadway design that encourage shared use of all roadways. And overall enforcement of traffic laws on motorists and cyclists alike.

[ryan_mcgreal]

IMO assigning dedicated cycling lanes is going to worsen the situation for cyclists rather than improve it.

I used to be inclined toward this view as well, but here's why it doesn't work this way:

1. It is proven in city after city around the world that the only way large numbers of citizens will commute by bicycle is if the city provides bike lanes. Right or wrong, people respond to perceptions of safety.

2. At the same time, it's also proven that the more cyclists are on the road, the lower the rate of cycling crashes, collisions and injuries. In fact, the reduction can be so dramatic that the actual number of accidents goes down as the number of cyclists goes up.

As more cyclists are on the road on a regular basis, their presence will be increasingly normalized for everyone, including motorists, in a self-reinforcing cycle (no pun intended) of increasing bicycling.

[emge]

I'm rather of the opinion that motorists understand "painted line, do not cross" better than "squishy human, do not hit"

[BrianE]

I'm rather of the opinion that motorists understand "painted line, do not cross" better than "squishy human, do not hit"

:jester:

Awsome.

[emge]

To my mind, a motorist that has to stay out of a lane on a continuous stretch of road is less of a risk to me than a motorist who is speeding along at 70 km/h along Main and may or may not see me in their lane.... and then take that situation, x 100 motorists who will pull over to the next lane and pass me, at least, during one trip.

I loaned my bike out to someone till August, but I'll be biking again then, squishy or not ;)

[jgrwatson]

A couple of comments:

Flamborough Councillor Margaret McCarthy: “For my money, this wouldn’t go forward.”

Yet another stupid opinion by a stupid unprogressive Hamilton Councillor. You just have to laugh. I would LOVE to learn which car is hers, where she parks, have my key ready, so I can scratch her car while seated on my bike as she cuts me off flying outta the parking lot!

And I beg EVERYONE on this Forum, PLEASE lets all meet at Dundurn with our bikes, spread across all lanes of traffic and bike all the way Downtown. I think we would make the news, I'm sure!

[ryan_mcgreal]

And I beg EVERYONE on this Forum, PLEASE lets all meet at Dundurn with our bikes, spread across all lanes of traffic and bike all the way Downtown. I think we would make the news, I'm sure!

Critical Mass: last Friday of every month, 5:30 PM at the corner of Hess St. and George St. in Hess Village.

[thistleclub]

Anyone know how long it takes to cyclists to wear ruts and potholes into a dedicated cycling lane?

[adam]

I agree with Ryan, I feel the safest when I am biking in the middle of the lane for streets like Dundurn, Queen, James. I stick to the far right side of the road on King and Main (I try to avoid these inner-city highways if I can) Although on the weekends I'll bike along Main St in the far lefthand lane and take up the whole lane - never got a complaint.

I try to avoid cycling between 5-6pm as road-rage among commuters seems to be at an all-time high then. Otherwise, I find Hamilton motorists are far more courteous to cyclists than those in Burlington and Oakville.

[SteelTown]

Bike paths: Heed the younger generation

June 20, 2009
Terry Cooke
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/586576

They built the Great Pyramid in ancient Egypt in 20 years. But in Hamilton it's going to take us 40 years to construct a network of bicycle paths. Maybe we should be just a little more ambitious.

Or perhaps our city councillors should ask any randomly selected group of younger Hamiltonians what they think about encouraging the use of alternative forms of transportation to the private automobile.

Because young people just get it. They have figured out that our political future looks very different than the recent past on a bunch of different issues. Take gay marriage for instance, about which people of my generation remain deeply divided. Yet everybody I've talked to under 30 believes it's a no-brainer -- live and let live.

Just as young people know successful urban areas have to move away from planning that focuses exclusively on moving large numbers of vehicles quickly through the heart of our cities.

I guarantee that a city council comprised of 25-year-olds would jump at the opportunity to convert a five-lane urban expressway such as Main Street into something that actually nurtures local neighbourhoods and businesses while encouraging people to cycle and walk along it.

But in Hamilton, the car remains king and political change never seems to happen easily.

I learned that lesson the hard way as a political novice when I initiated the creation of a regionwide system of bicycle paths in the late 1980s.

We formed a committee to oversee the process, hired technical experts to design a plan (including both on-street bike lanes and rail trails) and got council to approve a capital budget. So far so good, I thought.

But when we actually converted one of the five lanes on Main and King streets to dedicated bicycle paths in 1993, all hell broke loose. Angry drivers who experienced some minor delays due to the changes literally lit up the switchboard at City Hall. The Spectator then piled on with front-page coverage of an accident in which a cyclist was hit on Main Street.

Regional council quickly caved to the pressure and abandoned the project. That political debacle remains seared in the memory of veteran councillors, explaining in part their trepidation about moving too aggressively now on bike lanes.

It's too bad because had we stayed the course Hamilton today would have a cycling network that would be the envy of mid-sized cities in North America.

Meanwhile, places like Portland, Ore., and Montreal have managed to get up to 15 per cent of their commuter traffic out of cars and onto bikes, helping the environment while reducing the demand for new road construction.

Thankfully much has changed in Hamilton in the last 15 years. Both our civic attitudes and our infrastructure are better equipped to support a fundamental shift in favour of neighbourhoods, transit, pedestrians and cyclists.

Not the least of these changes is the opening of the Linc and Red Hill expressways which provide a better way for drivers interested only in getting across town quickly.

There are political champions for change such as downtown Councillor Bob Bratina and Mayor Fred Eisenberger who are pushing for a more aggressive approach to building the cycling network in perhaps five or 10 years rather than 40.

Let's hope council considers not only the wisdom of Bratina and Eisenberger on this issue, but also takes the time to listen to our next generation of leaders in trying to figure out the future.

Terry Cooke is a director of the Canadian Urban Institute. He is president of Cooke Capital Corp. and former Hamilton-Wentworth chair.

[highwater]

Sing it, Brother Terry!

[bornagainbiking]

I was just South of Montreal and saw what they do. I saw so many 50cc type scooters, electric scooters and a car lanes divided with a centre line for two way bike traffic.
If the city changed to Main & King to two way traffic that is 4 lanes and one left over for a divided bike lane or parking. if the parking option was used with a West bound parking lane on King and an East bound parking lane on Main.
As for the cross town bike lane there is one already but it is so far south (Lawrence), it is under utilized as it adds distance, but it runs from the RedHill to Gage and hooks onto bike lanes to the downtown.
I think that maybe one lane of bike traffic be dedicated for either Wilson, Cannon or Barton.
East bound on Wilson would connect on with the Plains road lane from Burlington and go all the way to Sherman.
Cannon should be the Bike lane goal as it is being resurfaced from Gage to Ottawa and could be painted as soon as the job is complete.
As the road is now closed the opening would soften the transition.
If you consider the Cannon\Brittannia Option you would have a link that would Join onto the RedHill bike path and bridge to the waterfront with minor change other than signage.
:banana:

[Blurr]

^^

I agree we need a bike lane that is accessible around King or a little north. The current bike path south at the escarpment is beautiful, but too far out of the way for the majority of downtown.

I go downtown often from the Gibson/Stipley neighbourhood, and although king william is a nice bike route, east of Wentworth there are not any good options.

[bigguy1231]

Sorry to say but that debacle that Terry Cooke talks about with the bike lane on Main St. has forever changed the attitudes of politicians in this city towards bike lanes. They just don't have the political will to take the chance of upsetting the voters of this city.

Unfortunately, for bikers, you just don't represent enough of a voting block to make a difference.

If the citizens of this city seen hundreds or thousands of bikes on the roads each day then maybe they would see a need and support the idea. But as it is right now bikes are a rarity on main streets and as the old saying goes out of sight out of mind. It's going to be a tough sell to get bike lanes added to main streets.

[ryan_mcgreal]

^Chicken/Egg. There will never be thousands of bikes on the road as long as our road infrastructure remains hostile to cycling. That's the whole point of building a cycling network.

The problem with our current and past experiments with bike lanes is that none of them were continuous. If you had a road that didn't connect to any other roads, how many cars do you think would drive on it?

[bornagainbiking]

There is tangible and intangible.
Yes, it is alot of money but imagine the reduced costs for repair and replacement of tarmac (ashphalt) as bicycles and roller blades have minimal impact on surface wear and tear. It is the trucks and big tires of SUV that grind the pavement and the increased PSI that warp the roads.
A bike lane could be used many years with maybe an application of cheap industrial sealant.
Bike can operate on just a solid layer of compacted screening.
Electric scooters (max 40 km per hr) would have a safe option and not impede traffic for the downtown commute. And are they easy to park.
http://www.blueavenue.ca/WebProductsPage.html
$799 for 32 kph and 40 km range and minimal cost to operate.
you don't think some shy people who are intimidated to ride on a major road wouldn't jump at the chance to commute and no parking fee (@$40 a month it would pay itself off also if parking was available at the Go Station).
Yeah it would get used. To live near Gage park and ebike it to the Go is not a stretch.:tup: :tup:

[adam]

The way Main and King are structured right now, 99% of cyclists are too scared to go down these streets. Cars have a "highway" mentality, even though they are in a downtown and routinely go 20km above the posted speed limit.

I wonder how counsel would respond to requests to put more speed limit signs along these roads as well as posting a policecar periodically to give out speeding tickets?

[bigguy1231]

Ryan, bornagainbiking and Adam, I don't disagree with anything you are saying. I was merely pointing out what it's going to take to get the politicians on board. They are going to have to answer to thier constituents for spending millions on bike lanes. I am not so sure that people in this city are willing support spending the kind of money being talked about without a proven need. I know it's only a couple of million a year, but people don't look at it that way.

The other problem, that caused the initial outcry with the bike lane on Main St. was that people were stuck in traffic while the bike lane was empty. I use Stonechurch Rd. E. almost every day, it has a bike lane and in all the years since it was built I have never seen anyone using it. Perception is everything, and if people don't see existing lanes being used they are not going to support building more, especially on main thoroughfares.

Being optimistic there may possibly be a couple of thousand people who would ride thier bikes to work or wherever each day compared to a couple hundred thousand people who use thier cars daily. If push comes to shove who do you think is going to win the battle.

[adam]

From what I hear from older cyclists, it was a lot more difficult to cycle on the road in the 90's than it is now. Cars are finally starting to respect that cyclists legally belong on the road and have every right to be there as they do. York Blvd. has a successful bike lane and is becoming a conduit for bike commuters to Burlington since It is connected to Plains Rd. The younger generation is very much more pro-cycling than they were even 10 years ago. There is a huge bike culture drifting up from larger cities in the States and it is beginning to catch on thanks to the internet.

[bornagainbiking]

Big
I agree, the city needs to look at and co-ordinate their plan more closely.
The bike lanes on Stonechurch are nice but where are they supposed to go?
They are more recreational. You could ride to Upper Ottawa and then mix with mad vehicle traffic and busses on the narrow lanes to the access down the mountain.
To get downtown from Valley park You need to get over to near Mount Albion Falls and hook up to the rail trail at either the Fall parking lot or on Limeridge between the Kenilworth near the Brow. That route would take you right to the Corktown on a excellent bike path with a good grad.
About 25-30 to the city core and about 45 going up.
So if the cycle path plan is to make sense and be spent properly you need to concetrate on maybe something like a clear marked route from Stonechurch to Pritchard to mountain brow. Which is maybe why you don't see many on Stonechurch as the East Rail trail is secluded and safe. It has a entrance near Mohawk and the Quad pads.
If they wanted to connect something join it to the Caledonia bike trail that starts on Stonechurch at Darnall.
So most is there already, however i see real concern with riding east-west downtown with Main/King speedways. Try to get across main at the bike path at Ferguson during the morning rush, HA.
We need to lure out the timid or curious and ensure their safety.
People in their car have NO concept or concern and in some cases are reckless in their interactions with cyclists.
I would like to see the police crack down on the idiots that are wearing MP3 players and wanderings all over the place from sidewalk to darting across traffic without looking. The adults racing their little stunt bikes al over the place.
Last weeks accident where the earpiece was embedded in the grill is evidence enough.:rolleyes:

[bigguy1231]

From what I hear from older cyclists, it was a lot more difficult to cycle on the road in the 90's than it is now. Cars are finally starting to respect that cyclists legally belong on the road and have every right to be there as they do. York Blvd. has a successful bike lane and is becoming a conduit for bike commuters to Burlington since It is connected to Plains Rd. The younger generation is very much more pro-cycling than they were even 10 years ago. There is a huge bike culture drifting up from larger cities in the States and it is beginning to catch on thanks to the internet.

Actually when I was a kid back in the 70's, there were alot more bikes on the roads than I see now. We rode everywhere in the city. Nowadays, kids just don't seem to ride bikes as much. But then again back when I was a kid parents wouldn't drive kids all over the place. I can remember riding my bike with friends from the West mountain down to the beach and back. We used to do it often. We stayed off the main streets and used secondary roads as much as possible. We used to carry our bikes up the steps at Dundurn to Garth.

[bigguy1231]

Big
I agree, the city needs to look at and co-ordinate their plan more closely.
The bike lanes on Stonechurch are nice but where are they supposed to go?
They are more recreational. You could ride to Upper Ottawa and then mix with mad vehicle traffic and busses on the narrow lanes to the access down the mountain.
To get downtown from Valley park You need to get over to near Mount Albion Falls and hook up to the rail trail at either the Fall parking lot or on Limeridge between the Kenilworth near the Brow. That route would take you right to the Corktown on a excellent bike path with a good grad.
About 25-30 to the city core and about 45 going up.
So if the cycle path plan is to make sense and be spent properly you need to concetrate on maybe something like a clear marked route from Stonechurch to Pritchard to mountain brow. Which is maybe why you don't see many on Stonechurch as the East Rail trail is secluded and safe. It has a entrance near Mohawk and the Quad pads.
If they wanted to connect something join it to the Caledonia bike trail that starts on Stonechurch at Darnall.
So most is there already, however i see real concern with riding east-west downtown with Main/King speedways. Try to get across main at the bike path at Ferguson during the morning rush, HA.
We need to lure out the timid or curious and ensure their safety.
People in their car have NO concept or concern and in some cases are reckless in their interactions with cyclists.
I would like to see the police crack down on the idiots that are wearing MP3 players and wanderings all over the place from sidewalk to darting across traffic without looking. The adults racing their little stunt bikes al over the place.
Last weeks accident where the earpiece was embedded in the grill is evidence enough.:rolleyes:

I myself just can't understand why anyone in thier right mind would want to cycle on a main thoroughfare, bike lanes or not, with so many alternative routes around. I know there are certain areas where there is no choice, but those areas are limited. Those who are advocating the establishment of bike lanes have to make the idea more palatable to politicians. Insisting on having bike lanes on main thoroughfares will not help the cause.

I would suggest as a compromise, that bike lanes be built on secondary roads. Roads like Lawrence, Cumberland or Maple and Deleware and Stinson to Hunter for access to downtown from the East. From the West it will be a little more difficult with limited access across the 403, but I am sure with a little thought something could be worked out. North to South roads like Wentworth, Sherman or Gage could be used. There's numerous other roads that could be used as well without taking space from the busiest streets in the city.

The compromise I mentioned would serve 2 purposes. It would show the politicians that biking advocates are willing to compromise and it would also allow them to assess the need for lanes on busier streets. If the secondary routes are successful it will be easier to justify taking away traffic lanes from busier streets.

[bornagainbiking]

biggie
I use your Lawrence route to the downtown and it is very very quiet and stress free. It also connects directly onto the Ferguson Street bike path. So any HGH staff could use it and still be able to stop at Tim's. Ferguson goes to the Waterfront.
We need to maybe make some of these street local access only and install speed bumps in the centre of the lanes to divert cars to the many other routes available. ie Cumberland for bikes maplewood for cars.
Sherman would be a great option off this for N-S.
To ask for Main or King initially is suicide both for riding and political gains.
It is wise to discuss options and application as if you ask for too much you get very little. Especially at this point.
Hamilton has some great routes for commuting with the east and west rail trails and side streets. It is getting up the center mountain maybe the bus bike racks was a good aid.

[Jon Dalton]

Actually when I was a kid back in the 70's, there were alot more bikes on the roads than I see now. We rode everywhere in the city. Nowadays, kids just don't seem to ride bikes as much. But then again back when I was a kid parents wouldn't drive kids all over the place.

The pervasiveness of car culture that you just referenced is due to the effects of autocentric planning on two consecutive generations. Given that a whole generation will pass before the cycling plan is completed, we are making this decision for our children and grandchildren more so than ourselves. They will grow up with parents who are more conscious of the environmental and health hazards of driving, which are already far more mainstream than even 10 years ago. If they also grow up with infrastructure that provides a high level of safety both real and percieved, they will ride earlier, more often, and further into their adolescence. Maybe the car will be less of a rite of passage for the next generation. I got my license as soon as I woke up on my 16th birthday and sold many of my belongings (including bikes) to buy my first car. Maybe our kids will be saving their money for faster bikes.

[adam]

Maybe the next generation can work and live in the same city.

[SteelTown]

So what you think Council will do? Ditch the funding plan, over 10 years, over 20 years, or over even longer period of time?

I'm of course hoping the fastest possible, 10 years.

[markbarbera]

Well, it did take this city 40 years to get the RHVP finished. We're not exactly known for fast-tracking initiatives.

[bigguy1231]

The pervasiveness of car culture that you just referenced is due to the effects of autocentric planning on two consecutive generations. Given that a whole generation will pass before the cycling plan is completed, we are making this decision for our children and grandchildren more so than ourselves. They will grow up with parents who are more conscious of the environmental and health hazards of driving, which are already far more mainstream than even 10 years ago. If they also grow up with infrastructure that provides a high level of safety both real and percieved, they will ride earlier, more often, and further into their adolescence. Maybe the car will be less of a rite of passage for the next generation. I got my license as soon as I woke up on my 16th birthday and sold many of my belongings (including bikes) to buy my first car. Maybe our kids will be saving their money for faster bikes.

The car culture is still here and we are still planning for the expansion of that system. The difference nowadays is that in addition to that we are also adding alternatives like bike lanes and paths. Although I don't believe the 2 will ever be equal in the eyes of most, cars will always win out, there is room to expand bike lanes for those who wish to use that mode of transport. I am of the opinion though that we should try as much as possible to keep the 2 seperate. My rational is mostly for reasons of safety, a 2000 pound car is always going to win the battle between it and a cyclist.

As for your statement about getting your license being a right of passage, I tend to agree. I had my license a week after my 16th birthday. My first year of driving my insurance cost $79. To all you youngsters reading this that was for the year not per month. Nowadays it cost me more than that per month. The reason that it is no longer as important to get your license is purely economics. Young people just cannot afford the ridiculous insurance costs. If not for that it would still be a rite of passage. Even with the high costs, there is still a majority who get thier licenses before they hit thier 19th birthday. The rest rely on those with licenses to get them around.

[SteelTown]

Cycling plan gets votes, but cash? No so fast

June 25, 2009
Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/589075

They came on two wheels, helmets in place, to remind council that not every Hamiltonian wants to drive to work.

About 20 cyclists attended last night's council meeting to encourage the city to approve and fund its new cycling master plan.

Councillors unanimously backed the plan without debate, but referred any funding commitments to the budget process.

It will take $51.5 million to implement the integrated cycling network on city streets, a cost of $2.5 million a year if it was completed over 20 years.

Staff recommended the city only commit $1.25 million a year and focus on urban bike lanes.

The investment, which would be staged over numerous years, would more than quadruple the city's designated bike lanes to 566 kilometres.

However, several councillors have expressed concern about the size of the investment, questioning if the bike lanes would be used enough to justify the cost.

They want to consider the expense in relation to the city's other financial demands.

Randy Kay of Transportation for Liveable Communities Hamilton wants the city to fast-track the plan. The yearly price tag, he argued, is affordable and offers the city a cheap way to improve its image.

"Hamilton is moving in the right direction, keep going. Don't be left behind," he said.

"People want choices in their transportation."

In a letter to council, cyclist Brendan Simons said he's lived in several cities, but finds Hamilton the most "hostile to cyclists."

"No matter which roads I take, I have to contend with cars and trucks whizzing by my elbow at 70 plus kilometres per hour," Simons wrote.

Kay said local cyclists intend to follow the plan to next year's budget process.

"We're hoping this is just the start of a campaign to see this through."

[bigguy1231]

If cyclist really want these lanes they better get more than 20 people to show up at these meetings.

As I have tried to explain in earlier posts on this issue, you have to show the politicians there is a demand for these lanes. A whole 20 people does not constitute demand.

They may have approved the idea in principle, but getting the funding will be almost impossible once it goes to the budget process. It will end up on the bottom end of the priority list.

[Jon Dalton]

Burlington spends proportionately twice the amount of money on cycling as is being reccommended to council. How many cylists flooded their city hall during council meetings? This is about changing the culture here, one that is not unique to Hamilton, and has been measurably changed in other cities. One thing is clear, there is absolutely no future for a declining postindustrial city that fails to change its image. I think most of our councillors understand that.

[astroblaster]

There's an existing cycling advocacy group in Hamilton, isn't there?
I haven't really heard much about them, can anyone link me or put me in contact with them?

[ryan_mcgreal]

There's an existing cycling advocacy group in Hamilton, isn't there?

Well, there's the Hamilton Cycling Committee (http://www.cyclehamilton.ca/), a citizens' advisory committee to the city on cycling issues. I haven't studied the group very closely, but I've heard that they're very restrained and 'domesticated' in their advocacy, focusing mainly on safety.

There's also something called the Hamilton Cycling Club (http://hamiltoncycling.com/) - I don't know anything about them.

Of course, there's always Transportation for Liveable Communities (http://tlchamilton.blogspot.com), a project of OPIRG McMaster. Their mandate is multi-modal transportation, but they have a heavy emphasis on cycling.

[highwater]

It was Transportation for Liveable Cities that was at the Council meeting taking names for their email list to keep people abreast of the budget process. They'd be your best bet.

[SteelTown]

Breaking News.....A cyclist got hit and dragged at York Boulevard (complete with bike lanes).

[SteelTown]

1 cyclist dead, 1 driver dead and possible another died as well.

[Greg A.]

And another cyclist came within 5" of being dead. Me.

I was riding in the bike lane in the opposite direction to the cyclist that was killed. The SUV that hit him veered out of control after dragging his bike for 100m, hit 2 other cars and then crashed and came to a stop. I was somehow in the middle of the 3 smashed cars as they flew down the road and literally dodged the 2 other cars by a few feet, and the SUV by 5".

Not a happy day for me. And I will give serious thought to continuing my commute by bike.

Greg.

[SteelTown]

Glad you are safe.

I think the City messed up with the bike lanes on York. In the past you had two lanes heading towards Burlington and one lane going to 403. Now if you stay on the right lane heading towards Burlington you'll end up on 403. I've seen many drivers make a quick turn to the left to escape the 403 on ramp. Twice a car nearly hit me with this situation.

[bigguy1231]

And another cyclist came within 5" of being dead. Me.

I was riding in the bike lane in the opposite direction to the cyclist that was killed. The SUV that hit him veered out of control after dragging his bike for 100m, hit 2 other cars and then crashed and came to a stop. I was somehow in the middle of the 3 smashed cars as they flew down the road and literally dodged the 2 other cars by a few feet, and the SUV by 5".

Not a happy day for me. And I will give serious thought to continuing my commute by bike.

Greg.

Wow, glad you are safe. Now go out and buy a lottery ticket.


This is one of the reasons I am not convinced that bike lanes should be on busy roads. Cyclists just don't have a chance. I know this was just a freak occurance but it would make me think if I was a cyclist.

The report I heard, said the driver of the SUV who hit the cyclist may have been impaired.

[highwater]

Three confirmed dead. The driver of the SUV was not impaired according to police, but may have gone into diabetic shock. A horrible tragedy. Glad you're safe, Greg.

http://thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/590326

[adam]

This is one of the reasons I am not convinced that bike lanes should be on busy roads. Cyclists just don't have a chance.

This is the worst logic ever. More died in vehicles than on bikes in this accident and yet you see this as a reason to ban bikes? Are the deaths in the cars just an accepted price of doing business on the road? I don't understand how an accident that killed 1 cyclist and 2 occupants of a car can be a reason to ban bicycles. Please explain.

[bigguy1231]

This is the worst logic ever. More died in vehicles than on bikes in this accident and yet you see this as a reason to ban bikes? Are the deaths in the cars just an accepted price of doing business on the road? I don't understand how an accident that killed 1 cyclist and 2 occupants of a car can be a reason to ban bicycles. Please explain.

Where did I say ban bikes? Get off your high horse. Read what I actually said and read some of my previous posts regarding the issue. Some people, like you have no sense of reality, like it or not cars and bicycles just don't mix well, bike lanes or not. I realize this was just a freak accident and stated that. It was a tragedy any way you look at it.

[adam]

Where did I say ban bikes? Get off your high horse. Read what I actually said and read some of my previous posts regarding the issue. Some people, like you have no sense of reality, like it or not cars and bicycles just don't mix well, bike lanes or not. I realize this was just a freak accident and stated that. It was a tragedy any way you look at it.

There are only a couple ways to get to Burlington from Hamilton - one is the highway, the other is York Blvd. Take away the bike lane on York Blvd. and you are effectively banning bikes from traveling from Hamilton to Burlington and vice versa unless they ride in traffic - which will be enough to stop the majority of the cyclists currently using those lanes. Banning was a strong word, you are right - but it was close.

ps - my sense of reality? I cycle along York Blvd. regularly, believe me, this is reality.

[bigguy1231]

There are only a couple ways to get to Burlington from Hamilton - one is the highway, the other is York Blvd. Take away the bike lane on York Blvd. and you are effectively banning bikes from traveling from Hamilton to Burlington and vice versa unless they ride in traffic - which will be enough to stop the majority of the cyclists currently using those lanes. Banning was a strong word, you are right - but it was close.

ps - my sense of reality? I cycle along York Blvd. regularly, believe me, this is reality.

My gawd your reading comprehension isn't very good. Where did I say get rid of the bike lanes.

[adam]

This is one of the reasons I am not convinced that bike lanes should be on busy roads. Cyclists just don't have a chance.
.

[flar]

If York Blvd. from Dundurn to Burlington were in Ottawa it would probably have the bike lanes, trucks and commercial vehicles would be prohibited and it would be bike only (i.e. closed to all motor vehicle traffic) for a few hours on Sundays.

[bigguy1231]

.

And where in that statement did I say ban bikes and bike lanes. All I said was that I am not convinced bike lanes should be on busy roads. There are plenty of alternative roads where they can be placed. Once again your reading comprehension is lacking.

[adam]

Here is a map that includes Hamilton's cycling lanes.
http://www.map.hamilton.ca/Static/PDFs/Public%20Works/Photoshop%20-%20Bikeways%20Map%20June_2008%20-%20Urban.pdf

Most busy streets are that way because they are useful to get from one place to another. Bikes, just like cars, need to get from point A to point B. If we exile bikes to non-busy streets, we are saying that they are only good for recreation. This won't ever reduce the number of trips taken by car and it won't help get more cyclists in the city. How many people would hop on a bike to get a bag of milk if they felt safe on the route? Probably a heck of a lot more than those who do right now. For most, going to do a routine errand involves getting on a busy street. Its busy because it leads somewhere useful. Shake your head a few times if you think that cyclists only want to ride for 10 minutes in a park on the weekend. There are droves in the younger generation who want to bike to work and to do errands for exercise, reduction of fumes in the city, help get rid of the grip the car companies have on our government, and overall well-being. I bet that if everyone took a trip on a bike 2-3 times a week we'd see a reduction in heart disease, obesity and the unemployed would have more motivation to find work. Its hard to find time to exercise nowadays and bikes are the perfect solution.

[highwater]

And where in that statement did I say ban bikes and bike lanes. All I said was that I am not convinced bike lanes should be on busy roads. There are plenty of alternative roads where they can be placed. Once again your reading comprehension is lacking.

And what's to stop a driver from going into diabetic shock on an 'alternative' road? I realize many Hamiltonians see Main and King as expressways for getting through the downtown, but that is not the case for the thousands of people who live and work there. There needs to be bike lanes on Main and King because there are destinations on Main and King. Cyclists have places to go, just like drivers.

[highwater]

I am not convinced bike lanes should be on busy roads.

I'm not convinced SUV's should be on busy roads.

[Jon Dalton]

Bike lanes should be on busy roads because bikes are on busy roads. It's hard for some people to get this but biking is transportation for a lot of us. Bikes could potentially move as many people as cars in this city. People who ride for transportation will take the most direct route, they won't detour because of the minute possibility of some freak accident like this one.

[adam]

I was cycling this weekend and noticed quite a few fellow cyclists along King St all the way from Gage Park to Queen St. Everyone kept to the far right side of the road. There was a retired man going rather quickly on a nice hybrid bike, a couple on mountain bikes going much slower, a man dressed in hippie regalia on a low-rider going very slowly and enjoying every minute of it, and then there was me on an old touring bike going quickly... Everyone was having a great time. A dedicated cycling lane along King would give cars a piece of mind and make cyclists that much more comfortable. They could use those yellow road buoys to separate the cycling lane from the road if necessary. Or maybe create a lane for carpoolers/bikes only.

The downtown is a compact little area perfect for cycling. Dundurn to Victoria is under 3km, the entirety of James St (from St. Joe's to the bayfront) is almost exactly 3km. So a cyclist can get from one side of the downtown to the other in less than 10 minutes!

[ryan_mcgreal]

Folks, it's abundantly proven that the best way to reduce the number of cyclist casualties is to increase the number of cyclists. There's a very strong inverse correlation between the rate of cycling and the rate of injuries/deaths.

http://transalt.org/files/campaigns/bike/images/ridership_graph.jpg
(Source (http://transalt.org/files/newsroom/streetbeat/2009/June/0604.html#safety_in_numbers))

[FairHamilton]

Fuzzy logic....

This is one of the reasons I am not convinced that bike lanes should be on busy roads. Cyclists just don't have a chance.

Or 2 in a small car. Point?? Small cars shouldn't be allowed on busy roads?

I know this was just a freak occurance but it would make me think if I was a cyclist.

Or a motorist, or a pedestrian, or a public transit rider...... Could happen to anyone at anytime.

[Nouvellecosse]

And where in that statement did I say ban bikes and bike lanes. All I said was that I am not convinced bike lanes should be on busy roads. There are plenty of alternative roads where they can be placed. Once again your reading comprehension is lacking.It's busy roads that NEED the bike lanes the most in order to protect cyclists by allowing them their own space seperate from the main traffic. On quieter streets it doesn't matter quite as much (although they're always nice of course).

[Jon Dalton]

Ryan, for the win! Bike lanes result in more bike riding AND less bike accidents, end of story.

[bigguy1231]

A little reality check is in order. The city of Hamilton is not going to build bike lanes on the busiest roads in the city. Politicians in this city do not have the will to do so. Even if there was a demand for the lanes you will not see them on the busiest streets because the demand still pales in comparison to the number of people who will use their cars, bike lanes or not.

I realize in your idealistic fog, that most of you just can't see that. Cyclists are in the minority and always will be. Votes are what matters to politicians, and cyclists numbers just don't add up to enough votes to matter. Politicians will pay lip service to you, but when it comes to commiting money to projects, it's going to be a long time comming. There are just too many other priorities.

[omro]

Time for new politians then, if those currently in office are not going do what's best for the city and the people who live in it.

A bike lane is absurdly cheap to implement compared to other traffic altering measures. It's PAINT on a road. Have a pilot scheme. Try it and see what effect it has in six months and if it's had none, you repaint the roads back. Tada.

[Jon Dalton]

The city of Hamilton is not going to build bike lanes on the busiest roads in the city.
What's on the other side of those yellow stick thingies along Main and King?

Politicians in this city do not have the will to do so.
Which politicians, the ones who ratified the Transportation Master Plan which includes bike lanes? Or the ones who unanimously supported the public works report which moved the Shifting Gears plan into the budget phase?


Even if there was a demand for the lanes you will not see them on the busiest streets because the demand still pales in comparison to the number of people who will use their cars, bike lanes or not.
Unlike Montreal or Ottawa, where the demand also pales in comparison to people who will use their cars?

I realize in your idealistic fog, that most of you just can't see that.
See what? That Portland doesn't have a 15% cycling rate? That Amsterdam doesn't have a 40% cycling rate? Or are you suggesting that Hamilton has some unique cultural disposition towards the automobile that is not present in cities where cycling infrastructure has proven successful?


Cyclists are in the minority and always will be.
As is the case in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, New York, and just about any first world city. On a bad day in Groningen (50% cycling rate), cyclists are the minority.

Votes are what matters to politicians, and cyclists numbers just don't add up to enough votes to matter.
Quite true. Also very true in Portland, Amsterdam, Montreal.... wait, isn't this getting kind of redundant?

Politicians will pay lip service to you, but when it comes to commiting money to projects, it's going to be a long time comming. There are just too many other priorities.
See Transportation Master Plan, June 2007, endorsed by city council.

[ryan_mcgreal]

We have a situation in which a very large, heavy, powerful motor vehicle killed a cyclist and two occupants of a small motor vehicle. It boggles my mind in such a tragedy that anyone should suggest that the problem is the presence of the cyclist (or, by implication, the small motor vehicle) and not, you know, the actual vehicle responsible for killing three people!

I think Jack Wolters, Amsterdam's chief traffic safety officer, put it best (http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/405198_joel16.html?source=rss) when he said:

The target of the police is not to control cyclists and pedestrians. It is to control the most dangerous part, motorcar drivers. [emphasis added]

Sadly, I expect to see yet more magical exceptionalism to explain why this doesn't apply to Hamilton in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

[ryan_mcgreal]

New report: cycling in Amsterdam is now higher than driving (http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/06/in_amsterdam_more_trips_now_by.html):

"The bicycle is the means of transport used most often in Amsterdam," reports Bike Europe. "Between 2005 and 2007 people in the city used their bikes on average 0.87 times a day, compared to 0.84 for their cars. This is the first time that bicycle use exceeds car use."

[ryan_mcgreal]

More evidence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/jun/29/bike-blog-cycling-safety) that the best way to make cycling safer is to get more cyclists on the road:

Cycling has almost doubled on London's main roads in nine years and increased by 30-50% in cities such as Bristol, Leicester and Leeds.

But it's really remarkable that despite the increase in cycling, casualties suffered by cyclists are still down by around a third. To anyone who doesn't cycle this might seem a bit odd. Shouldn't more cyclists mean more crashes and injuries? As those who cycle will know, however, the more cyclists there are the safer it will be for everyone.

CTC (the UK's national cycling organisation) found that the same phenomenon occurs if you examine different areas within the UK. Cambridge, where a quarter of people cycle to work, or York where it is about one in eight, have a much lower risk of injury for cyclists than places where you hardly ever see a cyclist on the streets.

Why does this "safety in numbers" effect occur? The vast majority of cyclist injuries result from crashes with motor vehicles, and most of these appear to be primarily because the driver "looked but did not see". Cyclists (and motorcyclists) have even given this type of crash a name – Smidsy, an acronym for the drivers' refrain, "Sorry, mate, I didn't see you!"

These type of crashes start to decrease as cycling levels rise.

One more thing:

At a population level, of course, not-cycling is far more dangerous than cycling. The life expectancy of non-cyclists tends to be two years shorter, with 39% higher all-cause mortality than cyclists.

[highwater]

I realize in your idealistic fog...

Facts are foggy things.

[adam]

I rode my bike down King St this morning doing a couple errands and stopped at the lights at James with 4 other cyclists - One guy was on an e-bike, 3 others were regular bikes. I struck up a convo. with a guy with the electric bike who was taking it to Bike Hounds to get it checked over. Cycling can be a very social activity. There certainly is the demand for a bike lane judging by the number of cyclists who were on the street today. It was also interesting to note that the 4 of us took up the same amount of space on the road as 1/2 an SUV that carried a grand total of ONE person (sorry half a person... the other half of the SUV was completely empty) :shrug:

[rousseau]

More cyclists = more good. In so many ways. This seems an undeniable fact.

...half a person...
Was he morbid? Was he pale? Maybe he'd spent 6 years on your trail?

Nyuck.

[adam]

For the purpose of the comparison, I divided his body equally between the front and back halves of the vehicle.:haha:
And nope he didn't spend 6 years on my trail... there were plenty of other lanes for him to choose! Not that he would have got very far, I think I caught up to the same car at every stop light, I just got there 10 seconds later.. no big deal.

[rousseau]

Heh heh...though you, erm, get the reference, I hope?

[adam]

I looked it up, thanks! :tup:

[highwater]

More cyclists = more good. In so many ways. This seems an undeniable fact.


Was he morbid? Was he pale? Maybe he'd spent 6 years on your trail?

Nyuck.

Ahem. Could you please move this to the obscure Smiths references thread?

[FairHamilton]

Regarding those who are seemingly anti-cycling, or at least anti-improving cycling in the City of Hamilton. Has anyone ever wondered (or questioned) when the last time they rode a bike?

I think it would be interesting to know. I'm guessing the vast majority haven't rode (or is it ridden?) in a great many years, some since they were kids.

The old saying is, once you learn to ride a bike you'll never forget, so maybe we need to get the naysayers out for some rides. I'm betting a few will rediscover a joy/love of biking they forgot they ever had and perhaps change their views.

Just a thought.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/650796

[omro]

I've not been regularly on a bike, except a very brief moment in 2004, since I was 11.

[FairHamilton]

^ I also took about a 20 year break. I don't think it's not that uncommon for a great many people being years off a bike.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Ahem. Could you please move this to the obscure Smiths references thread?

William, it was really nothing.

[ryan_mcgreal]

I don't think it's not that uncommon for a great many people being years off a bike.

In an interview with the Infrastructurist (http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/06/29/how-to-convince-conservatives-to-support-public-transportation-william-lind-explains/) on his book making a conservative case for electric rail and public transit, William Lind says, "most of the people who oppose rail transportation have never ridden on a train."

I suspect the same is true of cyclists - either they have never ridden or haven't ridden since they were children. As Cal famously put it in The Forty Year Old Virgin, "Everyone rides a bike - when they're f***ing six!"

Most opposition to alternative transportation modes (alternative to driving, that is) amounts to straightforward fear of the unknown. Look at all the arguments made against bike lanes or light rail or whatever: it's all stock FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt), unsupported by any actual evidence, meant to prey on people's insecurities.

The multi-modal transportation opponents can't imagine why anyone would use a bike lane or an electric rail vehicle because they haven't used one themselves, can't see what the big fuss is and are afraid that rebalancing the transportation framework would threaten the status quo, which may not be perfect but is at least predictable.

Most of the people in Hamilton I've met who support LRT, for example, are people who experienced it firsthand while traveling to other cities. To them, its potential disruptiveness to the status quo is a feature, not a bug. As Mayor Eisengerger likes to put it, such a change is transformative in a city that desperately needs transformation.

I have yet to meet any opponent of LRT who has acually ridden on a modern LRT system. For them, transformation means a step into an unknown future that may be worse than today.

[rousseau]

Good post, ryan. Fear (of the unknown) and loathing (of any alternative to the almighty private passenger car) in Hamilton.

As a passionate cyclist, I get annoyed when I hear comments in the media or elsewhere disparaging cycling as something for kids only. Brings to mind this awful TV commercial for an auto parts shop: a teenaged kid buys auto parts at said shop one at a time, riding his bike back and forth to the car to install the parts. Eventually he gets the car running, and "doesn't have to ride his bike anymore." Twats.

Predictably, I rode a bike up until the age of 16, when I got my driver's licence. I only got back on a bicycle in Taiwan at the age of 27, and I rode there for one year (and probably did irreparable damage to my lungs due to the pollution--seriously) until I got a motorcycle like everyone else. Then, at the age of 40 I got back into cycling for exercise, and have been riding almost every day over the past few years. It's amazing getting on a bicycle after being off it for a long time. I think the motto of the former owner of one of the bike shops here in Stratford said it best: "Ride a bike, change your life."

Most Canadians dismiss cycling as a viable form of transportation for three reasons: the elements, the comparative inconvenience and the perceived danger. Unfortunately, these are tough obstacles to getting more people on bikes. Only the hardiest of the hardy will ride in January or in the rain; people who want to go to the box mall will drive; and they know what the roads are like, so they couldn't ever imagine being out there on a bike.

Part of the answer is critical mass (not the counter-productive, antagonistic and self-righteous circus of nutbars that is "critical mass," which I really detest), which can be induced by better infrastructure, i.e. cycling lanes. My impression is that things are on the right track, if moving far too slowly. Portland seems like a good model, as far as I can tell. We'll never be Amsterdam, but then, nowhere will.

[highwater]

William, it was really nothing.

You're making me miserable now.

...it's all stock FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt)...

Canada Day-related thread hijack alert: In FUD's defence, it did save Canada in the 1995 Quebec referendum, and will likely be the only thing standing between separation and a united Canada should there be another referendum. Let's all raise a glass to FUD tomorrow. My Canada includes FUD!

[Jon Dalton]

I rode every day until that magical day I turned 16. Car culture worked until I started my school internship in Burlington. That first time I got on the 403 expecting an easy 20 minute drive was probably a life changing event. It turned out the teenage love affair with cars doesn't translate well into adult life, where the open road of the car ads spits you out into endless suburbs and traffic jams. Needless to say, that got old quick, and now I ride every day.

[adam]

I think the only time I didn't ride a bike was during my undergrad degree. If I had, I probably would have been in better shape, in a better mood and felt less lethargic all the time. In high school it was whenever I missed the bus, in my grad degree I was close enough to bike every single day! During my first job I lived 5km away from work so biked all the time. Now I live quite a bit further from work but am in better shape than I've ever been - thanks to cycling (aka my free gym membership)

[highwater]

Take your calcium, boys. :)

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/16/health/he-cycling16

[rousseau]

Take your calcium, boys. :)

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/16/health/he-cycling16
The risk is overblown: a half hour of walking per day will take care of any problems related to bone density.

[ryan_mcgreal]

You're making me miserable now.

Please, please, please let me get what I want.

[adam]

This guy's bones look pretty healthy (i guess)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wb8bAl1P-N0/SkTbGRA8BQI/AAAAAAAAIQE/fwPfIqYBMVw/s400/6-26-09+003.jpg :shrug:

[bigguy1231]

I am sitting hear laughing reading all of these ridiculous posts.

I have been accused of being opposed to bike lanes, which I am not, I even suggested some streets that may be appropriate to start with. Unfortunately, for you cyclist you have a one track mind. Your insistance on putting bike lanes on King St. and Main St. It's not going to happen for the reasons I outlined in previous posts.

As for these supposed facts and statistics that you keep citing, there are facts on both sides of the arguement and statistics can be skewed anyway you want, depending on where you stand on the issue.

We live in a city with a car culture, bad or good that is reality. We have an aging population, older people vote, young people don't. Older people use their cars and do not want to be stuck in traffic with an empty bike lane next to them. Older people will complain to politicians in numbers large enough to have an effect.

I realize that some of you just can't comprehend that. All I am trying to do is point out what you are up against. It is not going to be an easy process. It's true city council approved of the idea of bike lanes. The problem is it was referred to the budgetary process where it will be placed at the bottom of the list of priorities. At the present time there are just too many other items that are a higher priority.