The Great Canadian Urban Cycling Thread

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Athens

If you are counting paved shoulders, Ottawa has 900km of cycling via: http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/transp...k-information; discounting that, Ottawa has about 650 km of multi-use paths, bike lanes and cycle tracks.

Paved shoulders? Are you inferring that Ottawa still has roads with gravel/dirt shoulders? Can you provide a picture example?

[speedog]

Calgary does not include these in their counts as they're not considered part of Calgary's bicycle network.

[Coldrsx]

Yeah... they should not be included.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by speedog

All of the numbers quoted so far have been for actual cities, to start throwing CMA numbers into the mix just starts muddying everything up.

Exactly. Once this guy I rode with from San Francisco (a much smaller city than Calgary) tried to claim that one of the attractions of the city was cycling across the Golden Gate Bridge to Sausalito.

I had to laugh. Sausalito is not part of the city of San Francisco. Either you're in San Francisco or you're in Sausalito. They're totally different municipal jurisdictions.

Similar thing with Montreal. There's this friend of a friend in Laval who has suggested we do a ride together when my wife and I go to Montreal, but...hello...we don't vacation in Laval, we vacation in Montreal. They're totally separate and unrelated cities. I had to explain to the dummkopf that maybe someday we'd plan a trip to Laval, and then we could a ride, but until then it's totally out of the question.

By the way, I think I'm going to start an online petition to change the utterly ridiculous name "Toronto Pearson International Airport."

[rousseau]

Ahem. Anyway...

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Toronto is behind; more for on street than trails but, it's also the place I feel safest cycling in mixed traffic.

Originally Posted by shappy

Despite the lag in bike infrastructure, bikes and cyclists are ubiquitous in the central city so most drivers are very aware of cyclists. If you drive downtown you have to have your head on a swivel.

Cycling infrastructure development in North America is reaching warp speed, which is why Toronto being ten years behind the times makes it even an even crappier biking experience than ten short years might otherwise suggest. It didn't help that Trump...oops, Rob Ford was at the helm for four years there.

But even so, it would indeed be really interesting to hear the opinions of people with lots of experience riding in various cities on how comparatively safe they feel. i think it really is true that for all the shittiness of Toronto's cycling infrastructure, the ubiquity of cyclists being everywhere really does have a "safety in numbers" effect.

It's all idle speculation, but I kinda wonder if cycling in Montreal would be a lot worse than Toronto if Montreal didn't have its great cycling lanes. Because Montreal drivers aren't, shall we say, quite so polite as in other places.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Exactly. Once this guy I rode with from San Francisco (a much smaller city than Calgary) tried to claim that one of the attractions of the city was cycling across the Golden Gate Bridge to Sausalito.

I had to laugh. Sausalito is not part of the city of San Francisco. Either you're in San Francisco or you're in Sausalito. They're totally different municipal jurisdictions.

Similar thing with Montreal. There's this friend of a friend in Laval who has suggested we do a ride together when my wife and I go to Montreal, but...hello...we don't vacation in Laval, we vacation in Montreal. They're totally separate and unrelated cities. I had to explain to the dummkopf that maybe someday we'd plan a trip to Laval, and then we could a ride, but until then it's totally out of the question.

By the way, I think I'm going to start an online petition to change the utterly ridiculous name "Toronto Pearson International Airport."

Uh, okay, but the simple fact remains that cycling infrastructure just is not decided on at a CMA level nor is it built or invested in at that level either. OP's thread topic was relative to urban areas, not CMA - shit, Medicine Hat, as an urban area, fails miserably but at a CA level? Edmonton would be a great example of an extended urban area that is creating a cycling network but it is still invited in at an individual municipal level - I highly doubt that the city of Edmonton is putting any of their tax payer monies to work in the city of St. Albert or vice versa. The county of Leduc lies win the Edmonton CMA but probably spends no money within the city of Edmonton on Edmonton's cycling network and the last time I checked there wasn't no general outcry to have the international airport there renamed to Leduc County International Airport.

Sure, it is valid to compare cycling networks at an urban level but certainly not at a CMA or CA level and the builds are all done at a local municipal level. To this end, Toronto's CMA includes the cities of Mississauga, Brampton and the town of Oakville and all three of those municipalities appear to have a fairly good cycling network in place. So is this Toronto's cycling network or not? Were the investment and design/build decisions for these three locales done at a CMA, urban or municipal level? Is Toronto's urban network considered half decent?

Calgary at a municipal level has done well but at an urban level I don't think it has but then there currently are limited choices to get a cycling network out to the city of Airdrie or Chestermere or the towns of Cochrane and Okotoks. Even the payback wouldn't be worth the investment because the demand just isn't there for a dedicated cycling network to those four communities - paved shoulders will suffice for now or in the case of Chestermere, a paved path along side a meandering irrigation canal that is by no means a direct route between the two cities. Airdrie would probably be the first place to look at getting a proper cycling network connection in place but it would most likely be very, very underutilized.

[shappy]

Originally Posted by rousseau

It's all idle speculation, but I kinda wonder if cycling in Montreal would be a lot worse than Toronto if Montreal didn't have its great cycling lanes. Because Montreal drivers aren't, shall we say, quite so polite as in other places.

Think it's more about not hitting someone. Throw in streetcars on and off loading in the middle of the street and it gets even more interesting.

[hipster duck]

Toronto's bike system in the core is getting better although, as rousseau says, bike infrastructure everywhere is expanding at a rapid pace so Toronto, despite its growth, is actually lagging other places.

Biking around the inner suburbs of the 416 is still the pits though. This is where cities like Calgary and Vancouver are miles ahead. It's very difficult to cross the 401, for example, without heading into a ravine. Areas like North York Centre, or along the Sheppard subway corridor should have better bike infrastructure than they do (currently non-existent). You should be able to bike to places like York University, Scarborough Centre and Etobicoke Centre along uninterrupted bike lanes or trailways from the rest of the 416.

Basically, all the growth nodes of the City of Toronto should be connected by decent bike infrastructure. The rule of thumb should be that if an area is deemed important to connect by higher order transit, then it should be connected by higher order bike infrastructure.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

St. John's is still very anti-bike. Steep hills, and suburban residents who have the mentality of "You got a purdy mouth" with very, very rural expectations of what suburban life should be.

We actually have protests against bike lanes.

Steep hills are really a powerful obstacle. That's very visible in Sherbrooke when you compare it to culturally-equivalent flat Quebec cities. People do commute by bike, but not as much as we'd see if the city were flat rather than full of hills.

It would probably also show in the cycling stats for San Francisco which you'd normally expect to be at or near the top as many factors align in favor of cycling there (ecologically-conscious culture, high gas prices, owning a car is expensive and complicated, mild winters and mild summers)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by speedog

Uh, okay, but the simple fact remains that cycling infrastructure just is not decided on at a CMA level nor is it built or invested in at that level either.

Actually, transportation infrastructure is often decided on a CMA level, as each individual municipality isn't surrounded by perfect vacuum.

[rousseau]

I honestly don't understand the inertia in Toronto. Why are the cost objections kryptonite to the political will when the myriad benefits of proper cycling infrastructure have been so empirically demonstrated elsewhere?

[osmo]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I honestly don't understand the inertia in Toronto. Why are the cost objections kryptonite to the political will when the myriad benefits of proper cycling infrastructure have been so empirically demonstrated elsewhere?

Toronto local politics is a swamp; our council, run by monkeys who can't think big picture on things. Toronto also can't mature away from the car no matter what it tells you publically.

There is still the small camp mindset with business owners crying that not having one street parking stall in front of their show shop will put them out of business.

Bike lanes are an easy target. Not building them makes motorists happy, and the Cycle advocates will always complain as there is much to do to catch up. I heard from one advocate it took them almost 20 years to get the bike lanes built on Bloor Street, which is absurd.

[mintzilla]

All the construction vehicles make cycling downtown Toronto hard. The city needs to crack down more on construction talk over bike lanes.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Ahem. Anyway...





Cycling infrastructure development in North America is reaching warp speed, which is why Toronto being ten years behind the times makes it even an even crappier biking experience than ten short years might otherwise suggest. It didn't help that Trump...oops, Rob Ford was at the helm for four years there.

But even so, it would indeed be really interesting to hear the opinions of people with lots of experience riding in various cities on how comparatively safe they feel. i think it really is true that for all the shittiness of Toronto's cycling infrastructure, the ubiquity of cyclists being everywhere really does have a "safety in numbers" effect.

It's all idle speculation, but I kinda wonder if cycling in Montreal would be a lot worse than Toronto if Montreal didn't have its great cycling lanes. Because Montreal drivers aren't, shall we say, quite so polite as in other places.

Many cyclists are every bit as impolite and dangerous as many drivers in Montreal, unfortunately.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Many cyclists are every bit as impolite and dangerous as many drivers in Montreal, unfortunately.

In my experience cycling in both cities my (unreliably anecdotal) impression is that general courtesy by cyclists to pedestrians, other cyclists and even motorized traffic is forced to be better in Montreal because of the terrific cycling lanes.

After all, when you've got this to work with... https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.51984...7i13312!8i6656...you don't have to worry as much about cyclists swerving in between cars, and pedestrians are confronted by a clearly defined cycling space, making for a more rational basis for deciding when and how to cross the street.

It would be so amazing if Toronto had a real network of cycling lanes like in my link above.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by speedog

Paved shoulders? Are you inferring that Ottawa still has roads with gravel/dirt shoulders? Can you provide a picture example?

There are some older farm roads that are outside of any built up area (Barnsdale off the top of my head) that still have gravel shoulders. You have to remember, the City of Ottawa proper is massive. At 2,796 sq. km, Ottawa is larger than the cities of Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton combined. This means there are a lot of rural roads that completely bypass the urban/suburban areas that act as regional highways (for example Dywer Hill) with paved shoulders as you have posted.

[ainvan]

Toronto Cycle Chic


Queen Street West at Niagara by Chris Smart, on Flickr


Bike chic. Trinity Bellwoods Park by Chris Smart, on Flickr


Bike Chic. Queen and Spadina by Chris Smart, on Flickr


King Street at Strachan by Chris Smart, on Flickr


Queen and Spadina by Chris Smart, on Flickr

[ainvan]

Toronto Cycle Chic


Toronto Cycle Chic_6 by Mikael Colville-Andersen, on Flickr


2276 mock a sin by 'Xander Labayen, on Flickr


2282 ride by 'Xander Labayen, on Flickr


IMG_5244 by 'Xander Labayen, on Flickr

[Doug]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Exactly. Once this guy I rode with from San Francisco (a much smaller city than Calgary) tried to claim that one of the attractions of the city was cycling across the Golden Gate Bridge to Sausalito.

I had to laugh. Sausalito is not part of the city of San Francisco. Either you're in San Francisco or you're in Sausalito. They're totally different municipal jurisdictions.

Similar thing with Montreal. There's this friend of a friend in Laval who has suggested we do a ride together when my wife and I go to Montreal, but...hello...we don't vacation in Laval, we vacation in Montreal. They're totally separate and unrelated cities. I had to explain to the dummkopf that maybe someday we'd plan a trip to Laval, and then we could a ride, but until then it's totally out of the question.

By the way, I think I'm going to start an online petition to change the utterly ridiculous name "Toronto Pearson International Airport."

But Marin is contiguous with SF so the municipal boundary is artificial. Riding the SF shoreline from say Ocean Beach past Cliff House, then over the Golden Gate through Blackie's Pasture, around the Tiburon Peninsula and then catching the ferry back to the city from Larkspur is aweinspiring. My sister is fortunate enough to view the Golden Gate and city skyline from her backyard.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by speedog

Uh, okay, but the simple fact remains that cycling infrastructure just is not decided on at a CMA level nor is it built or invested in at that level either. OP's thread topic was relative to urban areas, not CMA - shit, Medicine Hat, as an urban area, fails miserably but at a CA level? Edmonton would be a great example of an extended urban area that is creating a cycling network but it is still invited in at an individual municipal level - I highly doubt that the city of Edmonton is putting any of their tax payer monies to work in the city of St. Albert or vice versa. The county of Leduc lies win the Edmonton CMA but probably spends no money within the city of Edmonton on Edmonton's cycling network and the last time I checked there wasn't no general outcry to have the international airport there renamed to Leduc County International Airport.

Sure, it is valid to compare cycling networks at an urban level but certainly not at a CMA or CA level and the builds are all done at a local municipal level. To this end, Toronto's CMA includes the cities of Mississauga, Brampton and the town of Oakville and all three of those municipalities appear to have a fairly good cycling network in place. So is this Toronto's cycling network or not? Were the investment and design/build decisions for these three locales done at a CMA, urban or municipal level? Is Toronto's urban network considered half decent?

Calgary at a municipal level has done well but at an urban level I don't think it has but then there currently are limited choices to get a cycling network out to the city of Airdrie or Chestermere or the towns of Cochrane and Okotoks. Even the payback wouldn't be worth the investment because the demand just isn't there for a dedicated cycling network to those four communities - paved shoulders will suffice for now or in the case of Chestermere, a paved path along side a meandering irrigation canal that is by no means a direct route between the two cities. Airdrie would probably be the first place to look at getting a proper cycling network connection in place but it would most likely be very, very underutilized.

The gap to Cochrane through Haskayne and Bearpaw parks will soon be spanned. The route along the river would be as direct as riding the highway, but still too far for casual commuters (probably 35 km). The route through the canyon is unbelievably scenic, basically like riding along a secluded mountain stream.