Comments on: Bicycle Lane Futures http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/whimsicality/bicycle-lane-futures/ urbanism - landscape - ideas - theory - whimsy Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:33:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Andrew MacNair http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/whimsicality/bicycle-lane-futures/comment-page-1/#comment-19628 Andrew MacNair Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:24:17 +0000 http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/?p=22#comment-19628 Hi, Who are you, where are you? I like this very much, and your theme of bricoleur urbanism is very important and relevant, I have been teaching and developing a set of themes about Not Not Architecture, which is and includes a Not Not NY NY as a bricoleur series of operations by students studying at thre GSAPP Columbia in th epast 8 years, Andrew MacNair, 646-241-5986 Hi, Who are you, where are you? I like this very much, and your theme of bricoleur urbanism is very important and relevant, I have been teaching and developing a set of themes about Not Not Architecture, which is and includes a Not Not NY NY as a bricoleur series of
operations by students studying at thre GSAPP Columbia in th epast 8 years, Andrew MacNair, 646-241-5986

]]> By: Darren http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/whimsicality/bicycle-lane-futures/comment-page-1/#comment-462 Darren Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:11:31 +0000 http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/?p=22#comment-462 Side streets are great but your theory ignores the fact that cyclists need to go grocery shopping, doctor visits, etc, which locations are generally found on major roads. Cyclists spend a greater percentage of their money at local businesses compared to a driver that goes to the big boxes in Vaughan. Those busy streets are the ones we are most likely to come across friends. Why encourage further urban decay by devoiding streets of people? Besides, cyclists want to take the most direct route, their time constraints are no different than anyone elses. It is irresponsible and unrealistic to ignore these issues. It is very big of you to tell those people to take transit. Have you ever considered that some cannot afford to hop on a luxury like transit? City Council does it damnedest every few months hiking fares. Gehettotizing cyclists to side streets gets us where? Drivers do not only violate bike lanes but host of other regs that imperil everybody. Sure there are some pretty nastily designed bike lanes in Toronto that cause problems. So are we just going to throw our hands up in the air and say we give up? If we follow you we might as well start riding on the sidewalks. As more and more cars clog the streets they will be more apt to take side streets. What then? Side streets are great but your theory ignores the fact that cyclists need to go grocery shopping, doctor visits, etc, which locations are generally found on major roads. Cyclists spend a greater percentage of their money at local businesses compared to a driver that goes to the big boxes in Vaughan. Those busy streets are the ones we are most likely to come across friends. Why encourage further urban decay by devoiding streets of people? Besides, cyclists want to take the most direct route, their time constraints are no different than anyone elses. It is irresponsible and unrealistic to ignore these issues.

It is very big of you to tell those people to take transit. Have you ever considered that some cannot afford to hop on a luxury like transit? City Council does it damnedest every few months hiking fares.

Gehettotizing cyclists to side streets gets us where? Drivers do not only violate bike lanes but host of other regs that imperil everybody. Sure there are some pretty nastily designed bike lanes in Toronto that cause problems. So are we just going to throw our hands up in the air and say we give up?

If we follow you we might as well start riding on the sidewalks. As more and more cars clog the streets they will be more apt to take side streets. What then?

]]> By: Andrew http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/whimsicality/bicycle-lane-futures/comment-page-1/#comment-461 Andrew Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:53:33 +0000 http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/?p=22#comment-461 I totally agree with the idea of making the bike lanes pass through residential areas instead of busy arterials. If you ever get the chance, try biking the Oakland (California) to Berkeley bike route. Following the bike route signs, your distance travelled is not any greater than if you were to take the major arteries but you never have to mix it up with the busses and motorist lemmings on their way to work. This has the added benefit of bike lanes not being an issue with the "we want more sidewalk" businesses. I totally agree with the idea of making the bike lanes pass through residential areas instead of busy arterials. If you ever get the chance, try biking the Oakland (California) to Berkeley bike route. Following the bike route signs, your distance travelled is not any greater than if you were to take the major arteries but you never have to mix it up with the busses and motorist lemmings on their way to work. This has the added benefit of bike lanes not being an issue with the “we want more sidewalk” businesses.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/whimsicality/bicycle-lane-futures/comment-page-1/#comment-21 Anonymous Wed, 05 Apr 2006 07:40:00 +0000 http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/?p=22#comment-21 There are only two contra-flow bike lanes in Toronto at the moment, the one you pointed out on Montrose, and the other is on Strathcona, south of Pape and Danforth. The city bike planners really like them, but hasn't put any more in. I think this is due to logistics, there are only so many one way streets where they can put them in: where there is parking on only one side and enough width for a bike lane and a car lane. There are <B>no</B> signs in the city allowing bikes to ignore one way streets. This is regulated by the Highway Traffic Act and Toronto can make no exceptions. I'm going to guess that Dupont and Brunswick is actually a two-way street that doesn't allow left turns for cars. I hear that in Germany, Netherlands and elsewhere they do have signs that allow cyclists to go the wrong way down one way streets. We can have that here if the Highway Traffic Act is changed. Herb http://cyclingcog.net There are only two contra-flow bike lanes in Toronto at the moment, the one you pointed out on Montrose, and the other is on Strathcona, south of Pape and Danforth. The city bike planners really like them, but hasn’t put any more in. I think this is due to logistics, there are only so many one way streets where they can put them in: where there is parking on only one side and enough width for a bike lane and a car lane.

There are no signs in the city allowing bikes to ignore one way streets. This is regulated by the Highway Traffic Act and Toronto can make no exceptions. I’m going to guess that Dupont and Brunswick is actually a two-way street that doesn’t allow left turns for cars.

I hear that in Germany, Netherlands and elsewhere they do have signs that allow cyclists to go the wrong way down one way streets. We can have that here if the Highway Traffic Act is changed.

Herb
http://cyclingcog.net

]]> By: Darren J http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/whimsicality/bicycle-lane-futures/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Darren J Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:24:00 +0000 http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/?p=22#comment-20 I agree with a lot of what you said. Most people will enjoy cycling down a small residential street much more than riding along a major arterial. So if we want it to be for everyone, or much closer to "everyone" than right now, then creating more bike friendly through routes on residential streets would help. Especially if the routes connected with each other right through the city (like Bedford - St.George - Beverly - John, but longer). I like the idea of encouraging cars onto arterials by putting planters across a street, or similar, which would allow bikes and pedestrians to get by. And I understand the anti-bike-lane argument, but I'm not fully sold. Some drivers have a hard time being able to tell if a lane is wide enough for a bike and a car, which leads to scaring beginner cyclists off the road. There are too many places right now where there is no alternative but to ride on the major streets. Aren't there many more people riding bikes in Germany and the Netherlands, where bike lanes are common in many places? I'm not saying it's the only reason, but I think it contributes to there being so many age groups on bikes there. I agree with a lot of what you said. Most people will enjoy cycling down a small residential street much more than riding along a major arterial. So if we want it to be for everyone, or much closer to “everyone” than right now, then creating more bike friendly through routes on residential streets would help. Especially if the routes connected with each other right through the city (like Bedford – St.George – Beverly – John, but longer). I like the idea of encouraging cars onto arterials by putting planters across a street, or similar, which would allow bikes and pedestrians to get by.

And I understand the anti-bike-lane argument, but I’m not fully sold. Some drivers have a hard time being able to tell if a lane is wide enough for a bike and a car, which leads to scaring beginner cyclists off the road. There are too many places right now where there is no alternative but to ride on the major streets.

Aren’t there many more people riding bikes in Germany and the Netherlands, where bike lanes are common in many places? I’m not saying it’s the only reason, but I think it contributes to there being so many age groups on bikes there.

]]> By: marts http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/whimsicality/bicycle-lane-futures/comment-page-1/#comment-19 marts Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:13:00 +0000 http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/?p=22#comment-19 I agree that the side streets are the way to go for cyclists. I often see cycle cops using them "wrong way" too. But I don't think we need bike lanes to allow us to go the wrong way. A sign would be fine, like the one at Dupont and Brunswick. I think it says "no left turn. cyclists excepted". That's a turn onto the correct way of a one-way, but it's an idea that could work in either case, I think. I agree that the side streets are the way to go for cyclists. I often see cycle cops using them “wrong way” too. But I don’t think we need bike lanes to allow us to go the wrong way. A sign would be fine, like the one at Dupont and Brunswick. I think it says “no left turn. cyclists excepted”. That’s a turn onto the correct way of a one-way, but it’s an idea that could work in either case, I think.

]]>