i would like to commend the…

i would like to commend the Ministry of Transportation for undertaking this initiative, and for putting forward the CycleON Action Plan. I have been a cyclist in Ontario since i was a child, including cycle commuting, undertaking multi-day cycle tours, mountain biking and cycle training all in both southern and northern Ontario.

My first impression of the Network is that it is disconnected. Relying on a mix of off-road and on-road cycle is not reflective of the different cycling modes that are used. for example, a road cyclist or a touring cyclist is not going to use an off-road trail. It is not practical, and the type of bicycle is not appropriate for off-road use. Alternatively, an off-road cyclist is keen to avoid road traffic and will not want to use a road based network unless it is fully separated, which the majority of the on-road routes identified are not. A better recommendation would be to determine a connected off-road network and a separate connected on-road network, rather than trying to mix the two.

My second impression is that the Network misses much of the province. there is no representation in northeastern Ontario, and large portions of northwestern Ontario are also unrepresented. there are many cyclists throughout Ontario, and many would like to be able to ride safely through the whole province. To that end, MTO would be much better placed looking at the road network and requiring the expansion of roadways to include paved shoulders. This could be done over time as new re-surfacing occurs. where MTO is not responsible for the road network, they should tie any funding for road maintenance and infrastructure upgrades to ensuring regions or municipalities upgrade their roadways to include paved shoulders to support cycling. Make it a requirement rather than a recommendation.

My third impression is that the route has not direct purpose. it seems as though it is an effort to move cyclists away from routes that are used by vehicles, rather than adapting a route to suit all potential users. this give the impression that cyclists are viewed as an inconvenience and the car is king. this does a disservice to the CycleON initiative as a whole. don't put in place a route that has a series of turns that creates a circuitous route within a short span that serves no purpose. allow cyclists to use direct routes, allow them to use routes with exciting features, like hills, scenic views, turns, in a way that respects this mode of transportation, rather than requesting they move to an area that is less suitable. you will find that they won't choose the lesser option.

My fourth impression is that you have not created a Network that promotes recreational cycling and cycling tourism. There is no interconnected area on the map you have provided where i could say i would want to go as a cycle tourist. i have been to cycle tourism destinations in Europe, the U.S. and other parts of Canada. there is no indication on your map the you have created an interconnected network that would be useful as a cycle destination. some areas to think about created this would be Simcoe County and the Kawarthas, southeastern Ontario (Leeds and Grenville/Perth County area), Bruce/Grey County, which already have a vast network of paved roads and fantastic infrastructure for tourism that already includes driving adventures.

i wish you great luck in developing a route that is useful. it will be a great challenge.

[Original Comment ID: 209120]