Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this consultation. Answers to the discussion questions are provided below.

Plan to Improve Commuter Cycling Networks
Question 1: What infrastructure should be prioritized to make cycling in Ontario safer and more convenient to support commuter cycling between residential communities, major transit stations, employment areas and other destinations travelled to on a frequent basis?

To be successful, a transportation network needs to be a network. Isolated high-quality infrastructure will be less effective than ubiquitous, good-enough infrastructure. This is not to excuse bad infrastructure (e.g. sharrows), but to say the priorities should be, in order:

1. Change the road design safety standards so all roads are cycle-friendly by default. E.g. by making urban general lanes more narrow, lowering speed limits, shrinking curb-radii, building intersections following safe designs such as those used by the Netherlands and Denmark
2. Building a broad network of good-enough infrastructure such as: permissive contra-flow cycling on one-way residential streets, repurposing sidewalks with large suburban setbacks as multi-use trails, painted bike lanes on low-speed, low-automotive-volume routes, buffered bike lanes on higher-speed or higher-volume routes, and fully grade-separated cycle tracks on high-speed, high-volume or high-priority streets.
3. On major routes, building marquee cycling infrastructure.

Question 2: What evidence can demonstrate the impact of cycling infrastructure investments on the number of cyclists and on GHG emissions?

1. Traffic counts
2. Transportation tomorrow survey
3. Statistics Canada surveys and census

Local Cycling Infrastructure
Question 3: For local cycling networks, what types of cycling infrastructure would best support commuter cycling between residential communities, major transit stations, employment areas and other destinations traveled to on a frequent basis?

All of the principles from Question 1 apply:

1. Road design safety standards
2. Broad network
3. Marquee infrastructure

Municipalities should focus on creating complete streets, prioritizing, in this order:

1. Pedestrians and those with accessibility needs (e.g. wheelchairs)
2. Cyclists
3. Public transportation
4. Goods movement
5. Private single-passenger motor vehicles

Additionally, to successfully deliver on (2.), local cycling networks should strive to improve connectivity of neighbourhoods. That is to say, if a resident on a cul-de-sac would be required to cycle 5k to travel 100m as the crow flies, just to get out of their poorly designed suburban style neighbourhood, the best outcomes will be achieved by improving linkages within that neighbourhood. Municipalities should be empowered to improve local connectivity, whether by purchasing property, repurposing or redesigning existing public land, or negotiating easements.

The Highway Traffic Act should be amended to permit contraflow cycling on all low-speed one-way residential streets. Such one-ways are generally introduced to calm motor vehicle traffic and reducing the cycling network is a large unintended negative consequence of such action. Permissive contraflow cycling has been shown to introduce no new safety risks, and is largely a de facto practice already despite being prohibited by law. The law should be updated to reflect the current reality.

Traffic signal timing, when optimized by municipalities to e.g. reduce delay or to create a so-called “green wave,” should be required to optimize for cyclists and pedestrians as well as motor vehicles in their timings. Many current signal timing efforts, for example that by the City of Toronto, completely ignore active transportation and in areas with significant cycling are likely making things worse, rather than better, when cyclists are considered.

Provincial Cycling Infrastructure
Question 4: What types of cycling infrastructure on provincial highways would best support commuter cycling between residential communities, major transit stations, employment areas and other destinations travelled to on a frequent basis?

The same principles and answers as in Questions 1 and 3 apply.

Bicycle Parking
Question 5: What types of bike parking facilities (e.g., bike racks, lockers, fee-based enclosures) are needed to support cycling for commuting and other frequent trips?

Ubiquitous, good-enough parking is essential.

Ubiquitous: bike parking needs to be everywhere people are and want to be. Indicators that bike parking is required include: transit stations, major intersections, employment areas, parking lots, on-street parking, public buildings, and public parklands. Parking kludges should be used to identify where parking is required as well: for instance, if bikes are locked to trees or fences, then proper parking is indicated. A “Please don’t park your bike here” sign is a clear sign that more real bike parking is required.

Good-enough: bike parking should be theft-resistant (e.g. bolted to the ground), visible for safety, and functional (tall enough, wide enough). Bike parking that doesn’t meet these principles is useless. The degree of theft-resistance required depends on the nature of the parking, for example regular overnight parking warrants bike lockers, rather than just an open rack. Wheel-only racks are completely useless.

Question 6: What types of government-owned, publicly accessible facilities should have bike parking?

All of them.

Question 7: What types of transit or transportation stations should have bike parking to support improved cyclist access (e.g., GO Stations, LRT stations, bus terminals)?

All rail stations (municipal, GO, Via, etc) indicate major transportation routes and should have bike parking, including both ride-up temporary racks and overnight bike storage lockers.

Bus stops at major destinations or intersections should have adequate parking, as cycling could replace a transfer.

Intercity terminals of any kind (bus, rail, air) should have both long- and short-term bike parking.

Question 8: What types of private facilities could potentially be eligible to receive provincial funding for bicycle parking facilities?

Provincial funding for private bicycle parking facilities should be limited to those facilities for which any member of the public can receive parking. Such funding should not be allocated to facilities only open to a limited subset of Ontarians (for example, employee-only parking).

Post-script: it would be helpful if this form supported formatted text

[Original Comment ID: 203335]