Jump to content

Off Off Topic: Cool Toronto People's Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 11.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Zach6668

    2157

  • serge

    2150

  • Babying

    1496

  • FCP Bob

    1299

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As you may or may not know, Otto has a disability (Autism). He has cope with it very well and imo has made great strides in his development. We (my wife and I) went through alot during his primary s

At the beginning of all of these revelations, Ford's allies and councillors tried to sit down with him privately, and urge him to look out for himself, to get help, and to come back stronger than ever

Heavy Rescue Squad 331. Beaten up, soaked, and with bellies full of smoke. Best job in the world.  

They should build a temperature controlled underground "subway" just for bikes.

 

Now you are talking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a hatred for bike lanes. It's a hatred for irresponsible jackasses that ride bikes. There many different groups of "bikers". The responsible ones that obey the laws and the idiots who are the cockroaches do the downtown core. In defence of bikers the cockroaches are probably a minority but they need to be dealt with.

 

I bet the portion of motorists who are "irresponsible jackasses" is higher than the proportion of cyclists who are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I bet the portion of motorists who are "irresponsible jackasses" is higher than the proportion of cyclists who are.

 

How would you know, you don't drive?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot of sympathy for cyclists who are forced (for lack of a better term) to transport themselves in such a hostile environment. We just need to build a simple grid/network of protected* lanes for cyclists and, IMO, you'll see a lot of these conflicts solved.

 

*(This means separated by bollards or curbs, etc)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot of sympathy for cyclists who are forced (for lack of a better term) to transport themselves in such a hostile environment. We just need to build a simple grid/network of protected* lanes for cyclists and, IMO, you'll see a lot of these conflicts solved.

 

*(This means separated by bollards or curbs, etc)

 

Wanted to add to this that I know it sucks balls for drivers to deal with cyclists too. It's just that they aren't the ones with their lives at risk in the event of a mistake or what have you that leads to a collision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I drive often enough. I don't own a car, but my household does.

 

Really? You have lived in Toronto for less than a year, you tell us you hardly ever drive, but your making all these blanket statements on drivers and cars and cyclists of Toronto, and I'm trying to figure out where your information is coming from. I'm going to assume its from other people's opinions and assertions, from your classes.

 

You can dismiss Serge's or anyone else's opinion all you like, but at some point, you should realize that experience actually means something

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not completely ignorant of drivers and their viewpoints and necessities, etc.

 

I come from as much car culture as you can imagine. My father owned a car dealership for most of my life, and was GM of another one before that. I was obsessed with cars in high school. I got my license the day I turned 16, and my G2 exactly 8 months to the day of my G1 (ie the earliest possible). I also had my own car almost immediately after that from my Dad, then I bought it when I moved out and took it to Ottawa and drove it there, though not that much since I lived downtown and didn't have to commute for work or anything. But in the last year there, I delivered pizzas... so I logged a shit-ton of miles. I obviously don't have my own car here in Toronto, but I drive Devin's occasionally, and quite often, it's downtown because we have 4 people heading for dinner, or I need to get my sister from work (Queen and John) to take her to the airport, or I'm picking her up from Billy Bishop, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can dismiss Serge's or anyone else's opinion all you like, but at some point, you should realize that experience actually means something

 

Well, I only dismiss the opinions that are hyperbole. Not all cyclists are wreckless maniacs. I imagine it's an extremely small percentage, in fact, but it's that one that we remember, you know? It's a reinforcement bias.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you guys that cars and bikes don't mix well, in fact I said as much explicitly. This is why I'm for the protected bike lanes. People are going to ride their bikes. Those numbers won't be declining. They'll probably even still rise if we don't do anything, but not building anything will certainly continue to frustrate motorists when they have to deal with more bike traffic.

 

If you make a connected network of protected lanes that actually go where people want to go, you'll see fewer bikers utilize main driving streets for the bulk of their travels. You'll still get some traffic from those who need to get from the lanes to their final destination, though, which is why we just need to improve and clarify the rules and regulations regarding cyclists on city streets so that we all know them well.

 

There are some societal benefits from promoting cycling. It promotes a healthier lifestyle, which will lower the amount of money spent on health care, it helps to significantly reduce pollution, and it's a far more efficient mode of transportation. The fact that it's a fraction of the cost of any other form of transportation infrastructure is important too. We could build an entire network across the entire city for some relatively meaningless amount of our tax dollars, and see benefits immediately. You could probably recoup that money in additional property tax dollars pretty quickly as well, as business tend to do better when they're on cycling and pedestrian routes, and homes tend to have higher values on bike lanes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

, and homes tend to have higher values on bike lanes.

 

But this is not because of the bike lanes.

 

The bike lanes do not cause whatever difference there is in home value.

 

I hope your economics and stats studies would teach you to be very critical of certain claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But this is not because of the bike lanes.

 

The bike lanes do not cause whatever difference there is in home value.

 

I hope your economics and stats studies would teach you to be very critical of certain claims.

 

That's a fair point. I'm not necessarily sure about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, I only dismiss the opinions that are hyperbole. Not all cyclists are wreckless maniacs. I imagine it's an extremely small percentage, in fact, but it's that one that we remember, you know? It's a reinforcement bias.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you guys that cars and bikes don't mix well, in fact I said as much explicitly. This is why I'm for the protected bike lanes. People are going to ride their bikes. Those numbers won't be declining. They'll probably even still rise if we don't do anything, but not building anything will certainly continue to frustrate motorists when they have to deal with more bike traffic.

 

If you make a connected network of protected lanes that actually go where people want to go, you'll see fewer bikers utilize main driving streets for the bulk of their travels. You'll still get some traffic from those who need to get from the lanes to their final destination, though, which is why we just need to improve and clarify the rules and regulations regarding cyclists on city streets so that we all know them well.

 

There are some societal benefits from promoting cycling. It promotes a healthier lifestyle, which will lower the amount of money spent on health care, it helps to significantly reduce pollution, and it's a far more efficient mode of transportation. The fact that it's a fraction of the cost of any other form of transportation infrastructure is important too. We could build an entire network across the entire city for some relatively meaningless amount of our tax dollars, and see benefits immediately. You could probably recoup that money in additional property tax dollars pretty quickly as well, as business tend to do better when they're on cycling and pedestrian routes, and homes tend to have higher values on bike lanes.

 

Did I say all cyclists are reckless maniacs?

 

Every single one of my opinions cone from years and years of experience. They don't come from utopian textbook statistical analysis.

 

Also as much as you might disagree I'm actually fairly average and if I have these views and experiences so do a significant percentage of the population.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Underground bikeway.

 

Two lanes going each way...separated by advertising designed to be read by those riding bikes (obv). Would also have a breakdown lane and "pit" areas.

 

Inside lane is the "fast lane".

 

A smartphone app attached to the handlebars lets you order a beverage while you ride. You place your order and pay using your phone and they pass you your drink in a reusable unspillable container which you can toss into areas along the way where they will be gathered, cleaned and reused.

 

Temperature controlled!

 

I'm working on some drawings.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But this is not because of the bike lanes.

 

The bike lanes do not cause whatever difference there is in home value.

 

I hope your economics and stats studies would teach you to be very critical of certain claims.

 

Idont understand how you can say this - if it is factual a bike lane is related to higher home values, how can you just blanket say its not related to the bike lane? There are almost certainly many factors, but its also unarguable to say some people would pay extra for a house with a bike lane in front, and since some of the beneficial factors are directly related to the bike lane, those count as well. To dismiss this out of hand is worse economic analysis than the throwaway point Zach suggested.

 

I also think you guys are really struggling if your best argument is "you never drive". Most cancer researchers don't have cancer, but they can still understand it pretty well. Zach's talking about traffic flow and efficiency, and you guys are arguing because a biker you barely saw cut you off last week or because it took you too long to get to an appointment. I hate hate hate driving next to bikers too, and there's no doubt in my mind that the few bikers using main roads cause more delays than they prevent. Which should probably be a good indication that there is room for improvement, rather than keeping things status quo, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Idont understand how you can say this - if it is factual a bike lane is related to higher home values, how can you just blanket say its not related to the bike lane? There are almost certainly many factors, but its also unarguable to say some people would pay extra for a house with a bike lane in front, and since some of the beneficial factors are directly related to the bike lane, those count as well. To dismiss this out of hand is worse economic analysis than the throwaway point Zach suggested.

 

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

A common logical fallacy from people who have a superficial understanding of statistics. People also use correlation to try and prove causation in an effort to fool those who don't know any better to further their agendas. Zach is smart enough if he thinks about it to not fall for that but it's human nature to believe things we want to be true so we might not always think as critically as we should about those things.

 

Highway 7 in Markham just had a major redevelopment adding dedicated bus lanes for bus rapid transit without losing any traffic lanes. As part of that they also added bike lanes. The cause of property prices being increased is not the fact that there are bike lanes there and in this case they are meaningless to any house prices.

 

Stick a bike lane in a place that means losing a lane of traffic because of bad planning and the traffic for everybody else gets worse that is going to make housing less desirable overall in that area for most.

 

Zach implied with his statement that adding bikes lanes would increase property values as a result of just adding the lanes which is not proved by areas with bike lanes having higher property values.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again stats vs real life.

 

I m not buying a house, condo if there is a bike lane there. Simple logic for ME.

 

I don't use said bike lane. Will be less room to drive , hence it's not going to entice me to live there.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again stats vs real life.

 

I m not buying a house, condo if there is a bike lane there. Simple logic for ME.

 

I don't use said bike lane. Will be less room to drive , hence it's not going to entice me to live there.

 

If it's well planned it won't factor at all into your decision.

 

If you wanted to live close to Highway 7 the fact there is a bike lane there wouldn't come into play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If it's well planned it won't factor at all into your decision.

 

If you wanted to live close to Highway 7 the fact there is a bike lane there wouldn't come into play.

 

Well I wouldn't want to live near highway 7 anyway. For different reasons.

 

I actually try and avoid the area between Markham all the way across to Yonge on 7.

 

Traffic is brutal, seems like always.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

A common logical fallacy from people who have a superficial understanding of statistics. People also use correlation to try and prove causation in an effort to fool those who don't know any better to further their agendas. Zach is smart enough if he thinks about it to not fall for that but it's human nature to believe things we want to be true so we might not always think as critically as we should about those things.

 

Highway 7 in Markham just had a major redevelopment adding dedicated bus lanes for bus rapid transit without losing any traffic lanes. As part of that they also added bike lanes. The cause of property prices being increased is not the fact that there are bike lanes there and in this case they are meaningless to any house prices.

 

Stick a bike lane in a place that means losing a lane of traffic because of bad planning and the traffic for everybody else gets worse that is going to make housing less desirable overall in that area for most.

 

Zach implied with his statement that adding bikes lanes would increase property values as a result of just adding the lanes which is not proved by areas with bike lanes having higher property values.

 

Thanks for explaining that correlation does not equal causation. I don't think Zach implied that - I think he just stated a data point, which I would think would have the unspoken understanding amongst intelligent people that such a complicated effect (market price) would never be singularly influenced by one factor.

 

And you're only argument - that sticking a bike lane in place of a lane of traffic would reduce value...is actually almost certainly wrong. Lots of people want to live on streets where there is less traffic, rather than more. Most people want the bike lanes on their street, and not on other streets, because that means less traffic in front of their house, without significantly effecting overall commute times. Then again, your argument is circular, since it assumes that a bike lane will make traffic worse for everyone, which is exactly the basis of our discussion.

 

And it's worth pointing out that the improved market value, at least in the very superficial way I described it, is not really an argument in favour of bike lanes, because it doesn't improve overall efficiencies, just gives one street (the one with the lane) a benefit over their neighbour.

 

Again stats vs real life.

 

I m not buying a house, condo if there is a bike lane there. Simple logic for ME.

 

I don't use said bike lane. Will be less room to drive , hence it's not going to entice me to live there.

 

Fair point that it goes both ways, but where there are way more places without than with bike lanes, so based on that one factor alone, the positive effect for those that want it will be stronger than the negative effect of those who don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More details:

 

I'm thinking of a transponder-407ish system.

 

I'm thinking the whole bikeway will be nicknamed The Crack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Danny.

 

Zach said that since house prices are higher on bike routes that paying for building new bike routes will help pay for themselves through higher property taxes. That directly implies that building bike lanes will increase the value of properties. Classic causation being confused with correlation.

 

You also said that it's a fact that higher house prices are related to bike lanes in your response to me.

 

We have a real World example of removing a lane of traffic to add a bike lane that was little used. Jarvis street in Toronto. It went from 5 lanes with the center lane changing direction depending on time of day to 4 lanes without that center lane and dedicated bike lanes. Traffic slowed significantly. The City smartened up and removed the bike lanes and went back to 5 lanes of traffic and lo and behold commuting times improved for those who use Jarvis. With Jarvis there were no good alternatives for drivers. It's the route that a large area of the city uses to get into the downtown core and the bike lanes weren't needed since both Church to the West and Sherbourne to the East already had bike lanes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...