For every bike, have at least one backup.

Waste of Time

Dear Mayor Tory,

Dear Mayor Tory,

I’m writing to you in the hopes that you will support the Transform Yonge recommendation for Yonge Street in North York.

Former New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg famously said in God we trust but everyone else bring data. Except we all know the data. Over 80 pedestrians or cyclists have been struck on this section of Yonge since 2010 with 8 deaths. I suppose one death a year isn’t bad – it’s very bad. North York Centre is a heavily populated urban area with a 6-lane expressway running through it. Almost 80,000 people live in this neighbourhood and they and their councillor want to see Yonge change. We all know the numbers and it’s not about numbers.

You’ve proposed moving the bike lanes to Beecroft, or “just feet from Yonge” but it’s not about bike lanes. Bike lanes are just one tool in the design to make this part of Yonge a safer, more humane street. Reducing the number of lanes and sidewalk improvements will make this a street where people live, work and shop instead of a place other people drive by.

Yet, it's not about cars. Residents of Willowdale aren’t buying more cars. Like other parts of the city, they are buying fewer. They don’t want to spend their lives stuck in traffic. They don’t want to risk their lives crossing a highway to get home. They don’t want their children to die on that street. Your proposed option will cost residents more in construction time thanks to a poorly conceived hybrid solution - unless of course you want to cut that time by allowing overnight construction which will cost residents lost sleep. It will cost all of us more money, but it’s not about money.

What is it about? It’s about commitment. A public commitment you made. You publicly committed to Vision Zero and yet whenever you have the opportunity to prove it, you work against it. Why exactly are people in cars driving somewhere else so much more important than the people who live, work and shop in the very neighbourhood we’re talking about? It’s about who we are and being the kind of city where people can live, work, play and prosper. Can you help do that for us? "Getting Toronto Moving” shouldn’t be about keeping cars moving. Help get people moving by walking, biking and using public transit like the TTC and Go and by making those options faster, accessible and affordable.

This is why I’m asking you to follow the wishes of the residents, their elected representative and the recommendation of City staff to support the Transform Yonge option for Yonge Street North.

Embarrassingly Ignorant

Frank Touby of The Bulletin seems to think renegade freeloading cyclists aren't paying their share of the costs of bike lanes and that licensing of cyclists would somehow rectify the situation. Here is my response -

Dear Mr. Touby:

Driver’s licensing fees do not contribute to the cost of your streets. If anything those fees only make the management and administration of licensing revenue neutral. Do you think your insurance pays for your streets? Obviously, it doesn’t. Do you think parking fees pay for your streets? They don’t. You might logically think the tax you pay on fuel pays for your streets. It doesn’t. Road budgets come out of the larger pot of all of your taxes. So when you pay your property tax, rent (which includes the landlord’s property taxes), income tax or any HST, you’re paying for your streets. Even the kid buying a candy bar from her allowance is paying for your streets. If you did not know any of this about your streets, then I am embarrassed for your ignorance.

I say “your” streets because you seem to be mistaken in believing the streets of Toronto belong to you, a single driver in a single car. They do not. Streets existed long before the automobile and even today our streets are a shared resource for private, personal, commercial traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, rickshaws and even horses. A recent statistic has revealed of everyone traveling in the downtown core, 75% of people are moving by transit, walking, or cycling while only 25% are driving. A survey in New York City found that some 30% of people in their cars in the downtown were actually just looking for parking. Extrapolating to the Toronto statistic just noted, that would mean only about 17% of people driving in the core are really going anywhere, on your streets. By your logic that means 75% of people living and moving in the core are paying for 17% who take up an inordinate amount of room, cause noise, congestion and pollution but they are your streets after all because you pay for them. Except clearly, you don’t. The people really getting screwed here aren’t the pedestrians who walk across streets or the cyclists who take up so much room but the people on the TTC. Riders pay for about 85% of the cost of the TTC, not to mention their taxes also pay for the streets drivers, pedestrians and cyclists enjoy.

Knowing this, it is absurd to say that drivers pay for Toronto streets. Everyone pays for Toronto’s roadways, so it makes no sense to say drivers pay for bike lanes. In fact, the truth is transit riders, pedestrians and cyclists are paying for roadways that do not favour them. In fact, it would be more honest to say all Toronto residents are subsidizing the cost of roads for that 17% of people driving in the core. Given that Toronto has over 5000 Km of roadways but less than 100 Km of bike lanes the imbalance becomes even more apparent. It’s easy to see your confusion about bike lanes not being used. That’s simply optics. Cyclists do not take much room at all. When I commute via Sherbourne and Queens Quay I am joined by thousands of others. Traffic counts on Queens Quay, Richmond-Adelaide, Harbord and Bloor Streets have counted thousands of trips made by cyclists daily. When I’m at a stop light at King and Sherbourne I may count as many as a dozen cyclists at the intersection, a single street car, dozens of pedestrians and maybe 10 cars. But of all of those modes, which takes the most space on the roadway? The car. How many people are using each car? Typically one. Yet the bike lane looks empty. Whenever someone uses this red herring argument I look out on the vastness of streets around me and see empty roadways everywhere but instead of planting wheat or soya beans or trees, we’ve paved them in case a car comes by. The only roadway in Toronto that is always full of cars is the Gardiner Expressway. That’s okay though because cyclists and pedestrians are not allowed on that road. But wait, at a cost of over a billion dollars for the current East Gardiner reconstruction plan, I’m paying for a roadway I’m not even allowed on? That doesn’t sound fair.

Let’s not let fairness taint this discussion. Let’s talk about safety. I don’t ever recall a pedestrian or cyclist running into a car and killing the driver. It happens far too often the other way around though. That’s because the likelihood of a car weighing 1000 Kg made of steel, plastic, glass and rubber moving faster than 30 Km killing someone is really high. Thus, we have to ensure people who operate such vehicles know how to avoid bumping into people who are not in protective bubbles of steel, glass, plastic and rubber. You don’t even to have to be on the street to get hit by a car. Three incidents this year in Toronto have involved cars accelerating off the road and onto the sidewalk or even into a building. Imagine getting killed by a car when you were in a dance studio. People walking or riding a bicycle find it difficult to smash through windows and walls to collide with occupants inside.

I’ve lived in Toronto for almost two decades and for last five years I’ve gone without a car. That means I have personally made more space on our streets. By not owning a car, I’ve personally freed up at least 8 parking spots (by some estimates, that’s the average number of spots available for each car). By riding a bike, I’ve given up my seat on the bus, street car or subway for someone unable to ride a bike or drive a car. I ride roughly 2000 Km per year saving approximately 340 kg of carbon dioxide from Toronto’s air. Multiple that by five years and I have personally prevented over a metric ton of CO2 from entering our air. By that metric, I, along with thousands of other cyclists in the city act as the carbon offset for every driver in the city. Some cities and businesses have proposed paying 25¢/Km to cyclists as an incentive to commute by bicycle. At this point, I could argue that not only do drivers get to drive on my streets that I pay for, they should actually pay me to offset their carbon production.

City staff have looked at licensing cyclists in the past and both city officials and the Toronto Police have determined that at any reasonable rate it would simply cost too much and be too impractical to implement. Of course, if you had bothered to look that up you would have found this.

As to cyclists who break the law, it is true. Some cyclists are terrible offenders of going through red lights, riding on sidewalks or failing to signal. To be honest, once or twice I’ve seen pedestrians crossing mid-block and every morning at every intersection I see drivers going through red lights, not signalling when they turn, making illegal u-turns and turning without stopping at stop signs. I’m sorry if I ring my bell to let you know I’m there. I’m surprised you would have even heard it. Did it startle you? I hope it did. That’s the point of a bell, which I am legally obliged to have on my bike (see, there are laws cyclists have to follow that don’t require licensing). Sometimes (well, a lot of times actually) drivers use their horns to announce their presence and displeasure too and the average 90 Db car horn is a lot louder and more intimidating than an irritating and apparently righteous-sounding bicycle bell. If you’d prefer I will equip my bicycle with a car horn, which I assume is more to your liking.

Now, if you like the streets that you drive on, and it sounds like you do, you can thank pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, other drivers and even mounted police officers who all pay for those streets. By the way, if you like paved roads you can thank cyclists for that too. You see, bicycles have been around longer than cars and the “Good Roads Movement” of the 1870s was advocated by, you’re not going to like this, bicyclists. So the next time you’re enjoying driving, thank a cyclist and don’t forget to thank that little girl buying a candy bar because we all paid for our roads that you drive on.

Bloor Street Bike Lane Pilot Project

Below is a letter to Toronto's PWIC (Public Works and Infrastructure Committee) to request their support of the planned Bloor Street Bike Lane Pilot Project planned for this summer (and well described here). Take what you want from this. Use it yourself to send your own letter urging the committee's support.

I’m writing to implore you to support the bike lane pilot project on Bloor Street.

Bloor is easily one of the most important east-west routes in the city. As a fairly flat route it can take you across town to many important landmarks, workplaces, institutions and places of worship. From High Park to Christie Pits to access to ravines, public libraries, schools, Universities, theatres, churches, museums and to countless restaurants and shops, Bloor Street is an exemplar of what makes Toronto great. That’s why this bike lane pilot project is so important.

• A lane for people who bike would make a safer Bloor Street for pedestrians and cyclists.
• It would make Bloor Street less stressful for people who drive, bike and walk.
• A bike lane on Bloor would ease congestion - the fact that Bloor has two lanes of moving traffic and two lanes of parked cars makes no sense. Open up the available street real estate to people on the move.
• It would allow for more shoppers to access stores, restaurants, coffee shops, museums, galleries and theatres and spend more money in those establishments.
• A Bloor Street bike lane would give students a safe, healthy and quick way to get to school.
• A Bloor Street bike lane would give residents a safe, healthy way to access libraries and community services. We’ve made these services with our hard earned tax dollars, why make it difficult and dangerous to get to them?

I’ve lived in Toronto for almost two decades and for last five years I’ve gone without a car. That means I have personally made more space on our streets. By not owning a car, I’ve personally freed up at least 8 parking spots (by some estimates, that’s the average number of spots available for each car). By riding a bike, I’ve given up my seat on the bus, street car or subway for someone unable to ride a bike or drive a car. I ride roughly 2000 km per year saving approximately 340 kg of carbon dioxide from Toronto’s air. Multiple that by five years and I have personally prevented over a metric ton of CO2 from entering our air. That is just the impact one cyclist has, think of the difference the thousands of people who bike in Toronto make every day.

Lastly, by riding a bike, I keep healthy enough to stay out our health care system - now it’s up to you to make it safe enough for me to stay out our health care system.

Help make Toronto a smart, modern, mobile and safe city to live, work and play. Please support the Bloor Street Bike Lane Pilot.

Thank you for your consideration.

Off the Rack, On Your Back

Buster Keaton exhibits proper dandy cycling form.

Myself and a few cycling designer colleagues often like to bemoan the fact that there is very little fashionable clothing you could wear cycling. Of course there is plenty of high-performance gear but, the argument goes, nothing you could wear to work. Something that allowed movement, breathability, water resistance and practical, well-placed pockets.

That was then, this is now. Our new complaint is more likely that there is no fashionable cycling clothing you can afford. As that much maligned urban creature, the Hipster, has taken to cycling (especially cycling on bikes without fenders or chain guards), there are an increasing number of clothing options from casual to, well, not so casual. There are doubts about the financial viability of a dinner jacket or tuxedo made for cycling.

In fact, there are so many options, mostly expensive ones, that it would be impractical to tackle them all in one post. When a company like Levi's dedicates an entire line of jeans and jackets to cycle commuters you realize the days of this as a niche market are numbered.

For myself, I contend that it's really more about the bike than having high-performance kit designed to look like street fashion. A commuting-friendly bike equipped with baskets, racks, fenders and a chain guard would most likely accommodate any clothing. Yet, there is something really great about having clothing that deals with sweat and rain that you can wear anywhere. I admit to having a minor jacket fetish (I own more stupid looking Gore-Tex jackets than one man should admit). I can't explain it other than to say for years I wore ill-fitting, poorly cut clothing from outdoor outfitters because they were lightweight and water resistant and I didn't even commute by bike. The only problem was I looked like a German tourist reading to hike the highest peaks. No offense to German tourists, but, you know, fanny packs… really?

To that end I'm going to opine about the following companies and their wares. I'm sure there are more, and this list may be expanded but if you're looking for such clothing and accessories and don't want to bother with my bullshit, here's the list. There is a North American bias and I know there are European and Japanese brands not shown here, but difficulty in availability means they would be impracticable to show here.

Levi's Commuter Line
Rapha
Aether Apparel
Outlier
Vulpine
Betabrand
Arc'teryx Veilance
Nau
Icebreaker
Chrome Industries
Mission Workshop
MEC

My Morning Jacket

This morning it was raining a bit so even though my "ride" to work is two minutes or less, I threw on my light-weight rain jacket (it's still very hot in Toronto). I didn't bother throwing the rain cover on my knapsack.

Two minutes later, my laptop bag was soaked, my arms were drenched and my shoes soaked through. Two minutes. For two minutes it was like riding through a car wash. When I sat at my desk, I double checked three of my four weather apps, all which were reporting light rain. The amount of rain was small, the intensity would've power washed graffiti from brick walls.

“…an increasing trend in extreme events”

Light rain is not actually a concern. My beloved Castelli Leggero jacket is perfect on hot days with light rain, but that was not what I just rode in. My typical approach to wet weather has been to wear light weight, quick dry clothing; you're going to get wet but at least you can dry out quickly. But as I've grown tired of wearing trail clothing and eventually just started wearing street clothes (because let's face it, trail gear might look normal in Seattle or Ottawa but not anywhere else). That meant riding a bike with fenders and chain guard to minimize street spray and just some typical rain jacket. As I started extending my riding season, fenders and rain jacket just didn't cut it. This spring, as wet and cold as it was, I thought I had cracked this problem. Comfortable merino wool base layers,  light weight rain gear, plus a bike with fenders. But today, that "light weight rain gear" let me down. Don't get me wrong, the Leggero jacket is still the tiny perfect jacket to throw in a bag or take on a ride for just-in-case scenarios, just not for it-is-raining-like-an-Indian-monsoon type scenario.

Which is in fact, the real problem. You can read all about it in this report: Historical Trends In Short Duration Rainfall In The Greater Toronto Area
The upshot is this for a ten-year period: "No consistent trend in annual extremes was identified but an increasing trend in extreme events for some months, particularly May, was identified."

Sort of like what happened in July when a typical month's worth of rain fell in a few hours. The total rainfall for the month wasn't significantly greater but the intensity of it meant extreme flooding and crop damage. Thus our storm sewers and other hydrological structures need to be designed for extreme rainfall, not typical rainfall.

And not just our "hydrological structures" but also our hydrological clothing. So I decided to just give up on all my other kind of "okay" rain jackets and fork over well earned dollars to purchase one known to be one of the best on the market. I also upgraded my rain pants. I'm done messing around. No more mister nice guy. I don't care if I look like a member of the junior SWAT team or an astronaut on furlough. I just want to arrive dry-ish. For awhile I've had different jackets for different weather; one for wind (Gore-Tex), one for hard rain, but not breathable and no hood (Cannondale), one 100% waterproof not breathable with hood (MEC) and one for light wind and rain (Castelli).

Now, with this Showers Pass jacket I'll have a water and wind resistant, breathable jacket with detachable hood. I stop here. No more will I wonder what else can I do. I will have done everything and this is it. This is as far as I go. Hopefully, I will go far.

Begriming One City at a Time

“Apparently Rabinowitz's hearing is going because she can't hear how ludicrous she sounds. ”

I don't live in New York City. Sometimes I wish I did, though now is not one of those times. The furor (or is it "Führer"?) over the bike-share program in New York right now is running unusually hot. While some are already claiming its success, others, namely bitchy old Conservatives, or people who have lost parking spots are claiming the program is more evidence of the dictator Bloomberg running roughshod over citizen rights. In this video, Pulitzer Prize winning conservative journalist Dorothy Rabinowitz uses phrases such as "Fascist" to describe Bloomberg, saying the bike program "begrimes" the city, controlled by the bike lobby which is an "all powerful enterprise". Who's running NYC anyway? Is it Mayor Bloomberg, the dictatorial Fascist or the all powerful bike lobby? I doubt two such undeniably evil forces could peacefully co-exist. Someone please explain to me why Conservatives are so quick to trot out words like "Fascist", "dictator" or "Socialist" when they are displeased with progressive policies? I'll never understand the guile and hatefulness of the Conservative mind. What, exactly is so frightening about a bicycle? A few hundred bicycles are "begriming" the city, but a century of the internal combustion engine is fine? I hate to tell you this, Dot, if you don't mind me referring to you with that belittling nickname, but that thick layer of grime covering New York City limestone and granite (which is probably from Indiana anyway) and smudging your summer whites is from automotive traffic, not bicycles. Apparently Rabinowitz's hearing is going because she can't hear how ludicrous she sounds.

Another claim I keep hearing is that the racks of Citibank bikes are a fire hazard? I assume that if cars were parked there, they wouldn't be a hazard because they could be towed away? Or that "New York isn't Paris, or London, or Amsterdam". If New Yorkers really think their streets are more dangerous than London's, I have news for you. New York streets are like buttercup filled meadows compared to the insanity that is London streets.



None of this unexpected from the WSJ however. I'll never really understand the ire of conservatives versus bicycles? Bicycles are completely unthreatening. There has been one death of a pedestrian from being struck by a cyclist in over a decade in Toronto. Dozens more pedestrians and cyclists are injured or killed by automobiles every year. Bikes without bicycle lanes don't take any of the road away from cars or trucks, and even less than that when in bike lanes. Bicycles do not impede the traffic of commuters, emergency or commercial vehicles. Bicycles do not cause road congestion or fuel price hikes – which, conservatives fail to notice, is caused by a failure of Capitalist markets and the near monopoly of three companies colluding on prices and supply via their refining facilities. Sadly, it is true that some cyclists ride like assholes and disobey traffic regulations. I'm only glad that drivers are there as shining examples of vehicles that never roll through stop signs, red lights, never park illegally, always signal when required, make safe lane changes, never go the wrong way on one-way streets or hardly ever drive on the sidewalk. That was sarcasm. A dull tool used to explain simple arguments to stupid people.

What is Rabinowitz so angry about? That she has to look before opening her cab door? No, it's that bike racks look distasteful in fairytale New York. Horse shit from mounted police or Central Park buggies is okay. Gaudy electronic advertising is mandated in Times Square not that the Times is located there anymore. Let's be honest. She doesn't care about fire hazards or cyclist deaths. She just doesn't like the way the bike-share stations look. She also doesn't like Mayor Bloomberg and his "nanny-state" policies. My guess is Dorothy Rabinowitz likes Tiffany's, breakfast at Balthazar, seeing shiny limos transporting high-priced whores to coked-up overpaid financiers, gleaming hotels which have neither rat shit in the basement nor bed bugs in the linens, rows of yellow cabs idling in the streets and lovers sitting on benches looking at the Brooklyn Bridge – though why they can't look at the Brooklyn Bridge from the back of their limo is beyond me.

It remains to be seen whether New York's Citibank Bike-Share program will be a success or a failure but I think you have to wait and see. Or you could be like Dorothy Rabinowitz and spew bile and rhetoric without reason or intelligence.

Update: As expected, the Bike Snob has had a lot more fun with this over at his blog Bike Snob NYC. Enjoy.