One other thing - when you're in a hurry on a bicycle you can almost always express that by riding faster. That taps the animal part of our brain in a very natural way, so even if I'm running late I still arrive hotter and sweatier but not as mentally wound up as if I've been sitting in a motor vehicle grinding my teeth :)
Transport options are always a trade-off, especially in cities where there's lots of stuff happening so lots of options for what to do with any given area. But bike lanes remain one of the best people moving options, exceeded mostly by separated rail (ie, not on-street trams) or separated buses. Neither of which are capable of the granularity or cost-effectiveness of bike lanes, they work at a different scale. 1M people during rush hour? Heavy rail. 100k people? Bikes and buses.
BTW, at least in Australia bike lanes and shared paths are also commonly used by mobility scooters (as well as illegally by motorbikes, ebikes here are limited to 250W and 30kph).
Crazy they'd be used by motorbikes, though obviously some (often illegal) ebikes straddle the line.
While I love public transport, with a bus lane being used by a ton of buses you don't get the sort of sleek and nice feel you do with rail, bike lanes are cool because they maintain that calm and quiet and visual minimalism.
Possibly one reason why fun is not emphasized as much in bicycle messaging/propaganda is because it plays towards the "biking can't get you to work, it is just a recreation activity" trope. But proper messaging can get across nuance, though the social media world stomps nuance, so I empathize with those responsible for making pro-biking propaganda.
Cycling really is a jack of all trades and my preferred way of getting around. We selected our home location because it is both close enough to things that biking is very viable (both for utility and fun) and so is transit. My partner needs transit for accessibility reasons, I need the cycling option to remain sane. Cycling in the city has challenges, but I actually find it more pleasant and safe than biking in suburban stroadland.
What I find to be a big confounding miss is that busses in Toronto seem to have bike racks on front, you're not allowed/supposed to use them during rush hour? So this great range extending opportunity of bus-bike hybrid trips aren't allowed when most transit trips are occurring. Having secure bike storage at bus hubs would help somewhat, but this still means you can only use your range extending bike on one side of your commute. I'm still noodling on this, because bike-bus hybrid trips seem like a useful mechanism to get households in low density suburbia 'closer' to bus routes at low/no cost.
Makes sense re. recreation and people's concerns, that being said fun is definitely a big part of the sell for cars and it's a huge part of good transit and cycling too!
Re. bike racks as far as I know you can use them all day. That being said I absolutely concur with more storage, Vancouver has the parkades, and also loads of lockers. Toronto should have both, and more than Vancouver which is a much smaller city!
I'll have to check with one of my local busses off-peak to see if my permanently attached rear basket obstructs their view or not, in which case it would be disallowed.
I love the 'joy' aspect of this, and it's sadly true that Toronto's systems are pretty much all afflicted by 'suck the joy out of life' inspired design. Adding 'joy' as a critical planning consideration would improve - well, pretty much everything transit/transportation wise, partly because that would automatically include efficiency/effectiveness/speed/connectivity etc...
And I agree with the point that including cycling (or any other mode, frankly) radically increases your available commute range (not to mention often radically decreases your commute time), and is a critical consideration that should be the basis for any comprehensive transit planning.
I especially appreciate the point that transit is too often positioned as a public good rather than a necessary public service (the 'subways in Scarborough?' debate frankly felt akin to 'thou - but not I - shalt inflict self-flagellation for the public good'):
"I think too often public transport, pedestrian, and cycling advocacy takes the form of talking about sort of high-minded reasons that these things are good. Equity, climate, city-building, huzzah!"
However...
(Warning: rant to follow, not to be construed as a criticism of this post or the cycling video which inspired it):
I can't help but notice that - yet again - transit/transportation blogs/videos etc... are all written by, and seemingly for, fit, strong, healthy males for whom the described options are all ideal. And yet, as a percentage of transit users, that's actually a tiny, almost imperceptible percentage. Just take a gander around during your next subway, streetcar &/or bus ride to see who actually uses it, and imagine *them* using whatever option is being proposed.
And then, from there, have a think about the HIGH percentage of people who don't even bother trying to venture out and thus remain locked in their homes &/or 'addicted to their cars' - purely because any 'solutions' being proposed don't even bother to consider them: (e.g. the elderly; the disabled; parents/grandparents/caretakers with children; people with pets (esp to/from vets), people coming to/from doctors/hospitals/physiotherapy; people with groceries; people carrying large &/or fragile &/or toxic products such as TVs/electronics/cleaning products; etc..., etc... ad nauseum.
And yet, with some simple tweaking the solutions he suggests - especially the use of assisted personal vehicles for all types of people - combined with right-of-way corriders for them (e.g. bike lanes shouldn't be restricted to just bikes), this could be largely solved and be utterly transformative. That would require some profound changes, and new 'assisted' bike type products of course (including accomodations for winter/inclement weather). Not to mention planning that would integrate them with all other transit/transportation solutions. With the right electronically assisted personal vehicle the elderly could shop for groceries, the guy in a cast, or with a pet, could get back and forth to medical treatment, etc... But that would require everyone getting out of 'this mode is completely separate from that mode', and 'my mode is better than your mode' type thinking.
Canadians have produced some of the world's best comedians, who are known to wield sarcasm like a super-power (https://wallpapers.com/images/hd/uncle-buck-scene-john-candy-f59a1q3d8y2mutgn.jpg), so you think we'd be good at recognizing and interpreting it. And yet during Rob Ford's election campaign almost no-one 'got' Mark Towhey's sarcastic rant about what's important in transit planning - which, to my mind, perfectly encapsulated the problem we need to solve to *actually* get everyone out of their cars: "Only a radical approach will fix Toronto’s transit woes": https://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/201002towheytransit.pdf
And, seemingly, no-one got that for Rob Ford (the consummate street politician) "subways" didn't literally mean subways, but was the common man's 'everyone gets this' stand-in for the transit term 'grade separated'. And yet, once we can all get out of our echo chambers, it appeared to me his approach largely mirrored NJB's 'stroad' video which is loved by all. (I can't be the only one who sees this, surely?) All of the seemingly farcical transit debates (that I suspect are less about 'transit' than about rent-seeking) make my head hurt.
To this day, the fact that transit advocates have FAILED to put the term 'grade separated' into common public discourse, nor to educate the public on the significance, importance, and necessity of it, astounds me. And yet, getting the different modes out of contention with one another was a large part of Edinger's focus, and what he pointed out made cycling work.
All of the above is to say that I think Erdinger's (and your) observations are on point, but need to be, and can easily be, expanded much further to include not only anyone who currently uses transit (which I've used here to include bikes and power assisted vehicles), but also those who would use it if only their needs were considered.
I have also watched Evan's videos and I ended up getting kind of annoyed at them, as I tend to with a lot of cycling evangelism.
I'm unapologetically a transit and walking advocate. I want good transit and pedestrian infrastructure there for everyone, because 100% of the population are on foot (or mobility aids) some of the times So I'm always disappointed at pro-cycling content that ends up being (even unintentionally) asking pedestrians and transit users to compromise their space and their safety even further for the sake of yet another class of vehicles.
Evan slips into this unintentionally with his promotion of the "floating bus stop" at 5:50 , which is a menace to anyone with reduced mobility who is trying to get to the bus stop, and his later advocacy of powered biking on shared use paths is questionable at best.
Don't get me wrong. I'm in favour of cycling, but we should be making the roads safer for cycling and taking space away from cars in order to do so, not kicking down on the people who suffer the most from car culture.
I get you, but I feel like there are ways of saying this without being annoyed, thats what I've tried to do here. I agree that bike-first, can definitely come at the expense of other non-driving modes, but more people on bikes is just good for everyone and I have a hard time not promoting such a well produced story about that!
FWIW, I don't think most of the video was him suggesting better cycling at the expense of anyone but drivers, if he did that it was only in one or two instances!
One other thing - when you're in a hurry on a bicycle you can almost always express that by riding faster. That taps the animal part of our brain in a very natural way, so even if I'm running late I still arrive hotter and sweatier but not as mentally wound up as if I've been sitting in a motor vehicle grinding my teeth :)
Transport options are always a trade-off, especially in cities where there's lots of stuff happening so lots of options for what to do with any given area. But bike lanes remain one of the best people moving options, exceeded mostly by separated rail (ie, not on-street trams) or separated buses. Neither of which are capable of the granularity or cost-effectiveness of bike lanes, they work at a different scale. 1M people during rush hour? Heavy rail. 100k people? Bikes and buses.
BTW, at least in Australia bike lanes and shared paths are also commonly used by mobility scooters (as well as illegally by motorbikes, ebikes here are limited to 250W and 30kph).
Crazy they'd be used by motorbikes, though obviously some (often illegal) ebikes straddle the line.
While I love public transport, with a bus lane being used by a ton of buses you don't get the sort of sleek and nice feel you do with rail, bike lanes are cool because they maintain that calm and quiet and visual minimalism.
Possibly one reason why fun is not emphasized as much in bicycle messaging/propaganda is because it plays towards the "biking can't get you to work, it is just a recreation activity" trope. But proper messaging can get across nuance, though the social media world stomps nuance, so I empathize with those responsible for making pro-biking propaganda.
Cycling really is a jack of all trades and my preferred way of getting around. We selected our home location because it is both close enough to things that biking is very viable (both for utility and fun) and so is transit. My partner needs transit for accessibility reasons, I need the cycling option to remain sane. Cycling in the city has challenges, but I actually find it more pleasant and safe than biking in suburban stroadland.
What I find to be a big confounding miss is that busses in Toronto seem to have bike racks on front, you're not allowed/supposed to use them during rush hour? So this great range extending opportunity of bus-bike hybrid trips aren't allowed when most transit trips are occurring. Having secure bike storage at bus hubs would help somewhat, but this still means you can only use your range extending bike on one side of your commute. I'm still noodling on this, because bike-bus hybrid trips seem like a useful mechanism to get households in low density suburbia 'closer' to bus routes at low/no cost.
Makes sense re. recreation and people's concerns, that being said fun is definitely a big part of the sell for cars and it's a huge part of good transit and cycling too!
Re. bike racks as far as I know you can use them all day. That being said I absolutely concur with more storage, Vancouver has the parkades, and also loads of lockers. Toronto should have both, and more than Vancouver which is a much smaller city!
I think perhaps I misread the statement about when a bike could be taken on the subway & streetcar from here:
https://www.ttc.ca/riding-the-ttc/Bike-and-ride/Taking-your-bike-on-TTC-Vehicles
I'll have to check with one of my local busses off-peak to see if my permanently attached rear basket obstructs their view or not, in which case it would be disallowed.
I love the 'joy' aspect of this, and it's sadly true that Toronto's systems are pretty much all afflicted by 'suck the joy out of life' inspired design. Adding 'joy' as a critical planning consideration would improve - well, pretty much everything transit/transportation wise, partly because that would automatically include efficiency/effectiveness/speed/connectivity etc...
And I agree with the point that including cycling (or any other mode, frankly) radically increases your available commute range (not to mention often radically decreases your commute time), and is a critical consideration that should be the basis for any comprehensive transit planning.
I especially appreciate the point that transit is too often positioned as a public good rather than a necessary public service (the 'subways in Scarborough?' debate frankly felt akin to 'thou - but not I - shalt inflict self-flagellation for the public good'):
"I think too often public transport, pedestrian, and cycling advocacy takes the form of talking about sort of high-minded reasons that these things are good. Equity, climate, city-building, huzzah!"
However...
(Warning: rant to follow, not to be construed as a criticism of this post or the cycling video which inspired it):
I can't help but notice that - yet again - transit/transportation blogs/videos etc... are all written by, and seemingly for, fit, strong, healthy males for whom the described options are all ideal. And yet, as a percentage of transit users, that's actually a tiny, almost imperceptible percentage. Just take a gander around during your next subway, streetcar &/or bus ride to see who actually uses it, and imagine *them* using whatever option is being proposed.
And then, from there, have a think about the HIGH percentage of people who don't even bother trying to venture out and thus remain locked in their homes &/or 'addicted to their cars' - purely because any 'solutions' being proposed don't even bother to consider them: (e.g. the elderly; the disabled; parents/grandparents/caretakers with children; people with pets (esp to/from vets), people coming to/from doctors/hospitals/physiotherapy; people with groceries; people carrying large &/or fragile &/or toxic products such as TVs/electronics/cleaning products; etc..., etc... ad nauseum.
I blame almost all of this on a combination of 'the public good' warriors, and 'mode warriors' (of any stripe: e.g. cars vs. streetcars, buses vs. streetcars, subways vs. light rail, etc...): e.g. https://humantransit.org/2011/10/lamentation-bicycles-vs-transit.html
And yet, with some simple tweaking the solutions he suggests - especially the use of assisted personal vehicles for all types of people - combined with right-of-way corriders for them (e.g. bike lanes shouldn't be restricted to just bikes), this could be largely solved and be utterly transformative. That would require some profound changes, and new 'assisted' bike type products of course (including accomodations for winter/inclement weather). Not to mention planning that would integrate them with all other transit/transportation solutions. With the right electronically assisted personal vehicle the elderly could shop for groceries, the guy in a cast, or with a pet, could get back and forth to medical treatment, etc... But that would require everyone getting out of 'this mode is completely separate from that mode', and 'my mode is better than your mode' type thinking.
Canadians have produced some of the world's best comedians, who are known to wield sarcasm like a super-power (https://wallpapers.com/images/hd/uncle-buck-scene-john-candy-f59a1q3d8y2mutgn.jpg), so you think we'd be good at recognizing and interpreting it. And yet during Rob Ford's election campaign almost no-one 'got' Mark Towhey's sarcastic rant about what's important in transit planning - which, to my mind, perfectly encapsulated the problem we need to solve to *actually* get everyone out of their cars: "Only a radical approach will fix Toronto’s transit woes": https://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/201002towheytransit.pdf
So, as a result, we got to witness everyone's head explode: https://stevemunro.ca/2010/09/09/rob-ford-wants-a-few-subways-but-mainly-buses/comment-page-3/
And, seemingly, no-one got that for Rob Ford (the consummate street politician) "subways" didn't literally mean subways, but was the common man's 'everyone gets this' stand-in for the transit term 'grade separated'. And yet, once we can all get out of our echo chambers, it appeared to me his approach largely mirrored NJB's 'stroad' video which is loved by all. (I can't be the only one who sees this, surely?) All of the seemingly farcical transit debates (that I suspect are less about 'transit' than about rent-seeking) make my head hurt.
To this day, the fact that transit advocates have FAILED to put the term 'grade separated' into common public discourse, nor to educate the public on the significance, importance, and necessity of it, astounds me. And yet, getting the different modes out of contention with one another was a large part of Edinger's focus, and what he pointed out made cycling work.
All of the above is to say that I think Erdinger's (and your) observations are on point, but need to be, and can easily be, expanded much further to include not only anyone who currently uses transit (which I've used here to include bikes and power assisted vehicles), but also those who would use it if only their needs were considered.
I have also watched Evan's videos and I ended up getting kind of annoyed at them, as I tend to with a lot of cycling evangelism.
I'm unapologetically a transit and walking advocate. I want good transit and pedestrian infrastructure there for everyone, because 100% of the population are on foot (or mobility aids) some of the times So I'm always disappointed at pro-cycling content that ends up being (even unintentionally) asking pedestrians and transit users to compromise their space and their safety even further for the sake of yet another class of vehicles.
Evan slips into this unintentionally with his promotion of the "floating bus stop" at 5:50 , which is a menace to anyone with reduced mobility who is trying to get to the bus stop, and his later advocacy of powered biking on shared use paths is questionable at best.
Don't get me wrong. I'm in favour of cycling, but we should be making the roads safer for cycling and taking space away from cars in order to do so, not kicking down on the people who suffer the most from car culture.
I get you, but I feel like there are ways of saying this without being annoyed, thats what I've tried to do here. I agree that bike-first, can definitely come at the expense of other non-driving modes, but more people on bikes is just good for everyone and I have a hard time not promoting such a well produced story about that!
FWIW, I don't think most of the video was him suggesting better cycling at the expense of anyone but drivers, if he did that it was only in one or two instances!