Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.
I had a dinner in the suburbs this evening. And so in the afternoon today, I opened up Google Maps to figure out how I was going to get there.
I didn’t have my car with me — because I hate driving into the office — so in my mind, I was either going to take transit or take an Uber.
These are the time estimates that Google gave me:
It was going to take me over 4 hours to walk there. Over an hour to drive there. And 47 minutes to take the train there. Interestingly enough, cycling was also going to be faster than driving.
As soon as I saw this, I shut down the app and decided I would take the train. All I was interested in was the absolute fastest option. And for me at that moment, it was the train.
I recognize that this isn’t always the case. Sometimes driving is much faster than taking transit. It depends on a number of factors.
But as a general rule, when it comes to big and dense cities, you really can’t beat trains and bikes for moving the greatest number of people, as quickly as possible.
But that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t invest in cycling infrastructure. Chicago, for instance, has been building out cycling infrastructure over the last few years (2020-2023) at an average rate of approximately 30 miles per year. This is double its rate from 2011-2019. And the results show.
According to recent data from Replica and the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT), Chicago saw the highest growth in cycling among the 10 largest cities in the US between fall 2019 and spring 2023.
Biking overall was up 119%. Crosstown trips were up 180% (bike trips that spanned across four or more neighborhoods). Trips related to shopping were up 117%. And notably, zero-car households were up 207%.
Remember, this is a city that basically has the same weather as Toronto. It gets cold in the winter. And sometimes it snows. But clearly if you build good cycling infrastructure, people will use it.
Let’s resume looking at sidewalks and public spaces.
If you look in the City of Toronto’s Official Plan for the stretch of Dundas Street West that runs between Dupont Street and Bloor Street West, you’ll find a map that looks like this:
Red signifies “Mixed Use.” And so if you were to just look at this map, you might naturally assume that, in the real world, this is a continuous main street that connects The Junction neighborhood down to Bloor. But that’s not actually the case. Instead, it looks like this:
Because of the rail corridor on the east side, it is a single-sided street. And generally speaking, these don’t make for the best retail streets. But it also has narrow sidewalks and a compromised public realm. If you go back to the map I shared yesterday, you get this:
I don’t think 30cm is entirely accurate here, but that’s beside the point. What matters is that this is just one of many examples in the city of a discontinuous public realm. (Here’s another, undignified example, from Parkside Drive.)
Over the years, there have been a number of design concepts proposed. Below is one by Brown + Storey Architects that was done I don’t know how many years ago. Their proposal widened the sidewalks along this stretch, and added bike lanes. They also proposed a roundabout at the intersection of Dundas, Dupont, and Annette, which is another matter that needs addressing.
But none of this has been implemented and I don’t know of any plans to do it. When we were going through the rezoning process for Junction House, we were made aware of some transportation studies that had been done for the above intersection. But that’s about it. There wasn’t an actual ETA.
However, now that my commute consists of walking up and down this part of Dundas, I’ve been thinking more about how it could be improved.
I think there’s no question that the sidewalks need to be widened. It would also be helpful if there were crosswalks to facilitate getting off the south end of this exotic island:
But equally important, I think that something should be done about the single-sided nature of the street. Given that there’s limited width, my mind immediately goes to shipping containers, or something similar, to start activating the east side of the street.
This has already been done further south on Dundas (east of Bathurst):
And it could work here too. Already there’s a Blondie’s Pizza anchoring the south end of this stretch (really fantastic pizza, by the way):
But I would love to hear your ideas, as I’m currently in the market. I also don’t think that you necessarily need to be from Toronto in order to comment. Great streets are great streets. So if it were up to you, what would you change, if anything, about this part of Dundas Street West? Let me know in the comment section below.
Shoot up the Humber River and pass under various bridges and subway tracks.
Arrive in Weston (which, by the way, was established in 1796). Go west on Lawrence to Royal York (there are a couple of hills here that will get your bum up).
Then bomb down Royal York as fast as you can until you arrive at San Remo Bakery for coffee, donuts, cured meats, and other wonderful things that I don’t normally order.
The Dutch now believe that the number is 230cm. This is an increase from a previous recommendation of 200cm. The thinking behind this number is roughly as follows. Apparently there are Dutch laws stipulating that bikes can’t be wider than 75cm. So this is the starting point.
But since it’s impossible to always ride in a perfectly straight line, there seems to be a generally accepted rule that, at an absolute minimum, cyclists need about 100cm of width to themselves.
If you now double this so that two people can ride side-by-side, you’re at 200cm. This is an important design criteria because the Dutch also seem to believe that (1) cycling is a social activity and (2) a child should be able to ride beside their parent. (Love this!)
Finally, add in a bit of buffer so there’s room to pass slower cyclists and/or nobody feels like they’re going to crash into oncoming cyclists, and you get to 230cm as the ideal width of a single bike lane.
I’m not sure I had given this much thought before, so I look forward to scrutinizing (and possibly measuring) every bike lane I ride in going forward.
I’ve always loved cycling, but never before have I had a bike like this:
And boy does it make a world of a difference.
Here’s my inaugural ride (excluding the night ride I did last week where I mostly couldn’t see where I was going):
The High Park loop was a lot of fun. The entire park is closed to cars on the weekends (though I understand that some people are upset about this feature).
I want to do a ride like this at least once a week, which means I’m probably going to need to get something from Pas Normal Studios to pad my ass. I’m also working my way up to clipless shoes.
Cycling is fun and Toronto is a great city for it.
I did it. I finally got (well, ordered) a new and more serious road bike.
I have been planning to do this since last year. I almost bought a friend’s Cervelo a few weeks ago, but I took it to Gears on King Street and they immediately told me it was too small for me. The frame was 58cm and apparently I need 60cm.
So I instead ordered a new Cannondale CAAD13. It’s one that my serious cycling friends — people like Jeremiah Shamess — tell me is a good “starter bike.”
I’m excited to get going. In the winter, I am, as most of you know, all about snowboarding. But I need something active/challenging for the summer that I can be equally fanatical about. Maybe that thing will be cycling.
The one thing I do need to give some more thought to is cycling to the office. I know a bunch of people who do this, but they tend to go to the gym and then shower before heading to their desk. I’m not sure I want to make this my morning routine.
Either way, I guess it’s time to dust off my Strava. If any of you are into cycling, hit me up on Twitter/X.
What is the case for having parking minimums? (i.e. Mandating a certain number of parking spaces in new developments.) I guess the argument is that if you don’t require developers to build it, they won’t build enough. And then people will not have parking and so they will be forced to park on the street somewhere. This might annoy the incumbent residents, who will in turn complain, and so it is best and safest to just to build a lot of parking.
This is pretty much the only reason that I can think of for why a city might want to maintain parking minimums. Because, what’s the worst thing that could happen if you didn’t build enough parking? In the best case scenario, the developer builds fewer parking spaces and people are fine with it. This is ideal because it means people are getting around in other ways: walking, cycling, taking transit, and/or using car share. So it is the most sustainable outcome!
A bad scenario would be that the developer builds too few parking spaces, nobody will rent the spaces, and then goes bankrupt. This would be very bad for the developer; however, it would be a lot less of a concern for the city. The developer is the one who screwed up. Too bad for them. So when I see new transit-adjacent developments — like this one here in Burnaby, BC with 14 levels of below-grade parking — one can’t help but think: WTF!
To be clear, this is not a criticism of the developer. I don’t do that sort of thing on this blog. This is a criticism of parking minimums. They are so last decade. And I’m even being generous with this timeline.
We have spoken many times over the years about Paris’ investments in cycling infrastructure and about its plans to become a 100% cycling city. And my twitter feed (see above/here) seems to suggest that it’s working really well.
Between 2015 and 2020, the city saw a doubling of its bike lanes. And from September 2018 to September 2019 alone, the city saw a 54% increase in cycling usage, with its street meters recording about 840,000 daily bike trips in the center of the city.
Of course, if you’re a cycling skeptic, you’re probably thinking at least two things right now. One, Paris is Paris. Not all cities have the benefit of such a compact urban form. And two, Paris doesn’t get real winters. So sure, it’s easy to cycle there. Where’s the snow?
While it is true that density is a key ingredient for walkability and active transport, the real catalyst for Paris was its cycling network. A lot more people are cycling in Paris today because it is now safer and more convenient to do so.
It is also true that Paris generally doesn’t get as cold as, say, Toronto.
However, Helsinki does. It has the same humid continental climate (and a lower average annual temperature). And if you look at the Copenhagenize (Cycling) Index, you’ll see that, in 2019, Paris had a bicycle modal share of under 5%, whereas Helsinki had a modal share of 11% (plus a near equal gender split).
Maybe it’s the over 1,300 km of bicycle infrastructure.
Right now my typical morning commute consists of a 15 minute walk and a quick stop off for a coffee. I must admit that I’m spoiled. But next year I’ll be moving to the Junction and so that means I’m going to need to make some minor adjustments to my routine.
I fully expect that on warm summer nights I’ll probably still walk home on occasion. But broadly speaking, my loose plan is a combination of cycling, e-scootering, and taking the Union Pearson Express train.
Then this evening I was out for drinks with one of our partners and two of the guys were talking about how they cycle to work each morning and compete on Strava to make sure everything gets properly logged. One of them actually lives near the Junction and his regular route is down through High Park and then across along the lake.
Naturally I got inspired and decided — after two beers — that I too should join this competition. So I have now obligated myself to cycling to the office starting next year. That said, I could probably use a new bike, and I’m hoping that some of you will have recommendations.
My criteria is as follows: it should look impossibly cool, it should work for a daily commute, and it should be at least somewhat suitable for tight-fitting clothes and long rides through the French countryside (even though I currently have no concrete plans of doing such a thing).
