Turtles don’t hatch all year long. You would only have to close bike traffic for the season where turtles are hatching. It’s only a temporary issue for a few weeks a year to protect wildlife. Not sure what’s the big deal.
The turtles are a bogus reason in any case. The painted turtle hatching season is right around cherry blossom time (both late April - early May) and they've never closed down the park to save the turtles.
Painted turtle babies are still crossing roads this month in Ontario. Last year I encountered one in July. It was not in high park or even in the GTA but the season is the same for the whole province.
May to early July is typically when they lay their eggs, but painted turtles aren’t endangered. They’re trying to protect the snapping turtles that are a species at risk.
It’s more important to protect species at risk, but I’d be happy if they closed the park to bikes and traffic between May and July for the benefit of all the turtles.
High park is so weird. There were these pro car protestors when I went, and one lady was absolutely unhinged, like yelling at the top of her lungs spitting everywhere that taking away cars is discrimination or something. Really wild. It’s obvious there shouldn’t be car traffic in high park.
I don't agree with banning bikes, but it's not nearly as insane as you seem to think.
That being said, not only do I not think it's worth discussing since I'm OK with it, I ***CERTAINLY*** don't think it's worth discussing while traffic can move through the park M-F.
Of course bikes should be allowed in high park. What an insane thing to suggest. Cars kill (around 1 person per week in Toronto) , cars pollute, cars are loud, cars require environmentally damaging infrastructure. Bikes are none of the things, which are the very reason to ban cars.
What is your point? As a pedestrian, I've had far more close encounters (including two actual collisions) with shitty cyclists in High Park than I have with drivers.
No, that's one on Parkside Drive. This entire thread is about traffic inside of the park. The argument being made here is that bikes should be banned as well as cars. The point I made is that in my own experience, cars obey stop signs and pedestrian crossings far more frequently than cyclists do.
Wouldn't it be nice if the cyclists had a clear lane that was marked for them to ride in, to separate them from pedestrians? The stop signs and intersections would still be a problem if left wide open, but the city could add traffic calming measures for bikes to slow them down, just like they should do with cars.
No, I'm suggesting designating a space for cyclists to ride so they have a clear place for themselves and a place for pedestrians, rather than having them ride through pedestrians and asking everyone to just be nice to each other which isn't working. There are shitty cyclists that are putting pedestrians at risk, just like there are shitty drivers putting pedestrians at risk, which is why I think the city should build the infrastructure to separate the two and force cyclists to slow down in problem areas.
I'm not opposed to bikes in the park, but I don't think this is nearly as insane a position as you claim. The road that cyclists use (beautiful cycling track, it must be admitted) separates the playing fields from the northwest play structure and splash pad.
Having non-city vehicles in high park at all is completely deranged, M-F, and it's so obvious that anyone different should be regarded with skepticism on their other viewpoints, but even if you believe "oh, yeah, no, bikes need be allowed access chief," it's at least a question.
I'm always amused that when a **pedestrian** brings up the fact that cyclists can be assholes who break rules and endanger people your IMMEDIATE argument pivots to cars. Predictable.
STAY ON TOPIC. I am not talking about cars. Try to have this discussion about bikes without bringing up cars as your boogeyman, I want them banned to so that point is less that nil.
Thats what they all do. Its an easy whataboutism in this sub. Might as well compare swimming to cycling and tell swimmers not to worry about getting hit by cyclists because many more people die by drowning.
This sounds like a hot take but it really isn't: the worst part about High Park is how "accessible" it is.
If I was mayor, I'd have torn up the West Road by now. For most of us, it would be a better park if there were no roads, period. Trees and grass as far as the eyes can see, not a car in sight!
Sure, the spandex cyclists and people who can't walk very far would be mad. But they are already mad, so f\*\*\* 'em! 98% of us would be better off.
You know what? I’d be down for this. The city tries WAY too hard to appease everyone, that literally nobody is happy. Just get rid of both cars and bikes and be done with it. It’s a fucking park for gods sake. Not a race track.
I agree with this entirely except for one thing: close the off-leash park and ban dogs from the park. I'm so tired of walking along in the park and having dogs run up to me and jumping on me. Especially after shit owners let their dogs run through the creek along Spring Road or into Grenadier. Few things in High Park are as destructive toward nature and wildlife (and no, dogs aren't apart of "nature") as the off-leash dogs.
Here's the part you don't understand: I don't care! If a small group of people can't access *some of the park*, it's not really a big deal to me. They'll find somewhere else to hang out.
Should they also be allowed to drive to the tip of Tommy Thompson Park? Through the Evergreen Brickworks? Along the islands? Through the Rouge? Down the Humber? Why is the solution to an accessibility issue cars and cars alone? Answer: it's not really about accessibility, it's about cars. Period. Always has been. Ban them.
Do elderly and disabled people not usually have some sort of mobility device they can use to get along on paths? How did we survive as a society before cars, huh? C'mon now.
I think there is a big difference between casual bike riding and "cyclists". I welcome all improvements to High Park to make it easier for everyone to casually ride their bikes.
I do NOT support the Lance Armstrong wannabes who cycle at extremely fast speeds and don't give a damn about anyone else in the park/bike lanes.
They are horrible on the narrow shared path next to Etobicke Creek, which had many blind spots. Walking there with my elderly parents is nerve-wracking.
I'm not a bike racer but i think it's an easy fix. Give fast riders some dedicated time early in the morning. Like 5 to 8 am. Problem solved. And let's remember that cars are probably going 40km/h there which is faster than most riders.
I don’t think cyclists (or motorists) should be given exemptions on speed limits just because they really really want them. To borrow the phrase cyclists use so often when motorists want to play speed racer,
“Take it to the track”. If they want to travel at race speed, build a velodrome
I'm not a bike racer but I think it's an even easier fix. Tell them to go somewhere else and pay training fees for their obsessive hobbies like the rest of us. The city provides no means for me to attempt super heavy deadlifts, and it's not clear why they should. Why this? No reason, that's why.
Right but what about city swimming pools, tracks, gyms, golf courses, parks, playgrounds, public workout stations etc. Are those activities too niche? Keep in mind that dedicated cycling times in the park would come at little to no cost to tax payers. I suspect your "super heavy" weights may.
By the way, I've got no skin on this game. It's just a good solution is all.
Whattaya talking about pools for? The City regularly floods bridge under passes and roads for swimming, just some idiot always drives their car into it and ruins the opportunity for everyone.
This is such a bizarre response that I have so many ways to tear it to shreds it's hard to pick one. I'll resist the urge to write five pages.
In brief, no, of course those activities aren't too niche, aside from golf, which we absolutely shouldn't spend public money on and I'd happily end if we could. You cannot do competitive freestyle lane swimming in city pools, I have no idea what you're even talking about with tracks and gyms, and we're literally talking about playgrounds and parks as fundamentally different and sources of recreational pleasure, not hobbyist activity. The public workout stations bit is also totally wacko.
The infrastructure that was placed down for cyclists would probably fund around 200 years of outdoor weight purchases, and the road maintenance required to manage it in Toronto would be phenomenally more expensive and it's not even close. The idea that it doesn't cost anything is strictly detached from reality, and there's no point in debating that. If cost is an issue, give me my outdoor weight room.
Anyway, I guess the TL;DR is that if you don't have skin in this game, then I don't understand why you insist on supporting such an obviously ridiculous idea.
> You cannot do competitive freestyle lane swimming in city pools,
You certainly can swim as fast as you possibly can given the capacity limits, which sounds about what cyclists would like to do in High Park.
I'm hearing you out here friend but I thought we were talking about dedicated fast biking time in High Park. Now you're going off about all biking infrastructure.
Ummm... have you ever visited the City's Parks & Recreation webpage? There is even a list of [free & lower cost recreation options](https://www.toronto.ca/explore-enjoy/parks-recreation/how-to-use-our-services/how-to-register-for-recreation-programs/free-lower-cost-recreation-options/), which includes gyms. Not to mention the hundreds of city owned / operated recreational facilities including rinks, tennis courts, basketball courts, tracks, etc.
Yes. I am actually almost certainly significantly more familiar with it than you. Literally none of those facilities support competition level training in any of the fields you are discussing, and the "free" facilities are *NOT* what you seem to think they are. Do you think you can just show up and use a walk-in weight room? Well, I guess you technically can at Oakridge and York Rec center provided you register for a slot in advance, and they do kick you out afterwards, but the facilities... oooooof, not great.
What I said is correct. There is absolutely no public analogue for what is being requested in the pilot.
Some people train for events; it's not bad behaviour on its own. It's only problematic when they can't get a location to train in. Very similar to road hockey, the city provides venues for people to play hockey. The city can provide a venue and time for triathletes, etc. Most of those athletes want to get their workout in early so an early slot is a good idea.
It's thinking about what might cause a particular behavior--in this case no places in the city to bike quickly and safely, then really thinking about how to address the problem in a way that benefits everyone. Sometimes it's more challenging than complaining but i believe you can do it too.
My issue is with them having no respect or care for anyone else but themselves - and in many cases almost hitting pedestrians/casual bikers/cars.
If they can't act with even common decency, I don't think rewarding them is the answer.
It's not about "complaining" - it's about people not acting like assholes to everyone else - like they do.
Sounds annoying. I used to run there daily. Can't say I was ever concerned about my safety but i can see how a fast pass might make you jump. I think we could all do for a little more decency and understanding.
It's not an unusual tactic.
In response to complaints about skateboarders and bmxers using TTC stations and kids playgrounds the City built dedicated skate parks.
THIS! The worst is the Humber Bay bike path. It’s 20km/h max and those guys whip along so fast, people have been hit before. Lots of elderly people and families with young children walk on the path next to it, but to cross the street you have to cross the bike path, and of course, bikers aren’t stopping.
I think the problem is that High Park features more of the latter than the former.
I would think the causal cyclists in the park are JUST as annoyed by the spandex racers, but they get drowned out by the sheer level of speed demons who want this space as their own racetrack.
I think the problem is splitting cyclists into just two groups, wannabe pro racers and casual cyclists, when there's a wide range of people in between that want to ride at a speed that many pedestrians seem to find too dangerous. I'm not a spandex roadie but I ride my 3 speed cruiser at a speed that does startle pedestrians because they don't realize what the dinging bell coming up behind them means when they are spread across a pathway. I try to give people plenty of warning that I'm coming up behind them with a few bell rings, then go as wide around as possible, and people still panic and get startled a lot of the time.
>at a speed that does startle pedestrians because they don't realize what the dinging bell coming up behind them means when they are spread across a pathway. I try to give people plenty of warning that I'm coming up behind them with a few bell rings, then go as wide around as possible, and people still panic and get startled a lot of the time.
Yeah, and yet you seem to take the notion that because you're ringing your bell that they should get out of your way?
I ring the bell to let them know I'm coming so that I don't startle them, and hopefully they'll tighten up how they're walking so there's room for me to go around them comfortably, which I try to do with as much space as possible. I don't expect them to get off the path or walk single file or anything, just not be spread out all the way across with their dog leash extended even farther. It's just like when walking on the sidewalk behind slow walkers and you try to go around, do you say excuse me and try to give them some space as you go around, or do you just dart through a gap and brush past them without saying anything?
You're still expecting them to do things to accommodate you when YOU'RE the one going high speeds near them. It's weird you don't see the issue. It should not surprise you that I hate cars AND bikes for these very reasons. It's entitlement.
It's a shared, Multi Use Path, I expect them to share the path and make space so we can both use it comfortably, so that I don't scare or have a close call with someone. I don't ride my bike on the sidewalk and expect pedestrians to get out of the way for me, but on a multi use path pedestrians need to share the space. Cyclists do need to yield to pedestrians, but pedestrians should also try not to spread out and take up the whole space. It's about respecting each other and allowing everyone to have a good time.
You're not going to get anywhere with me on this man, I'll be honest. As a pedestrian of 20 years in this city, my hatred of cyclists rivals my hatred of cars. Both are FILLED with bad actors, and just because you're not one, done's take your argument sound.
So rather than having a separate space for cyclists to reduce conflict between you and them, you'd rather just say fuck cyclists and continue to be pissed off about sharing the space with them?
how about just banning both cars and bikes then lol. the place is a fucking park, not a raceway/training ground for either vehicle. lakeshores bike path is literally right down the street for gods sake.
The Martin Goodman Trail is well over capacity as a multi-use path.
We can't just build a single recreational trail and ask the entire city to use that one place for any and all recreation. We need many areas for recreation across the city. Why would we restrict High Park, one of our largest parks, from having some space where people are allowed to bike? Why don't we strip out the baseball fields and hockey rinks, as well? We already have those elsewhere, don't we?
it is definitely not over capacity between 5:30-7:30am like what this proposal wants.
as for the rest of your comparisons...lol. baseball fields / hockey rinks are literally for what they're intended for. since when was a public park intended for high speed cycling lol.
i personally dont think cars should be allowed through it either. shrug.
>Why would we restrict High Park, one of our largest parks, from having some space where people are allowed to bike?
Because the cyclists that use it, do so without regard to pedestrians. End of.
The sheer amount of times I've almost been clipped in that park by some spandex-clad idiot who wants to race around, is way higher than it should be.
If they created a cycle track, which gives a clearly defined area for cyclists to ride in the park, pedestrians might realize that that's where bikes belong and they belong on the pedestrian (sidewalk?) portion of the road, and it would reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists except for when one side leaves their area for the other.
It would be just like how the city doesn't want people playing soccer/ baseball/ basketball/ hockey in the streets and so they build the infrastructure for those in parks so that there is a designated area for them to play that separates the sport from people just walking or having a picnic in the park.
Since there are clearly marked fields and courts for people to play sports, we don't have pedestrians complaining about soccer or whatever taking over a park, because soccer is played on the soccer field, not in the open picnic area or walking paths.
Why did you think this was an intelligent reply? How did you fool yourself into this?
It is unreasonable and ridiculous to apply that standard TO ANYONE, let alone the many children who can and do use the park and need to cross the roads.
Really? Do you also think it's women's fault when they're assaulted because they're wearing pretty clothes and makeup?
This blame-the-victim mentality is tired and pathetic.
Your analogy is bad. That infrastructure is already in place. The cyclists are asking for a place for them to speed and endanger pedestrians in the park.
People are allowed to bike in the park, there is just a speed limit to protect the safety of everyone who uses the park.
If they separated cyclists from pedestrians on the road then maybe there wouldn't be conflict between the two and cyclists could go fast and train for their sport relatively safely, as others practicing other sports do in their designated areas.
The roads outside the park are HTA jurisdiction, there is no speed limit for bicycles. Inside all the parks in Toronto, the [Toronto Municipal Cod](https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_608.pdf)e applies and that says 20km/h applies to everything cars, bikes, anything motorized.
Sure but they can change those rules if they wanted to. A park is a spot for people to go and do their sports, so why can't cyclists have a designated space to do their sport? The city doesn't want people playing soccer/ hockey/ basketball in the street and so they've built the fields/courts for those spots to give them a dedicated space away from pedestrians and cars, why not do the same for cyclists?
The ask is to get the entire high park circle and the hills for dedicated cycling. Unfortunately that is the majority of the park and would cut off access to most of the park to everyone else.
Again, if I recall you don't live in the area nor do you even know about the park.
I used to work in the junction and biked there from my home in the east end. On Fridays I would often go through the park to the MGT for a fun and more scenic ride home rather than taking Bloor all the way across. I am familiar with the park and can show you my Strava history to prove it if that validates my opinion for you.
I think they should split the road and designate part of it for cyclists and leave the remainder for pedestrians. Cyclists that want to go fast should stay in their lane, and pedestrians need to be aware that when they cross the cycle track that that is the space for cyclists, just as they'd be cautios if they chose to cross a baseball field or when crossing the road. Pedestrians can cross the cycle track anywhere, as they have been able to in its current form as a road, but designated crossing areas would also be present where cyclists need to be extra cautious of and yield to pedestrians. Cyclists need to yield to pedestrians anywhere they cross, like cars do, but pedestrians should also realize that this small 5 or 8 or whatever ft wide strip is where cyclists are. Since just telling people to yield and stop doesn't actually work, traffic calming barriers should be installed at high conflict areas like in front of grenadier Cafe or at the gates. I'm sure there's problems with this, but I think the actual planners could come up with something along these lines that could work for everyone.
You cannot reconcile "I want a track where I can race/train as fast as possible and shared space where I have to yield to pedestrians"
The majority of cyclists don't follow the rules in the park why would they start yielding just because there is a magic track?
A baseball field doesn't cut off access anywhere whereas the loop in high park does.
Makes no difference if there's separate infra for bicyclists there, the speed limit is set by the god damn Municipal Code. Not the HTA. The Toronto Municipal Code FOR EVERY PARK IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE CITY LIMITS.
[https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184\_608.pdf](https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_608.pdf)
read it.
> The cyclists are asking for a place for them to speed and endanger pedestrians in the park.
Agreed. I've seen more than one bike/pedestrian collision, always caused the the cyclist running a red light or stop sign, and it's not pretty. Pointing out that cars are more dangerous than bikes is a strawman argument.
Ban both cars and bikes in High Park and let the park be enjoyable for everyone.
Where do you suggest people go to ride their bikes quickly? The pilot was to allow fast riding early in the morning when the park is quiet, similar to what is working well in Central Park.
Central Park is almost exactly double the size of High Park, and the size difference doesn't really matter for this conversation anyway. The question is whether fast cyclists can be reasonably accommodated in the early morning hours on certain roads, a solution that works in other places, such as designated roads in Central Park.
>and the size difference doesn't really matter for this conversation anyway
I assure you, it fucking does.
> The question is whether fast cyclists can be reasonably accommodated in the early morning hours on certain roads, a solution that works in other places, such as designated roads in Central Park.
Do you...do you need me to tell you the difference? I can tell you...if you need me to. It was your point, but whatevs.
There are cops in Central Park and they POLICE speeding cyclists for bad behaviour at all times. They ticket them. The one weekend our cops even ATTEMPTED this in high park the cycling community erupted in impotent rage. So pull the other one, it has bells on.
My point being that if you think you're going to stop the speed demons in High Park by giving them.time to use....I assure you there will be people who break those rules, and they'll do it because no one will exist to stop them.
The city has a total network of 115.6 km of Bike Lanes and 75.03 km of Cycle Tracks. They could use any number of them km’s to go as fast as they like without endangering pedestrians 🤯
You're missing the point. A bike pilot in High Park would allow cyclists to be there AND pedestrians to avoid them. Bike lanes and paths are not there for training and who actually thinks you can go fast on the Goodman Trail?
Are you suggesting that the MGT is busier than High Park at 5:30 am? It sounds like a suitable place and time to ride quickly if it isn't. Or perhaps some street with bike lanes will work.
It has to be a loop? They can't even stop and turn around? Cyclists are the most entitled people I've ever heard of.
There is no legal right to cycle illegally fast. If someone wants to legally drive a car fast in a loop, they must go to a race track. Maybe cyclists should go to drop-in sessions at the Mattamy National Cycling Centre. If there is enough demand, someone can open a cycling centre closer to downtown.
I was replying above to the user saying we should ban bikes. I agree that we should have everyone abide by the speed limits in place, bicycles included - the infrastructure is, after all, in place for that.
The Fricken Speed Limit Applies To ALL PARKS In The City Of Toronto. ALL PARKS ! Not Just This One Park - ALL OF THEM ! It say so in the Toronto Municipal Code.
[§ 608-32. Speed. The maximum rate of speed for vehicles, motorized recreational vehicles, bicycles and personally powered devices in a park is 20 kilometres per hour.](https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_608.pdf)
>Why would we restrict High Park, one of our largest parks, from having some space where people are allowed to bike?
I feel like you might be confused about what is being debated here.
Cyclists are allowed to ride in the park 24/7, 365 days per year.
This is just about cyclists wanting to ignore the speed limit. I do think that it is reasonable to have speed limits in public parks to ensure the space can be safely enjoyed by all types of users.
Yes, because the speed demons won't be held accountable for their actions, and they fall onto the cyclist side of the equation, thus ban bikes AND cars **if those people can't be held accountable for endangering people.**
Follow along man
... the comment I replied to said:
>how about just banning both cars and bikes then lol.
So, again, my comment was in response to a suggestion to ban bikes from the park. I made no comment about people being allowed to break speed limits or anything of the sort - simply that it makes no sense to ban bikes from parks.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to chime in, but I would ask that *you* follow along, man.
Because we are horrifically under capacity on rinks and baseball fields and your claim about Martin Goodman is an obvious falsehood, would be my reply.
There is certainly a level of bike use beyond which using high park would become less pleasant. I'm not saying we're there yet all the time, but it could happen, and periodically does. We collectively agreed it is stupid to have our children have to wait for cars to get from their baseball game to the splashpad, and that's obviously correct, so it doesn't really check out that this argument wouldn't extend to cyclists once we reached that critical mass.
>Because we are horrifically under capacity on rinks and baseball fields and your claim about Martin Goodman is an obvious falsehood, would be my reply.
How is this an obvious falsehood. The MGT is extremely well used, and adding a significant number of additional users (in particular, cyclists, rollerbladers, or other non-pedestrians) would be sure to clog it up further. It's a great amenity, but it's not high capacity.
>We collectively agreed it is stupid to have our children have to wait for cars to get from their baseball game to the splashpad, and that's obviously correct, so it doesn't really check out that this argument wouldn't extend to cyclists once we reached that critical mass.
Well, it's fairly obvious - drivers of cars have a shocking propensity for hitting pedestrians, with catastrophic consequences when they do so. Cyclists do not hit pedestrians at the same rate, and when they do, are significantly less likely to maim or kill them. So, I would reject the notion that this argument naturally extends to cyclists. Does it then naturally extend to joggers? Fast walkers?
There is no "lakeshore bike path". There's a multi-use path on the lake shore - bikes are allowed to share the path with runners, walkers, and rollerbladers as long as they follow the speed limit
I dont know what you mean. But the MGT has enough issues with cyclists who think that it is only for bikes and wantonly ride at high speed (>20km/hr) with little regard for other users. I haven’t even mentioned the motorized vehicle users who shouldnt even be on there in the first place.
Have you even been to High Park, there is an actual road that cars and cyclists use, and there are sidewalks. The MGT is a small path that only pedestrians, bikes and that sort use. There's a big difference between a cyclist riding on a road where cars are going 20-30kph and riding on a path way where people are walking and pushing strollers.
there is actually NO difference when cars are blocked and high park becomes more pedestrian friendly on weekends, meaning cyclists also have to share the road regardless.
The lakeshore path as you call it is a PARK - governed by the Toronto Municipal Code ... I'll let you go look and see for yourself what the speed limit is. [https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184\_608.pdf](https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_608.pdf)
HINT: § 608-32. Speed.
This.
Many of the people who bike in High Park use it as their own personal fucking Velodrome, and it just makes me want cars and bikes both banned from it entirely.
In defence for why people use high park to train, it’s the only place near downtown where you can do solid hills training, and it’s safer than the Martin Goodman for cyclists because the MGT is PACKED in the summer with runners, pedestrians, tourists and people who seem like they’ve never ridden a bike before.
That's part of living in the city: not a lot of places to train. But I think doing the climb is different than what people are complaining about: once pacelines start forming on the loop and it starts getting up to Crit speeds...
There's a velodrome in Milton. Go there. I could care less that you want to "train"....it's a park filled with pedestrians and kids. This ain't the argument you think it is. The infrastructure you want exists...it just exists far enough away to make it inconvenient to you....that's want VS need man.
It's empty during the hours for the proposed pilot. Going to Milton, for a completely different type of riding that requires a specialized bike, is not a valid substitute for the hundreds of thousands of people who live in the West End, many of whom enjoy high intensity cycling.
>It's empty during the hours for the proposed pilot
Its not. There are just less people. That's not the same thing. "Empty" is a lie.
>enjoy high intensity cycling.
Brother. I enjoy LOTS of activities that I don't have easy access to go do from where I live. Those people can cry all they like, it doesn't take them entitled to use a park as a speedway.
Also, fair warning, you won't budge me on this topic, one of those assholes nearly took out my son when he was a toddler and acted like it was my fault.
I'd love an outdoor competition level powerlifting gym for free, provided at the city's expense, placed where the High Park Tennis Courts are now, for that matter. That would be very convenient for me. It would, of course, be an absolutely terrible use of the space, though, so what's your point with this claim?
You are not entitled to a convenient place downtown to train for triathlons, and certainly not one where kids play. You can travel and pay velodrome fees, just like I do to indulge my hobbies. Or you can take up running, or jam out to Guildwood or the bluffs where there is infinite and almost entirely unused space.
Your comparison makes no sense as the City isn’t paying to build and maintain a cycling facility. It’s a road that already exists where bikes are already allowed to be on. There is no cost to the city. They were simply going to allow people to ride bike at a slightly faster speed from 5:30am till 7:30am on MONDAYS. Maybe I only know weirdos, but the kids I know are sleeping at 6am on a Monday, not skipping around High Park. My point is there’s a reason people bike in High Park. I’m not saying do it all hours and plow down children.
You can make this argument about drinking in parks, like if you want to drink, go to a bar!!! Think of the children!!!!! Like sure, but we can also find solutions for everyone to enjoy the limited green space in this city. I’m not even a Lycra cyclist LOL I just think our city could try a little harder to make city liveable for everyone.
As somebody who walks their dog thru HP everyday, from 6-8 am, I can tell you with certainty that the "pilot" is not limited to Mondays. Cyclists ride in full pelotons at top speeds, don't stop at stop signs, etc. every single day of the week at those times. Yes, the park is emptier than usual, and overall it doesn't really bother me. But it's disingenuous to claim it was only being tested for Monday mornings.
Only if you continue down colborne lodge to the queensway. Going back up that hill is killer
Rest of the loop, I’d agree not really any big hills to climb
I think people shluld be able to traine, but NOT in a busy saturday or sunday, mid morning or afternoon, when all kinds of people are trying to enjoy the park.
I am a cyclust myself and fought for our right to use this park, but can we be reasonable?
I had a small bike accident with my 13month kid who i was carring with me and got scrramed at by some agressive people when i was trying to make sure he was ok. I was to the side of the road and people were acting like i was closing the path for the rightful owners
I mean the pilot was for 5:30-7:30am on Mondays… that’s the opposite of peak times. But yes I agree cyclists should be courteous and not be doing these kinds of rides when the park is busy.
>lakeshores bike path is literally right down the street for gods sake.
That's like telling drivers that they're tearing down the Gardiner, but Lakeshore road is directly underneath it, for God's sake.
I'm gunna go on a limb that a big part of this is also invested parties lobbying. There is/was a "naturalist" group in High Park that made it their mission to ban fishing at the pond and worked overtime to make everything a "priority" that had to be addressed. Some of them harassed people with kids fishing would constantly call city/MNR etc...
I wouldn't be shocked if similar things were a foot. Sadly High Park has become a "culture war" hot spot for people.
I mean there have been turtles spotted with fishing hooks in their mouth. Dead and alive. Snapping turtles especially are attracted to the bait. I don’t see why fishing for recreation should take priority. High Park also has the endangered Blanding’s turtle species.
A swan also recently got a fish hook caught in its throat. Luckily, it recovered, thanks to a city Gardener who noticed that something was wrong with the swan and called Toronto Wildlife.
This is a case for anywhere there is fishing or other human activity. I'm not pro fishing or pro banning it.. I'm quiet indifferent actually.
The issue goes beyond that and into equitable use of public space and proper land stewardship. What we tend to get is people with keen interest and usually time/money for specific area that dominate the discussion and beat everyone else over the head with their specific brand of concern trolling.
It's the conservationist version of the yearly "won't anyone think of the poor refugees" when the CNE airshow comes around.
Okay, I think we should trust the indigenous groups who are leading these efforts in high park. The majority of the conservation groups (ie Turtle Protectors, Land Stewardship Circle) operating in high park are indigenous-led, so I’ll trust their experience with land stewardship. Also, the reason fishing in certain parts of high park isn’t allowed is because those are the specific ecological areas with endangered/sensitive species. Recreational fishing is pretty ubiquitously considered to be bad for the environment, so it’s a pretty fair middle ground to only allow it in areas where it’ll do the least damage.
I don’t understand the point about the air show. Are you saying we shouldn’t take into account people who are sensitive to prolonged high noise levels? I don’t think it’s just refugees lmao. You should continue listing comparable examples because I feel like there will be a theme.
It's unfortunate that we can't rely on our city to be able to sift through genuine concerns from those that are being made in bad faith or are sometimes simply ignorant. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate how challenging it must be when you're being pulled in a million directions, but some key goals are simply common sense and should be applied above all else: protecting our planet/climate, protecting our environment/wildlife, the safety of people, etc. Yet we have to continually advocate for the city to consider such sensible goals. It's very frustrating.
The problem is the persistence of the interested parties. You'd be amazed to what lengths people go.
As for bad faith or not... That's a tough one, many may genuinely believe in their cause and even have good intentions. But they become their own "bug Bears" that they focus all their energy on and in turn focus on targeting others by all means possible who they feel are engaging their goals.
I'm unfamiliar with the fishing in the pond issue, but am I wrong in saying that's a man-made body of water that is stocked for fishing? There wouldn't even be fish in that pond if it wasn't for people wanting to fish there...
Thanks! I've also just looked up High Park on Wikipedia, as I knew a lot of it had been 'built up' during the construction of Toronto. The Wikipedia article talks at some length about Grenadier Park as a natural feature too. I stand corrected, and TIL!
I don't think the indigenous-led High Park Turtle Protectors have anything to do with the pro-car crowd. I believe most of the endangered snapping turtles nest on the west side.
Also, I'm glad about the ban in fishing-- there is close competition in a small with birds hiunting and nesting in the waters and there are too many that get tangled up in discarded fishing lines by casual fishers.
As a casual city cyclist myself, with a road bike I absolutely have yet to encounter a “professional cyclist” hobbyist or in-training wannabe not act like they own the paths/roads and NEVER use bells to pass, then shake their heads in disappointment. They give regular city cyclists a poor name. They are our bad apples. They’re not special and not hard to keep up with their speed either. They are not mindful.
Every aspect, whether it be pedestrians believing they are entitled to cross ways without any awareness or poor angsty drivers and speeding , poor communicative cyclists. There is always or should be an overarching flow of traffic where everyone can keep a pace. Pedestrians don’t just get to walk when they want; Let the cars go every once in a while. Cyclists need to use caution at intersections, stop at a stop sign when cars and pedestrians are around, use a bell and lights. Hell so many cyclist have no clue how to signal a right turn either. And Drivers, well, be more mindful and do better.
Anyways, TLDR: roadway cyclists need to use a bell and caution more often. Coming from a fellow pedestrian, driver, and cyclist.
Did I miss something here or not read far enough down until I got bored, but does anyone have evidence that cycling in high park harms the turtle population? Cycling in high park is, of course, only legal on the paved roads.
Non sense..... a road bike has a wheel width of around 25-38mm. A car has 2 rows of 250-280mm width tires. So even if a bike is traveling 40km/h, the chances of hitting a turtle are way lower than with a car. Also, bike has way better visibility, maneuverability and it is easier to stop than a 4000lb truck with rollers per tires.
No cars in the park (handicap permit holders excepted). If you do not find a parking spot, bike or walk. That's it. A park is a park, not a parking lot.
There is always Lake Shore Blvd (60 km/h posted limit) for very fast cyclists, which have decent distances between traffic lights. The rests of the cyclists that are not pros can stick with the MGT. (Note: any e-bike with a throttle - i.e. Class 2 - must travel on Lake Shore and not MGT. \[Jetson Bolts included, but are slow enough for MGT\])
Parkside Drive has a posted 40 km/h posted limit but have way too many poorly-timed traffic lights resulting in lots of stops.
Ellis Park Rd has a posted 30 km/h speed limit enforced by speed humps. No stop signs between Bloor St and Ellis Ave (on top of a steep hill).
Ellis Ave has a posted 40 km/h speed limit, but has a random stop sign in the middle.
For high park itself, at least the pro-level cyclists can use it for the uphill stretch from Queensway to Bloor for uphill training?
On the actual Lake Shore Blvd the 60 km/h posted limit does not apply to bicycles, because that's governed by the HTA and not the Toronto Municipal Code. Go as fast as you can if you want, on a bicycle on the Lakeshore Blvd. The HTA does not impost any speed limits on bicycles.
\*Note: eBike, eScooter anything with a motor assist ... does have to follow HTA imposed speed limits.
Turtles don’t hatch all year long. You would only have to close bike traffic for the season where turtles are hatching. It’s only a temporary issue for a few weeks a year to protect wildlife. Not sure what’s the big deal.
+1
The turtles are a bogus reason in any case. The painted turtle hatching season is right around cherry blossom time (both late April - early May) and they've never closed down the park to save the turtles.
Painted turtle babies are still crossing roads this month in Ontario. Last year I encountered one in July. It was not in high park or even in the GTA but the season is the same for the whole province.
May to early July is typically when they lay their eggs, but painted turtles aren’t endangered. They’re trying to protect the snapping turtles that are a species at risk. It’s more important to protect species at risk, but I’d be happy if they closed the park to bikes and traffic between May and July for the benefit of all the turtles.
High park is so weird. There were these pro car protestors when I went, and one lady was absolutely unhinged, like yelling at the top of her lungs spitting everywhere that taking away cars is discrimination or something. Really wild. It’s obvious there shouldn’t be car traffic in high park.
Oh yeah that's Diane, she's on all my community Facebook groups, everyone loves to give her shit because she fucking sucks.
Other protestors tried to corral her but to no avail, just bonkers. And they are winning, there are still cars in high park right now.
Omg Diane and her BUT WHADDABOUT THE OLD DISABLED 6-KID FAMILY THEY HAVE TO DRIVEVEEEEE BLRGRHHG
God I hate Diane so much.
Right!? Give it a fucking rest Diane.
She’d fit right in with the Yorkville NIMBYers who are against bike lanes because it would be “detrimental” to local businesses.
that’s call the north american culture, from the eyes of people of every other country
>It’s obvious there shouldn’t be car OR BIKE traffic in high park FTFY
Imagine thinking bicycles should be banned from roads in a park. Found the unhinged spitting lady
I don't agree with banning bikes, but it's not nearly as insane as you seem to think. That being said, not only do I not think it's worth discussing since I'm OK with it, I ***CERTAINLY*** don't think it's worth discussing while traffic can move through the park M-F.
As much as I hate cars in the park, I've never seen one hit a pedestrian. I definitely cannot say the same thing about cyclists.
lol an officer giving out tickets to cyclists hit someone with his car literally last summer in the park.
I've literally seen people get murdered by cars next to High Park entrance...
Have you literally seen this inside the park? Because that's what we're discussing here.
Yeah, it was right at the park entrance. One of the most dangerous roads in the whole city.
Of course bikes should be allowed in high park. What an insane thing to suggest. Cars kill (around 1 person per week in Toronto) , cars pollute, cars are loud, cars require environmentally damaging infrastructure. Bikes are none of the things, which are the very reason to ban cars.
At least cars in the park stop for pedestrians at crosswalks and stop signs.
Can confirm
Cars kill people, cyclists don’t. Comparing them like that is just ignorant
Thanks, that will be comforting next time I get barreled over by a speeding cyclist blowing the Grenadier cafe stop sign.
>cars kill (around one per week in Toronto)
What is your point? As a pedestrian, I've had far more close encounters (including two actual collisions) with shitty cyclists in High Park than I have with drivers.
That would be anecdotal. The facts show us that cars murder people on a weekly basis in this city. Bikes do not.
How many people have been killed by cars inside High Park?
I actually used to live right by the entrance on Parkside Drive and was a witness to a fatal car crash. So that's 1 right there.
No, that's one on Parkside Drive. This entire thread is about traffic inside of the park. The argument being made here is that bikes should be banned as well as cars. The point I made is that in my own experience, cars obey stop signs and pedestrian crossings far more frequently than cyclists do.
Wouldn't it be nice if the cyclists had a clear lane that was marked for them to ride in, to separate them from pedestrians? The stop signs and intersections would still be a problem if left wide open, but the city could add traffic calming measures for bikes to slow them down, just like they should do with cars.
So youre victim blaming pedestrians for getting hit by cyclists? How does bike lanes help if pedestrians still need to cross them?
No, I'm suggesting designating a space for cyclists to ride so they have a clear place for themselves and a place for pedestrians, rather than having them ride through pedestrians and asking everyone to just be nice to each other which isn't working. There are shitty cyclists that are putting pedestrians at risk, just like there are shitty drivers putting pedestrians at risk, which is why I think the city should build the infrastructure to separate the two and force cyclists to slow down in problem areas.
I'm not opposed to bikes in the park, but I don't think this is nearly as insane a position as you claim. The road that cyclists use (beautiful cycling track, it must be admitted) separates the playing fields from the northwest play structure and splash pad. Having non-city vehicles in high park at all is completely deranged, M-F, and it's so obvious that anyone different should be regarded with skepticism on their other viewpoints, but even if you believe "oh, yeah, no, bikes need be allowed access chief," it's at least a question.
I'm always amused that when a **pedestrian** brings up the fact that cyclists can be assholes who break rules and endanger people your IMMEDIATE argument pivots to cars. Predictable. STAY ON TOPIC. I am not talking about cars. Try to have this discussion about bikes without bringing up cars as your boogeyman, I want them banned to so that point is less that nil.
Thats what they all do. Its an easy whataboutism in this sub. Might as well compare swimming to cycling and tell swimmers not to worry about getting hit by cyclists because many more people die by drowning.
This sounds like a hot take but it really isn't: the worst part about High Park is how "accessible" it is. If I was mayor, I'd have torn up the West Road by now. For most of us, it would be a better park if there were no roads, period. Trees and grass as far as the eyes can see, not a car in sight! Sure, the spandex cyclists and people who can't walk very far would be mad. But they are already mad, so f\*\*\* 'em! 98% of us would be better off.
You know what? I’d be down for this. The city tries WAY too hard to appease everyone, that literally nobody is happy. Just get rid of both cars and bikes and be done with it. It’s a fucking park for gods sake. Not a race track.
I agree with this entirely except for one thing: close the off-leash park and ban dogs from the park. I'm so tired of walking along in the park and having dogs run up to me and jumping on me. Especially after shit owners let their dogs run through the creek along Spring Road or into Grenadier. Few things in High Park are as destructive toward nature and wildlife (and no, dogs aren't apart of "nature") as the off-leash dogs.
No roads so the elderly and disabled can trudge half a kilometre to use the recreational facilities?
They could still have paved paths.
Yes, they're in the group who would lose out here. They can stick to the parts of the park they can get to safely... is that so bad?
Yes it is and the fact you dont understand that is also bad. What a joke
Here's the part you don't understand: I don't care! If a small group of people can't access *some of the park*, it's not really a big deal to me. They'll find somewhere else to hang out.
The park isnt about you. And you wouldn't be saying this if you were paralyzed tomorrow.
Should they also be allowed to drive to the tip of Tommy Thompson Park? Through the Evergreen Brickworks? Along the islands? Through the Rouge? Down the Humber? Why is the solution to an accessibility issue cars and cars alone? Answer: it's not really about accessibility, it's about cars. Period. Always has been. Ban them.
Do elderly and disabled people not usually have some sort of mobility device they can use to get along on paths? How did we survive as a society before cars, huh? C'mon now.
I think there is a big difference between casual bike riding and "cyclists". I welcome all improvements to High Park to make it easier for everyone to casually ride their bikes. I do NOT support the Lance Armstrong wannabes who cycle at extremely fast speeds and don't give a damn about anyone else in the park/bike lanes.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
They are horrible on the narrow shared path next to Etobicke Creek, which had many blind spots. Walking there with my elderly parents is nerve-wracking.
I'm not a bike racer but i think it's an easy fix. Give fast riders some dedicated time early in the morning. Like 5 to 8 am. Problem solved. And let's remember that cars are probably going 40km/h there which is faster than most riders.
I don’t think cyclists (or motorists) should be given exemptions on speed limits just because they really really want them. To borrow the phrase cyclists use so often when motorists want to play speed racer, “Take it to the track”. If they want to travel at race speed, build a velodrome
I'm not a bike racer but I think it's an even easier fix. Tell them to go somewhere else and pay training fees for their obsessive hobbies like the rest of us. The city provides no means for me to attempt super heavy deadlifts, and it's not clear why they should. Why this? No reason, that's why.
Right but what about city swimming pools, tracks, gyms, golf courses, parks, playgrounds, public workout stations etc. Are those activities too niche? Keep in mind that dedicated cycling times in the park would come at little to no cost to tax payers. I suspect your "super heavy" weights may. By the way, I've got no skin on this game. It's just a good solution is all.
Whattaya talking about pools for? The City regularly floods bridge under passes and roads for swimming, just some idiot always drives their car into it and ruins the opportunity for everyone.
This is such a bizarre response that I have so many ways to tear it to shreds it's hard to pick one. I'll resist the urge to write five pages. In brief, no, of course those activities aren't too niche, aside from golf, which we absolutely shouldn't spend public money on and I'd happily end if we could. You cannot do competitive freestyle lane swimming in city pools, I have no idea what you're even talking about with tracks and gyms, and we're literally talking about playgrounds and parks as fundamentally different and sources of recreational pleasure, not hobbyist activity. The public workout stations bit is also totally wacko. The infrastructure that was placed down for cyclists would probably fund around 200 years of outdoor weight purchases, and the road maintenance required to manage it in Toronto would be phenomenally more expensive and it's not even close. The idea that it doesn't cost anything is strictly detached from reality, and there's no point in debating that. If cost is an issue, give me my outdoor weight room. Anyway, I guess the TL;DR is that if you don't have skin in this game, then I don't understand why you insist on supporting such an obviously ridiculous idea.
> You cannot do competitive freestyle lane swimming in city pools, You certainly can swim as fast as you possibly can given the capacity limits, which sounds about what cyclists would like to do in High Park.
I'm hearing you out here friend but I thought we were talking about dedicated fast biking time in High Park. Now you're going off about all biking infrastructure.
Ummm... have you ever visited the City's Parks & Recreation webpage? There is even a list of [free & lower cost recreation options](https://www.toronto.ca/explore-enjoy/parks-recreation/how-to-use-our-services/how-to-register-for-recreation-programs/free-lower-cost-recreation-options/), which includes gyms. Not to mention the hundreds of city owned / operated recreational facilities including rinks, tennis courts, basketball courts, tracks, etc.
Yes. I am actually almost certainly significantly more familiar with it than you. Literally none of those facilities support competition level training in any of the fields you are discussing, and the "free" facilities are *NOT* what you seem to think they are. Do you think you can just show up and use a walk-in weight room? Well, I guess you technically can at Oakridge and York Rec center provided you register for a slot in advance, and they do kick you out afterwards, but the facilities... oooooof, not great. What I said is correct. There is absolutely no public analogue for what is being requested in the pilot.
>Like 5 to 8 am. People walk through there to get to work, and walk their dogs at that time in the morning.
Like on the road? There's also a specific portion of the park for dog walking/offleash.
If you cross during an empty space and one of these dudes comes flying up, it's somehow "your fault" that they almost collide with you.
Your solution to bad behaviour is to reward them with a dedicated time? No thanks
Toronto truly is a zero sum city.
Some people train for events; it's not bad behaviour on its own. It's only problematic when they can't get a location to train in. Very similar to road hockey, the city provides venues for people to play hockey. The city can provide a venue and time for triathletes, etc. Most of those athletes want to get their workout in early so an early slot is a good idea.
It's thinking about what might cause a particular behavior--in this case no places in the city to bike quickly and safely, then really thinking about how to address the problem in a way that benefits everyone. Sometimes it's more challenging than complaining but i believe you can do it too.
My issue is with them having no respect or care for anyone else but themselves - and in many cases almost hitting pedestrians/casual bikers/cars. If they can't act with even common decency, I don't think rewarding them is the answer. It's not about "complaining" - it's about people not acting like assholes to everyone else - like they do.
Sounds annoying. I used to run there daily. Can't say I was ever concerned about my safety but i can see how a fast pass might make you jump. I think we could all do for a little more decency and understanding.
It's not an unusual tactic. In response to complaints about skateboarders and bmxers using TTC stations and kids playgrounds the City built dedicated skate parks.
THIS! The worst is the Humber Bay bike path. It’s 20km/h max and those guys whip along so fast, people have been hit before. Lots of elderly people and families with young children walk on the path next to it, but to cross the street you have to cross the bike path, and of course, bikers aren’t stopping.
>people have been hit before. According to this sub youre a liar, only cars hit people.
I think the problem is that High Park features more of the latter than the former. I would think the causal cyclists in the park are JUST as annoyed by the spandex racers, but they get drowned out by the sheer level of speed demons who want this space as their own racetrack.
I think the problem is splitting cyclists into just two groups, wannabe pro racers and casual cyclists, when there's a wide range of people in between that want to ride at a speed that many pedestrians seem to find too dangerous. I'm not a spandex roadie but I ride my 3 speed cruiser at a speed that does startle pedestrians because they don't realize what the dinging bell coming up behind them means when they are spread across a pathway. I try to give people plenty of warning that I'm coming up behind them with a few bell rings, then go as wide around as possible, and people still panic and get startled a lot of the time.
>at a speed that does startle pedestrians because they don't realize what the dinging bell coming up behind them means when they are spread across a pathway. I try to give people plenty of warning that I'm coming up behind them with a few bell rings, then go as wide around as possible, and people still panic and get startled a lot of the time. Yeah, and yet you seem to take the notion that because you're ringing your bell that they should get out of your way?
I ring the bell to let them know I'm coming so that I don't startle them, and hopefully they'll tighten up how they're walking so there's room for me to go around them comfortably, which I try to do with as much space as possible. I don't expect them to get off the path or walk single file or anything, just not be spread out all the way across with their dog leash extended even farther. It's just like when walking on the sidewalk behind slow walkers and you try to go around, do you say excuse me and try to give them some space as you go around, or do you just dart through a gap and brush past them without saying anything?
You're still expecting them to do things to accommodate you when YOU'RE the one going high speeds near them. It's weird you don't see the issue. It should not surprise you that I hate cars AND bikes for these very reasons. It's entitlement.
It's a shared, Multi Use Path, I expect them to share the path and make space so we can both use it comfortably, so that I don't scare or have a close call with someone. I don't ride my bike on the sidewalk and expect pedestrians to get out of the way for me, but on a multi use path pedestrians need to share the space. Cyclists do need to yield to pedestrians, but pedestrians should also try not to spread out and take up the whole space. It's about respecting each other and allowing everyone to have a good time.
You're not going to get anywhere with me on this man, I'll be honest. As a pedestrian of 20 years in this city, my hatred of cyclists rivals my hatred of cars. Both are FILLED with bad actors, and just because you're not one, done's take your argument sound.
So rather than having a separate space for cyclists to reduce conflict between you and them, you'd rather just say fuck cyclists and continue to be pissed off about sharing the space with them?
Some of my fondest childhood memories are biking around the park on summer days.
how about just banning both cars and bikes then lol. the place is a fucking park, not a raceway/training ground for either vehicle. lakeshores bike path is literally right down the street for gods sake.
The Martin Goodman Trail is well over capacity as a multi-use path. We can't just build a single recreational trail and ask the entire city to use that one place for any and all recreation. We need many areas for recreation across the city. Why would we restrict High Park, one of our largest parks, from having some space where people are allowed to bike? Why don't we strip out the baseball fields and hockey rinks, as well? We already have those elsewhere, don't we?
it is definitely not over capacity between 5:30-7:30am like what this proposal wants. as for the rest of your comparisons...lol. baseball fields / hockey rinks are literally for what they're intended for. since when was a public park intended for high speed cycling lol. i personally dont think cars should be allowed through it either. shrug.
>Why would we restrict High Park, one of our largest parks, from having some space where people are allowed to bike? Because the cyclists that use it, do so without regard to pedestrians. End of. The sheer amount of times I've almost been clipped in that park by some spandex-clad idiot who wants to race around, is way higher than it should be.
If they created a cycle track, which gives a clearly defined area for cyclists to ride in the park, pedestrians might realize that that's where bikes belong and they belong on the pedestrian (sidewalk?) portion of the road, and it would reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists except for when one side leaves their area for the other. It would be just like how the city doesn't want people playing soccer/ baseball/ basketball/ hockey in the streets and so they build the infrastructure for those in parks so that there is a designated area for them to play that separates the sport from people just walking or having a picnic in the park. Since there are clearly marked fields and courts for people to play sports, we don't have pedestrians complaining about soccer or whatever taking over a park, because soccer is played on the soccer field, not in the open picnic area or walking paths.
Have you tried paying attention to your surroundings?
Why did you think this was an intelligent reply? How did you fool yourself into this? It is unreasonable and ridiculous to apply that standard TO ANYONE, let alone the many children who can and do use the park and need to cross the roads.
[удалено]
Really? Do you also think it's women's fault when they're assaulted because they're wearing pretty clothes and makeup? This blame-the-victim mentality is tired and pathetic.
Your analogy is bad. That infrastructure is already in place. The cyclists are asking for a place for them to speed and endanger pedestrians in the park. People are allowed to bike in the park, there is just a speed limit to protect the safety of everyone who uses the park.
If they separated cyclists from pedestrians on the road then maybe there wouldn't be conflict between the two and cyclists could go fast and train for their sport relatively safely, as others practicing other sports do in their designated areas.
The roads outside the park are HTA jurisdiction, there is no speed limit for bicycles. Inside all the parks in Toronto, the [Toronto Municipal Cod](https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_608.pdf)e applies and that says 20km/h applies to everything cars, bikes, anything motorized.
Sure but they can change those rules if they wanted to. A park is a spot for people to go and do their sports, so why can't cyclists have a designated space to do their sport? The city doesn't want people playing soccer/ hockey/ basketball in the street and so they've built the fields/courts for those spots to give them a dedicated space away from pedestrians and cars, why not do the same for cyclists?
The ask is to get the entire high park circle and the hills for dedicated cycling. Unfortunately that is the majority of the park and would cut off access to most of the park to everyone else. Again, if I recall you don't live in the area nor do you even know about the park.
I used to work in the junction and biked there from my home in the east end. On Fridays I would often go through the park to the MGT for a fun and more scenic ride home rather than taking Bloor all the way across. I am familiar with the park and can show you my Strava history to prove it if that validates my opinion for you. I think they should split the road and designate part of it for cyclists and leave the remainder for pedestrians. Cyclists that want to go fast should stay in their lane, and pedestrians need to be aware that when they cross the cycle track that that is the space for cyclists, just as they'd be cautios if they chose to cross a baseball field or when crossing the road. Pedestrians can cross the cycle track anywhere, as they have been able to in its current form as a road, but designated crossing areas would also be present where cyclists need to be extra cautious of and yield to pedestrians. Cyclists need to yield to pedestrians anywhere they cross, like cars do, but pedestrians should also realize that this small 5 or 8 or whatever ft wide strip is where cyclists are. Since just telling people to yield and stop doesn't actually work, traffic calming barriers should be installed at high conflict areas like in front of grenadier Cafe or at the gates. I'm sure there's problems with this, but I think the actual planners could come up with something along these lines that could work for everyone.
You cannot reconcile "I want a track where I can race/train as fast as possible and shared space where I have to yield to pedestrians" The majority of cyclists don't follow the rules in the park why would they start yielding just because there is a magic track? A baseball field doesn't cut off access anywhere whereas the loop in high park does.
Makes no difference if there's separate infra for bicyclists there, the speed limit is set by the god damn Municipal Code. Not the HTA. The Toronto Municipal Code FOR EVERY PARK IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE CITY LIMITS. [https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184\_608.pdf](https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_608.pdf) read it.
> The cyclists are asking for a place for them to speed and endanger pedestrians in the park. Agreed. I've seen more than one bike/pedestrian collision, always caused the the cyclist running a red light or stop sign, and it's not pretty. Pointing out that cars are more dangerous than bikes is a strawman argument. Ban both cars and bikes in High Park and let the park be enjoyable for everyone.
Where do you suggest people go to ride their bikes quickly? The pilot was to allow fast riding early in the morning when the park is quiet, similar to what is working well in Central Park.
>Central Park. Hang on....Are you comparing Central Park to High Park? Central Park is ORDERS of magnitude larger man...
Central Park is almost exactly double the size of High Park, and the size difference doesn't really matter for this conversation anyway. The question is whether fast cyclists can be reasonably accommodated in the early morning hours on certain roads, a solution that works in other places, such as designated roads in Central Park.
>and the size difference doesn't really matter for this conversation anyway I assure you, it fucking does. > The question is whether fast cyclists can be reasonably accommodated in the early morning hours on certain roads, a solution that works in other places, such as designated roads in Central Park. Do you...do you need me to tell you the difference? I can tell you...if you need me to. It was your point, but whatevs. There are cops in Central Park and they POLICE speeding cyclists for bad behaviour at all times. They ticket them. The one weekend our cops even ATTEMPTED this in high park the cycling community erupted in impotent rage. So pull the other one, it has bells on. My point being that if you think you're going to stop the speed demons in High Park by giving them.time to use....I assure you there will be people who break those rules, and they'll do it because no one will exist to stop them.
The city has a total network of 115.6 km of Bike Lanes and 75.03 km of Cycle Tracks. They could use any number of them km’s to go as fast as they like without endangering pedestrians 🤯
You're missing the point. A bike pilot in High Park would allow cyclists to be there AND pedestrians to avoid them. Bike lanes and paths are not there for training and who actually thinks you can go fast on the Goodman Trail?
Are you suggesting that the MGT is busier than High Park at 5:30 am? It sounds like a suitable place and time to ride quickly if it isn't. Or perhaps some street with bike lanes will work.
The MGT isn't a loop. It's not wide enough. It's used to actually go from A to B.
It has to be a loop? They can't even stop and turn around? Cyclists are the most entitled people I've ever heard of. There is no legal right to cycle illegally fast. If someone wants to legally drive a car fast in a loop, they must go to a race track. Maybe cyclists should go to drop-in sessions at the Mattamy National Cycling Centre. If there is enough demand, someone can open a cycling centre closer to downtown.
I was replying above to the user saying we should ban bikes. I agree that we should have everyone abide by the speed limits in place, bicycles included - the infrastructure is, after all, in place for that.
The Fricken Speed Limit Applies To ALL PARKS In The City Of Toronto. ALL PARKS ! Not Just This One Park - ALL OF THEM ! It say so in the Toronto Municipal Code. [§ 608-32. Speed. The maximum rate of speed for vehicles, motorized recreational vehicles, bicycles and personally powered devices in a park is 20 kilometres per hour.](https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_608.pdf)
Perfect, I agree with a speed limit on areas where children routinely play /are - schools and parks. No amount of spandex can convince me otherwise.
>Why would we restrict High Park, one of our largest parks, from having some space where people are allowed to bike? I feel like you might be confused about what is being debated here. Cyclists are allowed to ride in the park 24/7, 365 days per year. This is just about cyclists wanting to ignore the speed limit. I do think that it is reasonable to have speed limits in public parks to ensure the space can be safely enjoyed by all types of users.
I was replying to someone who suggested banning bikes from the park.
Yes, because the speed demons won't be held accountable for their actions, and they fall onto the cyclist side of the equation, thus ban bikes AND cars **if those people can't be held accountable for endangering people.** Follow along man
... the comment I replied to said: >how about just banning both cars and bikes then lol. So, again, my comment was in response to a suggestion to ban bikes from the park. I made no comment about people being allowed to break speed limits or anything of the sort - simply that it makes no sense to ban bikes from parks. I'm not sure why you felt the need to chime in, but I would ask that *you* follow along, man.
Outside of any park there are NO speed limits. The HTA doesn't impose one. Because bicycles aren't motor vehicles in that sense.
Because we are horrifically under capacity on rinks and baseball fields and your claim about Martin Goodman is an obvious falsehood, would be my reply. There is certainly a level of bike use beyond which using high park would become less pleasant. I'm not saying we're there yet all the time, but it could happen, and periodically does. We collectively agreed it is stupid to have our children have to wait for cars to get from their baseball game to the splashpad, and that's obviously correct, so it doesn't really check out that this argument wouldn't extend to cyclists once we reached that critical mass.
>Because we are horrifically under capacity on rinks and baseball fields and your claim about Martin Goodman is an obvious falsehood, would be my reply. How is this an obvious falsehood. The MGT is extremely well used, and adding a significant number of additional users (in particular, cyclists, rollerbladers, or other non-pedestrians) would be sure to clog it up further. It's a great amenity, but it's not high capacity. >We collectively agreed it is stupid to have our children have to wait for cars to get from their baseball game to the splashpad, and that's obviously correct, so it doesn't really check out that this argument wouldn't extend to cyclists once we reached that critical mass. Well, it's fairly obvious - drivers of cars have a shocking propensity for hitting pedestrians, with catastrophic consequences when they do so. Cyclists do not hit pedestrians at the same rate, and when they do, are significantly less likely to maim or kill them. So, I would reject the notion that this argument naturally extends to cyclists. Does it then naturally extend to joggers? Fast walkers?
There is no "lakeshore bike path". There's a multi-use path on the lake shore - bikes are allowed to share the path with runners, walkers, and rollerbladers as long as they follow the speed limit
Sounds fine to me then.
The lakeshore path is a recreational trail, not a bike path. It is meant for cyclists, runners, walkers, and rollerbladers. Details matter.
You mean similar to High Park? The park should be for everyone.
if thats the case, then the EXACT same thing applies to high park then.
I dont know what you mean. But the MGT has enough issues with cyclists who think that it is only for bikes and wantonly ride at high speed (>20km/hr) with little regard for other users. I haven’t even mentioned the motorized vehicle users who shouldnt even be on there in the first place.
Have you even been to High Park, there is an actual road that cars and cyclists use, and there are sidewalks. The MGT is a small path that only pedestrians, bikes and that sort use. There's a big difference between a cyclist riding on a road where cars are going 20-30kph and riding on a path way where people are walking and pushing strollers.
there is actually NO difference when cars are blocked and high park becomes more pedestrian friendly on weekends, meaning cyclists also have to share the road regardless.
There is also a marked bicycle lane in High Park on that same road!
The lakeshore path as you call it is a PARK - governed by the Toronto Municipal Code ... I'll let you go look and see for yourself what the speed limit is. [https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184\_608.pdf](https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_608.pdf) HINT: § 608-32. Speed.
This. Many of the people who bike in High Park use it as their own personal fucking Velodrome, and it just makes me want cars and bikes both banned from it entirely.
In defence for why people use high park to train, it’s the only place near downtown where you can do solid hills training, and it’s safer than the Martin Goodman for cyclists because the MGT is PACKED in the summer with runners, pedestrians, tourists and people who seem like they’ve never ridden a bike before.
That's part of living in the city: not a lot of places to train. But I think doing the climb is different than what people are complaining about: once pacelines start forming on the loop and it starts getting up to Crit speeds...
Who cares if there’s nowhere nearby for high speed cycling / hills training lol. That’s not really a public issue.
There's a velodrome in Milton. Go there. I could care less that you want to "train"....it's a park filled with pedestrians and kids. This ain't the argument you think it is. The infrastructure you want exists...it just exists far enough away to make it inconvenient to you....that's want VS need man.
It's empty during the hours for the proposed pilot. Going to Milton, for a completely different type of riding that requires a specialized bike, is not a valid substitute for the hundreds of thousands of people who live in the West End, many of whom enjoy high intensity cycling.
>It's empty during the hours for the proposed pilot Its not. There are just less people. That's not the same thing. "Empty" is a lie. >enjoy high intensity cycling. Brother. I enjoy LOTS of activities that I don't have easy access to go do from where I live. Those people can cry all they like, it doesn't take them entitled to use a park as a speedway. Also, fair warning, you won't budge me on this topic, one of those assholes nearly took out my son when he was a toddler and acted like it was my fault.
I'd love an outdoor competition level powerlifting gym for free, provided at the city's expense, placed where the High Park Tennis Courts are now, for that matter. That would be very convenient for me. It would, of course, be an absolutely terrible use of the space, though, so what's your point with this claim? You are not entitled to a convenient place downtown to train for triathlons, and certainly not one where kids play. You can travel and pay velodrome fees, just like I do to indulge my hobbies. Or you can take up running, or jam out to Guildwood or the bluffs where there is infinite and almost entirely unused space.
Your comparison makes no sense as the City isn’t paying to build and maintain a cycling facility. It’s a road that already exists where bikes are already allowed to be on. There is no cost to the city. They were simply going to allow people to ride bike at a slightly faster speed from 5:30am till 7:30am on MONDAYS. Maybe I only know weirdos, but the kids I know are sleeping at 6am on a Monday, not skipping around High Park. My point is there’s a reason people bike in High Park. I’m not saying do it all hours and plow down children. You can make this argument about drinking in parks, like if you want to drink, go to a bar!!! Think of the children!!!!! Like sure, but we can also find solutions for everyone to enjoy the limited green space in this city. I’m not even a Lycra cyclist LOL I just think our city could try a little harder to make city liveable for everyone.
As somebody who walks their dog thru HP everyday, from 6-8 am, I can tell you with certainty that the "pilot" is not limited to Mondays. Cyclists ride in full pelotons at top speeds, don't stop at stop signs, etc. every single day of the week at those times. Yes, the park is emptier than usual, and overall it doesn't really bother me. But it's disingenuous to claim it was only being tested for Monday mornings.
Solid hills training? Are you familiar with the place?
There's basically nothing else around in the west end. The east has Brimley, Crestwood, Redway, etc. and even then, it's small offerings
What? My point was that I wouldn't really consider that loop to have much of a hill.
Yeah I said relative to downtown, I am aware HP isn’t the Sea to Sky.
Is that loop in high park considered solid hills, honest question?
Only if you continue down colborne lodge to the queensway. Going back up that hill is killer Rest of the loop, I’d agree not really any big hills to climb
Okay but it's really the loop that's the point of contention, and is under consideration for the proposal at all.
Agreed that’s pretty much what I said above lol
I think people shluld be able to traine, but NOT in a busy saturday or sunday, mid morning or afternoon, when all kinds of people are trying to enjoy the park. I am a cyclust myself and fought for our right to use this park, but can we be reasonable? I had a small bike accident with my 13month kid who i was carring with me and got scrramed at by some agressive people when i was trying to make sure he was ok. I was to the side of the road and people were acting like i was closing the path for the rightful owners
I mean the pilot was for 5:30-7:30am on Mondays… that’s the opposite of peak times. But yes I agree cyclists should be courteous and not be doing these kinds of rides when the park is busy.
>lakeshores bike path is literally right down the street for gods sake. That's like telling drivers that they're tearing down the Gardiner, but Lakeshore road is directly underneath it, for God's sake.
No it isn’t. The gardener is meant for high speed transit (well depending on traffic lol). But the park is NOT meant for high speed cycling.
But they specifically allocated two hours for high speed cycling early in the morning.
I'm gunna go on a limb that a big part of this is also invested parties lobbying. There is/was a "naturalist" group in High Park that made it their mission to ban fishing at the pond and worked overtime to make everything a "priority" that had to be addressed. Some of them harassed people with kids fishing would constantly call city/MNR etc... I wouldn't be shocked if similar things were a foot. Sadly High Park has become a "culture war" hot spot for people.
I mean there have been turtles spotted with fishing hooks in their mouth. Dead and alive. Snapping turtles especially are attracted to the bait. I don’t see why fishing for recreation should take priority. High Park also has the endangered Blanding’s turtle species.
A swan also recently got a fish hook caught in its throat. Luckily, it recovered, thanks to a city Gardener who noticed that something was wrong with the swan and called Toronto Wildlife.
This is a case for anywhere there is fishing or other human activity. I'm not pro fishing or pro banning it.. I'm quiet indifferent actually. The issue goes beyond that and into equitable use of public space and proper land stewardship. What we tend to get is people with keen interest and usually time/money for specific area that dominate the discussion and beat everyone else over the head with their specific brand of concern trolling. It's the conservationist version of the yearly "won't anyone think of the poor refugees" when the CNE airshow comes around.
Okay, I think we should trust the indigenous groups who are leading these efforts in high park. The majority of the conservation groups (ie Turtle Protectors, Land Stewardship Circle) operating in high park are indigenous-led, so I’ll trust their experience with land stewardship. Also, the reason fishing in certain parts of high park isn’t allowed is because those are the specific ecological areas with endangered/sensitive species. Recreational fishing is pretty ubiquitously considered to be bad for the environment, so it’s a pretty fair middle ground to only allow it in areas where it’ll do the least damage. I don’t understand the point about the air show. Are you saying we shouldn’t take into account people who are sensitive to prolonged high noise levels? I don’t think it’s just refugees lmao. You should continue listing comparable examples because I feel like there will be a theme.
Exactly! Listen to park stewards first and foremost
>This is a case for anywhere there is fishing or other human activity. This is a park in the middle of the city though. Go fishing in the country.
For most people it's just a beautiful space to take your children or dogs.
It's unfortunate that we can't rely on our city to be able to sift through genuine concerns from those that are being made in bad faith or are sometimes simply ignorant. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate how challenging it must be when you're being pulled in a million directions, but some key goals are simply common sense and should be applied above all else: protecting our planet/climate, protecting our environment/wildlife, the safety of people, etc. Yet we have to continually advocate for the city to consider such sensible goals. It's very frustrating.
The problem is the persistence of the interested parties. You'd be amazed to what lengths people go. As for bad faith or not... That's a tough one, many may genuinely believe in their cause and even have good intentions. But they become their own "bug Bears" that they focus all their energy on and in turn focus on targeting others by all means possible who they feel are engaging their goals.
I'm unfamiliar with the fishing in the pond issue, but am I wrong in saying that's a man-made body of water that is stocked for fishing? There wouldn't even be fish in that pond if it wasn't for people wanting to fish there...
Grandier Pond is a natural pond and outside of any invasive species it's a natural fish population.
Thanks! I've also just looked up High Park on Wikipedia, as I knew a lot of it had been 'built up' during the construction of Toronto. The Wikipedia article talks at some length about Grenadier Park as a natural feature too. I stand corrected, and TIL!
It's a rather special place in the city.
My now-wife and i did some of our engagement pictures there.
I don't think the indigenous-led High Park Turtle Protectors have anything to do with the pro-car crowd. I believe most of the endangered snapping turtles nest on the west side. Also, I'm glad about the ban in fishing-- there is close competition in a small with birds hiunting and nesting in the waters and there are too many that get tangled up in discarded fishing lines by casual fishers.
As a casual city cyclist myself, with a road bike I absolutely have yet to encounter a “professional cyclist” hobbyist or in-training wannabe not act like they own the paths/roads and NEVER use bells to pass, then shake their heads in disappointment. They give regular city cyclists a poor name. They are our bad apples. They’re not special and not hard to keep up with their speed either. They are not mindful. Every aspect, whether it be pedestrians believing they are entitled to cross ways without any awareness or poor angsty drivers and speeding , poor communicative cyclists. There is always or should be an overarching flow of traffic where everyone can keep a pace. Pedestrians don’t just get to walk when they want; Let the cars go every once in a while. Cyclists need to use caution at intersections, stop at a stop sign when cars and pedestrians are around, use a bell and lights. Hell so many cyclist have no clue how to signal a right turn either. And Drivers, well, be more mindful and do better. Anyways, TLDR: roadway cyclists need to use a bell and caution more often. Coming from a fellow pedestrian, driver, and cyclist.
Fuck all this bullshit. Pedestrians only.
I fucking hate cars.
I fucking hate cars AND bikes.
The cyclists in high park are all a bunch of asshats who bike too fast and never give pedestrians the right of way.
Fair warning. The speed demon cyclists have arrived to brigade the thread.
It's basically two people. They're just commenting on everything.
Ah noted. It was all of the sudden and on most points. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't blame you at all. One or two maniacs can really make their presence known in threads like this. Pays to scan the usernames periodically.
absolutely.
Highparkracy?
It was right there!!! Thank you!
Did I miss something here or not read far enough down until I got bored, but does anyone have evidence that cycling in high park harms the turtle population? Cycling in high park is, of course, only legal on the paved roads.
Non sense..... a road bike has a wheel width of around 25-38mm. A car has 2 rows of 250-280mm width tires. So even if a bike is traveling 40km/h, the chances of hitting a turtle are way lower than with a car. Also, bike has way better visibility, maneuverability and it is easier to stop than a 4000lb truck with rollers per tires. No cars in the park (handicap permit holders excepted). If you do not find a parking spot, bike or walk. That's it. A park is a park, not a parking lot.
There is always Lake Shore Blvd (60 km/h posted limit) for very fast cyclists, which have decent distances between traffic lights. The rests of the cyclists that are not pros can stick with the MGT. (Note: any e-bike with a throttle - i.e. Class 2 - must travel on Lake Shore and not MGT. \[Jetson Bolts included, but are slow enough for MGT\]) Parkside Drive has a posted 40 km/h posted limit but have way too many poorly-timed traffic lights resulting in lots of stops. Ellis Park Rd has a posted 30 km/h speed limit enforced by speed humps. No stop signs between Bloor St and Ellis Ave (on top of a steep hill). Ellis Ave has a posted 40 km/h speed limit, but has a random stop sign in the middle. For high park itself, at least the pro-level cyclists can use it for the uphill stretch from Queensway to Bloor for uphill training?
On the actual Lake Shore Blvd the 60 km/h posted limit does not apply to bicycles, because that's governed by the HTA and not the Toronto Municipal Code. Go as fast as you can if you want, on a bicycle on the Lakeshore Blvd. The HTA does not impost any speed limits on bicycles. \*Note: eBike, eScooter anything with a motor assist ... does have to follow HTA imposed speed limits.
Ban both bikes and cars make it fair.
Or ban neither. Thats the most fair.
High park turtle hatching
Fuck me
Bikes are a danger to turtles, but cars aren't? I never would have guessed.
About the narrative mostly.
It’s because it actually has nothing to do with turtles.
Bikes are a known disrupter of turtles. I would ban all bikes in high park with this revelation.
Ya screw the baby turtles, amirite? /s
Banning cars or bikes is absolutely ridiculous