News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.3K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 383     0 

The Star: Jarvis St. must change with evolving environs

TKTKTK:

Why don't you ask them? I believe some of them have already answered the question for you though in this thread.

Looking, not finding. Could you quote some answers for me? So far I haven't seen any reasons for why cycle lanes belong on major arterial roads when much safer alternatives exist (in most cases) only a half-block over? There must have been cogent answers I missed.

Where is the discussion for beautifying Jarvis, keeping the middle-lane, and turning Church Street into a Pedestrian/Cycle zone (which it nearly is already, north of College)?

Quite frankly though, this debate requires more than just your faith.

I've offered much more than that, try reading for meaning rather than just individual words.
 
Last edited:
It's disappointing to see such a polarized debate on this issue. It's patently ridiculous to state that there is no place for cars downtown. But it's equally ridiculous to state that the minuscule amount of money Toronto spends on bicycle infrastructure is too much.

Let's face it, downtown has to be a place where cars, bikes, and pedestrians all get along. But it's not surprising that there are differing opinions on where that balance should be.

Personally, I think that Toronto's cycling infrastructure still has a long way to go. Despite it's deficiencies, I'm continually shocked at the number of people I see on bikes on my walk to work, in horrible weather. If we take this as far as Montreal has, eventually there will be a tipping point, and you'll see tons more people riding all over the place. In my case, I'd love a bike for getting around when the weather is nice, but living on the 29th floor of Jamestown, in elevator hell, it's simply not practical. Without bike lockers in my building, I'm stuck relying on the TTC and my feet. Which sucks, because they just put in bike lanes right in front of my building.

Anyways, I don't think adding to the animosity between drivers and cyclists is helpful. Mutual respect will go a long way toward increasing the safety of cyclists. But if they want respect, they need to learn to obey the rules of the road and respect the safety of pedestrians. We can argue back and forth about how common these "bad apples" are, but there are enough of them to give all cyclists a bad name.
 
Please, name a few examples of bike lanes where a good, secondary road alternative is nearby.

Running N/S there are about a million to choose from. If we're only talking Jarvis, you have the obviousness of Church (whose BIA would probably happily support it being pedestrian/cycle only at least from College to Wellesley)

Bloor is trickier, but only if you assume you can't do anything to help it along (which in the case of road works, you'd never stop at) Howard, to Selby, to Charles, to beyond (Harbord?) could work with some cycle-lights (assuming cyclists could be trained to recognize traffic lights) and some re-alignment.

Cyclists can still use any road they want (except highways) since they're vehicles, so main-volume routes being the tiniest distance away isn't that much of a hardship. Clip up to Bloor when you're local traffic, but if you're just using Bloor as a through-route, take the safer, faster, Bikeway.
 
Faster, safer bikeways really do need a continous, two-way route with proper protection when crossing other major roads, like traffic lights.

I have seen what you are getting at in Vancouver, (ie use 12th Avenue instead of Broadway), and it works there well, partly as they have a better grid system, believe it or not along some of the major arterials in the city of Vancouver itself. 12th Street (I think it's 12th) is designated as a bike way on overhead street signs, has traffic lights, and is uninterrupted.

It unfortunately doesn't work as well here, though there have been some bone-headed bikelane implementations. Bikelanes on Eastern Avenue makes almost no sense - Dundas East works well, and Queen would even be a better choice, and give up Eastern to the cars. Vaughan Road is a perfect example (bike lane one direction only, and was only two (wide) lanes to begin with and quiet. Sharrows would have been fine.

You are right about Church as a good potential alternative in this case. I've biked it in rush hours a few times, and it isn't a bad choice as it is.
 
Last edited:
Tewder:

You will have to tell us what is the net impact of these myraid of "special interest groups" that skews funding in a "myopic and illogical" (to you) direction, and how the absence of such will result in "big choices" being feasible? Give us a dollar figure instead of rhetoric? You kept on suggesting bike lanes are plowed specially - but really, it's not like the routes they are on somehow won't be plowed in their absence. Ditto the creation of bike lanes - just how many cases of bike lanes are painted by itself - and not combined with other road works?

You don't agree with me and so my points are rhetoric? Nice.

... and yet the net impact of this is fairly clear to a lot of us: a so-called 'broke' city that is falling apart (broken patched roads and sidewalks along 'main' arteries, decrepit infrastructure, inadequate public transit, etc... Shall we go on?), and this during prosperous times and despite substantial increases to taxation. Now that we are in not so prosperous times what is the reaction of City Hall? It decides to raise taxes further in order to continue the spending spree. Obviously to you I am just blowing rhetorical hot air but I simply don't see the logic here. I may be picking on the funding of bike lane infrastucture and maintenace specifically - only because this is the topic at hand - but the greater point, of which bike lanes are only a symptom, is the irresponsible spending policies of City Hall. I don't know how many other ways I can say it but will repeat: spending on the special-interest desires of the few in front of the day-to-day needs of the masses is irresponsible. Bike lanes are an example of this: although 'only' seven million has been earmarked (for infrastructure only) it is proportionally high when you consider that the overall budget on infrastructure spending (including transit) is only $23 million in total.

That said, I do want to be very clear that I am not using 'special-interest' in a pejorative way. You are right AoD in that we all have special interests, and I've already mentioned that I think activism is important. I also agree that in a perfect world there would be excellent bike lanes for all who need and or want to use them. This is not an issue, though maybe where those bike lanes should go probably is.

Heavily amusing to see the fulminations against bike lanes here, which in the 2009 capital budget consist of 7.9 M of direct spending in a budget of 1.637 B, or .48% of the budget. Let's just concentrate on that incredibly small spend pages and pages ranting about it in the absence of any broader picture.

One wonders if these are the kinds of guys who yell at their housemates for buying the expensive jam two days after buying a bitchin new laptop so they have better graphics for their games. Get a grip.

I'm glad this discussion of city spending and taxing is amusing to you. For the record, $8 million as a portion of $23 million for infrastructure is not negligable.

Still, I wonder if these champagne socialists/activists in their ivory towers actually understand what a budget is? That you don't buy silk curtains when you can't afford the house. According to Archivist it's perfectly fine to spend $8 million on 'jam'. Hey, let them eat cake, right?:rolleyes:
 
Tewder:

Bike lanes are an example of this: although 'only' seven million has been earmarked (for infrastructure only) it is proportionally high when you consider that the overall budget on infrastructure spending (including transit) is only $23 million in total.

Where did you get that the total budget for infrastructure spending including transit is only 23M? I am looking at capital budget for 2008 and for Transportation Services alone (which excludes TTC, plus other significant sectors like water and waste) it is 300M; TTC by itself is 925M on top.

It's all available here:

http://www.toronto.ca/budget2009/analystnotes_capital.htm

AoD
 
Last edited:
People are framing this as an us versus them issue when it should be something that anyone can support.

It isn't some activist project, there's evidence from all over the place that more bike lanes/infrastructure leads to more people on bikes and increases safety. It reduces the demand on road ways, increases the health of the population, and is pretty cheap compared to major road or transit projects.

We need to create complete streets where everyone feels safe. No one here wants to ban cars. Millions of people still own and use cars in places that are more bike-friendly like the Netherlands, and there are still highways and multi-lane arterials.

People need to stop thinking that everyone who uses a bike to get around is a granola-crunching, anti-car, angry, smelly, hippie activist. There are tonnes of ordinary people who use a bike to get around and the more infrastructure and safety measures are implemented, the more ordinary people will feel comfortable using bikes.

Thinking cyclists are pompous jerks isn't a reason to be against these types of projects... it's like opposing a new highway or road widening because you don't like yokels in pick-up trucks
 
Last edited:
People are framing this as an us versus them issue when it should be something that anyone can support.

Waterloowarrior, I agree the us/them arguing wastes time. I don't think anybody would argue against the benefits of biking. From my perspective the debate here is about a) bike lane infrastructure as a funding priority in the current context (inadequate funding for modes of transport that have greater demand and that will have a greater impact on relieving gridlock, the declining economy/recession and a strapped City Hall that is having to make tough funding choices on what some would argue are more essential services) and b) where bike lanes belong if we are going to have them (creating further gridlock along main arteries by removing lanes to accommodate bikes vs the development of a side-street bike route where possible, and balancing the real desire for an urban environment that revolves less around the car and more around pedestrians, bicyclists and mass-transit users with the reality that cycling is only so pragmatic an option for a vast majority of the population for all the reasons discussed - health, mobility, age, time, weather etc).

We need to create complete streets where everyone feels safe. No one here wants to ban cars. Millions of people still own and use cars in places that are more bike-friendly like the Netherlands, and there are still highways and multi-lane arterials.

I think we also have to be careful about emulating a European context too closely. The climate, infrastructure and lifestyle in Toronto are so vastly different than what is typical in Europe. Even there, in the major urban centres 'most' people are relying on public transit to get around.

Where did you get that the total budget for infrastructure spending including transit is only 23M? I am looking at capital budget for 2008 and for Transportation Services alone (which excludes TTC, plus other significant sectors like water and waste) it is 300M; TTC by itself is 925M on top.

AoD, I found it reading the following article (I've just pasted the pertinent point):

City budget offers new spending, property tax hike

ctvtoronto.ca


$23.5M investment

The budget also highlights $23.5 million in investments the city is planning to make in areas of climate change, transit, public spaces and social services.

Along with government partners, Toronto is investing in:

- transit services across the city
- making the Streets to Homes program permanent
- thirty-five new or enhanced programs for at-risk groups including seniors, youth, women and aboriginal youth in priority neighbourhoods
- the city's new 311, 24-hour customer service contact centre
- nursing shifts in hospital emergency rooms in an effort to reduce wait times
- maintaining snow clearing and removal service
- Toronto Public Libraries by increasing operation hours under the self-service project
- the number of recreation programs at various community centres
- 3,500 pieces of new street furniture
- Seventy kilometres of additional bike lanes
- Toronto's tree canopy through increased plantings and maintenance
new and upgraded parks and playgrounds
 
Tewder:

Like I have said, you should read up (and I don't meant it sarcastically) on the City of Toronto Budget briefing notes - they offer a much better read as to what the spendings are in each and every department (and agency, board and commisson). It's a ton of info.

See the 2009 Operating Budget Presentation:

http://www.toronto.ca/budget2009/pdf/2009_operating_bc_presentation_feb1009.pdf

Open 70km of additional bike lanes; increase the number of bike stations and bicycle lockers ($0.210M gross, $0 net) - page 19.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AoD,

I had also read the following in the Post:

Plan may not be as good as advertised
Karen Stintz, National Post
Published: Thursday, December 11, 2008


[...]Other parts of the budget include a $40-million makeover for Nathan Phillips Square, $1.5-million for fences for dog parks, $7-million for bike-paths and $30-million to straighten out Dufferin Street.[...]
 
And a bicycle license fee could cover bicycle infrastructure :)

That is one of the best ideas I've heard on this forum...

Drivers pay their share for the roads (both to the province and city)
Transit users pay their fares.
why not have a licensing system for Bikes to pay for their bike lanes.

And at the same time, since they are licenced, maybe the rules of the road can also be enforced on bikers, with tickets and demerit points
(I can't count how many times I've seen bikes squeeze between lanes and run red lights)
 

Back
Top