The Star: Jarvis St. must change with evolving environs

[MisterF]

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.

Montreal has been given as an example, a city with a colder climate and twice as much snow as Toronto. Yet it has a more extensive bike network and, IIRC, more bike usage. Ditto Ottawa.

Infrastructure is exactly what the city is trying to change. Infrastructure is simply what we choose to build. As for lifestyle, how people live in central Toronto isn't a whole lot different from the average European city. I'd like to see some examples of these vast differences that affect bike use.

And by removing road capacity, the 99% of us for which cycling is not an option is stuck on alternate routes in gridlock, contributing more air pollution..

Do you have quantitative examples of gridlock that's a result of bike lanes being installed?

Well they say another tax hike is coming in Toronto with the budget this year, upwards of 4%. Gotta pay for those bike lanes and all the other special-interest funding after all.

You mean the tax hike that's almost entirely going towards inflation and reducing commercial and industrial taxes?

 

[Tewder]

Montreal has been given as an example, a city with a colder climate and twice as much snow as Toronto. Yet it has a more extensive bike network and, IIRC, more bike usage. Ditto Ottawa.

Your lack of statistics notwithstanding the issue is that of public funding for cycling infrastructure in Toronto during a recession and when there are more pressing public funding needs. If this makes sense for Montreal or Ottawa then good luck to them, but I would still highly doubt that Montrealers in general, and I'll be generous to say hardly even a substantial fringe minority of Montrealers, are cycling to work daily in winter...

Infrastructure is exactly what the city is trying to change. Infrastructure is simply what we choose to build.

... to be more accurate it is what we choose to build given limited funds and in the face of far greater and more widespread needs, all of which is to say that although certain funding objectives may be desired they may not necessarily sit high on the priority list.

As for lifestyle, how people live in central Toronto isn't a whole lot different from the average European city. I'd like to see some examples of these vast differences that affect bike use.

To be fair I did state that lifestyles and the usage of various modes of transportation in large European cities are similar to Toronto, but this would support the priority of mass transit not bike routes. I highly doubt they would be building an extensive network of bike infrastructure in Paris or London for example without the already existing extensive network of subways. Even with the excellent public transportation systems in place there you do not see a bike infrastructure like that being called for by some in this thread throughout the heart of those cities.

Do you have quantitative examples of gridlock that's a result of bike lanes being installed?

It stands to reason that losing the approximate equivalent of one lane (allowing for bike lanes on either side of the road) in major city arteries will result in slower traffic and greater gridlock in a city that already suffers from those things to start with.

You mean the tax hike that's almost entirely going towards inflation and reducing commercial and industrial taxes?

... or they curb spending to avoid the tax increase. Again, this is about priorities and some would feel that encouraging businesses and employement through tax cuts would be better in this economic context than building a bike infrastructure that would only be used by a small minority of the population (relatively speaking).

 

[MisterF]

Your lack of statistics notwithstanding the issue is that of public funding for cycling infrastructure in Toronto during a recession and when there are more pressing public funding needs. If this makes sense for Montreal or Ottawa then good luck to them, but I would still highly doubt that Montrealers in general, and I'll be generous to say hardly even a substantial fringe minority of Montrealers, are cycling to work daily in winter...

Nobody's suggesting that Montrealers in general are cycling to work daily in winter. Let's not resort to straw men here. As for statistics, weather data is readily available on the Environment Canada website. Ottawa and Montreal are in fact colder than Toronto and they get nearly twice as much snow. StatsCan keeps track of the number of people who walk or bike to work. Of the 3 CMAs, Toronto is the lowest. Core area stats are harder to find but the old pre-amalgamation boundaries can give you a rough idea - in each case, 13-17% of work trips are by walking or cycling. Ottawa actually has the highest numbers despite its small size, and as we all know Ottawa has an extensive network of bike lanes and paths.

By the way, the recession means there's more provincial and federal funding available for projects like this, not less.

To be fair I did state that lifestyles and the usage of various modes of transportation in large European cities are similar to Toronto, but this would support the priority of mass transit not bike routes. I highly doubt they would be building an extensive network of bike infrastructure in Paris or London for example without the already existing extensive network of subways. Even with the excellent public transportation systems in place there you do not see a bike infrastructure like that being called for by some in this thread throughout the heart of those cities.

Do you really think that the money saved by not painting bike lanes would result in more mass transit?

It stands to reason that losing the approximate equivalent of one lane (allowing for bike lanes on either side of the road) in major city arteries will result in slower traffic and greater gridlock in a city that already suffers from those things to start with.

So you don't have any quantitative examples then.

... or they curb spending to avoid the tax increase. Again, this is about priorities and some would feel that encouraging businesses and employement through tax cuts would be better in this economic context than building a bike infrastructure that would only be used by a small minority of the population (relatively speaking).

The city is encouraging businesses and employment through tax cuts to those sectors. That's where most of the residential increase is going. Most of the rest is due to inflation, a necessity every year. Are you suggesting that the city's budget shouldn't keep up with inflation? And are you suggesting that nothing should be built unless it's directly used by the majority of the population?

 

[confusion]

Here is a statistic for you... personally sampled by me.

There are a lot more winter cyclists this year than before the economic s**t hit the fan.

 

[Tewder]

Nobody's suggesting that Montrealers in general are cycling to work daily in winter. Let's not resort to straw men here. As for statistics, weather data is readily available on the Environment Canada website. Ottawa and Montreal are in fact colder than Toronto and they get nearly twice as much snow. StatsCan keeps track of the number of people who walk or bike to work. Of the 3 CMAs, Toronto is the lowest. Core area stats are harder to find but the old pre-amalgamation boundaries can give you a rough idea - in each case, 13-17% of work trips are by walking or cycling. Ottawa actually has the highest numbers despite its small size, and as we all know Ottawa has an extensive network of bike lanes and paths.

My point is not a strawman, it is in fact central to my argument and to miss this is to misunderstand my argument: I'm not disputing whether Montreal gets more snow or whether bike lanes in general are desirable... I would exclaim a hearty 'yes' to both of those things!... my point is whether bike lanes as a funding choice makes reasonable sense in a declining economy when there are far more pressing funding demands out there, and far better ways to resolve traffic gridlock and address travel/commuting times for Torontonians. Without muddying the waters further this is the heart of my argument. You disagree?

Also, as for your statistic of 13 to 17% you are lumping walking and cycling in together, and the bigger portion is likely skewed to walking which means that the number of those cycling daily is extremely small.

By the way, the recession means there's more provincial and federal funding available for projects like this, not less.

Do you really think that the money saved by not painting bike lanes would result in more mass transit?

You are speculating. All we can do is criticize how the funds *are* going to be spent and adovacte for how we think they should be spent. You may trivialize the issue as simply 'painting lines' but sources show some $7 million dollars being earmarked for this.

I agree that the pending Depression-era spending sprees on infrastructure bode well for mass transit in the city and GTA but if you read through the DRL thread(s) here you will see that nothing certain has been decided and people in Toronto are still essentially begging for scraps in terms of what is truly needed to bring Toronto infrastructure up to date, nevermind expand it to meet the needs of growth and development. My criticism of funding for bike lanes is not an attack against bike lanes it is an attack against funding prioritization. Arguing for the health or lifestyle benefits of biking is the actual strawman here... one could even argue that true benefits to health quality in the city will only really happen by taking more cars off the road which will be better achieved through promoting and expanding mass transit, not cycling.

The city is encouraging businesses and employment through tax cuts to those sectors. That's where most of the residential increase is going. Most of the rest is due to inflation, a necessity every year. Are you suggesting that the city's budget shouldn't keep up with inflation? And are you suggesting that nothing should be built unless it's directly used by the majority of the population?

The real increase to Torontonians this year is about 10% when you look beyond the increase to property taxes. In addition, inflation rates in Ontario and Toronto have been dropping over the past year. These increases are a cash grab to fund budgetary priorities. I'm simply questioning the prioritization.

 

[MisterF]

My point is not a strawman, it is in fact central to my argument and to miss this is to misunderstand my argument: I'm not disputing whether Montreal gets more snow or whether bike lanes in general are desirable... I would exclaim a hearty 'yes' to both of those things!... my point is whether bike lanes as a funding choice makes reasonable sense in a declining economy when there are far more pressing funding demands out there, and far better ways to resolve traffic gridlock and address travel/commuting times for Torontonians. Without muddying the waters further this is the heart of my argument. You disagree?

You refuted a position (Montrealers in general are cycling to work daily in winter) that superficially resembles several forumers' point of view, but one that nobody has actually taken. That's the very definition of a strawman argument.

The point of the Jarvis project isn't to resolve traffic gridlock or address travel/commuting times. So whether or not I agree with that point is irrelevant...I'm not the one muddying the waters here.

Also, as for your statistic of 13 to 17% you are lumping walking and cycling in together, and the bigger portion is likely skewed to walking which means that the number of those cycling daily is extremely small.

Stats Canada lumps them together.

You are speculating. All we can do is criticize how the funds *are* going to be spent and adovacte for how we think they should be spent. You may trivialize the issue as simply 'painting lines' but sources show some $7 million dollars being earmarked for this.

I'm not speculating at all. Look at the last federal budget. It contains new infrastructure spending that wouldn't exist if we weren't in recession. There's also a fund specifically for "green" projects, and the province has indicated that it's going to match all that funding. I'm not saying that this particular project is being paid for by federal or provincial money, but that's not the issue here - your point ("whether bike lanes as a funding choice makes reasonable sense in a declining economy") is a general one, not specific to this project. And it doesn't change the fact that there's more money to spend on infrastructure in a declining economy, not less.

By the way, the PIC display boards don't even mention bike lanes - the preferred option mentions "opportunity for bicycle friendly curb lanes". There won't be bike lanes....unless of course I'm missing something.

I agree that the pending Depression-era spending sprees on infrastructure bode well for mass transit in the city and GTA but if you read through the DRL thread(s) here you will see that nothing certain has been decided and people in Toronto are still essentially begging for scraps in terms of what is truly needed to bring Toronto infrastructure up to date, nevermind expand it to meet the needs of growth and development. My criticism of funding for bike lanes is not an attack against bike lanes it is an attack against funding prioritization. Arguing for the health or lifestyle benefits of biking is the actual strawman here... one could even argue that true benefits to health quality in the city will only really happen by taking more cars off the road which will be better achieved through promoting and expanding mass transit, not cycling.

Well I for one have said nothing about the health benefits of cycling, so the only one using health as a strawman is you. All this debate about cycling is missing the point - this project is intended to make Jarvis more pedestrian friendly and improve the streetscape while still moving traffic. No bike lanes (again, unless I'm missing something).

The real increase to Torontonians this year is about 10% when you look beyond the increase to property taxes. In addition, inflation rates in Ontario and Toronto have been dropping over the past year. These increases are a cash grab to fund budgetary priorities. I'm simply questioning the prioritization.

You were looking for proof of some of my numbers earlier, so I'd like to see some proof of that 10% figure. Even if it's accurate, it doesn't change the fact that most of the property tax increase is due to inflation and reducing commercial and industrial taxes. And that's all I was trying to say.

 

[MisterF]

Ah, here we go. From the January 2009 PIC display boards:

After reviewing the many comments received for the implementation of bicycle lanes on Jarvis Street, it was concluded that while bicycle lanes on Jarvis Street are feasible, implementation of them does not adhere to some of the objectives as stated in the onset of this study (namely, pedestrian-focused improvements).

So no bike lanes, folks! Seems like a lot of the discussion has focused on something that's not really relevant to this street.

 

[Tewder]

You refuted a position (Montrealers in general are cycling to work daily in winter) that superficially resembles several forumers' point of view, but one that nobody has actually taken. That's the very definition of a strawman argument.

We'll have to disagree on this: The idea that cycling should be encouraged (read:funded) as a legitimate daily mode of transportation has been argued in this thread as justification for the funding. I am not of that position. You were the one who introduced Montreal and snowfall into this discussion, and so the question of whether or not a significant number of Montrealers are using bike lanes daily (winter as well as summer) as their main mode of transportation is more germane to my opposing position than any debate about whether they value cycling more there (I myself have stated that bike lanes are desirable, all things being equal).

The point of the Jarvis project isn't to resolve traffic gridlock or address travel/commuting times. So whether or not I agree with that point is irrelevant...I'm not the one muddying the waters here.

Bike lanes as a funding issue in general, and the specifics of a Jarvis street make-over did sort of get lumped in together. I have stated that I am in favour of a more urban and less car-friendly Jarvis, and this may suit bike lanes just fine. Where's the harm if the transformation of the street is going forward anyway? My point is not argue for greater accommodation of cars but to question these sorts of micro funding issues when there are larger and more important ones to address.

I'm not speculating at all. Look at the last federal budget. It contains new infrastructure spending that wouldn't exist if we weren't in recession. There's also a fund specifically for "green" projects, and the province has indicated that it's going to match all that funding. I'm not saying that this particular project is being paid for by federal or provincial money, but that's not the issue here - your point ("whether bike lanes as a funding choice makes reasonable sense in a declining economy") is a general one, not specific to this project. And it doesn't change the fact that there's more money to spend on infrastructure in a declining economy, not less..

This money is still 'our' money (through federal and provincial taxation). It wasn't plucked off of trees to shower on Toronto. We are going into debt to fund these things. We may agree that the ecnomic stimulus benefit of going into debt at this time is worth it, but all the more reason we should be questioning where the funds are going. Why should we be funding 'green' projects in Toronto neighbourhoods and bike lanes and such? These are not the sort of infrastructure make-work projects that are intended to create jobs, and these are not the sort of investments in mass transit - which will actually have a greater positive impact on the environment - that justify this kind of debt.

You were looking for proof of some of my numbers earlier, so I'd like to see some proof of that 10% figure. Even if it's accurate, it doesn't change the fact that most of the property tax increase is due to inflation and reducing commercial and industrial taxes. And that's all I was trying to say.

The 10% figure has been widely discussed in the media. Where is this inflation you mention?

 

[MisterF]

We'll have to disagree on this: The idea that cycling should be encouraged (read:funded) as a legitimate daily mode of transportation has been argued in this thread as justification for the funding. I am not of that position. You were the one who introduced Montreal and snowfall into this discussion, and so the question of whether or not a significant number of Montrealers are using bike lanes daily (winter as well as summer) as their main mode of transportation is more germane to my opposing position than any debate about whether they value cycling more there (I myself have stated that bike lanes are desirable, all things being equal).

Actually it was you who brought up climate, I was just responding to your post.

First you talk about "Montrealers in general", which would indicate the majority. Then "a significant number of Montrealers", which doesn't indicate the majority at all. And cycling being a legitimate daily mode of transportation doesn't imply that the population in general cycles to work daily in winter, or even that a significant number of people does. You seem to be watering down the position that you're trying to refute.

Bike lanes as a funding issue in general, and the specifics of a Jarvis street make-over did sort of get lumped in together. I have stated that I am in favour of a more urban and less car-friendly Jarvis, and this may suit bike lanes just fine. Where's the harm if the transformation of the street is going forward anyway? My point is not argue for greater accommodation of cars but to question these sorts of micro funding issues when there are larger and more important ones to address.

This money is still 'our' money (through federal and provincial taxation). It wasn't plucked off of trees to shower on Toronto. We are going into debt to fund these things. We may agree that the ecnomic stimulus benefit of going into debt at this time is worth it, but all the more reason we should be questioning where the funds are going. Why should we be funding 'green' projects in Toronto neighbourhoods and bike lanes and such? These are not the sort of infrastructure make-work projects that are intended to create jobs, and these are not the sort of investments in mass transit - which will actually have a greater positive impact on the environment - that justify this kind of debt.

You state that you're in favour of a more urban and less car frieldy Jarvis, which is what this project is designed to accomplish. There aren't any bike lanes proposed for Jarvis. So what exactly are we debating here?

The 10% figure has been widely discussed in the media. Where is this inflation you mention?

Seriously?

Widely discussed in the media.

Keep in mind that the tax rate has actually decreased under Miller.

 

[Tewder]

Actually it was you who brought up climate, I was just responding to your post.

Our debate is running in circles and devolving. Regardless of climate or health benefits or specifics of a Jarvis Street make-over I do not think that bike lanes are a funding priority right now, no matter how desirable they may be. You think they are. Point taken. Lets move on

Seriously?

URL="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Inflation-CPI.aspx?Symbol=CAD"]Widely[/URL] discussed in the media.

I'm looking here:

http://www.thestar.com/article/576014

http://www.thestar.com/article/585599

 

[MisterF]

Our debate is running in circles and devolving. Regardless of climate or health benefits or specifics of a Jarvis Street make-over I do not think that bike lanes are a funding priority right now, no matter how desirable they may be. You think they are. Point taken. Lets move on

Again, Jarvis won't have bike lanes. I don't even know why we're still talking about it

I'm looking here:

http://www.thestar.com/article/576014

http://www.thestar.com/article/585599

Well then that answers your question of where the inflation I mentioned is. Going by that article, in December Toronto's annual inflation rate was 1.7%, higher than the national rate of 1.2%.

 

[Tewder]

Yes, but the point is that the rate went down, it is falling not rising... and we're also talking about rates within Toronto, not as compared with anywhere else. At the end of the day though 1.7% is ridiculously low no matter what your perspective.

 

[androiduk]

Just a related sidenote to this project, I emailed the mayor and asked, now that the Jarvis St. reconfiguration is moving towards reality, is the city considering doing something similar on Avenue Rd. thus taming one of the last downtown racetracks. Unfortunately, it isn't even on their radar. The response stated that there was no $ for such a thing and there are no plans to do anything with Avenue Rd.

 

[Chuck]

Just a related sidenote to this project, I emailed the mayor and asked, now that the Jarvis St. reconfiguration is moving towards reality, is the city considering doing something similar on Avenue Rd. thus taming one of the last downtown racetracks.

^^

Because high volume roads and vibrant urban neighbourhoods can't coexist. Right....

The greater the density, the larger the transportation network required. Toronto won't grow by building streetcars instead of subways, and reducing road capacity!

 

[androiduk]

^Well then, I guess we're headed for big trouble. In the city core, the population has increased dramatically while at the same time, lanes of traffic are being consistently eliminated (Eastern, Gerrard, Shuter, Jarvis) and downtown highways are being torn down in sections. The city is moving in the right direction and we are growing just fine.