http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/642825
Fear and cycling on Jarvis
Wherein our columnist puts aside his terror to jump on a bike and brave a mean street
May 30, 2009 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
Urban affairs columnist
Until a few days ago, it had been years since I rode a bike in the city; I was tired of arriving at work ready to kill – if I hadn't been run over en route.
Then Toronto City Council voted to narrow Jarvis St. to make way for bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks and more trees. Driver outrage was predictable, but what about those bike lanes? Are they justified?
Even in the best of conditions, bike riding in Toronto can be dangerous. When my kids were younger, it wasn't the sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll that scared the hell out of me, it was the thought of my girls lying dead and bleeding beneath the wheels of some SUV.
As the proposed changes on Jarvis have made clear, Autonation doesn't react well to having its privileges threatened. Drivers call it Toronto's "war on the car." But if we really are battling cars, why are so many casualties either cyclists or pedestrians? To find out, I put aside my fears, hopped on a bike and headed for Jarvis on Wednesday. As I quickly rediscovered, there's still good reason for cyclists to be afraid: Little has changed, here at least.
Other than a courier with a really tight deadline and a death wish, most would prefer to avoid Jarvis. To ride this street is to take your life into your hands. Dangerous isn't the word; it's foolhardy.
Every sort of driving behaviour happens here, all made worse by speed. There are those who like to play chicken with cyclists, daring you to move from your space in the gutter. One inch to the left and you die, one to the right, you hit the curb and get airborne.
That, of course, means hitting potholes head-on, skidding over cracks and negotiating other roadway imperfections. No wonder male cyclists have lower sperm counts.
Then you have the door-openers, usually older men unaware that drivers are now expected to share the roads with bicycles. Most irritating are the ones who get mad at the cyclist after nearly killing or maiming him. It's your fault, they spit angrily; what were you doing on my road?
There are other hazards, too, including drivers who switch lanes at the last minute to get around someone turning left or right. This is when cyclists suddenly find themselves the meat in a car-and-sidewalk sandwich.
By the time I finally pulled off Jarvis where it ends at Queen's Quay, I was exhausted, dripping wet but thrilled to be alive. Then I realized I was grinding my teeth.
None of this matters to the north-of-Bloor crowd, mightily upset about losing its own private freeway into the downtown core. Not that anyone was talking about closing Jarvis to traffic; four of the five lanes would remain in place. The intention was simply to create more room for cyclists and pedestrians.
From a cyclist's point-of-view, dedicated lanes on Jarvis would make all the difference. Drivers choose Jarvis because it allows them to travel quickly. The same couldn't be said of, say, Yonge or Bay Sts. For similar reasons, cyclists and pedestrians aren't welcome on the Bayview extension or Lake Shore Blvd.
Ironically, the Jarvis strategy might just work. Perhaps with cyclists taken out of moving traffic, it would flow more freely even with one less lane.
Let's not forget that bicycle use will grow in the years ahead as people live and work more closely and the price of oil increases. More lanes today mean more cyclists tomorrow.
But in Toronto, the car has been king for so long, it's hard to believe it could be any other way. Despite the overwhelming need to change our ways in the face of the growing environmental crisis and get people out of their cars, many Torontonians would rather keep their foot to the floor and their head in the sand.
But around the world, cities are moving to cut back on cars. Just this week, New York closed Times Square, i.e. Broadway between 42nd and 47th Sts., to create a pedestrian zone. The complainers were nowhere to be heard.
Here, we have yet to get serious, and until politicians in this country start to raise issues such as road tolls and congestion fees, the war on the car will remain a phony one. So far, all we've done is talk about narrowing Jarvis and Roncesvalles and turning Adelaide and Richmond Sts. from one- to two-way streets. This is pretty minor stuff, more a matter of redressing a historic imbalance. At the same time, tearing down the Gardiner Expressway, once considered "fundamental" to waterfront revitalization, now seems a distant hope.
It's true we have ignored public transit for two or three decades, which gives officials an easy way out. As Toronto Mayor David Miller has said repeatedly, it's unfair to levy road charges when commuters have no alternative to driving.
But this is just another circular argument, a chicken-and-egg thing, ultimately self-serving and tautological: Does transit lag because we drive, or do we drive because transit lags? The TTC is attracting record numbers of passengers, so clearly demand exists.
Meanwhile, back on Jarvis, a driver in a small white car has just given me the pleasure of an unexpected afternoon shower. Toronto's streets are riddled with potholes, and after a rainfall, each one is a puddle.
We don't just need bike lanes, we need whole bike roads, car-free streets, neighbourhoods, entire cities ...
I hope that I am wrong but the high price seems to preclude these being sold as private residences or B&B's (their current use). It will be an outrage if developers are allowed to start tearing down the beautiful Mansions that are left on Jarvis.