The Star: Jarvis St. must change with evolving environs

[xstatik]

At least the hookers will have more room and be safer with the wider sidewalks.

Seriously, this is a stupid idea by Miller and his CENSORED in bringing down the economy of the city!

 

[Ahab]

This is something that Rae has talked about forever and of course that's all he's accomplished so far - talk. The biggest problem with Jarvis is that it is an ugly, ugly street. I don't think anyone can dispute that. Yet, if Rae just proposed beautifying the street without taking away the middle lane, it probably could have been accomplished years ago and we would already be living with a much improved street. If the middle lane still presented a problem after the beautification, let's talk then.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Kyle Rae apparently believes that cyclists should be content with bike lanes on Sherbourne. I disagree. They should be on all arterial roads - anything less is treating bicycles as a second-class mode of transit.

Until bicycle riders start paying for a share of their road use, they are second-class. And no, sorry, the old ditty about how we all pay property taxes or other taxes for public infrastructure and therefore pay for the roads, doesn't fly. Auto users pay tons of car-specific fees for the privledge of using the roads. Pay up, or shut up. Otherwise, get off the road, 'cause you're in the way.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Adm. Beez:

Until bicycle riders start paying for a share of their road use, they are second-class. And no, sorry, the old ditty about how we all pay property taxes or other taxes for public infrastructure and therefore pay for the roads, doesn't fly. Auto users pay tons of car-specific fees for the privledge of using the roads. Pay up, or shut up. Otherwise, get off the road, 'cause you're in the way.

Okay. So I guess those of us who use public transit, thus not paying our fair share, should be treated like second class and drive instead. I wonder how enjoyable life will be for drivers once that mass migration towards auto use occurs?

Auto users pay tons of car-specific fees for the privledge of using the roads in a manner specific to that mode of transportation. Are you arguing that cycling takes up an amount of resource that comes close to that of maintaining roads and ancillary infrastructure for auto use?

AoD

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Until bicycle riders start paying for a share of their road use, they are second-class. And no, sorry, the old ditty about how we all pay property taxes or other taxes for public infrastructure and therefore pay for the roads, doesn't fly. Auto users pay tons of car-specific fees for the privledge of using the roads. Pay up, or shut up. Otherwise, get off the road, 'cause you're in the way.

I'm trying to remember what additional fees I paid to drive on the roads in this province but I'm coming up blank. This second-class citizen who chose to sell his vehicle 8 years ago has agreed on this board that cyclists should pay licensing fees. What other fees should we pay?

I'd like to see Jarvis Street with bike lanes, I'd like to eventually see every main street with bike lanes.

 

[confusion]

Cyclists paying fees for the roads is so laughable.

1. They reduce carbon footprint... no emissions on a bicycle.
2. The weight of a bicycle does not damage the road, unlike a car or larger vehicle, therefore why would a cyclist need to contribute to repairs.
3. Most already pay property tax!!!! Which funds the city budget... which in turn funds the roads...

So the way I see it, cyclists are already getting the shaft tax-wise, and they don't even have a decent infrastructure to show for it.

So any douchebag from suburbia who wants to give the cyclist fees argument again, please stop and think for a moment. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[TKTKTK]

2. The weight of a bicycle does not damage the road, unlike a car or larger vehicle, therefore why would a cyclist need to contribute to repairs.

What, like a bus or streetcar?

Keep on the look-out for roads that are frequented only by cars, and those frequented by cars and buses, or cars and streetcars, or cars and transport trucks. Compare and contrast

Cars are hardly eating up the surface of the roads

3. Most already pay property tax!!!! Which funds the city budget... which in turn funds the roads...

Drivers pay the same property taxes, plus they're illegally taxed double on gasoline, license fees, plate fees, parking fees, tickets, insurance, environmental levies (on new vehicles), plus sales tax on all car related purchases. I can't imagine what kind of bike you'd have to own for the same amounts of tax to be extracted. Currently the governments use the taxes collected by car drivers to pad general revenue, rather than returning it to infrastructure that relates to them.

So the way I see it, cyclists are already getting the shaft tax-wise, and they don't even have a decent infrastructure to show for it.

Really? How about the creation of a city-wide network for cyclists that can only realistically be used by the general population for 6 months out of the year? The number of year-round cyclists is minimal, thus they're getting one hell of an infrastructure investment.

So any douchebag from suburbia who wants to give the cyclist fees argument again, please stop and think for a moment. You're embarrassing yourself.

Keep it clean dude. You don't want to start a drivers vs. cyclists debate. Save that trash for i.Bike.to

 

[Archivist]

xstatik - keep your commie talk to yourself. God, it's tiresome. If you can't make a reasoned argument then lets stop with the name calling. And where exactly is the reasoning that reducing a single lane on Jarvis is going to singlehandedly bring down the economy of the city.

ahab - The biggest problem with Jarvis is that it is an ugly, ugly street - this is untrue, in my opinion. Jarvis is loaded with gorgeous buildings from a huge variety of eras, it is a smorgasbord of architecture for anyone who cares to look. I urge you to walk it some time - from the 1840's Georgian buildings at Jarvis and Front, past Second Empire rowhouses by the time you hit Dundas, stolid Richardson Romanesque nearing Gerrard, a little art deco as you pass the Ramada, a bit of sleek curved modernism at the court (from Page & Steele, when they were still something), of course the Ballet School, the big ole gothic Jarvis Collegiate, the solid massive houses of the precursor to Rosedale as we pass Wellesley. Yeah, there's some ugly buildings, but it is truly a richness of styles and periods.

I feel strongly that if the street is called ugly, which is sometimes is, it has more to do with the wideness of the artery, the fact that traffic is mashing it down like crazy, and those ugly overhanging direction indicators all along. With a little TLC, it could be very beautiful.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

xstatik:

Don't give us an excuse to go commie on you. I've reviewed your previous postings on the forum - and I can say you are *this* close from it.

AoD

 

[Admiral Beez]

Okay. So I guess those of us who use public transit, thus not paying our fair share, should be treated like second class and drive instead. I wonder how enjoyable life will be for drivers once that mass migration towards auto use occurs?

Actually whenever there's a TTC strike I've often found that driving has been fantastic, especially when the streetcars are out of the way. That said, if everyone was using their car on a regular basis, it would not be good, so I see your point there.

Auto users pay tons of car-specific fees for the privledge of using the roads in a manner specific to that mode of transportation. Are you arguing that cycling takes up an amount of resource that comes close to that of maintaining roads and ancillary infrastructure for auto use?AoD

Cyclists do not take up resources for roads UNTIL they start demanding that the roads be curtailed to make special lanes for their exclusive use, thus reducing the resources for the car owners (and public transit users) that have paid a great deal in fees or fares to ensure that the road is there to use. The simple solution is to charge a license fee for all road going bikes to cover the cost of bike lanes.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Drivers pay the same property taxes, plus they're illegally taxed double on gasoline, license fees, plate fees, parking fees, tickets, insurance, environmental levies (on new vehicles), plus sales tax on all car related purchases. I can't imagine what kind of bike you'd have to own for the same amounts of tax to be extracted. Currently the governments use the taxes collected by car drivers to pad general revenue, rather than returning it to infrastructure that relates to them.

Government's need consumption, since this is how they collect revenue. If I buy a big expensive SUV the government gets more money in sales taxes and extra fuel taxes, the city of Toronto will get taxes for registering the vehicle in Toronto, and fees whenever I park, fines if I park in the wrong place, the province will get taxes whenever I buy anything car related or not. It's all about consumption.

The free range urbanite on his bicycle may be helping the environment, but he's doing far less to contribute to the city's financial sustainability. Toronto and Ontario need people to consume and buy things, and a car, which must be constantly fed and thus taxed, is the perfect municipal and provincial cash cow. If everyone in Toronto got rid of their cars tomorrow the city and province would be cash poor PDQ. If every cyclist commuter dropped their bike and bought a car, they'd be contributing far more finanicially to the city and province.

Yes, yes...will no one think of the environment? If that makes you feel better about reducing your financial contribution to the city, then fine.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Government's need consumption, since this is how they collect revenue. If I buy a big expensive SUV the government gets more money in sales taxes and extra fuel taxes, the city of Toronto will get taxes for registering the vehicle in Toronto, and fees whenever I park, fines if I park in the wrong place, the province will get taxes whenever I buy anything car related or not. It's all about consumption.

The free range urbanite on his bicycle may be helping the environment, but he's doing far less to contribute to the city's financial sustainability. Toronto and Ontario need people to consume and buy things, and a car, which must be constantly fed and thus taxed, is the perfect municipal and provincial cash cow. If everyone in Toronto got rid of their cars tomorrow the city and province would be cash poor PDQ. If every cyclist commuter dropped their bike and bought a car, they'd be contributing far more finanicially to the city and province.

Yes, yes...will no one think of the environment? If that makes you feel better about reducing your financial contribution to the city, then fine.

I can buy techno toys to my heart's delight and spend 4 weeks in the tropics in the winter with the money I save for not owning a car so I still consume and pay taxes on roughly the same amount of money. I'm quite sure that I'm much healthier for walking and cycling so my chances of getting cancer, diabetes or heart disease as I age are lessened considerably so my "health-cost footprint" will hopefully be less. Lower health costs for me that is, presuming some clown speeding home while typing on his Blackberry doesn't sideswipe me on a road like Jarvis with no bike lane....

 

[Archivist]

Toronto and Ontario need people to consume and buy things, and a car, which must be constantly fed and thus taxed, is the perfect municipal and provincial cash cow. If every cyclist commuter dropped their bike and bought a car, they'd be contributing far more finanicially to the city and province. Gee, and I thought Bush's exhortation to spend time in shopping malls as a patriotic duty was from a time past. I consider myself a citizen first, and a consumer only incidentally. I also find it strange that a rightwinger like yourself would be promoting an idea that, taken logically, would lead to extreme protectionism of Canadian industry. I thought the line from you would be, that if the Chinese can make cars, laundry soap, children's toys, and electronic whizbangs more cheaply then that's what's better for us all to purchase?

Anyways, get real, I would like it if you would list the last 10 products you bought in order to support Ontario's economy, rather than simply because you wanted them. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Anyways, get real, I would like it if you would list the last 10 products you bought in order to support Ontario's economy, rather than simply because you wanted them. Put your money where your mouth is.

I more so speaking of Toronto's financial coffers, but anyone who consumes things or services made or sold in Ontario is supporting the economy.

In addition to a driver, I am also a cyclist. Before my job moved to Markham, I used to cycle to work almost every day from the Beaches to Dufferin St. I fully support the idea of user-pay. Car drivers pay a lot for the priviledge of using the roads. One day, and it will come, car drivers will be forced to pay tolls to use those same roads. Meanwhile, cyclists want bike lanes, but don't want to pay for them?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Cyclists do not take up resources for roads UNTIL they start demanding that the roads be curtailed to make special lanes for their exclusive use, thus reducing the resources for the car owners (and public transit users) that have paid a great deal in fees or fares to ensure that the road is there to use. The simple solution is to charge a license fee for all road going bikes to cover the cost of bike lanes.

Actually, shouldn't those lanes be there right from the beginning? The road is a public right of way that shouldn't have been exclusive in the first place. To argue that bicycles shouldn't be accomodated because they didn't pay for it is about as rational as arguing pedestrians shouldn't be accomodated because they aren't registered.

Car drivers pay a lot for the priviledge of using the roads.

They pay a lot of driving, not using "the road" as a piece of infrastructure. What of the additional cost of policing traffic, traffic courts, ensuring drivers have a suitable level of competency, etc?

Besides, what of public policy? It is in the interest of the public good to encourage and enable cycling - just as it is in the interest of public good to promote to use of transit and reduce the dependency on automobile.

AoD