Jarvis Street Lane Reduction, Cheating EI, Surprise Guilty Plea

Just to be clear, Rogers ain't giving you Twitter for FREE. (The Twitter link you point to implies that this is a free thing that Rogers has set up.)

"However, a charge of 15 cents per Twitter message will apply to those consumers who don't have text plans, including Fido customers."

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/05/05/rogers-text.html

Hell yes to the revitalization of Jarvis St. I live on Jarvis, and any driver that whines about an extra few minutes commute needs to get out of their car more often. This street needs this.

I'd assume they'd shift the lanes over to make room for bike lanes on the sides of the road

"Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker (Scarborough Centre), chair of the works committee, told those who showed up to protest the predicted gridlock that he doesn’t have much sympathy. An avid cyclist who bikes 23 kilometres a day from McCowan Road and Ellesmere Avenue, Mr. De Baeremaeker had this advice: “If you want to get rid of congestion, get out of your cars.” "

This guy is awesome.

err, 'cause that's where the subway goes...

you can't really believe that spending millions of dollars to lay track for what would essentially be a redundant surface route would be a good plan..

Darlene, there's a subway line on Jarvis now? Wow...I didn't know that. Must be new. I know the subway goes underneath Bloor. What I talked about is to connect Front Street to Bloor going down the middle of Jarvis and how that would be a good idea, it could even be extended North. It would get so many cars off the road and make the commute for people easier.

I think that any alteration to Jarvis might disturb the Island residents

And FYI Fido customers: apparently the CBC article is wrong. People who aren't on text plans with Fido will only be charged for OUTGOING twitter messages, not incoming. Which is the way it always is for all text messages, at least for now.

http://twitter.com/keithmcarthur/status/1709655888

(Keith works for Fido and Rogers)

If streetcars are only supposed to serve dense commercial strips, why is there a Bathurst line? There's way more happening at street level on Jarvis than on Bathurst.

Chester Pape's suggestion won't happen, sadly, because it seems TTC won't countenance new track that isn't in its own Right of Way. Doing this on Parliament would require either tunnelling it or levelling one side of the street to satisfy the road lobby. I think a Parliament car would relieve the pressure on 504/505 and mean that short turns on that route could still serve the Danforth subway.

96% of rogers customers will be unaffected by the 15cents a message for twitter.
The only people that will get charge are the ones that have no test plan at all.

The time has come to license bikes. Why? Because then it makes it possible to force riders to obey the laws of the road just as every other vehicle. I say vehicle because a bike IS a vehicle and the great majority of riders completely ignore the rules of the road. For example I just crossed town via Harbord and Wellsley. Along the way I lost count after 40 cyclists but here is what I saw over and over: only 1 cyclist stopped momentarily at a red light! He then blasted across traffic against the light. Not a single rider stopped at a stop sign. Not a single rider stopped at a crosswalk and many almost hit pedestrians in their path until they swerved around them. Kids included! No cyclist signaled a turn, stop, nothing just did as they pleased causing others to deal with their actions. Almost every cyclist ran up on the sidewalk, wound their way through traffic and pedestrians so they did not have to stop. They talked on phones, wore headphones, etc. I could go on. Clearly this is NOT legal or proper riding procedure but it happens every minute of every day. So before we invite more riders to use the road, which I do support, its time to require them to get licensed which will then allow the police to punish them for their own selfish behavior. Frankly Mr. Miller this would also lead to greater safety on the roads AND raise needed $$$s to pay for additional bike lanes as is your want.

Just another bad idea, I would love not to drive but not sure how when I do a photo shoot I would lug all my equipment around. All the trades people, delivery drivers, etc. still need to get in the city centre you cannot eliminate every route to and around the city like they have. I go along Dundas St. E. and never see a bike for weeks at a time, yet we need more bicycle lanes? When does the insanity stop? Driving for some is not luxury but a necessity. When I don't have to and can I do not drive but many times I have to. So how is adding more congestion and idling vehicles good for the city?

Cops are able to give out tickets to cyclists now, they just mostly choose not to. So, I don't see why you think a license is necessary.

I assume this would have to be a province-wide initiative, so the money wouldn't be going to Miller, anyway. And what would be the minimum age for licenses? Would toddlers be required to get a tricycle license?

I once saw a cyclist kill a person. It's true.

Most people don't know that the TTC does service Jarvis. Route 141 Express runs down and up a few times every day. I use it and love it as it gets me downtown faster than going to over to Yonge and taking the subway. Right now it's double fare, but council already approved to drop the extra fare requirement in, I think, July.

I think it should be concurrent with this route becoming regular all day every 20 minute service. so that Jarvis can be a good transit corridor to downtown as an alternative to a major auto route for people in Moore Park and points north. Yes, those rich types do use the service. I am stunend every day seeing them get on and drop $6.25 in the fare box to ride.

It's a true fact that ONE year in the 90's in the pre-amalgamated City of Toronto more pedestrians were killed by bicycles than by cars (unfortunately I lost the document I had that showed this and haven't been able to find another reference since), yes it was an anomaly but it is nevertheless true that cyclists can and do hurt and kill pedestrians. A couple weeks ago I walked from Bathurst Station to John and Richmond via a winding route that included a stop at Kaplansky's and I had 4 cyclists ride past me on the sidewalk, not a single one of them had or rang a bell or a whistle or called out "passing on the right/left", not a single one of them wore a helmet and one of them did pass so close that if I had decided to stop or turn to look at a store window I would have been hit.

More than one person has put forward the the argument that cyclists pose a danger to pedestrians, and therefore more bike lanes are a poor use of space. Wouldn't more bike lanes keep the cyclists further from the pedestrians? It seems to me that wider sidewalks and a narrower road would only tempt more cyclists into using the sidewalk.

Sure. And they should throw the book at you Walkers for J-Walking, crossing when the hand signal is up, walking through a yellow light.

I know I know, all those acts are totally harmless right? wrong! They conbtribute to the problem, we all need to be enforced even you Walker Texas Ranger.

And I don't think I need to point this out, but just in case: a taxi plowing a bike into a parked car at speed is a high fatality risk. A bike plowing into a pedestrian is a high scrape and bruise risk; moderate broken limb loss; low fatality risk.

Except for the one year mentioned by Chester Pape, what are typical numbers of pedestrians, cyclists, and automobile occupants killed by bicycles and automobiles in Toronto? I'm genuinely curious.