Wednesday, September 3, 2014Clear 16°C
City

Morning Brew: Jarvis Lane Reduction to Proceed, Shipwrecked Teens Arrive at Pearson, Pills Found in Allan Gardens Dog Park, University of Toronto Investment Strategy Failures, Great Lakes Cleanup, Storm Bringing Snow

Posted by Jerrold Litwinenko / February 22, 2010

ice hockey torontoPhoto: "Boots in goal" by gardinergirl, member of the blogTO Flickr pool.

What's happening in the GTA (and sometimes beyond):

Jarvis Street, a major downtown traffic artery, will have its reversible center lane removed and the roadway effectively reduced from fives lanes down to four to accommodate bike lanes. The decision is highly controversial but the city is proceeding immediately. Estimates put the travel time increase between Bloor and Queen at just two to three minutes but I'm willing to bet my shirt that during peak traffic, the loss of a vehicle lane will have a much more profound effect than that.

48 Canadian teens, who survived a harrowing two-day ordeal aboard life rafts when their boat sank off the coast of Brazil, have arrived at Pearson Airport to be re-united with their families. Once the hugs and kisses and thank goodnesses subside many questions remain to be answered, including the whys of the ship sinking and the whys of the 19 hours that eclipsed before the Brazilians responded to their distress call.

Dog owners are concerned and police have been called in to do deeper analysis after about 50 pills were found strewn about in the off-leash dog park at Allan Gardens. It's too early to know if this was malicious intent or a case of accidentally spilled pills, but given the history of attempted animal poisonings in various Toronto parks, I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being the former.

The University of Toronto will be revising its aggressive and risky investment strategies going forward, after losing about 30% of its entire pension and endowment reserves in just one year of failed hedge fund and private equity dealings. It may work for Harvard and Yale, but evidently the opposite is true here.

Lake Ontario is pretty dirty, but we may get lucky and see some osmosis benefit from proposed multi-billion dollar cleanup investment coming from the Obama administration in the US. Another potential source for funding might be found in the insane and hugely hypocritical $100,000+ annual pensions that former Reform Party politicians (including Harper) are slated to receive.

It's been a mild and nearly snow-free winter in Toronto this year, but brace yourselves - about 10-15cm are expected in the GTA by tonight, making the evening commute not-so-fun (because when it's not snowing, it's a breeze, right?).

And here's what blogTO was up to this lovely February weekend:

  • Tim filled us in on a bunch of upcoming new restaurant and store openings, inlcuding Korova Milkbar, Lab 651, Creme, City Store Groceries, The Saxony, FBIA, Hot Wings, The Spice Trader & The Olive Pit, Motel Breeze, Parts & Labour.
  • Matthew Harris updated us on the progress at the Trump International Hotel & Tower at Bay & Adelaide, which is poised be completed later this year.
  • And I got a serious dose of the unusual by attending the Northbound Leather 20th Anniversary Fetish Night (probably not safe for work!) at Revival.
Discussion

73 Comments

langford / February 22, 2010 at 08:58 am
user-pic
I'm actually proud of Toronto for making a bold move like scrapping a vehicle lane in favor of a bike lane. This is the kind of initiative NYC planners have been taking. The more reasons for people not to drive downtown the better.
DW / February 22, 2010 at 09:01 am
user-pic
In other words, the average travel time between Queen and Bloor won't change much, but you're saying the variance of travel times (across days and weeks) will increase dramatically.

To the downside.

I'd agree.
David / February 22, 2010 at 09:05 am
user-pic
I wonder what the carbon footprint will be of the millions of trips that will take place down Jarvis over the years with that 2-3 minutes extra? Also, if the argument that the cars will disperse finding other routes, doesn't that mean that other side streets that are safer right now for cyclists will be busier?

I'm not even going to discuss the notion that it's only 2-3 minutes extra. How these numbers are pulled together I'll never know. But let's say it is 2-3 minutes extra, it's just on that street, and then add in the 4-5 minutes extra from St.Clair, etc. etc. Suddenly drivers in this city are collectively driving 5-10 minutes more per day each. And traffic is compounding in nature.
jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 09:10 am
user-pic
This pro-bike and anti-car attitude in Toronto is getting out of hand... How the city can decide to screw thousands of drivers, so that a handful of bike dudes can have their own lane on Jarvis, is ridiculous!! And it's not like they don't already drive in the car lanes already...

Until these cyclists start getting Licensed, Insured and pay the same amount of fees and taxes that drivers do (not to mention having the same accountibility to abide by the laws of the road), there should be no way that they are given their own lanes on our major roads...

The number of times I've seen an "anonymous" bike dude scratch the side of a car, and then quickly ride away through a red light is insane!

--jackandcokewithalime
TokyoTuds / February 22, 2010 at 09:18 am
user-pic
"Induced demand" tells us that more lanes bring more traffic and more congestion, and that the opposite is also true ...."14-25% of the traffic disappeared completely".

"A number of cities worldwide have sought to repair the severed fabric of their downtowns by removing highways built through the middle of the urban core. U.S. examples include San Francisco and Milwaukee. (Boston moved its Interstate-95 Central Artery underground, at a cost of $15 billion.) For these projects, fears of increased congestion on other roadways following the removal generally proved misplaced. In the same way that new roadway capacity induces new trips otherwise not taken, studies show that when a portion of a highway is removed, much of the traffic from it does not reappear elsewhere on the road system. Instead, drivers tend to travel at off-peak times, use other modes such as public transit, meet their needs locally, or forego the trip altogether. A study of highway removals in 11 different countries found that 14-25% of the traffic disappeared completely, and that few if any of the removals resulted in the “traffic chaos” warned of by opponents.[3] The best results occurred where there were numerous travel alternatives available. A number of U.S. cities are considering a Highway Removal treatment as decaying elevated structures in need of expensive repairs must be evaluated for possible rebuilds or removal."
http://www.livablestreets.com/streetswiki/induced-demand
Shawn / February 22, 2010 at 09:27 am
user-pic
They really want to fuck over traffic in that area. Between the Bloor St lane reduction, the 3-stage crossing nearby, and the lane reduction its going to be an even bigger hassle for the thousands that work in the area. I take the TTC to get there (although its almost just as quick to walk thanks to the infrequent level of service...) but I'm not sure how green it is (talking about the Bloor lane reduction, not Jarvis) to have traffic move to a crawl rather than to just have everyone get somewhere quicker.
David replying to a comment from TokyoTuds / February 22, 2010 at 09:27 am
user-pic
Wow, it doesn't take long before you get someone posting about a study where less lanes causes less traffic. Spoken like a true student/artist

"In the same way that new roadway capacity induces new trips otherwise not taken, studies show that when a portion of a highway is removed, much of the traffic from it does not reappear elsewhere on the road system. Instead, drivers tend to travel at off-peak times, use other modes such as public transit, meet their needs locally, or forego the trip altogether"

You are realizing that this is a problem when, A. you don't seem to understand that almost all of the traffic going down Jarvis isn't for a day-trip but going to work, which cannot be "forgone" or delayed, and B. the city wants people from the 905 coming down to shop, etc. and it's not in the best interest of the city to have everyone not in the city, stay out of the city. NYC is a bad argument, almost all of their tourism comes from people walking around staying at hotels, and the big-plus, they have an actual public transportation system. We don't we rely on the surround population for in-city purchases and traveling in and working here driving more commercial taxes.

Wow, it just shows you can find a study to show anything.
Ross replying to a comment from jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 09:32 am
user-pic
I am a cyclist and a driver. Frankly, bike lanes are more important to me when I drive than when I ride my bike. I have absolutely no problem riding on Jarvis. When driving though, I'd be a lot more comfortable with cyclists in a bike lane so that I don't have to wait behind them to pass.

Besides, there are lots of other ways to get around downtown and I'm happy that the "Jarvis highway" through my neighborhood will be a bit less congested. Yes, less congested, because that's what the evidence shows -- when you take capacity away people look to alternatives to driving that route.
Xavier / February 22, 2010 at 09:35 am
user-pic
Being entitles to something and accepting it are 2 different things. Shouldn't you wait til the reformers accept their pensions before calling them hypocrites?

I'm looking forward to when they add the bike lanes to the DVP. It should have only a minimal affect on travel times between 1 and 2 am and bike lanes are hugely underrepresented on GTA highways
TokyoTuds replying to a comment from David / February 22, 2010 at 09:39 am
user-pic
First of all, I have 20 years business experience, so don't assume anything about my background. For this reason I understand economics, and a key principle behind induced demand is economics 101 "supply and demand".

Did you read the whole article on Livable Streets that I linked? It is based on a study by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute called "Generated Traffic and Induced Travel" and includes pages of end-notes sourcing an immense amount of research on the topic.
TokyoTuds replying to a comment from jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 09:47 am
user-pic
jack, cyclists like all residents of Toronto already pay for the streets through property taxes. They also have "the same accountibility (sic) to abide by the laws of the road" through the Highway Traffic Act, whether police enforce it or not.

Licensing and insurance are red-herrings in two ways: one is how to do so for children; the other is when there were bicycles and no cars, there was no need for licenses and insurance.

(I do not advocate banishing cars, by the way. I am in favour of a well integrated transportation system including cars, taxis, public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Where the system is lacking is for the latter two.)
Ross replying to a comment from David / February 22, 2010 at 09:48 am
user-pic
With that line of reasoning, why stop at Jarvis? We could bulldoze the shops/restaurants on Yonge/Bloor/College/Church/etc and make them all into multi lane highways. Wouldn't that help get the 905ers into the city? Or, we could encourage more of them to ride their bikes, take the GO/TTC.

I'm looking forward to bike lanes on Jarvis. But more fundamentally, I'm hopeful that slowing the street down and reducing congestion (yes, less capacity = less traffic) will revitalize what should be a grand boulevard.
Darb replying to a comment from David / February 22, 2010 at 09:49 am
user-pic
On your points A and B) most of those trips absolutely can be forgone. The alternatives are many: car pooling, GO transit to Union, express buses down Mt. Pleasant/Avenue Rd/etc., cycling, park'n'ride from STC/York Mills/Finch/Downsview/etc.
TokyoTuds replying to a comment from Xavier / February 22, 2010 at 09:52 am
user-pic
Xavier, don't worry, there will never be bike lanes on the DVP. The Highway Traffic Act prohibits bicycles on 400 series highways and other designated highways such as the DVP and the Gardiner.
yay / February 22, 2010 at 09:53 am
user-pic
Who cares if a lane for car traffic disappears?! Seriously. Jarvis is like a freeway at the best of times. People live there.
David replying to a comment from TokyoTuds / February 22, 2010 at 09:53 am
user-pic
If we were building a new city, I'd agree with you. But we're not, this is a major arterial street, one that ingeniously has a fifth lane that alternates with the traffic flow, pretty clever. But then we are taking it away without thinking about those that use it.

Again and again in this city these "difficult" decisions are made and backed by those that they won't affect at all. Backed by cyclists, transit users, downtown dwellers, without a thought that the person driving the car is a thoughtful person that is using the mode of transportation that suits their lifestyle, maybe they have small children, maybe they live out of the city and work downtown. Once again already we are using the transit that suits what we need to do in a day, that doesn't all of a sudden change with a road closes down.

Also, I love that in 2010 they only way we can think of to get people to take transit is to make it difficult on them to not take it, and not make transit easier to take. It's like making every book cost hundreds of dollars to get us to use the library.
John-Henry / February 22, 2010 at 09:53 am
user-pic
First "reduced from fives lanes down to four" Looks like the glass is half empty. Id say "Increased from 5 lanes of traffic to 6".

Also, the fact that jackandcokewithalime belives this is only going to be used by "a handful of bike dudes" is part of our problem here. Anybody can ride a bike (except the fat and crippled) and if you're too lazy to get out of your car thats your choice. Its not too cold here. Its not too snowy here. Its not too sprawled here. Please refer to Copenhagen for reference on all those. Thanks!
David replying to a comment from Ross / February 22, 2010 at 09:59 am
user-pic
I guess bulldozing those roads would make it easier to get into the city, but I have no idea why you would. I don't think you do get my point.
Duh / February 22, 2010 at 10:01 am
user-pic
TokyoTuds on February 22, 2010 at 9:47 AM , replying to a comment from jackandcokewithalime

jack, cyclists like all residents of Toronto already pay for the streets through property taxes.
----------

Really? Everyone in Toronto pays property taxes?

Perhaps you could explain this to the class.


TokyoTuds replying to a comment from David / February 22, 2010 at 10:01 am
user-pic
David! We agree on something! You said the "only way we can think of to get people to take transit is to make it difficult on them to not take it, and not make transit easier to take". So you and I support expansion of public transit along with higher quality service, which will go a long way to making a better, overall, integrated transit system. It frees us to choose the best mode day by day as circumstances change. I knew we could see eye to eye.
David replying to a comment from Ross / February 22, 2010 at 10:04 am
user-pic
"First "reduced from fives lanes down to four" Looks like the glass is half empty. Id say "Increased from 5 lanes of traffic to 6. "

I have no idea what that means. Not sure if you've heard but a lot of people in the city have "families", which includes little kids that need to go to school, that can't ride bikes everywhere, can't walk everywhere, etc. Also, this isn't Copenhagen, deal with that. I have no idea why Denmark is what we are all striving for. "In the Netherlands they ride bicycles everywhere.........." In Canada we can't.
David replying to a comment from TokyoTuds / February 22, 2010 at 10:06 am
user-pic
Totally, if you wanted to spend a billion or even billions of taxpayer dollars on a proper transit system in the city, I'd agree with that to the end. I just disagree with the making it difficult, I think we should be putting subways all over the city.
TokyoTuds replying to a comment from Duh / February 22, 2010 at 10:12 am
user-pic
Mr. Duh, I like your screen name. I don't think the whole "class" needs this explained, so I'll just address this to you.

Every residence and business pays property tax. Every property owner must pay his tax. If he rents out his property, his tenant pays the tax through rent. There is no free lunch.
James / February 22, 2010 at 10:15 am
user-pic
There's a crazy guy who was sitting in Allen Gardens on Friday afternoon harassing people who left the "off leash" section of the park without leashing their dogs up again.

He was shouting at people about how it's the law to have your dog leashed in the park and he was taking cell phone videos of those who were contravening the bylaw.

He seemed pretty worked up when I passed through.
I wonder if there's some connection there.
Xavier replying to a comment from TokyoTuds / February 22, 2010 at 10:18 am
user-pic
I love that you have no concept of sarcasm
jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 10:24 am
user-pic
I shudder at the thought of young children riding on the same roads as cars... If a kid falls of his bike (like all kids do), if he's on the road, he's dead. If people don't think that that's a problem right there, then there's no point in trying to explain it to them...

Tokyo, this isn't Tokyo... If you don't see these bike dudes breaking the law left and right causing havoc on the roads, then you need to open your eyes.. And you tell me how the police are suppose to enforce the laws on a group of people who don't have to carry ID, have no kind of identification on their bikes, and who can easily drop their bike and disappear into a crowd. That's the problem. License them, make them pay for insurance, and then we can discuss them being anywhere near to equal with cars.

Also, people who say that bike dudes pay the same taxes and fees as drivers, are dillusional...

--jackandcokewithalime
TokyoTuds replying to a comment from Xavier / February 22, 2010 at 10:30 am
user-pic
Sorry Xavier, sarcasm can be hard to pick up on in the written word. I am just trying to lay down some facts, and often people make the erroneous argument about highways.
MrPotato / February 22, 2010 at 10:35 am
user-pic
Maybe Jarvis wouldnt be so bad if we spoke up about all the crackheads, prostitutes and drug dealers as much as we do about a bike lane.
TokyoTuds replying to a comment from Xavier / February 22, 2010 at 10:39 am
user-pic
Jack, my childhood suburban neighbourhood had no sidewalks and as a child we all rode our bikes on the street, including to and from school. The problem is minimal, and my parents didn't let me ride along arterial roads until I was a teenager.

Further, did I say this was Tokyo? Maybe I should use a more neutral handle like Mr.Duh. Anyhow, the police do not complain that they cannot enforce bike laws, they do it all the time, and perhaps they should do it more. Nobody except maybe a criminal would abandon his bike to avoid a fine, or fail to carry ID.

You forget that driving is a privilege that is restricted through licensing. And insurance is there due to the inherent danger of driving. The incidence of injury or death due to bike-on-bike or bike-on-pedestrian crashes is so incredibly low that there is no market for such insurance, and the cost of said insurance would far out-weigh the benefit. It is putting cars in the equation that requires insurance.
gta_dweller / February 22, 2010 at 10:56 am
user-pic
First of all, let's stop using "think-of-the-children" argument. I am a parent, but this argument has been rammed down people's throats to push entirely selfish regulations that serve just a small group. Thinking of everyone's benefit is the last of their concerns. Anyone new to politics, let me inform you - politicians use whatever line of reasoning will get them the results.

Second, please, people, for the love of goodness, do not compare Toronto to New York City. Talk about comparison once you have an effective public transit system. In NYC, you take the subway everywhere. There are dozens and dozens of lines, not the pathetic 2.5 that we have.

Third, what happened to the plans to convert Jarvis into a boulevard? If you take a lane away and dedicate it to cyclists, where are you going to take the space from for the green space in the middle? Besides, the original plan was forecasting the widening of sidewalks, and reducing vehicular traffic to 4 lanes. Seems like that was the cover to officially obtain permission to remove 1 lane of traffic, only now to quickly dedicate it to cycling.

Personally, I don't think the effect will be VERY significant on Jarvis, as long as there are at least 2 lanes of traffic moving in each direction. However, I am very doubtful there will be bicycle lanes on Bloor-Danforth, and for good reasons. I live downtown west, and I use all 3 modes of transportation regularly (car, bicycle, TTC). But it's asinine to provide bike lanes on B-W, or on King, or Queen.

Fourth, to all those people who say that highways divide and we need to do away with them. What? Why? You are a vocal minority and just because communist groups (such as the cycling union and MADD) get financial support from wealthy backers with ulterior agendas, doesn't mean you represent the majority of city dwellers. There is no democracy in the city, and you know it. Before addressing the takedown of the Gardiner or other corridors, why not address the railroad tracks? Nobody talks about them. Union station, and tracks below Front street divide the city not any less than the Gardiner. But because you lack any mention of railroad tracks and concentrate all your bashing on cars, your agenda is clear - identify the automobile as the satan of modern world. Get real. And if you want to talk about pollution and carbon emission, why not discuss the statistics that over 90% of vehicular emissions are from transport trucks and buses? Or that a shipping vessel generates as much pollution as hundreds of thousands of cars? Or what about chemical pollution of our environment? Those are far more reaching than carbon emissions from cars.
jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 11:01 am
user-pic
Oh Tokyo, I was just being funny with your name... (I had to...) Relax..

Tokyo, your parents were good parents.. I'm sure the same can't be said about ALL parents.. And unfortunately, the police can't enforce laws that force all parents to be with their children when riding on the roads, all the time...

I don't know about the police not complaining about not being able to enforce laws on bike dudes... The one thing I do know, is that the bike dudes break the rules of the road all day everyday, and the police don't seem to be able to do anything about it... That needs to change.

Lastly, as for bike dudes requiring insurance, "It is putting cars in the equation that requires insurance". Exactly Tokyo, exactly!!! If they want to play on the same roads as cars, then they will need insurance..

--jackandcokewithalime
TokyoTuds replying to a comment from jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 11:25 am
user-pic
What I mean is we already have sufficient insurance. Auto insurance covers the driver, his passengers, his car, and (if he is at fault) the cyclist or pedestrian he injures or kills. The cyclist or pedestrian has OHIP to cover his injuries.

By the way, if by bike dudes you mean couriers, I feel they should be licensed and insured as they are undertaking a commercial activity.
pay the piper / February 22, 2010 at 11:36 am
user-pic
I can't see how anybody would object to ponying up 25-50 bucks a year for a bike license.
TO Rocker / February 22, 2010 at 11:41 am
user-pic
Hahahaha...it's the jackandToykoTudswithsushi show!!!! blogTO really needs to initiate a max word count...asap.
Dan / February 22, 2010 at 11:45 am
user-pic
Rocco Rossi is just pandering for votes. The Jarvis bike lane issue has already been decided by Council. If we take Rossi's argument that work should be delayed until after the election in October, then maybe City Hall should just completely shut down. Clearly that doesn't make sense. Thiscity council has a mandate to serve until October 2010. We should respect what they voted for and move on.
jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 11:47 am
user-pic
By "bike dudes" I mean all cyclists on the roads... (but especially those courier bike dudes!!! I agree, they're the worst!)

It's usually me driving along, and being shocked at a bike dude who's pulling a dangerous illegal maneuver, and me exclaiming to the person beside me, "Those Damn Bike Dudes!!"..

By the way, have you ever seen those youtube videos of those bike dudes in New York, cutting through traffic, pulling all kinds of dangerous maneuvers, all for the fun of getting it on tape! It's definitely cool to watch, but damn, that's one of the main problems with bike dudes at the end of the day. They're fearless, and there's no accountibility for them when it comes to the rules of the road (whether it's legal or illegal)..

--jackandcokewithalime
TokyoTuds replying to a comment from TO Rocker / February 22, 2010 at 12:05 pm
user-pic
Sorry TO Rocker, I think I have laid out most of the relevant facts, so let me step aside so that you can contribute to the discussion. I'll just be quiet and read all subsequent posts on this topic.
gta_dweller / February 22, 2010 at 12:13 pm
user-pic
Bike insurance? I oppose this. However, to help the city with its finances, it should impose a bicycle tax, a la vehicle tax of the city of Toronto. After all, bike lanes are paved not for free.

Car tax is $60 per year. Motorcycle is $30. I say, make the bicycle tax $15 per year.

Ahh, the problem of enforcing it would require some sort of registration and permit. Perhaps if we to assume that the average lifetime of a bicycle is 7 years, we can just add $105 to every new bicycle purchase.

Just a thought to help our struggling city.
joe / February 22, 2010 at 12:21 pm
user-pic
One Note:

Not all "bike dudes" (and dudettes?) are lawless rule-breakers.

Making that assumption is like saying all drivers drive drunk because a few of them have been known to do it.

Many of Toronto's cyclists are responsible, courteous, and just want a safe ride.
James / February 22, 2010 at 12:32 pm
user-pic
If Jarvis had 7 lanes of traffic, it would quickly fill up to capacity because more people would start driving to work instead of taking transit or biking. It doesn't matter how many lanes you put there, they will fill up. Why do you think the 10+ lane sections on the 401 are at a standstill during rush hour? Or have you ever been to LA? Or Beijing? Adding lanes will only improve traffic flow temporarily while encouraging more people to drive to work.

The same works the other way. If you remove a single lane of traffic, it might add 2-3 minutes in the short term, but eventually people will start considering other methods of transportation. If there wasn't any traffic congestion, do you think ~200,000+ people every day would take GO trains to work?

By the way, they aren't removing a lane of traffic, they are actually going from 5 lanes of traffic to 6.
gadfly replying to a comment from Ross / February 22, 2010 at 12:41 pm
user-pic
Total, unadulterated BS! Parliament, Sherbourne and Church are hopeless jokes - Jarvis is the only N-S route the city has, other than University that isn't akin to a country backroad.
What has happened since the Wellesley bike lane was put in last year? Traffic along Homewood/Maitland has increased exponentially because Wellesley is now useless.
Toronto simply does not have the arterial roadways that New York, Miluakee, San Francisco [insert pet city that seems to prove your point here] has! Do a Google Earth sweep of any of these cities and see for yourself the criss-crossing of 6 lane arterial roads and 4 lane ONE WAY STREETS that interlace ALL of these cities.
Toronto's road network is more akin to a sleepy town in the 1850's - hell, come to think of it, that's when it was mapped out.
Social revisionists have to stop turning this into a 'suburban versus downtown' thing: traffic is gawdawful in BOTH directions on Jarvis every morning. And just for fun, as yet more 50 storey condos pop up along Bay St., let's not forget that has been reduced to 2 lanes, thanks to the boneheaded city making the transit/taxi lane a few years back. (WTF do we need a bus along Bay St. for anyway?)
rob / February 22, 2010 at 12:46 pm
user-pic
I'd like to see how useful these bike lanes will be when its -30 and 20 cm of snow on the ground...
cocoa / February 22, 2010 at 12:48 pm
user-pic
What happens to these bike lanes during the 6 months of the year when relatively few people bicycle?
jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 12:53 pm
user-pic
joe,

when it comes to drunk drivers, I'm sure people would agree that that's more like 1 out of 200,000 are drunk drivers. Whereas with law-breaking bike dudes, it's more like 100 out of 300.

(The numbers I'm using are just an example and not exact figures by any means, but, I hope you get the jist of what I'm trying to say...)

And yes, you are right. Not all bike dudes break the law. But regardless of whether they do or not, the should still require licensing, taxes & user fees and insurance if they want to ride on the roads with cars. Especially if we are paying for them to have their own lanes!!

It's only fair.

--jackandcokewithalime

PS: Bike dudes are nothing but a nuisance on the roads for Drivers. I have no interest in adding more of them onto the roads, just to make things even more worse than they are.. Especially when I have to pay the majority for it (as a driver), and they (the bike dudes) pay the bare minimum...
David replying to a comment from James / February 22, 2010 at 12:56 pm
user-pic
Nonsense, why don't we just make everything in the city a one lane road then? Think of little traffic we'll have.

Don't lie about the lane shortage, we are not going from 5 lanes to 6, thats ridiculous. We have 5 lanes right now, they want to add a bike lane and a larger sidewalk, but it's really adding a lane? Bizarre.

By the way, for anyone commenting on how useful bike lanes are in winter, don't bother discussing it, these people believe that it is fine to bike down a busy road while it's snowing with subzero temperatures.

I wonder if anyone has thought of how dangerous it might be when all of these drivers supposedly park their cars are start riding their bikes throughout downtown everyday. Does no one realize that not everyone is an established cyclist? I can only see bike deaths increasing. It's as if no one on the left can see what the reactions to these actions are. Everything is a theory, it's always someone else that will just have to deal with it, like Miller raising property taxes, they're fine as long as you can afford them. It's as if everyone that owns a house in the city is rich.
James replying to a comment from jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 01:02 pm
user-pic
"But regardless of whether they do or not, the should still require licensing, taxes & user fees and insurance if they want to ride on the roads with cars."

jack: Using your logic, if you want to drive on the same roads as trucks, you should be required to get your A-class truck license, be required to stop at weigh stations, and pay commercial vehicle licensing fees. It's only fair.
James replying to a comment from David / February 22, 2010 at 01:05 pm
user-pic
Sorry David, I shouldn't assume people on here have basic math skills, my mistake.

Currently there are 5 lanes for bikes and automobiles. They are planning to change 1 automobile lane into 2 bike lanes. 5-1+2=6.
James replying to a comment from cocoa / February 22, 2010 at 01:09 pm
user-pic
Loads of cyclists ride year-round. I haven't missed a day this year and I have only had to cycle in snow twice this year (and it was a very small amount of snow). It has been a great winter for cycling - but even during a normal winter there are only a few days when there is too much snow to cycle comfortably.

Roads in Toronto are cleared quickly and it quickly becomes safe to cycle (and drive) again.

Anyone who thinks that there are only 6 months a year of cycling weather in Toronto is only kidding themselves.
David replying to a comment from James / February 22, 2010 at 01:13 pm
user-pic
No, it's my fault, I just presumed that in a discussion about the deletion of an actual car lane, no one would be stupid enough to start including bike lanes as actual lanes on a major thoroughfare. You know, seeing as one is an actual lane which cars use, and another is a four foot wide space that will be empty the majority of the day.

Not sure if you read the heading of this post, but it says "Jarvis Lane Reduction to Proceed".

What?? Lane reduction maybe the post author lacks basic math skills?
jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 01:20 pm
user-pic
Wow James, maybe you shouldn't be riding your bike all year round... Apparently falling on your head contantly in the winter has affected your brain..

"Driving on the same roads as trucks"... You make me laugh.. ;)

--jackandcokewithalime

James replying to a comment from David / February 22, 2010 at 01:34 pm
user-pic
David, it's actually not your fault. It's our society in North America's fault for failing to recognize bicycles are a practical method of transportation.

Some day bicycles will be recognized as a pragmatic and healthy method of transportation in Toronto. For now I will simply continue advocacy through constructive debate.

For the record, I think cars have their own purpose. I just don't think we need to use cars as much as we do - especially downtown. I own a car, I pay the fees, the insurance, and everything else. I just choose to seldom drive it.

I find cycling to be more enjoyable, efficient, and healthy than driving.
James replying to a comment from jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 01:39 pm
user-pic
jack: Isn't it amazing how seeing your very own logic used in a different context can show you how preposterous your original statement was?

You are in effect laughing at your own comment which I will repeat here for the record:

jack: "But regardless of whether they do or not, the should still require licensing, taxes & user fees and insurance if they want to ride on the roads with cars."
keven replying to a comment from jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 01:40 pm
user-pic
"(The numbers I'm using are just an example and not exact figures by any means, but, I hope you get the jist of what I'm trying to say...)"

So just to follow along here, a bunch of made up numbers are an example to prove your point with made up numbers?

Btw. 100 out of 300 is 1 in 3. It's basic grade 2 math. Comparators should always remain in the same form.
David replying to a comment from James / February 22, 2010 at 01:49 pm
user-pic
They are "recognized as a pragmatic and healthy method of transportation in Toronto" they just aren't the only "a pragmatic and healthy method of transportation in Toronto".

Also, with regards to your comment, whatever, it's still a lane reduction no matter what you call it.
jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 01:50 pm
user-pic
keven!! Wow, you're back!! Look at you!! I thought you had been permanantly shamed off of this board forever!!

Do you really want to go down this road with me again? Did you forget what happened last time?

http://www.blogto.com/city/2010/02/morning_brew_fighting_for_ultimate_fighting_in_ontario_ttc_customer_service_czar_named_giambrone_returns_carlton_cinemas_saved_raccoons_dying_of_distemper_reporting_abandoned_bikes/

I'll do you a favor this time and let your stupidity go.

--jackandcokewithalime
keven replying to a comment from jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 01:55 pm
user-pic
So you have nothing to say than. Cool. Keep up the good work!
jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 02:01 pm
user-pic
keven, the link I provided speaks for itself..

--jackandcokewithalime
Dan / February 22, 2010 at 02:02 pm
user-pic
I feel like a broken record here, but each and every day, debates on this blog become more ridiculous with newbies like jackandcoke trolling just to hype his own blog.

I really wish the mods would step in here and at least issue some sort of rules on what's considered an acceptable post. I'm not saying all posts should be vetted, but when everything boils down to personal attacks and name calling - espeically when said offender does it daily - then maybe some thought should be given to banning people.

BlogTO used to be a good site, but it's really frustrating nowadays. Am I really the only one who feels this way?
jackandcokewithalime replying to a comment from Dan / February 22, 2010 at 02:06 pm
user-pic
One would think you'd take a hint Dan...

--jackandcokewithalime
keven replying to a comment from Dan / February 22, 2010 at 02:11 pm
user-pic
BlogTo does try bit its a fine line I guess.

I would suggest everyone dissatisfied with the likes of jackeduponcokewithalime should email editors@blogto.com

Perhaps in numbers we can change or at least have the mods re-think the acceptable use policy on the site.

It is too bad though cause threads just get closed and no discussion is available on the matter forever at that point.
Mike W / February 22, 2010 at 02:35 pm
user-pic
Agreed, the comments section is quickly devolving. Long running arguments in the past at least had some reason and valid viewpoints present as opposed to childish name calling and mother jokes, but lately this jackcoke troll brings things to playground level.

Not even Andrew (the troll) was this persistent.
jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 02:45 pm
user-pic
Wow, keven/Mike W/Dan all together again... Hmm, I wonder what's really going on here..

--jackandcokewithalime
logic / February 22, 2010 at 02:51 pm
user-pic
no feed troll
troll no eat
troll die
CD / February 22, 2010 at 03:02 pm
user-pic
I've got to agree with Kevin/Dan... jackandcoke, you really seem to stir the pot here - but name calling and being so condescending really doesn't do much for the rest of us readers who'd just like to enjoy BlogTO and some honest opinions of loyal BlogTO followers...

How about laying off the harsh tone? It really couldn't hurt. Just a thought.
Toronto replying to a comment from jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 03:23 pm
user-pic
For a guy whose only accomplishment in life is to write a blog, you sure bitch a lot. Every city in the world has its problems. There's no such thing as an Utopia. Instead of bitching on this board go down the city hall and complain directly to the people who can make a difference.

BTW, you must make a fortune with that blog of yours, since you spent all day here going after people who don't share your point of view.
jackandcokewithalime replying to a comment from Toronto / February 22, 2010 at 03:54 pm
user-pic
Oh no, poster named "Toronto", you really hurt my feelings...

Oooooooh, big man! LOL!!! You are hilarious!

And thanks for letting me know that my blog is an accomplishment! I truly appreciate it! ;) That means a lot, coming from you (??)..

And yes, dammit, I admit that I've gotten absolutely no work done today... Oh well, this was just more fun! I mean, keven is back!! What a day!

--jackandcokewithalime

PS: Here's an old Benny Hill Classic for you: "When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME"... And you my friend, assume far too much!
CD replying to a comment from jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 03:57 pm
user-pic
Seriously.... jackandcoke... give it a rest.

What are you trying to prove here?

Chill. And stop name calling. Really not necessary.

Thx.
jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 04:00 pm
user-pic
Oh CD, just for you I'll stop. You are such a sweetheart!! ;)

--jackandcokewithalime
CD replying to a comment from jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 04:03 pm
user-pic
That wasn't so hard now, was it? lol

I not smart / February 22, 2010 at 04:04 pm
user-pic
Benny Hill? BENNY HILL?

ha ha ha ha ha ha

Try Oscar Wilde, genius.
jackandcokewithalime replying to a comment from I not smart / February 22, 2010 at 04:07 pm
user-pic
I know I promised, but I have to say: Benny Hill is where I remember that from... (And it's more funny that way, no?)

--jackandcokewithalime

PS: Ok, now I'm done. I promise CD!! :)

jackandcokewithalime / February 22, 2010 at 04:14 pm
user-pic
Here's the clip from Benny Hill, if you haven't seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hrLj8QEAgI

--jackandcokewithalime
Jerrold / February 22, 2010 at 04:39 pm
user-pic
Editor's note:

I'm closing this post to comments due to the discussion degeneration into nothing more than petty insults (i.e. this stuff isn't worth reading). Please be considerate of your fellow readers, and keep discussion on topic. Thanks!
Commenting has been disabled on this post.
Other Cities: Montreal