City
Rob Ford on removing the Jarvis Street bike lanes
In the wake of the Public Works Committee's decision to scrap the Jarvis bike lanes, a number of cycling advocates have taken the time to email the mayor regarding his support of their removal. Pasted below is the standard response that they've received. Although it's a stock email, it's nevertheless intriguing on account of Ford's characterization of the "experiment" as a failure and his general reasoning as to why: a threefold increase in cycling traffic still pales in comparison to the vehicular traffic facing delays.
No editorial from me on this one. Having heard a number of comments asking why Ford is not swayed by the increased traffic numbers, I thought I'd give the floor to the man himself. And, for those wondering how the City Council vote on the matter might shake out, Matt Elliott does some speculative number-crunching on his blog, Ford for Toronto.
Here's the email from the mayor.
--
Thank you for your email regarding the bike lanes on Jarvis Street. I appreciate hearing from you.
Toronto's economy loses billions of dollars every year from gridlock and traffic congestion. We need to make the situation better - not worse. The Jarvis Street bike lanes experiment has been a failure. Ninety-four percent of commuters now face longer commutes on Jarvis Street. Over 15,000 commuters each day are suffering from longer travel times, for the sake of 600 additional cyclists.
The City should remove the bike lanes as soon as possible and improve travel times for thousands of daily commuters. City staff have been directed to develop a low-cost plan to do so. Bike lanes were never intended to be installed on Jarvis Street. The original Environmental Assessment recommended against installing bike lanes - but City Council amended the report to approve bike lanes anyway.
As promised during the mayoral election, I am dedicated to delivering customer service excellence, creating a transparent and accountable government, reducing the size and cost of government and building a transportation city.
Thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts. Please feel free to contact my office again at any time.
Yours truly,
Mayor Rob Ford
City of Toronto
--
Photo by Martin Reis in the blogTO Flickr pool.
Discussion
124 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Pre-fab replies for all!
You're so smart, Ford.
http://tracer99.blogspot.com/2011/06/letter-to-rob-ford-city-infrastructure.html
Mayor Mark Towhey
City of Toronto
Cultureshot you are exactly right. these morons believe that getting rid of bike lanes means getting rid of cyclists. I will be riding my bike in the car lane when this happens. i encourage others to do the same
But Ford is still a jerk.
Do they just make this shit up?
Cyclists will ride with or without bike lanes, and I feel like the more traffic gets jammed up and drivers complain about how difficult it is to drive in this city because of 'all the damn cyclists', the sooner there will be a push for separate lanes.
It's nice to want people to ride bikes on Sherbourne, but riders will take the streets that are convenient and go where they need to be with the least amount of detours, just like drivers. Anything else is unrealistic.
I take the subway to work but occasionally run commute home up Jarvis and it's clear to me that the street is vastly improved without the middle lane, without parking, and with bike lanes.
Bike lanes are provincial law......on every street. No city council can change that.
So, by painting lanes, you only create a guideline that makes things more safe and accessible.
Erasing lines does not remove the lanes.
I'm glad to see our city take such a progressive stance and buck the trend of helmet-head friendly cities by being the only city in the Western World to be removing cycling infrastructure!
Rising oil prices? Who cares? Obesity epidemic? Obesity Schmepidemic! Decreasing Air Quality? Who needs air anyways? That's what Air Conditioning is for!
In all seriousness, though, I encourage all those who cycle on Jarvis to do as I do on every street without a proper bike lane (which is almost all of them): If you don't feel safe riding in the curb lane, claim your lane. You are a vehicle. Obey the laws and the rules of the road, but claim your lane to FORCE drivers to recognize your presence.
First the public health nurses, now the Jarvis lane... what's on the chopping block next?
Yeah, they keep saying they need to remove the bike lanes to ease congestion, but has anyone bothered to explain how exactly that's going to work? From what I understand, they aren't planning to reinstall the reversible middle lane, so apparently we're going to have the exact same number of lanes as we do now, plus cyclists are going to keep on using Jarvis regardless, only now they'll be impeding cars because they have to share a lane....all to the tune of $90k spent to install the bike lanes and $70k to take them out again...
Jarvis is a nightmare because of all the idiots trying to make left turns in gridlock traffic. If they want to speed it up, they ought to install left-turn lanes at some of the intersections and advance greens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?_r=1
we know it wont be the police that is for sure.
Let me ask you ford sycophants something: What has ford done for you? How has he improved your lives or your neighborhood? what sort of picture do you think he's he painted of you all with his obvious bigotry and hate mongering? Are those the values you represent (hatred, bigotry, intolerance, abject stupidity)?
Then the cyclists' union got involved and hijacked the discussion with bike lanes. For all the good work they do, the Toronto Cyclists' Union and BikeTO can be a bit narrow-minded in their approach to biking infrastructure. See also: the John Street debate right now.
However, I never understood why you would choose the main thoroughfare as a bike lane. There should be a dedicated street like Sherbourne that has isolated bike lanes.
And to all those that threaten to take up an entire lane of traffic - you deserve to be hit by the car that you are inconveniencing. You clearly have no respect for the other people that live in this city and and are an embarrassment.
We should find ways to live amongst each other - banning a car is impossible when most of the "cyclists" in this city are also a bunch of tree huggers who whine and cry when the city raises taxes to fund public transportation.
Pick your battles my friends......
Go ahead and remove them, nothing will change, traffic will actually slow down because now they have to dodge bikes.
More money thrown down the toilet with absolutely no result. I thought this guy was supposed to be a fiscal conservative.
The war on the car is a intramodal war, with car drivers pitted against one another. Cyclists have nothing to do with the fact that cars can't get around. It's all the other drivers who want to get to exactly where you're trying to get to in your SUV.
Let me ask you ford sycophants something: What has ford done for you? How has he improved your lives or your neighborhood? what sort of picture do you think he's he painted of you all with his obvious bigotry and hate mongering? Are those the values you represent (hatred, bigotry, intolerance, abject stupidity)?"
Has your second paragraph met your first paragraph? You sound like a pretty hateful stupid intolerant bigot in the first half.
the people in this city do nothing but bitch and moan and whinge at each other about everything. constant battles, constant arguments, everything turns into a "war on the ______". Its online, its in the newspapers, its everywhere.
and its fucking pathetic. we are a sad, useless bunch of retards with visions of grandeur that tries to hide the bitching, moaning, provincial, regressive reality.
(And besides that, they don't even pay for all the breathing related illnesses that burning said gas causes.)
That means if the cyclist doesn't think it is practical or safe to allow a large vehicle to force them off the road or into a pothole, they're allowed to ride further to the left to prevent the other vehicle from mistakenly attempting to do so.
Should they also be paying marina taxes cause someone else owns a boat?
Oh, and for those arguing cyclists should have insurance, do you understand the point of insurance? Insurance is to cover you when something very valuable gets damaged and is difficult to repair.
That's why we have insurance for things like health, cars, houses, life - all very valuable and expensive to repair.
At the same time that's why we don't have insurance for relatively things like running shoes, skateboards, sticks of gum and bicycles.
The most expensive repair I have done for a bike is $150... its not worth it to insure.
If he's so concerned about spending maybe he should read some of that research on left turn lanes before he spends the what-is-it-70K on ripping out bike lanes.
*sigh*
This applies to about 500 things he's done since he got into office. So keen to cancel out whatever Miller's legacy was suppose to be he's paying cancellation fees and contract breaking fees at every turn. I'd love to know what that adds up to by the end of his term.
Count me in as a centre of the lane cyclist whenever I feel unsafe - potholes, parked cars or when it's too tight - and, it's legal:
HTA 147 - Slow moving traffic travel on right side
any vehicle moving slower than the normal traffic speed should drive in the right-hand lane, or as close as practicable to the right edge of the road except when preparing to turn left or when passing another vehicle. For cyclists, you must ride far enough out from the curb to maintain a straight line, clear of sewer grates, debris, potholes, and parked car doors. You may occupy any part of a lane when your safety warrants it. Never compromise your safety for the convenience of a motorist behind you.
We need a co-ordinated effort to grind this city to a stop - the mayor isn't listening to anything else.
If the city was at all serious about this. They would remove parking from major streets in certain sections of the city. Try portions of King St as a test to start.
Vehicular traffic went from 13000 to 15000
Cycle traffic went from 860 to 600.
3-5 min am north then 3-5 to min pm south on Jarvis to 94% of all commutes.
He was elected with this kind of math.
I just assume the centre lane would be put back. If not what would be the benefit of removing them be. But to be mean spirited and petty.
That's how the righties roll..............
Two weeks ago, I had the misfortune of taking the TTC to work: 45 minutes for a drive that averages me 16.
Walk&Bike, I have a life. Those 30 minutes a day (each way mean something to me.) My life also means something to me and cycling is just, well, crazy.
That's my point of view. You have yours. May the best man (or woman) win... and, so far, we are.
Deal with it.
HTA 147 - Slow moving traffic travel on right side
any vehicle moving slower than the normal traffic speed should drive in the right-hand lane, or as close as practicable to the right edge of the road except when preparing to turn left or when passing another vehicle. For cyclists, you must ride far enough out from the curb to maintain a straight line, clear of sewer grates, debris, potholes, and parked car doors. You may occupy any part of a lane when your safety warrants it. Never compromise your safety for the convenience of a motorist behind you.
The War on the Car is a civil war, fought by suburbanites against other suburbanites.
City streets are paid for by property tax. Gasoline taxes go to the Province and pay for provincial highways. Everyone in Toronto pays property tax (including tenants - landlords make it from rent). We all pay for our streets, so room has to exist for all of us - motorists, transit, cyclists and pedestrians.
into the "car lanes"...
nice plan, mr. mayor!
1.Traffic:
Jarvis is the only street wide enough to provide a vital N/S connection between the DVP and the Gardiner.
2. Revitalization?
Toronto turned it's back on Jarvis' beautiful architecture a long time ago, and bike traffic was never going to change that. Church Street is a more pleasant ride.
3. Bike lanes are great, but creating gridlock doesn't change habits. Tolls would.
Jarvis is one of the only streets in Toronto wide enough to have bike lanes as well as maintain 2 lanes of traffic in each direction. It's win-win without the risk of head-on collision because people don't know what reversible lanes are. I'm a cyclist and a driver and I think anybody who has regularly driven on Jarvis when it had a reversible lane had the heart stopping experience of somebody speeding toward you head on even though their lane had the Red X.
I drive downtown, because it is still faster than taking mississauga transit, go transit and ttc. And it costs about the same price too.
With that logic, I look forward to Yonge Street being reduced to one lane, and having much wider sidewalks. Think that will happen?
As for safety, you have a pretty good idea of where bikes should and shouldn't ride, right?
You know how sometimes you have to time your drive so as not to get stuck in traffic? Never happens with a bike. If you were really concerned about how long a bike commute took you, you might do something like, I don't know, leave earlier? But that would cut into your valuable morning post-dopey-comments-online time.
Slow vehicles to travel on right side
147. (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. ;H.8, s. ;147 (1).
Bicycles overtaken
(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. ;H.8, s. ;148 (6).
From the MTO website: "You may occupy any part of a lane when your safety warrants it. Never compromise your safety for the convenience of a motorist behind you", specifically in reference to section 147.
Yes, being killed is certainly an appropriate thing to have happen for inconveniencing a car. Idiot.
Maybe if you learned as this supposed "avid cycler" that cyclISTS have the right to any part of the lane that safety warrants they take, you'd get over this murderously stupid wish to see cyclISTS killed because they wish to ride on a safe part of the road.
You should also be paying tolls for being a dick.
I'd like to know what part of this cyclists contribute back to Ontario because they don't buy fuel,and pay the tax on it:
http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/en/bulletins/gt/gas1_2003.html
Can the cyclists lay out their monthly costs to run their bikes? The taxes from the cost of operating a vehicle for drivers is NOT all going to fund city roads,but it's going to the province,and federally.I don't think I can even go buy a meal off a dollar menu at those fast food spots with the monthly taxes a cyclist pays?
To improve the roads,offer safer shared bicycle/sidewalk type paths,I agree with tolls.NO one group should bare the burden of the infrastructure costs.
For the person who felt it was ridiculous to drive in Kensington market,everyone has equal access to every part of Toronto.Especially those who use an accessibility permit to be able to travel to ,and park in as many places as they want in the city.
So, for instance, me - what I don't spend on a car and associated expenses, I do spend on a lot of other things, and I pay taxes on all of those things. The idea that gas taxes are somehow more of a monetary force towards roads and infrastructure than any other sales tax is laughable.
That being said the federal and provincial gas taxes could fund infrastructure, but they chose to put it elsewhere.
The only reason for or against a bike lane, is whether or not it works to keep traffic flow for all optimal. Bicyclists are going to bike. Deal with it as best we can. I enjoy the jarvis bike lane, and i'm not a Ford fan, but i'm not going to pretend that i know whether or not that particular lane is working to keep traffic flowing through an ever expanding city.
What is it going to take to stop the gravy train of suburbans taking downtown toronto for granted as their own personal highway?
We live here. You don't, and have no right to speak for those who do.
Rob Ford IS the gravy train - and it stops here.
I see all this 'we live downtown you don't' jibberish here. Well the Toronto suburbs (Scarborough, Etobicoke, North York) are all part of TORONTO so the DT core is as much theirs as it is yours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... ROB FORD IN MUSIC FORM
A GREAT WAY TO VENT