Saturday, October 22, 2016Scattered Clouds 11°C

Jarvis bike lanes to be eliminated

Posted by Derek Flack / July 13, 2011

Jarvis Bike Lanes DeadEarlier today, Toronto City Council voted to eliminate bike lanes on Jarvis, Birchmount and Pharmacy as part of its adoption of the 2011 Bikeway Network Update, which passed with amendments 28-9. Jarvis will eventually be returned to its former state — i.e. a fifth signaled traffic lane will be re-installed — despite the fact that the original staff recommendation for the street called, which called for additional pedestrian space.

Council did, however, vote to coordinate efforts to restore the street to its prior state with the implementation of separated bike lanes on Sherbourne in 2012. The bike lanes on Birchmount and Pharmacy, on the other hand, will be removed in 2011. The estimated cost to remove the bike lanes and re-install the fifth lane of traffic on Jarvis is $200,000.

Update (1:20 p.m.):

A little history:

And the vote breakdowns:

On Jarvis:
jarvis bike lanes eliminated

Birchmount Bike Lanes

Pharmacy Bike Lanes

2011 Bikeway Network Update (note the absence of a number of council members who walked out in disgust):
2011 Bikeway Network Update TorontoPhoto by Martin Reis in the blogTO Flickr pool



john / July 13, 2011 at 01:14 pm
this seems logical...
Gladfly / July 13, 2011 at 01:16 pm
Go Ford Go, you are the man!
Rob / July 13, 2011 at 01:18 pm
I know Jarvis is up for debate, but putting lanes on Pharmacy and Birchmount is ludicrous
steve / July 13, 2011 at 01:19 pm
We sure saved a lot of money on this plan. Sherbourne's never getting lanes though, so the Jarvis lanes will be here for a while.
TOArsenal / July 13, 2011 at 01:20 pm
I'm sick of this city. Politicians are making us go backwards and people don't give a shit.
TheRealJohnson / July 13, 2011 at 01:21 pm
With two proposals for bike lanes on Jarvis on the table and myriad evidence to suggest that increasing road capacity on Jarvis won't help with traffic congestion it seems perfectly logical that city council would choose a third option: getting rid of the bike lanes entirely and putting back the fifth lane of traffic - wait...what?!
Antony / July 13, 2011 at 01:21 pm
Once again, Jarvis residents / students / business owners don't live in a neighborhood, they live next to a freeway for suburbanites' convenience.

I take it the private funds earmarked for the Jarvis Streetscape Improvements are going to be gone, now?
Wes / July 13, 2011 at 01:25 pm
Hey Anthony. What suburbanites are driving home up Jarvis? Last I checked, Rosedale, Lawrence Park and Leaside were all well within Toronto proper. All this crap about so called 'suburbanites' needs to end. This city is more than just the trendy West end.
G / July 13, 2011 at 01:26 pm
Jarvis cyclists, commence taking up your entire lane.
Gonzo / July 13, 2011 at 01:26 pm
We need a city council that moves forwards, not backwards! Upwards not downwards and always twirling, TWIRLING!!!!
TOArsenal replying to a comment from G / July 13, 2011 at 01:29 pm
This is exactly what Jarvis cyclists can do now. Without bike lanes, the law requires cyclists to take the full lane as a normal vehicle. Take the full lane. Don't go to the side of the road because it just invites cars to squeeze through you and potentially kill you. Take the full lane, then, if drivers start complaining, Ford can get his head out of his ass.
J / July 13, 2011 at 01:33 pm
If you listened to any of today's debate on the subject, I think you'd agree they've got the twirling part down pretty well.
rob replying to a comment from TOArsenal / July 13, 2011 at 01:37 pm
Backwards? in what? technology? aren't we going forward?
saltspring / July 13, 2011 at 01:38 pm
Birchmount and Pharmacy have bike lanes?? Amazing. Sherbourne is already too narrow for cars, let alone carving off more for bike lanes. Jarvis has very little commercial activity, so why it would need more pedestrian space is begging an answer. The only really good idea is to do a Granville-esque number to Yonge and curtail traffic while enhancing pedestrian amenities. As for bike lanes, if the total number of daily riders is only 900, I don't see how the majority of taxpayers can justify underwriting their cost.
Kevin / July 13, 2011 at 01:38 pm
While the outcome of this decision is maddening it was highly predictable.

Going back 2 years when this proposal (installation of bike lanes) came out of nowhere (which it did)...

I said then "This is a pedestrian/streetscape project. Pedestrians are being sand-bagged, this will cause deep division between 2 activist communities (bikes + pedestrians) who should be working together. Moreover, this is too much political capital for a project not even in the bike plan, there are other lanes we should be fighting for...this will not end well"

I expressed those sentiments, in more or less those words here and on various cycling blogs and directly to two well known activists who championed this proposal.

Now look what we have...

We got nothing....what a profound waste. It was political naivete at best to push this project.

Had we gone with pedestrian one, the curbs would have been moved, and it would have been a $6,000,000 project to un-do it. Not 200k.

It also would have calmed traffic and been beneficial to cyclists.

While I'm disappointed by the regressive council decision today, I'm just as mad at foolish decisions by the cycling activist community 2 years ago that led directly to this outcome.
ghd / July 13, 2011 at 01:40 pm
Dammit Mark Grimes! You suck!
Stewart / July 13, 2011 at 01:41 pm
How much gravy does $200,000 buy?
Kevin / July 13, 2011 at 01:45 pm

For those who want a more progressive council, pay attention:

Ward redistribution based on the latest census would increase the number of downtown councillors by at least 2, maybe as many as 4.....look at the votes on some of today's agenda and think about that....

Now consider Counc. in favour of redistribution as a matter of fairness.

Maybe time to work w/the other side to get an outcome that will change Council for a decade or more.
Kevin / July 13, 2011 at 01:46 pm
Frankly, painted lines aren't much more than psychological window dressing and offer limited protection to cyclists. I agree with G above. Ride in the lane. That way there are two options for motorists; either change lanes to pass, or kill you/me. I've always found that they will pass you in the left lane and have had more 'close calls' in bike lanes and 'hugging the curb' than riding about where the cars right wheel goes. By the same token, respect the rules of the road. When someone is making a right-turn stay behind them. Don't try and sneak by on their right--even if they're not making a right turn. If there's no bike lane then you/we are traffic. If we stop this bickering and realize that there are bad drivers and good drivers; bad cyclists and good cyclists, we can all make use of the roads--bike lane or not--and get where we're going without killing each other. At least that's what I'd hope and like to think about my fellow Torontoians.
Carly / July 13, 2011 at 01:47 pm
I drive a car, and totally admit that bikers get on my last nerve when im drivng downtown. I think that people on bikes sometimes forget that i am in a vehicle and if i hit you (my fault or yours) you will get hurt, BADLY! i am in fear of smoking someone on a bike that is driving in my vehicle lanes by choice because they think they are fast enough or that its just the same as being in a car, and whats even worse is when someone on a bike has to be in my lane because there are no bikes lanes.

In reply to the comments about "just taking up the car lanes"
its foolish to think it makes sense to be blocking traffic on purpose and riding where its dangerous to spite the decision of removal. but and its going to have to happen now. which is even more folish.

I am PRO bike lanes. i hate sharing the road with bikers when i dont have to, and im sure they feel the same way. ive seen too many people get hit on their bikes in this specific jarvis neighborhood. especially on sherbourne where there NEDS to be lanes. i dont know why common sense runs dry with this city.

Rob replying to a comment from Stewart / July 13, 2011 at 01:48 pm
About the same as 2-3 useless City employees
Matt Stata / July 13, 2011 at 01:48 pm
They did NOT in fact vote to delay the elimination of the Jarvis lanes until Sherbourne is done. Minnan-Wong hijacked Councillor Wong-Tam's motion and changed the wording to "coordinating" the two, which does not explicitly guarantee ANYTHING about the Jarvis lanes being kept until Sherbourne is complete. He claimed that his intent was the same as her's, that the lanes should be kept there until Sherbourne is ready, but that we could begin work on things like putting the lights back up. But his amendment to her motion doesn't guarantee anything regarding the availability of one or the other of these routes at all times. He refused all requests to clarify the wording of his amendment to solidify these purported intentions, and the AMENDED motion was passed, which guarantees exactly NOTHING for the safety of cyclists wishing to travel north-south in this part of the city. His amendment was devious and wrong and should have been rejected by council. Of course then, Wong-Tam's motion would likely have been shot down outright, but the result is exactly the same - NO GUARANTEE WHATSOEVER of a safe north-south route at all times. Let's tell it like it really is here.
Max replying to a comment from G / July 13, 2011 at 01:52 pm
Agreed! Taking my WHOLE LANE!
bikeranddriver / July 13, 2011 at 01:54 pm
When I'm riding my bike, I hate cars.
When I'm driving my car, I hate all things.
JM / July 13, 2011 at 01:57 pm
So the reversible lane for Jarvis is back, that pretty much destroys any of the progress made into making Jarvis into a livable street for pedestrians or anybody who happens to live in the area.

What a massive waste of taxpayer money for virtually no savings in commute time. All of that money spent, and we're re-spending even more to put everything back the way it was. How do Ford supporters justify this? Was Jarvis this bastion of efficiency when it had the reversible lane? Of course not, the city's own report says the difference in commute time is marginal.
unknown / July 13, 2011 at 02:00 pm
These gravy rednecks make me sick.
How is it better for cars to share a line with cyclists? I don't get it.

This Rob is robbing us, Torontonians.WTF?
Derek replying to a comment from Matt Stata / July 13, 2011 at 02:02 pm
Yes, Minnan-Wong amended Wong-Tam's motion such that there is no explicit guarantee, but he calls for both projects to be done in 2012.

I have altered the sentence in question to reflect his use of the word coordinated.

Here's the amended motion for those interested:

"City Council rescind its decision related to the bicycle lanes on Jarvis Street, and co-ordinate implementation of the proposed separation of bike lanes on Sherbourne Street from Bloor Street to Lake Shore Boulevard as an alternative, and staff be directed to take all steps required to revert Jarvis Street to its pre-existing operation such that implementation can be achieved as soon as possible, with all work to be completed on Sherbourne Street and Jarvis Street in 2012."
W. K. Lis / July 13, 2011 at 02:03 pm
I will be taking up the entire traffic lane with my bicycle from now on. I will not be squeezing to the far right, but will ride in the middle or left, to avoid the sewer grates, potholes, glass, screws, nails, and other debris on the road.
AV / July 13, 2011 at 02:04 pm
We are literally regressing as a city with decisions such as these.
Just Sayin' / July 13, 2011 at 02:05 pm
Any MPP/Ontario party that starts talking de-amalgamation is getting my attention, voting and $$$.
Mike / July 13, 2011 at 02:09 pm
Gotta tell you. I watched this debate yesterday afternoon on the teee-vayyy and, I was gobsmacked. I wondered a) why the hell am I watching this and b) these children get paid 90 plus thousand a year? Frances Nunziata is an illiterate fool and a laughable orator, and the bickering in place of substantive debate was gut wrenching. This decision is shameful, the way they came to the decision was shameful and if Mr. Ford wants to talk about "gravy train" and savings perhaps the first thing he should do is find ways to make his council meetings more efficient and idea laden and stop demanding, or have his lackies demand, an apology every time his feelings get hurt. Progressive cities have progressive thinkers, and ideas for how to minimize congestion and traffic...this city has no transit or cycle policy...if i am the first person injured riding in an area where a bike lane has been removed there are 27 councillors getting personally sued.
Human Fly / July 13, 2011 at 02:10 pm
Does anyone know of the fate of the Dupont bike lanes? I thought I heard that they were being removed or decreased but I'm not sure.
Carly replying to a comment from W. K. Lis / July 13, 2011 at 02:11 pm
your so smart.

it totally makes sense to put yourself in danger. even better, why dont all the bikers just try and get hit so we can get a bunch of people hospitalized due to their own risks. maybe then people in cars will be so scared of getting sued that noone will drive. and you guys get ALLLL the road space?

why is sharing and banding together so hard in times where its needed. i think we al agree that bikers and drivers shouldnt be in the same lanes. but does it make sense to create a issue between the two causing the problems to evolve?
DJP / July 13, 2011 at 02:14 pm
Disgusting and sad. I think I want to move. I'm tired of waiting for Toronto to wake up to the 21st century and I've had it with this mayor and the circus he's made of City Hall.
M / July 13, 2011 at 02:18 pm
Great idea! The less bikers on the road the better. I know that sounds awful - but the few "bad" bikers in the city will at least be off those roads - though I do feel bad for those "good" bikers (by good I mean law abiding) that will lose yet another route in the city.
Just Sayin' replying to a comment from Carly / July 13, 2011 at 02:19 pm
Carly, in the absence of dedicated bike lanes, bike's have a legal right to share the full lane, not squish to the side.

I'm actually all for it; I have some hopes that in doing so, it will reiterate to bikers that they're not zipping along on the sides of the roads - and therefore, the rules of the road - and thus have a responsibility to obey all traffic signs/laws. (I'm pro-bike-lane, but anti-stupid-or-illegal-biking.)

Use the middle of the lane like a car. Don't zip through red lights. Use hand signals for stopping/turning. Stop for streetcars, etc.
Human Fly replying to a comment from Carly / July 13, 2011 at 02:20 pm
Mammo's thumb only listens to car drivers. The only way to get that thumb to flip up for bike lanes is if enough drivers complain about cyclists getting in their way.
Human Fly replying to a comment from M / July 13, 2011 at 02:21 pm
Sorry, M, the "bad bikers" aren't going away. They're just going to be directly in front of your car instead of out of the way in their own lane.
M replying to a comment from W. K. Lis / July 13, 2011 at 02:22 pm
And it's thinking like that that will put motorists, pedestrians and fellow bikers in danger just because you are pissed off. Way to go. No wonder people disklike bikers so much - and I am really only speaking to those with a mentality (read: infantile) like you.
DJP / July 13, 2011 at 02:24 pm
M, more bikes actually makes conditions safer for everyone. Less bikes on the road is never a good thing, no matter how you slice it. You also don't improve people's cycling habits by removing bike lanes. What kind of absurd twisted logic is that?!? How about investing in public education, training, media campaigns, etc ... none of which the City has ever had the funds to do in any meaningful way.
Elaine / July 13, 2011 at 02:26 pm
The TOTAL COST of ridding the Jarvis and Scarborough bike lanes will be over $400,000. This, after the ridiculous penny-pinching city cuts recommended by KMPG. Because all of this makes total sense.
C / July 13, 2011 at 02:30 pm
Can someone map these votes?
Sam I Am replying to a comment from Gonzo / July 13, 2011 at 02:36 pm
Abortions for all!
M replying to a comment from DJP / July 13, 2011 at 02:36 pm
DJP - I do agree with you about the public awareness - I think I would be more onside with bikers if there was more of a movement to make bikers aware that they too are "driving" a "vehicle" and they cannot and should not feel that they are above the rules of the roadd. I guess I am just pretty jaded about this topic. But you do make some great points, I will give you that.
Emz / July 13, 2011 at 02:37 pm
I realize that there are big differences between North America and Europe.. but after reading this article, I can't help but recall my time in Copenhagen, Denmark..
Mark / July 13, 2011 at 02:41 pm
A lot of 'brave' cyclists on this comment board. Go ahead and try to take up the whole lane. Hope you have your cemetery plot purchased as sooner or later someone will hit you. Do you still pout and cry when mommy and daddy are late with your allowance too? Grow up.
M replying to a comment from Sam I Am / July 13, 2011 at 02:42 pm
And that has WHAT to do with this? Ignorant.
Richard / July 13, 2011 at 02:46 pm
Welcome to the future of biking/driving relations in Toronto:
Antony replying to a comment from Mark / July 13, 2011 at 02:48 pm
Mark responds to adults discussing how to safely and legally get around town by suggesting they prepare for death, as they are like children to him.
Paul / July 13, 2011 at 02:49 pm
This decision was truly saddening. The mushy middle went decisively with the right - they should have been the targets of the call Ford campaign.

Will continue cycling Jarvis, and start hauling a bike trailer, with one of my daughter's dolls in it.
Joseph / July 13, 2011 at 02:53 pm
I think the best way to decongest our city's streets would be to keep fatasses like Rob Ford off of them. That should free up more than enough lanes.
JoeParez replying to a comment from M / July 13, 2011 at 02:55 pm
He's referring to the Simpsons quote made earlier in the comment section -- relax. :-P

As for the cyclists that are saying "LET'S TAKE UP THE WHOLE LANE", let me tell you as a motorist, what I perceive this statement to be. That you're upset at motorists for the elimination of the bike lanes and not your government. I don't normally drive on Jarvis, but if you're going to act out loud to piss people off, then understand that you're going to put yourself in danger. I can see alot of cyclists just taking a quaint stroll in the lane without noticing that the posted speed limit is 50 km/h. As a human being, I don't want to see that; however, if you're doing it as you're legal right to be on the road and out of SILENT PROTEST, make sure you take care of yourselves out there. It sounds like it's about to get ugly.

I'm in favour of sharing the roads and I hope for the best for cyclists, but lets hope cooler heads prevail and cyclists can get what they want and not put themselves in danger.

Alex replying to a comment from Sam I Am / July 13, 2011 at 02:58 pm
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
Jay replying to a comment from JoeParez / July 13, 2011 at 03:04 pm
As someone who has ridden both the bike lanes of Jarvis, and it's previous state - it's narrow without. Moreso than a lot of streets.

And as a fairly confident and safe cyclist, I do feel the need to take up more of the lane to feel safe - which could slow down traffic further. I can take up however much of the lane I need to feel safe. I hope that motorists are aware of this right to all who travel the road.
DJP replying to a comment from JoeParez / July 13, 2011 at 03:05 pm

Cyclists had what they wanted - space to be out of harms's way. That's why this setback is so depressing.

I think we're all in favour of sharing the road, which is what is currently happening -> ~14m of motorized traffic lanes, ~2.5m of bike lanes. Dedicated the entire width to mixed traffic, with those kinds of volumes, is not sharing.

Also, if a lane is too narrow for autos and bike to ride side-by-side, then cyclists are supposed to take the entire lane. This is the law and this is the case on Jarvis, since under the 5 lane scenario, each is only about 3m wide. Although it doesn't feel like it, it's actually safer for cyclists to take the lane on Jarvis. If cyclists try to ride against the curb (which many tend to do since traffic is so intimidating on this street), it encourages motorists to pass dangerously close to them. Again, this is why this council vote is awful in so many ways.
Penner / July 13, 2011 at 03:06 pm
I live at Church and Charles and I drive on Jarvis on a weekly basis (although not during rush hour). I also bike on Jarvis on a much less frequent basis. I saw no problem with the Jarvis bike lanes, but I think I would actually prefer to ride in a separated bike lane on Sherbourne. Still, this seems like a waste of money for what is essentially a sideways move.

For what its worth, I've cycled in major cities in China and they have separated bike lanes, and its a very good system. But they have probably 5 times the car traffic and 10 times the bike traffic, so I'm probably comparing apples to oranges.
Antony replying to a comment from JoeParez / July 13, 2011 at 03:07 pm
Joe, this is not about spite or pissing people off. If you look at the statistics for road crashes involving bicycles, it's much more dangerous to ride in the gutter of major streets than to take the whole lane.
lemonshark / July 13, 2011 at 03:07 pm
riders are by law entitled to the lane, it seems.

If drivers have issue with that, they should take up as well with their councillor to get bike lanes.

I see little progress being made so long as city hall council makes snippy comments on "running down/taking out cyclists" and ignoring, walking out of presentations or not even listening to the pro lane side. I'd like to see some working together with drivers but as long as we have this council, I think its a pipe dream.

Its a bit unfair to say the cyclists have to make all the concessions. If drivers can't spare a 1,5 m lane, then they're going to have to live with us taking the main lane.

(oh and before you harp on Bad bikers, I just watched two cars plow through yonge/college intersection nearly running down 10-15 people at a go, yelling at people for being legally where they were allowed to be. )
Kieren replying to a comment from Mark / July 13, 2011 at 03:07 pm
Sounds like motorists are the ones whining about everything from bike lanes to gas to road quality.

Maybe they should grow up.

Jer / July 13, 2011 at 03:18 pm
Kristyn Wong-Tam for mayor.
The Liquor / July 13, 2011 at 03:22 pm
this city sucks
GRA / July 13, 2011 at 03:25 pm
I'm curious: for those who regularly use the existing Jarvis lanes, why the uproar about switching to Sherbourne? (Taxpayer money aside and assuming Jarvis is not removed prior to Sherbourne being completed)
VaMukaro / July 13, 2011 at 03:29 pm
$200 000 buys more gravy than $0 would ... That alternate lane not only causes confusion it gives a false sense of adequacy of lanes ... I wonder which of Dictator Ford's private sector friends is gonna get that contract ??

A lot of what's going on at city hall don't make sense and smells foul , very foul

Who voted for these goons ?!

At least we no the names of all the dumbies ! No mistake of voting for them again !!
Human Fly replying to a comment from GRA / July 13, 2011 at 03:37 pm
"why the uproar about switching to Sherbourne?"

how would mostorists react if they were told there were no more car lanes on Jarvis, but that's okay they can use the car lanes on Sherbourne? Would you still say why the uproar?

The uproar is over the fact that we're going backwards instead of forwards. The uproar is over the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent to remove bike lanes when those very same bike lanes are encouraging more cyclists to get on the road and are not having a detrimental effect on motorized traffic flow. It is an incredible waste of money and the only thing it will accomplish is to put people in danger.
APOW / July 13, 2011 at 03:38 pm
finally i have more room for my hummer all these bikers or skin ramps as i like to call them will get in my way whenever i'm down on jarvis.
Joe M. / July 13, 2011 at 03:39 pm
As an experienced cyclist I'm not too worried about the bike lanes disappearing, but I can see how less experienced riders won't enjoy having to 'hog' a third of a car lane with rage-filled drivers ramming them from behind and running them over while complaining that Cyclists Always Ignore Traffic Laws.
Joe M. / July 13, 2011 at 03:40 pm
As an experienced cyclist I'm not too worried about the bike lanes disappearing, but I can see how less experienced riders won't enjoy having to 'hog' a third of a car lane with rage-filled drivers ramming them from behind and running them over while complaining that Cyclists Always Ignore Traffic Laws.
DJP replying to a comment from GRA / July 13, 2011 at 03:43 pm
GRA, This question is raised quite often. The short answer is, because many people need access to places on and adjacent to Jarvis, not Sherbourne. Many people live, work, and play on Jarvis. A bike lane on Sherbourne doesn't help you access your apartment on Jarvis, for example. Jarvis provides important access to local destinations, just as any other street would.

We can't always be thinking of bike lanes as something for riding through a neighbourhood. For some, this is true, but for many, it's about safer local access.

Also note that clearly there's demand for Jarvis, since after only a year, the number of cyclists using the new bike lane tripled. It would also be nice to know how the counts compared on Sherbourne, but I'm not sure the City conducted such a "control count".
Some Guy / July 13, 2011 at 03:49 pm
It's suburbia 3, Downtown 0.

To the cyclists who are going to take the whole lane: If you do so, I'm fine with it. But if you want to be treated as traffic, stop squeezing by on my right. TYou cannot have it both ways. Either you are traffic, or you are roadkill.
zurgy / July 13, 2011 at 03:50 pm
ayo, rob ford, i'll remove them shits for a cool $100,000. i know you tryina trim that fat. get at me
samt / July 13, 2011 at 03:51 pm
The Sherbourne Street bike lane is more rough than the cobbles of Paris-Roubaix.
I ll pay you money if you can go one light to the next while sitting on your saddle.
Of course that money will go towards your saddle sore treatment..
Gladfly / July 13, 2011 at 03:54 pm
Ford is my hero, he is cleaning up this town!
jennifer replying to a comment from GRA / July 13, 2011 at 03:56 pm
Sherbourne right now is a mess to bike on. Pot holes, parked cars, a bus...lots to deal with. Jarvis is a smoother ride. What will happen is that Sherbourne won't be patched up with a good lane for a while, and we will lose Jarvis immediately. So what do we do?

I'm so mad at Ford, and my own idiot councillor too.
S Barringer / July 13, 2011 at 04:00 pm
This is a step backward for all cyclists. Any time a bike lane is removed, the cyclist is reminded that the car culture still rules, unfortunately.
Mark replying to a comment from Kieren / July 13, 2011 at 04:00 pm
Drivers aren't the ones crying and whining like little 6 year olds because they lost their bauble. Face it there are a lot more drivers in this town than cyclists. Those drivers have to get to their jobs and back. Before the change, Jarvis worked well for the most people. The addition of an unnecessary bike lane hindered the commute of thousands of people while making a couple hundred (at most) happy. I don't hear any cyclists celebrating the installation of new separate bike lanes on other roads. Nope, only whining about this one street. As I said before, Grow up.
GRA / July 13, 2011 at 04:02 pm
Thanks for the feedback Jennifer, DJ, and Human Fly. I can comiserate about Sherbourne - as I kid I used to ride to and from the lake on it and it was a mess then - but safer for a 14 year old than riding on Jarvis. I live in a different part of Toronto now and my riding is with my kids and not in the core.

Next question: I can't find on any maps with the proposed bike lanes and hydro corridors that were voted on today. Anybody have a link? Thanks.
Bubba / July 13, 2011 at 04:08 pm
don't hold your breath for those proposed bike lanes, ain't gonna happen.
DJP replying to a comment from Some Guy / July 13, 2011 at 04:17 pm
Some Guy, it's not about having it both ways. Cyclists are to always ride on the right side unless there isn't room, in which case, they are to take the full lane. On Jarvis, there isn't enough room. Although traffic is so heavy, that cyclists often aren't comfortable taking the lane as they should. This creates a very dangerous, not to mention uncomfortable, situation.
Jaclyn / July 13, 2011 at 04:19 pm
As someone who uses the Pharmacy bike lane on a regular basis (and I admit, they're aren't very many of us), I will be sad to see it go. However, it's such a short route and the road is in such bad shape, so I'm not sure installing it in the first place was the best idea - but to now remove it seems a senseless waste of time and money.

But, I can't complain too much because the second half of my commute to work (Scarborough Town Centre) is being significantly improved with the upgrades to the Gatineau Hydro Corridor bike path - something that I'm glad went ahead before Ford and his minions (including my own unfortunate councillor, Michelle Berardinetti) could stop it. But who knows, maybe they'll decide two years from now to rip all that out too!
Human FLy replying to a comment from Mark / July 13, 2011 at 04:24 pm
"Drivers aren't the ones crying and whining like little 6 year olds"

No, instead they're making death threats to any cyclist who dares ride in their lane. That is more mature how?

"Face it there are a lot more drivers in this town than cyclists."

Which is why traffic is so bad. Get more people out of their cars and on to bikes and you will see less congestion on the roads.

"Those drivers have to get to their jobs and back."

Cyclists also have to get to work. Why are we considered less important?

"Before the change, Jarvis worked well for the most people."

Wrong. According to the study that the city paid for, Jarvis did not work well. It was a dangerous street and the middle lane was confusing to many people. That's why council originally put the bike lanes in (and many who voted against the bike lanes today voted for those very same bike lanes last year, including Mammoliti - proving the Fordists just love to waste tax dollars).

"The addition of an unnecessary bike lane hindered the commute of thousands of people while making a couple hundred (at most) happy."

The truth is, the bike lanes hindered no one. They added, at most, a few minutes to car trips. Meanwhile bike use tripled, not because the bike lanes made cyclists "happy", but because they made cyclists feel safe.
Joe M. replying to a comment from GRA / July 13, 2011 at 04:28 pm
To my knowledge, there is no plan, the whole bike-lanes-along-hydro-corridors was just an idea mentioned during the election. There likely won't be any more bike lanes, and even if they built trails along hydro corridors it's not like those trails would serve most urban cyclists. When I want to get from St. Clair/Bathurst to Yonge/Queen it's necessary to ride on the road. Unless Rob Ford demolishes large swaths of the city, seperated bike trails seem pretty foolish considering WE ALREADY HAVE AN EXTENSIVE NETWORK OF PAVED ROADS. :-)
mike / July 13, 2011 at 04:29 pm
this is why people needto getout and vote
DJP replying to a comment from Mark / July 13, 2011 at 04:38 pm

You missed the mark (pardon the pun) on several points, so I will address them in order...

"Face it there are a lot more drivers in this town than cyclists."

Is that any surprise given how we've been building the city for the past several decades? If you look at areas of the city that support cycling better, cycling rates are actually very high. The point is this auto-oriented model of city building has to change. Hence my point about Toronto being stuck in the dark ages.

"Those drivers have to get to their jobs and back."

Cyclists have jobs too. Interestingly, they tend to be the higher paid and more professional types.

"Before the change, Jarvis worked well for the most people."

Not for cyclists and pedestrians.

"The addition of an unnecessary bike lane hindered the commute of thousands of people while making a couple hundred (at most) happy."

It had no impact on vehicle volumes and only slightly increased vehicle travel times. The City's counts showed the number of cyclists using the lanes after only a year tripled to 890. This is a remarkable increase and based on experience elsewhere, there is no reason to suspect the trend would not continue.

"I don't hear any cyclists celebrating the installation of new separate bike lanes on other roads."

Because is hasn't happened yet and they are hugely complicated to design and build, not to mention controversial. Based on the contempt this council appears to hold for cyclists, I'm sure few cyclists expect them to do a good job of it. These are only empty promises. Frankly, the city should be doing both. All streets, ultimately, should be safely accessible to everyone, regardless of how we choose to travel. We already have bike lanes on Jarvis - their removal is very real.

"As I said before, Grow up."

I think we would all appreciate it if you would grow up and read up on the topic before commenting.
Mark replying to a comment from mike / July 13, 2011 at 04:39 pm
This is why people voted last time.
Mark replying to a comment from Human FLy / July 13, 2011 at 04:41 pm
Wrong on all counts Human Fly. Miller's 'study' said what he wanted it to. That 'few minutes' hindrence adds up when compounded by thousands of cars, day after day. All for a couple hundred bikers. Sorry you lost your precious bike lane that will be replaced by more and improved ones one street over. Grow up, you can't always have things just the way you like it. And motorists are only replying to the petulance and whining put forth by the militant cyclists who are vowing to make driving more difficult just to prove that they are so important that they can't share the road like normal people.
Gladfly replying to a comment from Mark / July 13, 2011 at 04:49 pm
Go Ford Go!
Adam H. replying to a comment from Mark / July 13, 2011 at 04:51 pm
Mark, clean the sand out of your nethers. What's happening now is that "militant" cyclists are no longer going to appease drivers by taking less of the lane than they are legally allowed to use, as the vehicles that bicycles really are.

I hope you're not too used to cyclists leaving less than a metre between themselves and the curb, because a minimum of 1 metre from the curb or parked cars is where I am riding from now on, and I'm going to encourage anyone I see riding closer than that to move out for their own safety. The MTO recommends exactly that, and I see no reason to gainsay them.

Of course, that means that drivers can no longer pass cyclists without changing lanes; that's the law. Cyclists obey the law, drivers obey the law. That's what everybody wants, right?
DJP replying to a comment from Mark / July 13, 2011 at 04:56 pm
Mark, nobody is suggesting Jarvis be used for bikes only. There are 4 vehicle lanes. This is sharing the road like normal people.

You are suggesting that a couple of minutes faster travel for vehicles is worth compromising safety. I hope you honestly don't believe this.
Dilla replying to a comment from Mark / July 13, 2011 at 04:57 pm
Wait, aren'y you saying you can't (won't) share the road with cyclists? If you did want to share it, wouldn't you be FOR bike lanes? Who's self important, again?
dupont bike lanes kill me / July 13, 2011 at 05:07 pm
hopefully they'll get rid of the ones on dupont too
mikeb / July 13, 2011 at 05:08 pm
From the article "Jarvis will eventually be returned to its former state — i.e. a fifth signaled traffic lane will be re-installed — despite the fact that the original staff recommendation for the street called, which called for additional pedestrian space."

City council override staff often. In this case they did it twice. That's what they are elected do.

Zorpheous replying to a comment from Mark / July 13, 2011 at 05:10 pm
That's right Mark, road safety and cyclist safety are just "Baubles"

So I guess saving less than two minutes for a car drive from the top of Jarvis to the bottom is worth a persons life or safety. The couple hundred was actually just under 900 and growing

"I don't hear any cyclists celebrating the installation of new separate bike lanes on other roads. " And which new bike lanes are these, we have the promise from a lying fat man that we will get a few more bike paths somewhere in the future (if we have the money) Excuse me if I am not jumping for joy
steve / July 13, 2011 at 05:15 pm
This is less to do about bike lanes and more about vengeance. Rob does not like David Miller, even though he won the election and Miller is gone, he has this childish need to punish miller by breaking the corner stone to his election campaign 'respect for the taxpayer'
He is using the inner city to unleash his tantrums, feeling that those in the core still support Miller and will not support him. He has fulfilled his own prophecy by continuing to alienate the city. Destroying neighborhoods does not garner support.
Jarvis is a residential street from top top bottom. It should never have been an on and off ramp to bypass the inner city.
What will it cost to piece the city back together after Rob and his comrades are gone. Miller spent a lot of money to do that, too much many say, but he got results.
Clair Ify replying to a comment from Rob / July 13, 2011 at 05:25 pm
@ The lanes are already on Birchmount and Pharmacy. It's not ludicrous. I see bikes out there all the time, and believe me, they need those lanes.
pinkhair / July 13, 2011 at 05:34 pm
Ford is the Man! He's fixing the city. Two Snaps up!
mikeb replying to a comment from steve / July 13, 2011 at 05:37 pm
It has everything to do with bike lanes. Ford and the current majority of council are clearly not fans of them. I also think you underestimate how unpopular taking away the 5th lane on Jarvis was. Residents of Matlow's ward and those north were making a stink about removing the lane for pedestrians long before the bike lanes were proposed. If you don't remember, pull up online archives from before the last vote. Sticking it to those downtown progressives is just "gravy" in this case.

Like it or not, Jarvis is a natural route for bypassing much of the core of the city to go north. It has been since 1940s when it was widened. It's also the only street between Yonge and the Don Valley that has access north of Rosedale Valley--Sherbourne ends in Rosedale, Parliament at Bloor while Church goes west. That doesn't have to preclude bikes using it.
Poopschnapps / July 13, 2011 at 05:39 pm
With the angry nutbags driving in downtown Toronto, bicyclists taking the full lane, will just be suicidal. Or even worse, you'll be left severely crippled and disfigured.

It's risky for pedestrians too. I was considering buying a little condo downtown. Now, Forrrrr-get it. They can stay on the market and rot.
W. K. Lis / July 13, 2011 at 05:44 pm
Did the price of gasoline drop below $1.00 a litre? Why are we giving more roadspace to the automobile when we are paying so much for fuel? Oh, I forgot, Rob and Doug are millionaires, its no problem for them. And the other councilors are genuflecting before them.
Sal / July 13, 2011 at 05:46 pm
As someone who lives there (Rides a bike and drives). I would be ok with this if they made the fine for any automobile that stops on Jarvis huge. The lanes to me always tended to let drivers know that they shouldn't be stopping on the road. Which has almost caused me serious injury many times.

Though, this does seem like a huge waste of money spent getting to this point, only to spend more money to reverse it. I thought we were on a tight budget. This seems like we aren't...
Elizabeth / July 13, 2011 at 05:48 pm
re JoeParez' comment: "I can see alot of cyclists just taking a quaint stroll in the lane without noticing that the posted speed limit is 50 km/h.";

A speed limit of 50 km/hr is not telling drivers to drive at 50 km/hr; it is posted to tell drivers that they cannot exceed that speed.

The following is copied directly from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation website (

"[C]yclists should ride one meter from the curb or close to the right hand edge of the road when there is no curb, unless they are turning left, going faster than other vehicles or if the lane is too narrow to share. [...] In urban areas where a curb lane is too narrow to share safely with a motorist, it is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it."

and please see the following from

"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."

I am both a car driver, TTC user and cyclist. In spite of the frankly rather small percentage of ornery car drivers, bicycling is my preferred method of transportation. It's generally as fast if not faster than driving or TTC. It costs less - not just for me personally but for the city as well. Unlike cars and trucks, the lighter weight bicycles are far less hard on the road surface, not to mention that the fuel required to run them is much cleaner.
S / July 13, 2011 at 06:01 pm
YESSSS. Time to undo the mess Miller created!!!!!!!!!
P / July 13, 2011 at 06:47 pm
No Transit City
No Fort York Bridge
No Jarvis Bike Lanes
No gravy found from Consultants
No appearance at any Pride event

Say what you want about Miller, but at least he had a vision of what this city could become, tried his best to do it and had the guts to speak to the residents and media of Toronto.
Jeremy / July 13, 2011 at 06:50 pm
As someone who frequently uses Jarvis as a means for transportation both by vehicle and by bike, I never really noticed much difference in traffic when the bike lanes got put in. Seems kinda foolish to take them out. Plus, getting rid of that middle lane with the rotating directions will make it much easier for tourists that didn't know what to do with the middle lane and would end up making really stupid (and dangerous) left hand turns.

Looking at who voted for what, it bothers me that so many (all?) councillors from the east end voted to remove the lane. I wonder if any of them even considered the alternative.
anonymous replying to a comment from Wes / July 13, 2011 at 06:58 pm
Leaside is in East York, not historic Toronto.
anonymous replying to a comment from Mark / July 13, 2011 at 07:03 pm
Schoolyard threats. Spoken like a true adult. Never really grew up past being a petty bully, did ya?
anonymous replying to a comment from GRA / July 13, 2011 at 07:05 pm
How would you feel if they closed Jarvis to automobile traffic because Sherbourne is right there?
anonymous replying to a comment from Mark / July 13, 2011 at 07:08 pm
The thing is, it's not sustainable for most of Torontonians trips to be in automobiles. Not because of some pansy environmental hippie nonsense (well, yes, because of that), but (also) because downtown roads can't keep getting more car lanes, but downtown housing & employment will keep growing. More efficient alternatives are the only long-term solution.
anonymous replying to a comment from mikeb / July 13, 2011 at 07:12 pm
Bayview is between Yonge and the Don and goes from Queen all the way north to Newmarket.
A cyclist who will be taking an ENTIRE lane on Jarvis replying to a comment from Elizabeth / July 13, 2011 at 08:12 pm

The following is copied directly from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation website (

"[C]yclists should ride one meter from the curb or close to the right hand edge of the road when there is no curb, unless they are turning left, going faster than other vehicles or if the lane is too narrow to share. [...] IN URBAN AREAS WHERE A CURB LANE IS TOO NARROW TO SHARE SAFELY WITH A MOTORIST, IT IS LEGAL TO TAKE THE WHOLE LANE BY RIDING IN THE CENTRE OF IT."

and please see the following from

"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."
JoeParez replying to a comment from Elizabeth / July 13, 2011 at 08:37 pm
Elizabeth; I know what the posted speed limit means, please don't patronize me as I do understand the rules of sharing the road with cyclists.

My initial comment was made out of a fear of cyclists revolting in spite of motorists and putting themselves in danger or starting an unnecessary war. Pardon me if I'm the rare one who is not only concerned my safety, but others on the road with me.

I will go toe to toe with cyclists when there is a dispute, but as an advocate of a progressive city, it's a shame to see something as simple as bike lanes being eliminated.

@ ANTONY, DJP, JAY -- Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
rek / July 13, 2011 at 09:16 pm
What a fucking joke. Ford and his muppets are out to destroy this city for anyone not living the suburban dream of SUVs and malls.
iSkyscraper / July 13, 2011 at 09:27 pm
Sign seen posted outside the city limits:


Welcome to Toronto!
Rob Ford, Mayor.
Population: 2.2 million autos

Some of recent accomplishments:

- Only city in North America to cancel a funded LRT!
- Only major city in North America whose mayor ignored its gay pride festival!
- Only major city in Western Hemisphere to build negative km of bike lanes a year!

We hope you enjoy driving through on your way to nicer cities elsewhere. Bye bye!

Moony / July 13, 2011 at 09:43 pm
As a resident on Jarvis St. and a daily user of the entire length of the bike lanes, this decision is absolutely deplorable and beyond common sense.

What was the motive for removing the bike lanes? The only reason given by councillors (and people on this site) is that it has increased congestion and gridlock. Nothing else. This isn't even based on reality.

The study has indicated that congestion remains unchanged, and car travel times have increased by approximately 2 minutes, WHICH CAN LIKELY BE RECTIFIED by recalibrating the left-turn signal at Gerrard.

Meanwhile, cycling has increased 300%.

What kind of logic is it, to fix the supposed issue by immediately choosing the most expensive option -- remove the bike lanes and reinstall the 5th lane -- at a cost of over $200K? Not even bothering to try the cheaper, obviously easier option of recalibrating the traffic signals? That's not respect for taxpayers. That's simply dogmatic, spiteful governance.

The other glaring issue people who don't live in the area don't seem to understand is the fact that Jarvis St. has become essentially a highway for suburbanites. It is acting as pseudo-border. Everything east of Jarvis is poorly developed and neglected.

The real purpose of the bike lanes was to abolish that division, so as to create unity between the east and west areas of Jarvis, strengthening the area as an actual, singular neighbourhood. It's part of the Jarvis St. beautification project whose aim was to make it a more livable, pedestrian-friendly neighbourhood.

But now, without those lanes, that project is as good as dead. This is actually the most important loss.
Tim replying to a comment from steve / July 13, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Here's an article describing the ward boundary topic (

"… if five hundred people sign a petition to have council change the ward boundaries, and council doesn’t respond within ninety days, “the electors who signed the petition may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.” That could put council in the position of having a solution dictated to them, instead of solving the problem themselves. …"

I agree that most people that support Ford are extremely regressive. The options that I see are:
1) re-districting
2) de-amalgamation
3) People with progressive values coalescing into a voting bloc (or/unless we can bring in run-off voting)

It's like the Taliban are running the city
DJP replying to a comment from Moony / July 13, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Moony, I couldn't agree more. Well written!
steve replying to a comment from mikeb / July 13, 2011 at 10:09 pm
It is not 1940 it is 2011, the exodus from DT to the suburbs is over, in many ways it has reversed. To move people out of the core to the suburbs and beyond has been addressed in a much better manner with the DVP, The Gardner, the 401, the 427 among others.
It is time to put Jarvis back to what is was, a residential street running through several neighborhoods.
This is vital to the growth and economic development of DT east side.
Miller saw that, he wimped out and just added bike lanes, but it was an important gesture none the less.
Fords reasoning for keeping this senseless highway that stifles development and divides peoples neighborhoods is purely spiteful. There is no reason for taking out the bike lanes and returning the centre lane. He has a report that tells him that. Yet he and his suburban counterparts have chosen to ignore that. needlessly spending 200K, tax money he takes from the very people who live DT. Some respect for the taxpayer
McRib / July 13, 2011 at 10:22 pm
He certainly is a jolly fat man, especially when sticking it to his constituents.

Thanks Roberto!
Enjonze replying to a comment from Carly / July 13, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Cyclists AND drivers are often both terrible. Both need to improve their skills, obey the law, and show some basic decency to each other.

The other day, I was making a left hand turn in a very quiet, low-traffic residential neighbourhood. I signaled and moved into the centre of the lane to turn. An idiot in a car behind me(who MUST have seen me signal) speeds up, crosses the dividing line into the oncoming lane and makes a right-hand turn in front of me, cutting me off as I'm beginning the left-hand turn. WTF?! And they want to licence cyclists where there are licenced DRIVERS on the road doing this sort of nonsense?!
Enjonze replying to a comment from Enjonze / July 13, 2011 at 10:49 pm
I was cycling of course, if that wasn't obvious.
tim_s / July 13, 2011 at 10:49 pm
We won't see the off-road trails that are promised as Ford's alternative to bike lanes. Some have been built this spring, but they're projects initiated by the previous administration. The paths to be built atop the Bluffs were delayed for local consultation (unlike the Jarvis changes) at today's Council meeting. There are signs posted to trees above the Bluffs telling people to get out to public meetings to oppose them. There is graffiti on the road at the bottom of Chine Dr. that reads:


Even these mostly unhelpful recreational paths will be killed in Rob Ford's Toronto. The area above the Bluffs will remain an unofficial off-leash dog run. The same dynamic will probably take place in other areas where bike paths are suggested through what now is green space mostly enjoyed only by locals. The first KPMG report suggested spending on bike infrastructure was a possible area for cost saving. This will be used as the necessary excuse come budget time to avoid building the promised off-road paths and maybe even the separated lanes on Sherbourne.
Chris / July 13, 2011 at 11:23 pm
What's the endgame here? As someone already pointed out, the population in the downtown core is skyrocketing. Look at the two new condos built at the top of Jarvis. Are all these people expected to be driving? Wider roads cannot be built anymore in the downtown core unless we start taking away sidewalks, digging under the city, or building gardiner expressways. How is getting rid of bikes not going to cause more congestion? How is killing an extensive transit plan not going to cause more congestion? How do these people want to solve the issue of congestion as I've heard nothing to this effect.
Andrew / July 13, 2011 at 11:39 pm
Thank god. I'm so glad for this! I'm sick of driving up the street and having to move over for a cyclist who doesn't stay within the lines because I'm scared I'm going to hit them. I'm also fed up with cyclists not following the rules of the road and stopping at red lights and stop signs. The cyclists think they can do what they want. This looks good on cyclists who fight for rights, when they're the ones who don't follow the rules of the road, they can disagree with me all they want but they know they're wrong! I'm all for this. Cyclists should also have to pay for bicycle insurance each year, and be charged by police when pulled over and they're not in possession of this insurance. This insurances covers running pulling over at walkways when blowing red lights and stop signs and being held 100% accountable for their actions.
Ashley Watson / July 13, 2011 at 11:53 pm
I interned in Toronto for 9 weeks and back in New York now but I love Toronto so I think two things need to happen to prevent your beloved city from being "Americanized" are to vote this current administration out at the next election and take advantage of that law that cyclists can use full lane for their navigation. Go cyclists and Toronto!
you/re not very bright replying to a comment from Andrew / July 14, 2011 at 12:12 am
well now instead of watching out for cyclists that aren't staying in the lines of the bike lane, you can watch out for cyclists that are in the same lane as you!

and you really consider this a win?
you/re not very bright replying to a comment from Andrew / July 14, 2011 at 12:14 am
and as for the rest of your post, blah blah insurance blah bad cyclists blah blah blah.

thanks pal. highly insightful stuff you're coming up with here.
Cyclist who will now be in your lane / July 14, 2011 at 12:28 am
Please feel free to pass on the left. The passing lane as it were. :)

This fat coward is on a mission to increase tensions in this city tenfold. Mission accomplished yet he wants more.
DJP replying to a comment from Ashley Watson / July 14, 2011 at 12:36 am
Would love to, but unfortunately these monkeys were just voted in recently. Would you be interested in trading Rob Ford for Janit Sadik-Khan?
Elha / July 14, 2011 at 12:43 am
I'm actually considering learning how to ride a bike just so I can take up a whole lane and annoy the hell out of the drivers.
W. K. Lis / July 14, 2011 at 07:46 am
Bike lanes on University Avenue was lost by a single vote on city council last year. Lets start with University Avenue.

Therefore, all bicyclists should use up the entire right lanes on University. If a vehicle is parked in a right lane, shift over to the center lane but take up the whole center lane as you bike past the parked vehicle, but moving back over to the right lane.
tripper replying to a comment from Andrew / July 14, 2011 at 10:35 am
Even when they remove bike lanes on Jarvis I'm still going to cycle there. Only I'll be taking up the entire lane, as is my legal right. Pass on the left, please.
anonymous replying to a comment from Andrew / July 14, 2011 at 10:48 am
Yet when you drive on the 401, you're constantly thinking "man all these drivers are doing the safe, legal thing, every time" ? Probably not. Drivers and cyclists are both terrible, but as a driver your mind Others the cyclists because they're different.
John Spragge / July 14, 2011 at 11:45 am
As motorists vote for more car traffic, more gridlock, more frustration, and higher fuel costs, then snicker and claim they "won", I can only tell them not to enjoy the "victory" too long. The inactive lifestyle enabled and symbolised by the car causes almost the same array of debilitating and life-shortening conditions as cigarette smoking. Mayor Ford can claim to make it easier for you to drive, but he can't make driving healthier for you, he can't make car dependence practical for this city, and he can't do anything about the inexorable upward pressure on fuel costs.
mikeb replying to a comment from anonymous / July 14, 2011 at 01:13 pm
Bayview, south of St Clair, does however lie in the Don Valley thus my statement "It's also the only street between Yonge and the Don Valley" stands.
mikeb replying to a comment from steve / July 14, 2011 at 01:29 pm
I'm sorry but Jarvis has been a residential street with traffic running through it since the wealthy moved north into Rosedale a hundred years ago. Blathering on about the suburbs and highways when Jarvis and by extension Mt Pleasant go to neither indicates to me that you are blowing a lot of smoke. Whether or not there is an extra lane for cars, two bike lanes or just extended space for pedestrians is certainly not vital to the growth and economic development of the east side.
JoeParez replying to a comment from John Spragge / July 14, 2011 at 02:24 pm
What is this? I don't even.

I'm a motorist.
I'm not claiming that I've won.

I drive, but I also cycle, play volleyball, ball hockey and golf. I also sing, play guitar and write songs.

You sir, are an idiot.
But you just want to hear yourself talk and say your big words to make you sound important on the internet. Good for you.
Nelly / July 14, 2011 at 05:09 pm
a mass bike action down jarvis next week:
AZ / July 15, 2011 at 01:13 am
This is Ford's master plan. By turning every biking/public transit event into a money-wasting mess, he is making the public associate both issues with disaster. The same thing will happen with the ridiculous subway extensions he's making. They are in obscure areas where no one will ride them. In a few years, if they actually get finished, he will say, "Look at all the money and time that went into this project, and look at the results." He is doing all this on purpose.
Josh / July 15, 2011 at 09:26 am
Every morning I head from the annex to George and Adelaide. Even though Jarvis has bike lines on it I still opt to take Church, despite it's lack of bike lanes the road is way more even and people don't seem to go as terrifyingly fast 12 inches from my face.
John Spragge replying to a comment from AZ / July 15, 2011 at 03:26 pm
If Mayor Ford had a master plan to make Toroto a car-centric city, I doubt he would have sold off the lands that would have made up the right of way for the Richview Expressway-- the very expressway, proposed in the '50s, that would have whisked him and his brother downtown. Rob Ford has a coherent philosophy of servant government: he believes in giving people what they want. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for traffic planning.
_n / July 16, 2011 at 01:09 am
I don't even know what to say about this at this point except:

After visiting over 30+ global cities, the ones that have put a focus on pedestrian and multi-use needs like cycling have been more enjoyable and livable.

Toronto constantly shoots itself in the foot on these issues. I vote we need an independent elected urban planning board that _does not have ties_ to the current political leaning.

If you are a driver willingly spewing hate like "I'll aim for you if you're on a bike" replace bike with "on foot" or "pushing a stroller" ...stop and listen to what an asshole you sound like for one minute.

I am tired of this constant garbage.
AZ replying to a comment from John Spragge / July 16, 2011 at 07:03 am
That's a pretty weak argument. Rob Ford selling off some land does not prove anything about his policies or goals. If you have any other evidence to back that up, I'd be happy to hear it. As for his servant policy, I agree. All it does is create cheap fixes, but it doesn't work because you can't please everybody and none of these fixes make sense for the long-term.
Joshie / July 17, 2011 at 10:32 pm
really / July 18, 2011 at 11:57 pm
the same reason you drive a car - to get to where you want to go.
now, STOP YELLING please.
charles Hong, May replying to a comment from G / July 19, 2011 at 12:57 pm
To the idiots who bike on Jarvis: I hope you get run over, it;s survival of the fittest. Death to morons.

(From someone who hasn't even owned a car in 5 years)
Darwin on a Bike replying to a comment from charles Hong, May / July 27, 2011 at 08:52 am
Commuting should not be consider a fight for survival. And let's not forget that bicycles are a ridiculously efficient form of transportation.
thalya / August 20, 2011 at 02:36 pm
a todos los mensajes personales salen hoy?

Other Cities: Montreal