City
Jarvis bike lanes to be eliminated
Earlier 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:
- Jarvis bike lanes next on the chopping block?
- Public Works Committee votes to kill Jarvis Bike Lanes
- Rob Ford on removing the Jarvis Street bike lanes
And the vote breakdowns:
On Jarvis:
Birchmount:
Pharmacy:
2011 Bikeway Network Update (note the absence of a number of council members who walked out in disgust):
Photo by Martin Reis in the blogTO Flickr pool
Discussion
148 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
I take it the private funds earmarked for the Jarvis Streetscape Improvements are going to be gone, now?
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.
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. Holyday....is 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.
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.
When I'm driving my car, I hate all things.
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.
How is it better for cars to share a line with cyclists? I don't get it.
This Rob is robbing us, Torontonians.WTF?
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."
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?
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtX8qiC_rXE
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3693420/Road-rage-thug-hits-cyclist.html
Will continue cycling Jarvis, and start hauling a bike trailer, with one of my daughter's dolls in it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. )
Maybe they should grow up.
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 !!
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.
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".
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.
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..
I'm so mad at Ford, and my own idiot councillor too.
Next question: I can't find on toronto.ca any maps with the proposed bike lanes and hydro corridors that were voted on today. Anybody have a link? Thanks.
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!
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.
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.
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?
You are suggesting that a couple of minutes faster travel for vehicles is worth compromising safety. I hope you honestly don't believe this.
THAT's the problem. You think of them as CAR lanes. I as cyclist, and taxpayer, have just as much right to that lane as you do. I don't cycle on the road to block traffic! I cycle to get to where I'm going.
Oh, I forgot, only those in cars should be allowed to get anywhere in Ford's less-and-less livable city. F the rest of us.
City council override staff often. In this case they did it twice. That's what they are elected do.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/cycling-guide/section4.0.shtml)
"[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 http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/cycling-guide/section5.0.shtml
"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.
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.
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.
The following is copied directly from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation website (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/cycling-guide/section4.0.shtml)
"[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 http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/cycling-guide/section5.0.shtml
"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."
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.
----------------------------
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!
-------------------------------
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.
"… 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
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
Thanks Roberto!
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?!
$$SAVE MONEY$$
STOP THE PAVING
LISTEN TO TAXPAYERS
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.
and you really consider this a win?
thanks pal. highly insightful stuff you're coming up with here.
This fat coward is on a mission to increase tensions in this city tenfold. Mission accomplished yet he wants more.
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.
'Nuff said.
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.
https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=163260460413403
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.
now, STOP YELLING please.
(From someone who hasn't even owned a car in 5 years)
http://eru1.myftp.biz/
puneet