City
The death knell rings for the Jarvis Street bike lanes
We all knew this day was coming; the Jarvis Street bike lanes are finished. Starting now, road crews are beginning the process of scratching out the painted curbside markings and carrying out preliminary work on a fifth, reversible vehicle lane. One thing we didn't see coming, though, is the arrival of on-street parking.
New solar-powered meters on the west side of the street between Queen and Bloor, installed last week, represent the final step back to a car-dominated Jarvis. It also sends a message to anyone involved in protesting the changes: on-street car parking is more important than bike lanes.
Rob Ford seems pretty happy work is getting underway. He told the Toronto Sun he "listened to the taxpayers and [did] what they wanted me to do."
The removal of the lanes coincides with a report about to be considered by the public works and infrastructure committee that recommends kicking the existing painted lanes on Wellesley Street up to a fully separated cycling path between Parliament and Queens Park, then up onto Hoskin Avenue.
Spacing said their goodbyes today with a clever and biting series of (Photoshopped) images that show several of the new parking meters bearing dedications to the councillors that voted to remove the lanes earlier this year (follow that link — it's worth it!).
A protest at the removal is planned for later today but there's presently a few supporters sitting in the bike lane blocking the progress of a vehicle painting over the markings. For now, the vehicle seems to be simply driving around the parked protesters.
Here's how the story is unfolding on Twitter:
Photos: Chris Bateman/blogTO and Spacing.
Discussion
89 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Well, at least North Toronto has their precious lane back. No doubt they're jumping for joy.
"The decision to remove the bike lanes from Jarvis is wrong in principle, devastating in perception.
The practical consequences will be bad enough, especially in the years ahead, but the symbolism of such a regressive move is worse. These things are hard to measure, it’s true, but in the eyes of the world, it’s one more sign of a nation in decline, terrified of change, the new US."
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1286168--hume-toronto-diminishes-its-future-by-killing-jarvis-bike-lanes
End of sidewalks and bike lanes! More drive thrus!
And I agree that people who live in the burbs are more likely to have the same type of imbalanced view of city priorities.
also based on your use of the word town - do you even live in the city of toronto? cause if you dont live in toronto I really cannot comprehend why you spend all of your time on blog to comment boards.
Cyclists aren't going anywhere so now they will be in the lane of drivers. Also the speed limits are about to be lowered so now on top of having cyclists in their lane they will also be forced to drive slower. Such a stupid waste of tax dollars removing these lanes.
Not sure what all the griping is about. Yes the Jarvis lanes were sweet but they have simply been moved over one major city block.
"The streets are there to transport people," he said. "They're not there necessarily for cars, they're to transport people, and there's lots of different ways of transporting people," he said. "In fact, one of the original ways was walking."
they are in fact removing the lanes completely. gone.
The point is. When Rob Ford says he "listened to the taxpayers". I wanna know who he is talking about. I live just off Jarvis and I have not heard anyone in my area say they wanted to get rid of the bike lanes. I drive and ride and I think this was a huge mistake.
I live at the corner of Gerrard and Jarvis and the only difference to car traffic I noticed was the lack of carnage while the lanes were in place. Even when the corner was down to one lane each way for several months due to construction traffic moved smoothly.
SHAME ON TORONTO CITY COUNCIL. They will inevitably be on the wrong side of history.
Jarvis has been a major thoroughfare for cars coming into the city core from Gardner/Lakeshore and cars coming into the city core down Mt. Pleasant for as long as I have lived here (1982).
The recent bike lanes were an addition not because the traffic flow on Jarvis began to decline but because our great city councilors keeps testing things out until they get it right or wrong or somewhere in between.
Traffic on Jarvis has been, is and will always be mainly vehicular traffic. That's reality.
The only reason the extra 3m of roadway was used for bike lanes rather than wider sidewalks is because paint was cheaper than moving the curb line.
Returning Jarvis to its ignorant 1960s highway planning roots over the objections of the local councillor and every residents & business association is a stupid, asshole move that will benefit no-one, in the end.
Most cyclists can find a quieter back street to ride on if you take 10 mins to plan a route or know how to handle themselves on a any road regardless of whether there is a bike route or not. It takes about 10 mins to ride down Jarvis from top to bottom is it that big of a deal? Do you really feel safer because of a painted line? Wouldn't you rather be on another street beside one that all the trucks and sports cars are on. Don't follow the painted lines you Lemmings!!!
Cyclist against Cyclist!!! Let's fight over who's route is best and who's this effects the most!!!!
Bike lanes get removed in NYC too! I love it when people take a weekend trip to NYC or a week a in Europe and think biking is so great there, Lanes get removed and replanned all the time in cities thats how they evolve, thats what makes them great cities, dynamic, adaptable, flexible, planning for the present and the future, not just because its always been that way or thats they way its been. THINK. The city tried it were adapting 5 years from now you'll have an alternate route and none of this matter...
Its ignorant of you to think you can step into a neighborhood and say I need more for were I live so i am taking from you. More troublesome it was done without due process. Rob Ford has not step foot in ward 27 or 28 except a for quick in and quick out photo op. He has not talked to he people that live south of Bloor.
To use your language the removal was purely political. If due process was followed to determine removing them was a benefit I would accept that. But that did not happen, Rob Ford decided to remove then for the votes he gets in the suburbs and a vendetta he has against David Miller his first few month in office was to systematically undo all Miller had done.
If anyone is catering to a 'special interest group' it is Rob Ford. he has wasted the city over a million dollars. Typical of a politician like Rob Ford cut back services and government to lavish money on his pet projects and supporters. There is no evidence that removing the lanes will benefit anyone, but plenty of proof the the addition of them benefited many.
Bridge cost = $22million, cost to cancel = $35million
Miller wasted $13million in a single decision.
The "separated" part doesn't work. Cars can easily cross the hump to park on the bicycle lane, while bicycles can't easily cross the hump to get past the parked cars. Plus the lanes have been designed for plenty of right-hooks at intersections. Oh, and they're not wide enough for one bicycle to pass another.
dont be ridiculous.
The bigger issue in my opinion, is the FACT that the entire "justification" for scrapping the Jarvis bike lane was that the loss of the 5th lane was slowing down traffic - particularly for those poor souls in North Toronto. Even though the actual evidence (you know, those tidy little things like "facts" that tends to cause Ford and his accolytes so much difficulty) was that the impact was minimal.
Fine, let's say you accept it as fact that the bike lanes slowed down traffic (again, despite the evidence to the contrary). Tell me then, why in the hell would they scrap bike lanes to replace them with street parking? How exactly does adding street parking to Jarvis speed up traffic? If they had just returned to status quo, that would be one thing, but to add street parking pretty much discredited the primary justification behind removing the lanes. Which then leads one to reasonably conclude that the move was actually about sticking it to Miller-friendly councillors who championed adding the lane, despite the plaintive cries of North Toront. In other words, an act of political revenge.
Hopefully we come to our damned senses in 2014 and elect a centrist mayor - I'm tired of this left/right shift. All these jokers ever want to do is waste our time trying to undo what the previous guy did. How about focusing on City-building for a change? Look forward instead of back.
City Council resembles a friggin day care centre nowadays, but without any adult supervision.
I doubt I'll ride in they separated lanes either once they're completed. Should a car park in the lane, there is no place for a cyclist to go. The separation prevents them from easily joining regular traffic. As well, the lane turns into a sharrow at each intersection to allow for a left turn lane, exposing the cyclist to some oblivious right turner.
http://communityair.org/Background/35_Million/35_Million.html
While you can argue something similar happened with Jarvis, here's the difference. The lane was painted and installed several months before Ford was elected (unlike the bridge, which was still in the planning stage and the only real financial commitment to it was made merely days before the election), and killing the Jarvis bike lane was not a central plank of Ford's campaign.
Besides, as I said before, I could accept the reasoning applied by the Fordites in eliminating the lane on Jarvis (despite it being unsupported by any actual data), but for the decision to replace it with street parking. Given the primary (if not the sole) rationale behind killing the bike lanes was that they slowed down traffic on Jarvis, how exactly does adding street parking improve that situation?
Take your anti-Miller blinders off for a minute, look at the situation logically, and tell me how the addition of street parking will improve traffic flow in comparison to a bike lane? Have you ever travelled on Richmond (no street parking) and compared the traffic flow to Queen (tons of street parking) - if you have, then you'll maybe understand why the City's actions on Jarvis defy their own logic.
Traffic is a political issue and decisions are done to placate neighborhoods, business interests, etc.
I avoid bike lanes and find it faster to travel on routes without them. Don't have to deal with people on bikes going the wrong way.
ps. You don't need to sound so angry.
this is an embaressing joke for the citys financial and planning department.
I'm not even particularly pro or anti-Jarvis bike lanes. I didn't cheer when they were installed and (other than the money wasted) I'm not fussed at their removal, though I admit I didn't notice any impact on the time it took to travel on Jarvis when they were in place. That said, I find the glee expressed by members of our City Council and their cheerleaders at the Sun, over the money wasted by dismantling this lanes tacky, to say the least.
My issue is with the intellectual (a word I rarely use in reference to our City Council) dishonesty of the justification for wasting the money to kill those lanes when in fact, it is little more than a decision to placate North Toronto commuters who were mad that the lanes were installed without their say so. And its a bad one at that, since they went and added street parking, thereby defeating the "purpose" of removing the bikes lanes. I get that neighborhoods get pandered to, especially if they're supporters of the one doing the pandering, but at the end of the day, this is dumb, even by our City Council standards. It isn't even going to accomplish what those same North Toronto commuters claimed that they wanted - the street parking will slow down traffic far more than a bike lane ever did.
I'm actually more shaking my head at the absurdity than anything else.
Cheers.
1) Prospect Park West - prominent residents complained about a new (separated) two-way bike lane, because they thought it backed up car traffic and they didn't like bicyclists. (It was the equivalent of a bike lane through Rosedale). They filed a lawsuit to remove it. Because Rob Ford is not the Mayor of New York, the city fought the suit. They presented data very similar to the Jarvis data -- minimal delays to cars, great benefit to cycling. Lawsuit was rejected, bike lanes stayed.
2) Kent / Bedford Ave - New bike lanes similar to Jarvis were installed on two streets in Brooklyn and were soon vehemently protested by the community (which is mostly Hasidic). Some of this was because of loss of parking, some because of an overall dislike of "inconsiderate" cyclists (no one drives, pedestrian dominance is important), some because they didn't like women in bike shorts travelling through their ultra-conservative neighborhood. (Like Rob Ford, they were thinking of the children.) The lanes were removed temporarily. Undeterred, the city then came back on Kent Ave and redesigned the street to be one-way for cars, leaving room for much more parking as well as a new protected two-way bike lane. This street is thriving. The Bedford Ave lanes remain removed for now as the cultural war proved too great to overcome and the Mayor owed a political favor following his re-election. That street is suffering with frequent car-bike incidents.
3) Cappodano Blvd - Staten Island is like Etobicoke or parts of Scarborough, very suburban in its character and politics. Much like the case of lanes that were removed on Birchmount/Pharmacy, suburban residents objected to new bike lanes on a major street. The city did remove the lanes but converted the space to a BRT busway, and built a new protected greenway in an adjacent strip of park.
In all of these cases, the bike lanes were either defended by the city, the street was re-engineered to make bike lanes work better, or the lanes were replaced by new adjacent (not three blocks over, but adjacent) bike paths. In no instance was bike space converted back to auto use.
The comparison with neanderthal Toronto is, in a word, lacking.
Have you ever rode a bike through traffic? Do you have any understanding of just how f*c king scary it is to have massive hunks of metal speeding by you a foot or less from your arm? Accidents the worst part of this whole thing, but even assuming I am not killed or maimed by traffic the entire experience is still horrifying when it should be relaxing, peaceful, healthy, stimulating etc etc etc- see Berlin & Amsterdam and please take some notes.
Perhaps cyclists should stay away from major traffic arteries..? I know I'd love to have no one with a bike on Adelaide or Richmond around FCP. I can't begin to count the amount of times someone with a bike has attempted to squeeze their bike past when there is obviously no room at a red light and end up either dinging or scratching my vehicle and then ride off with me yelling after them.