MB Toronto
Morning Brew: The province of Toronto, Junction Triangle named, impaired TTC bus driver, Tim Hortons drive-thru assault, bike lanes on Bloor and Danforth, Cash for Guns
Progressive Conservative MPP Bill Murdoch feels that the concerns in smaller rural communities in Ontario are being neglected at Queen's Park because of the Toronto-centric nature of things, and, as such, is suggesting that Toronto become its own province. Citing the population of P.E.I. as proof that it can work, he stopped short of suggesting that we dig a giant moat around the city of Toronto, and push it out onto Lake Ontario.
It's official. Toronto has a new neighbourhood called the "Junction Triangle." Well, it's not a new neighbourhood exactly; it's a newly named part of the city that is in the Junction area and is the shape of a triangle (bounded by Dundas St. W. and Lansdowne Ave. south of Dupont St.). The naming initiative was coined "Fuzzy Boundaries" and there were initially 185 names suggested. 773 residents (of an estimated 7000) voted, which is better than the expected voter turnout. Although just over 10% of the area's inhabitants actually voted, the project was a huge success and civic engagement was certainly achieved.
A TTC bus driver has reportedly been suspended without pay, for allegedly drinking and driving on the job. Passengers called police after observing her erratic driving, and when she was pulled over she blew between 0.05% and 0.08% blood alcohol - high enough to warrant an immediate 72h license suspension. The burning question: Will she be allowed return to the job?
Apparently taking too long to place your order at a Tim Hortons drive-thru can result in you getting your ass kicked. Three guys in a pickup truck got impatient while waiting in line, and when the slow-poke customer got out of his car to calm them down(big mistake!), they collectively thumped him.
The city has quietly made requests for environmental assessment studies for a proposed 24km of bike lanes along Bloor and Danforth. It's a highly contested proposal - one that might become an election wedge issue. Where do you stand on the idea? I'm all for it, if they can make it a dedicated, mini version of the Gardiner and elevate it above the road, or if they push all of the buildings along on both sides of the road back a few feet (i.e. I don't like the idea).
And Toronto Police have begun their annual "Cash for Guns" program, which puts $500 in cash into the hands of anonymous tipsters who lead the boys in blue to illegal guns. The program forces some people to put a value on being a rat, but it has been rather successful in the past, netting 53 guns last year.
Photo: untitled by MHB Photography, member of the blogTO Flickr pool.
Discussion
41 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
At the cost of millions of dollars, which could be thrown into say subway expansion (I hear we need a downtown relief line and a airport subway).
I like Bikes, I even enjoy the current lanes, but the cost benefit analysis makes building more ludicrous
Would love to see the source of your numbers. However, what's missing is the fact that if there were more bike lanes, more people would use them. Not much value in assessing current use patterns when the existing infrastructure is cobbled together across the City.
Yeah let's eliminate half the parking along the streets.
What fu*king genius came up with this turd of an idea?
Put the lanes on Gerrard and Davenport (which are both already bullsh*t 40 zones)
I do however agree that any expense is too much for bike infrastructure until the city takes it seriously and stops using it as a wedge issue for elections. The only reason Igor was picked up after 15 years of mass bike theivery was the same. The lanes remain unprotected, unmaintained and basically a joke to anyone not using them.
I do love though that bikes remain a target for divers frustrated by congestion when it is in fact the amount of cars in front of them causing that frustration. But with city council and police services relying almost exclusively - with exception of our crack two wheeled police force I continue to see blowing stop signs, ignoring cars parked in bike lanes and generally doing everything cyclists are discouraged from doing - on autos and auto profits, I don't see much changing on it's own. Especially with attitudes like oreal's.
I know there are people who ride in the winter, but they are a microscopic minority. It's amazing that millions are being spent on this. What happens to traffic at stores on these streets when parking is eliminated? Do they really think people will take the subway, or is it more likely that they'll just drive to another store where parking is easier?
I hope the EA muddles along for a while so the next mayor can put a stop to this nonsense before any new bike lanes are created on Bloor or Danforth.
The tail is wagging the dog here. If we had 6 lane arterial roads, perhaps we could look at putting bicycle lanes where appropriate, but we don't. Unless we plan to start bulldozing building to widen the streets (an idea that is not too outragous, I believe eventually we will have to as the traffic worsens and other cities have), there simply is no space in our badly laid out city to make room for bicycle lanes.
Not on Bloor St. and certainly not on Jarvis.
Does that mean we should stop building sidewalks in, say, Scarborough? Don't seem to be too many people on those in the winter either.
There's already a bike lane along the Bloor Viaduct. It connects to Sherbourne which connects to Wellesley. The Wellesley bike lane connects to the (poorly thought out) Jarvis lane and Bay St. (with it's shared lane). There's also a lane that connects across Gerrard, Carleton & College. The real problem here is that there is no connection from Bloor/Danforth to Gerrard, nor along Gerrard from River to Parliament.
I think it makes much more sense to look at where the gaps are in the existing infrastructure to create convenient lanes that won't cause a massive amount of inconvenience (look at what happened with the sidewalk widening along Bloor already) for the sake of politics. I fully support installing bike lanes, just not in the hodgepodge method the city has been going at it.
Do you have any numbers to support this? Numbers from any studies in TORONTO, not Holland or Paris?
Cause quite frankly I don't believe this at all. I don't think more bike lanes will produce more cyclists, nor do I believe that more bike lanes will get more people to jump on their bike in their suits on their way to work each morning.
The number of cyclists is fairly finite. It's not a number that fluctuates greatly year to year.
I don't care if you commute by car, but I do care if you're stupid. The more transit, the fewer drivers; the safer the cycling, the fewer drivers; the more pleasant the walk, the fewer drivers. You see the pattern yet? If more people walk, cycle or use the TTC, the more room on the road for your boat. Look up the numbers on that too: it's factors cheaper to create the infrastructure to move a person by any other method than by automobile. This is not a culture-war, this is a city: if you love cars or hate them, the best way to make them move about the city more easily is to make it possible for people not to have to use theirs.
I think you nailed it perfectly here. This is exactly the reason I would never get on my bike to bike to work from Bayview/Cummer to King/John St (and I don't own a car or have a driver's license). It's a huge city we live in. Not all of us can live within biking distance to work (a very township mentality), in fact the majority of people do not. Which in itself makes your argument very weak to the majority of Torontonians.
And the "cost" of bike lanes is an issue? I'm sure the city has a hellish bureaucratic planning process, but a bike lane is essentially just painting a damn line on the road. I wish they cost millions - since then they would actually be raised and provide some division between cars and trucks.
The best way to reduce congestion is to reduce cars. And that means making them even more expensive. The more space you use, the more you pay. That's the only calculus that makes sense.
The cycling lobby is a small but vocal self-interest group that has managed to monopolize resources, council time and media attention to an extent that vastly outweighs its importance to the city.
Every city has to live with traffic congestion, but it makes no sense to pander to a bunch of entitled ne'er-do-wells who have the TIME (obviously) to show up at city hall to mewl and whine that they 'demand' bicycle lanes.
Seriously, guys -give yourself a shake. Cycling is a hobby. Nobody in their right mind (especially in this god-forsaken climate!) aspires to ride their bicycle to work. On a sunny Sunday in June - fantastic! I hate getting personal, but you guys are just plain weird.
This has nothing to do with whose ass is fat or who is lazy. Most people have lives and the 12 minutes it takes me to drive to work, versus the half hour or more it would take me to cycle in all kinds of crappy weather just makes no sense.
I can spend those extra 18 minutes in the comfort of my gym, without whining that the city won't bend to my will.
Also I'm pretty sure that would be a pretty lengthy bike ride. As in I could travel faster using the TTC.
I really don't find your suggestion practical at all.
It's wonderful that you have the disposable income to afford a gym membership on top of a car, gas, insurance, parking fees, all those tickets, maintenance and a big garage or drive way I'm sure, not to mention those vehicle registration fees.
And boy, you are right. Those cyclists sure are a weird, irrational bunch.
I fully support having more bike lanes, but come on, put them where they're useful!
As far as Pysant, that is in New South Wales, this is Toronto. The parking spaces in condos are limited and their is often no where near enough spots for the number of units so, yes, they go fast. But what you are saying is disingenuous. I also work in real estate and have worked in condos. You don't say how many of the people with parking spots use them, how many keep it for an investment to sell or rent out and to ensure no difficulties when they sell their unit in case someone wants parking, how many of these people own cars but only use them on weekends or for trips (which is often many people) or how many have them just so their visitors can park. Also, if only a percentage of units can have spots then what do the other owners do? Maybe they cycle or take TTC but they don't drive unless they can rent a spot somewhere. In and of itself saying all the condo parking spaces go fast and for a premium doesn't prove your point.
It's also worth pointing out that one of the many draws, and well-advertised aspects, of condo living downtown is the ability to give up your daily commute if you work downtown.
It is funny that you characterize people who want to bike to work as insane and biking as a hobby. I think the same about condo-dwellers and driving a car respectively.
However, I find the notion of a latter day Conservative bringing forth this plan funny given this party's disasters with amalgamating virtually anything they could during the Harris years.
Fact is, and these numbers have been widely reported, a whole 2% of the city uses these lanes at best. They are expensive and frankly a luxury spend at this time. They are patchwork and ill toghtout.
I would rather invest the $$$s including staff time elsewhere while developing a COMPLETE bike lane plan for the city. And not under the guise and whim of certain councillors who demonstrate their contempt for the broad public at every question. And, without so much as a 'Fletchertype' meaningless apology on their part.
Further, if and when more investment in bike lanes takes place there should be a licensing mandate to add equal legal identification and authority on the roads to these vehicles and their riders.
Once car drivers start paying their own way, we can talk about whether or not the white paint for the bike lanes is too pricey.
Ah.... well played!
as I've stated a well thought out, complete plan for the city should be developed FIRST. then install it.
sorry if the planning part gets in your way.
I just laugh at 'morons' who pull studies out of their asses that automobiles are 'subsidized.' Tell me, in your fantastic, drug-induced world, do products teleport themselves to the store shelves? How does our double latte frappe materialize all the way from the mountains of Columbia to your favorite Starbucks? By leprechauns?
And don't you worry about my tourism experiences. Next time I'm travelling on South America, I'll send you a postcard - from my rental car.
Oh my god!! All those people on the 401 are delivering coffee beans to Starbucks?!? Thank you; that explains so much! In my drug-induced haze, I thought they were going shopping in Vaughan, and visiting their sisters in Pickering, but evidently they're all re-stocking the shelves at Starbucks. My socialist drugs have lead me astray. I guess I'll put those studies back in my ass now.
I think the point that you're trying to make, in between the low-brow ad hominem attacks, is that it's possible that the infrastructure costs for transporting consumer goods are counted in these studies which estimate the subsidy of private transportation (since SOME of these costs come from this shared infrastructure). First of all, you probably haven't read these studies, and you might not even have the economics background to do so critically, so it's only a hunch at this point, and not a fact. Since I haven't read these studies all that closely either, I'll have to decide whether to put my faith in the economists, (with their PhDs in the subject) or in you (with... your... ?). Second of all, I'm guessing that if we sat down and watched the 401 for a day, the amount of traffic necessary for the transportation of goods is a drop in the ocean of single-occupant vehicles, not the other way around. Of course, that's just a hunch, too, since I've never done this in a systematic and scientifically sound way (although I've spent enough time on highways in Ontario for it to be a fairly well-grounded hunch).
PS: I think that if you insult someone, but then put the insult in scare quotes, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Again, that's just a hunch, but you might want to look into it.