News Flash
Jarvis bike lane removal costs revealed by Toronto Cyclists Union
Where's there's bike lane removal, theres...gravy? While it was all but a guarantee that the cost of removing the Jarvis Street bike lanes would exceed that of their initial installation, the actual costs had yet be revealed until the Toronto Cyclists Union requested specific figures from the City's transportation staff, who confirmed that the removal of the lanes and reinstallation overhead traffic signals will cost $272,000, which is up significantly from initial estimates of $200,000.
Here's how the bike union breaks it down:
"Bike Lane Installation (July 2010): $86,000
- removal of overhead wiring and signal hardware - $21,000
- removal of all pavement markings and remark as 4 lanes plus bike lanes - $65,000
Jarvis Reconfiguration (scheduled for summer/fall 2012): $272,000
- installation of overhead wiring and signal hardware - approx. $200,000.00
- removal of all pavement markings and remark as 5-lane road, including signage - approx. $72,000"
It's probably worth noting that when Dave Meslin originally tweeted these figures, Rob Ford's policy advisor Mark Towhey appeared to call them into question before going silent about the matter. Make of that what you will.
For more info, check out the original post.
Discussion
33 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Lucky you Rob ! that those hot dog and french fry trucks are parked so close to your office. No bike for you big boy!!!
It's financial decisions like this that keep that gravy boat a float.
In fact, I will take the lane and ride as slowly as I possibly can just to clot up traffic. I will be a one-man war on the car.
@THe Truth: public money is being used to pay for transit, so we sould have a rational discussion. Sure, everyone wants subways, but they cost 3x the amount as LRTs, with fewer people served. Rob Ford has also broken promises not to cut services - more than 1,370,000 people will be affected by service cuts to the TTC. Typing in caps doesn't make you right. And maybe if you rode a bike (much more than 1% of people in the core area do) you'd appreciate bike lanes.
a) it is likely the only safe option
b) it is perfectly legal (and correct, given it is the only safe option)
So don't go honking your horn and yelling expletives when you're stuck behind me (remember, it is legal for me to be there). Consider that you wouldn't have been stuck behind me if the bike lane was still there.
As a side note, anybody who doubts that cycling is a viable transportation option in this city, I ask you to do the following: in mid spring, summer or fall (any time the temperature is 5 degrees or higher), stand on any corner of College and University during evening rush hour. Take a rough count of how many cyclists pass you on College over, say, 15 minutes. Also, take a rough count of how many cars are passing over the same time. Be prepared to be surprised. Cars take up so much space (and typically only have one occupant), that we should really be questioning whether the car is a viable transportation option downtown.
And one final note: to all those that say we shouldn't be putting resources into cycling infrastructure since few can/will cycle during the winter:
a) your logic sucks (think about it)
b) more and more people are discovering that you can in fact safely cycle through much of the winter.
That is all. Thank you.
Since the lanes were installed 18 months ago, I rarely take Jarvis St. Church St., despite not having synchronized traffic signals, is faster, although slowly motorists are catching on and congestion on Church is increasing.
In a world where 6 lane arterial roads are the norm IN EVER SINGLE CITY I HAVE GOOGLED OR BEEN TO, taking away a lane from a 5 lane road was and still is STUPID.
The worst bottlenecks are now at Gerrard and Shuter, both legal left turn intersections. What I found puzzling at first is why they are horrible even in off-peak hours? Then one day it hit me: with 5 lanes previously, legal parking would end about 30 or 40 meters before the intersection, effectively adding a right turn lane, allowing for the center lane to proceed uninhibited. A good part of the congestion is due to drivers trying to guess whether anybody ahead is going to make a left or not and switching lanes.
The smartest solution of all would have been to have made the center lane a continuous left. Not only would that have left the left lane clear for through traffic all the way, it would have given an island for pedestrians to stand in while traversing the busy roadway.
And to the crocodile tears whining about the $270k (or whatever inflated final price this ends up costing), Miller knew damned well how controversial this decision was (and Rae lied to me when he suggested it was going to environmental assessment still) and should have done the right thing by leaving the overhead lights intact. There was no reason to take them down. They were not harming anything, but he understood they would make taking the bicycle lanes away more prohibitive.
And amazing how the usual suspects don't lament the tens of thousand or (by now) hundreds of thousands in lost parking revenues from all the meters being taken away.
Whiners, indeed!
It's done, move on.
And six months after the conversion is complete, another study will be done on the traffic on Jarvis and we'll find out that it's exactly the same or even a little worse. I look forward to seeing how Ford supporters rationalize that one.
Also curious you say you bike, but feel Sherbourne is good enough. If you have used it you would know it is nearly impassable in places and has more cars in the bike lanes then College Street.
When will people like realize it is cars that cause traffic congestion and stop blaming others for your problems. Who is selfish here?
Let me just say the report indicates (these are facts, something needed to make a decision, not sure if you know what facts are) there is very little impact, a few minutes in the AM and the PM to vehicle traffic. But a huge impact on cycling.
So you conclusion is wrong.
As i see it, this is part of a new trend.
The 416 is going to be made the 905/suburbs total doormat within a few decades. The 905 is embracing urbanism and the new politik in 416 is throwing it out in favour of massive highways and subsidies for the burbs. The influence from beyond the urban limits of Toronto is strong. Culture and commerce is not being cultivated in Toronto, instead it is spreading outwards to the burbs and leaving massive highways and empty office towers in it's wake!