[GraphicMatt]

Public Works today voted to remove the bike lanes on Jarvis. No details on what exactly that means, as far as reimplementing the reversible fifth lane. The city has apparently sold all the necessary traffic equipment for the fifth lane, so I'd imagine this would be a costly move.

Only reason for this move is spite.

 

[reaperexpress]

Public Works today voted to remove the bike lanes on Jarvis. No details on what exactly that means, as far as reimplementing the reversible fifth lane. The city has apparently sold all the necessary traffic equipment for the fifth lane, so I'd imagine this would be a costly move.

Only reason for this move is spite.

Reintroducing the reversible lane would just be gravy. They'll probably leave the lanes where they are and put down spikes in the bike lanes to prevent people from using them.

Seriously though, if they do take out the bike lanes, they're better off using the extra lane as a left turn lane than a reversible through lane.

According to page 17 of the report i linked in my last post:

• Prior to the installation of bicycle lanes on Jarvis Street, the volume of cyclists in both
directions averaged approximately 290 in total during the peak eight hours on a
weekday.
• Following the installation of the bicycle lanes, the eight hour volume of cyclists
increased to approximately 890 on average, an increase in volume of over three times.
• Vehicle traffic counts on Jarvis Street prior to the installation of bike lanes in both
directions averaged approximately 13,000 vehicles in total during the same eight hour
period.
• Following the installation of bike lanes, the vehicle volumes remained approximately the
same, averaging over 13,000 vehicles in both directions during this eight hour period.

Regardless of whether or not the increase in cyclists was directly due to the lanes (Bixi was introduced around the same time), the numbers indicate that the lanes are very valuable now.

 

[Dan416]

I don't understand the motivation for removing the bike lanes when the city's own numbers show vehicle traffic counts remained the same?

 

[reaperexpress]

I don't understand the motivation for removing the bike lanes when the city's own numbers show vehicle traffic counts remained the same?

At first I too tried seeing the Ford logic. I eventually came to the conclusion that there wasn't any and stopped looking.

Ford does things if they appeal to his base, regardless of whether or not they're good for the city. A disturbingly large number of people are under the impression that new unused bike lanes have changed Jarvis from a freeway to a parking lot. I've seen people claim that it slowed traffic by as much as 20 minutes. Ford is appealing to these delusional people with a delusional action.

 

[Chuck]

I don't understand the motivation for removing the bike lanes when the city's own numbers show vehicle traffic counts remained the same?

Probably because the same number of cars using fewer lanes translates into slower travel times! I say that Jarvis and Sherbourne should be made into 1 way pairs. Each should be 3 lanes wide with a physically separated bike lane. It would be great for cyclists, and would give downtown a nice boost in road capacity.

Don't forget that even if only 25% or less of the people moving into the new office towers and condos drive, that still means thousands of upon thousands of extra cars using downtown roads each day. Although transit is the most important thing to expand, cars are still a fact of life and need to be accommodated as well to keep downtown competitive.

With downtown booming in resident and office population, I'd say that at minimum we should be maintaining the existing road capacity. Or, just maintain it until more GO lines run all day, the DRL is built, and the suburban and midtown bike networks are better connected to the downtown bike network.

 

[reaperexpress]

Probably because the same number of cars using fewer lanes translates into slower travel times! I say that Jarvis and Sherbourne should be made into 1 way pairs. Each should be 3 lanes wide with a physically separated bike lane. It would be great for cyclists, and would give downtown a nice boost in road capacity.

Slower travel times for automobiles. Believe it or not, there are other ways of getting around. Unless you break the law, riding a bike on a street without bike lanes is very slow. You're not supposed to pass on the right, leaving you frequently stuck in traffic.

A nice boost in road capacity comes with a not-so-nice boost in traffic. The reason so few people drive downtown is because driving sucks. It's not a coincidence.

Don't forget that even if only 25% or less of the people moving into the new office towers and condos drive, that still means thousands of upon thousands of extra cars using downtown roads each day. Although transit is the most important thing to expand, cars are still a fact of life and need to be accommodated as well to keep downtown competitive.

The percentage of residents that drive is not fixed. If you build more bike lanes, fewer people will drive, which reduces traffic far more than removing bike lanes. How many people will find fighting with traffic on a bike to be a dependable way of getting around? Very few, compared to the number of people who would bike if it were less intimidating. Hence the more than 3X increase in cyclists.

Just ask yourself this: Would you have biked down Jarvis before it had bike lanes? It was very unappealing.

With downtown booming in resident and office population, I'd say that at minimum we should be maintaining the existing road capacity. Or, just maintain it until more GO lines run all day, the DRL is built, and the suburban and midtown bike networks are better connected to the downtown bike network.

Office workers are already served by GO. Most office towers are near Union, and shifts are 9-5ish. Once downtown, office workers can easily get around using Bixi. I'd say ensuring safe and enjoyable cycling is quite a priority.

 

[ShonTron]

At first I too tried seeing the Ford logic. I eventually came to the conclusion that there wasn't any and stopped looking.

Ford does things if they appeal to his base, regardless of whether or not they're good for the city. A disturbingly large number of people are under the impression that new unused bike lanes have changed Jarvis from a freeway to a parking lot. I've seen people claim that it slowed traffic by as much as 20 minutes. Ford is appealing to these delusional people with a delusional action.

The bike lanes on Jarvis were a mistake and a poor last-minute wrench on otherwise fine plans to improve that street. So we spent money that would have gone to revitalization and public realm improvements on repainting lines. Now, under Doug/Rob Ford and John "where the hot chicks at" Parker (who is looking out for motorists on Mount Pleasant who assume that everything was wonderful with that lousy reversible lane) will spend more money (which we supposedly don't have) to put things back. Meanwhile Jarvis itself loses yet again. Had we had the wider sidewalks and calmer traffic under the approved plan actually implemented until the Cyclist Union got its way, no one would consider spend the money to remove the new art, landscaping and nicer sidewalks.

I'd rather the half-baked bike lanes there now over returning the street to the old ways, but I won't shed too many tears over the bike lanes being removed, even if it is under such a single-minded suburban ideology.

 

[Filip]

The bike lanes on Jarvis were a mistake and a poor last-minute wrench on otherwise fine plans to improve that street. So we spent money that would have gone to revitalization and public realm improvements on repainting lines. Now, under Doug/Rob Ford and John "where the hot chicks at" Parker (who is looking out for motorists on Mount Pleasant who assume that everything was wonderful with that lousy reversible lane) will spend more money (which we supposedly don't have) to put things back. Meanwhile Jarvis itself loses yet again. Had we had the wider sidewalks and calmer traffic under the approved plan actually implemented until the Cyclist Union got its way, no one would consider spend the money to remove the new art, landscaping and nicer sidewalks.

I'd rather the half-baked bike lanes there now over returning the street to the old ways, but I won't shed too many tears over the bike lanes being removed, even if it is under such a single-minded suburban ideology.

We might get a repeat of that episode from the Cyclists' Union if they get their way with the John Street improvements.

 

[DSC]

"The bike lanes on Jarvis were a mistake and a poor last-minute wrench on otherwise fine plans to improve that street. So we spent money that would have gone to revitalization and public realm improvements on repainting lines."
I agree that the original plans for Jarvis - that was developed after much consultation - was much better (they are here: http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/jarvis/pdf/ea-2010-01-28/ea_project_documentation.pdf )
That said, the reversible centre lane was very dangerous and it is good that it and the equipment has gone. From my own observations I would say the main problem area on Jarvis is actually south of Queen Street (where there is no bike lane) and cars heading to the Gardiner are frequently lined up well north of Front Street. When Market Wharf opens (soon) traffic will only get worse and the new North St Lawrence Market Building, whose parking garage will have the entrance on Jarvis, is certainly not going to help. Motorists may blame the bike lanes for the rather small increase in time taken to drive down Jarvis but the problem is more likely that there are more cars!

 

[GraphicMatt]

Yeah, if the motion was to scrap the bike lanes in favour of the original plan for Jarvis beautification (four lane road w/ wider sidewalks, landscaping), I'd be somewhat supportive, or at least neutral. Anything that calls for the reinstallation of the fifth lane, however, is just plain bad news.

 

[grey]

International attention to removal of bike lanes:

Rob Ford's Toronto: Moving Backwards http://t.co/bkArASf

 

[gweed123]

I don't understand the motivation for removing the bike lanes when the city's own numbers show vehicle traffic counts remained the same?

I just chaulk it up to stupidity. Both on the part of the committee, and on the part of the drivers who are complaining about the bike lanes who have no idea how traffic flow works.

 

[k10ery]

The bike lanes on Jarvis were a mistake and a poor last-minute wrench on otherwise fine plans to improve that street. So we spent money that would have gone to revitalization and public realm improvements on repainting lines. Now, under Doug/Rob Ford and John "where the hot chicks at" Parker (who is looking out for motorists on Mount Pleasant who assume that everything was wonderful with that lousy reversible lane) will spend more money (which we supposedly don't have) to put things back. Meanwhile Jarvis itself loses yet again. Had we had the wider sidewalks and calmer traffic under the approved plan actually implemented until the Cyclist Union got its way, no one would consider spend the money to remove the new art, landscaping and nicer sidewalks.

I'd rather the half-baked bike lanes there now over returning the street to the old ways, but I won't shed too many tears over the bike lanes being removed, even if it is under such a single-minded suburban ideology.

This makes it sound like the Bike Union highlacked the Jarvis streetscape project and screwed it up. Far from it! The bike lane proposal only came up when the previous administration realized they could not get sidewalks widened before the election.

I don't disagree with what you wrote about the merits of the original plan but let's please not give them impression that cyclists are fighting against streetscape improvements, on Jarvis or John or most other places. (Well, maybe on Bloor. That one is ridiculous.)

 

[k10ery]

Public Works today voted to remove the bike lanes on Jarvis. No details on what exactly that means, as far as reimplementing the reversible fifth lane. The city has apparently sold all the necessary traffic equipment for the fifth lane, so I'd imagine this would be a costly move.

Only reason for this move is spite.

So the politician who was calling for "separate but equal" facilities for cyclists ends up treating them as second-class citizens. Who woulda thunk it?

I think this makes it clear that cyclists can only expect less, not more, from this administration. Maybe it's time to shift gears and start asking Ford what's happening with his election promise of more off-road cycling. Maybe that FordforToronto guy will get on the case...

http://fordfortoronto.mattelliott.ca/2011/03/14/cycling-advocate/

 

[junctionist]

I don't disagree with what you wrote about the merits of the original plan but let's please not give them impression that cyclists are fighting against streetscape improvements, on Jarvis or John or most other places. (Well, maybe on Bloor. That one is ridiculous.)

What makes you think cyclists were against streetscape improvements on Bloor?