News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

I commute almost every day by bike, and upset at this decision, which has been part of a trend of interference in local affairs by suburban councillors. But I was also never really in favour of the Jarvis bike lanes. I also don't think that those types of protests, that will just inflame motorists further, are productive.

Here's why:
The planning process for Jarvis included multiple consulations that were to humanize the street and bring neighbourhood benefits back. Jarvis was widened in the 1940s/1950s as a throughway for uptown commuters streaming down Mount Pleasant Road. In a 1950s era, this kind of made sense. Jarvis had faded as the grand street it once was, there were no streetcars or many buses on that street (Sherbourne had streetcars until 1947 and buses after that). The neighbourhood bounced back with new developments such as the National Ballet School and Radio City.

But instead of the streetscape improvements and wider sidewalks, cyclists opposition surged and lobbied hard (I remember Hamish Wilson out there, lonely standing outside a consultation trying to get support for bike lanes when they weren't on the table) and got those bike lanes. So paint was appied and the overhead signals removed instead of permanent street improvements that would have been nearly impossible to reverse. Now we're back to square one.

Jarvis made less sense for bike lanes than Church (which could connect to Davenport and go all the way to Front). Now I'm hoping Yonge can be redesigned with bikes in mind along with wider sidewalks and streetscaping, I already don't find Yonge bad cycling down, even in rush hour, and Yonge has a supportive BIA as well. I have hope for Yonge.

I was at both meetings and my impression was entirely different. I was prepared to advocate for bike lanes but was astonished at the number of people, many of whom were residents and professed to cycle only occasionally, speak in favour of the bike lane option. So many in fact, that Kyle Rae, changed his support towards bike lanes, the option city planners rejected. The community wanted bike lanes, not just some vocal cyclists.

City streets should be safe for everyone. I live on Jarvis and will have to be ever vigilant because suburban politicians are willing to risk lives to save 2 minutes for drivers.
 
Last edited:
That's probably true, since you can't bike the whole length yet either. Also there will be bollards when it's finished.
I'm not sure bollards are going on Sherbourne's bike lanes. IIRC, the city wanted to omit them so that emergency vehicles could drive on bike lanes if needed. This is what Sherbourne needs.

buffered_bike_lane6.jpg
 
It looks like there will be bollards between Bloor and Gerrard, but I'm not sure why they couldn't be along the entire route.

I agree that a two-way lane would be better (wrong-way guy in the photo notwithstanding). We're at least getting that on Queen's Quay East, but it seems like bits and pieces of ideal lanes are scattered across Toronto, never all in one place.
 
I guess San Francisco didn't get Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong's memo.

From sf.streetsblog.com:

Protected Bike Lanes Selected as Preferred Option for 2nd Street Project

Second-Street-Cycletrack3.png


Following a public process that revealed a strong preference for protected bike lanes, the SF Department of Public Works yesterday announced the selection of the preferred option for the Second Street Improvement Project. And yes, the design includes one-way protected bike lanes on each side of the street. The redesign will extend from Market Street to King Street, connecting downtown San Francisco to the SOMA district.

The bike lanes will be separated from auto traffic by a four-foot, planted buffer, creating a safe and comfortable space for cyclists to travel through this important corridor.

From SF DPW:

The preferred One-Way Cycletracks option envisions protected bicycle lanes in both directions, increased opportunities for landscaping and retiming traffic signals to separate bicycles from turning vehicles. It also would entail removing parking on one side of the street between Market and Harrison streets; removing all parking between Harrison and Bryant streets, and retaining parking on both sides of the street south of Bryant Street. Left-hand turns may need to be restricted at some intersections during certain hours of the day.​

We’ll have more information as it becomes available, but for now you can read up on the Second Street Improvement Project and take a look at conceptual renderings of the bike lanes on SF DPW’s project website.
 
Michael Bloomberg is no Rob Ford.

From www.capitalnewyork.com at this link:

Bloomberg: Cyclists and riders and walkers are more important than drivers

%20BikeLane400.jpg

A bike lane on First Avenue. Joe Shlabotnick via Flickr

By Dana Rubinstein

11:14 am Oct. 26, 2012

Today, Mayor Michael Bloomberg reinforced his reputation as a transportation reformer, and reaffirmed the worst fears of his bike-skeptic critics, by proclaiming cyclists more important than drivers.

"Cyclists and pedestrians and bus riders are as important, if not, I would argue, more important than automobile riders," said Bloomberg, at the National Association of City Transportation Officials, of which his transportation commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan is president. "We need the trucks to be able to deliver merchandise. I don't know there's any great solution to that. But mass transit is the only ways we're gonna work ourselves out of the congestion that always inhibits growth. And we're finding ways to do that."

Under Sadik-Khan, the Bloomberg administration has built hundreds of miles of new bike lanes and created pedestrian plazas in places like Times Square, where once there were cars.

Their efforts to reclaim city streets for pedestrians have, predictably, incited virulent opposition from some drivers.

Bloomberg today said drivers' claim to the city's streets is unfounded.

"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."

He also criticized the state for failing to adequately support the city's mass transit system, on which the both the city's and state's economy relies.

"The economics of this city are very dependent on the transportation system," he said.

"We built a brand new subway that will be open in another year," he added, referring to the 7 train, which the city is funding using a form of tax-increment financing. "Our state refused to give us any money to build a new subway line, and we said, 'Well, screw you.'"
 
I noticed a couple of nights ago that the cables are being strung up across Jarvis Street, last night parking meters were covered and today lights are being installed on the cables. It's clear that the street will be repainted this weekend, presumably to return it back to five lanes of traffic for Monday morning. Jarvis bike lanes will be history this weekend, a sad step backward for Toronto and a shocking waste of "taxpayers money", you know, that gravy stuff.
 
Well, if it's good for cars it MUST be good. Sigh!

News Release

November 16, 2012

Jarvis Street opens Saturday for extra lane of traffic

The centre reversible lane on Jarvis Street, from Queen Street to Isabella Street, will be activated on Saturday, November 17 at 9 a.m.

"Congestion costs Toronto's economy billions of dollars every year," said Mayor Rob Ford.
"Jarvis is a key arterial route. Returning it to full capacity will help us fight gridlock."

"The reopening of this lane for traffic on Jarvis Street will improve traffic flow and ease congestion in this corridor," said Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong (Ward 34 Don Valley East), Chair of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee.

Once activated, the centre lane of the roadway will operate in a northbound direction from approximately 3:45 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday to Friday and will operate in a southbound direction at all other times. Use of the reversible lane will not be permitted for approximately five minutes when the centre lane switches from the southbound to northbound direction (3:40 to 3:45 p.m.) and from the northbound to southbound direction (6:30 to 6:35 p.m.).

Lane directional signals (suspended over the reversible lane) will be used to indicate the direction of the lane. A signal indication showing a red "X" will indicate that the use of the reversible lane is prohibited, while an indication of a green arrow (downward) will indicate that use of the reversible lane is permitted.
 
Bicycles are vehicles and have a right to use a travel lane for travelling purposes. They may have to SHARE the said lane with motor vehicles, but they will use them.
 
I just rode on the newly-built separated bike lanes on Sherbourne last week. I find them extremely disappointing and many of the design choices are simply baffling. After not even a couple of weeks of existence the surface is uneven and bumpy, and the workmanship is visibly poor. Then, the bike lanes + raised bus station combo, the bike lane-eque raised portion south of dundas, the sharp turn halfway between Wellesley and Carlton, and the random breaks in the separation all seem like very odd design choices to me.

Finally, why have the Jarvis bike lanes been removed so early? I thought the deal was to remove them once the new Sherbourne lanes are done. As it currently stands, the work on Sherbourne is not even halfway completed.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't have much to do with Ford, but I also heard he ran a red light. If true, I don't have much sympathy. I'm not totally against running reds, like if you are on a cheap Canadian Tire bike and/or there is no traffic, but doing so means you accept all risks.

Can you indicate where you "heard" the cyclist ran a read light? I've looked at several media reports (680 News, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, Global), but none have mentioned that the cyclist, a grade 2 teacher and father of two, ran a red light.

I put this case on the Ford thread because incidents between cyclists and motorists appear to be increasing even as a Ford-run city is removing cycling lanes (ie. Jarvis). Ford doesn't seem to want to acknowledge issues of congestion and safety if they involve cyclists (or transit riders)--just motorists.

I rarely cycle myself, but I both drive and take transit in Toronto and know that all modes of transportation (including walking) are all inter-connected, and it's important for our city to address all of them. When you go to Montreal or New York and see all their cycling lanes, you wonder why we don't have more of that here--esp. with the increasingly large number of cyclists. Even as a motorists himself, I don't see why Ford does not want to address the issue of cyclists. If cyclists had their own lane it would actually make things better for motorists. As it is, motorists are constantly on the lookout for bikes, pedestrians, trucks, parked cars--it's a pleasant thing driving in Toronto.
 

Back
Top