[dt_toronto_geek]

The City of Toronto Bike Plan (2001) set an aggressive goal to add 1,000km (I believe that has been revised to 1200km) of cycling infrastructure within the City of Toronto by 2011 and to make cycling a safer activity. This isn't something that just came up recently, it was a result of years of studies and consulting with local community groups before the official plan was announced 8 years ago.

 

[Archivist]

dt, I am impressed by your thoughtful post, and really, I agree with it. For me, the bottom line on Jarvis is the removal of the fifth lane, but I can live without the bike lanes, though I bike frequently. I was thinking of Christopher Hume's recent article where the talked about the horrors of bicycling down Jarvis one day, as I was cycling down the street myself, and I must say I found his description a trifle overwrought. I don't find it pleasant to cycle down Jarvis, but I don't find it that bad either, and there are certainly alternatives. All things considered, I would rather the project had a great emphasis on beautification rather than the bike lanes.

 

[ShonTron]

With more retail, running through Ryerson, and without access to the Gardiner, I always thought that Church was more appropriate for bike lanes than Jarvis. Between Sherbourne and Church, there would be plenty of alternatives to Jarvis.

Church, if implemented, would also connect over to the Davenport bike lanes for a safe route into the downtown core. I used Church from Davenport as a bike route many times, and liked that much more than the one time on Jarvis.

 

[adma]

dt, I am impressed by your thoughtful post, and really, I agree with it. For me, the bottom line on Jarvis is the removal of the fifth lane, but I can live without the bike lanes, though I bike frequently. I was thinking of Christopher Hume's recent article where the talked about the horrors of bicycling down Jarvis one day, as I was cycling down the street myself, and I must say I found his description a trifle overwrought. I don't find it pleasant to cycle down Jarvis, but I don't find it that bad either, and there are certainly alternatives. All things considered, I would rather the project had a great emphasis on beautification rather than the bike lanes.

And I suppose the counter-argument from the likes of Whoaccio questions whether Jarvis, in its present despoiled urban form, is worth beautification. (Which I find peevish.)

 

[Whoaccio]

And I suppose the counter-argument from the likes of Whoaccio questions whether Jarvis, in its present despoiled urban form, is worth beautification. (Which I find peevish.)

The hell?

Because, as hard is this is to believe, most people who are against this project have nothing against street improvements. If all we were talking about was planting some trees and other such improvements to the public realm, nobody would care. Probably, most people would be quite happy.

If the City wants to make Jarvis more visually appealing and increase "friction", superb. The point I have been trying to make, and I think that people like Chuck have as well, is that conversion of the 5th lane will have little to no impact on the visual appeal (given that it will just go to wider curb lanes) of the Jarvis street-scape and needlessly increase congestion. There is no obvious visual appeal to bike lanes that I can see. Unless somebody starts making the case that wider bike friendly curb lanes are an aesthetic improvement on the status quo, the argument is simply "cars vs. bikes," for which is the better allocation of road space.

But getting back to my main point, that street width alone does not prevent vibrant urban neighbourhoods from forming, I think that it's ridiculous to narrow Jarvis in the hopes that it will improve the streetscape.

If the City wishes to take back part of Jarvis, fine. Although I do believe that wide roads can coexist in an urban environment, I also support sustainable initiates. However, those initiatives must also include concurrent transit expansion and subway construction in central areas to pick up the slack

I'm not opposed to removing the 5th lane, I'm just getting tired of this M.O. City Hall identifies a 100% symbolic gesture... Maybe if there was some kind of master plan for Jarvis, with architectural goals, improved transportation and clearly researched and defined goals I would buy this more. All we get though are lame PowerPoint presentations filled with shiny pictures and happy render people (including the ubiquitous white family on bicycles).

There is nothing wrong with removing lanes, per se. What is wrong is this reflexively anti-car sentiment which substitutes for urban planning. I am sure, positive, that there are more than a few streets scattered about where pedestrian (and, I guess) cyclist volumes clearly exceed vehicle traffic. In situations like those I am totally for prioritizing public space over roads. But you can't just have this seat of the pants planning which goes for big publicity over actual usage... It is the left-wing municipal equivalent of "getting tough on crime" or some other such red-meat nonissue meant to rile up identity politics

I would be more amenable to removing the 5th lane if it actually went to the projects nominal goal of public realm improvements. Then again I might just be old fashioned that way, in this bold new world of planning symbolic handouts evidently matter more than actual project goals. I also don't know where you get the idea that the removal of the 5th lane will lead to more trees. The reports are quite clear that the overall road with won't change noticeably, with the space relocated to bike lanes. So, yea, I guess your last statement is somewhat accurate..

I agree that Jarvis is "unpleasant to *be* on" and that should be changed, but how do you not lay the load on what lines the street? How can you so easily separate "the street" from "what lines the street"? Does the sidewalk line the street, or is it the street, for instance? If the "street" only goes to the curb, how could it ever be pleasant to be on? I wouldn't want to *be* in the middle of any street.

Here is a wild, dare I say peevish, suggestion, why don't you actually read what other people say as opposed to misrepresenting them based off of some ridiculous sense of superiority due the ability to post dumb webisms. I understand as well as anyone the empowering ability of ignoring mundane, provincial things like quotes, facts and arguments in favor of copy and pasting other people's pictures to the internet accompanied by one line snipes at Rob Ford. I guess its easier to slap together the argumentative equivalent of a Cheese Wizz sandwhich than, you know, think. You don't really have to do any thinking if all you have to do when someone disagrees with you is this:

 

[adma]

You sound like my father yelling at my mother.

 

[Tewder]

The City of Toronto Bike Plan (2001) set an aggressive goal to add 1,000km (I believed that has been revised to 1200km) of cycling infrastructure within the City of Toronto by 2011 and to make cycling a safer activity. This isn't something that just came up recently, it was a result of years of studies and consulting with local community groups before the official plan was announced 8 years ago.

The city makes all kinds of plans and sets all kinds of objectives that don't get realized. This one has 'wheels' so to speak because of the radical special-interest group that is pushing for it.

When you look at the state of our roads and sidewalks and parks and so on, with very little being done, you can't help but shake your head at the city's priorities, and to me the lack of 'logic' here implies political opportunism rather than sound governing.

Not to bash cyclists though as I understand why people in a city like Toronto would opt to cycle in good whether and at certain times of the year at least, but why the need for actual bike lanes? Does that little painted line really make cycling through the heart of the city safe? I don't think I would be relying on that.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

The city makes all kinds of plans and sets all kinds of objectives that don't get realized. This one has 'wheels' so to speak because of the radical special-interest group that is pushing for it.

Are cycling groups/lobbyists really considered "radical"?!

When you look at the state of our roads and sidewalks and parks and so on, with very little being done, you can't help but shake your head at the city's priorities, and to me the lack of 'logic' here implies political opportunism rather than sound governing.

Please, careful with bashing our parks! I think I've provided ample evidence that for the most part, our parks are pretty damn fine

Not to bash cyclists though as I understand why people in a city like Toronto would opt to cycle in good whether and at certain times of the year at least, but why the need for actual bike lanes? Does that little painted line really make cycling through the heart of the city safe? I don't think I would be relying on that.

Yes, that painted line creating a (roughly) 1.5 metre exclusive cycling lane makes a huge difference. Is it a perfect solution, no.

 

[typezed]

That little painted line means a cyclist doesn't need to balance in the gutter, and protects them from being squeezed tight against the curb by drivers in a hurry to speed past another car. It also allows more room to stay clear of the door zone when passing parked cars. Over time it will hopefully attract a mass of cyclists to certain routes, so that any one rider no longer needs to feel like a lone irritant to the two ton machines capable of killing him with hardly a glance. They're a reminder to drivers that bicycles do have as much right to be on city streets as cars. Perhaps fully separated and networked lanes (the kind we see in articles discussing New York and Copenhagen's initiatives) which will allow a greater number and variety of riders to feel safe should be what we're moving towards rather than rushing to push little white lines on to every street, but any room set aside for bikes does make riding in the city a little less anxious. I've been using Shuter - Dundas to Kingston Rd. recently. The lines do help me feel more confident on the street.

(Note: I think the Sherbourne lanes fill the bicycling need in this area at this time. Would have liked to see the original intent to improve the pedestrian environment on Jarvis upheld, rather than it becoming a debate on bike lanes.)

 

[adma]

Are cycling groups/lobbyists really considered "radical"?!

Who says they can't be? (Not generically, of course.)

 

[jmacmillan]

Bike Lanes 2.0

I cycle all year. Yes, the painted lines DO make a difference. However, they are at best a half-measure. Ideally, bike lanes are buffered from traffic so there is no possibility of encroachment by motor vehicles. Call it Bike Lanes 2.0. Put the two lanes together and some kind of fence. A good measure of success would be to see children and elderly people happily cycling. Currently, the off-road portions of Martin Goodman Trail are a good example. I would love to see this concept examined in detail.

 

[Tewder]

Are cycling groups/lobbyists really considered "radical"?!

Yes, they seem to be. Not that I'm implying 'radical' to be a bad thing, I don't blame people for wanting what they want. I'm simply criticizing the municipal culture here as being too reactionary in allowing radicalized special-interest groups to set agendas and priorities.

Please, careful with bashing our parks! I think I've provided ample evidence that for the most part, our parks are pretty damn fine.

I bash with love. You are doing a great job of documenting the city's parks and I enjoy your thread but I do think I have to disagree with your overall assessment, which I grant you may simply be my own 'radicalized special-interest' agenda With several notable exceptions (Music Gardens and Yorkville among them, which to be fair are fairly new) I find Toronto parks to be fairly uninspiring especially, as somebody noted, in comparison to other places. When I look at the Grange or Queen's Park or Allen Gardens or little Clarence Square I could cry. Urban parks should be little oasi (oasises?) for city dwellers who often don't have backyards. They are an opportunity to inject some romance or nature or art into the urban jungle which to me is fundamental in the creating of truly liveable urban spaces. Tree canopies along thoroughfares, green roofs and a beautiful healthy waterfront are all part of this equation. Obviously patched grass and trees are fine for soccer pitches and baseball diamonds etc. and not every parkette has to be the Luxembourg Gardens or Bryant Park but for a major capital city the size of Toronto we need to do better. It's not all doom and gloom, however, which is why I say i bash with love. Changes are happening, but instead of being grateful for them we should be demanding them.

Yes, that painted line creating a (roughly) 1.5 metre exclusive cycling lane makes a huge difference. Is it a perfect solution, no.

I guess I'm just wondering to what degree the little white line may give a false sense of security? I'm sure the testing has been done so I wont quibble. At the same time you probably wont find me on a bike along Jarvis or University or Bloor anytime soon, no matter if there are white lines or not.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Yes, they seem to be. Not that I'm implying 'radical' to be a bad thing, I don't blame people for wanting what they want. I'm simply criticizing the municipal culture here as being too reactionary in allowing radicalized special-interest groups to set agendas and priorities.

There are a few radical fringe groups within the biking community (not that that's a bad thing) but for the most part the average cyclist is quite simply looking for a safe way to get around the city as an alternative to driving/owning a vehicle or taking TTC. This may be for reasons of one having a "green conscience", wanting to improve one's health, financial reasons, convenience or maybe all of the above. A good urban centre promotes multiple alternatives to moving within a city; cycling and walking safely (i.e. not getting killed or injured walking or riding a bike) should be high on the list in a good, livable city.

I bash with love. You are doing a great job of documenting the city's parks and I enjoy your thread but I do think I have to disagree with your overall assessment, which I grant you may simply be my own 'radicalized special-interest' agenda With several notable exceptions (Music Gardens and Yorkville among them, which to be fair are fairly new) I find Toronto parks to be fairly uninspiring especially, as somebody noted, in comparison to other places. When I look at the Grange or Queen's Park or Allen Gardens or little Clarence Square I could cry. Urban parks should be little oasi (oasises?) for city dwellers who often don't have backyards. They are an opportunity to inject some romance or nature or art into the urban jungle which to me is fundamental in the creating of truly livable urban spaces. Tree canopies along thoroughfares, green roofs and a beautiful healthy waterfront are all part of this equation. Obviously patched grass and trees are fine for soccer pitches and baseball diamonds etc. and not every parkette has to be the Luxembourg Gardens or Bryant Park but for a major capital city the size of Toronto we need to do better. It's not all doom and gloom, however, which is why I say i bash with love. Changes are happening, but instead of being grateful for them we should be demanding them.

Thank you Tewder!
I assure you, I have no radical agenda of any type to do with City parks! Our parks were getting trashed but bad in several threads last winter & spring so I was inspired to document as many parks as I could in the downtown area to prove with images, not words, that they are nowhere near as bad as they were being made out to be - and I'm far from done. I'm also one of those annoying neighbourhood types who is on the blower to Toronto Hydro once or twice a month reporting burned out streetlights in my neighbourhood, and I email or phone Access Toronto to report lights that are out in parks around my neighbourhood. OK - so I do have something of an agenda, but not a radical one!
I have a somewhat different view of our downtown parks (the one's that I'm familiar with or have documented so far) so we probably won't agree here. For a fairly young city I think the sheer number of parks and parkettes that we have is impressive in of itself and the fact that most are maintained quite well (8 or 9 out of 10?), pleasant to be in (yes, in my eyes most are oasis's! ), safe and that many serve multiple uses throughout the year makes me proud. Could they be improved or more beautiful? Yes absolutely, there can always be improvement and yes, perhaps we should demand better although many would argue money could be much better spent elsewhere. But that's a whole other debate.

I guess I'm just wondering to what degree the little white line may give a false sense of security? I'm sure the testing has been done so I wont quibble. At the same time you probably wont find me on a bike along Jarvis or University or Bloor anytime soon, no matter if there are white lines or not.

My personal opinion is they do help create a much safer cycling environment, absolutely no doubt about it. Is there also a false sense of security? Yes, somewhat. Out of town drivers may not understand what the lines are for, those talking on cell phones while scratching their itchy crotch and digging into their nose while eating all at the same time don't pay attention and wander into the lanes and a LOT of cab drivers & delivery vehicles park regularly in the lanes as if the lines don't exist. To stop to drop off a passenger is one thing, to park is another.
As more and more cyclists discover the "lifestyle" and more cycling lanes and trails are added throughout the City of Toronto in the next couple of years I think the learning curve of cars and bikes sharing the road will get better. Heaven forbid it gets worse!

 

[Tewder]

It's about familiarity and education, I would agree. We have bike lanes in my neighbourhood and I can't count how many people I have 'almost' accidentally run over when making a right turn in my car. After a few harrowing experiences it is now part of my routine to check for bikes coming up from behind as well as oncoming traffic from the left and pedestrians crossing.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

It's about familiarity and education, I would agree. We have bike lanes in my neighbourhood and I can't count how many people I have 'almost' accidentally run over when making a right turn in my car. After a few harrowing experiences it is now part of my routine to check for bikes coming up from behind as well as oncoming traffic from the left and pedestrians crossing.

It works both ways here. Cyclists have to take equal responsibility to ensure that they are also keeping an eye out for drivers who may not see them coming.