Looks like Toronto Mayor Rob Ford will get rid of the Jarvis Street bike lanes after all.
Although the bikeys promise not to give up without a fight, Council voted Wednesday evening to rip them out by the end of the year and put the reversible middle lane back in.
While it would break my heart if I was a Toronto taxpayer to see $300,000 wasted reversing this plan (which should never have been implemented by the former administration of David Miller in the first place) it is the right thing to do.
It is right for vehicular traffic, which needs all the resources we can give it.
And it is right for cyclists, because anything that discourages cyclists from braving downtown Toronto traffic is bound to save some of their lives.
(Why am I more concerned about their safety than they are themselves?)
One councillor who opposed the removal of the bike lanes said the cyclists are going to stay there anyway, bike lanes or no.
Does that mean the cyclists were there before and will remain?
Well, city officials say their numbers have tripled since the lanes were installed.
Which is it?
Those city officials didn't give specific numbers, just that 'three times' ratio.
But when the bike lanes were first introduced last summer the numbers were minuscule.
So three times nothing is nothing.
And as I alwasy say, let's count again in February.
Remove the emotion, and the facts are clear - as I said in the Pottery Road piece a few days ago, bikes and cars cannot mix safely.
Sure, it is the car driver who is (almost always) at fault in a collision (although that bicycle courier I saw die against a concrete pole on Yonge Street some years ago did that all on his own).
But - like that bicycle courier - it is the cyclist who is virtually always dead or seriously injured.
Recreational bike paths are a different issue. Like soccer fields, baseball diamonds, any public facility, it is a matter of priorities and budgets.
But as a means of commuting?
Toronto isn't Copenhagen; it isn't even Montreal.
Never gonna happen.
If City Council can find the budget to build dedicated, segregated bike commuter lanes for the tiny handful of people fortunate/wealthy enough to live in downtown Toronto within biking distance of their jobs (I assume these people have the facilities and time to shower when they DO get to their jobs), then be my guest.
It is a collosal misallocation of tax dollars, to the benefit of a minute fraction of the population.
But at least it won't be MY tax dollars.
Other than the fact that my Ontario and Federal taxes might somehow get mixed up in this scheme.
Damn; why did I have to think of that?...
Maybe you should try cycle commuting before you speak - a whole year of it. I think your attitude would change and you would see that cycling is beneficial to all in reducing gridlock, pollution, dependence on oil and improving people's health. But why should I care about drivers who sit stuck in their cars, encouraging more people to driver which will in turn increase gridlock? You can drive to the gym, pay lots of bucks to stare at a brick wall while on your treadmill, or you can ride a bicycle to work, and maybe the money you save would allow you to live closer to your work. And yes we can aspire to be Copenhagen.
Posted by: Chatchka | October 04, 2012 at 07:34 AM
Your poem doesn't even rhyme.
Posted by: Derek | October 04, 2012 at 11:48 AM
It's not a 'colossal' (mis)application of taxes (and not yours, because you don't live here, right?, given that the return on investment in providing bike infrastructure is much greater in terms of reducing congestion and ultimately improving public health than when people take up more road space being sedentary in cars or even buses. It's also none of your business when most bike use of Jarvis or any other lanes occurs. We could say the same about a lot of streets in terms of car use.
Your desire to remove bikes from the urban road use equation 'for their own safety' because it's too much to ask drivers to share the road and be responsible is disingenuous and smacks of fake concern.
Toronto also is not Milton. We have options for getting around here, and if you want to limit them, be prepared for more congestion.
I guess the reduction in collision rates doesn't count either, even if published in your own paper (http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1264301--eight-reasons-to-leave-jarvis-bike-lanes-alone), nor the actual stats (http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/reports/pdf/jarvis.pdf)
Posted by: Larry | October 07, 2012 at 10:17 AM
@ Larry but the bicycle lane didn't reduce congestion on Jarvis. The same number of cars used Jarvis after the bike lane was installed. It did not encourage any motorists to get out of their cars. So, where did these extra bicyclists come from? Other routes? Other modes of transportation (pedestrians, public transit users, skateboarders etc)? All it did was increase average travel time for +10 000 people by two minutes in each direction for a few hundred bicyclists. Do you want to know how much time in lost productivity that adds up too?
Posted by: Core | October 16, 2012 at 09:14 AM
Core, what's your source for the 10,000 and 2 minute stats?
Posted by: Larry | October 28, 2012 at 10:55 PM
removing the bike lane from jarvis was the best decision for the city and cyclists need to accept that the roads were made for vehicles. take your bike to the park where it belongs.
Posted by: justin | November 22, 2012 at 09:14 PM