Jarvis St. bike lanes will be re-examined

[fuji]

David Miller and his cabal of leftist councilors perspective has always been to make a war on cars and force people into the transit option.

Once the price of gas doubles a few more times that's going to be seen as visionary by the historians. Like it or not the days of the car are numbered, it's simply not going to be an economical choice in another 25 years or so.

City planning should be done on a 25 to 50 year horizon. What's your best guess at the price for a litre of gas in 2037?

 

[xssive]

Are you forgetting that there will be electric cars. Gas cars will go the way of the dodo bird. But electric cars or another form of fuel will keep cars on our roads long after we're gone. That's why it was short sighted of council to get rid of parking lots and other car infrastructure. So I agree they should be planning 25-50 yrs ahead. Gas will be about $6-8 a litre in 2037. My guess is based on the fact that 30 yrs ago when I started driving is was 40¢/litre, add in some inflation, and some shrinking resources (making it more difficult and expensive to get) and voila! $6-8/litre.

 

[fuji]

Electric cars are never going to be as efficient as the internal combustion engine. With electricity it makes a lot more sense to use power lines, such as with subways and street cars.

The energy efficiency of the conversion of electricity to a battery/fuel-cell is too steep. In the end, electric cars will have a role, but they will never play the same role as the internal combustion engine plays today.

An electric car will be like $10/litre gas. At some point gas will be more expensive than that, and electric cars will take over--but it'll still be expensive, nobody will drive around in electric cars as freely as they did on $1/litre gas.

 

[james t kirk]

David Miller and his cabal of leftist councilors perspective has always been to make a war on cars and force people into the transit option. Adam Vaughan was one of his proponents. They did everything they could to make life difficult on drivers in Toronto.

Examples:

- Bike lanes on Jarvis. .

Bike lanes are ALWAYS a good idea. When roads are being reconstructed, they should always be widened by 2 metres on either side to accomodate a bike lane. Jarvis was a whacky idea previously (5 lanes) and it leant itself to having a bike lane added on either side.

Jarvis is fine at 4 lanes.

As far as I am aware, there are no 4 lane roads which were converted to 2 lane roads to accomodate bike lanes. (I could be wrong.)

- Removal of parking lots in the city and replacing them with condos without requiring builders to put in adequate guest parking or even Green P lots..

I don't think the city sold off any property that was being used as Green P lots. Private lots get sold to Developers all the time - c'est la vie. That's the free market.

- Increasing parking enforcement and officers with the added bonus of revenue for the city..

So, they are enforcing the law then correct?

- removing the eastern end of the Gardiner from the DVP to York St. The reason for this is because they think people do not make use of the port lands because the highway is a mental barrier. People do not access the port lands because there is really nothing there yet. Making them cross a 6 lane roadway isn't easier especially when there will be more traffic on it. "Studies indicate this will only increase travel times by 4-5 minutes" is complete BS. Ever seen when a highway ends? It's always a clusterfuck (see Allen Expressway at Eglinton). Now imagine that at the bottom of the DVP south, or the long line of cars turning left onto the DVP north from Lakeshore after a ball game. Nightmare. This one is still slated to happen. Btw this will cost us $300 million..

I agree, tearing down the Gardiner is IDIOTIC, unless it is replaced by a free flowing tunnel. Short of that, the Gardiner is great. I consider myself a fairly urban individual, but I don't have a problem with the Gardiner. (Though I would love to see a tunnel with parkland above (not that that will ever happen)).

- St Clair TTC streetcar right-of-way..

The St. Clair Dedicated Street car is a great thing. They really fixed up the street, it is attracting new development along St. Clair, more development fees, increased tax revenue. It will pay for itself in the next 5 years.

I fully support the St. Clair Street Car.

- Car registration fee before Rob Ford got rid of it..

That was a source of revenue. It wasn't that big of a deal, nor was it an attack on drivers. Rob Ford is going to be facing a 700 million dollar deficit next year - just wait. This is going to get interesting.

There are a lot of people out there who would rather pay a 60 license fee (myself included) if it means that the city can preserve services and not go into a deficit.

- Speed bumps and whatever else they can think of to make car use expensive, difficult and painful..

Actually, the City HATES putting in speed bumps.

Speed bumps (or traffic calming) are always the result of local residents banding together to demand that the City do something to "slow cars down" on their urban streets so their little darlings will be safe. (awww). If anything, the City lacks balls in telling the local residents that they will not be getting any speed bumps.

But the City does not go around looking for streets to install speed bumps on.

All I can say is thank god for Rob Ford.

I wouldn't say that.

At best, we'll see how he makes out.

The jury is still out.

 

[xssive]

Jarvis is fine at 4 lanes.

I wouldn't agree to a generalization that bike lanes are always a good idea. They are a good idea if you plan ahead and plan properly with ideal routes. However, I think drivers who use Jarvis frequently with overwhelmingly say that Jarvis is not fine at 4 lanes.

I don't think the city sold off any property that was being used as Green P lots. Private lots get sold to Developers all the time - c'est la vie. That's the free market.

No the city did not sell off any lots, however they do oversee any developers plans for a property and neighbourhood and can request that they put in X amount of guest spots and even a Green P garage. It has nothing to do with free markets.

So, they are enforcing the law then correct?

They are enforcing a law that they've created conditions to their advantage. Here's the plan... 1) Create less parking availability 2) Limit street parking to certain times when meters are enforced (say 2am), or parking becomes n/a (say midnight), then limit the parking to 3 hour limits. So if you're out clubbing downtown and parked on the street there is a high likelihood that you will break one of these rules and get a ticket. 3) Get more PEO to "enforce" the by-law.

The St. Clair Dedicated Street car is a great thing. They really fixed up the street, it is attracting new development along St. Clair, more development fees, increased tax revenue. It will pay for itself in the next 5 years.

It would have still gotten that development. The streetcar is not a new thing on St Clair. It's been there for years. So that development would have happened anyways. The right of way has only made it more difficult to drive on St Clair (which wasn't easy before).

That was a source of revenue. It wasn't that big of a deal, nor was it an attack on drivers. Rob Ford is going to be facing a 700 million dollar deficit next year - just wait. This is going to get interesting.

Yes it was a source of revenue, but again as I said it was aimed at cars. It was the easiest target and for Miller the only choice because he hates cars. Hopefully Rob Ford can find that $700 million through efficiencies, cutting off the fat and privatizing some services.

Actually, the City HATES putting in speed bumps.

Speed bumps (or traffic calming) are always the result of local residents banding together to demand that the City do something to "slow cars down" on their urban streets so their little darlings will be safe. (awww). If anything, the City lacks balls in telling the local residents that they will not be getting any speed bumps.

I agree with you. However if the city did a better job with their planning and being more car friendly on their major arteries, this short cutting through residential streets wouldn't be as much of a problem.

Who knows how Ford will do in the end, I agree. However thus far he's done a good job IMHO.

 

[james t kirk]

Successful cities are not designed around making it easy for cars to zip from one end of the city to the other. (Usually, for the ease of non-residents.) Successful cities flourish when they have a thriving residential community. Toronto is lucky in a way that the inner city was built with tight streets and tight properties in a grid pattern with short blocks. All these design concepts lead to living neighbourhoods.

If you want to see how automobiles can destroy an inner city, just drive 1 hour west to my hometown of Hamilton Ontario. There, using classic American 1950’s thinking, local politicians and planners decided that the city of the future was based on the automobile. They set about turning streets into expressways to the suburbs where commuters could whisk along in their cars without stopping and be home to the burbs in 30 minutes. In Hamilton, this type of thinking made the city planners turn the entire downtown into a one way street network designed in favour of the automobile instead of in favour of the local resident. The result has been 50 years of decay.

Future thinking and planning of urban centres cannot be automotive centric. Simply put, our streets are operating at above capacity now and we cannot keep shoe-horning in more cars. We simply don’t have the capacity to support more cars. Yonge Street simply cannot be made into 6 lanes, etc.

Your type of thinking is right in line with the 1960’s crowd that destroyed most inner American cities. Experience has proven that 1960’s planning mentality is not sustainable going forward. In order to succeed, successful cities of the future need to utilize mass transit much more than they have done in the past in order to accommodate a growing population.

As to mandating that developers incorporate more public parking in their developments, I’m not a big believer in this kind of thing. I don’t know if the city does it or not, but it would only be a further burden to development frankly and again, the inner city does not need more cars – it needs less cars and more public transit.

As to St. Claire, the end result looks great and they did a good job. There are still four lanes of roadway for cars and the street car is far more efficient. The developers are happy, the local residents who use transit are happy. The only people crying are the local businesses because they think that they are entitled to “compensation” as all local business believe every time the City paves a road, or replaces a watermain. Sorry, no. Infrastructure needs to be replaced and updated and it is a fact of life. No different than me having to put up with needing reading glasses in my old age.

As to Ford, the best I can say is that the jury is still out. But if you think that there are 700 million dollars in savings to be had – well, you are the kind of guy I want to meet cause I have a bridge for sale that I would like you to look at. Personally, I think Ford is a boor, and a dummy frankly. He’s like the classic loudmouth that you meet in any bar who never stops bitching about the government. A typical right wing gas bag. But I will give him his due and I will wait and see. He may surprise me (I doubt it though.)

 

[fuji]

I just want to point out the fallacy of thinking more road capacity will result in fewer traffic jams. More capacity just results in more people choosing to drive, often from further away. You still get the same number tring to short cut on side streets and you still get the same slow downs, because you just add more cars until it jams up.

 

[james t kirk]

^^^ Exactly.

 

[wigglee]

all the pro bike lane arguments seem to ignore the fact that for at least half the year, the weather and road conditions in T.O. are suitable only for foolhearty madmen in rubber suits.

 

[Rockslinger]

Read in the papers that the city will reveal their bike lane plan very soon and Rob Ford said that getting rid of the bike lane on Jarvis is not a "high priority" for him.

 

[Brill]

all the pro bike lane arguments seem to ignore the fact that for at least half the year, the weather and road conditions in T.O. are suitable only for foolhearty madmen in rubber suits.

It's easy for regular commuters to ride from the end of March to the end of November - that's 8 months or 67% of the year. It only takes a bit more preparation to stretch that another 2 months where it's cold but the streets are clear and dry - that's 83% of the year. A bike lane keeps them out of car lanes.

Conservatives should be applauding a means of transport that saves millions and has potential to save billions in infrastructure, health care, the environment and Canadian lives lost to fight for oil. Why aren't they?

 

[wigglee]

It's easy for regular commuters to ride from the end of March to the end of November - that's 8 months or 67% of the year. It only takes a bit more preparation to stretch that another 2 months where it's cold but the streets are clear and dry - that's 83% of the year. A bike lane keeps them out of car lanes.

Conservatives should be applauding a means of transport that saves millions and has potential to save billions in infrastructure, health care, the environment and Canadian lives lost to fight for oil. Why aren't they?

wow....let's subtract much of those hopeful statistics due to threatening wind, rain, thunder and lightning during the non-frigid season. It has rained almost every day from april 1 til now for instance...happy swimming.

 

[arotkca2]

As a pedestrian, I have had occasion to cross Jarvis dozens of times since the bike lanes were put in. It is for cyclists, right? So where are the cyclists. Most times, I am lucky to see one or two at the most. If this reversed, the commies at NOW Magazine are going to have a fit. Give the roads back to the cars.

 

[oldjones]

all the pro bike lane arguments seem to ignore the fact that for at least half the year, the weather and road conditions in T.O. are suitable only for foolhearty madmen in rubber suits.

Not true. Toronto streets are often bare on our mild winters. Maybe December thru February would qualify for unrideable. But the city plows the snow onto the bike lanes, instead of leaving it for the SUVS to mush down.

 

[wigglee]

Not true. Toronto streets are often bare on our mild winters. Maybe December thru February would qualify for unrideable. But the city plows the snow onto the bike lanes, instead of leaving it for the SUVS to mush down.

and most of those bike lanes sit largely unused....perhaps the continued existence should be based on a count of the usage. Not everybody wants to ride in sub zero climate, or sweat in summer ( needing a shower and a change of clothes when they get to work) and if you need to carry items or intend to purchase things, there is the problem of limited storage.

 

[Brill]

Most sidewalks in the suburbs are underused, a lot of money went into these separated concrete paths.

Does that mean we should rip them out and have people walk along the side of the road? Of course not, it's safer the way it is now for pedestrians and drivers.
Let's encourage people to commute in ways other than driving, it saves everyone money and makes a healthier city.

 

[onthebottom]

Wouldn't simply banning left turns during rush hour make those two lanes as productive as the three?

Cities need to work harder to make themselves bike accessible.

OTB

 

[Rockslinger]

Let's encourage people to commute in ways other than driving, it saves everyone money and makes a healthier city.

Too sensible. It will never happen. We are talking about human beings (not the most logical creature on this planet).

 

[fuji]

Change the law to allow cyclists to take full control of the rightmost lane. Pretty soon drivers will be demanding more bike lanes.

Note that in the city this is the only SAFE way to ride a bicycle in the absence of bike lanes. If you hug the right edge of the right lane cars routinely pass you in unsafe ways. I've seen drivers pass cyclists under these circumstances at an unsafe distance--once I saw a driver clip the cyclist, who then wobbled out of control and fell off his bike, landing under the wheels of the following car. Fortunately the driver behind slammed on the brakes fast enough to avoid running over the cyclist who was now lying on the road in front of his car--but you get the point. The only way to ride safely in the city is to take control of the lane, as it forces drivers to pass only when it's really safe to do so.

Encouraging cyclists to take control of the lane would reduce the number of deaths. It would also make drivers aware of why bike lanes are needed.

 

[wigglee]

what about ebikes? are they allowed on the bike lanes? In 10 or 15 years most cars will be zero emission, so how does that affect the debate? Would a totally electric Smart car be a "big bad car"?