Today Wed Thu
It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on June 18, 2013
Clear
24°/12°		 It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on June 19, 2013
Clear
21°/12°		 It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on June 20, 2013
Partly Cloudy
22°/14°

13 Comments

news

Jarvis To Get Bike Lanes

By

Following a protracted day of heated debate over a plan that should really have been a no-brainer, City Council wisely passed the measure that would remove the reversible centre lane of traffic on Jarvis Street (one which should never have been added in the first place) in return for a four-kilometre stretch of curbside bike lane. Opponents complained that not many cyclists use Jarvis Street and it was therefore unfair to add a few minutes to Rosedale commuters’ travel time; proponents say that the street operates like a downtown highway, and that the unusually narrow lanes are a deathtrap for cyclists—and therefore a deterrent. Drivers gripe that people on bikes are aggressive; cyclists answer that eighty kilos of pugnacity is no match for 2,000 kilograms of steel. And so on, and so on. The acrimony between cyclists and automobilists may have yet to be assuaged, but even kids in kindergarten learn the importance of sharing.

Comments

  • http://undefined TokyoTuds

    Fantastic!
    Adding bike lanes will induce more bicycle traffic on Jarvis and more bicycle commuting in general. Well done!

  • http://undefined Kristu_Du

    It’s not just “Rosedale commuters” using Jarvis. It’s one of very few north-south arteries in this city. It’s how my family gets to the 401 to visit our parents (in Mississauga and Ancaster).
    Choke Jarvis and you’ll force that traffic to other streets, spreading congestion far more broadly than anyone wants. I fully commend council’s encouragement of cycling, but solutions need to address problems at hand, not some ideal future state.
    Toronto simply doesn’t have the infrastructure (neither in alternative streets nor in robust north-south transit) to soak up the overflow a narrowing of Jarvis will create.

  • http://www.theurbancountry.com James D. Schwartz

    Nice! It’s about time they did something about Jarvis Street.
    What a lame argument that there aren’t many cyclists using Jarvis Street. It’s like saying to a driver “You shouldn’t fix that flat tire because your car isn’t moving anyway.”
    Well maybe it’s not quite the same thing.. but you get the idea ;)

  • http://www.bitpicture.com Marc Lostracco

    As someone who lives, drives, and cycles on Jarvis, I couldn’t disagree with you more—and I’m someone who benefits by using Jarvis as a car thoroughfare to get out of the city.
    It’s never a good thing to just keep expanding to accommodate an increase in cars (widening the DVP, for example, wouldn’t decrease traffic—it would encourage more of it and become just as congested). As far as Jarvis is concerned, “choking” it won’t push much traffic off of it because it will still remain the north-south artery that it currently is, and relatively underutilized streets like Church could handle it. The inconvenience of waiting a few more minutes in your car to get to your home in Rosedale or Moore Park is not a convincing enough argument, and the notion that cars must be accommodated above all else is offensive.
    But traffic flow concerns aside, the bottom line is this: we should actively be trying to undo some of our past mistakes, as well as our current ones (not enough space allocated for bike lanes, for example), and as a resident of the area that Jarvis ruthlessly cuts though, I don’t believe for a blinkin’ second that people complaining about the additional commute could give a shit about the health of the neighbourhoods along the Jarvis route. Because they don’t live there; they just wanna get home quickly. If the same sort of ugly and highly-trafficked street was merely suggested today through Rosedale in order to provide quicker access to growing neighbourhoods north of it, people would be storming the gates with torches and pitchforks.
    The expansion of Jarvis was a tragic mistake that will never be restored, yet the removal of one car lane to make way for two bike lanes is so incredibly minor that I am baffled by why people are so opposed to it. From what I’ve seen, I can only chalk it up to selfishness.
    As a cyclist who uses Jarvis all the time to get to the bike lanes on Gerrard, I can tell you that riding a bike down Jarvis is an exercise in terror, and considering that the curb lanes are used for parking and thus bikes have to take up the entire lane (which is their right anyway), you’d be amazed at how incensed some drivers can get when the cyclist in front of them makes them miss a green light).
    And as a driver on Jarvis who hates sitting in traffic, I still kinda say, “so what?” We shouldn’t be driving as much as we do anyway. I consider the infuriating rush hour traffic jams not the fault of poor urban planning, but rather because we like moving around by ourselves in big machines that take up a lot of space. Traffic jams suck, but that’s what we get for being infatuated with personal automobiles. [Shrug]

  • http://undefined jimvanm

    In Toronto, we are still learning how to find a balance between the needs of cyclists, and the needs of drivers.
    In Copenhagen, they have something that we should be studying very carefully. There, bicycles and cars co-exist in a way that we can scarcely dare to dream of.
    How do they do it?
    Frankly, I don’t know nearly enough to say for certain, but there are several things worth noting:
    1) If there is no bicycle lane (which is rare), vehicles yield to bicycles.
    2) Cyclists obey the law.
    3) Children are taught from an early age the rules of the road for cyclists (this is common in much of Europe).
    4) The prevalence of bicyles appears to have a calming influence on traffic.
    As it stands right now, here in Toronto we have so much confusion, and stemming from that, hostility, between cyclists and drivers.
    Some things worth considering (this is just a brainstorm, so forgive me if I display ignorance of all the issues):
    1) Bicycles should be given the right of way in amost all cases. (if for no other reason than for safety). I can’t help but wonder if this would have the same calming effect on traffic that it does in Europen cities where bikes have the right of way.
    2) A clear set of laws need to be devised for cyclists. No more free for all. (if cyclists don’t respect the law, drivers won’t respect them).
    3) Police need to be empowered to enforce these laws. Cyclists must be held to the same standards as drivers.
    4) Children need to be taught the rules of the road for cyclists. At age 12 and older, any resident operating a bicycle must have a cyclist certificate indicating that they have passed a test of the rules of the road (as is done in many European nations). This would become an accomplishment our children could be proud of; a step on the path to adulthood. Imagine what happens when these children grow up and start driving cars? Having been cyclists, they are going to have a much greater respect for cyclists they encounter on the road. Not only that, but having learned the rules of the road from a much earlier age, they will in turn become better drivers.
    5) Extensive advertising must make both cyclists and drivers aware of the new laws. If the rules are fair and sensible, people are more likely to respond sensibly to them. Right now, I don’t think very many people really know what the laws are regarding bicycles, and I know for certain that many cyclists do not obey the laws that currently exist.
    In countries in Europe where bicycles are a common mode of transportation (such as Holland and Denmark), people take cycling very seriously. As a result, both drivers and cyclists co-exist much more peacefully than they do here.
    Can we learn something from those who have already figured so much of this out?

  • http://www.bitpicture.com Marc Lostracco

    Like other cities, Copenhagen also uses “bike boxes” at intersections. The stop line for cars is painted further back than usual, and cyclists in the curbside lane can move up to the front when stopped at the intersection, in front of stopped cars. This not only drastically decreases right-hook accidents, but also the bike/car collisions that happen when stopped traffic accelerates past the cyclist.
    Bike boxes also serve an important other service: they remind drivers that they are sharing the road. The lanes and boxes are painted a bright solid colour, and with bikes getting the priority to get through the intersection when the light turns green, drivers can’t miss a row of cyclists temporarily sitting in front of their car. Improved visibility goes a long way.

  • http://undefined Ben

    It’s how my family gets to the 401 to visit our parents

    …and the bike lane is tearing your family apart at the seams.

  • http://undefined friend68

    I’m in favour of this re-do for Jarvis street, mainly for the improvements on the street’s character for aesthetic reasons, and for the benefits of pedestrians in the area.
    I think in regards to a cycling strategy, the City needs to be a bit more inventive and creative that just painting a line to make some space at the curbs. These lanes get messed up by turning cars, snow, and parked cars (I’ll just be a minute!)
    Cyclists, at present, also aren’t particularly good citizens in regard to obeying any traffic rules or respecting those on foot. Mixed too close, cars and bikes just don’t seem to work.
    I’ve never understood why a cyclist can lay claim to a full lane when a car is overtaking him, but then at the red light, the bike can squeeze anywhere he wants so to get up the line at the light, where all the cars are then forced to pass again.
    I would think that perhaps a more significant bike route could be traced along a secondary street where it could be given a more significant presence.
    And while all this is going on, trying to retrofit bike traffic into the inner city, is anyone making those building out in the suburbs, where the is space, plan for for bikes and pedestrians now?

  • http://undefined atomeyes99

    see, this is part of my problem with the Jarvis decision: either Toronto is bike friendly or its not.
    right now, its half-assed (if even half).
    Amsterdam is ruled by the bike. It also is a smaller city, so its easier to navigate by bike, and there isn’t as much car traffic. but its bike culture really adds to its spirit.
    Toronto has…some painted bike lanes on some streets and no real flow. Adding Jarvis doesn’t necessarily increase bike culture.
    If the city was serious about bikes, you make a Montreal-like or amsterdam-like bike lane with bike lights. you don’t paint the side near the curb and do nothing to discourage cars and delivery trucks from parking in that lane.
    Embrace biking and make it part of the city. just don’t do it haphazzardly (like Jarvis) and expect people to leave their cars at home and use their bikes

  • http://undefined Alogon

    All the arguments coming from drivers are red herrings. Anyone who has been to Western Europe can tell you, cars and bikes can co-exist. Shit, they have even NARROWER streets to begin with. I drove through Europe and was amazed how well traffic flows even with the multitude of cyclists. Especially Holland.
    2 extra minutes in an air-conditioned, heated car with music and possibly a DVD player rouses no sorrow from me for a motorist.
    Marc is absolutely right, it is pure unmitigated selfishness driving the con side of this argument. 4 lanes seems to be plenty wide enough for almost all the other roads in this city.
    Here is an idea, live near where you work if you despise public transit, congestion and won’t ride a bike. But no, people would rather live outrageous distances from where they need to be 5 days a week and cause headaches for everyone else all the while demanding unfettered access to roads as if it were a personal right.
    The car is the enemy of the middle class! Not our pathetic council, not Miller, the car. More tax money goes in to roads, health costs from accidents and smog, bailouts for “too-big-to-fail” car manufacturers, subsidies for oil companies, and a myriad of other hidden costs. All the uproar should be directed at democratizing our lives by figuring out the real costs of our actions not begruding safe passage for others.
    One other point, for those who say the lanes are always empty consider this: 1. most people don’t ride onthe road out of fear of death. Drivers have nearly killed me many times. 2. Asshole drivers park their cars in these lanes so why would people think to use them since they are often obstructed anyway. Could you imagine the battle there would be if we chained our bikes in the middle of Dundas or Gerrard? 3. You don’t see people in the lanes because without major congestion the cyclists merely ride through. If there was no congestion on the roads you could look at any road at any time, see no one and make the same stupid conclusion – that no one is using them.

  • http://undefined ivan

    God
    This thread is a perfect example of why the sanctimonious douche bag segment of the cyclist community has turned so many people against this proposal. For one, my partner and I live downtown . However, her job is in Mississauga, mine is downtown. Should she quit? You willing to offer her a new job?
    Man, I do bike a lot, but will never get in the same lot with the “cars are evil” douches that seem to dominate the debate.

  • http://undefined Alogon

    Wow, your reply shows the selfish douchebag community is well represented here as well.
    It’s everyone else’s fault your partner lives so dasmn far from work? Your logistical problems are not due to cyclists who just wish a fair piece of the roadf they already pay for without car-driving asses thinking they have some sort of superiority that gives them the right to demand more and more space after gobbling up all there is already.
    No one said cars are evil except you in your comment. Perhaps there are some remedial reading comprehension classes you can bike your ass to.

  • mister j

    Very well put! I think what will make this debate about Jarvis successful will be the results of the forced self-reflection. I think the ‘yellow shirts’ and the councilors who support them had been initially successful in making this issue yet another ‘us/them’ argument, employing the rhetoric of ‘war’ and lumping all ‘car drivers’ and all ‘cyclists’ in opposing ‘camps.’ But I think they failed – most people now seem to be of the opinion that there’s a desire/need for both cars and bikes in the city (along with walking and transit). But as other commentors here have expressed, there’s a negative reaction to this new ‘never-wrong’ ideology of environmentalism – in the case of cycling, it’s people who ride bikes and don’t want cycling to be a ‘political statement’ or that they are somehow saving the world. They just want to ride their bike. Sure, many will say it’s a ‘short sighted’ position (if it’s a position at all), but I suspect it’s a common sentiment.