The Star: Jarvis St. must change with evolving environs

[gregv]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090204.BARBER04/TPStory/TPComment/

Rumble in Rosedale: City, commuters do battle over the fate of one lane
Headshot of John Barber

JOHN BARBER

City hall's much noted but indifferently prosecuted War on the Car is set to resume this spring when downtown progressives move to close the unusual fifth traffic lane in the middle of Jarvis Street, angering commuters from wealthy residential neighbourhoods to the north.

This week, the Federation of North Toronto Ratepayers Associations joined local groups in Rosedale and Moore Park, directly north of the favoured commuter track, in opposing the plan to kill the extra lane. Sensing the growing opposition, north-end Councillors Denzil Minnan-Wong and Karen Stintz are beating the drums at city hall.

Before the expected rhetoric settles, the future of the iconic extra lane on Jarvis Street, which has signals that change the permitted direction of travel according to the needs of rush-hour drivers, will be nothing less than the future of Toronto as we know it.

In the meantime, Councillor Kyle Rae is cringing. As an arch downtowner trying to deliver a genuine improvement to a tired street - trees, bike lanes, widened sidewalks - he is nonetheless directly answerable to the commuters of Rosedale and Moore Park.

The influence of the old "strip wards," a form of electoral reform that united adjoining constituencies of vastly different interests and status, still shows in the configuration of Toronto Centre-Rosedale. As a riding in federal and provincial politics, it is now known simply as Toronto Centre. But at city hall, Rosedale still dares to speak its elitist name - very much so.

"Some people see this as an attack on the car but it's not about that at all," Mr. Rae complained, uncomfortable with the rebellion brewing within his own ward. "It's about improving the public realm, making it work for the neighbourhood and everyone who uses it."

The planned beautification is "more holistic" than a mere traffic plan, according to Mr. Rae. "But somehow - I don't know why - certain car owners think it's about them and their right to drive downtown."

Not so, replied North Rosedale Ratepayers Association president Michael Rodger. "I haven't heard anybody saying they're against the beautification and improvement of Jarvis Street," he said. Rosedale, he added, is sounding the alarm on behalf of all motorists, rich and poor, who are about to encounter a "massive clogging" in the core of the city.

"I don't think Rosedale of all neighbourhoods is going to be as dramatically affected," Mr. Rodger said. The lane closing's prime victims, he added, will be commuters from more distant and less socio-economically distinctive neighbourhoods.

On the face of things, the charge might seem silly. A 2005 traffic study predicted that losing the lane would result only in "modest" delays on Jarvis Street, Church and Sherbourne, measurable in seconds rather than minutes. Despite the narrowing, Jarvis will still carry four lanes of traffic.

But the war drums are beating, and the alliance of car commuters has learned a thing or three over the years. Politely deferring to Mr. Rae's hopes for tatty Jarvis, Mr. Rodger is promoting a compromise. "Why not do a trial closing?" he asked. See how things work out. "Once you make the permanent change it's hard to go back."

But that's where Mr. Rae digs in. A trial will only cause expected traffic problems without demonstrating the virtues of beautification, he said. There will be no compromise.

"It will be two lanes north, two lanes south, bicycle lanes and a widened sidewalk on the east for pedestrians," he declared.

A line in the sand for sure.

 

[Tewder]

Preferential funding? How about extending the 427 into the Greenbelt, something I think is completely contrary to several of the province's stated goals. That, I consider preferential funding, benefiting primarily the developers of virgin land.

We can all play the preferential funding game if you like.

I completely agree Archivist. There are far too many examples of preferential funding and not enough examples of common sense. Our public servants seem to lack the strength of purpose to stand up to interest groups, and there are many of them out there...

What's wrong with plowing bike lanes? Not only is it a good idea given that cyclists are the most vulnerable users of the road, without cleared lanes, cyclists in the winter have to ride in a position where it's impossible for cars to pass them. The city sadly doesn't even clear all the bike lanes..

In less favourable conditions common sense would suggest it might not be
a good idea to cycle today, no? Take a bus/streetcar or walk.

People choose to ride bikes and deserve some infrastructure as well, particularly as painting lines and plowing a little bit more of the road costs a tiny fraction of any new transit project...

It is this posture of 'deserving' something that rankles. I understand that some people prefer to cycle as their main mode of transport or simply enjoy it as part of their lifestyle. This is great, but does it mean that they are 'entitled' to do so no matter the cost and no matter the circumstances? Hopefully bike lanes and infrastructure will be a priority one day but there does seem to be far greater and more pressing infrastructure/public funding issues to address first. In the meantime, take the side streets where possible and ride safely when conditions permit.

As for Jarvis specifically, I would like to see it configured as more of a pedestrian-friendly downtown boulevard which would probably call for an approach that is less friendly to cars. The east end sorely needs a nice wide and welcoming north/south thoroughfare similar in scale to University, and Jarvis is probably the best choice in terms of location and existing scale. That said, to accomplish this sort of urban vision successfully the city better get serious about public transporation to ease the traffic demands on the major arteries. Also, I'm not against bike lanes on all major streets. Where possible, on a wide thoroughfare like Jarvis the central boulevard or median could possibly accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

I completely agree Archivist. There are far too many examples of preferential funding and not enough examples of common sense. Our public servants seem to lack the strength of purpose to stand up to interest groups, and there are many of them out there...

What does "preferential" means? And what is "common sense", in the context of a citizenery with multiple competing goals and interests? Your common sense might not be the common sense of others, and what is preferential to you is not preferential to others - and your priorities could be just as preferential from other perspetives. You, just like everyone else, have interests that ultimately aligns themself with many interest groups. Nobody exist in the vacuum of "non-interest".

Beyond the question of just how much "public servants" (by that I mean bureaucrats) is influenced by interest groups, in comparison to elected officials - the bigger issue is - why shouldn't they be influenced? You do live in a democracy...and the state must be receptive to the competing demands of the public.

It is this posture of 'deserving' something that rankles. I understand that some people prefer to cycle as their main mode of transport or simply enjoy it as part of their lifestyle. This is great, but does it mean that they are 'entitled' to do so no matter the cost and no matter the circumstances? Hopefully bike lanes and infrastructure will be a priority one day but there does seem to be far greater and more pressing infrastructure/public funding issues to address first. In the meantime, take the side streets where possible and ride safely when conditions permit.

Let's put it into perspective - what are the impacts of driving, from a socioeconomic and environment standpoint, in comparison to bicycling? Which one has a higher cost when all the factors are taken into account? And with respect to the issue of lifestyle - driving and living at a location and urban form that requires one to drive is also a lifestyle choice, and the ability to drive, and get from one place to another in the greatest ease in that context is also a sense of 'entitlement'.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

What does "preferential" means? And what is "common sense", in the context of a citizenery with multiple competing goals and interests?

I agree that these things are not 'black and white'. At the same time though we cannot throw 'perspective' out the window, especially If you're a city leader who has to be able to understand a bigger picture. As you say, there are myriad groups of differing and often conflicting self-interest out there vying for what they feel they are entitled to. This is fine and as it should be, as advocacy is an important part of the process. However, city leaders have a responsibility to understand that not every interest is going to receive funding, no matter how just the cause. They have to be able to question and justify the allocation of precious public funds according to the degree of need or demand that exists. This is only right. This may be a simplistic response but simplicity makes common sense when economic times are tough. It also makes sense when even in good times Toronto claims to be broke.

Your common sense might not be the common sense of others, and what is preferential to you is not preferential to others - and your priorities could be just as preferential from other perspetives. You, just like everyone else, have interests that ultimately aligns themself with many interest groups. Nobody exist in the vacuum of "non-interest".

Common sense is addressing the major problems that affect us all first, regardless of self interest. I like to ride a bike too but I have the perspective to understand that the big problem out there is the millions of people sitting for hours in bumper to bumper traffic on the highways and/or crammed into overflowing subways and streetcars so that they can get to work, earn a living and pay those taxes. The best solution, the one where the funds ought to go, should be about alleviating that situation in the most efficient and fair way possible. Building a bike infrastructure and spending money to maintain it doesn't help the most people to solve the biggest part of the problem. Again, this is a simplistic litmus test but it's all about managing limited funds to stretch them as far as possible.

Beyond the question of just how much "public servants" (by that I mean bureaucrats) is influenced by interest groups, in comparison to elected officials - the bigger issue is - why shouldn't they be influenced? You do live in a democracy...and the state must be receptive to the competing demands of the public."

Elected officials *are* public servants too.

As I said before, advocacy is important. Viewpoints that are considered 'specialized' can gain momentum and become embraced as valid solutions to issues. No question. City leaders who 'listen' can also hopefully make more meaningful 'big picture' decisions by consulting with as many groups as possible. Still, they have to balance the needs of the few with the needs of the majority, and how they accomplish this is in large part how they will come to be judged: they can let their hands be tied constantly spending money to appease the squeakiest interest-group wheels, on the one hand; or they can hold to the larger visions that likely got them elected in the first place.

Let's put it into perspective - what are the impacts of driving, from a socioeconomic and environment standpoint, in comparison to bicycling? Which one has a higher cost when all the factors are taken into account? And with respect to the issue of lifestyle - driving and living at a location and urban form that requires one to drive is also a lifestyle choice, and the ability to drive, and get from one place to another in the greatest ease in that context is also a sense of 'entitlement'.

I'm not going to defend the car here but the reality is that until we have adequate public transportation in and through the city and GTA region the car remains the lesser of evils for the vast majority of people. Where public transportation is accessible it is the best option, but bicycling is simply not a viable option for vast parts of the population who are physically unable to do so because of age and/or mobility or health issues, or who simply cannot commute daily by bike for reasons like distance, weather or other mitigating circumstances. Is a stock broker in a suit supposed to cycle across town in 80 degree summer weather before a meeting with executives? Is your 70 year old mother supposed to cycle down Yonge or Spadina to go shopping or visit friends? Is a person on shift work supposed to cycle home at 4:00 in the morning after working on their feet for 8 hours? Is a single lady going to cycle to work who is going to the opera in the evening afterwards? I understand that some people love cycling and will do it steadfastly in all conditions and circumstances but a little 'perspective' here tells us that this is a lifestyle choice for some but not a realistic one for so many, and so should probably fall lower on a priority list.

 

[confusion]

Is a stock broker in a suit supposed to cycle across town in 80 degree summer weather before a meeting with executives? YES (Showers at work) Is your 70 year old mother supposed to cycle down Yonge or Spadina to go shopping or visit friends? YES on a trike (Why we need safe infrastructure too) Is a person on shift work supposed to cycle home at 4:00 in the morning after working on their feet for 8 hours? YES (No different than anyone else's 8 hour day) Is a single lady going to cycle to work who is going to the opera in the evening afterwards? YES! How is this even a point? I understand that some people love cycling and will do it steadfastly in all conditions and circumstances but a little 'perspective' here tells us that this is a lifestyle choice for some but not a realistic one for so many (Wrong, with the right infrastructure it is the best lifestyle choice that will promote a healthy society), and so should probably fall lower on a priority list.

see bold comments...

 

[TKTKTK]

see bold comments...

Most people, regardless of whether they're a stock broker or a shift-worker, don't want to shower at their place of employment. Some people absolutely love it, but they're very much in the minority.

70 year olds are not going to suddenly take up bicycling, even on trikes, en masse.

And the point of young opera goer was that cycling doesn't fit into everyone's social life. Are you going to shower at the opera before the performance, too?


Cycling is a fine choice for a lot of people, but most would still prefer the convenience and quality of life that comes from a robust public transit system (nevermind the increase in convenience and quality of life that comes from car ownership)

I wonder what the cost would be to fit all public buildings and offices with showers and changerooms. Who will foot that bill do you think?

 

[confusion]

Really, you don't even need a shower if you've been out cycling. Even on the hot days if you just take it slow and casual you're unlikely to break a sweat. I just mentioned the showers for those "sweaty" people who use that as their only excuse. So you're "young opera goer" who probably doesn't even exist can just cycle casually from work to the show...

And if you are asking who should foot the bill? Well employers should, employers should be promoting healthy living. They should want their employees to be active and healthy. It would be a wise business investment. I'm not saying all businesses should, or would it be feasible to implement in all situations, but what I am saying is that more businesses could and should provide those options.

 

[confusion]

Oh and since when is a 70 yr old completely inept.

I know many older people who are active. I've also seen quite a few seniors riding around on eBikes this past summer. Everyone can be active, regardless of age.

 

[Whoaccio]

Let's put it into perspective - what are the impacts of driving, from a socioeconomic and environment standpoint, in comparison to bicycling? Which one has a higher cost when all the factors are taken into account?
AoD

Driving could very well be cheaper than biking, from a socioeconomic point of view at least. We hear a lot about the cost of congestion, the same principle would apply to biking. Unless biking would have an equal travel time to driving (something I find difficult to imagine, for most Torontonians) the difference in travel time would have to be considered in conjunction with the average value of time. Given that the GTA apparently looses billions of dollars per year from 5-7 minute delays spread over millions of drivers every day to auto congestion, the cost of switching to bicycling would be massive.

EDIT: Further, if people were required to live in denser settlements and closer to where they work, the added cost of housing would have to be considered a cost of this "lifestyle."

 

[TKTKTK]

Really, you don't even need a shower if you've been out cycling. Even on the hot days if you just take it slow and casual you're unlikely to break a sweat. I just mentioned the showers for those "sweaty" people who use that as their only excuse. So you're "young opera goer" who probably doesn't even exist can just cycle casually from work to the show...

You might not sweat, but all the healthy people I know do. I can barely walk to the car in the summer without developing a healthy, dewy, glow

You're right about one thing, the "young-opera-goer on bicycle" probably doesn't exist. You're going to bike in your fancy dress, or your suit? Or you're going to change at the Opera? It might look like a YMCA, but I doubt that's what they had in mind.

And if you are asking who should foot the bill? Well employers should, employers should be promoting healthy living. They should want their employees to be active and healthy. It would be a wise business investment. I'm not saying all businesses should, or would it be feasible to implement in all situations, but what I am saying is that more businesses could and should provide those options.

We have showers here at work. I know only a couple people who use them. One actually, but I assume he's not the only one. On a side note, I also don't really want to see your bicycling, or running, outfit at work. Be in a suit, or dress clothes, don't be wandering around in head-to-toe spandex. It isn't appropriate.

And I don't think 70 year olds are inept. I just think they've got different priorities than you. All but a very small minority have put their cycling days behind them. That's likely not to really change until my generation hits its 70s (unfortunately, you've got about 40-50 years to go)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Whoacaio:

Driving could very well be cheaper than biking, from a socioeconomic point of view at least. We hear a lot about the cost of congestion, the same principle would apply to biking. Unless biking would have an equal travel time to driving (something I find difficult to imagine, for most Torontonians) the difference in travel time would have to be considered in conjunction with the average value of time. Given that the GTA apparently looses billions of dollars per year from 5-7 minute delays spread over millions of drivers every day to auto congestion, the cost of switching to bicycling would be massive.

I am not advocating a complete shift to cycling regardless of trip type - but only short distance travels that benefit the most from such shifts, where the actual travel time and distance is relatively short, and the most benefits can be realized.

EDIT: Further, if people were required to live in denser settlements and closer to where they work, the added cost of housing would have to be considered a cost of this "lifestyle."

Just as all the added cost of housing that is spread out will have to be included.

The point here isn't to advocate for extreme positions that demands everyone drive, or exclude everyone from biking - but to draw a balance and encourage the use of transportation alternatives. It's also important to keep in mind how much resources was put into encouraging bike use - it's made into this huge issue, but really, how much does it cost the city per year? Relative to transit or roads? Like this talk about bike lanes being kept snow free - geez, it's not like most of the bike lanes aren't along roads that doesn't need to be ploughed in any case.

AoD

 

[waterloowarrior]

In other countries with more comprehensive cycling infrastructure stockbrokers and women in long dresses do use bikes to get around....

start designing things like in Netherlands or Denmark (I've also seen good things on a city-bike tour in Germany)... Separate bikes from traffic as much as possible. Paint bike lanes a different colour. have bike lights at intersections... keep paths and bike lanes free of deep snow. make it so that cycling feels safe, then you will get more children, adults, and elderly out biking, instead of cycling only being for young athletic males.

We shouldn't be looking to get more people into spandex and biking around quickly (thus needing showers), we need more people using bikes for everyday things. People need to feel safe, not feel like they could get clipped at any second. Children should be able to feel safe biking to school or and not have to be driven by their parents. People should feel perfectly safe biking along Yonge, Jarvis, or Queen, separated from traffic as much as possible so a car-bike collision isn't something to worry about.

The results are a healthier population, a safer city, a reduction in pollution, decreases in auto and cycling deaths, and decreases in car traffic.

IMO the emphasis on things like showers and helmets isn't what we should be focusing on. We should focus on creating infrastructure that makes people feel safe, keeps them away from cars as much as possible/practical, and encourages them to take out their bike. Right now many people just don't feel safe biking in Toronto.

 

[Tewder]

Confusion's vision for future commuting in Toronto :

On the way to tea:

There are many ways to avoid perspiration in hot summer months:

The new version of car-pooling:

On the way to the office:

We should be following a European model:

 

[confusion]

Looks good to me!

 

[Whoaccio]

The point here isn't to advocate for extreme positions that demands everyone drive, or exclude everyone from biking - but to draw a balance and encourage the use of transportation alternatives. It's also important to keep in mind how much resources was put into encouraging bike use - it's made into this huge issue, but really, how much does it cost the city per year? Relative to transit or roads? Like this talk about bike lanes being kept snow free - geez, it's not like most of the bike lanes aren't along roads that doesn't need to be ploughed in any case.

No, fair enough. I'm not really opposed to bike lanes and better biking infrastructure. I don't really think putting bike lanes along Jarvis or Bloor or such is a great idea, though. Personally, I would rather we turn more side streets into woonerfs or so called "complete streets." I cant see many people, outside of the cycling crowd, using a bike lane along Jarvis. The space would be better spent on pedestrian space