The Star: Jarvis St. must change with evolving environs

[ShonTron]

That is one of the best ideas I've heard on this forum...

Drivers pay their share for the roads (both to the province and city)
Transit users pay their fares.
why not have a licensing system for pedestrians to pay for their sidewalks.

And at the same time, since they are licenced, maybe the rules of the road can also be enforced on pedestrians, with tickets and demerit points
(I can't count how many times I've seen pedestrians run red lights)

 

[realtycoon]

That is one of the best ideas I've heard on this forum...

Drivers pay their share for the roads (both to the province and city)
Transit users pay their fares.
why not have a licensing system for pedestrians to pay for their sidewalks.

And at the same time, since they are licenced, maybe the rules of the road can also be enforced on pedestrians, with tickets and demerit points
(I can't count how many times I've seen pedestrians run red lights)

I'm guessing that you are a cyclist?!?

Pedestrians should pay too, but that is not fesiable. However a fee for bikes is feasable and has been done in other juristictions. And why not, a lane is being taken away from motorists that pay more than their fair share of costs (licencing, insurance, fuel and countless taxes to all levels) to a user that doesn't contribute financially towards the maintance of the road (bikes)

 

[waterloowarrior]

I'm interested.. where do they have licensing/fees for bikes?

Roads are subsidized just like sidewalks, transit, bike paths etc... municipal roads in general don't have very high cost recovery (in 2000 the numbers were something like 25% in Ontario, not including externalities like health care costs)

 

[confusion]

That is one of the best ideas I've heard on this forum...

Actually it is one of the worst ideas. I don't know how many times/threads this has been discussed. Cars pay because they pollute and damage the roads. Bikes don't, they are green, and they should not be taxed but encouraged.

If you tax cycling, no one will cycle. Brilliant idea.

 

[confusion]

And why not, a lane is being taken away from motorists that pay more than their fair share of costs (licencing, insurance, fuel and countless taxes to all levels) to a user that doesn't contribute financially towards the maintance of the road (bikes)

Most of the funding for roads comes from property tax genius. Not your feeble registration fees.

 

[realtycoon]

Actually it is one of the worst ideas. I don't know how many times/threads this has been discussed. Cars pay because they pollute and damage the roads. Bikes don't, they are green, and they should not be taxed but encouraged.

If you tax cycling, no one will cycle. Brilliant idea.

And by removing road capacity, the 99% of us for which cycling is not an option is stuck on alternate routes in gridlock, contributing more air pollution..

But the thinking of the City is to make driving as difficult as possible without providing an alternative, and when an alternative is proposed (Yonge Subway to Richmond Hill), a lot of people here are dead against it.

For many of us, cars are a fact of life and are a necessary evil. (btw, I take transit, but do own a car)

I find it quite ironic the thinking around here where people have no problem paying more property tax to pay for the waste and excess at city hall (BTW, Markham is able to avoid a tax increase by cutting waste at City Hall) but are up in arms when an idea such as cyclists paying to use the roads come up.

I guess there are quite a few renters here, that would not notice the tax increase as their rents are controlled anyways with the landlord absorbing that cost. (is it any wonder why so many rental buildings are in disrepair)

Well, enough of my rant....

 

[confusion]

And by removing road capacity, the 99% of us for which cycling is not an option is stuck on alternate routes in gridlock, contributing more air pollution..

hahaha, one lane of cars not moving in traffic with a moving bike lane versus two lanes of cars not moving in traffic. Your option does contribute less air pollution

 

[GraphicMatt]

And by removing road capacity, the 99% of us for which cycling is not an option is stuck on alternate routes in gridlock, contributing more air pollution..

Why do opponents of these sorts of projects never give any credibility to traffic studies carried out by professionals? There's no way removing the centre lane will cause gridlock. Your drive will be two minutes longer -- probably less.

But the thinking of the City is to make driving as difficult as possible without providing an alternative, and when an alternative is proposed (Yonge Subway to Richmond Hill), a lot of people here are dead against it.

What does the extension to Richmond Hill have to do with Jarvis street? Do a lot of people from Richmond Hill use Jarvis street every day?

For many of us, cars are a fact of life and are a necessary evil. (btw, I take transit, but do own a car)

Me too. And I often use the centre lane on Jarvis street. I still want it to go away.

I find it quite ironic the thinking around here where people have no problem paying more property tax to pay for the waste and excess at city hall (BTW, Markham is able to avoid a tax increase by cutting waste at City Hall) but are up in arms when an idea such as cyclists paying to use the roads come up.

You can't compare Markham to Toronto. Toronto is in an entirely different universe when you look at the level of services it needs to provide to its residents. Markham covered its budget shortfall by raising parking fines (from $5!), raising overdue book fees at the library and banking on developer money.

And, hell, Markham has way higher property taxes than Toronto does to begin with.

---

Does anyone else hate terms like "Motorist", "Cyclist", "Pedestrian", etc? It implies a weird kind of singularity to getting from place-to-place. "How do you get around?" "Oh, I'm a motorist." It's too binary.

The reality is that the vast majority of people use all sorts of transportation in this city. I walk, I take transit, I drive and I'd really like to cycle more. I doubt I'd ever cycle to work (I'd have to be in much better shape, for one thing) but It'd be fun to bike around various neighbourhoods in the warmer weather. Bike lanes would be a great motivator for me.

I guess what I'm getting at is that it's important to remember that the city doesn't build bike paths just to cater to angry dudes with shaved legs and spandex who piss everyone off when they blow through stop signs. They build bike lanes to support a healthy way of moving around the city -- it's not just about commuting, it's about recreation.

 

[confusion]

To show what Jarvis once was in its glory days... here is a great photo from 1910:

 

[TKTKTK]

To show what Jarvis once was in its glory days... here is a great photo from 1910:

A fine idea. Tear down all the new condo trash and build dense old Edwardian mansions. Finally, a plan for Jarvis I can support.

 

[junctionist]

An important consideration when it comes to bike lanes is that changing habits takes time. As the city becomes denser and a new generation discovers a proper network of bicycle infrastructure, it can become much more popular. It belongs in a long term vision of alternatives to vehicular transportation. It's hard to believe that some people get so worked about infrastructure that is extremely underfunded in the first place.

As for Jarvis, it doesn't really look so grand in those old photos. It looks like a tree lined suburban street. Hopefully the current project will have some art and landscaping beyond trees and grass.

 

[Tewder]

You can't compare Markham to Toronto. Toronto is in an entirely different universe when you look at the level of services it needs to provide to its residents.

What are these vastly different services that Toronto needs? Councelling for inferiority complex issues?

I doubt I'd ever cycle to work (I'd have to be in much better shape, for one thing) but It'd be fun to bike around various neighbourhoods in the warmer weather [...] Bike lanes would be a great motivator for me. it's not just about commuting, it's about recreation.

That's all lovely but why must it be a priority for everybody to fund your personal recreation choices? Maybe the difference between Toronto and other communities like Markham is the level of self-entitlement of residents where in smaller communities people inherently understand that you have to make hard choices in hard times, that there's a lot more 'give' than 'take' in the social contract we live by?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

What are these vastly different services that Toronto needs? Councelling for inferiority complex issues?

Welfare caseload, for one - knowing 20% of the program cost and 50% of the administrative cost is municipal? Socioeconomic makeup, for another? Like, just how many social housing units there are in the municipality, for example? Infrastructure lifecycle costs, considering the newness of assets in Markham? That's not to mention TTC.

That's all lovely but why must it be a priority for everybody to fund your personal recreation choices? Maybe the difference between Toronto and other communities like Markham is the level of self-entitlement of residents where in smaller communities people inherently understand that you have to make hard choices in hard times, that there's a lot more 'give' than 'take' in the social contract we live by?

Actually, think of it another way, instead of calling it recreation - How many TTC trips (which are subsidized in the neighbourhood of 60 cents per trip in 2007 I believe) are avoided because individuals biked to where they need to go instead, given an annual capital cost to the city of 7M (cost per day = 20K)? All you need is about 30000 trips diverted from the TTC in the whole of Toronto per day. And that's not to mention, you are getting permanent infrastructure that has an additive effect.

AoD

 

[ceaz40]

one thing that hasn't been mentioned that I believe makes licensing bicycles important (p.s. I had to have a bike license when I was young)....I've seen altercations between cyclists and motorists, where the cyclist has been in total disregard of the rules of the road and creating havoc for drivers. Not to mention, the idiots that jump the curb and ride the sidewalk (I've been hit by them) whenever it is convenient for them. I've seen a young woman terrorized on Bloor when a cyclist weaving all of the place was tooted at to warn of a turn she had signalled to make. He pulled up beside her car and kicked in the passenger side window leaving her shocked and covered in broken glass. Cyclists need to be able to be identified in certain circumstances just like car drivers. Bonus if the city makes a small amount of revenue, but I suspect that whatever is collected would merely maintain the system of licensing if that.

 

[WeirdFishes]

one thing that hasn't been mentioned that I believe makes licensing bicycles important (p.s. I had to have a bike license when I was young)....I've seen altercations between cyclists and motorists, where the cyclist has been in total disregard of the rules of the road and creating havoc for drivers. Not to mention, the idiots that jump the curb and ride the sidewalk (I've been hit by them) whenever it is convenient for them. I've seen a young woman terrorized on Bloor when a cyclist weaving all of the place was tooted at to warn of a turn she had signalled to make. He pulled up beside her car and kicked in the passenger side window leaving her shocked and covered in broken glass. Cyclists need to be able to be identified in certain circumstances just like car drivers. Bonus if the city makes a small amount of revenue, but I suspect that whatever is collected would merely maintain the system of licensing if that.

Great idea, and lets also get licensing for pedestrians. This way when there is mugging, abuse, drug dealing, etc. you can just take down their number! Still, no one has answered what country licenses bicycles? What a stupid idea. I own a car, I take transit and I bike. If you hate driving, you do have a choice, live in the city.