Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam sent a February 7 letter (pdf) to Transportation Services cycling manager Dan Egan requesting that the Sherbourne separated bike lane be made into a "pilot" saying there needed to be further "consultation". Surprisingly she sent this letter during the consultation period which ended February 17 and she didn't copy Councillor Pam McConnell whose ward shares Sherbourne.
During the consultation period staff consulted with residents and businesses along Sherbourne, working to address their concerns into the plan. They addressed issues of TTC Bus service, Wheel-Trans pick-up/drop-off, Fire and emergency access, Curb-side waste collection and Snow removal and street cleaning. The presented the results in the panels at the January Open House. The majority of people attending the Open House appeared to be supportive of the separated bike lanes. It's not clear what further consultation needed to be done.
By calling for a pilot Councillor Wong-Tam would preclude any coordination of the repaving with the bike lane plan and possibly forcing staff away from their current plan of a raised cycle track with a rolled curb.
Councillor Pam McConnell, whose Ward 28 covers the east half of Sherbourne and all of Sherbourne south of Queen, likely wasn't aware of this letter even though her Ward covers half of Sherbourne. The letter wasn't copied to Councillor Pam McConnell, nor was her CA, Tom Davidson, aware of the letter. It is strange then that Councillor Wong-Tam is calling for all of Sherbourne to be a pilot, even the sections that are clearly in Councillor McConnell's ward. [Update: Councillor Wong-Tam informed me that she and McConnell actually discussed the issue four times, though she didn't say that McConnell agreed with making it a pilot, or even that McConnell was told about the memo before it came out.]
It's not clear if she consulted with residents associations or the Ward 27 ward advocacy group. She hasn't responded to the emails of at least three Ward 27 residents who requested more information from her on the matter. I received email copies from these residents who stated they have not received responses.
The ward group for Ward 27 was not informed by the Councillor either that she intended to push to make Sherbourne into a pilot. On February 13th there was a joint meeting with Wards 19, 20, 27 and 28. At the meeting, which I attended, there was no sense that the Councillor wasn't on side with the Sherbourne separated bike lanes.
Councillor Wong-Tam has a representative of her office at the Upper Jarvis Neighbourhood Association, which has an eastern boundary on Sherbourne Street. They had a meeting on February 1st, but according to a UJNA member there was no mention of the request for a trial in the UJNA minutes for that meeting. [Update: Councillor Wong-Tam tweeted that the president of UJNA approached her with concerns of parking: "Prez from UJNA expressed concern about more cars circling historic streets when 159 spots removed. I said that staff will respond." Though it still isn't apparent if the UJNA took a position on the matter, or requested that the project be made into a trial.]
Councillor Wong-Tam, to her credit, is aware of the issues affecting cyclists, that "Toronto is a city that is sadly lacking in infrastructure for cyclists and other alternatives to personal motorized vehicles." She hasn't been clear, however, just where there can be a separated bike lane corridor from the lake up to Bloor if not on Sherbourne.
Instead her letter lists items she feels weren't addressed completely in the consultation:
These items include residential accessibility, potential restrictions to long-term economic revitalization, replacement of street parking, and the non-inclusion of a streetscaping strategy that would contribute to the immediate community's lived experience.
The councillor felt that "access to businesses and residential buildings for residents of the Sherbourne community with physical disabilities" wasn't addressed even though the staff showed how they addressed them at the Open House.
She is concerned about car parking since "parking along this route could be part of a longer-term revitalization strategy for this road." This despite that staff had noted that over 400 surplus parking spots in the immediate area. It seems that it's more about on-street parking for her. Since Transportation staff had chosen this particular separated bike lane design for safety reasons it has meant that Sherbourne's parking would have to be removed. So if Councillor Wong-Tam wishes to keep on-street parking for "revitalization" (as if bike lanes inhibit revitalization?) then there can be no separated bike lane.
...it seems like a lost opportunity to conduct a repaving and segregated lane project while ignoring the serious streetscaping needs of Sherbourne.
Is she implying that the bike budget should now be used to pay for trees, lighting and so on? That seems a bit irregular, especially considering that these don't need to be done at the same time as the road. There's no way a bike lane is stopping better lighting and trees.
Councillor Wong-Tam is a real estate agent and business owner, according to Wikipedia. Is it possible that she is thinking of this issue through the lens of a real estate agent, and not primarily as addressing the concerns of current residents or cyclists?
I support Councillor Wong-Tam's stance on Jarvis to keep the bike lanes (though she's been lukewarm on the bike lanes preferring more the prior EA plan of just widened sidewalks). I appreciate that she's willing to push for better urban planning. But this is Sherbourne and she doesn't seem to have consulted with local groups before her request to likely undo the improvements for cyclists.
Comments
Random cyclist (not verified)
Please research more before
Fri, 03/02/2012 - 15:29Please research more before posting. Small things included - Tom Davidson is Pam's CA not EA. http://www.toronto.ca/councillors/mcconnell1.htm
Your arguments are a stretch and a clear misunderstanding of what the Councillor is doing.You should speak directly to her - a strong ally of the cycling community - before you make such accusations.
This "...it seems like a lost opportunity to conduct a repaving and segregated lane project while ignoring the serious streetscaping needs of Sherbourne." By no means implies she wants to use cycling money to pay for trees. As a Councillor she is likely concerned about the entire street and clearly looking to combine streetscape improvements so residents are not disturbed repeatedly. Is yours a politically motivated accusation? That is a serious stretch of your imagination and an attack on a Councillor who really is a friend of the cycling community. We will be in a difficult position if we lose the few friends we have on council.
herb
Corrected: Tom Davidson as
Fri, 03/02/2012 - 23:09Corrected: Tom Davidson as CA.
herb
I don't see how Councillor
Fri, 03/02/2012 - 23:16I don't see how Councillor Wong-Tam's request can do any good for cyclists. I'm happy to have the councillor as an ally but she made the wrong decision here in my estimation.
Let's get it installed - cyclists deserve a safer corridor. If we need to make tweaks afterwards so be it, but I don't see why that means we have to waffle now over it, especially over some on-street parking.
Even friends can be criticized for making poor moves.
herb
Councillor Wong-Tam responded
Sat, 03/03/2012 - 01:56Councillor Wong-Tam responded via Twitter. I have updated some of the post with her information. It's difficult to discuss this well via Twitter so I've copied them here and replied best I could:
That's a bit harsh. I was not entirely correct though not entirely wrong either. Asking for a trial still seems to come out of the blue - there was little noise coming from residents, local biz and the Bike Union ward 27 group was unaware that the councillor wanted to downgrade the project to a pilot. Why wasn't the request done out in the open as part of the consultation? It still seems unnecessary given how much consultation the staff conducted and how much support there was for the separated bike lanes.
I support better streetscaping there too, just not the pilot proposal. It doesn't exactly say that McConnell supported the pilot proposal, just that she understands. It also doesn't say if she spoke with McConnell before or after the letter was sent just to staff. And did she tell McConnell she was requesting a trial or just raised concerns?
I suppose this refers to just the streetscaping budget. That's good, it wasn't clear why an improved streetscape with new trees and lights has anything to do with the bike lanes which are on the roadway. The roadway width itself isn't being changed because that would trigger an environmental assessment in my understanding. So why not just spend Section 37 money at any time? Why would it require a pilot?
If Lower Sherbourne is being reconstructed then does that mean the separated bike lanes are going ahead there anyway? I'm reading this as saying the staff will tweak it up to the time of construction. If they're going ahead with the raised cycle track for south of Gerrard then it's not really a pilot because it can't be easily removed. Unless I've misunderstood that tweet.
My information came via a UJNA member so I assume that though the president had concerns this wasn't formally addressed by the association. It doesn't mean the UJNA requested a trial.
Note that Transportation staff found that 58 of those spots are surplus so it would likely be around just 58 cars needing to park elsewhere. But staff had already found that there were over 460 surplus spots in the immediate area. I think it's a fair tradeoff in exchange for safer roads for hundreds of cyclists.
Coordination and timing does not require a pilot. This can be done for a permanent installation as well.
It was clear from the Open House that those with disabilities would be able to load/unload by stopping on the bike lane hence the rolled curbs. City staff had already consulted and had made accommodations to allow Wheeltrans, emergency vehicle, etc. access.
I feel that's a fair balance between the needs for loading/unloading and the safety of cyclists. Any improvements could still be done after it's installed. Cities like New York, Amsterdam, Montreal have both separated bike lanes and people with disabilities. How would Toronto be any different here? Heck even people with disabilities ride bikes and get protection they deserve in those cities.
The staff did a pretty thorough consultation with property managers and business owners; met with them to address concerns, and then put out a notice to residents and business owners about the Open House. Those who cared enough about the issue showed up or sent in comments. Of the 50+ residents, property owners and business owners who provided comments, the comment staff received the most was support for the bike lanes.
There doesn't seem to be any need for a pilot. Tweaks can still be made afterwards; parking concerns have been addressed; access concerns have been addressed; streetscaping can happen at any time. A pilot is used in cases where we might want to remove something easily and quickly. I don't know of any good reason for why we'd want to remove separated bike lanes in the future.
But maybe I'm missing some crucial information.
fabien (not verified)
I love in cabbagetown and
Sat, 03/03/2012 - 13:50I love in cabbagetown and cycle as often as the weather permits, as do most of my neighbours. I don't know a single neighbour who doesn't want the separated bike lanes. I agree with Herb completely. We don't need to pilot bike lanes. We need to build them and convert ever larger numbers of downtown residents into cyclist, an efficient, affordable, healthy and environmentally-friendly way of getting around. Enough with the endless consultations please. Those that want to drive everywhere can move to Etobicoke with the likes of our dear bike-averse mayor. We live downtown, we pay taxes, we want bike lanes. Thank you.
Bethany
Well, it would seem that if
Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:09Well, it would seem that if the majority of the people want separated bike lanes then that is what they should have. This is some good information. Please keep us informed of any further updates.
When the right people are those who are making the decisions for the people to get a casino alternative they will be those who take what the people want to heart.
kiwano
So if the separated bike
Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:42So if the separated bike lanes on Sherbourne are made into a pilot, does that mean that the removal of the Jarvis bike lanes would have to be delayed until the pilot period is completed? I mean that seems to be the only responsible course of action to me. Also, given the recent spate of unseasonably warm winters, I can't imagine it would be responsible to run the pilot for any fewer than 2 years, in order to be able to properly gauge the interactions between this design and snow removal.
Random person (not verified)
Not sure if I missed it, but
Mon, 03/12/2012 - 21:14Not sure if I missed it, but why is this bad? Sorry, couldn't read through the whole post, cause I didn't see a point within the first 10,000 words.
ftsmcegsfc (not verified)
vlnpujcjlfup,
Tue, 03/13/2012 - 04:56vlnpujcjlfup, http://www.jbyfxaqwza.com xkzhnitjus