Why would anyone build a road that abuts a park and links a waterfront trail to a pedestrian / cyclist bridge – and name it after Dan Leckie, to boot – and not put a bike lane on it? Only in Toronto, eh?
Ward 20 Councillor Adam Vaughan amended the PW5.1 Bikeway Network recommendations to redress this judgement lapse, and added several other bike-friendly amendments. But when PW5.1 came to a vote at City Council on July 13, it also included the motion to remove the bike lanes on Jarvis.
So here is Vaughan’s dilemma: if he votes in favour of his own motions to add bike lanes (on Dan Leckie and other roadways), he is simultaneously voting against keeping the lanes on Jarvis. If he votes down the recommendations because of the Jarvis clause, he is voting against the whole cycling infrastructure proposal – and the Fordites can claim there is insufficient support even among downtown representatives to consider additional investment in cycling ever again.
After losing a motion to have the recommendations in PW5.1 considered individually, eight councillors chose Door Number 3 – they boycotted the vote entirely. And here’s the beauty of the vote trap: the Fordites can say, accurately, that only nine councillors voted against the removal of the Jarvis lanes. Councillors who withhold their vote are recorded as “Absent”. There is no category for “Boycotted”, or “Appalled”, or “Principled”. In fact, if every councillor who couldn’t support the recommendations as amended (for whatever reason) withdrew their vote, PW5.1 would have passed unanimously.
Which brings us to the councillors who voted to support the item. Some of them – perhaps most of them – were simply participants in a whipped vote, letting Georgio Mammoliti’s thumb do their thinking for them.
But some of them might have thought they were taking a relatively small hit on Jarvis for the greater good on Sherbourne, the Viaduct, and the Richmond / Adelaide corridor. Some of them might even have been legitimately taken in by Denzil Minnan-Wong’s verbal assurances that the Jarvis lanes would stay until the Sherbourne rebuild – including separated bike lanes – is completed (although the written direction to staff in recommendation 11 explicitly says otherwise).
We need to identify these councillors and engage them in intelligent dialogue. Can’t hurt. Might help.
Comments
Random cyclist (not verified)
Regardless, when there is no
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:28Regardless, when there is no bike lane and you don't feel safe, take the lane!
Larry (not verified)
I'm not sure Dan Leckie Way
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 12:16I'm not sure Dan Leckie Way really needs a bike lane. It's short, it's not busy and only bikes and pedestrians will be able to use it to travel to and from Portland St.
debra
Dan Leckie Way is already
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 13:35Dan Leckie Way is already attracting a surprising amount of use from motorists who want to bail out of the Lakeshore gridlock onto Spadina or Bremner via Fort York Blvd (still under construction, and currently one-way eastbound only). When the construction is finished and Fort York Blvd becomes a continuous street through Bathurst, Ft York / Dan Leckie will become the de facto Lakeshore-Front-Spadina relief line (not to mention the sole local access route for about a dozen condo towers). With the completion of the pedestrian / cycling bridge, Portland / Dan Leckie will also be the major north-south cycling route west of Spadina. At this point, Dan Leckie will become a very busy little stub of pavement indeed.
However, I may have introduced an irrelevancy by mentioning Dan Leckie at all. My main point was that a vote for PW5.1 was a vote for any bike lanes included in the “Mayor’s Bike Plan” (e.g. Sherbourne, the Viaduct, and whatever east-west solution they come up with on Richmond or Adelaide) – and, incidentally, a vote against keeping the lanes on Jarvis. To gain anything, you must lose something.
Random cyclist (not verified)
the way I see it, Ford Nation
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 23:08the way I see it, Ford Nation wants to save money and is making cutbacks here and there like daycare, FRiverdale Farm etc claiming that they have no money to spend on them. WHy doesn' all these people who are affected by these cuts all get together and tell Ford to give give his head a shake, wake up and smell the coffee, he's going to spend $250,000. of money he does not have to wipe out the Jarvis Street bike lanes. Better to leave the lanes in for now and give that $250,000 to some other derserving group that is facing cutbacks, effectively putting Jarvis bike lanes on the back burner!
simplicius2wheels
Cities operate on budgets.
Sat, 07/23/2011 - 06:42Cities operate on budgets. The $250K comes out of the moneys allocated towards the cycling infrastructure. Even though it doesn't help their cause, it doesn't hurt the Ford Nation interests either. So spend it.
And the move entertains their followers. It's a lot of fun to see the Cycle Nation squirm - remember Ford bringing in this buffoon What'shisname for the inauguration to make fun of the cycling and latte-drinking pinkos?
Random cyclist (not verified)
Bike lanes aren't needed on
Tue, 08/16/2011 - 20:51Bike lanes aren't needed on Jarvis. Give it a rest already. Dedicated lanes on Sherbourne and new routes is where we need to focus our efforts.
Ben
Jarvis is exactly the kind of
Wed, 08/17/2011 - 09:17Jarvis is exactly the kind of street that should have bike lanes. It's has ample room for them and traffic is fast enough that there's a real need for separate cyclist space.
Anyone who thinks that the city won't do a terribly half-assed job installing poorly thought out separated bike lanes on Sherbourne is deluded, and should look at the city's track record. I really think that cyclists should work with the residents of Sherbourne to oppose the installation of separated lanes, if nothing else as a means of preserving Jarvis.