It should have been easy.
The staff report (pdf) strongly recommended the installation of bike lanes. The community came out several times to overwhelmingly support the bike lanes. And staff and the community continued our push at the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting on Friday. The traffic impacts were expected to be in the range of negligible to minimal, and the impact of the availability of on street motor-vehicle parking was also expected to be minimal.
So with no good reason to not put in Bike lanes and strong community support for them, why did we not get them?
Councillor Grimes delivered yet another speech. (Anyone noticing a trend?) That would mark the death of yet another bike lane. Grimes did this at the request of Councillor Saundercook who was unable to ask the committee in person. (Perhaps Saundercook was too afraid of his constituents who would be advocating for bike lane at the meeting.) Unfortunately Councillor Lee and Councillor Parker supported Grimes' motion to merely install "sharrows". These three outvoted Councillor De Baeremaeker and Councillor Giambrone's two votes. For some reason Councillor Carroll was not in attendance.
Sharrows have been discussed here in I Bike TO many times, and the opinion ranges from worse than nothing to slightly better than nothing. Sharrows offer a cyclist little by way of protection, and are as good as nothing, in my own opinion. Staff can paint sharrows anywhere without the need to go to council.
This is an unfortunate example of failed democracy. There are accusations that this is result of some backroom deal between Councillors Saundercook, Heaps, and Grimes, which I cannot verify, nor understand what purpose this would serve. In the USA it is possible to recall a city councillor, but I don't know of any examples of this in Toronto, and instead many cyclists are starting look to support who would replace Councillor Saundercook in Ward 13, but that would take two years.
Two years also happens to be the amount of time that these sharrows would exist, as explained in this article. The problem is that the side effect of the sharrows is an actual increase in the number of parking spaces, and therefore and increased demand for parking that would likely increase the impacts of a new bike lane on Annette in two years. According to the article, Heaps said he'll only push council to overturn the recommendation if he hears significant encouragement from the community.
So according to Heaps own admission there is a way out for cyclists, we have to make our voices heard, and fast. The City Council meets October 29th & 30th.
So why would you intervene and get involved in this 0.7km of bike lanes in Ward 13 when you don't live near there or would even be likely to ride on it? Because if it can be this easy for these bike lanes to not be installed then the same can happen in your ward and on the routes you would like to travel on. Because the bikeway is supposed to be a network connecting the whole city. Because bike lanes are safer and more comfortable for cyclists than sharrows. Because democracy didn't work here, and we cannot stand by and let our democracy erode. Because with you asking your own Councillor for a change, we will never get the attitudes at City Hall to change. For any number of good reasons, please send off a note to your own Councillor and to Councillor Heaps and Councillor Saundercook and let them know that your are unhappy with how this played out.
Comments
luke (not verified)
An earlier post from
Sat, 10/11/2008 - 23:10An earlier post from Saundercook shows that he makes a habit of missing these meetings.
http://www.billsaundercook.ca/1/post/2008/09/annette-bike-lanes-meetingp...
Good to have a councillor who is consistently absent.
A.R. (not verified)
Saundercook
Sun, 10/12/2008 - 01:59...works for you. Not.
Terri (not verified)
Bah
Sun, 10/12/2008 - 07:17This is my ward. I couldn't make the meeting as it was at 9:30 and I was at work. This is really too bad. I was hoping that lanes would go ahead as the Enbridge gas construction on Dundas between Runnymede and Clendennan has rendered that section pretty much unbikeable due to poorly filled pavement cut outs.
chephy (not verified)
The usual
Sun, 10/12/2008 - 12:59A while ago everyone here pounced on me for calling our "city father" bumbling idiots who end up installing cycling infrastructure that's worse than nothing. Curious if those views haven't changed. rolls eyes
Andy (not verified)
Boycott Annette Street Merchants
Tue, 10/14/2008 - 12:19Dear Annette Street merchant,
I am a cyclist that used to frequently make purchases at your store/business. I was hopeful that the city's plans to install bike lanes in-front of your business would make trips to your store easier and safer for me. In fact, I was planning to shop at your business more frequently as I make many trips by bicycle and the ability to make the trip in a bike lane significantly impacts my choice of who I do business with. Sadly, in part due to opposition from businesses along Annette the bike lanes will not be constructed. With this in mind, I will be choosing to take my business elsewhere.
Sincerely,
8sml (not verified)
please be selective
Tue, 10/14/2008 - 13:13I hope any boycotts are selective. There were local business owners who spoke out in favour of the bike lanes.
vic
List of merchants on Annette
Tue, 10/14/2008 - 13:29Does anyone know who's who? Which merchants supported the bike lanes, and which ones were against?
anthony
Please don't call for a boycott
Wed, 10/15/2008 - 01:00One of the big fears of local merchants is the loss of business from the loss of parking. Let's not add fuel to that fire by calling for a boycott.
For better or worse, we want -- and need -- our local merchants. If you wish to boycott a store for your own reasons that's fine. But please let's not make all cyclists look like a bunch of anti-business nutters.
I think that when we start marching into these stores en mass and start buying the merchandise --while wearing our bike helmets -- we'll find we'll have more allies than enemies in our fight for safer cycling spaces on our roads.
And, yes, I do understand the temptation that this action holds. But as this is not going to be our only battle for bike lanes, we can't start burning our bridges before we've won any ground.
Besides, it was only one merchant spoke out against the bike lanes at the last PWIC. And that's not worth a public boycott.
Andrew Thomson
I agree with anthony
Sat, 10/18/2008 - 10:33I agree with anthony completely actually its not a fear its how business feel at least on rogers road where the new bike lanes went in you hear from the businesses how its harder for there customers now that they've lost parking on the north side of the street and how its affecting there business cause the people that moved out of the city that have always come back to do there shopping are being scared away cause there is no parking or they've gotten tickets for parking in bike lanes that never existed before and they don't realize how many cyclists truly use there businesses so what i call for is instead of boycotting businesses cause there affraid of losing parking and customers lets do the opposite and choose a business once a month for cyclists to actually patronize and show are support for these businesses that are on bike routes even the businesses on annette cause if they see how much business they get from cyclists they might join the battle in pushing for bike lanes on our roads. With the econmy we have personally i think my moms words might work better you get sweeter results with sugar then you do with salt.
zukeeper416 (not verified)
here, here. couldn't agree
Fri, 10/24/2008 - 13:22here, here. couldn't agree more.
locutas_of_spragge
If...
Tue, 10/14/2008 - 23:40we don't want to use confrontation as a tactic (and I agree that local businesses make up a vital part of a liveable city), then we might want to explore compromises and finding options for mutual gain. Because as I see it, we have three choices: negotiate and compromise, fight (which means boycotts at the least), or lose.
The process by which we lost had a fatal flaw: the proposed "compromise" involved a back-room deal at odds with the vast majority of the people who came out and spoke. If we want to shoot it down at council, I see no better argument than this one: it insulted those of us who came out and got involved by ignoring our voices in favour of a deal hammered out at a table where we didn't have a seat: the very opposite of the kind of government our beloved mayor promised when this city elected him. But that argument assumes we have a good faith willingness to negotiate and hear the other side. If we take the position with local businesses that we showed up, we should get what we want, go ahead and go out of business, then we will get voted down in council.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
anthony
A letter sent by someone in Parker's ward (ward 26) Re: Annette
Wed, 10/15/2008 - 00:54Councillor John Parker
City Hall
100 Queen Street West, Suite A13
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Phone: 416-392-0215
October 12th, 2008
Dear Councillor Parker,
I was extremely disappointed to hear about the recent decision by the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee against bicycle lanes on Annette Street between Jane and Runnymede. The public consultation process and the reports by City Staff were overwhelmingly in favour of the bike lanes. What then, in your capacity as our representative, caused you to think that you were serving your constituents and the City by voting against it?
The compromise position of painting sharrows on the road and then revisiting it in 2 years only serves to tell the people of Toronto that their safety is not important, their preferred method of transportation is marginalized and their investment in city government yields very little return. Is it possible to get anything done in this city?
Bike lanes are not simply a local issue and it’s appalling that minority local interests can derail a city-wide plan. The Toronto Bike Plan is nowhere near meeting its modest goals. If the PWIC cannot even support such a no-brainer as this recommendation, I fear the entire plan is in jeopardy. Our city needs a Bike Plan, and we expect our representatives to support the plan which was passed by council, we expect them to listen to their staff and above all we expect them to represent their constituents.
Sincerely,
C.C.
Councillor Adrian Heaps
Chair, Toronto Cycling Committee
Councillors Giambrone, Grimes, Carroll, De Baeremaeker, Chin
Toronto Public Works and Infrastructure Committee
Rick Conroy
Coordinator, Toronto Cyclists Union
locutas_of_spragge
If we want to turn this around
Wed, 10/15/2008 - 09:09I believe we can do three things:
1) Make the process, and the exclusion of the people who went to and spoke at the meetings from the actual decision-making, a major part of the issue. The "progressive" council didn't run on this kind of decision making. Take this to the Star, Spacing, Now, and other news outlets that might have time for us.
2) Find a way to make the parking work for the businesses. They have legitimate concerns (i.e. payrolls and rent).
3) Negotiate in good faith, which implies a willingness to compromise.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
jamesmallon (not verified)
Negotiating
Wed, 10/15/2008 - 12:29The only negotiating that gets noticed by the driving majority from a cyclist is the finger and some salty language. On the macro-scale, the only effective place to pool cyclists' resources is into lawsuits against all parties responsible for collisions with cyclists: from the driver, to the cops, to the city to the province. When hurting us gets properly expensive, it's going to happen less, because the policing will be better, and the infrastructure will be completed. Until then, both the individual, and society, doesn't give a $#!+. Stop imagining they will.
locutas_of_spragge
Somehow....
Wed, 10/15/2008 - 16:00The courts in this city decided they did not want to "ruin the lives" of two spectacularly irresponsible young men who drove up Mount Pleasant at 140 km/h and killed a cab driver just days before he got his citizenship and brought his family to Canada. I have trouble believing they will get tough with the city or an individual driver over the death of a cyclist.
If the cycling community decides we want to accept the city's decision on these bike lanes, and the process, that means less work for me. We can just wait for someone to get killed. But I think we have very poor odds that the courts will react by getting tough on either the city or on motorists.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
jamesmallon (not verified)
not municipal
Wed, 10/15/2008 - 17:38Courts are not municipal. One law case isn't going to do it; it will take many more. The standard political process is certainly not more succesful.
hamish (not verified)
Yes, we have different standards of "safety"
Thu, 10/16/2008 - 10:14Aah, demockery - but there are some good things from this Annette exercise.
It's not over; there's still debate; there's still a chance; and there's a commitment to sharrows.
It's less adequate, but at least we also have a key admission of their inadequacy; this from an Oct. 10 report by Dave Nickels in Inside Toronto:
City transportation staff also supported the bike lanes. Toronto's
General Manager of Transportation Gary Welsh said the sharrows were
not as safe.
"In our opinion the bike lanes meets the needs of the cyclists in
the media area," said Welsh. "It is relatively safe option and it's
the one we recommend. The sharrows are a bit of an improvement on
what's out there today but it's not as safe as a dedicated bike lane."
This is quite important for Bloor in Yorkville, because about three years ago there was a Council motion passed to greatly improve bike safety through this 1km area, and it's now a clear admission that sharrows aren't really any big improvement. Thus there may be even more width to that liability "trail" - so let's hope that anyone who is injured or worse on this part of Bloor, does have the wherewithal to chase both the City and the BYBIA in courts.
And speaking of courts, the case of the taxi driver being killed, and the weak verdict from the courts is rank. But the deceased's family is pursuing the matter in civil suits - and I hope they succeed.
veronica (not verified)
My letter to Councillor Jenkins
Fri, 10/17/2008 - 14:35The October 10, 2008 decision of the PWIC is a travesty of democracy.
Toronto cyclists have been told that only bike lanes contained in the 2001 Bike Plan will be approved. The Annette Street bike lane is part of the Bike Plan, but still the bike lane was not approved.
Toronto cyclists have been told that they must come out in support of bike lanes. Cyclists showed up in force at the meetings as well as submitting their support in writing, but despite this show of support the bike lane was not approved.
Toronto cyclists have been told that the new/improved/streamlined method of bike lane approval would result in the approval of more bike lanes, but still the Annette Street bike lane has not been approved.
Toronto cyclists have been told that implementation of the bike lanes must not impede traffic. City staff reports show that traffic impacts were exepcted to be in the range of minimal to negligible and that the impact on on-street parking was minimal, but still the bike lane did not get approved.
Frankly, Toronto City Council is running out of excuses. This "no" is looking suspiciously like the anti-cyclists / pro-car bias that council has been verbally denying for years.
And furthermore, I am furious that my tax dollars are being spent on the salaries of staff, who's job it is to be the experts on this matter, who develope recommendations, presumably based on sound technical principals, which are then ignored by councillors!
Councillor Jenkins, as my city representative I fully expect you to present a motion at the October 29/30 Council meeting to reject the PWIC recommendation for sharrows and instead re-instate staff report Option 1 for a full and continuous bike lane along the full length of Annette Street, including the section between Jane Street and Runnymede Road.
I no longer want to hear excuses about how a councillor can't/won't make decisions in another councillor's ward. I cycle all over the city. I expect you to be my representative irrespective of where I am in the city. I am counting on you to stand up and restore democracy at Toronto City Council.
veronica
John Leeson (not verified)
Lobbying City Council for Annette lanes
Fri, 10/17/2008 - 23:35We (world19.com) have a bit more info on contacing City Council to overturn the PWIC decision on Annette. We think it can be done if they hear from enough people. We encourage people to include their addresses, and to indicate if they either live in the area, or bike through the area.
We also have an email link to send to the right parties with all the relevant agenda info
http://www.world19.com/newsletters/?p=174
John Leeson (not verified)
Annette Lanes & Councillors' roles
Fri, 10/17/2008 - 23:53Forgot to add a couple of comments to Anthony's regarding the roles the various Councillors played in the PWIC decision.
There's no doubt it was Saundercook's initiative to derail the lanes. Grimes is on the PWIC and is an extremely close of ally of Saundercook's, so that part of the deal is a given.
I don't think there's any evidence that Heaps was part of that deal, and he seems to be ready to push for approval of the lanes at Council. I would hope people show him support to do so.
Also, Anthony suggested writing your own Councillor, copying others. In the page linked in my previous post, you'll find an email link to send comments to the appropriate people at City Hall.
John
anthony
City's info on this at
Sat, 10/18/2008 - 23:33The city's has some info on this at:
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/public-consultations/annette-street-091508...
The instructions given by world 19 are most excellent, I've already been CC:ed on a few of these, and we'll need to have more of them coming in to stand a chance.