City Council debated late into the night on the bikeway network plan for 2010, which was passed 26-8, with one caveat: it was amended by Councillor Hall (Ward 1) to remove the pilot University Ave bike lanes from the motion. The vote to amend was 15-13, but apparently Councillor Fletcher, who has been quite pro-bike lane, made an error in her vote (or some have said there was a technical glitch). A re-vote was requested but apparently there is a bizarre council rule that a re-vote cannot take place if it will change the result (one is not sure why else someone would want to re-vote). So no re-vote and this council session is now complete. The next one is June 8 and 9.
Damn council. Not even willing to try something out. You could have voted to take it out after the pilot project. We've tried the whole car thing, folks. Just look how well that worked. Just look.
It was a very close vote to remove it, but it doesn't mean that it might not show up in June. The chances are that it will be a close vote again if it is put on the agenda of the next council session. The results of the vote are here, start calling your councillors to get them to wake up and support it.
Comments
Matt Alexander (not verified)
Well, let's show them what they'll be missing
Wed, 05/12/2010 - 23:52I'm going to be riding my bike up and down University Ave in the morning. Let's say from 7:30 am until 9:30 am?
locutas_of_spragge
forgive me...
Thu, 05/13/2010 - 02:02for thinking a bit strategically, but I confess I look at it this way: a whole series of factors, which even Sue-Ann Levy can't blame on council or Miller and keep a straight face, will make driving a car in this city this summer a nightmare. We have enough overdue roadwork to keep the city gridlocked until labour day (if it gets done on schedule), not to mention the G20. If the University Bike Lanes pilot goes ahead, the apologists for motoring will have a project to hang the blame on us and those they accuse of catering to us. If the University Bike Lane pilot stays cancelled, well, they'll still try to blame us; they'll just have a lot more trouble fooling anyone but themselves.
Just maybe, by his September, the traffic chaos in this city will force even the die-hard motorholics to start recognizing reality: we can't run this city, and we certainly can't hope to expand it, without encouraging more diversity in transportation options. And perhaps then we can point out the unethical nature of the city catering to a form of transportation, the automobile, so closely linked to all the debilitating and life-shortening conditions associated with inactive lifestyles.
That said, I know a good many people worked hard for this pilot project, and I wish we hadn't come up short by one (miscast) vote.
Seymore Bikes
Lost
Thu, 05/13/2010 - 23:38It is disappointing that the people charged with leading this City could not agree to allow this project to proceed. A test of this type of bike facility was all that was on the table and it got thrown into the gutter.
This should be a wake up call to anyone who thinks that public support for cycling is where it needs to be. 16 Councillors absent from the vote, and at least another eight who regularly vote against this stuff leaves me thinking that Toronto will continue to look to the car as the solution to our transit woes.
brian
It's great News
Thu, 05/13/2010 - 09:47Hi All,
It's great news. Safety is in the minds of riders and road users, not in the form of concrete, paint, or rules®s.
Riders can now take responsibility for themselves, without the illusion of "protection". University is bikeable; I've done it several times in the last few weeks. Ppl that think it isn't need to change their minds.
Riders should take advantage of what we've already got: Ontario is a progressive province that already recognizes a bicycle as a vehicle, just like cars, trucks, and buses. Behave like a vehicle driver, and other drivers will recognize and respect.
What needs to change in Toronto is the way riders ride, and the way other road users percieve riders. Until this shifts, no amount of infrastructure will matter, because the general public will still percieve cyclists as a "special interest group", and a lower class of road user.
I point this at all the cyclists that ride on the sidewalk, that filter on the right at intersections, that blow red lights, that operate vehicles in poor working order, and that ride as if they don't matter. You do matter, and ppl notice rider behavior.
I point this at all motorists who pass cyclists too closely, who drive with impatience and an aggressive mindset; and at those who think roads are made for cars. They're not. Pavement in Toronto was started in the 1800's for bicycles and horse wagons. That pavement diddn't make it "safer" for cyclists; it made cycling "more convenient". The same is true for separated bike lanes, in my opinion. They're an illusion, because every bike lane comes to an intersection.
Toronto as a community can continue to fool itself, or it can start to accept responsibility and make the behavioural changes that are needed. You're as safe as you think you are.
Ride on,
Brian
Anonymous (not verified)
So by that logic, why not
Thu, 05/13/2010 - 11:00So by that logic, why not remove sidewalks? After all, sidewalks only give the illusion of safety - sooner or later every sidewalk comes to an intersection. And what about all those driveways. Why cater to this special interest group?
I ride on the roads all the time, including University Avenue on occassion. Despite riding on the road all the time and behaving as a vehicle, I would far rather have a bike lane. I have no more desire to share road space with motorists than I have in sharing sidewalks with pedestrians. If you consider me a special interest group for wanting to ride in bike lanes, preferably segregated one, so be it. I think of it as finally getting something of use to me for all those property taxes I am paying.
veronica
dngm (not verified)
great news for young males?
Thu, 05/13/2010 - 11:25Brian, I don't even know where to begin addressing this fallacy.
You are 100% correct for young male cyclists.
But this strategy will never, ever get 60-year-old women or children onto the roads.
You want to talk about ghettoising cyclists? Keeping the present infrastructure supports only young men willing to take a risk.
herb
gloating with a false dichotomy
Fri, 05/14/2010 - 06:08@brian, Once again someone brings forward the false dichotomy between education/behaviour and infrastructure.
I don't know why you think that infrastructure won't change behaviour. Sidewalks change behaviour; widening roads change behaviour; big highways change highways, putting in traffic lights changes behaviour; putting in speed bumps changes behaviour; taking out all the traffic signs changes behaviour.
By putting in a centre bike lane with plastic bollards to delineate the edge, we are changing behaviour of both motorists and cyclists.
I think it's in your court to actually provide some evidence otherwise.
If infrastructure means absolutely nothing towards safety, then I challenge you to start taking the lane on the DVP on your commute home. I think you'll soon find out that a highway made with long sightlines, gentle curves and wide lanes is actually very conducive to driving quickly and not conducive at all for your brand of "safe cycling".
Sumach (not verified)
what now?
Thu, 05/13/2010 - 09:58So what can be done to get the item back on the agenda for June?
hamish (not verified)
going beyond UA; bike lanes on UA!
Thu, 05/13/2010 - 11:09More concerning than Ms. Fletcher's mis-vote, (somewhat alarming though), are questions about why we don't have more council meetings through the summertime? Why is the June meeting the last one? What are the incumbents going to be doing? running for re-election, while being paid? And how much will they add to the smog this summer? I think it may be a hellish summer, but these guys have not done anything to address say a Clean Air Corridor, even though there was a study to be done by Public Health referring to Bloor over four years ago....
And where were the other councillors?
We also need the political will harnessed to create seasonal bike lanes on Richmond/Adelaide, or Queen, or Bloor like the deMaisonneuve style in Montreal - but not in Cartonto eh?
Less brought up were the qualitative shortcomings of what was being brought up to their meeting. We could use some improvements on some of the North/South streets in the core - absolutely. But the real travel demands tend to be east-west and the real harms come to riders on the east-west streets and not just from the cars, but the streetcar tracks too. We also saw some backsliding on Annette, but less focus on that from cheerleader types etc....
It may work out really well that cyclists don't get blamed and further add to bikelash, but some time may let us develop a broader base of support, and opinion eg. the TCAC on University, and that means looking at the simpler options of simply repainting the lanes, with 24-hour parking, and also putting the dedicated lane at curbside. These two options are better I think.
We also need to stress the fact of University being great for a bike lane because of the subway below it, and that will help with Bloor too, and that Class C EA.
Heather (not verified)
I will be holding a
Thu, 05/13/2010 - 12:18I will be holding a fundraiser for folks like Brian to visit some citties that are making cycling happen. You'll enjoy yourself. In the meantime check out streetfilms.org
Canging behaviours is not the answer to increasing mode share and making the city more livable. That's what I want to see. It's not just about the bike.
Seymore Bikes
Elephant on University
Thu, 05/13/2010 - 23:48The biggest benefit ot having separated bike lanes on University Ave. was not not added safety, or new infrastructure, or even increased numbers, it was that the benefit of cycling would have been placed squarely in the public view - a spectacle of grand proportions.
I can only imagine all of the newspaper articles that might have been written as a result of this project. Maybe it will happen soon, but it will not be soon enough.