Photoshopping of Richmond bike lanes by Mez.
A city councillor is often considered to be a lord over his (or her) own fiefdom aka ward. This is a fairly sturdy tradition in Toronto municipal politics. It's tit-for-tat: I won't interfere with your plans for your ward if you don't interfere with my plans. When Councillor Minnan-Wong announced his plan for a downtown network for separated bike lanes, he upset that unwritten rule.
Even though this tradition can lead to parochialism and a propensity for councillors to only worry about their own re-election instead of the good of the whole city, it also makes some sense as we can see in the following email from Councillor Vaughan to Rob C (props to Rob for forwarding this to me). Vaughan's reasons for opposing Minnan-Wong's plans are that Minnan-Wong is calling for "substantial plans" on these streets, and "completely overrides four years of community consultation and neighbourhood efforts to address the issues on these streets".
From: Councillor_Vaughan@toronto.ca
Sent: January 10, 2011 10:13 AM
To: Rob
Subject: re: Your opposition to separated bike lanes in TorontoDear Rob,
Thank you for your email about separated bike lanes. As a resident, cyclist, pedestrian, transit rider and your local Councillor, I am committed to creating complete streets, safe streets and vibrant streets. A number of initiatives over the past four years, that are continuing, demonstrate this commitment.
I think you may be responding to a bike plan floated in the media this week that proposes a series of dedicated bike lanes on a few roads in the ward. It is the same plan that was proposed last summer.
The plan calls for substantial changes to Richmond, St George, Beverley, John, Grange Park and Harbord. All of these streets except for Beverley are undergoing extensive redesign or have just had reconstruction work done on them. John Street and Richmond in particular are in the midst of an Environmental Assessment and a major transportation study.
The proposal not only ignores this work, but it completely overrides four years of community consultation and neighbourhood efforts to address the issues on these streets. The proposal floated in the media would also impact work being done by the Entertainment District BIA, The Art Gallery of Ontario and the University of Toronto. Each of the institutions and organizations are engaged in public realm improvements in the corridor and none have been spoken to regarding the announcement.
Cyclists are a critical part of the ward. Bikes provide a vital transportation service to individuals, families and businesses in Ward 20. Accommodating bicycles is a part of every plan mentioned above. Bicycles are part of every study mentioned above. The proponents of this idea are aware of the situation, but seem more interested in headlines than in working with the community to arrive at a plan.
I am attaching some motions passed last summer by City Council. These motions, presented to the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee by me, do focus on improving bike capacity in the ward. The motions propose 6 new bike lanes in the south part of the ward. These new bike lanes came forward through a Ward 20 community process. The proponents of the other plan have never participated in the Ward 20 Cycling Committee’s work. There are aware of it, but seem more interested in grandstanding than actually talking to the cyclists, residents, businesses and institutions of Ward 20 or doing any work on the projects. It’s a shame. Nonetheless our efforts continue.
As I have said before, the streets of Ward 20 need to be complete streets, safe streets and vibrant streets. We need to find ways to support the choices people make, so that no matter whether you are in a wheelchair, a cyclist, a pedestrian, driving in a car, bus or taxi, or in a stroller, your choice is safe and the road you travel on is beautiful.
The proposal in the news does not accomplish this and therefore should not, and cannot be taken seriously.
av
Councillor Adam Vaughan
Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina
416-392-4044
Some good points. One can't just pull a plan out of thin air and community consultation needs to take place. But it seems like the need for an east-west corridor for cyclists has taken a back seat on Richmond much as it had in the Yorkville reconstruction along Bloor.
I didn't get the attachments Vaughan mentions, though we can see the Ward 20 Cycling Committee recommendations. Vaughan worked with the bike union on forming the committee but it's not clear if he signed off on all the recommendations. Vaughan doesn't mind, however, using it as an example of his successful local consultation.
The Ward 20 report is a useful blueprint, combining a mix of pragmatic with real benefits for cyclists. This report likely gave ammunition for transportation staff to get the bike boxes on Harbord and St. George; and the pilot on-street bike parking on Spadina. It recommended a separated bike lane along University (which was narrowly defeated by a mistaken vote, but was supported by Vaughan).
It's strange, however, that Vaughan is showing off the Ward 20 report, when one of its key recommendations is a protected bike lane on Richmond or Adelaide. Vaughan has his own hope for Richmond and Adelaide to be made two-way, which would likely preclude bike lanes of any sort. Here Vaughan can't claim that the plan was sprung upon him or the community as bike lanes on Richmond and Adelaide have been in the Bike Plan all along.
Rob C. then replied to Vaughan's email:
Hello again Mr. Vaughan,
If you’re wondering where you’re being said to oppose physically separated bike lanes, here’s one rundown:
http://www.ibiketo.ca/blog/origins-and-politics-minnan-wongs-bike-lane-plan
In short, you’re voting against the overall downtown bike plan proposed last year by Heisey, and against the PWIC, because you have proposed your own plan for Richmond/Adelaide which would actually preclude bike lanes.
I notice in your response below that you don’t mention separated bike lanes, which is the issue I was trying to raise, although you use the phrase “dedicated bike lane.” I’m not sure if you’re using the phrases interchangeably. Here’s an informative and interesting video that might clarify the sorts of physically separated bike lanes that have been implemented around the world:
http://www.streetfilms.org/physically-separated-bike-lanes/
You also seem to be suggesting that if the Entertainment District BIA, AGO and U of T were consulted by the media that there might have been insights given as to why dedicated bike lanes are a bad idea.
I cycle to work through all of those areas, I see the developments underway, and I cannot imagine why these organizations might think separated bike lanes would negatively impact their projects and plans. If anything, I see how they would benefit immensely from separated bike lanes, how their areas would be particularly conducive to them, and especially how such lanes would create the exact cultures they’re trying to attract. Check out the video and you’ll see it, just imagine some of those same scenes in the entertainment district, AGO, U of T. They’re a perfect fit.
Again, I would ask you to reconsider your opposition to separated bike lanes such as Heisey’s and Minnan-Wong’s proposals. Please just view the video and then walk around these areas envisioning the impact. Imagine Toronto on par with Paris in terms of culture. At such a low cost too, with almost no down side. And, miraculously, with Ford not opposed to this plan. It’s just too good an opportunity to miss.
Rob C.
Well I wouldn't say Ford was not opposed. I believe he said that he'd support it if it met three objectives: was safe, had community consultation and didn't increase "traffic congestion". We all know that "traffic" doesn't in any include bicycles so that may be a deal breaker for any bike lanes on Richmond.
Just how can we push for improved bike infrastructure (which seems to be happening more slowly than the melting glaciers) and still respect local consultation? There needs to be some balance between local community needs and those of the people passing through. Any plan for separated bike lanes will inevitably undergo some kind of adaptation so that perhaps Vaughan will eventually support some version of this plan.
Comments
thomas owain
I wish Google street view had
Mon, 01/17/2011 - 10:25I wish Google street view had a 'bike lane filter' feature that would turn the whole city into in pictures like the one above. It makes me cheerful just looking at it and imagining.
Seymore Bikes
I have two fundamental
Mon, 01/17/2011 - 12:08I have two fundamental problems with Councillor Vaughan:
Both these two issues need to be addressed before I place any faith in Councillor Vaughan’s interests; his conduct needs to be seen as acting for the people, not the other way around.
A.R. (not verified)
Indeed, one way streets make
Wed, 01/19/2011 - 13:06Indeed, one way streets make it easier to implement higher quality cycling infrastructure like separated paths and bike lanes free of the door zone issue. I think the important point here, however, is that it is fundamental that councillors work with each other as they create their vision for infrastructure in their wards. It is detrimental to the city to have each councillor operating in their own world when it comes to issues like infrastructure.
I'd love for Richmond to have a bidirectional bike path. It would be very useful.
Councillor Vaughan (not verified)
A couple of quick points. I
Wed, 01/19/2011 - 16:03A couple of quick points. I have never precluded dedicated bikelanes from being a possibility on Richmond and Adelaide, nor would I.
Bike lanes are not taking a backseat (strange car metaphor from mez) as there is no front seat yet (or bike seat for that matter). We have simply started the debate on thse two streets and while Mez has produced a drawing my office and the city have not.
The reason I frame the debate with the phrase two-way is so that the idea gets attention, The assumption is one way streets work. I'm not sure they do. Hoopefully the phrase sparks a rethinking of the way streets can work and it then draws interest to the project. My job is to facilitate a process. Richmond and Adelaide form part of a transportation study that still is not underway. The goal of the study is to re-calibrate the way in which streets are used. as I have told Mez and others, bikes will be part of the solution. But streets must be both thoroughfares and destinations. People live and travel on them. A more complex conversation is essential. The status quo is not an option.
I did not vote the Heisey-MinnanWong plan down. I did not have a vote at that committee. I did propose alternative bike routes that came out of consultations with a range or groups including cyclists. These alternatives were endorsed by the committee.
I do use "dedicated" and "seperated" bike lane interchangeably.
I am not directly involved in the Ward 20 Cycing group. Beyond helping to set it up and
resourcing the group initially my hope was to get unfiltered advice from cyclists in the ward. In neighbourhood based debates their voices can be drowned out by others, and additionally as commuters their experiences traverse boundaries.
As for other councillors coming into each others wards, all of the ideas discussed here will be assessed and debated by other councillors and eventually approved or defeated at council. Collaboration is a big part of all that we do at City Hall. There is nothing to stop a councillor acting unilaterally in a ward they don't represent, but to act in any political way without context and consultation is almost always a risk.
av
Nick Cluley (not verified)
There are now two postings
Thu, 01/20/2011 - 13:22There are now two postings from Mr. Vaughan regarding this story, neither of which contains any alternatives that will quickly and efficiently reduce the number of cyclists struck and killed by cars in Toronto. People are being injured, maimed, and killed through a systemic failure to recognize cycling not just as a great way to exercise but a great way to travel. A way that reduces traffic congestion. A way that keeps cyclists fit, stimulates positive endorphins, and thereby affects the overall happiness of a city. A way that allows for people thto save money on their transportation - money they can use to buy goods and services or, better yet, stay out of debt.
As a Director with the Toronto Cyclists Union, i am disappointed to see Mr Vaughan, who so clearly views himself as a cycling supporter, reduce this plan to being that of Heisey/Minnan-Wong. The Toronto Cyclists Union, U of T graduates organization, and various resident's assocaitions and business communities openly supported this last year. It is not a single politician's plan. It is a cyclist's plan. We pay taxes, we buy goods, and we vote...yet none of that allows us truly safe place on any of Toronto's streets. As a purported cycling advocate, Mr Vaughan needs to take a long look at his reasons for being against this plan.
Playing politics seldom acts fast enough to save lives. I've been hit by a car while cycilng. I've run into a pedestrian jumping out from between parked cars mid block. And when I drive, I am terrified and overly cautious of hitting either cyclists or pedestrians as I would rather not have a dead neighbor on my conscience. Our roads need to be safe not for cars - which can be replaced - but for people.
If Mr Vaughan feels, as I do, that this city's greatest resource is it's people, then building systems of transit that reduce fatality risks to microscopic levels should not be something to be politicked over, but to be moved forward. Separated bike lanes protect and increase efficiencies for all road users (yes, even cars...unless you're the type of person who thinks they would enjoy accidentally killing someone because certain people don't want separated bike lanes).
It's never too late to change positions, Mr Vaughan. You say the status quo is not an option. This is not status quo. What is status quo is delaying and working around things rather than dealing with them efficiently and head on. Be the change.
hamish wilson
We're lucky in many ways to
Fri, 01/21/2011 - 20:02We're lucky in many ways to have Adam Vaughan as a councillor, as he's quick-witted, principled and dealing with a myriad of issues that 10 of us would have difficulty doing, since the workload in the city core is far greater than most anywhere else in TO, even before the regime change of Ford.
But putting in better biking facilities is a problem, and placing them appropriately in a sensible, linked network is a larger one, one that implicates not just the ward Councillor in one ward. While the reaction and support of a local Councillor is quite vital, the mywardopic vision/purview of a Councillor isn't the same when it comes to broader bylaws or taxes.So it's beyond reasonable to expect that planning for bikes should go forward into reality without vetoes.
The core's major travel demand/pattern has been east/west into the core from the west end, and on the main streets. There is a clear pattern of harm and crash to cyclists - this has been known to the City, and staff, and politicians for maybe 15 years or longer. But we still don't see any real change to provide safer passage where it is needed: instead, the CU and others are trying to put something in that is again less well thought out than it needs to be, though this time with Heisey's plans connectivity is quite important - so high marks for that!
Vaughan's trying to do something different on John St.: it may be a unique opportunity. But we should be insistent on having quality facilities in place ahead of construction. I went public and again suggested University Ave. as a good linking street, readily repainted for a quick bike lane. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/922305--john-st-connectin... - and I swiped at Vaughan a bit in the letter.
One example is the recent reworking of the gap in Harbord St. It's better in some ways, but it's also incredibly weak to just put in sharrows and not reclaim public space for bike safety! This weak response on one of the busiest core bike routes was done with the active cooperation/blessing of the CU. I'm still curious as to why good road in the curb lane of Harbord west of Bathurst was all replaced, when there's so much shit road elsewhere, and not just in the old Pantalonia, but say, Wellesley, or Lansdowne, or Dewson or Queen that badly needs change/repair.
This pronounced inequity in repair shows that we really really need to again have a reconstituted and PUBLIC cycling committee - with a network sub-committee - to thrash out these details of both design and routing, including the filtering and review of plans like Mr. Heisey's (which I think ARC dissected c. 4 years ago). Sure, it may be a bit of an odd hack committee, but we also may have more refining and strategic requests for some changes vs. dynamic individuals with some energy/resource/ears of some politicians to get a proposal forward.
We must again have clear designs and discussions of changes ahead of doing them: things may not work - such as weak winter clearing (again). If we're having some real difficulties - again - of getting the snow Out of the bike lanes and not In to them - what will these proposed new type of lanes work like in the wintertime. When they're quite full of snow with nobody using them, what will be the reaction of motorists etc.? Will they call Rob and say - nobody's using this at ALL - take all of them up? Is this part of a larger plan to put cyclists in our place?
But doing something on Richmond/Adelaide is almost two decades old as an idea; it's in the Bike Plan, and there was to be an EA of some description a couple of years back. Sadly, the reworking of a small but strategic part of Richmond in Adam Vaughan's area at 401 Richmond likely prevents much that could be easily done for biking to reach wide Spadina. I've even heard that there were community people saying "bike lanes please" and the city was downplaying it all. A Network sub-committee could have been a preventive/advocate...
Not that previous Councils have necessarily listened to recs from the Cycling Committee or whatever it is called, but pre-Heaps and Miller in his last term, there was ALWAYS a network group, open to the public, that greatly enhanced what little was done.
The public support for this new plan may not be quite so deep as thought/promoted. I do know though, that another good idea, a Bloor/Danforth bikeway, does have a petition of 5800 names - not RAs, nor groups, but citizens - that's been given to the City. Mr. Heisey pooh-poohs Bloor, (more on the political side) but it has a set of logics to it, including transit benefits, backed up by a 1992 study that gave Bloor a #1 for east-west, and there have been four cyclists deaths on it since.
Rather than spending a fair bit of time and money reworking existing lanes, that admittedly aren't working so well in some ways, we must focus on filling in other gaps and parts of the City that doesn't have facilites, maybe even Lawrence? Where are the first steps in that west end bikeways, maybe 2 years ago opinions sought? Road repairs? Road repairs ahead of bike lanes?
And let's also look at the street context of these lanes in other cities - often they're wider one-way streets, correct?